Description
This paper aims to explore the concept of push and pull satisfaction and relates it with a
uni-dimensional measure of satisfaction.
Design/methodology/approach – A factor
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
From tourist motivations to tourist satisfaction
Antónia Correia Metin Kozak J oão Ferradeira
Article information:
To cite this document:
Antónia Correia Metin Kozak J oão Ferradeira , (2013),"From tourist motivations to tourist satisfaction", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp. 411 - 424
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0022
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:23 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 74 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4752 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Lan-Lan Chang, Kenneth F. Backman, Yu Chih Huang, (2014),"Creative tourism: a preliminary examination of creative tourists’ motivation,
experience, perceived value and revisit intention", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp.
401-419http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2014-0032
Songshan (Sam) Huang, Cathy H.C. Hsu, (2009),"Travel motivation: linking theory to practice", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 3 Iss 4 pp. 287-295http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180910994505
Tanja Dmitrovi#, Ljubica Kneževi#Cvelbar, Tomaž Kolar, Maja Makovec Bren#i#, Irena Ograjenšek, Vesna Žabkar, (2009),"Conceptualizing
tourist satisfaction at the destination level", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 3 Iss 2 pp. 116-126http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180910962122
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
From tourist motivations to tourist
satisfaction
Anto´ nia Correia, Metin Kozak and Joa˜ o Ferradeira
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to explore the concept of push and pull satisfaction and relates it with a
uni-dimensional measure of satisfaction.
Design/methodology/approach – A factor structure is derived, comprising push and pull satisfaction
factors which are related to the level of overall satisfaction. The empirical study was performed in Lisbon,
one of the main cultural cities in Europe.
Findings – Results suggest that overall satisfaction re?ects the tourist assessment of push and pull
dimensions of satisfaction. Furthermore, results also demonstrate that satisfaction arose within the
opportunity to experience the cultural and social speci?cities of a destination considering the
appropriate facilities. Based on the study ?ndings, implications for management and marketing are
presented.
Research limitations/implications – This study comprises various methodological limitations mainly
concerning the sample size that was restricted to 323 cases as well as it only considers the cultural city
of Lisbon. Thus, to improve and enhance the model, future works should consider a comparison
between multiple cultural destinations. Future research may comprise a broader time window to
undertake the possible variation of data.
Practical implications – This study represents a step forward to understand and predict tourist
behaviour. Tourism scholars and practitioners should be aware that there is a need to consider further
studies to develop more effective measurement scales to assess the considered constructs. For
instance, the suggested assessment of overall satisfaction can be better to measure overall satisfaction
by considering the idea of equity theory.
Originality/value – The study contributes to the literature in two major directions. First, the present study
is one of few works that attempt to develop a scale to measure satisfaction issues through the use of an
adaptation of push and pull motivations. Second, results demonstrate that all the factors present high
loading values competing to explain overall satisfaction. Such empirical evidence has the value to
propose that the functional attributes contribute to satisfy the most intrinsic desires of learning about a
culture, art or even the famous traditional music Fado in a balance novelty. Thus, several attributes
contributing to distinct factors are willing to be grouped under the same theoretical umbrella when
tourists draw the evaluation of overall satisfaction, e.g. tangibles (entertainment) and intangibles (learn
about music, art or museums).
Keywords Tourist motivations, Tourist satisfaction
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
From a broader perspective, satisfaction and overall satisfaction are perceived as the two
different constructs (Jones and Suh, 2000). While satisfaction is constructed based on the
evaluation of a speci?c experience (Bitner and Hubert, 1994), overall satisfaction is
considered to be a cumulative measure that weights up the whole experience that tourists
have had while on a vacation in a destination (Pizam et al., 1978) based on a subjective
post-consumption evaluative judgement. This discussion fuels a number of academics that
defend a multiple attribute evaluation or a general measure of satisfaction (Song et al., 2011;
DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-05-2012-0022 VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013, pp. 411-424, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 411
Anto´ nia Correia, Centre for
Advanced Studies in
Economics and
Econometrics, University of
Algarve, Faro, Portugal.
Metin Kozak, School of
Tourism and Hospitality
Management, Mugla
University, Mug? la, Turkey.
Joa˜ o Ferradeira, Centre for
Advanced Studies in
Economics and
Econometrics, University of
Algarve, Faro, Portugal.
Received 8 May 2012
Revised 11 November 2012
Accepted 2 January 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Alegre and Garau, 2010; Gonzalez et al., 2007; Kozak and Rimmington, 2000; Z
?
abkar et al.,
2010).
The body of empirical studies based on the multiple attribute evaluation comprises an
evaluation of satisfaction based on consumers’ expectations (Spreng and Olshavsky, 1993),
while an overall appraisal tends to use mainly an emotive approach grounded by the desire
congruency theory. As Spreng and Olshavsky (1993, p. 172) suggest, ‘‘expectations are
beliefs about the attributes or performance levels, while desires are beliefs about the
product attributes or performance that will lead to higher-level values’’. Expectancy
evaluates the impression that tourists have about a certain attribute (Westbrook and Reilly,
1983; Olson and Dover, 1979), whether desire congruency refers to the subjective
assessment of how closely product matched tourists’ desires (Sirgy, 1984). Nevertheless,
due to the lack of consensus among the most appropriate approach for satisfaction,
customer satisfaction needs to be de?ned at least at these two levels (Czepiel and
Rosenberg, 1974; Bitner and Hubert, 1994). For example, Parasuraman et al. (1988) point
out a positive correlation between satisfaction and overall satisfaction, despite the lack of
consensus in the academic body about the most appropriate construct.
The status of tourist motivations as an antecedent of satisfaction has been already studied in
the ?eld of tourismresearch (Oliver, 1980, Ibrahimand Gill, 2005; Laguna and Palacios, 2009).
Although with the exception of Correia and Pimpa˜o (2008), the current literature lacks
introducing the measurement of satisfaction through the application of a scale of congruency
comprising push and pull factors in order to assess the decision of travelling to a certain place.
Bearing this gap in mind, this paper aims to explore the in?uence of push and pull motivation
factors over the level of satisfaction and relate it with a uni-dimensional measure of satisfaction.
The paper also assumes that push satisfaction assesses destination congruency with internal
desires of tourists while pull satisfaction con?rms tourist expectations in terms of destination
attributes (Correia and Pimpa˜o, 2008). This assumption grounds on revisiting the rules of two
theories widely cited within the satisfaction literature, namely expectancy and desire
congruency. The study also provides implications for the theory and practice.
This study was empirically tested in Lisbon, one of the most popular cultural tourism
destinations in Europe, within a sample of 400 foreign tourists visiting the city for cultural
purposes. Lisbon is the capital of Portugal and one of the most relevant cities, in historical
terms, in Europe. With its four millions of tourists (INE, 2009), the city contains a cultural
background constructed around the historical infrastructure and amenities that provide a very
peculiar cultural environment where the traditional musical expression Fado surrounds the
boundaries of the more traditional sand mediaeval streets. These peculiar features are part of
primordial destination image attributes willing to contribute to explain overall tourist
satisfaction. Given this peculiar context, the present research can be perceived as an
exploratory investigation since not much is known about the destination image of a city as well
as little available information research is acknowledged about the speci?city of our focus –
Lisbon.
Literature review
Satisfaction is one of the most researched topic in the ?eld of tourism research (Kozak et al.,
2003). This has been approached from different perspectives and theories. One of the most
quoted is the discon?rmation paradigm (Oliver, 1980) which states that tourists have
previous expectations which they compare with the perceived outcome of the service
(Pizam and Milman, 1993 among others). As an additional approach, the equity theory
states that satisfaction is the trade-off between what consumers sacri?ce and what they
obtain (Olivier and Swan, 1989). Moreover, the normative theory relies on a norm that works
as a reference point while assessing one’s opinion. Generally speaking, the normative theory
assumes that comparisons are possible since tourists may easily have past experiences
(Yoon and Uysal, 2005).
Furthermore, advances in hospitality and tourism research dealing with customer
satisfaction have made use of the expectation-perception gap model (Duke and Persia,
PAGE 412
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
1996), the expectancy-discon?rmation model (Pizam and Milman, 1993; Spreng and
Olshavsky, 1993), the congruity model (Chon and Olsen, 1991), or the performance-only
model (Pizam et al., 1978). Nevertheless, several authors argue that consumers’ choice
criteria are mostly based on the individual desires towards a certain product (Payne et al.,
1993). In other words, the criteria of making a choice are more related with consumers’
beliefs, whether a certain product meets or not consumers’ desires (Haley, 1968) than the
tangible attributes of the performance of a product. Despite this evidence, few authors have
developed research proposals suggesting that satisfaction is more related with ‘‘desires
congruency’’ than with ‘‘expectancy congruency’’ (Spreng and Olshavsky, 1993). While
expectancy is associated with the attributes of performance (LaTour and Peat, 1979), desire
congruency needs to be approached in a more abstract way (Spreng et al., 1996).
Conversely, expectations are more concerned with performance levels contained in a
product to achieve a speci?c attribute that consumers estimate (Swan et al., 1981). In this
sense, expectancy relies on measuring the performance of a set of attributes in terms of
what tourists expect versus what to obtain (Spreng et al., 1996). In a similar vein, desire
congruency relies on the extent to which tourists are able to achieve their desires through a
certain travel (Goossens, 2000). Tourist satisfaction is likely to be determined by the brand
performance and its ability to accomplish the innate needs, wants, or desires of the
consumer instead of determining the extent of the balance between the brand’s
performance and expectations (Spreng and Dixon, 1992).
On the other hand, Westbrook and Reilly (1983) recognize that expectations have a stronger
effect on satisfaction as well as demonstrate that desires also in?uence customer
satisfaction. Furthermore, the body of literature suggests that desires congruency has a
signi?cant effect on overall satisfaction (Barbeau, 1985; Spreng and Olshavsky, 1993).
Despite the evidence that customer satisfaction needs to comprise both elements of
expectations and desires, authors also suggest different forms to approach the desire
congruency theory. Spreng et al. (1996) reduce desires to a concrete evaluation of attributes
of the product while Chon and Olsen (1991) utilize desire congruency theory to understand
how close the destination image is to the tourist’s self-concept.
From motivations to satisfaction
Generally speaking, tourists decide to travel because they are pushed by internal factors
and/or pulled by a set of destination attributes that enhance their desires to visit a certain
place (Correia and Pimpa˜ o, 2008; Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1977, 1981; Uysal and Jurowski,
1994). According to Reiss (2004, p. 188), ‘‘we pay attention to stimuli that are relevant to the
satisfaction of our desires, and tend to ignore stimuli that do not satisfy our desires’’. In this
sense, desires may be considered as the ultimate driven factor of intrinsic motivations
(Reiss, 2004). In this sense, as Yoon and Uysal (2005) state, push motivations are related
with the emotional and internal desires such as self-actualization, rest, leisure or social
interaction. In contrast, pull motivations are related with external and cognitive factors such
as landscape, climate, hospitality or facilities. Previous research shows that push and pull
motivations are correlated (Correia and Pimpa˜ o, 2008; Correia et al., 2007; Yoon and Uysal,
2005), being these constructs as the starting point of any tourist decision. Therefore,
motivations trigger any evaluation that tourists could make about a destination.
Recently, del Bosque and Mart? ´n (2008) suggest that satisfaction is willing to be de?ned
through the individuals’ subjective needs. The sense of achieving desires is as much
important as the evaluation of product individual attributes. This is the essence of
cognitive-affective approach that considers the correlation of overall satisfaction with
expectancy and desires congruency (Oliver, 1993). Efforts to include an affective evaluation
have been adopted although, instead of considering desires congruency, authors tend to
use emotions to measure the subjective feelings towards the destination (Alegre and Garau,
2010). As such, tourist satisfaction should be regarded as a multidimensional construct
which comprise psychological and cognitive factors (Peter and Olson, 2009).
Overall satisfaction needs to be conceptualised according to the approaches of both
expectancy and desires congruency. As mentioned by Bultena and Klessig (1969, p. 349),
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 413
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
the concept can be perceived as ‘‘a function of the degree of congruency between
aspirations and the perceived reality of experiences’’. Desires relate with intrinsic
motivations (Reiss, 2004) and expectations with destination attributes. Thus, it seems
logical that the factors utilized derive frompush and pull model. Nevertheless, an adaptation
of the scale needs to be drawn, to respect the desire congruency principles and expectancy
con?rmation approach. This follows the research conducted by Correia and Pimpa˜ o (2008)
that evaluates satisfaction through push and pull motives. Furthermore, these authors
highlight how push and pull motives contribute to understand tourists’ satisfaction and
behavioural intentions.
Of these, results of recent studies con?rm that culture is one of the most signi?cant drivers of
tourist motivations to decide about certain destinations and also is a reference point to
explain the source of cross-cultural preferences between different tourist generating
countries (Funk and Bruun, 2007; Kozak, 2002; Maoz, 2007). Clearly, cultural/heritage
tourism has recently become as the fastest growing segment of the tourism industry
because there has been a trend towards an increased specialization among tourists. This
trend is evident in the rise of the volume of tourists who seek adventure, culture, history,
archaeology and interaction with the local people (Hollinshead, 1993; Hughes and Allen,
2005; Nuryanti, 1996). Also, this segment is a desired market for destinations due to their
higher spending patterns and education background, etc.
Elaboration of research constructs
In terms of the elaboration of research constructs, satisfaction studies can be grouped into
two major categories: unidimensional measures and multidimensional attributes to depict
overall satisfaction. Researchers that use unidimensional measures assess overall
satisfaction with single single-item scales of several (e.g. four to seven) points re?ecting
‘‘very satis?ed’’ to ‘‘very dissatis?ed’’ responses (Nield et al., 2000; Chaudhary, 2000;
Kozak, 2001; Joppe et al., 2001). Despite the simplicity, the single-item scale does not
entirely capture the complexity of customer satisfaction, making unfeasible to measure the
reliability of the construct. On the other hand, researchers defending multidimensionality
and investigating the factor structure of satisfaction show that this approach is more reliable
than single-item measures (Dann, 1978; Pizam et al., 1978; Kozak, 2002; Alegre and
Cladera, 2009; Correia and Moital, 2008; Correia and Pimpa˜ o, 2008; Liu and Hsu, 2010).
The Cronbach’s a coef?cient ranks upon 0.70-0.95 on studies that used structural equation
modelling (SEM) to derive satisfaction factors (Correia and Moital, 2008; Correia and
Pimpa˜ o, 2008; del Bosque and Mart? ´n, 2008). Although many of these factor structures show
promising results, they need further validation even because the correlations found among
the factors. Also, according to Pizam et al. (1978), overall satisfaction is the cumulative
experience that is weighted up by the single experience. Thus, the con?rmatory factor
analysis (CFA) followed by the structural equation analysis can make possible to derive not
only the factor structure as well as determine the relative importance of each factor for the
overall satisfaction. The literature has the limited evidence to test the relationship with the
satisfaction factor and the overall satisfaction (Correia and Moital, 2008).
As far as the factor structure is concerned, Westbrook and Reilly (1983) conclude that both
expectation-con?rmation and desire congruency are essential to explain the degree of
customer satisfaction. Discon?rmation presents a standardized path superior to the one
related with desire congruency. However, the result was less than conclusive since only a
single indicator of desire congruency was used in this study. A sole indicator did not in fact
adequately represent the construct, thereby attenuating the estimated effect of this
construct. Furthermore, Chon and Olsen (1991) propose a different approach that allows
measuring the respondent’s expectations and performance perceptions with functional
attributes of the destination area. Value expressive attributes were measured in the light of
actual self-congruity and ideal self-congruity within destination and tourists’ self-image.
PAGE 414
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Methodology
Questionnaire design and sample
The questionnaire comprises ?ve parts. The ?rst refers push and pull motivations, the
second refers to desires and pretends to measure to what extend this stay in Lisbon allows
achieving their innate motivations. The third pretends to evaluate to what extend the
expectations they have about physical assets and attractions were or not con?rmed. More
concretely desire congruency was assessed through the question ‘‘During this holiday I was
able to [. . .]’’ represented by a ?ve point scale, from ‘‘1 – totally disagree’’ to ‘‘5 – totally
agree’’. A total of 13 items were used to depict push satisfaction factors, namely:
1. learn about culture;
2. learn urban design;
3. learn about art;
4. learn about music;
5. learn about urban design;
6. have fun;
7. relax;
8. learn about cultural difference;
9. escape from work pressure;
10. experience unexpected;
11. do what others have not done;
12. have an adventure; and
13. having stories to share with my friends.
Furthermore, expectancy was assessed by means of ten pull attributes questioned in terms of
‘‘How do you evaluate each of the following attributes accordingly to your early expectations?’’
and measured through a ?ve-point Likert scale, from‘‘1 – much worse than I expected’’ to ‘‘5 –
much better than I expected’’ that included the following list of attributes: ‘‘climate’’,
‘‘hospitality’’, ‘‘standard of living’’, ‘‘safety and security’’, ‘‘available information’’, ‘‘cleanliness’’,
‘‘services’’, ‘‘entertainment’’, ‘‘nightlife’’, and ‘‘accessibilities’’. The fourth pretends to assess
the overall satisfaction they have, by means of the question to what extend are you satis?ed with
this visit to Lisbon, with a scale of ?ve points ranging from ‘‘1 – totally dissatis?ed’’ to ‘‘5 – very
satis?ed’’. Finally, socio-demographic questions were used to assess the pro?le of visitors.
In order to guarantee the validity and reliability, the survey design took into account the
relevant literature regarding the issues of satisfaction and motivations in general and in
cultural contexts (Dann, 1977; Crompton, 1979; Mo et al., 1993; Richards and Wilson, 2004;
Ryan and Trauer, 2005). A pilot survey was conducted among a group of 50 tourists to
ensure the validity of data. The questionnaire was translated by native speakers to English,
German and French and applied at the Lisbon Airport, Portugal. Moreover, to ensure
precision and con?dence in data, the sample was strati?ed according to the airport data of
the previous year. The survey took place in December 2008, using a strati?ed random
sample by country of birth, namely British, Nordic, Benelux and USA visitors. The strati?ed
sample obtained was in close accordance with the departing number of passengers at
Lisbon airport in the previous year. Given this, the study ensured that tourists approached
were representative of the four main markets visiting Lisbon. To qualify for participation,
respondents were expected to have spent at least two nights in Lisbon and have had visited
cultural places during their stays.
Data analysis
A total of 323 of usable questionnaires were coded for data analysis representing a response
rate of 81.0 per cent, and a sampling error of 5.45 per cent, which is an acceptable standard
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 415
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
according to Dillman (1978). This results in a ratio of satisfaction items to the number of
cases greater than 1:10 as recommended by Nunnally (1978). Data analysis involved an
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) followed by a CFA. A CFA was performed as complement
with the survey items to evaluate the validity of the study for motivations and satisfaction
scales. The following step aims to determine if the factors of satisfaction extracted were able
to explain tourists overall assessment about the destination. Given that, the model presents
the standardized regression weights, identifying the main contributing components of
satisfaction to explain the overall satisfaction. The results obtained with the CFA and the
existence of positive correlations between motivations and satisfaction items allows the
analysis by estimating a structural equation model that shaped the relationship of the
satisfaction factors with overall satisfaction.
Results
Table I presents the demographic pro?les of the respondents. A Kruskal-Wallis test were
performed to test for the independence of sample within age groups, income groups,
employment and civil status, education levels and even for gender groups. The Kruskal-Wallis
statistic measures how much the group satisfaction ranks differ from the average satisfaction
rank of all groups. The results show that although there are socio-demographic differences
across tourists visiting Lisbon the level of satisfaction within social groups do not differ,
meaning that the analysis should be performed for the whole sample.
The research considered the normality and correlation among variables as the two essential
requirements to perform a factor analysis. The SPSS Q-Q plot con?rms that the set of
variables of the research are normally distributed. The Bartlett test of Sphericity (3003.067;
p ¼ 0.000) and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO ¼ 0.879) indicate that the data contain a
satisfactory correlation among motivation items. In the same sense, the satisfaction factors
Table I Sample characterization and relationship with satisfaction
Kruskal-Wallis test based on satisfaction
ranks
Characterization % x
2
df p
Gender 0.009 1 0.925
Male 55.2
Female 44.8
Age 0.691 2 0.708
Less than 30 years old 20.0
30 up to 45 years old 38.3
More than 45 years old 41.7
Education level 1.5 1 0.221
Undergraduate 24.2
Graduate 75.8
Social status 3.031 2 0.220
Single 29.3
Married/living together 60.5
Divorced/widowed 10.2
Employment 0.948 2 0.622
Employed 78.8
Unemployed 9.3
Retired 12.9
Average salary 0.255 3 0.972
Less than 2,000e 15.2
2,001e to 3,500e 25.2
3,501e to 5,000e 20.2
5,001e to 8,000e 13.6
More than 8,000e 10.3
Other 15.6
PAGE 416
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
present a Bartlett test of Sphericity (4833.980; p ¼ 0.000) and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
(KMO ¼ 0.925) containing a satisfactory correlation to perform a factor analysis.
Exploratory factor analyses
An EFA was performed to derive the motivation and satisfaction factors structure with a
varimax rotation. The study utilized ten pull and 13 push items to evaluate motivations and
satisfaction, with an eigenvalue and a scree plot to determine the number of factors that
should be extracted. In both cases, the result was a three-factor solution accounting to
explain 76.7 per cent of the motivation factor and 85.7 per cent of the total data variance
regarding satisfaction. Therefore, similar factor structures arose from motivations and
satisfaction, as Tables II and III demonstrate.
The set of variables comprised in each factor gives paths for labelling it. The ?rst factor
groups the desires of exclusiveness such as: ‘‘to do what others have not done’’ (Kim and
Prideaux, 2005), ‘‘adventure’’, as well as ‘‘experience the unexpected’’. This is in
accordance with Lew (1987) who argues that these resources are the major elements of a
destination that attracts tourists such as: ‘‘the natural environment that can be observed’’,
‘‘the activities that can be carried out’’, and ‘‘the experiences that can be recalled’’. It
Table II EFA results for motivations
Loading
values Mean SD
% variance
explained
Cronbach’s
a
Novelty 16.084 0.815
To experience unexpected 0.868 2.88 0.974
To have an adventure 0.863 2.94 0.982
To do what others have not done 0.800 2.86 0.919
Knowledge 16.313 0.815
To learn about art 0.734 2.97 1.026
To learn about culture 0.714 2.57 1.486
To learn about music 0.699 2.16 1.292
To learn about urban design 0.728 2.30 1.438
Facilities 25.248 0.898
Safety and security 0.835 2.25 1.377
Cleanliness 0.865 2.30 1.358
Available information 0.832 2.25 1.331
Entertainment 0.757 2.11 1.239
Table III EFA results for satisfaction
Loading
values Mean SD
% variance
explained
Cronbach’s
a
Novelty 17.887 0.864
To experience unexpected 0.818 1.82 1.182
To have an adventure 0.717 1.87 1.174
To do what others have not done 0.754 1.69 1.105
Knowledge 24.227 0.945
To learn about art 0.788 2.07 1.336
To learn about culture 0.779 2.15 1.377
To learn about music 0.805 1.94 1.260
To learn about urban design 0.832 2.04 1.334
Facilities 23.420 0.941
Safety and security 0.801 1.99 1.271
Cleanliness 0.799 1.98 1.241
Available information 0.799 1.95 1.241
Entertainment 0.720 1.94 1.232
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 417
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
accounts to explain 16.084 per cent of total data variance and points out the desire of novelty
attained to the destination choice, as presented by Lee and Crompton (1992).
The culture-based attributes grouped under the category of ‘‘knowledge’’ and considered
based on the evaluation of previous studies (Andersen et al., 1997; Janiskee, 1996; Huh and
Uysal, 2003; So?eld and Li, 1998) account to explain 16.313 per cent of total data variance.
This factor groups the desires of learning by cultural live experiences (Richards, 1996). In
this sense, ‘‘to learn about art’’ (0.734) and ‘‘to learn about urban design’’ (0.728) are the
most desired knowledge tourists are willing to have. The list of items comprised in this factor
can be directly related to the particular characteristics of the city. The lower loading factors,
but not less important, include ‘‘to learn about music’’ (0.699), and ‘‘to learn about culture’’
(0.714). At another level, the data analysis points out one more dimension (facilities)
concerning the tourists’ perceptions of the destination. This dimension explains 25.248 per
cent of total variance of data. In this case, the attribute of ‘‘destination cleanliness’’ receives
the highest loading (0.865). This factor structure can be considered as similar to the ?ndings
of Beerli and Mart? ´n (2004) although with different loading values which may be due to the
fact that the destination image is related to the speci?c geographic context of the
destination, as well as to the tourists’ particular psychological predisposition.
In the case of satisfaction, the attributes intend to undertake to what extent tourists are able
to achieve their desires as well as how the destination has the appropriate attributes to
con?rm tourist expectations. As Table III exhibits, the three factor solutions explain 65.5 per
cent of the total data variance where the constructs of ‘‘facilities’’ (23.420 per cent) and
‘‘knowledge’’ (24.227 per cent) are remained as the most important variables. Regarding the
three items loaded in the construct of ‘‘facilities, safety and security’’ (0.801) are the most
important factors to facilitate tourists in achieving their desires. Tourists also perceive
‘‘cleanliness’’ (0.799) and ‘‘available information’’ (0.799) as the most determinant items. In
the case of the knowledge factor, ‘‘learn about urban design’’ (0.832) and ‘‘learn about
music’’ (0.805) appear as the more relevant factors contributing to allow tourists’
con?rmation of their expectations. Out of all attributes, entertainment and adventure are the
less important items to con?rm expectations which suggest that overall satisfaction is the
sum of rational and emotional of tourists. Furthermore, the internal consistency of the factors
measured by the corresponding Cronbach’s a coef?cients in both cases are good enough to
precede with the analysis, since all factors presented on Tables II and III are loaded with
values superior to 0.6.
Con?rmatory factor analysis
The CFA was carried out with the survey items previously utilized to perform EFA to con?rm
and evaluate the validity of the study in the scales of both satisfaction and motivations. The
CFA results present an acceptable ?t (x
2
¼93; df ¼ 53; p ¼ 0.001; RMSEA ¼ 0.049;
CFI ¼ 0.959; RMR ¼ 0.071; GFI ¼ 0.959; AGFI ¼ 0.918). The following step to assess the ?t
of the individual parameters in a model is to determine the viability of their estimated values.
Also, the indicators’ loadings ?t well with the respective factors. Since all the items are
loaded on their designated factors and substantially explained by the latent factors, it can be
concluded that the relationship between push and pull satisfaction variables as well as the
three latent factors can be empirically con?rmed. Table IV demonstrates the amount of
variance extracted for each single construct is higher than the minimum 0.50, as suggested
by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The lower construct AVE is ‘‘novelty’’ (0.88) demonstrating
that the reliability of all constructs exceeds the suggested minimum level. Furthermore,
Table V con?rms that the correlation between motivation and satisfaction constructs is
signi?cant and positive. This suggests that tourists assess destinations throughout their
motivations.
Structural equation model
The structural equation model explores the contribution of the four factors identi?ed to
explain the parameters of overall satisfaction. This step indicates acceptable results
regarding the goodness ?t of the measures (x
2
¼83.737, p ¼ 0.000, df ¼ 63). Also, the other
indices demonstrate that data ?t well with the model (RMSEA ¼ 0.043, CFI ¼ 0.933,
PAGE 418
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
RMR ¼ 0.066, GFI ¼ 0.958, AGFI ¼ 0.921). As shown in Figure 1, the three factor solutions
present similar loading coef?cients. Despite the similar importance of the factors to explain
overall satisfaction, results justify that ‘‘knowledge’’ (0.725) is the most important variable.
This result is in accordance with the ?ndings of Richards and Wilson (2004) suggesting that
cultural tourism is to be sold as a living experience. Thus, as mentioned above, this may
re?ect the geographical speci?c context of tourism. These ?ndings suggest that tourists
Table IV Con?rmatory factor analysis
Estimate Error variance AVE
Facilities
Entertainment 0.909 0.174
Available information 0.891 0.206
Cleanliness 0.938 0.120
Safety and security 0.936 0.124
Total 0.044 0.956
Knowledge
Experience art 0.943 0.111
Experience city culture 0.905 0.181
Experience local music 0.928 0.139
Experience city urban design 0.888 0.211
Total 0.046 0.954
Novelty
Experience the unexpected 0.818 0.331
Experience doing what others have not done 0.811 0.342
Have an adventure 0.900 0.190
Total 0.119 0.881
Table V Correlation within constructs
Motivations
Satisfaction Facilities Knowledge Novelty Macro environment
Knowledge 0.125* 0.524** 20.214** 0.207**
Facilities 0.418** 0.142** 20.083 0.146**
Novelty 0.044 20.017 0.144** 20.047
Note: Signi?cant at: *p , 0.05 and **p , 0.01
Figure 1 Satisfaction structure
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 419
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
visiting a cultural destination for vacations are devoted to ful?ll their personal and intrinsic
interests since the most important items loaded in the dimension of ‘‘knowledge’’ are ‘‘to
learn about urban design’’ (0.879) and ‘‘to learn about culture’’ (0.838).
Therefore, the importance of ‘‘cultural knowledge’’ suggests that tourists visiting Lisbon
appear to perceive the existent culture and heritage as meaningful and ‘‘authentic’’ able to
ful?ll their desires of cultural experiences. This ?nding has the suf?cient empirical evidence
to indicate that cultural tourists particularly look for erudite destinations that allow ful?lling
their personal or intrinsic interests. As Richards (1996, p. 262) states, ‘‘cultural tourists are in
fact highly selective in their consumption of heritage resources’’. The second most important
dimension to explain overall satisfaction is ‘‘facilities’’ (0.615) loaded also with four items
where ‘‘safety and security’’ (0.848) and ‘‘cleanliness’’ (0.844) are the most critical values.
On the other hand, the less relevant items are ‘‘entertainment’’ (0.710) and ‘‘available
information’’ (0.684). This is in accordance with the studies of Olsen (2003) and Giese and
Cote (2000) that mention satisfaction as the costumer evaluation of a particular experience,
service or episode. The last factor contributing to overall satisfaction is ‘‘novelty’’ (0.569),
comprising the three items where ‘‘to do what others have not done’’ is the most critical item
(0.659), followed by ‘‘experience the unexpected’’ (0.647) and ‘‘have an adventure’’ (0.646).
This result is parallel to the study of Rojek (1993) since the spectacular is no longer in the
postmodern consumption the suf?cient basis for a tourism attraction. In this case, tourists’
ful?lment of desires goes further than the sense of uniqueness and unexpected.
Conclusion and implications
This study has been designed to provide measures of tourists’ overall satisfaction through a
CFA and structural equation analyses considering both theories: expectancy and desire
congruencies. The EFA demonstrates that only 11 push and pull motivations are grouped to
explain the complex construct of overall satisfaction. The CFA reveals that the postulated
model ?ts the data well. Thus, it suggests that the factors represented are critical
determinants of overall satisfaction. Through the importance of satisfaction and overall
satisfaction over the critical success of destinations, ?ndings can be considered as the
relevant. Study ?ndings reveal that both expectancy and desire congruencies are the
meaningful determinants of the individuals’ behaviors towards vacations. Furthermore, it
demonstrates the number of signi?cant dimensions and factors that contribute to satisfy
tourists visiting a cultural city.
The results of the standardized regression coef?cients of SEM presented provide some
interesting conclusions. The standardized regression coef?cients show that the more relevant
indicators in the dimension of ‘‘knowledge’’ which is not surprising if we think about the
speci?cities of Lisbon, an old town where in the historical quarters Fado is sung all night long.
Furthermore, results are in accordance with the proposition of Goeldner et al. (2000) indicating
that tourists are mainly motivated by the desire of learning and being educated about the
destination through organizing several festivals and events. The construct of ‘‘novelty’’
corroborates the results of the study carried out by Rojek (1993) since it assumes that in a
postmodern pattern of consumption destinations need to have peculiar characteristics that
goes beyond the undistinguished tourism attractions. In the same way, the construct of
‘‘facilities’’ con?rms that overall satisfaction is a reaction of the sum of experiences, services
and encounters that tourists have during their vacations (Kozak and Rimmington, 2000).
From a theoretical perspective, the study contributes to the literature in two major directions.
First, the present study is one of few works that attempt to develop a scale to measure
satisfaction issues through the use of an adaptation of push and pull motivations. Second,
results demonstrate that all the factors present high loading values competing to explain
overall satisfaction. Such empirical evidence has of the value to propose that the functional
attributes contribute to satisfy the most intrinsic desires of learning about a culture, art or
even the famous traditional music Fado in a balance novelty. Thus, several attributes
contributing to distinct factors are willing to be grouped under the same theoretical umbrella
when tourists draw the evaluation of overall satisfaction, e.g. tangibles (entertainment), and
intangibles (learn about music, art or museums).
PAGE 420
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This study also comprises various methodological limitations mainly concerning the sample
size that was restricted to 323 cases as well as it only considers the cultural city of Lisbon.
Thus, to improve and enhance the model, future works should consider a comparison
between multiple cultural destinations. Future research may comprise a broader time
window to undertake the possible variation of data. Nevertheless, the contribution of this
research to the body of knowledge includes developing a multidimensional factor structure
of overall satisfaction that comprises expectations and desires. At the methodological level,
this study represents a step forward to understand and predict tourist behaviour. Tourism
scholars and practitioners should be aware that there is a need to consider further studies to
develop more effective measurement scales to assess the considered constructs. For
instance, the suggested assessment of overall satisfaction can be better to measure overall
satisfaction by considering the idea of equity theory (Olivier and Swan, 1989).
References
Alegre, J. and Cladera, M. (2009), ‘‘Analysing the effect of satisfaction and previous visits on tourist
intentions to return’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 Nos 5/6, pp. 670-685.
Alegre, J. and Garau, J. (2010), ‘‘Tourist satisfaction and dissatisfaction’’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 52-73.
Andersen, V., Prentice, R. and Guerin, S. (1997), ‘‘Imagery of Denmark among visitors to Danish ?ne arts
exhibitions in Scotland’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 453-464.
Barbeau, J.B. (1985), ‘‘Predictive and normative expectations in consumer satisfaction: a utilization of
adaptation and comparison levels in a uni?ed framework’’, in Keith, H. and Day, R. (Eds), Conceptual
and Empirical Contributions to Consumer Satisfaction and Complaining Behavior, School of Business,
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, pp. 27-32.
Beerli, A. and Mart? ´n, J. (2004), ‘‘Factors in?uencing destination image’’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 657-681.
Bitner, M.J. and Hubert, A.R. (1994), ‘‘Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfaction versus quality:
the customer’s voice’’, in Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and
Practice, Sage, London, pp. 72-94.
Bultena, G.L. and Klessig, L.L. (1969), ‘‘Satisfaction in camping: a conceptualization and guide to social
research’’, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 348-355.
Chaudhary, M. (2000), ‘‘India’s image as a tourist destination: a perspective of foreign tourists’’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 293-297.
Chon, K.S. and Olsen, M. (1991), ‘‘Functional and symbolic congruity approaches to consumer
satisfaction/dissatisfaction in tourism’’, Journal of the International Academy of Hospitality Research,
Vol. 3, pp. 2-20.
Correia, A. and Moital, M. (2008), ‘‘The antecedents and consequences of prestige motivation in
tourism: an expectancy-value motivation’’, in Kozak, M. and Decrop, A. (Eds), Handbook of Tourism
Behaviour: Theory & Practice, Routledge, New York, NY.
Correia, A. and Pimpa˜ o, A. (2008), ‘‘Decision-making processes of Portuguese tourist travelling to South
America and Africa’’, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 2 No. 4,
pp. 1750-6182.
Correia, A., Valle, P. and Moc¸ o, C. (2007), ‘‘Modelling motivations and perceptions of Portuguese
tourists’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60, pp. 76-80.
Crompton, J.L. (1979), ‘‘Accessing of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination and the in?uence of
geographical location upon that image’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 18-23.
Czepiel, J.A. and Rosenberg, L.J. (1974), ‘‘The study of consumer satisfaction’’, AMA Educators’
Proceedings, American Marketing Association, pp. 119-123.
Dann, G. (1977), ‘‘Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 184-194.
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 421
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Dann, G. (1978), ‘‘Tourist satisfaction a highly complex variable’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 5,
pp. 440-443.
Dann, G. (1981), ‘‘Tourist motivation: an appraisal’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 187-219.
del Bosque, I.R. and Mart? ´n, H.S. (2008), ‘‘Tourist satisfaction: a cognitive-affective model’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 551-573.
Dillman, D.A. (1978), Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method, Wiley, New York, NY.
Duke, C.R. and Persia, M.A. (1996), ‘‘Performance-importance analysis of escorted tour evaluations’’,
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 207-223.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), ‘‘Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Funk, D.C. and Bruun, T.J. (2007), ‘‘The role of socio-psychological and culture-education motives in
marketing international sport tourism: a cross-cultural perspective’’, TourismManagement, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 806-819.
Giese, J.L. and Cote, J.A. (2000), ‘‘De?ning consumer satisfaction’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 19, pp. 24-41.
Goeldner, C.R., Ritchie, J.R.B. and MacIntosh, R.W. (2000), Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Gonzalez, M.E.A., Comesana, L.R. and Brea, J.A.F. (2007), ‘‘Assessing tourist behavioral intentions
through perceived service quality and customer satisfaction’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60
No. 2, pp. 153-160.
Goossens, C. (2000), ‘‘Tourism information and pleasure motivation’’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 301-321.
Haley, R.J. (1968), ‘‘Bene?t segmentation: a decision-oriented research tool’’, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 32, July, pp. 30-35.
Hughes, H. and Allen, D. (2005), ‘‘Cultural tourism in Central and Eastern Europe: the views of ‘induced
image formation agents’’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 173-183.
Huh, J. and Uysal, M. (2003), ‘‘Satisfaction with cultural/heritage sites: Virginia historic triangle’’, Journal
of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 4 Nos 3/4, pp. 177-194.
Ibrahim, E.E. and Gill, J. (2005), ‘‘A positioning strategy for a tourist destination, based on analysis of
customers’ perceptions and satisfactions’’, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 172-188.
INE (2009), Handbook of Tourism Statistics, National Statistics Board, Lisboa.
Janiskee, R. (1996), ‘‘Historic houses and special events’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 398-414.
Jones, M.A. and Suh, J. (2000), ‘‘Transaction-speci?c satisfaction and overall satisfaction: an empirical
analysis’’, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 147-159.
Joppe, M., Martin, D.W. and Waalen, J. (2001), ‘‘Toronto’s image as a destination: a comparative
importance-satisfaction analysis by origin of visitor’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39 No. 3,
pp. 252-260.
Kim, S. and Prideaux, B. (2005), ‘‘Marketing implications arising from a comparative study of
international pleasure tourist motivations and other travel-related characteristics of visitors to Korea’’,
Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 347-357.
Kozak, M. (2001), ‘‘Comparative assessment of tourist satisfaction with destinations across two
nationalities’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 391-401.
Kozak, M. (2002), ‘‘Comparative analysis of tourist motivations by nationality and destinations’’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 221-232.
Kozak, M. and Rimmington, M. (2000), ‘‘Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season
holiday destination’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 260-269.
PAGE 422
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Kozak, M., Bigne, E. and Andreu, L. (2003), ‘‘Limitations of cross-cultural customer satisfaction research
and recommending alternative methods’’, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 4
Nos 3/4, pp. 37-59.
LaTour, S. and Peat, N. (1979), ‘‘Conceptual and methodological issues in consumer satisfaction
research’’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, pp. 431-437.
Lee, T.-H. and Crompton, J.L. (1992), ‘‘Measuring novelty seeking in tourism’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 19, pp. 732-751.
Lew, A. (1987), ‘‘A framework of tourist attractions research’’, Annals of TourismResearch, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 553-575.
Liu, Y. and Hsu, H. (2010), ‘‘Identifying the factor structure of customer satisfaction with public leisure
services’’, International Journal of Leisure and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 288-303.
Maoz, D. (2007), ‘‘Backpackers’ motivations the role of culture and nationality’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 122-140.
Mo, C., Howard, D. and Havitz, M. (1993), ‘‘Testing an international tourist role typology’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 319-335.
Nield, K., Kozak, M. and LeGrys, G. (2000), ‘‘The role of food service in tourist satisfaction’’, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 375-384.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Nuryanti, W. (1996), ‘‘Heritage and postmodern tourism’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 249-260.
Oliver, R. (1980), ‘‘A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequents of satisfaction decisions’’,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-469.
Oliver, R. (1993), ‘‘Cognitive, affective and attribute bases of the satisfaction response’’, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 20, December, pp. 418-430.
Olivier, R. and Swan, J. (1989), ‘‘Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and satisfaction in
transaction: a ?eld survey approach’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 21-35.
Olsen, M. (2003), ‘‘Tourism themed routes: a Queensland perspective’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing,
Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 331-341.
Olson, J. and Dover, P. (1979), ‘‘Discon?rmation of consumer expectations through product trial’’,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 179-189.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), ‘‘SERVQUAL: a multiple itemscale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
Payne, J., Bettman, J. and Johnson, E. (1993), The Adaptive Decision Maker, Cambridge University
Press, New York, NY.
Peter, J.P. and Olson, J. (2009), Consumer Behaviour, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Pizam, A. and Milman, A. (1993), ‘‘Predicting satisfaction among ?rst time visitors to a destination by
using the expectancy discon?rmation theory’’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 197-209.
Pizam, A., Neuman, Y. and Reichel, A. (1978), ‘‘Dimensions of tourist satisfaction with destination area’’,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 314-322.
Reiss, S. (2004), ‘‘Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: the theory of 16 basic desires’’, Review of
General Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 179-193.
Richards, G. (1996), ‘‘Production and consumption of European cultural tourism’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 261-283.
Richards, G. and Wilson, J. (2004), ‘‘The impact of cultural events on city image: Rotterdam cultural
capital of Europe 2001’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 41 No. 10, pp. 1931-1951.
Rojek, C. (1993), Ways of Escape: Modern Transformations in Leisure and Travel, Macmillan,
Basingstoke.
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 423
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Ryan, C. and Trauer, B. (2005), ‘‘Visitor experiences of indigenous tourism: introduction’’, in Ryan, C. and
Aicken, M. (Eds), Indigenous Tourism: The Commodi?cation and Management of Culture, Elsevier,
Oxford, pp. 223-245.
Sirgy, J.M. (1984), ‘‘A social cognition model of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction’’, Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 1, Summer, pp. 27-43.
So?eld, T. and Li, F. (1998), ‘‘Tourism development and cultural policies in China’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 25, pp. 362-392.
Song, H., Van der Veen, L. and Chen, J. (2011), ‘‘Assessing mainland Chinese tourists’ satisfaction with
Hong Kong using the tourist satisfaction index’’, International Journal of TourismResearch, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 82-96.
Spreng, R. and Dixon, A. (1992), ‘‘Alternative comparison standards in the formation of consumer
satisfaction/dissatisfaction’’, in Leone, R. and Kumar, V. (Eds), Enhancing Knowledge Development in
Marketing 1992 Educators Proceedings, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 85-91.
Spreng, R.A. and Olshavsky, R.W. (1993), ‘‘A desires congruency model of consumer satisfaction’’,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 169-177.
Spreng, R.A., Mankenzie, S.B. and Olshavsky, R.W. (1996), ‘‘A re-examination of the determinants of
consumer satisfaction’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 15-32.
Swan, J., Trawick, F. and Carroll, G. (1981), ‘‘Satisfaction related to predictive, desired expectations: a
?eld study’’, in Day, R. and Hunt, K. (Eds), New Findings on Consumer Satisfaction and Complaining
Behavior, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, pp. 15-22.
Uysal, M. and Jurowski, C. (1994), ‘‘Testing the push and pull factors’’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 844-846.
Westbrook, R.A. and Reilly, M.D. (1983), ‘‘Value-percept disparity: an alternative to the discon?rmation
of expectations theory of consumer satisfaction’’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10,
pp. 256-261.
Yoon, Y. and Uysal, M. (2005), ‘‘An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on
destination loyalty: a structural model’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 45-56.
Z
?
abkar, V., Brenc? ic? , M. and Dmitrovic´ , T. (2010), ‘‘Modelling perceived quality, visitor satisfaction and
behavioural intentions at the destination level’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 537-546.
Corresponding author
Metin Kozak can be contacted at: [email protected]
PAGE 424
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Soung-hoon Yang, Mun-yong Choi. 2015. Popular Song's Lyrics as Tourism Language: Focusing on Exoticism. Journal of
the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society 16, 3778-3786. [CrossRef]
2. Norkamaliah Shahrin, Ahmad Puad Mat Som, Jamil Jusoh. 2014. Long Journey Travel to Tourist Destination: A Review
Paper. SHS Web of Conferences 12, 01099. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_218047935.pdf
This paper aims to explore the concept of push and pull satisfaction and relates it with a
uni-dimensional measure of satisfaction.
Design/methodology/approach – A factor
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
From tourist motivations to tourist satisfaction
Antónia Correia Metin Kozak J oão Ferradeira
Article information:
To cite this document:
Antónia Correia Metin Kozak J oão Ferradeira , (2013),"From tourist motivations to tourist satisfaction", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp. 411 - 424
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0022
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:23 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 74 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4752 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Lan-Lan Chang, Kenneth F. Backman, Yu Chih Huang, (2014),"Creative tourism: a preliminary examination of creative tourists’ motivation,
experience, perceived value and revisit intention", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp.
401-419http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2014-0032
Songshan (Sam) Huang, Cathy H.C. Hsu, (2009),"Travel motivation: linking theory to practice", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 3 Iss 4 pp. 287-295http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180910994505
Tanja Dmitrovi#, Ljubica Kneževi#Cvelbar, Tomaž Kolar, Maja Makovec Bren#i#, Irena Ograjenšek, Vesna Žabkar, (2009),"Conceptualizing
tourist satisfaction at the destination level", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 3 Iss 2 pp. 116-126http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180910962122
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
From tourist motivations to tourist
satisfaction
Anto´ nia Correia, Metin Kozak and Joa˜ o Ferradeira
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to explore the concept of push and pull satisfaction and relates it with a
uni-dimensional measure of satisfaction.
Design/methodology/approach – A factor structure is derived, comprising push and pull satisfaction
factors which are related to the level of overall satisfaction. The empirical study was performed in Lisbon,
one of the main cultural cities in Europe.
Findings – Results suggest that overall satisfaction re?ects the tourist assessment of push and pull
dimensions of satisfaction. Furthermore, results also demonstrate that satisfaction arose within the
opportunity to experience the cultural and social speci?cities of a destination considering the
appropriate facilities. Based on the study ?ndings, implications for management and marketing are
presented.
Research limitations/implications – This study comprises various methodological limitations mainly
concerning the sample size that was restricted to 323 cases as well as it only considers the cultural city
of Lisbon. Thus, to improve and enhance the model, future works should consider a comparison
between multiple cultural destinations. Future research may comprise a broader time window to
undertake the possible variation of data.
Practical implications – This study represents a step forward to understand and predict tourist
behaviour. Tourism scholars and practitioners should be aware that there is a need to consider further
studies to develop more effective measurement scales to assess the considered constructs. For
instance, the suggested assessment of overall satisfaction can be better to measure overall satisfaction
by considering the idea of equity theory.
Originality/value – The study contributes to the literature in two major directions. First, the present study
is one of few works that attempt to develop a scale to measure satisfaction issues through the use of an
adaptation of push and pull motivations. Second, results demonstrate that all the factors present high
loading values competing to explain overall satisfaction. Such empirical evidence has the value to
propose that the functional attributes contribute to satisfy the most intrinsic desires of learning about a
culture, art or even the famous traditional music Fado in a balance novelty. Thus, several attributes
contributing to distinct factors are willing to be grouped under the same theoretical umbrella when
tourists draw the evaluation of overall satisfaction, e.g. tangibles (entertainment) and intangibles (learn
about music, art or museums).
Keywords Tourist motivations, Tourist satisfaction
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
From a broader perspective, satisfaction and overall satisfaction are perceived as the two
different constructs (Jones and Suh, 2000). While satisfaction is constructed based on the
evaluation of a speci?c experience (Bitner and Hubert, 1994), overall satisfaction is
considered to be a cumulative measure that weights up the whole experience that tourists
have had while on a vacation in a destination (Pizam et al., 1978) based on a subjective
post-consumption evaluative judgement. This discussion fuels a number of academics that
defend a multiple attribute evaluation or a general measure of satisfaction (Song et al., 2011;
DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-05-2012-0022 VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013, pp. 411-424, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 411
Anto´ nia Correia, Centre for
Advanced Studies in
Economics and
Econometrics, University of
Algarve, Faro, Portugal.
Metin Kozak, School of
Tourism and Hospitality
Management, Mugla
University, Mug? la, Turkey.
Joa˜ o Ferradeira, Centre for
Advanced Studies in
Economics and
Econometrics, University of
Algarve, Faro, Portugal.
Received 8 May 2012
Revised 11 November 2012
Accepted 2 January 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Alegre and Garau, 2010; Gonzalez et al., 2007; Kozak and Rimmington, 2000; Z
?
abkar et al.,
2010).
The body of empirical studies based on the multiple attribute evaluation comprises an
evaluation of satisfaction based on consumers’ expectations (Spreng and Olshavsky, 1993),
while an overall appraisal tends to use mainly an emotive approach grounded by the desire
congruency theory. As Spreng and Olshavsky (1993, p. 172) suggest, ‘‘expectations are
beliefs about the attributes or performance levels, while desires are beliefs about the
product attributes or performance that will lead to higher-level values’’. Expectancy
evaluates the impression that tourists have about a certain attribute (Westbrook and Reilly,
1983; Olson and Dover, 1979), whether desire congruency refers to the subjective
assessment of how closely product matched tourists’ desires (Sirgy, 1984). Nevertheless,
due to the lack of consensus among the most appropriate approach for satisfaction,
customer satisfaction needs to be de?ned at least at these two levels (Czepiel and
Rosenberg, 1974; Bitner and Hubert, 1994). For example, Parasuraman et al. (1988) point
out a positive correlation between satisfaction and overall satisfaction, despite the lack of
consensus in the academic body about the most appropriate construct.
The status of tourist motivations as an antecedent of satisfaction has been already studied in
the ?eld of tourismresearch (Oliver, 1980, Ibrahimand Gill, 2005; Laguna and Palacios, 2009).
Although with the exception of Correia and Pimpa˜o (2008), the current literature lacks
introducing the measurement of satisfaction through the application of a scale of congruency
comprising push and pull factors in order to assess the decision of travelling to a certain place.
Bearing this gap in mind, this paper aims to explore the in?uence of push and pull motivation
factors over the level of satisfaction and relate it with a uni-dimensional measure of satisfaction.
The paper also assumes that push satisfaction assesses destination congruency with internal
desires of tourists while pull satisfaction con?rms tourist expectations in terms of destination
attributes (Correia and Pimpa˜o, 2008). This assumption grounds on revisiting the rules of two
theories widely cited within the satisfaction literature, namely expectancy and desire
congruency. The study also provides implications for the theory and practice.
This study was empirically tested in Lisbon, one of the most popular cultural tourism
destinations in Europe, within a sample of 400 foreign tourists visiting the city for cultural
purposes. Lisbon is the capital of Portugal and one of the most relevant cities, in historical
terms, in Europe. With its four millions of tourists (INE, 2009), the city contains a cultural
background constructed around the historical infrastructure and amenities that provide a very
peculiar cultural environment where the traditional musical expression Fado surrounds the
boundaries of the more traditional sand mediaeval streets. These peculiar features are part of
primordial destination image attributes willing to contribute to explain overall tourist
satisfaction. Given this peculiar context, the present research can be perceived as an
exploratory investigation since not much is known about the destination image of a city as well
as little available information research is acknowledged about the speci?city of our focus –
Lisbon.
Literature review
Satisfaction is one of the most researched topic in the ?eld of tourism research (Kozak et al.,
2003). This has been approached from different perspectives and theories. One of the most
quoted is the discon?rmation paradigm (Oliver, 1980) which states that tourists have
previous expectations which they compare with the perceived outcome of the service
(Pizam and Milman, 1993 among others). As an additional approach, the equity theory
states that satisfaction is the trade-off between what consumers sacri?ce and what they
obtain (Olivier and Swan, 1989). Moreover, the normative theory relies on a norm that works
as a reference point while assessing one’s opinion. Generally speaking, the normative theory
assumes that comparisons are possible since tourists may easily have past experiences
(Yoon and Uysal, 2005).
Furthermore, advances in hospitality and tourism research dealing with customer
satisfaction have made use of the expectation-perception gap model (Duke and Persia,
PAGE 412
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
1996), the expectancy-discon?rmation model (Pizam and Milman, 1993; Spreng and
Olshavsky, 1993), the congruity model (Chon and Olsen, 1991), or the performance-only
model (Pizam et al., 1978). Nevertheless, several authors argue that consumers’ choice
criteria are mostly based on the individual desires towards a certain product (Payne et al.,
1993). In other words, the criteria of making a choice are more related with consumers’
beliefs, whether a certain product meets or not consumers’ desires (Haley, 1968) than the
tangible attributes of the performance of a product. Despite this evidence, few authors have
developed research proposals suggesting that satisfaction is more related with ‘‘desires
congruency’’ than with ‘‘expectancy congruency’’ (Spreng and Olshavsky, 1993). While
expectancy is associated with the attributes of performance (LaTour and Peat, 1979), desire
congruency needs to be approached in a more abstract way (Spreng et al., 1996).
Conversely, expectations are more concerned with performance levels contained in a
product to achieve a speci?c attribute that consumers estimate (Swan et al., 1981). In this
sense, expectancy relies on measuring the performance of a set of attributes in terms of
what tourists expect versus what to obtain (Spreng et al., 1996). In a similar vein, desire
congruency relies on the extent to which tourists are able to achieve their desires through a
certain travel (Goossens, 2000). Tourist satisfaction is likely to be determined by the brand
performance and its ability to accomplish the innate needs, wants, or desires of the
consumer instead of determining the extent of the balance between the brand’s
performance and expectations (Spreng and Dixon, 1992).
On the other hand, Westbrook and Reilly (1983) recognize that expectations have a stronger
effect on satisfaction as well as demonstrate that desires also in?uence customer
satisfaction. Furthermore, the body of literature suggests that desires congruency has a
signi?cant effect on overall satisfaction (Barbeau, 1985; Spreng and Olshavsky, 1993).
Despite the evidence that customer satisfaction needs to comprise both elements of
expectations and desires, authors also suggest different forms to approach the desire
congruency theory. Spreng et al. (1996) reduce desires to a concrete evaluation of attributes
of the product while Chon and Olsen (1991) utilize desire congruency theory to understand
how close the destination image is to the tourist’s self-concept.
From motivations to satisfaction
Generally speaking, tourists decide to travel because they are pushed by internal factors
and/or pulled by a set of destination attributes that enhance their desires to visit a certain
place (Correia and Pimpa˜ o, 2008; Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1977, 1981; Uysal and Jurowski,
1994). According to Reiss (2004, p. 188), ‘‘we pay attention to stimuli that are relevant to the
satisfaction of our desires, and tend to ignore stimuli that do not satisfy our desires’’. In this
sense, desires may be considered as the ultimate driven factor of intrinsic motivations
(Reiss, 2004). In this sense, as Yoon and Uysal (2005) state, push motivations are related
with the emotional and internal desires such as self-actualization, rest, leisure or social
interaction. In contrast, pull motivations are related with external and cognitive factors such
as landscape, climate, hospitality or facilities. Previous research shows that push and pull
motivations are correlated (Correia and Pimpa˜ o, 2008; Correia et al., 2007; Yoon and Uysal,
2005), being these constructs as the starting point of any tourist decision. Therefore,
motivations trigger any evaluation that tourists could make about a destination.
Recently, del Bosque and Mart? ´n (2008) suggest that satisfaction is willing to be de?ned
through the individuals’ subjective needs. The sense of achieving desires is as much
important as the evaluation of product individual attributes. This is the essence of
cognitive-affective approach that considers the correlation of overall satisfaction with
expectancy and desires congruency (Oliver, 1993). Efforts to include an affective evaluation
have been adopted although, instead of considering desires congruency, authors tend to
use emotions to measure the subjective feelings towards the destination (Alegre and Garau,
2010). As such, tourist satisfaction should be regarded as a multidimensional construct
which comprise psychological and cognitive factors (Peter and Olson, 2009).
Overall satisfaction needs to be conceptualised according to the approaches of both
expectancy and desires congruency. As mentioned by Bultena and Klessig (1969, p. 349),
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 413
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
the concept can be perceived as ‘‘a function of the degree of congruency between
aspirations and the perceived reality of experiences’’. Desires relate with intrinsic
motivations (Reiss, 2004) and expectations with destination attributes. Thus, it seems
logical that the factors utilized derive frompush and pull model. Nevertheless, an adaptation
of the scale needs to be drawn, to respect the desire congruency principles and expectancy
con?rmation approach. This follows the research conducted by Correia and Pimpa˜ o (2008)
that evaluates satisfaction through push and pull motives. Furthermore, these authors
highlight how push and pull motives contribute to understand tourists’ satisfaction and
behavioural intentions.
Of these, results of recent studies con?rm that culture is one of the most signi?cant drivers of
tourist motivations to decide about certain destinations and also is a reference point to
explain the source of cross-cultural preferences between different tourist generating
countries (Funk and Bruun, 2007; Kozak, 2002; Maoz, 2007). Clearly, cultural/heritage
tourism has recently become as the fastest growing segment of the tourism industry
because there has been a trend towards an increased specialization among tourists. This
trend is evident in the rise of the volume of tourists who seek adventure, culture, history,
archaeology and interaction with the local people (Hollinshead, 1993; Hughes and Allen,
2005; Nuryanti, 1996). Also, this segment is a desired market for destinations due to their
higher spending patterns and education background, etc.
Elaboration of research constructs
In terms of the elaboration of research constructs, satisfaction studies can be grouped into
two major categories: unidimensional measures and multidimensional attributes to depict
overall satisfaction. Researchers that use unidimensional measures assess overall
satisfaction with single single-item scales of several (e.g. four to seven) points re?ecting
‘‘very satis?ed’’ to ‘‘very dissatis?ed’’ responses (Nield et al., 2000; Chaudhary, 2000;
Kozak, 2001; Joppe et al., 2001). Despite the simplicity, the single-item scale does not
entirely capture the complexity of customer satisfaction, making unfeasible to measure the
reliability of the construct. On the other hand, researchers defending multidimensionality
and investigating the factor structure of satisfaction show that this approach is more reliable
than single-item measures (Dann, 1978; Pizam et al., 1978; Kozak, 2002; Alegre and
Cladera, 2009; Correia and Moital, 2008; Correia and Pimpa˜ o, 2008; Liu and Hsu, 2010).
The Cronbach’s a coef?cient ranks upon 0.70-0.95 on studies that used structural equation
modelling (SEM) to derive satisfaction factors (Correia and Moital, 2008; Correia and
Pimpa˜ o, 2008; del Bosque and Mart? ´n, 2008). Although many of these factor structures show
promising results, they need further validation even because the correlations found among
the factors. Also, according to Pizam et al. (1978), overall satisfaction is the cumulative
experience that is weighted up by the single experience. Thus, the con?rmatory factor
analysis (CFA) followed by the structural equation analysis can make possible to derive not
only the factor structure as well as determine the relative importance of each factor for the
overall satisfaction. The literature has the limited evidence to test the relationship with the
satisfaction factor and the overall satisfaction (Correia and Moital, 2008).
As far as the factor structure is concerned, Westbrook and Reilly (1983) conclude that both
expectation-con?rmation and desire congruency are essential to explain the degree of
customer satisfaction. Discon?rmation presents a standardized path superior to the one
related with desire congruency. However, the result was less than conclusive since only a
single indicator of desire congruency was used in this study. A sole indicator did not in fact
adequately represent the construct, thereby attenuating the estimated effect of this
construct. Furthermore, Chon and Olsen (1991) propose a different approach that allows
measuring the respondent’s expectations and performance perceptions with functional
attributes of the destination area. Value expressive attributes were measured in the light of
actual self-congruity and ideal self-congruity within destination and tourists’ self-image.
PAGE 414
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Methodology
Questionnaire design and sample
The questionnaire comprises ?ve parts. The ?rst refers push and pull motivations, the
second refers to desires and pretends to measure to what extend this stay in Lisbon allows
achieving their innate motivations. The third pretends to evaluate to what extend the
expectations they have about physical assets and attractions were or not con?rmed. More
concretely desire congruency was assessed through the question ‘‘During this holiday I was
able to [. . .]’’ represented by a ?ve point scale, from ‘‘1 – totally disagree’’ to ‘‘5 – totally
agree’’. A total of 13 items were used to depict push satisfaction factors, namely:
1. learn about culture;
2. learn urban design;
3. learn about art;
4. learn about music;
5. learn about urban design;
6. have fun;
7. relax;
8. learn about cultural difference;
9. escape from work pressure;
10. experience unexpected;
11. do what others have not done;
12. have an adventure; and
13. having stories to share with my friends.
Furthermore, expectancy was assessed by means of ten pull attributes questioned in terms of
‘‘How do you evaluate each of the following attributes accordingly to your early expectations?’’
and measured through a ?ve-point Likert scale, from‘‘1 – much worse than I expected’’ to ‘‘5 –
much better than I expected’’ that included the following list of attributes: ‘‘climate’’,
‘‘hospitality’’, ‘‘standard of living’’, ‘‘safety and security’’, ‘‘available information’’, ‘‘cleanliness’’,
‘‘services’’, ‘‘entertainment’’, ‘‘nightlife’’, and ‘‘accessibilities’’. The fourth pretends to assess
the overall satisfaction they have, by means of the question to what extend are you satis?ed with
this visit to Lisbon, with a scale of ?ve points ranging from ‘‘1 – totally dissatis?ed’’ to ‘‘5 – very
satis?ed’’. Finally, socio-demographic questions were used to assess the pro?le of visitors.
In order to guarantee the validity and reliability, the survey design took into account the
relevant literature regarding the issues of satisfaction and motivations in general and in
cultural contexts (Dann, 1977; Crompton, 1979; Mo et al., 1993; Richards and Wilson, 2004;
Ryan and Trauer, 2005). A pilot survey was conducted among a group of 50 tourists to
ensure the validity of data. The questionnaire was translated by native speakers to English,
German and French and applied at the Lisbon Airport, Portugal. Moreover, to ensure
precision and con?dence in data, the sample was strati?ed according to the airport data of
the previous year. The survey took place in December 2008, using a strati?ed random
sample by country of birth, namely British, Nordic, Benelux and USA visitors. The strati?ed
sample obtained was in close accordance with the departing number of passengers at
Lisbon airport in the previous year. Given this, the study ensured that tourists approached
were representative of the four main markets visiting Lisbon. To qualify for participation,
respondents were expected to have spent at least two nights in Lisbon and have had visited
cultural places during their stays.
Data analysis
A total of 323 of usable questionnaires were coded for data analysis representing a response
rate of 81.0 per cent, and a sampling error of 5.45 per cent, which is an acceptable standard
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 415
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
according to Dillman (1978). This results in a ratio of satisfaction items to the number of
cases greater than 1:10 as recommended by Nunnally (1978). Data analysis involved an
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) followed by a CFA. A CFA was performed as complement
with the survey items to evaluate the validity of the study for motivations and satisfaction
scales. The following step aims to determine if the factors of satisfaction extracted were able
to explain tourists overall assessment about the destination. Given that, the model presents
the standardized regression weights, identifying the main contributing components of
satisfaction to explain the overall satisfaction. The results obtained with the CFA and the
existence of positive correlations between motivations and satisfaction items allows the
analysis by estimating a structural equation model that shaped the relationship of the
satisfaction factors with overall satisfaction.
Results
Table I presents the demographic pro?les of the respondents. A Kruskal-Wallis test were
performed to test for the independence of sample within age groups, income groups,
employment and civil status, education levels and even for gender groups. The Kruskal-Wallis
statistic measures how much the group satisfaction ranks differ from the average satisfaction
rank of all groups. The results show that although there are socio-demographic differences
across tourists visiting Lisbon the level of satisfaction within social groups do not differ,
meaning that the analysis should be performed for the whole sample.
The research considered the normality and correlation among variables as the two essential
requirements to perform a factor analysis. The SPSS Q-Q plot con?rms that the set of
variables of the research are normally distributed. The Bartlett test of Sphericity (3003.067;
p ¼ 0.000) and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO ¼ 0.879) indicate that the data contain a
satisfactory correlation among motivation items. In the same sense, the satisfaction factors
Table I Sample characterization and relationship with satisfaction
Kruskal-Wallis test based on satisfaction
ranks
Characterization % x
2
df p
Gender 0.009 1 0.925
Male 55.2
Female 44.8
Age 0.691 2 0.708
Less than 30 years old 20.0
30 up to 45 years old 38.3
More than 45 years old 41.7
Education level 1.5 1 0.221
Undergraduate 24.2
Graduate 75.8
Social status 3.031 2 0.220
Single 29.3
Married/living together 60.5
Divorced/widowed 10.2
Employment 0.948 2 0.622
Employed 78.8
Unemployed 9.3
Retired 12.9
Average salary 0.255 3 0.972
Less than 2,000e 15.2
2,001e to 3,500e 25.2
3,501e to 5,000e 20.2
5,001e to 8,000e 13.6
More than 8,000e 10.3
Other 15.6
PAGE 416
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
present a Bartlett test of Sphericity (4833.980; p ¼ 0.000) and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
(KMO ¼ 0.925) containing a satisfactory correlation to perform a factor analysis.
Exploratory factor analyses
An EFA was performed to derive the motivation and satisfaction factors structure with a
varimax rotation. The study utilized ten pull and 13 push items to evaluate motivations and
satisfaction, with an eigenvalue and a scree plot to determine the number of factors that
should be extracted. In both cases, the result was a three-factor solution accounting to
explain 76.7 per cent of the motivation factor and 85.7 per cent of the total data variance
regarding satisfaction. Therefore, similar factor structures arose from motivations and
satisfaction, as Tables II and III demonstrate.
The set of variables comprised in each factor gives paths for labelling it. The ?rst factor
groups the desires of exclusiveness such as: ‘‘to do what others have not done’’ (Kim and
Prideaux, 2005), ‘‘adventure’’, as well as ‘‘experience the unexpected’’. This is in
accordance with Lew (1987) who argues that these resources are the major elements of a
destination that attracts tourists such as: ‘‘the natural environment that can be observed’’,
‘‘the activities that can be carried out’’, and ‘‘the experiences that can be recalled’’. It
Table II EFA results for motivations
Loading
values Mean SD
% variance
explained
Cronbach’s
a
Novelty 16.084 0.815
To experience unexpected 0.868 2.88 0.974
To have an adventure 0.863 2.94 0.982
To do what others have not done 0.800 2.86 0.919
Knowledge 16.313 0.815
To learn about art 0.734 2.97 1.026
To learn about culture 0.714 2.57 1.486
To learn about music 0.699 2.16 1.292
To learn about urban design 0.728 2.30 1.438
Facilities 25.248 0.898
Safety and security 0.835 2.25 1.377
Cleanliness 0.865 2.30 1.358
Available information 0.832 2.25 1.331
Entertainment 0.757 2.11 1.239
Table III EFA results for satisfaction
Loading
values Mean SD
% variance
explained
Cronbach’s
a
Novelty 17.887 0.864
To experience unexpected 0.818 1.82 1.182
To have an adventure 0.717 1.87 1.174
To do what others have not done 0.754 1.69 1.105
Knowledge 24.227 0.945
To learn about art 0.788 2.07 1.336
To learn about culture 0.779 2.15 1.377
To learn about music 0.805 1.94 1.260
To learn about urban design 0.832 2.04 1.334
Facilities 23.420 0.941
Safety and security 0.801 1.99 1.271
Cleanliness 0.799 1.98 1.241
Available information 0.799 1.95 1.241
Entertainment 0.720 1.94 1.232
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 417
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
accounts to explain 16.084 per cent of total data variance and points out the desire of novelty
attained to the destination choice, as presented by Lee and Crompton (1992).
The culture-based attributes grouped under the category of ‘‘knowledge’’ and considered
based on the evaluation of previous studies (Andersen et al., 1997; Janiskee, 1996; Huh and
Uysal, 2003; So?eld and Li, 1998) account to explain 16.313 per cent of total data variance.
This factor groups the desires of learning by cultural live experiences (Richards, 1996). In
this sense, ‘‘to learn about art’’ (0.734) and ‘‘to learn about urban design’’ (0.728) are the
most desired knowledge tourists are willing to have. The list of items comprised in this factor
can be directly related to the particular characteristics of the city. The lower loading factors,
but not less important, include ‘‘to learn about music’’ (0.699), and ‘‘to learn about culture’’
(0.714). At another level, the data analysis points out one more dimension (facilities)
concerning the tourists’ perceptions of the destination. This dimension explains 25.248 per
cent of total variance of data. In this case, the attribute of ‘‘destination cleanliness’’ receives
the highest loading (0.865). This factor structure can be considered as similar to the ?ndings
of Beerli and Mart? ´n (2004) although with different loading values which may be due to the
fact that the destination image is related to the speci?c geographic context of the
destination, as well as to the tourists’ particular psychological predisposition.
In the case of satisfaction, the attributes intend to undertake to what extent tourists are able
to achieve their desires as well as how the destination has the appropriate attributes to
con?rm tourist expectations. As Table III exhibits, the three factor solutions explain 65.5 per
cent of the total data variance where the constructs of ‘‘facilities’’ (23.420 per cent) and
‘‘knowledge’’ (24.227 per cent) are remained as the most important variables. Regarding the
three items loaded in the construct of ‘‘facilities, safety and security’’ (0.801) are the most
important factors to facilitate tourists in achieving their desires. Tourists also perceive
‘‘cleanliness’’ (0.799) and ‘‘available information’’ (0.799) as the most determinant items. In
the case of the knowledge factor, ‘‘learn about urban design’’ (0.832) and ‘‘learn about
music’’ (0.805) appear as the more relevant factors contributing to allow tourists’
con?rmation of their expectations. Out of all attributes, entertainment and adventure are the
less important items to con?rm expectations which suggest that overall satisfaction is the
sum of rational and emotional of tourists. Furthermore, the internal consistency of the factors
measured by the corresponding Cronbach’s a coef?cients in both cases are good enough to
precede with the analysis, since all factors presented on Tables II and III are loaded with
values superior to 0.6.
Con?rmatory factor analysis
The CFA was carried out with the survey items previously utilized to perform EFA to con?rm
and evaluate the validity of the study in the scales of both satisfaction and motivations. The
CFA results present an acceptable ?t (x
2
¼93; df ¼ 53; p ¼ 0.001; RMSEA ¼ 0.049;
CFI ¼ 0.959; RMR ¼ 0.071; GFI ¼ 0.959; AGFI ¼ 0.918). The following step to assess the ?t
of the individual parameters in a model is to determine the viability of their estimated values.
Also, the indicators’ loadings ?t well with the respective factors. Since all the items are
loaded on their designated factors and substantially explained by the latent factors, it can be
concluded that the relationship between push and pull satisfaction variables as well as the
three latent factors can be empirically con?rmed. Table IV demonstrates the amount of
variance extracted for each single construct is higher than the minimum 0.50, as suggested
by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The lower construct AVE is ‘‘novelty’’ (0.88) demonstrating
that the reliability of all constructs exceeds the suggested minimum level. Furthermore,
Table V con?rms that the correlation between motivation and satisfaction constructs is
signi?cant and positive. This suggests that tourists assess destinations throughout their
motivations.
Structural equation model
The structural equation model explores the contribution of the four factors identi?ed to
explain the parameters of overall satisfaction. This step indicates acceptable results
regarding the goodness ?t of the measures (x
2
¼83.737, p ¼ 0.000, df ¼ 63). Also, the other
indices demonstrate that data ?t well with the model (RMSEA ¼ 0.043, CFI ¼ 0.933,
PAGE 418
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
RMR ¼ 0.066, GFI ¼ 0.958, AGFI ¼ 0.921). As shown in Figure 1, the three factor solutions
present similar loading coef?cients. Despite the similar importance of the factors to explain
overall satisfaction, results justify that ‘‘knowledge’’ (0.725) is the most important variable.
This result is in accordance with the ?ndings of Richards and Wilson (2004) suggesting that
cultural tourism is to be sold as a living experience. Thus, as mentioned above, this may
re?ect the geographical speci?c context of tourism. These ?ndings suggest that tourists
Table IV Con?rmatory factor analysis
Estimate Error variance AVE
Facilities
Entertainment 0.909 0.174
Available information 0.891 0.206
Cleanliness 0.938 0.120
Safety and security 0.936 0.124
Total 0.044 0.956
Knowledge
Experience art 0.943 0.111
Experience city culture 0.905 0.181
Experience local music 0.928 0.139
Experience city urban design 0.888 0.211
Total 0.046 0.954
Novelty
Experience the unexpected 0.818 0.331
Experience doing what others have not done 0.811 0.342
Have an adventure 0.900 0.190
Total 0.119 0.881
Table V Correlation within constructs
Motivations
Satisfaction Facilities Knowledge Novelty Macro environment
Knowledge 0.125* 0.524** 20.214** 0.207**
Facilities 0.418** 0.142** 20.083 0.146**
Novelty 0.044 20.017 0.144** 20.047
Note: Signi?cant at: *p , 0.05 and **p , 0.01
Figure 1 Satisfaction structure
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 419
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
visiting a cultural destination for vacations are devoted to ful?ll their personal and intrinsic
interests since the most important items loaded in the dimension of ‘‘knowledge’’ are ‘‘to
learn about urban design’’ (0.879) and ‘‘to learn about culture’’ (0.838).
Therefore, the importance of ‘‘cultural knowledge’’ suggests that tourists visiting Lisbon
appear to perceive the existent culture and heritage as meaningful and ‘‘authentic’’ able to
ful?ll their desires of cultural experiences. This ?nding has the suf?cient empirical evidence
to indicate that cultural tourists particularly look for erudite destinations that allow ful?lling
their personal or intrinsic interests. As Richards (1996, p. 262) states, ‘‘cultural tourists are in
fact highly selective in their consumption of heritage resources’’. The second most important
dimension to explain overall satisfaction is ‘‘facilities’’ (0.615) loaded also with four items
where ‘‘safety and security’’ (0.848) and ‘‘cleanliness’’ (0.844) are the most critical values.
On the other hand, the less relevant items are ‘‘entertainment’’ (0.710) and ‘‘available
information’’ (0.684). This is in accordance with the studies of Olsen (2003) and Giese and
Cote (2000) that mention satisfaction as the costumer evaluation of a particular experience,
service or episode. The last factor contributing to overall satisfaction is ‘‘novelty’’ (0.569),
comprising the three items where ‘‘to do what others have not done’’ is the most critical item
(0.659), followed by ‘‘experience the unexpected’’ (0.647) and ‘‘have an adventure’’ (0.646).
This result is parallel to the study of Rojek (1993) since the spectacular is no longer in the
postmodern consumption the suf?cient basis for a tourism attraction. In this case, tourists’
ful?lment of desires goes further than the sense of uniqueness and unexpected.
Conclusion and implications
This study has been designed to provide measures of tourists’ overall satisfaction through a
CFA and structural equation analyses considering both theories: expectancy and desire
congruencies. The EFA demonstrates that only 11 push and pull motivations are grouped to
explain the complex construct of overall satisfaction. The CFA reveals that the postulated
model ?ts the data well. Thus, it suggests that the factors represented are critical
determinants of overall satisfaction. Through the importance of satisfaction and overall
satisfaction over the critical success of destinations, ?ndings can be considered as the
relevant. Study ?ndings reveal that both expectancy and desire congruencies are the
meaningful determinants of the individuals’ behaviors towards vacations. Furthermore, it
demonstrates the number of signi?cant dimensions and factors that contribute to satisfy
tourists visiting a cultural city.
The results of the standardized regression coef?cients of SEM presented provide some
interesting conclusions. The standardized regression coef?cients show that the more relevant
indicators in the dimension of ‘‘knowledge’’ which is not surprising if we think about the
speci?cities of Lisbon, an old town where in the historical quarters Fado is sung all night long.
Furthermore, results are in accordance with the proposition of Goeldner et al. (2000) indicating
that tourists are mainly motivated by the desire of learning and being educated about the
destination through organizing several festivals and events. The construct of ‘‘novelty’’
corroborates the results of the study carried out by Rojek (1993) since it assumes that in a
postmodern pattern of consumption destinations need to have peculiar characteristics that
goes beyond the undistinguished tourism attractions. In the same way, the construct of
‘‘facilities’’ con?rms that overall satisfaction is a reaction of the sum of experiences, services
and encounters that tourists have during their vacations (Kozak and Rimmington, 2000).
From a theoretical perspective, the study contributes to the literature in two major directions.
First, the present study is one of few works that attempt to develop a scale to measure
satisfaction issues through the use of an adaptation of push and pull motivations. Second,
results demonstrate that all the factors present high loading values competing to explain
overall satisfaction. Such empirical evidence has of the value to propose that the functional
attributes contribute to satisfy the most intrinsic desires of learning about a culture, art or
even the famous traditional music Fado in a balance novelty. Thus, several attributes
contributing to distinct factors are willing to be grouped under the same theoretical umbrella
when tourists draw the evaluation of overall satisfaction, e.g. tangibles (entertainment), and
intangibles (learn about music, art or museums).
PAGE 420
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This study also comprises various methodological limitations mainly concerning the sample
size that was restricted to 323 cases as well as it only considers the cultural city of Lisbon.
Thus, to improve and enhance the model, future works should consider a comparison
between multiple cultural destinations. Future research may comprise a broader time
window to undertake the possible variation of data. Nevertheless, the contribution of this
research to the body of knowledge includes developing a multidimensional factor structure
of overall satisfaction that comprises expectations and desires. At the methodological level,
this study represents a step forward to understand and predict tourist behaviour. Tourism
scholars and practitioners should be aware that there is a need to consider further studies to
develop more effective measurement scales to assess the considered constructs. For
instance, the suggested assessment of overall satisfaction can be better to measure overall
satisfaction by considering the idea of equity theory (Olivier and Swan, 1989).
References
Alegre, J. and Cladera, M. (2009), ‘‘Analysing the effect of satisfaction and previous visits on tourist
intentions to return’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 Nos 5/6, pp. 670-685.
Alegre, J. and Garau, J. (2010), ‘‘Tourist satisfaction and dissatisfaction’’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 52-73.
Andersen, V., Prentice, R. and Guerin, S. (1997), ‘‘Imagery of Denmark among visitors to Danish ?ne arts
exhibitions in Scotland’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 453-464.
Barbeau, J.B. (1985), ‘‘Predictive and normative expectations in consumer satisfaction: a utilization of
adaptation and comparison levels in a uni?ed framework’’, in Keith, H. and Day, R. (Eds), Conceptual
and Empirical Contributions to Consumer Satisfaction and Complaining Behavior, School of Business,
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, pp. 27-32.
Beerli, A. and Mart? ´n, J. (2004), ‘‘Factors in?uencing destination image’’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 657-681.
Bitner, M.J. and Hubert, A.R. (1994), ‘‘Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfaction versus quality:
the customer’s voice’’, in Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and
Practice, Sage, London, pp. 72-94.
Bultena, G.L. and Klessig, L.L. (1969), ‘‘Satisfaction in camping: a conceptualization and guide to social
research’’, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 348-355.
Chaudhary, M. (2000), ‘‘India’s image as a tourist destination: a perspective of foreign tourists’’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 293-297.
Chon, K.S. and Olsen, M. (1991), ‘‘Functional and symbolic congruity approaches to consumer
satisfaction/dissatisfaction in tourism’’, Journal of the International Academy of Hospitality Research,
Vol. 3, pp. 2-20.
Correia, A. and Moital, M. (2008), ‘‘The antecedents and consequences of prestige motivation in
tourism: an expectancy-value motivation’’, in Kozak, M. and Decrop, A. (Eds), Handbook of Tourism
Behaviour: Theory & Practice, Routledge, New York, NY.
Correia, A. and Pimpa˜ o, A. (2008), ‘‘Decision-making processes of Portuguese tourist travelling to South
America and Africa’’, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 2 No. 4,
pp. 1750-6182.
Correia, A., Valle, P. and Moc¸ o, C. (2007), ‘‘Modelling motivations and perceptions of Portuguese
tourists’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60, pp. 76-80.
Crompton, J.L. (1979), ‘‘Accessing of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination and the in?uence of
geographical location upon that image’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 18-23.
Czepiel, J.A. and Rosenberg, L.J. (1974), ‘‘The study of consumer satisfaction’’, AMA Educators’
Proceedings, American Marketing Association, pp. 119-123.
Dann, G. (1977), ‘‘Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 184-194.
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 421
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Dann, G. (1978), ‘‘Tourist satisfaction a highly complex variable’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 5,
pp. 440-443.
Dann, G. (1981), ‘‘Tourist motivation: an appraisal’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 187-219.
del Bosque, I.R. and Mart? ´n, H.S. (2008), ‘‘Tourist satisfaction: a cognitive-affective model’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 551-573.
Dillman, D.A. (1978), Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method, Wiley, New York, NY.
Duke, C.R. and Persia, M.A. (1996), ‘‘Performance-importance analysis of escorted tour evaluations’’,
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 207-223.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), ‘‘Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Funk, D.C. and Bruun, T.J. (2007), ‘‘The role of socio-psychological and culture-education motives in
marketing international sport tourism: a cross-cultural perspective’’, TourismManagement, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 806-819.
Giese, J.L. and Cote, J.A. (2000), ‘‘De?ning consumer satisfaction’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 19, pp. 24-41.
Goeldner, C.R., Ritchie, J.R.B. and MacIntosh, R.W. (2000), Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Gonzalez, M.E.A., Comesana, L.R. and Brea, J.A.F. (2007), ‘‘Assessing tourist behavioral intentions
through perceived service quality and customer satisfaction’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60
No. 2, pp. 153-160.
Goossens, C. (2000), ‘‘Tourism information and pleasure motivation’’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 301-321.
Haley, R.J. (1968), ‘‘Bene?t segmentation: a decision-oriented research tool’’, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 32, July, pp. 30-35.
Hughes, H. and Allen, D. (2005), ‘‘Cultural tourism in Central and Eastern Europe: the views of ‘induced
image formation agents’’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 173-183.
Huh, J. and Uysal, M. (2003), ‘‘Satisfaction with cultural/heritage sites: Virginia historic triangle’’, Journal
of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 4 Nos 3/4, pp. 177-194.
Ibrahim, E.E. and Gill, J. (2005), ‘‘A positioning strategy for a tourist destination, based on analysis of
customers’ perceptions and satisfactions’’, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 172-188.
INE (2009), Handbook of Tourism Statistics, National Statistics Board, Lisboa.
Janiskee, R. (1996), ‘‘Historic houses and special events’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 398-414.
Jones, M.A. and Suh, J. (2000), ‘‘Transaction-speci?c satisfaction and overall satisfaction: an empirical
analysis’’, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 147-159.
Joppe, M., Martin, D.W. and Waalen, J. (2001), ‘‘Toronto’s image as a destination: a comparative
importance-satisfaction analysis by origin of visitor’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39 No. 3,
pp. 252-260.
Kim, S. and Prideaux, B. (2005), ‘‘Marketing implications arising from a comparative study of
international pleasure tourist motivations and other travel-related characteristics of visitors to Korea’’,
Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 347-357.
Kozak, M. (2001), ‘‘Comparative assessment of tourist satisfaction with destinations across two
nationalities’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 391-401.
Kozak, M. (2002), ‘‘Comparative analysis of tourist motivations by nationality and destinations’’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 221-232.
Kozak, M. and Rimmington, M. (2000), ‘‘Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season
holiday destination’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 260-269.
PAGE 422
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Kozak, M., Bigne, E. and Andreu, L. (2003), ‘‘Limitations of cross-cultural customer satisfaction research
and recommending alternative methods’’, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 4
Nos 3/4, pp. 37-59.
LaTour, S. and Peat, N. (1979), ‘‘Conceptual and methodological issues in consumer satisfaction
research’’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, pp. 431-437.
Lee, T.-H. and Crompton, J.L. (1992), ‘‘Measuring novelty seeking in tourism’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 19, pp. 732-751.
Lew, A. (1987), ‘‘A framework of tourist attractions research’’, Annals of TourismResearch, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 553-575.
Liu, Y. and Hsu, H. (2010), ‘‘Identifying the factor structure of customer satisfaction with public leisure
services’’, International Journal of Leisure and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 288-303.
Maoz, D. (2007), ‘‘Backpackers’ motivations the role of culture and nationality’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 122-140.
Mo, C., Howard, D. and Havitz, M. (1993), ‘‘Testing an international tourist role typology’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 319-335.
Nield, K., Kozak, M. and LeGrys, G. (2000), ‘‘The role of food service in tourist satisfaction’’, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 375-384.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Nuryanti, W. (1996), ‘‘Heritage and postmodern tourism’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 249-260.
Oliver, R. (1980), ‘‘A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequents of satisfaction decisions’’,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-469.
Oliver, R. (1993), ‘‘Cognitive, affective and attribute bases of the satisfaction response’’, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 20, December, pp. 418-430.
Olivier, R. and Swan, J. (1989), ‘‘Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and satisfaction in
transaction: a ?eld survey approach’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 21-35.
Olsen, M. (2003), ‘‘Tourism themed routes: a Queensland perspective’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing,
Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 331-341.
Olson, J. and Dover, P. (1979), ‘‘Discon?rmation of consumer expectations through product trial’’,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 179-189.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), ‘‘SERVQUAL: a multiple itemscale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
Payne, J., Bettman, J. and Johnson, E. (1993), The Adaptive Decision Maker, Cambridge University
Press, New York, NY.
Peter, J.P. and Olson, J. (2009), Consumer Behaviour, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Pizam, A. and Milman, A. (1993), ‘‘Predicting satisfaction among ?rst time visitors to a destination by
using the expectancy discon?rmation theory’’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 197-209.
Pizam, A., Neuman, Y. and Reichel, A. (1978), ‘‘Dimensions of tourist satisfaction with destination area’’,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 314-322.
Reiss, S. (2004), ‘‘Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: the theory of 16 basic desires’’, Review of
General Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 179-193.
Richards, G. (1996), ‘‘Production and consumption of European cultural tourism’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 261-283.
Richards, G. and Wilson, J. (2004), ‘‘The impact of cultural events on city image: Rotterdam cultural
capital of Europe 2001’’, Urban Studies, Vol. 41 No. 10, pp. 1931-1951.
Rojek, C. (1993), Ways of Escape: Modern Transformations in Leisure and Travel, Macmillan,
Basingstoke.
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 423
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Ryan, C. and Trauer, B. (2005), ‘‘Visitor experiences of indigenous tourism: introduction’’, in Ryan, C. and
Aicken, M. (Eds), Indigenous Tourism: The Commodi?cation and Management of Culture, Elsevier,
Oxford, pp. 223-245.
Sirgy, J.M. (1984), ‘‘A social cognition model of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction’’, Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 1, Summer, pp. 27-43.
So?eld, T. and Li, F. (1998), ‘‘Tourism development and cultural policies in China’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 25, pp. 362-392.
Song, H., Van der Veen, L. and Chen, J. (2011), ‘‘Assessing mainland Chinese tourists’ satisfaction with
Hong Kong using the tourist satisfaction index’’, International Journal of TourismResearch, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 82-96.
Spreng, R. and Dixon, A. (1992), ‘‘Alternative comparison standards in the formation of consumer
satisfaction/dissatisfaction’’, in Leone, R. and Kumar, V. (Eds), Enhancing Knowledge Development in
Marketing 1992 Educators Proceedings, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 85-91.
Spreng, R.A. and Olshavsky, R.W. (1993), ‘‘A desires congruency model of consumer satisfaction’’,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 169-177.
Spreng, R.A., Mankenzie, S.B. and Olshavsky, R.W. (1996), ‘‘A re-examination of the determinants of
consumer satisfaction’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 15-32.
Swan, J., Trawick, F. and Carroll, G. (1981), ‘‘Satisfaction related to predictive, desired expectations: a
?eld study’’, in Day, R. and Hunt, K. (Eds), New Findings on Consumer Satisfaction and Complaining
Behavior, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, pp. 15-22.
Uysal, M. and Jurowski, C. (1994), ‘‘Testing the push and pull factors’’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 844-846.
Westbrook, R.A. and Reilly, M.D. (1983), ‘‘Value-percept disparity: an alternative to the discon?rmation
of expectations theory of consumer satisfaction’’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10,
pp. 256-261.
Yoon, Y. and Uysal, M. (2005), ‘‘An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on
destination loyalty: a structural model’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 45-56.
Z
?
abkar, V., Brenc? ic? , M. and Dmitrovic´ , T. (2010), ‘‘Modelling perceived quality, visitor satisfaction and
behavioural intentions at the destination level’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 537-546.
Corresponding author
Metin Kozak can be contacted at: [email protected]
PAGE 424
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2013
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Soung-hoon Yang, Mun-yong Choi. 2015. Popular Song's Lyrics as Tourism Language: Focusing on Exoticism. Journal of
the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society 16, 3778-3786. [CrossRef]
2. Norkamaliah Shahrin, Ahmad Puad Mat Som, Jamil Jusoh. 2014. Long Journey Travel to Tourist Destination: A Review
Paper. SHS Web of Conferences 12, 01099. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_218047935.pdf