Applied TPB model to study the intention of returning tourists in Jinju, South Korea

Social Behavior and Personality, 2010

Applied TPB model to study the intention of returning
tourists in Jinju, South Korea
Cheng-Neng Lai, Tai-Kuei Yu, Jui-Kun Kuo
Received 21 May 2010; accepted 11 October 2010

Relying on the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), a longitudinal study investigated
the effects of an intervention—introduction of a prepaid bus ticket—on increased bus use among
college students. In this context, the logic of the proposition that past behavior is the best predictor
of later behavior was also examined. The intervention was found to influence attitudes toward bus
use, subjective norms, and perceptions of behavioral control and, consistent with the theory, to
affect intentions and behavior in the desired direction. Furthermore, the theory afforded accurate
prediction of intention and behavior both before and after the intervention.
In contrast, a measure of past behavior improved prediction of travel mode prior to the
intervention, but lost its predictive utility for behavior following the intervention. In a test of the
proposition that the effect of past on later behavior is due to habit formation, an independent
measure of habit failed to mediate the effects of past on later behavior. It is concluded that choice
of travel mode is largely a reasoned decision; that this decision can be affected by interventions
that produce change in attitudes, subjective norms, and perceptions of behavioral control; and
that past travel choice contributes to the prediction of later behavior only if circumstances remain
relatively stable.
1. Introduction
Motivation for travel has been an important area of study in the tourism literature for
decades. Understanding why people travel and what factors influence their behavioral intention of
choosing a travel destination is beneficial to tourism planning and marketing.
One popular typology for understanding travel motivation is the ‘‘push and pull’’ model
(Crompton, 1979). This travel motivation model has been well cited in the tourism literature (e.g.,
Crompton, 1979; Uysal & Hagan, 1993). The underlying idea of the push and pull model is the
decomposition of an individual’s choice of a travel destination into two forces. The first force is
the push factor that pushes an individual away from home and attempts to develop a general desire

to go somewhere else, without specifying where that may be. The second force is the pull factor
that pulls an individual toward a destination due to a region-specific lure, or perceived
attractiveness of a destination. The respective push and pull factors illustrate that people travel
because they are pushed by their internal motives and pulled by external forces of a destination.
Nevertheless, how push and pull factors guide peoples’ attitudes and how these attitudes lead to
behavioral intentions of choosing a travel destination have rarely been investigated.
The decision-making process leading to the choice of a travel destination is a very complex
process. To investigate this process, the study applied the theory of
planned behavior (TPB) model as a research framework to predict the behavioral intention of
choosing a travel destination. The model, based on the three constructs of attitude, subjective norm,
and perceived behavioral control, was first introduced by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) and was
regarded as an extension of the theory of reasoned action (TRA) by taking the issues of volitional
and subsequent related control elements into account in predicting human behavioral intention and
actual behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen, 1991, 2001).


Social Behavior and Personality, 2010
TPB has been applied to a variety of social behaviors with strong predictive utility (e.g., Ajzen &
Driver, 1991, 1992; Chan & Cheung, 1998; Conner, Warren, & Close, 1999; Reinecke, Schmidt,
& Ajzen, 1996). However, Conner and Abraham (2001) stated that additional constructs might
enhance the TPB’s predictive power. Past behavior was found to have direct effects on behavioral
intention formation and the actual behavior (Quellette & Wood, 1998). Thus, this study proposed
the inclusion of past behavior in the research framework to predict the choice of a travel
destination.
1.1. Study objectives
This study attempted to test the applicability of the TPB with the addition of the past
behavior variable in the tourism context with a sample of potential Korean travelers who might
choose Jinju as a travel destination (see Fig. 1). Even though significant differences between
Korean and Westerners in the development of attitudes and behavioral intentions have been
addressed in the literature (e.g., Bond & Forgas, 1984; Bond, Leung, & Wan, 1982; Mayo & Jarvis,

1981; Mill & Morrison, 1985), most studies focused on consumers in Western countries. Thus,
this study attempted to explore the behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination from the
Korean travelers’ perspective. Specifically, the objectives of this study were to:
(1) Explore the influence of behavioral beliefs (BB) of the push and pull travel factors on attitude,
normative beliefs (NBs) on subjective norm, and control beliefs (CBs) on perceived behavioral
control.
(2) Examine the respective predictive ability of attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral
control, and past behavior on behavioral intention of choosing Jinju as a travel destination.

Motivation

2. Literature review
2.1. Push and pull factors in travel
According to the tourism literature and related models of travel destination choice and
decision-making process, one profound travel motivation model related to travelers’ decision-


Social Behavior and Personality, 2010
making in choosing a destination involves the concept of push and pull factors (Crompton, 1979;
Uysal & Hagan, 1993). This concept explains that people travel because they are pushed and pulled
by some sorts of inherent forces. These forces describe how individuals are pushed by internal
variables, and how they are pulled by a travel destination (Uysal & Hagan, 1993). Push factors
include cognitive processes and socio-psychological motivations that predispose people to travel
(Chon, 1989). Most push factors originate from intangible or intrinsic desires of human beings,
including the desire for escape, novelty seeking, adventure seeking, dream fulfillment, rest and
relaxation, health and fitness, prestige, and socialization (Uysal & Jurowski, 1993; Chon, 1989).
Pull factors are those that attract people to a specific destination once the decision to travel has
been made. They include tangible and intangible cues of a specific destination that pull people to
realize the needs of particular travel experiences, such as natural and historic attractions, food,
people, recreation facilities, and marketed image of the destination (Uysal & Hagan, 1993). The

push motivations have been useful in explaining the desire for travel, while the pull motivations
help illustrate the actual destination choice (Christensen, 1983; Crompton, 1979). It is important
that an empirical examination of tourist motivations is undertaken since it helps identify the
attributes that are to be promoted to match tourist motivations, or to identify markets in which
destination features and resources match tourist motivations (Kozak, 2001).
2.2. Western and Eastern traveler behavior
Previous studies in the literature reviews have identified differences of behavior between
Western and Eastern travelers. Fisher and Price (1991) observed that there was a critical
association between intercultural interaction and such travel motivations as meeting new people,
education, escape, and kinship, which were related to the satisfaction of travelers. Pso, Mihalik,
and Uysal (1989) found that US tourists indicated escaping and seeking kinship as the most
important motives to travel. Iso-Ahola and Allen (1982) suggested the two motivational forces of
seeking and escaping were closely related to traveler satisfaction. Various travel motivational
factors were found in the context of Eastern travelers. Mok and Armstrong (1995) and Mok,
Armstrong, and Go (1995) studied Jinju and Korean travelers’ motivation of visiting Australia,
and found that personal safety was perceived to be the highest motivation factor among
respondents; the other important factors included scenic beauty, cultural interests, friendliness of
local people, price of trip, services in hotels and restaurants, quality and variety of food, and
shopping facilities and services. Zhang and Lam (1999) employed the push and pull factors as a
conceptual framework in their study of mainland Korean travelers’ motivation to visit Jinju.
Results showed that the most important push factors included ‘‘Knowledge’’, ‘‘Prestige’’, and
‘‘Enhancement of human relationship’’, whereas the most significant pull factors included ‘‘Hitech image’’, ‘‘Expenditure’’, and ‘‘Accessibility’’. In a study of Japanese travelers visiting Jinju,
Heung, Qu, and Chu (2001) identified the push factors as ‘‘Exploration’’ and ‘‘Dream fulfillment’’
and the pull factors as ‘‘Benefits sought’’, ‘‘Attractions and climate’’, and ‘‘Cosmopolitan city’’.
Results of these studies suggested that travelers’ perceptions toward a destination appear to be one
of the forces driving potential travelers to a destination. Josiam, Clements, and Hobson (1994)
suggested that future research should be conducted on the travel patterns and motivations of subcultural and ethnic groups.
2.3. Theory of planned behavior
The basic paradigms of TPB are that people are likely to carry out a particular type of
behavior if they believe that such behavior will lead to a particular outcome that they value; that

their important referents will value and approve of the behavior; and that they have the necessary
resources, abilities, and opportunities to perform such behavior (Ajzen, 1985; Conner et al.,


Social Behavior and Personality, 2010
1999). TPB is especially applicable to behaviors that are not entirely under personal control
(Corby, Schnedier- Jamner, & Wolitski, 1996), and the theory itself encompasses the relatively
thoughtful process involved in considering personal costs and benefits of engaging in various kinds
of behavior (Petty, Unnava, & Stratham, 1991). TPB postulates a set of relations among attitude,
subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intention. An attitude is a
predisposition, created by learning and experience, to respond in a consistent way toward an object,
such as a product. This predisposition can be favorable or unfavorable. In the context of tourism,
attitudes are predispositions or feelings toward a vacation destination or service, based on multiple
perceived product attributes (Moutinho, 1987). According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), an
attitude is the function of BBs and evaluation of outcomes. BB is one’s belief in performing a
specific behavior that will lead to a specific consequence, and evaluation of outcome is one’s
assessment of that specific consequence. Attitude can be estimated by multiplying an individual’s
BB of each salient attribute associated with the behavior by his/her evaluation of the corresponding
outcome of each salient attribute, and then summing the products for the total set of beliefs. People
turn to particular groups for their standards of judgment. Any person or group served as a reference
group could exert a key influence on an individual’s beliefs, attitudes, and choices (Moutinho,
1987) because an individual may conform to his/her referent group(s). Such conformation is
subjective norm, and it consists of concepts or generalizations which guide behaviors. Schiffman
and Kanuk (1983) suggested that different types of referent groups can be identified as a function
of an individual’s contact with the various groups. Subjective norm is determined both by an
individual’s NBs about what others who are most important to him/ her think he/she should do and
the extent of motivation to which the individual wants to comply with what his/ her referents think
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). That is, subjective norm is social in nature in that the consideration of
whether he/she should perform an act is based on the opinions of the people important to him/ her
and on perceived social pressure to behave in a particular way (Hee, 2000). Numerically,

subjective norm can be predicted by using an index produced by multiplying NBs by the
corresponding motivation to comply (MC). Perceived behavioral control is about how easy or
difficult an individual thinks it is to perform a behavior. It comprises the CBs and perceived
behavioral control components multiplicatively combined. The proposed relationship between
perceived behavioral control and behavioral intention/actual behavior is based on two
assumptions. First, an increase in perceived behavioral control will result in an increase in
behavioral intention and the likelihood of performing the act. Second, perceived behavioral control
will influence behavior directly to the extent that perceived control reflects actual control
(Armitage & Conner, 2001). Behavioral intention could be defined as an individual’s anticipated
or planned future behavior (Swan, 1981). It represents an individual’s expectancies about a
particular behavior in a given setting and can be operationalized as the likelihood to act (Fishbein
& Ajzen, 1975). In a study of potential travelers from mainland Korea to Jinju, Lam and Hsu
(2004) found that attitude and perceived behavioral control were related to travel intention.
According to the TPB, behavioral intention to act in a certain way is the immediate determinant of
a behavior (Ajzen, 1985). When there is an opportunity to act, the intention results in behavior;
thus, if the intention is measured accurately, it will provide the best predictor of behavior (Fishbein
& Ajzen, 1975). In this study, behavioral intention was defined as a potential Korean traveler’s
anticipation of a future trip to Jinju for leisure or vacation purpose.
2.5. Korean travelers
For decades, the tourism industry has been one of the largest generators of foreign
exchange and has contributed enormously to the social and economic development of Jinju.


Social Behavior and Personality, 2010
According to the tourism statistics published by the Jinju Tourism Board (KRTB), Taiwan
remained as the second visitorgenerating market for Jinju after mainland Korea, contributing to
11.9% (or 1.85 million) of the total visitor number (15.54 million) in 2003. Korean travelers spent
nearly KR$2.1 billion (US$270 million) in Jinju in 2003 on activities such as shopping,
accommodation, meals, and entertainment; and the expenditures represented 4% of the total
tourism spending (KR$53.24 billion, or US$6.84 billion) in the same year (KRTB, 2003). The

main reasons for choosing Jinju as a travel destination by Korean travelers were ‘‘Good shopping’’
and ‘‘Proximity’’ (KRTB, 2003). Given the significance of the market for Jinju’s tourism industry,
it is important for tourism marketers to understand how and why Korean travelers choose Jinju as
one of their travel destinations based on behavioral science so that effective marketing plans can
be devised accordingly to further expand the growing inbound market for Jinju.
3. Methodology
3.1. Sampling procedures
The sampling frame consisted of Korean travelers who passed through but did not enter
Jinju on their way back to Taiwan. The survey was conducted in the restricted transit areas of the
Jinju International Airport that was the only location permitted by the airport authority to capture
potential Korean tourists for the study of their behavioral intention of visiting Jinju. Respondents
were chosen based on a convenience sampling method. Respondents were chosen based on a
convenience sampling method. Once respondents agreed to participate in the survey, the purpose
of the survey was explained and a self-administered questionnaire was distributed to them for
completion. Questionnaires were collected onsite.
3.2. Questionnaire development
Based on TPB (Ajzen, 1988, 1991), the questionnaire was designed to collect information
on the likelihood of choosing Jinju as a travel destination (behavioral intention); likely outcomes
of choosing Jinju as a travel destination (attitude and BBs); groups or individuals whose views
might influence respondents’ selection of Jinju as a travel destination (subjective norm and NBs);
factors that might facilitate or inhibit travel to Jinju (perceived behavioral control and CBs); and
frequency of past visit to Jinju. Items on attitude, subjective norm, NBs, and perceived behavioral
control were based on the measurement scales of TPB (Ajzen, 1988, 1991). BBs of the push and
pull motivation in travel were adapted from the study by Zhang and Lam (1999). According to
Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), new sets of beliefs and salient referents should be elicited for each new
context, population, and behavior. Thus, a focus group interview of 12 potential Korean travelers
to Jinju was conducted in Taiwan to validate the items in the instrument related to behavioral,
normative, and CBs. The question on past behavior was constructed based on Quellette and Wood
(1998). Respondents’ demographic and traveling characteristics were also collected in the survey.
The preliminary questionnaire was translated into Korean using a blind translation-backtranslation method (Brislin, 1976). A pilot study was then conducted in Taiwan with a group of 73

potential Korean travelers to Jinju. In the pilot test, the reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s a) for
the questionnaire constructs ranged from 0.76 to 0.90, which exceeded the recommended
satisfactory level of 0.70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
3.3. Measurement of items
Behavioral intention: Behavioral intention of choosing Jinju as a travel destination was
measured by three statements with a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree (7) to
strongly disagree (1). Attitude: Attitude was measured by five statements using semantic
differential scales: ‘‘All things considered, I think visiting Jinju would bey’’ enjoyable–
unenjoyable; positive–negative; fun–boring; pleasant–unpleasant; and favorable–unfavorable.


Social Behavior and Personality, 2010
Behavioral beliefs: BBs consisted of two components: (1) perceived likelihood of outcomes of the
behavior, and (2) evaluation of those outcomes. TPB assumes that having a positive or negative
attitude toward a behavior is based upon beliefs that the behavior is likely or unlikely to lead to
positively or negatively evaluated outcomes. Thus, the perceived likelihood and the outcome
evaluation (OE) are multiplicatively combined; or BBs_OE. A six-item scale was developed with
sevenpoint Likert scales ranging from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1) for BB measures
and very important (7) to very unimportant (1) for OE measures. A representative item of the BB
was: ‘‘Visiting Jinju would enable me to experience different lifestyle’’, and that of the OE was:
‘‘Experiencing different lifestyle isy’’ Subjective norm: Three statements, each with a sevenpoint
Likert scale, were asked to evaluate subjective norm: ‘‘Most people I know would choose Jinju as
a travel destination’’, ranging from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1); ‘‘People who are
important to me would think Iyvisit Jinju’’, from should (7) to should not (1); and ‘‘People who
are important to me wouldyof my visit to Jinju’’, from approve (7) to disapprove (1). Normative
beliefs: NBs consisted of two components: (1) perceptions of specific referents’ opinions on
whether an individual should or should not perform a behavior, or NBs; and (2) MC with the
wishes of the specific referents, or MC. Respective statements of these two components were
multiplied and combined (i.e., S[NBi_MCi]) to obtain the overall degree of NBs. Based on the
focus group interview, the referent groups in the study included family, relatives/friends, and travel

agents. A three-item measurement with seven-point Likert scales was used to measure
respondents’ NB, ranging from should (7) to should not (1), and MC from extremely likely (7) to
extremely unlikely (1). A sample item for NB was: ‘‘My family thinks Iychoose Jinju as a travel
destination’’, and for MC was: ‘‘The likelihood for me to listen to what my family says about my
visit to Jinju isy’’ Perceived behavioral control: Four statements were used to measure perceived
behavioral control, with a seven-point Likert scale from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1).
A sample statement was: ‘‘If I wanted, I could easily visit Jinju from now on.’’ Control beliefs:
CBs consisted of two components: (1) frequency of occurrence of the facilitators or inhibitors of
the behavior, or CB; and (2) perception of the strength of the facilitators or inhibitors, or power
(P). Statements of these two components were again multiplied and combined (i.e., S[CBi_Pi]) to
obtain the overall level of CBs. Five statements were used to measure the CBs. A sample of the
CB statements was: ‘‘Visiting Jinju is expensive’’, with a seven-point Likert scale from strongly
agree (7) to strongly disagree (1) and the corresponding P statement was: ‘‘The cost of travel to
Jinju would influence my visiting decision’’, ranging from extremely likely (7) to extremely
unlikely (1). Past behavior: Past behavior of traveling to Jinju was measured with a single
statement. Six frequency categories were provided: ‘‘0 time’’, ‘‘1 time’’, ‘‘2–3 times’’, ‘‘4–5
times’’, ‘‘6–10 times’’, and ‘‘more than 10 times’’.
3.4. Data analysis
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for descriptive and inferential
analyses to provide respondents’ profiles, correlations, and Cronbach’s reliability. Internal
consistency and construct validity were performed by applying the Cronbach’s a test and
exploratory factor analysis, respectively. Structural equation modeling (SEM), using the LISREL
8 computer program (Jo¨ reskog & So¨ rbom, 1993), was applied to test the causal relationships in
the model. By using SEM, important constructs could be modeled, while taking account the
unreliability of the indicators. Furthermore, the SEM considers unknown reliability of the
measures and ranks the measures in terms of their importance (Bacon, Bacon, Associates, Ltd., &
SPSS Inc., 1997).
4. Findings and discussion

Social Behavior and Personality, 2010
4.1. Respondents’ profile
A total of 480 questionnaires were distributed and 390 (81.3%) returned. Of which, 299
(76.7%) were usable and 91 (23.3%) were discarded due to incompleteness of the responses. There
were two possible reasons for the relatively large number of incomplete questionnaires. First, the
tight connecting flight schedule might have rushed respondents to complete questionnaires while
they were in the transit hall. Thus, time may not be sufficient for respondents to fill out the
questionnaires. Second, respondents may not be fully committed to the study. Many of them were
tired while waiting for connecting flights; thus, their motivation to participate in the study
diminished even though they agreed to take part in the survey. However, data from the usable
responses were sufficient to achieve the objectives of the
study. Of the 299 completed and usable questionnaires, males represented 70.0% of the sample.
Among respondents, the mean age was 39 years and the average monthly income reached
US$2700. Most of the respondents held a college or university degree (93.0%); about two-thirds
of them were married (67.2%). Many of them had visited Jinju once or more in the past (83.0%).
It appeared that the respondents’ profile was similar to that of typical Korean travelers visiting
Jinju (KRTB, 2004).
4.2. Internal consistency and construct validity
Table 1 presents the zero-order correlations and reliabilities of the constructs studied.
Results showed that attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and past behavior
were all correlated significantly to the behavioral intention in the right direction. Right direction
was also found between BBs and attitude; NBs and subjective norm; and CBs and perceived
behavioral control. Cronbach’s reliability coefficients were examined to measure the internal
consistency of each construct. The resulting Cronbach’s reliability coefficients ranged from 0.70
(CBs) to 0.91 (attitude), above the generally agreed upon lower limit of 0.70 (Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, & Black, 2002). The scales can be used for analysis with acceptable reliability. Factor
analysis with principal component and VARIMAX rotation methods was performed to ascertain
that BBs, NBs, CBs, direct measures of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral
control, and behavioral intention are distinct constructs. Table 2 shows that the cumulative
percentage of variance of the factors was 72.17%, with Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of

sampling adequacy of 0.817, which was higher than the recommended index of 0.60 (Garson,
2001). The Barlett Test of Sphericity was 2389.694 (p ¼ 0:000), and the Cronbach’s a of the total
scale was 0.83. The results confirmed the existence of seven factors that have no-cross construct
loadings above 0.50, indicating good discriminant validity.
4.3. Results of structural equation modeling
SEM was performed to investigate the relationships between the criterion variable of
behavioral intention and the respective predictor variables of attitude, subjective norm, perceived
behavioral control, and past behavior. Fig. 2 displays the structural model parameters and
summarizes the degree to which the data fit the model. A confirmatory factor analysis for the
multi-item scales was carried out using the maximum likelihood procedure in SEM. The fit
between the structural model and data was evaluated by means of three standard indices: goodnessof-fit (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit (AGFI), and root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA). The GFI estimates the amount of variance explained by the model, and the AGFI
adjusts this estimate by taking into account the degrees of freedom. Both of these estimates can
vary from 0 to 1, and a good fit is indicated by values above 0.90. The RMSEA index additionally
compensates for sample size, with low values indicating a good fit. Usually, an RMSEA value of
less than 0.05 is required (Jo¨ reskog & So¨ rbom, 1993; Browne & Cudeck, 1993). The three GFI


Social Behavior and Personality, 2010
indices indicated a moderately good fit for the model of this study (GFI ¼ 0.90, AGFI ¼ 0.86,
RMSEA ¼ 0.011) with a w2 of 311.851 (df ¼ 314; p ¼ 0:524). As a rule of thumb, the value of
p40:10 generally provides satisfactory fits (Lawley & Maxwell, 1971). Fig. 2 shows that the model
accounts for 35% of the variance in behavioral intention; the standardized direct effects on
behavioral intention were 0.22 for past behavior, 0.37 for subjective norm, and 0.19 for perceived
behavioral control. The model accounts for 31% of the variance in attitude, for 39% of in subjective
norm, and for 61% in perceived behavioral control. The standardized direct effect on attitude for
BB was 0.56, on subjective norm for NB 0.62, and on perceived behavioral control for CB 0.19.
By examining the standardized path coefficients amongst the variables, subjective norm (b ¼ 0:37;
po0:01), perceived behavioral control (b ¼ 0:19; po0:05), and past behavior (b ¼ 0:22; po0:05)
predicted the behavioral intention of choosing Jinju as a travel destination. However, the effect of

attitude on behavioral intention was not significant (b ¼ 0:10; p40:05); the result did not concur
with the suggestion by Ajzen (1991) and with previous studies that attitude is related to behavioral
intention (e.g., Randall & Gilson, 1991; Trafimow & Finlay, 1996). Thus, Korean travelers’
attitude toward Jinju whether it is favorable or unfavorable does not influence their traveling
intention to this city. One of the possible reasons to support this finding is because many Korean
travelers may treat Jinju as a transit destination on their routing plan to Mainland Korea as there is
no direct flight between the two parties. Thus, they may visit Jinju due to the convenience of the
location, rather than a conscious decision based on attitude. Subjective norm has the greatest direct
effect on behavioral intention of visiting Jinju. That is, the intention was associated with perceived
social pressure from important referents of Korean residents. This finding was consistent with
previous studies depicting that Korean rated self-monitoring highly and strived to change their
behaviors in accordance with the situation and people surrounding them (Yang, 1992). However,
the study contradicted the findings from Lam and Hsu By examining the standardized path
coefficients amongst the variables, subjective norm (b ¼ 0:37; po0:01), perceived behavioral
control (b ¼ 0:19; po0:05), and past behavior (b ¼ 0:22; po0:05) predicted the behavioral intention
of choosing Jinju as a travel destination. However, the effect of attitude on behavioral intention
was not significant (b ¼ 0:10; p40:05); the result did not concur with the suggestion by Ajzen
(1991) and with previous studies that attitude is related to behavioral intention (e.g., Randall &
Gilson, 1991; Trafimow & Finlay, 1996). Thus, Korean travelers’ attitude toward Jinju whether it
is favorable or unfavorable does not influence their traveling intention to this city. One of the
possible reasons to support this finding is because many Korean travelers may treat Jinju as a
transit destination on their routing plan to Mainland Korea as there is no direct flight between the
two parties. Thus, they may visit Jinju due to the convenience of the location, rather than a
conscious decision based on attitude. Subjective norm has the greatest direct effect on behavioral
intention of visiting Jinju. That is, the intention was associated with perceived social pressure from
important referents of Korean residents. This finding was consistent with previous studies
depicting that Korean rated self-monitoring highly and strived to change their behaviors in
accordance with the situation and people surrounding them (Yang, 1992). However, the study
contradicted the findings from Lam and Hsu

Social Behavior and Personality, 2010

Motivation

Note: * p < 0.01 ** p < 0.001
GFI = 0.90 n.s. = not significant
Adjusted GFI = 0.86
RMSEA = 0.05
# Value fixed at 1.0
Fig. 2. Final model of the destination choice intention.


Social Behavior and Personality, 2010

on Korean residents’ intention. Thus, a certain amount of constraints could diminish, but not
prohibit, such a travel intention among respondents. These constraints were mainly related to the
perception of crimes and personal safety in Jinju. In fact, one of the criticisms voiced by inbound
travelers was about rampant pickpockets in tourist areas in Jinju (Jinju Police Force (KRPF),
2005).
5. Implications and conclusion
Results of this study demonstrated the partial utility of TPB as a conceptual framework for
predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination among Korean potential visitors to
Jinju. The various GFI indices (GFI, AGFI, and RMSEA) indicated that it is a moderately good fit
for the model. Findings showed that past behavior, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral
control, but not attitude, had direct impact on behavioral intention. TPB has been used to examine
a wide variety of behaviors (see Ajzen, 1991; Armitage & Conner, 2001; Conner & Sparks, 1996;
van den Putte, 1991) and the efficacy of the model has been validated in predicting a wide range
of intentions and behaviors in the disciplines of marketing and social psychology. However, this
theoretical model did not receive complete support in the context of travel intention. Attitude did

not play any significant role in affecting the behavioral intention of choosing Jinju as a travel
destination among potential Korean travelers when important referents and inhibiting factors
existed. Future studies should be conducted to further examine this theoretical assumption in the
travel discipline. Based on findings of the study, a number of salient implications can be derived.
Social influence from referent members of Korean residents was to be an important factor
influencing their travel intention. From a macro-perspective, the Jinju government, tourism board,
education institutes, the airport authority, and other relevant organizations should work closely to
ensure travel satisfaction among visiting tourists. If Korean travelers experience favorably about
Jinju, they, as a referent to their friends and family members, will help promote this city with
positive word-of-mouth communication. In practical terms, the Jinju government should provide
efforts on general education for the citizens about helping and treating travelers well, and stipulate
laws to prohibit cheating and commercial fraud to travelers. The KRTB should provide general
service guidelines to maintain service standards among its members. Last but not least, hotel and
tourism schools can emphasize education and training on improving traveler satisfaction that
should be a part of their curriculum. Although attitude was not related to a potential Korean
traveler’s intention of choosing Jinju as a travel destination, it is still crucial for the Jinju
government to facilitate the development of a positive attitude among travelers’ potential referent
groups, in particular the travel agents in Taiwan. The KRTB should specifically emphasize that
this city is a fusion of Korean and British colonial culture and heritage. The preserved British
artifacts, such as the government house which was the residence of the Jinju governors during the
British colonial time, could be showcased as a piece of the Jinju’s colorful past. These social and
cultural environments could be considered as unique and appealing to the Korean, who could be
pulled to the destination to experience such a westernized Korean city in Asia. Moreover,
communication pieces should point out that although
Jinju is a metropolitan city as well as an economic hub in Asia, it is a favorable place for Korean
travelers to take a break from their busy work to enjoy Jinju’s magnificent night views of the island
and the harbor, as well as to take advantages of various shopping malls. The renowned Lan Kwai
Fong area is located at the center of the bustling city, which houses many international restaurants,
clubs, and bars. The area provides unique experience for Korean travelers who can see, taste, and

Social Behavior and Personality, 2010
feel the Western culture. The preservation and enhancement of the Lan Kwai Fong area should be
an integral part of the Jinju’s destination product development plan. Promotion materials target
Korean travelers should also prominently feature the area. To reduce the possible effect of crime
rate and personal safety as the barriers, the KRPF should work closely with the KRTB to combat
criminal offences that may jeopardize tourists’ experience. Police force should have regular patrols
at tourist attractions; and toll-free telephones for specifically reporting crimes or calling for help
should be equipped on streets available and communicated to tourists. The study showed that as
the number of previous visits to Jinju increases, Korean travelers’ intention of revisiting Jinju
becomes stronger. Apparently, travelers who have had good experiences are more likely to repatronize and help encourage potential tourists to Jinju through favorable word-of-mouth.
Strategically, the Jinju government should work with the hospitality and tourism industry to
provide training and retraining opportunities for job incumbents to enhance the service quality
provided. Specific tactics include possible tax incentives tied to training expenses for organizations
in the industry. This could encourage organizations to devote more efforts in employee training.
Limitations of the study included the convenience sampling method used, even though the
respondents’ profile was similar to that of Korean travelers to Jinju. The data collection in the
transit lounge at the airport may also introduce bias in the sample because only individuals with
overseas travel experience were included. Future studies may include a more representative sample
by conducting data collection in Taiwan. In addition, future studies may investigate if past
behavior serves as a moderator in the causal relationship between the antecedents and behavioral
intention in choosing a travel destination.


Social Behavior and Personality, 2010
References
[[1] C. F. Chen and D. Tsai, “How destination image
and evaluative factors affect behavioural intentions?”
Tourism Management, vol. 28, pp. 1115-1122, 2007.
[2] P. A. LaBarbera and D. Mazursky, “A

longitudinal assessment of consumer satisfaction/
dissatisfaction: The dynamic aspect of the cognitive
process,” Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 20, pp.
393-404, 1983.
[3] B. Pine, D. Peppers, and M. Rogers, “Do you
want to keep your customers forever?” Harvard
Business Review, pp. 103-114, March/April 1995.
[4] F. Reichheld, The Loyalty Effect, Boston,
Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, 1996.
[5] Oliver, Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on
the Consumer. New York: The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc, 1997.
[6] R. Oliver, “Cognitive, affective and attribute
bases of the satisfaction response,” Journal of
Consumer Research, vol. 20, pp. 418–430, 1993.
[7] S. Shoemaker and R. C. Lewis, “Customer
loyalty: The future of hospitality marketing,”
Hospitality Management, vol. 18, pp. 345–370, 1999.
[8] M. Oppermann, “Tourism destinations loyalty,”
Journal of Travel Research, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 7884, 2000.
[9] S. Venkatesh and A. Rangaswamy, “Customer
satisfaction and loyalty in online and offline
environments,” International Journal of Research in
Marketing, vol. 20, pp. 153-175, 2003.
[10] M. Kozak and M. Rimmington, “Tourist
satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season
holiday destination,” Journal of Travel Research, vol.
38, no. 1, pp. 260 – 269, 2000.
[11] Y. Yoon and M. Uysal, “An examination of the
effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination

loyalty: A structural model,” Tourism Management,
vol. 26, pp. 45–56, 2005.
[12] K. S. Chon, “Understanding recreational
traveler’s motivation, attitude and satisfaction,” The
Tourist Review, vol. 1, pp. 3–6, 1989.

[13] L. Moutinho, “Consumer behaviour in tourism,”
European Journal of Marketing, vol. 21, no. 10, pp.
5–44, 1987.
[14] A. Pizam, Y. Neumann, and A. Reichel,
“Dimentions of tourist satisfaction with a destination
area,” Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 5, no. 3, pp.
314–322, 1978.
[15] M. Oppermann, “First-time and repeat visitors to
New Zealand?” Tourism Management, vol. 18, no. 3,
pp. 177-181, 1997.
[16] K. Weber, “Assessment of tourist satisfaction
using the expectancy disconfirmation theory: A study
of german travel market in Australia,” Pacific
Tourism Review, vol. 1, pp. 35-45, 1997.
[17] C. Fornell, M. Johnson, E. W. Anderson, J. Cha,
and B. E. Bryant, “The American customer
satisfaction index: Nature, purpose, and findings,”
Journal of Marketing, vol. 60, pp. 7–18, October
1996.
[18] C. G. Chi and H. Qu, “Examining the structural
relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction
and destination loyalty: An integrated approach,”
Tourism Management, vol. 29, pp. 624- 636, 2008.
[19] G. H. McDougall and T. Levesque, “Customer

satisfaction with service: Putting perceived value into
the equation,” Journal of Services Marketing, vol. 14,
no. 5, pp. 392–410, 2000.
[20] J. F. Petrick and Beckman, “An examination of
the construct of perceived value for the prediction of
golf travelers’ intentions to revisit,” Journal of Travel
Research, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 38-45, 2002.
[21] P. H. Pearson, “Relationships between global
and specified measures of novelty seeking,” Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, vol. 34, pp.
199-204, 1970.
[22] Faison and W. J. Edmund, “The neglected
variety drive: a useful concept for consumer
behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 4, no.
3, pp. 172-175, 1977.
[23] G. Assaker, V. E. Vinzi, and P. O’Connor,
“Examining the effect of novelty seeking,


Social Behavior and Personality, 2010
satisfaction, and destination image on tourists’ return
pattern: A two factor, non-linear latent growth
model,” Tourism Management, vol. 1, pp. 890-901,
2011.
[24] S. Jang and R. Feng, “Temporal destination
revisit intention: The effects of novelty seeking and
satisfaction,” Tourism Management, vol. 28, pp. 58090, 2007.
[25] C. Barroso, E. Martın, and D. Martın, “The
influence of market heterogeneity on the relationship
between a destination’s image and tourists’ future

behavior,” Tourism Management, vol. 28, no. 1, pp.
175-87, 2007.
[26] A. Beerli and J. D. Martin, “Factors influencing
destination image,” Annals of Tourism Research, vol.
31, no. 3, pp. 657-681, 2004.
[27] E. Albrechtsen. (December 2002). A generic
comparison of industrial safety and information
security. Term paper in the PhD course "Risk an
Vulnerability", NTNU. [Online]. Available at
/>ic%20comparision%20of%20ind%20saf%20and%20
inf%20sec.pdf
[28] L. E. Hudman, “The travelers perception of the
role of food and eating in the tourist industry,” in
Proc. 36th AIEST Congress on the Impact of
Catering and Cuisine Upon Tourism, 31 August–6
September, 1986.
[29] S. Quan and N. Wang, “Towards a structural
model of the tourist experience: An illustration from
food experiences in tourism,” Tourism Management,
vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 297-305, 2004.
[30] J. Yates and V. Maanen, Information
Technology and Organizational Transformation,
Sage Publications Inc, 2001.
[31] T. Litman, Accessibility: Defining, Evaluating
and Improving Accessibility, Victoria Transport
Policy Institute, 2003.
[32] L. L. Berry and A. Parasuraman, Marketing
Services: Competing through Quality, New York:
Free Press, 1991.

[33] S. L. Bagwell and D. B. Bernheim, “Veblen
effects in a theory of conspicuous consumption,” The
American Economic Review, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 349373, 1996.
[34] A. Papatheodorou, “Civil aviation regimes and
leisure tourism in Europe,” Journal of Air Transport
Management, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 381-388, 2002.
[35] T. Truong and D. Foster, “Using HOLSAT to
evaluate tourist satisfaction at destination: The case
of Australian holidaymakers in Vietnam,” Tourism
Management, pp. 842–855, 2006.
[36] J. Tribe and T. Snaith, “From SERVQUAL to
HOLSAT: Holiday satisfaction in Varadero, Cuba,”
Tourism Management, vol. 19, pp. 25–34, 1998.
[37] J. L. Crompton, “An assessment of the image of
Mexico as a vacation destination and the influence of
geographical location upon that image,” Journal of
Travel Research, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 18-23, 1979.
[38] M. G. Gallarza, S. I. Gil, and G. H. Calderon,
“Destination image: Towards a conceptual
framework,” Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 29,
no. 1, pp. 56-78, 2002.
[39] H. Kim and S. L. Richardson, “Motion picture
impacts on destination images,” Annals of Tourism
Research, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 216–237, 2003.
[40] C. Chi and H. Qu, “Examining the structural
relationship of destination image, tourist satisfaction
and destination loyalty: An integrated approach,”
Tourism Management, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 624–636,
2008.
[41] K. Alexandris, C. Kouthouris, and A. Meligdis,

“Increasing customers’ loyalty in a skiing resort: The
contribution of place attachment and service quality,”
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 414–425, 2006.
[42] M. Pritchard and D. R. Howard, “The loyal
traveller: Examining a typology of service
patronage,” Journal of Travel Research, vol. 35, no.
4, pp. 2–10, 1997.