The role of variety seeking in short and long run revisit intentions in holiday destinations

The role of variety seeking in short and long
run revisit intentions in holiday destinations
J. Enrique Bigne´, Isabel Sa´nchez and Luisa Andreu

J. Enrique Bigne´, Isabel
Sa´nchez and Luisa Andreu
are all based at the
University of Valencia,
Valencia, Spain.

Abstract
Purpose – The main purpose of the present paper is to identify the differences in the antecedents of
holiday destinations revisit intentions in the short and long run. Specifically, this work analyzes the
influence of specific variety seeking, perceived value, destination image, satisfaction, switching costs
and past switching behavior.
Design/methodology/approach – This is a quantitative study and the authors collected data personal
interviews at households using the random route sampling technique. The sample comprises 400
tourists who have been on holiday at least once in the last two years, excluding lodging in relatives’ and
friends’ houses or their own secondary residence. The data is analyzed through structural equation
modeling.
Findings – The results show that there are relevant differences in the antecedents of holiday destination
revisit intentions in the short and long term. The main determinants of the intention to return to the
destination for the next holiday are past switching behavior, switching costs and specific variety
seeking, whereas the assessment of the destination (image and satisfaction) does not have a significant
effect. However, in the long term, satisfaction becomes the most relevant antecedent of intentions to
return, specific variety seeking maintains its influence, and past switching behavior and switching costs
become irrelevant.
Practical implications – The findings have relevant implications for destination managers in helping
them to understand the temporal pattern of tourist revisit intentions and the main antecedents.
Originality/value – The main contribution of this paper is twofold. Firstly, researchers have rarely
considered the temporal dimension when analyzing the antecedents of revisit intention, despite the

usefulness of this approach to improve the understanding of tourists’ return intentions. Secondly, the
research is focused on specific variety seeking – that is, the propensity to seek variety in a concrete
product category; rather than general variety seeking that is the usual approach.
Keywords Tourism, Consumer behaviour, Customer loyalty
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Satisfaction has attracted the attention of scholars and practitioners for many decades due
to broad agreement on its key influence on consumer loyalty (Lam et al., 2004; Zeithaml et al.,
1996). This concern stems from the assumption that satisfied customers will return to the
company in the future and that loyal customers are more profitable than new ones (Anderson
et al., 2004; Jones and Sasser, 1995), because they provide increasing income with
decreasing costs (Mittal and Lassar, 1998; Rust and Zahorik, 1993). Furthermore, a loyal
customer is more willing to continue doing business with the company even when prices rise
(Bolton and Lemon, 1999; Zeithaml, 2000).

Received: February 2008
Revised: June 2008
Accepted: September 2008

DOI 10.1108/17506180910962113

Nevertheless, the relationship between satisfaction and behavioral intentions is more
complex than it first appears (Fournier and Mick, 1999; Mittal and Kamakura, 2001).
Dissatisfied customers could continue with their provider due to the perception of switching
costs or inertia. Satisfied customers, however, may decide to switch providers with the

VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009, pp. 103-115, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182

j

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH

j

PAGE 103


expectation of obtaining even better results (Mittal and Lassar, 1998; Jones and Sasser,
1995) or because they perceive that there are more attractive alternatives on the market
(Andreassen and Lervik, 1999). The difference between satisfied and completely satisfied
customers could partially explain this situation (Jones and Sasser, 1995; Roos, 1999),
especially in the present highly competitive environment. Another important explanation that
may justify why satisfied customers decide to switch providers is the variety seeking
propensity (Bansal et al., 2005; Ratner et al., 1999), which is the focus of this work.
Although variety seeking research has a long tradition in marketing, there are still several
topics that deserve investigation (Berne´ et al., 2001; Goukens et al., 2007; Kahn, 1995). Most
researchers have focused on goods, so studies in the service industry are still scarce, and
quite recent (Barroso et al., 2007; Berne´ et al., 2005; Niininen et al., 2004). Furthermore,
many works have adopted a descriptive approach, focusing mainly on the measurement of
variety seeking behavior and on the motivations that lead consumers to seek variety in their
purchases (Kahn, 1995). Therefore, the relationship between variety seeking and loyalty in
services is an under-researched topic in the marketing literature (Berne´ et al., 2001, 2005).
However, the understanding of the relationship between variety seeking and loyalty has key
managerial implications (Berne´ et al., 2001, 2005; Feinberg et al., 1992; Van Trijp et al.,
1996):
B

Differences in the proportion of variety seekers could lead to the disparity in consumer
loyalty in different product categories.

B

Marketing efforts, such as loyalty programs, could be inefficient if marketing managers do
not distinguish between consumers with high and low propensity to seek variety.

B

Variety seeking intensity in a specific market could be a basic feature of the market that
would affect the potential market share of the brands. In this sense, variety seeking would
be an initial restriction affecting the potential rate of customer retention. Hence, to
increase customer loyalty, service companies should not only focus on improving
satisfaction levels but also on designing strategies to reduce the negative impact of
variety seeking (Berne´ et al., 2001).

Previous research has mainly attempted to explain the divergence in variety seeking among
individuals, identifying the optimum stimulation level as the main precursor of the variety
consumers seek. However, very few studies have focused on explaining the differences in
the amount of variety sought by a consumer when purchasing different product categories
(Givon, 1984; Mazursky et al., 1987), although several works have found that consumer
variety seeking behavior is different depending on the product category involved
(Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1992; Steenkamp et al., 1996). In this sense, some
researchers posit that variety seeking is higher when the product has more hedonic
attributes (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Van Trijp et al., 1996).
A general consensus exists over the pre-eminence of hedonic motivations in the
consumption of tourism and leisure services (Decrop and Snelders, 2005; Hirschman and
Holbrook, 1982). Consequently, variety and novelty seeking plays a key role in the
comprehension of tourist behavior, affecting their intention to return to the same destination
in the future (Barroso et al., 2007; Jang and Feng, 2007; Niininen et al., 2004).
Scholars define variety seeking as a consumer tendency to change the item consumed in

the last purchase (Givon, 1984; Kahn et al., 1986) or the propensity to seek diversity in the
choice of goods and services (Kahn, 1995). Consumers can satisfy their need for variety
either through the purchase of new options or alternating among familiar brands or
providers. Therefore, it is logical to expect that the temporal horizon considered will affect
the role played by variety seeking and satisfaction on destination revisit intention. However,
as Jang and Feng (2007) point out, tourism researchers have paid very little attention to the
influence of the temporal dimension on revisit intention. We address the issue in this paper,
considering two different points in time, the short run (defined as the next holiday trip) and
the long run (the intention to return to the destination in the distant future) to examine any

j

j

PAGE 104 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009


divergence in the effects of different antecedents of revisit intention, i.e. perceived value,
image, satisfaction, switching costs, past switching behavior and specific variety seeking.

Conceptual framework and research hypotheses
This paper highlights the differences in the influence of specific variety seeking, perceived
value, perceived image, satisfaction, switching costs and past switching behavior on
holiday destination revisit intention in the short and long term.
Broad agreement exists among authors regarding the positive influence of perceived value
on consumer satisfaction (Lam et al., 2004; Liu et al., 2005), because satisfaction is the
outcome of the customer’s perception of the value received in a transaction or relation (Lam
et al., 2004; Yang and Peterson, 2004).
However, researchers have not reached a consensus concerning the relationship between
perceived value and repurchase intention. While some authors posit that perceived value

has a direct influence on customer loyalty (Hartline and Jones, 1996; Sweeney et al., 1999),
others argue that there is an indirect relation mediated by satisfaction (Lam et al., 2004; Zins,
2001) or even both (Cronin et al., 2000; Liu et al., 2005). The present study adopts this last
approach. Hence, the study proposes the following hypotheses:
H1.

Destination perceived value has a positive influence on consumer satisfaction.

H2.

Destination perceived value has a positive influence on short and long term revisit
intention.

The influence of brand and corporate image on consumer satisfaction has obtained strong
support in the service marketing literature (Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998a, b; Zins,
2001), receiving special attention in tourism marketing research (Barroso et al., 2007; Bigne´
et al., 2001). In addition, other works consider that perceived image is an important and
direct antecedent of service loyalty (Nguyen and LeBlanc, 2001; Zins, 2001). Tourism
destination studies also corroborate this direct effect (Bigne´ et al., 2001; Court and Lupton,
1997). However, several authors postulate that image has an indirect influence on behavioral
intentions, through the mediator effect of satisfaction (Barroso et al., 2007; Bloemer and De
Ruyter, 1998). The present study considers both a direct and an indirect effect, via the
following hypotheses:
H3.

Destination image has a positive influence on tourist satisfaction.

H4.

Destination image has a positive influence on short and long term revisit intention.

Although research points out that the relationship between satisfaction and repurchase
intention is more complex than scholars thought (Mittal and Kamakura, 2001; Yi and La,
2004), literature continues considering satisfaction as one of the main precursors of
consumer loyalty (Bolton and Lemon, 1999; Lam et al., 2004; Zeithaml et al., 1996).
Therefore:
H5.

Satisfaction has a positive influence on short and long term revisit intention.

The literature suggests that consumers’ past behavior has a direct influence on their
behavioral intentions (Cheng et al., 2005; Conner and Armitage, 1998). Scholars define
consumer past switching behavior as the extent to which consumers have switched
providers in the past (Bansal et al., 2005). The greater the past switching behavior, the lower
the perception of switching costs (Burnham et al., 2003; Hu and Hwang, 2006) and,
therefore, the lower the intention to return. Consequently:
H6.

Past switching behavior has a negative influence on short and long term revisit
intention.

A wide consensus exists in the marketing literature over the positive effect of switching costs
on customer loyalty, at least as far as the repurchase component is concerned (Jones et al.,
2000; Lam et al., 2004). In fact, the empirical study carried out by Burnham et al. (2003)

j

j

VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 105

shows that switching costs explain a higher proportion of the variance of the repurchase
intention than satisfaction (30 percent versus 16 percent). Hence:
H7.

Switching costs have a positive influence on short and long term revisit intention.

The variety seeking concept is a key determinant in the consumer decision to switch
providers (Bansal et al., 2005; Van Trijp et al., 1996). True variety seeking is intrinsically
motivated and it has the following features: it involves switching brands, products or
providers for the sake of variety and not because of the functional value of the alternatives.
Most authors consider that variety seeking leads either to the acquisition of new options or to
alternation among familiar alternatives. Many researchers conceive variety seeking as an
individual trait (Berne´ et al., 2001, 2005; Kahn, 1995). However, the literature also points out
that variety seeking depends on the product category (Givon, 1984; Van Trijp et al., 1996). In
this sense, Givon (1984) postulates that variety seeking behavior is idiosyncratic for
consumer consumption of brands within a concrete product category. Consequently, a
consumer may seek variety in one product category but avoid it in another.
The research has paid little attention to the role of variety seeking in consumer repurchase
intention in services. Exceptions include the works of Barroso et al. (2007), Berne´ et al.
(2001, 2005), Jang and Feng (2007), and Niininen et al. (2004), among others. These studies
posit a negative relation between variety or novelty seeking propensity and intention to return
to the service company or to the destination in the future. In this sense, Berne´ et al. (2001)
analyze the negative effect of variety seeking on customer retention in restaurant services,
including also in the analysis of the relation between perceived quality and satisfaction. The
findings suggest that consumer variety seeking propensity reduces the effect of satisfaction
and perceived quality improvements on return intention. Berne´ et al. (2005) also obtain
support for a direct and negative influence of variety seeking on consumer behavioral
intentions in grocery retailing.

Focusing on tourist destinations, Niininen et al. (2004) analyze the role played by variety
seeking propensity in tourist destination choice, in order to better understand tourist loyalty
in this field, where variety seeking is usually important for consumers. The findings
moderately support the authors’ proposal: tourists with a high variety seeking propensity will
show a varied pattern of destination choice. However, these findings are not sound because
of the small sample size employed. Regarding the work of Barroso et al. (2007), the authors
postulate a moderator effect of variety seeking propensity in the relationship between
destination image, satisfaction, perceived quality and tourists’ future behavioral intentions.
After segmenting the sample based on the propensity to seek variety, the authors obtain four
segments:
1. tourists with a medium need for variety, the largest group (43.6 percent);
2. tourists who need continuous changes and new experiences (26.9 percent);
3. tourists who do not need variety (23.2 percent); and
4. tourists who want to experience changes, but from time to time (6.3 percent).
Barroso et al. (2007) obtain support for the moderator effect of variety seeking, and so the
authors find that the relationship between image, satisfaction, perceived quality and
behavioral intentions depends on tourists’ propensity to seek variety.
Finally, Jang and Feng (2007) focus on destination revisit intention from a temporal
perspective, analyzing the effects of novelty seeking and destination satisfaction on
short-term, mid-term and long-term revisit intention. As pointed out in the Introduction, the
temporal approach is unusual in the destination revisit intention research. The findings show
that satisfaction only has a significant influence on short-term revisit intention, whereas
novelty seeking has a direct effect on mid-term revisit intention and an indirect effect on
long-term intention to return through mid-term revisit intention.
The contributions of the above mentioned works suggest that variety seeking will have a
negative influence on destination revisit intention. However, most of these studies focus on

j

j

PAGE 106 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009


variety or novelty seeking as an individual trait – that is, the general propensity of consumers
to seek variety or novelty in their purchases of products and services. Therefore, despite the
fact that variety seeking can differ from one product category to another, the measurements
employed by researchers do not reflect this possibility. In this work we aim to highlight the
role of specific variety seeking on tourists’ return intention and shall therefore focus on the
propensity to seek variety in holiday destinations considering that specific variety seeking is
both an individual trait and a behavior linked to the product category. Based on the
contributions previously mentioned:
H8.

Specific variety seeking propensity has a negative influence on short and long term
destination revisit intention.

Figure 1 shows the whole set of hypotheses.
In addition, the present study aims to respond to the following research question:
RQ1. Identify the differences between the influence of the proposed antecedents on
short and long run destination revisit intention.

Method
The present work focuses on holiday destinations, as opposed to weekend and long
weekend trips. This setting makes it possible to identify different tourist profiles depending
on their propensity to switch destinations: those who seek variety and those who prefer to
return to the same destination for their holidays (Decrop and Snelders, 2005).
The study is mainly quantitative, although a focus group was used to adapt the
measurement scales to the field of study. Furthermore, the approach is causal and the
information was collected by means of a structured questionnaire. Data were gathered

during the month of February 2007 in eight Spanish cities, and the questionnaire was
administered personally to the respondents.
The target population comprises individuals between 18 and 65 years old who have traveled
on their main holiday at least once in the last two years, excluding lodging in relatives’ and
friends’ houses or their own secondary residence. We established a two-year period rather
than one year in order to make sample recruitment easier, as the proportion of Spanish
inhabitants who travel for leisure is around 57 percent but this figure would be even lower if
secondary residences were excluded, as in the case of the present study.
The sample selection was a result of a combination of the random route sampling method
and the establishment of gender and age quotas to ensure that the sample shows the same
sociodemographic structure as the target population. We finally obtained a sample size of
400 individuals with a 4.9 percent sample error, for a confidence level of 95.5 percent
(p ¼ q ¼ 0:5).
Figure 1 Theoretical model

j

j

VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 107


Concerning the measurement scales used to operationalize the variables, since the main
purpose of the present work is to analyze relationships among variables and not deepen
examination of each of the constructs involved, we focus on global and one-dimensional
measures of the variables rather than multidimensional ones. Furthermore, all the scales
were adapted to the research context firstly by means of a focus group, and then through a
pre-test of the measurement tool. Below we detail the initial measurement scales selected for
each variable and the following section shows the final composition of the scales, obtained
after evaluating their psychometric properties.

The scale to measure perceived value is largely based on Bourdeau (2005), which, in turn, is
based on Dodds et al. (1991). This scale provides very good reliability with a reasonable
number of items. Thus, the scale used in the present work contains four items measured
through a seven-point Likert scale. Sample items: ‘‘I think that it was worthwhile going to X’’;
‘‘My trip to X has given me many benefits (amusement, relaxation, discovering new places,
etc.)’’.
The scale finally selected for destination image is based on Nguyen and LeBlanc (2001),
due to its high reliability and parsimony, and it consists of three items in a seven-point Likert
scale format. Sample item: ‘‘I think that X has a good image among tourists’’.
The measurement scale employed to collect tourists’ overall satisfaction with the destination
is an adaptation of that used by Burnham et al. (2003) and comprises five items in a
seven-point Likert-scale format. Sample items: ‘‘I am satisfied with my experience in X’’; ‘‘My
trip to X has met my needs completely’’.
The scale employed to measure switching costs is broadly based on Jones et al. (2000),
because of the excellent reliability and parsimony of the scale proposed by the authors. The
scale contains three items in a seven-point Likert format. Sample item: ‘‘It would take a lot of
time and effort to change holiday destinations’’.
Concerning behavioral intentions, although some authors have used multi-item measures
(Cronin et al., 2000; Zeithaml et al., 1996), as we focus on short and long run revisit intention
and not on behavioral intentions in general, we decided to choose a single item measure,
following other studies such as Cronin and Taylor (1992), Mattila and Wirtz (2000) and Mittal
and Kamakura (2001). Thus, we measure revisit intention through a seven-point scale that
collects return probability both for the next holiday trip (short term) and in the distant future
(long term).
Past switching behavior measurement consists of an objective question that collects how
many different holiday destinations the tourist had visited over the last four years, following
Niininen et al. (2004). Those authors asked respondents about the last five years but we have
limited the period to four years to facilitate the response.
Finally, scholars have approached the measurement of variety seeking from a general rather
than a specific perspective (Bansal et al., 2005; Baumgartner and Steenkamp, 1996; Van

Trijp et al., 1996), focusing on the propensity of consumers to seek variety in their purchases
in general, without reference to a concrete product category. Researchers have traditionally
collected variety seeking behavior linked to a concrete product category through the
number of different brands/providers purchased in a period of time, usually obtained by
means of panel data. This kind of measure is really equivalent to what we have called ‘‘past
switching behavior’’, but does not allow a distinction between intrinsic or extrinsically
motivated variety seeking, while it is widely accepted in the literature that true variety seeking
is intrinsically motivated and not due to the instrumental value of the alternatives (Van Trijp
et al., 1996).
The present work aims to fill the gap in the literature on the measurement of variety seeking in
a specific product category. With this purpose, to measure the variety seeking propensity in
the choice of holiday destinations we have taken as a base the scale of Van Trijp et al. (1996),
adapting the wording of the items to the product category under study. They employ a
shorter version of the scale of ‘‘exploratory acquisition of products’’ created by Baumgartner
and Steenkamp (1996). The scale proposed by Van Trijp et al. (1996) provides good

j

j

PAGE 108 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009


reliability with a more reasonable number of items and it has been successfully used by other
researchers such as Bansal et al. (2005) and Bourdeau (2005). Consequently, the scale
finally used comprises six items measured on a seven-point Likert format. Sample items:
‘‘On holidays, I would rather return to a destination I usually visit than try a destination I am
not very sure of’’; ‘‘On holidays, I prefer to go to destinations I am familiar with’’.
Since the purpose of this research is to analyze the influence of several variables on short
and long-term destination revisit intention, we test the proposed set of hypotheses jointly

through structural equation modeling, using the program EQS 6.1.

Findings
Before testing the proposed hypotheses, we evaluated the psychometric properties of the
measurement scales through confirmatory factor analysis (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988)
using EQS 6.1. The estimation method was the maximum likelihood robust method due to its
appropriateness even when data do not follow a normal distribution. The evaluation of the
measurement scales led to the elimination of some items due to problems of convergent
validity. Therefore, the final items employed to measure the variables involved in the present
research are those displayed in Table I. In addition, Tables I and II show the results for the
reliability and validity of the measurement tool, which show satisfactory levels for both
psychometric properties.
Table I Measurement tool: reliability and convergent validity
Factors

Itemsa

Standard factor loadings

tb

a

Composite reliability

AVE

Perceived value (F1)

PV1

PV2
PV3
PV4

0.79
0.70
0.89
0.70

9.36
11.68
11.17
9.74

0.84

0.86

0.60

Image (F2)

IM1
IM2

0.68
0.68

9.41
10.43

0.62

0.63

0.46

Satisfaction (F3)

SAT2
SAT4
SAT5

0.86
0.86
0.84

11.14
11.61
10.45

0.89

0.89

0.73

Switching costs (F4)

COST1

COST2
COST3

0.87
0.63
0.91

15.44
13.82
15.57

0.84

0.85

0.66

Specific variety seeking (F5)

VAR1c
VAR2c
VAR3c
VAR4c
VAR5c
VAR6

0.89
0.89
0.90
0.74

0.88
0.75

22.77
22.90
23.50
16.28
23.58
14.57

0.94

0.83

0.63

Notes: S-B x 2 ¼ 177:96; significance 0.00; df ¼ 125; NFI ¼ 0:93; NNFI ¼ 0:97; CFI ¼ 0:98; IFI ¼ 0:98; RMSEA ¼ 0:03 (0.02-0.04). aItems
were measured through a seven-point Likert scale. bAll the standard factor loadings are significant for p , 0:01. cReverted items

Table II Discriminant validity. Average variance extracted and confidence intervala

F1
F2
F3
F4
F5

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

0.60
(0.43; 0.71)
(0.76; 0.92)
(20.27; 0.01)
(20.17; 0.07)

0.32
0.46
(0.60; 0.88)
(20.06; 0.18)
(20.05; 0.18)

0.71
0.55
0.73
(20.22; 20.02)
(20.1; 0.1)

0.02
0.00
0.01
0.66
(0.63; 0.79)

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.63

Notes: aOn the diagonal the AVE of each factor is shown. In the upper part, the square of the
correlation between each pair of factors is detailed and the confidence interval for every pair of factors
is collected in the lower part

j

j

VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 109


After refining the measurement scales, we conduct structural equation analysis using the
maximum likelihood robust estimation method and EQS 6.1. The main results obtained for
short and long run destination revisit intention are displayed in Tables III and IV, respectively.
In addition, Figures 2 and 3 show a graphical representation of the results in order to
facilitate comparison.
Table III Hypotheses testing for short run revisit intention
Hypotheses

Signa

Standard
coefficient

t

A/R

þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
2
þ
2

0.62***
0.20*
0.39***
0.01
0.00
20.14**
0.18**
20.26***

6.32
1.68
4.39
0.10
0.15
22.45
2.44

23.22

U
U
U
£
£
U
U
U

H1. Perceived value ! satisfaction
H2. Perceived value ! short run revisit intention
H3. Image ! satisfaction
H4. Image ! short run revisit intention
H5. Satisfaction ! short run revisit intention
H6. Past switching behavior ! short run revisit intention
H7. Switching costs ! short run revisit intention
H8. Variety seeking ! short run revisit intention

Notes: S-B x 2¼ 213.27; significance 0.00; df ¼ 153; NFI ¼ 0.93; NNFI ¼ 0.97; CFI ¼ 0.98; IFI ¼ 0.98;
RMSEA ¼ 0.03 (0.02-0.04). A/R, hypotheses acceptance or rejection of hypothesis. aHypothetical
sign of the relation. *p,0.10 and t . 1.64; **p , 0.05 and t . 1.96; ***p , 0.01 and t . 2.58

Table IV Hypotheses testing for long run revisit intention
Hypotheses

Signa

Standard

coefficient

t

A/R

H1. Perceived value ! satisfaction
H2. Perceived value ! long run revisit intention
H3. Image ! satisfaction
H4. Image ! long run revisit intention
H5. Satisfaction ! long run revisit intention
H6. Past switching behavior ! long run revisit intention
H7. Switching costs ! long run revisit intention
H8. Variety seeking ! long run revisit intention

þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
2
þ
2

0.62***
0.06
0.39***
0.14
0.49**
20.01

0.08
20.19***

5.95
0.47
4.47
1.06
2.54
20.27
1.26
22.89

U
£
U
£
U
£
£
U

Notes: S-B x 2 ¼ 214:69; significance 0.00; df ¼ 15; NFI ¼ 0:93; NNFI ¼ 0:97; CFI ¼ 0:98; IFI ¼ 0:98;
RMSEA ¼ 0:03 (0.02-0.04). A/R, acceptance or rejection of hypotheses. aHypothetical sign of the
relation. **p , 0:05 and t . 1:96; ***p , 0:01 and t . 2:58

Figure 2 Short run revisit intention antecedents

j

j

PAGE 110 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009


Figure 3 Long run revisit intention antecedents

A first approach to the findings shows several differences in the significant antecedents of
short and long-term revisit intention. Specific variety seeking propensity, followed by
switching costs and past switching behavior, are the main determinants of the intention to
return to the same destination for the next holiday. Perceived value also has a significant
influence on short run revisit intention, but only for p , 0:01. Nevertheless, perceived image
and satisfaction have no significant influence on the intention to return to the destination for
the next holiday, notwithstanding the strong support offered by the literature regarding the
positive effect of destination image and satisfaction on tourists’ future intention to return
(Bigne´ et al., 2001; Chen and Tsai, 2007; Court and Lupton, 1997). However, these studies
refer to the future revisit intention in general, without distinguishing between short and long
term, while the present work collects both the intention to return for the next holiday and the
intention to return in the long term. As mentioned above, in the short term neither satisfaction
nor destination image are relevant antecedents of revisit intention. The high propensity of
consumers to seek variety in the purchase of hedonic products could explain these findings
(Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Steenkamp et al., 1996; Van Trijp et al., 1996) and, especially, in
tourism and leisure services (Barroso et al., 2007; Jang and Feng, 2007). Consequently,
tourists may decide to switch holiday destinations on their next trip, despite being satisfied,
for the sake of variety.
In contrast, in the long-term, satisfaction becomes the strongest antecedent of revisit
intention, whereas specific variety seeking maintains its influence. Although perceived value
and destination image have no direct effect on revisit intention, these constructs do have an
indirect influence on the intention to return through the mediating effect of satisfaction,
corroborating the findings of previous works such as Barroso et al. (2007), Lam et al. (2004)
and Zins (2001). Since consumers can satisfy their variety needs through the purchase of

new options but also by alternating between familiar ones (Kahn and Isen, 1993; Kahn et al.,
1986), tourists could intend to go to a different destination for their next holiday but, in the
long run, they would be willing to repeat if the experience was satisfactory, because as time
goes by the stimulation capacity of the destination increases again. However, tourists with a
higher propensity to seek variety in their choice of holiday destinations will show a lower
intention to return to the destination not only on the next trip but also in the distant future.
Nevertheless, neither past switching behavior nor switching costs are relevant when
explaining long-run revisit intention, while these variables are significant in the short-term
intention to return. This result could be due to tourists’ perception of lower switching costs in
the long term.
The previous findings show that the only variable that maintains a significant and consistent
influence on revisit intentions with time is specific variety seeking. The study approaches
variety seeking propensity in the choice of holiday destinations through a self-reported

j

j

VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 111


measure. However, if we had used an objective measure (number of different holiday
destinations visited in the last four years), which is the usual approach, its influence on revisit
intention would be limited to the short term.
Comparison of the findings of the present study with those obtained by Jang and Feng
(2007) reveals some discrepancies. Those authors found that satisfaction had a significant
influence on revisit intention only in the short term and not in the mid or long term. We have
found support for the contrary. With reference to novelty seeking, Jang and Feng (2007) only
obtain support for the influence of this variable on mid-term revisit intention (three-year
period), whereas present work has found that specific variety seeking affects revisit intention

in both the short and long term. However, the time periods considered in Jang and Fang’s
work and in the present study are different, because they understand the short term as an
annual period while we refer to the next holiday and they restrict the long term to a five-year
period whereas we do not delimit a concrete range of years. Furthermore, Jang and Feng
focus on novelty seeking but in the present work we analyze variety seeking, which is a wider
concept.
The above-mentioned discrepancies, along with the scant research on the influence of the
temporal dimension on destination revisit intention, are evidence of the need to advance in
this incipient research line.

Conclusions
This work analyzes the influence of specific variety seeking, perceived value, destination
image, satisfaction, switching costs and past switching behavior on holiday destination
revisit intention in the short and long run, aiming to identify the main differences.
The most outstanding findings are those concerning the influence of satisfaction and
specific variety seeking on short and long run destination revisit intentions. While satisfaction
only has a significant effect on long-term revisit intention, specific variety seeking has a
relevant influence both on short and long term intentions to return to the destination. Past
switching behavior and switching costs are only significant antecedents of the short term
revisit intention.
The main contributions of the present work are concerned with the consideration of temporal
issues in the research of revisit intention, and the analysis of specific variety seeking. The
findings offer new insights into the role of the time perspective in intention to return. However,
this topic requires additional research to help improve understanding of the temporal pattern
of tourist revisit intentions. Regarding variety seeking, we have focused on variety seeking
linked to a specific product category instead of general variety seeking, measuring the
former through a self-reported measure. Traditionally, scholars have collected specific
variety seeking through consumer purchase history and, consequently, this kind of measure
does not allow true variety seeking to be distinguished from extrinsic variety seeking.
Findings show that while true specific variety seeking is a key determinant of revisit intention

regardless of the period considered, the objective approach (called past switching behavior
in the present work) only has a significant influence on revisit intention in the short-run.
Concerning the managerial implications of this study, destination managers should segment
tourists according to their propensity to seek variety in the choice of destinations. Whereas
high variety seekers show a low probability of returning to the same destination both in the
near and in the distant future, low or medium variety seekers are not likely to return to the
destination on the next trip but they probably will revisit it in the long term if the experience
was satisfactory. Therefore, the findings have relevant implications for practitioners in
helping them to understand the temporal pattern of tourist revisit intentions.
A limitation of the present work is the consideration of only two temporal moments and the
cross-sectional nature of the empirical study. Thus, we encourage future research that can
offer new insights into the role played by the temporal dimension in the understanding of
tourist revisit pattern from a longitudinal approach.

j

j

PAGE 112 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009


References
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Mazvancheryl, S.K. (2004), ‘‘Customer satisfaction and shareholder
values’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, October, pp. 172-85.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D. (1988), ‘‘Structural modeling in practice: a review and recommended
two-steps approach’’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Andreassen, T.W. and Lervik, L. (1999), ‘‘Perceived relative attractiveness today and tomorrow as
predictors of future repurchase intention’’, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 164-72.
Andreassen, T.W. and Lindestad, B. (1998a), ‘‘Customer loyalty and complex services: the impact of
corporate image on quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty for customers with varying degrees of

service expertise’’, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Andreassen, T.W. and Lindestad, B. (1998b), ‘‘The effect of corporate image in the formation of
customer loyalty’’, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 82-92.
Bansal, H.S., Taylor, S.F. and James, Y.S. (2005), ‘‘Migrating to new service providers: toward a unifying
framework of consumers’ switching behaviors’’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 96-115.
Barroso, C., Martı´n, E. and Martı´n, D. (2007), ‘‘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.
Baumgartner, H. and Steenkamp, J.B.E. (1996), ‘‘Exploratory consumer buying behavior:
conceptualization and measurement’’, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 121-37.
Berne´, C., Mu´gica, J.M. and Rivera, P. (2005), ‘‘The managerial ability to control the varied behavior of
regular customers in retailing: interformat differences’’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 12, pp. 151-64.
Berne´, C., Mu´gica, J.M. and Yagu¨e, M.J. (2001), ‘‘The effect of variety-seeking on customer retention in
services’’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 8, pp. 335-45.
Bigne´, J.E., Sa´nchez, M.I. and Sa´nchez, J. (2001), ‘‘Tourism image, evaluation variables and after
purchase behavior: inter-relationship’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 607-16.
Bloemer, J. and De Ruyter, K. (1998), ‘‘On the relationship between store image, store satisfaction and
store loyalty’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 499-513.
Bolton, R.N. and Lemon, K.N. (1999), ‘‘A dynamic model of customers’ usage of services: usage as
an antecedent and consequence of satisfaction’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 171-86.
Bourdeau, B.L. (2005), ‘‘A new examination of service loyalty: identification of the antecedents and
outcomes of an attitudinal loyalty framework’’, dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL,
available at: theses/available/etd-07072005-181656
Burnham, T.A., Frels, J.K. and Mahajan, V. (2003), ‘‘Consumer switching costs: a typology, antecedents,
and consequences’’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 109-26.
Carroll, B.A. and Ahuvia, A.C. (2006), ‘‘Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love’’, Marketing

Letters, Vol. 17, pp. 79-89.
Chen, C. and Tsai, D. (2007), ‘‘How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral
intentions?’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 28, pp. 1115-22.
Cheng, S., Lam, T. and Hsu, C.H.C. (2005), ‘‘Testing the sufficiency of the theory of planned behavior: a
case of customer dissatisfaction responses in restaurants’’, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 24, pp. 475-92.
Conner, M. and Armitage, C.J. (1998), ‘‘Extending the theory of planned behavior: a review for further
research’’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 15, pp. 1429-64.
Court, B. and Lupton, R.A. (1997), ‘‘Customer portfolio development: modelling destination adopters,
inactives and rejecters’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 35-43.

j

j

VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 113


Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000), ‘‘Assessing the effects of quality, value and customer
satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76
No. 2, pp. 193-218.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), ‘‘Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension’’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.
Decrop, A. and Snelders, B. (2005), ‘‘A grounded typology of vacation decision-making’’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 26, pp. 121-32.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991), ‘‘Effect of price, brand and store information on
buyers’ product evaluations’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 307-19.
Feinberg, F.M., Kahn, B.E. and McAlister, L. (1992), ‘‘Market share response when consumers seek
variety’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, pp. 227-37.
Fournier, S. and Mick, D.G. (1999), ‘‘Rediscovering satisfaction’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4,

pp. 5-23.
Givon, M. (1984), ‘‘Variety seeking through brand switching’’, Marketing Science, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Goukens, C., Dewitte, S., Pandelaere, M. and Warlop, L. (2007), ‘‘Wanting a bit(e) of everything:
extending the valuation effect of variety seeking’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 386-94.
Hartline, M.D. and Jones, K.C. (1996), ‘‘Employee performance cues in a hotel service environment:
influence on perceived service quality, value and word-of-mouth intentions’’, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 35, pp. 207-15.
Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), ‘‘Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and
propositions’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, pp. 92-101.
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), ‘‘The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
fantasies, feelings and fun’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 132-40.
Hu, A.W. and Hwang, I. (2006), ‘‘Measuring the effects of consumer switching costs on switching
intention in Taiwan mobile telecommunication services’’, Journal of the American Academy of Business,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 75-85.
Jang, S. and Feng, R. (2007), ‘‘Temporal destination revisit intention: the effects of novelty seeking and
satisfaction’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 28, pp. 580-90.
Jones, M.A., Mothersbaugh, D.L. and Beatty, S.E. (2000), ‘‘Switching barriers and repurchase intentions
in services’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 259-74.
Jones, T.O. and Sasser, W.E. (1995), ‘‘Why satisfied customers defect’’, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 88-99.
Kahn, B.E. (1995), ‘‘Consumer variety-seeking among goods and services’’, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 139-48.
Kahn, B.E. and Isen, A.M. (1993), ‘‘The influence of positive affect on variety seeking behavior among
safe, enjoyable products’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 257-70.
Kahn, B.E., Kalwani, M.U. and Morrison, D.G. (1986), ‘‘Measuring variety seeking and reinforcement
behaviors using panel data’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 89-100.
Lam, S.Y., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M.K. and Murthy, B. (2004), ‘‘Customer value, satisfaction, loyalty and
switching costs: an illustration from a business-to-business service context’’, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 293-311.

Liu, A.H., Leach, M.P. and Bernhardt, K.L. (2005), ‘‘Examining customer value perceptions of
organizational buyers when sourcing from multiple vendors’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58,
pp. 559-68.
Mattila, A.S. and Wirtz, J. (2000), ‘‘The role of preconsumption affect in postpurchase evaluation of
services’’, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 587-605.
Mazursky, D., LaBarbera, P. and Aiello, A. (1987), ‘‘When consumers switch brands’’, Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 17-30.

j

j

PAGE 114 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009


Mittal, B. and Kamakura, W.A. (2001), ‘‘Satisfaction, repurchase intent and repurchase behavior:
investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38
No. 1, pp. 131-42.
Mittal, B. and Lassar, W.M. (1998), ‘‘Why do customers switch? The dynamics of satisfaction versus
loyalty’’, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 177-94.
Nguyen, N. and Le Blanc, G. (2001), ‘‘Corporate image and corporate reputation in customers’ retention
decisions in services’’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 8, pp. 227-36.
Niininen, O., Szivas, E. and Riley, M. (2004), ‘‘Destination loyalty and repeat behavior: an application of
optimum stimulation measurement’’, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 6, pp. 439-47.
Ratner, R.K., Kahn, B.E. and Kahneman, D. (1999), ‘‘Choosing less-preferred experiences for the sake
of variety’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Roos, I. (1999), ‘‘Switching processes in customer relationships’’, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 68-85.
Rust, R.T. and Zahorik, A.J. (1993), ‘‘Customer satisfaction, customer retention and market share’’,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 193-215.

Steenkamp, J.E.M. and Baumgartner, H. (1992), ‘‘The role of optimum stimulation level in exploratory
consumer behavior’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 434-48.
Steenkamp, J.E.M., Baumgartner, H. and Van der Wulp, E. (1996), ‘‘The relationship among arousal
potential, arousal and stimulus evaluation, and the moderating role of need for stimulation’’, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 319-29.
Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N. and Johnson, L.W. (1999), ‘‘The role of perceived risk in the quality-value
relationship: a study in a retail environment’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 77-105.
Van Trijp, H.C.M., Hoyer, W.D. and Inman, J.J. (1996), ‘‘Why switch? Product-category level explanations
for true variety-seeking behavior’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 281-92.
Yang, Z. and Peterson, R.T. (2004), ‘‘Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: the role of
switching costs’’, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 799-822.
Yi, Y. and La, S. (2004), ‘‘What influences the relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase
intention? Investigating the effects of adjusted expectations and customer loyalty’’, Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 351-73.
Zeithaml, V.A. (2000), ‘‘Service quality, profitability, and the economic worth of customers: what we know
and what we need to learn’’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 67-85.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), ‘‘The behavioral consequences of service quality’’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.
Zins, A.H. (2001), ‘‘Relative attitudes and commitment in customer loyalty models’’, International Journal
of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 269-94.

Corresponding author
Isabel Sa´nchez is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

j

j

VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 115


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.