Temporal destination revisit intention: The effects of novelty seeking and satisfaction

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tourism Management 28 (2007) 580–590
www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Research article

Temporal destination revisit intention: The effects of
novelty seeking and satisfaction
SooCheong (Shawn) Janga,Ã,1, Ruomei Fengb,1
a

Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2059, USA
b
Strategic and Marketing Research, Fedex Services, Collierville, TN 38017, USA
Received 27 April 2006; accepted 28 April 2006

Abstract
Destination revisit intention has been viewed as an important research topic both in academia and the tourism industry. It is important
to observe tourists’ revisit intentions from a time perspective because the intention often changes over time. To understand the formation
of temporally changing destination revisit intention, this study explored the effects of tourists’ novelty-seeking and destination
satisfaction on the revisit intentions measured on short-term, mid-term, and long-term bases. The results indicated that satisfaction was a
direct antecedent of short-term revisit intention, but not of mid-term or of long-term revisit intention, and that novelty seeking was a
significant antecedent of mid-term revisit intention that was connected to long-term revisit intention. The roles of novelty seeking and
destination satisfaction in establishing and reinforcing destination revisit intention as well as developing long-term commitment were
discussed as well.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Temporal destination revisit intention; Novelty seeking; Satisfaction

1. Introduction
Repeat purchase has been accepted as one of the most

important subjects in contemporary marketing. In many
studies, benefits of repeat purchase are often noted as (1)
attracting previous customers is more cost-effective than
gaining new ones; (2) 5% increase in customer retention
could increase profit by 25–85%; and (3) customer
retention tends to yield positive word-of-mouth referral
(Reichheld & Sasser, 1990; Shoemaker & Lewis, 1999).
In tourism, repeat visits have also been accepted as an
important phenomenon at the level of the economy as a
whole and for the individual attraction (Darnell &
Johnson, 2001). Indeed, many travel destinations rely
heavily on repeat visitors (Darnell & Johnson, 2001;
ÃCorresponding author. Tel.:+1 765 496 3610; fax:+1 765 494 0327.

E-mail addresses: (S.C. (Shawn) Jang),
(R. Feng).
1
Both authors contributed equally to the article. The sequence of the
authorships is arbitrary.
0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2006.04.024

Gitelson & Crompton, 1984). To understand why travelers
make repeat visits, many studies have focused on the
antecedents of destination revisit intention in recent years.
The studies have identified major antecedents of revisit
intention including satisfaction (Baker & Crompton, 2000;
Kozak, 2001; Petrick, Morais, & Norman, 2001; Yuksel,
2001), quality related constructs (Baker & Crompton, 2000;
Chen & Gursoy, 2001; Frochot & Hughes, 2000; Yuksel,

2001), perceived value (Petrick, Morais, & Norman, 2001),
past vacation experience (Chen & Gursoy, 2001; Kozak,
2001; Petrick et al., 2001), safety (Chen & Gursoy, 2001),
image (Milman & Pizam, 1995; Ross, 1993), attachment
(Petrick, 2004), and cultural difference (Chen & Gursoy,
2001; Reisinger & Turner, 1998).
As suggested in the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and
the theory of planned behavior (TPB), behavioral intentions signify motivational components of a behavior and
represent the degree of conscious effort that a person will
exert in order to perform a behavior (Ajzen, 1991;
Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). In turn,
behavioral intention depends upon cognitive evaluations


ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.C. (Shawn) Jang, R. Feng / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 580–590

of the behavior (attitude) and perceptions of social pressure
(subjective norm) (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein &
Ajzen, 1975). Warshaw and Davis (1985, pp. 214) defined
behavioral intentions as ‘‘the degree to which a person has
formulated conscious plans to perform or not perform
some specified future behavior.’’ That is, intention to
perform a behavior is the proximal cause of such a
behavior (Shim, Eastlick, Lotz, & Warrington, 2001).
Including past behavior in the TRA may increase the
explained variance in behavior (Bagozzi, 1981; Fredricks &
Dossett, 1983), but Ajzen (1987) maintained that past
behavior offers little theoretical content in explaining what
lies behind a behavior since it often shows superficial

patterns, not the causes of human action.
Some empirical studies have examined the relationship
between behavioral intention and actual behavior. Using
meta-analytic techniques, Sheppard, Hartwick, and Warshaw (1988) extensively reviewed research literature that
included 87 cases for the predictability of intention and
behavior, and reported a mean correlation of 0.53 between
intention and behavior. Van den Putte (1991) conducted a
more extensive meta-analysis based on 113 research papers
and provided a mean correlation of 0.62, which indicated
that behavior could be reasonably predicted from intention. Another meta-analysis by Quelette and Wood (1998)
agreed that behavior is guided by intentions. Moreover,
Eagly and Chaiken (1993) suggested that TRA and TPB
could be used to predict sets of behavior aggregated over
time from intention for the corresponding time period. For
example, intention that is queried for six-month period can
predict behavior for the same 6-month period. On the other
hand, based on Wind & Lerner’s (1979) claim, the
relationships between behavior intentions and actual
behavior may differ, meaning the relationship could be
weak. However, it seems to be generally agreed that
understanding tourist behavioral intention is critical in
predicting future behavior. In the same vein, revisit
intention can serve as a useful tool in predicting future
revisit behavior.
Even though the extant research findings are well
focused on the determinants of repeat visit intention,
understanding tourists’ revisit intention and their behavior
remains limited. Particularly, previous research has rarely
addressed temporal issues related to destination revisit
(Oppermann, 2000). Oppermann (1999, p. 58) suggested

that time is significant in tourist retention and loyalty
because ‘‘time firstly plays a role in identifying appropriate
time intervals during which a purchase may or may not
take place’’. Darnell and Johnson (2001, p. 125) also noted
the significance of temporal viewpoint to destination
management, indicating, ‘‘the time profile of repeat visiting
has important implications for visit flows.’’ Therefore, in
order to better understand temporal destination revisit
intention (TDRI), this study explored the effects of
tourists’ novelty seeking and destination satisfaction on
TDRI, which is measured with short-term, mid-term, and
long-term revisit intentions.

581

2. Literature review
2.1. Temporal destination revisit intention (TDRI)
A pioneering work on TDRI dates back to exploratory
research by Gyte and Phelps (1989). In their study, Gyte
and Phelps noted a type of British traveler showing
resurgent intention of revisiting two destination areas in
Spain. What they found was that most visitors have the
intention of returning in the future. Another study for
international repeat visits by Baloglue and Erickson (1998)
reported a similar pattern in Mediterranean tourism
destinations. The study showed that most international
travelers to one destination are more likely to switch to
another destination for their next trip, but many of them
hope to revisit the same destinations in the future.
However, their explanation on revisit intentions relied on

superficial patterns that appeared from the data analyses
and on two implicit assumptions (Hughes, 1995; Schmidhauser, 1976; Woodside & MacDonald, 1994): (1) revisit
intention lapses over time; and (2) the strength of revisit
intention tends to be constant once it is created.
The first assumption is implied by the recency-frequencymonetary value (RFM) paradigm, which serves as one of
the essential operational principles for many loyaltybuilding programs (Hughes, 1995). The RFM paradigm
suggests that individuals who buy one’s product more
recently, more frequently, and spend more money are more
likely to repurchase or respond to an incentive to
repurchase (Hughes, 1995). Particularly, the notion of
recency indicates that recent customers tend to repurchase
and that the strength of their repurchasing intention will
decrease over time.
The second assumption is implied by some extant tourist
typologies. Woodside and MacDonald (1994) identified
two distinct tourist segments: visitors returning to a
destination due to familiarity and visitors not returning
due to familiarity. Schmidhauser (1976) also suggested that
there are two different types of visitors based on their
destination choices: continuous repeaters and continuous
switchers. Other tourist classifications based on tourist
retention and loyalty shared the assumption of static revisit
intention. Gitelson and Crompton (1984) classified repeat
visitors into three subgroups: infrequent, frequent, and
very frequent, but they did not specify the frequency of
visits for each group. Oppermann (1999) discussed a
conceptual typology as a function of multiple visits, based
on a New Zealand resident data: somewhat loyal (infrequent), loyal (regular), and very loyal (annual and
biannual); and further extended this typology to cover
the entire population by introducing four other traveler

types: non-purchasers, disillusioned, unstable, and disloyal.
Apparently, these two assumptions could not fully
explain the existence of the type of tourist discovered by
Gyte and Phelps (1989). Thus, although repeat visit is not
the same as loyalty, it is meaningful to look at tourists’
revisit from loyalty perspective. Yim and Kannan (1999)


ARTICLE IN PRESS
582

S.C. (Shawn) Jang, R. Feng / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 580–590

suggested that the definition of loyalty should include both
exclusive and reinforcing loyalties. Exclusive loyalty was
further termed as hardcore loyalty, for those consumers
who have been won over by a particular alternative over
time. Reinforcing loyalties are potential switchers that tend
to purchase more than one alternative, exhibit divided
loyalties among a few alternatives, and have an increased
tendency to repurchase the alternative after their initial
purchase. Yim and Kannan’s study (1999) emphasized that
the reinforcing loyalty was associated with variety seeking,
which is similarly based on the optimum levels of
stimulation (Zuckerman, 1971, 1994).
Enlightened by the findings of Gyte and Phelps (1989)
and the reinforcing loyalty of Yim and Kannan (1999),
Feng and Jang (2004) argued a trichotomous TDRI tourist
segmentation with a 5-year time frame: continuous repeater
(travelers with consistently high revisit intentions over

time), deferred repeater (travelers with low revisit intentions
in the short-term but high revisit intentions in the longterm), and continuous switcher (travelers with consistently
low revisit intentions over time). Among the three
segments, deferred repeaters tend to reinforce visit intentions. Thus, they are also potential switchers who tend to
visit more than one destination, showing divided loyalties
and displaying an increased tendency to revisit the
destination after their initial visit. Therefore, focusing on
the deferred repeaters, this study is based on the idea that
tourists’ visit intentions vary depending on time and that
the intention could be split from a temporal perspective
into short-term, mid-term, and long-term revisit intentions.
2.2. Novelty seeking and TDRI
Studies on switching behavior for general products were
often based on the variety seeking theory (McAlister,
1982). However, tourism research by Feng and Jang (2004)
used the novelty seeking theory instead of variety seeking
theory in their TDRI segmentation study, not only because
these two theories share the same idea that consumers seek
optimal levels of stimulation in their choice of behavior as
proposed by Hebb and Thompson (1954), but also because
the novelty seeking theory is an important theoretical
foundation in explaining destination choice behavior (Bello
& Etzel, 1985; Zuckerman, 1971).
Novelty seeking is a central component of travel
motivation and acts as the opposite of familiarity. It is
often defined as the degree of contrast between present
perception and past experience (Pearson, 1970). In the
behavioral science literature, novelty seeking is also
referred to as a curiosity drive, sensation seeking, and an
exploratory drive. The novelty seeking theory became

important in tourism decision making because seeking
novelty is innate in travelers (Cohen, 1979), and seeking
various types of novelty motivates many pleasure travelers
or vacationers to travel (Lee & Crompton, 1992).
Crompton (1979) referred to novel as new experience but
not necessarily new knowledge. Faison (1977) defined

novel travel as a trip characterized by new and unfamiliar
experiences that differ from prior life experience. Lee and
Crompton (1992) further proposed the novel sources of
pleasure travel as thrill, adventure and surprise, and
boredom-alleviation. According to Bello and Etzel (1985),
the novelty seeking theory is based on optimum levels of
stimulation that can be described by three propositions: (1)
an organism prefers a particular level of stimulation; (2)
when the stimulation in the environment does not reach
this optimal level, an organism is motivated to seek
novelty, complexity, adventure, or other conditions; and
(3) when stimulation exceeds this optimal level, the
organism will find ways to reduce it.
Berlyne (1960) extended these propositions by suggesting
that (1) the arousal potential of the stimuli and the arousal
state of an organism are distinct; and (2) between seeking
and avoiding arousing stimuli is arousal tonus (the
individually desired optimal level of arousal), or the
average level of arousal wanted by an organism in its
particular circumstances. It is thus derived that the desire
for new and unfamiliar experiences is frequently compromised by the need to reduce the uncertainty of exposure to
novelty (Crompton, 1979); and a novelty-familiarity
continuum can thus be defined to cover the entire range

of preference from the highest to the lowest optimal level.
Feng and Jang (2004) claimed that while continuous
repeaters may be comparable to lower novelty-seeking
travelers and continuous switchers may be the higher
novelty-seeking travelers, deferred repeaters represent
travelers with at a mid-range level of stimulation.
It is widely accepted that novelty seeking plays a role in
tourist decision-making (Petrick, 2002). Regarding the role
of novelty in travel experience seeking, four of Hirschman
(1984) propositions are relevant in the tourist setting (Lee
& Crompton, 1992). First, some may desire a high level of
novelty on a vacation, while others may prefer a lower level
of novelty. Second, the attitudes of tourists towards a
destination may be influenced by their predispositions
towards levels of novelty seeking. Third, different destinations may satisfy similar desires for novelty. Fourth, it may
be possible to determine the types of destination that will
satisfy an individual by understanding the relative level of
novelty they desire.
2.3. Satisfaction and TDRI
Satisfaction is another important term that has received
much attention in general consumer behavior research as
well as tourism research because satisfaction brings positive
behavioral outcomes and the understanding of satisfaction
provides managerial guidance in the industry (Danaher &
Haddrell, 1996; Kozak, 2001). Oliver (1997) defined
satisfaction as customer judgment about product or service
fulfillment. Similarly, Engel, Blackwell, and Miniard (1990)
proposed a definition that satisfaction is the outcome of the
subjective evaluation about whether or not the chosen
alternative meets or exceeds the expectation.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.C. (Shawn) Jang, R. Feng / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 580–590

Various frameworks and theories have been developed
to explain satisfaction (e.g., the expectation-disconfirmation paradigm and the equity theory). As seen in Engel,
et al. (1990) definition, the most frequently cited one in
accounting for satisfaction is expectation-disconfirmation
paradigm (EDP) that suggests a comparison between
expectation and performance (Oliver, 1980; Wirtz, Mattila,
& Tan, 2000; Yi, 1990). According to Oliver (1980), EDP
suggests confirmation, positive disconfirmation, and negative disconfirmation. Customers’ expectations are confirmed if service or product perceptions exactly meet
expectations. Positive disconfirmation occurs if performance exceeds expectations, whereas negative disconfirmation occurs when expectations exceed performance. Thus,
confirmation and positive disconfirmation result in satisfaction, while negative disconfirmation leads to dissatisfaction. In the tourism and hospitality field, EDP has been
also used to measure satisfaction in empirical studies
(Bigne, Andreu, & Gnoth, 2005; Petrick & Backman, 2002;
Skogland & Siguaw, 2004). Another theory on customer
satisfaction is based on the equity theory (Oliver & Swan,
1989). Satisfaction occurs when customers receive more
value than what they spent in terms of price, time, and
effort (Heskett, Jones, Loveman, Sasser, & Schlesinger
(1994); Kumar, 2002; Su, 2004). According to Grewal,
Monroe, and Krishnan (1998, p. 48), perceived value,
especially perceived transactional value, is ‘‘the perception
of psychological satisfaction obtained from taking advantage of the financial terms of the price deal.’’ Value is often
accepted as a distinct variable from satisfaction (Cronin,
Brady, & Hult, 2000; Yang & Peterson, 2004), but the
equity theory suggests that value could be an appropriate
measure to gauge satisfaction (Heskett, et al., 1994;

Kumar, 2002; Oliver & Swan, 1989; Su, 2004).
Based on these definitions, the relationship between
satisfaction and repurchase intention has been explored in
various product and service markets (e.g. Anderson &
Srinivasan, 2003; Olsen, 2002; Taylor & Baker, 1994). By
proposing the existence of manifest satisfaction and latent
satisfaction, Bloemer and Kasper (1995) argued that the
relationship between consumer satisfaction and repurchase
intention is not monotonic because of the disparity of

customers’ motivation and capability to evaluate the
purchased product/service brand relative to the reference
point. Manifest satisfaction occurs when an explicit
comparison is made between expectation and performance
and when the customers can be conscious of the outcome
of their own evaluation and satisfaction. When there is no
explicit comparison made because of a lack of motivation
and/or capability of the customers to evaluate their own
choice, customers cannot be fully aware of their own
satisfaction, which is called latent satisfaction. An empirical test by Bloemer and Kasper (1995) indicated that the
positive influence of manifest satisfaction on repurchase
intention is greater than that of latent satisfaction, so the
general idea that satisfaction has a positive relationship
with repurchase intention is still valid.
Similarly, the positive relationship between satisfaction
and revisit intention has been found in tourism destination
choice settings (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Kozak, 2001;
Petrick, et al., 2001; Yuksel, 2001).
2.4. The proposed TDRI formation model
The uniqueness of this study is in addressing the

temporal aspect of destination revisit intention. Although
time rarely appears in decision-making models (Bergadaa,
1990), its importance has been recognized in many
academic fields such as philosophy (Bergson, 1959),
sociology (Merleau-Ponty, 1962), history (Braudel, 1969),
and physics (Bachelard, 1932). Researchers in these fields
have suggested that time is one causal factor of natural and
human phenomena and that the past and future of the
phenomena are unconditionally linked. This allowed the
researchers to posit that short-term, mid-term, and longterm destination revisit intentions are inter-related. Thus,
four sets of hypotheses were proposed in this study. Fig. 1
presents the following hypotheses.
The first set of hypotheses was on the relationships
between novelty seeking and TDRI:
H1a. The level of novelty seeking influences short-term
destination revisit intention.
H1b. The level of novelty seeking influences mid-term
destination revisit intention.

Destination
Satisfaction

Novelty
Seeking
H1c

H2a

H1a

H2b

H1b

Short-term
Revisit
Intention

H3a

583

Mid-term
Revisit
Intention

H3b

H2c

Long-term
Revisit
Intention

Fig. 1. A hypothetical model for temporal destination revisit intention (TDRI).


ARTICLE IN PRESS
584

S.C. (Shawn) Jang, R. Feng / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 580–590

H1c. The level of novelty seeking influences long-term
destination revisit intention.
The second set of hypotheses was about the relationships
between destination satisfaction and TDRI:
H2a. Destination satisfaction influences short-term destination revisit intention.
H2b. Destination satisfaction influences mid-term destination revisit intention.
H2c. Destination satisfaction influences long-term destination revisit intention.
The third set of hypotheses considered the relationships
of destination revisit intentions across different time
periods:
H3a. Short-term destination revisit intention influences
mid-term destination revisit intention.
H3b. Mid-term destination revisit intention influences
long-term destination revisit intention.

3. Methodology
The study used data from the Pleasure Travel Markets
Survey for France that was collected by the Coopers and
Lybrand Consulting Group under the joint sponsorship of
the Canadian Tourism Commission and the International
Trade Administration—Tourism Industries in the US
Using random sampling, a total of 1221 personal interviews were conducted in French households. All respondents were 18 years or older and had taken overseas
vacations of four nights or more by plane outside of
Europe and the Mediterranean region. More detailed data,
including information about tourist novelty-seeking, was
collected only from those who traveled to Canada because
the Canadian Tourism Commission made a greater
financial contribution to the data collection. Thus, to

examine tourists’ revisit intentions, which was the primary
variable of this study, and to achieve the objective of this
study, a sub-sample of 163 respondents who visited
Canada was drawn from the dataset.
An important issue in the measurement of TDRI was to
decide upon the time frame. In the destination consumption setting, since there are no accepted definitions of shortterm, mid-term, and long-term, short-term revisit intention
was defined in this research as the intention to revisit within
the next 12 months; mid-term as within the next three
years, and long-term as within the next five years. Thus,
short-term revisit intention was operationalized by two
variables; revisit interest within the next 12 months (SI) and
revisit likelihood within the next 12 months (SL). For midterm revisit intention, revisit interest within the next 3 years
(MI) and revisit likelihood within the next 3 years (ML)
were used, while revisit interest within the next 5 years (LI)
and revisit likelihood within next 5 years (LL) were used
for long-term revisit intention. A four-point Likert scale
(1 ¼ not at all interested and not at all likely, 4 ¼ very
interested and very likely) was used to gauge the level of
interest and likelihood.

Interest has been used to capture information about
behavioral intention (BI), while likelihood has been used as
behavioral expectation (BE) in previous studies (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1974). However, due to the confounding nature
of the two variables, as suggested in Ajzen and Fishbein
(1974), both BI and BE have been used to measure
behavioral intentions in many studies (e.g., Anderson,
1983; Jaccard & King, 1977; Triandis, 1979). Thus, this
study used both interest and likelihood to measure revisit
intentions.

Because researchers argued a need for a multi-attribute
scale for satisfaction (Knutson, 1988; Lewis & Pizam, 1981;
Su, 2004; Wirtz et al., 2000), two variables in the data set
were used to measure satisfaction in this study. The first
variable was the overall satisfaction with the destination
reported by travelers (SAS) using a four-point Likert scale.
Based upon the equity theory of customer satisfaction, the
second measurement variable as a proxy of satisfaction was
the perceived value for money from visiting the destination
(SAV) measured by a 10-point Likert scale with a rationale
that individuals tend to have high levels of satisfaction
when they feel their trips are valuable (Oliver & Swan,
1989). The two variables were transformed with square
functions to obtain normal distributions. The transformed
variables, SQSAS and SQSAV, were used in testing the
proposed model. Nine novelty-seeking items were extracted
from the data set to develop the measurement construct of
novelty seeking. The variables are listed in Table 1.
To test and estimate the hypothesized model, a two-step
approach with an initial measurement model and a
subsequent structural model for Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM) was used (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
The LISREL 8.54 structural equation analysis package was
used to conduct the analysis. In estimating the measurement model and structural models, the maximum likelihood procedure was used, where a model w2 test is the
most common model goodness-of-fit test (Joreskog &
Sorbom, 1993). In addition, considering the literature
about the SEM (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998;
Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005), this study used, besides
the model w2, more model fit indexes to determine the
tenability of the suggested model: goodness-of-fit index

(GFI) and root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) as absolute fit indexes; normed-fit index (NFI)
and non-normed-fit index (NNFI) as incremental fit
indexes; and normed w2 as a parsimonious fit index.
4. Results
Before estimating the model, the reliability of the
measurement items was verified using the Cronbach’s a
to assess the internal consistency of the constructs in the
proposed model. The alpha values range from 0.64 to 0.94
(Table 1), exceeding the minimum hurdle of 0.6 for an
exploratory study (Hair et al., 1998). Construct reliabilities
were also checked, yielding satisfactory scores of greater
than 0.5 (Hair et al., 1998). The results indicated that the


ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.C. (Shawn) Jang, R. Feng / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 580–590

585

Table 1
Results of confirmatory factor analysis for measurement model
Standardized loading

t-statistic

0.61
0.65
0.52
0.52

0.69

11.09
10.13
8.02
9.83
11.96

NV1
NV2
NV3
NV4
NV5

0.77

11.54

NV6

0.53

8.78

NV7

0.47
0.48

4.79

6.39

NV8
NV9

Destination satisfaction
Overall satisfaction (squared)
Value of Money (squared)

0.73
0.64

4.94
4.93

Short-term revisit intention
Revisit interest within next 12 month
Revisit likelihood within next 12 month

0.99
0.86

11.52
12.88

Mid-term revisit intention
Revisit interest within next three years
Revisit likelihood within next three years

0.99

0.89

18.00
16.01

Long-term revisit intention
Revisit interest within next five years
Revisit likelihood within next five years

0.97
0.89

9.43
12.89

Variables
Novelty Seeking
Experiencing a different culture
Local crafts and handiwork
Local cuisine and new food
Interesting and friendly local people
Opportunity to see or experience people from
different ethnic backgrounds
Opportunity to see or experience unique aboriginal
or native group
Opportunity to increase one’s knowledge about
places, people and thing
Variety of things to see and do
Visiting a place I can talk about when I get home

Cronbach a

Construct reliability

0.88

0.53

0.64

Label

0.64
SQSAS
SQSAV

0.92

0.92
SI
SL

0.89

0.94
MI
ML

0.76

0.93
LI
LL

Table 2
Goodness-of-fit indexes for measurement and structural models
Index

Model w2
p-value
Normed w2
RMSEA
GFI
NFI
NNFI

Cutoff value

N/A
40.05
1.0–5.0
o0.05: good fit
0.05–0.08: mediocre fit
40.90
40.90
40.90

measurement items were reliable in gauging each construct.
The measurement model was estimated with a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The results of the measurements for novelty seeking, destination satisfaction, and the
three temporal destination revisit intentions showed a good

model fit (w2 ¼ 123.65, p-value ¼ 0.055, normed w2 ¼ 1.23,
RMSEA ¼ 0.040, GFI ¼ 0.92, NFI ¼ 0.95, NNFI ¼ 0.99)
(Table 2). All indicator loadings for the constructs in the
model were significant at the alpha level of 0.05, showing
convergent validity (Table 1). Examining whether or not
the correlations among the constructs were significantly
different from 1 tested the discriminant validity among the
constructs. The confidence intervals of the correlations,

Observed statistics
Measurement model

Structural model

123.65
0.055
1.23

119.10
0.094
1.19

0.040

0.035

0.92
0.95
0.99

0.92
0.96
0.99

calculated as correlation 7 1.96 Â standard error of
estimate, did not contain 1, which indicated discriminant
validity.
A structural model with five constructs was estimated
using Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation. The fit
indices of the structural model indicated a good fit to the
data (w2 ¼ 119.10 p-value ¼ 0.094, normed w2 ¼ 1.19,
RMSEA ¼ 0.035, GFI ¼ 0.92, NFI ¼ 0.96, NNFI ¼
0.99). The results of the hypothesis testing are reported in
Table 3. Four out of nine hypotheses (paths) were found
to be significant, including the effect of satisfaction on
short-term revisit intention (b ¼ 0.26, t-value ¼ 3.23),
novelty seeking on mid-term revisit intention (b ¼ 0.12,


ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.C. (Shawn) Jang, R. Feng / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 580–590

586

Table 3
Results of the structural equation modeling for structural model
Paths
Short-term revisit intention
Short-term revisit intention
Mid-term revisit intention

Mid-term revisit intention
Mid-term revisit intention
Long-term revisit intention
Long-term revisit intention
Long-term revisit intention

’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’

Satisfaction
Novelty seeking
Short-term revisit intention
Satisfaction
Novelty seeking
Mid-term revisit intention
Satisfaction
Novelty seeking

Standardized estimate

t-statistic

Hypothesis

0.26
0.02
0.75
0.06
0.12
0.86
0.01
0.05

3.23Ã
0.43
12.29Ã
1.35
2.30Ã
19.38Ã
0.14
0.99

Supported
Not supported
Supported
Not supported
Supported
Supported
Not supported
Not supported

à Indicates significance at a level of 0.05.

δ1

NV1
0.61

δ2

NV2

δ3

NV3

δ4

NV4

0.65

0.52

ζ1

0.52
δ5

NV5

δ6

NV6

Novelty
Seeking

0.68

0.73

Destination
Satisfaction

0.77

ε1

SQSAV

ε2

0.64
0.12

0.54

0.26

ζ2

δ7

NV7

δ8

NV8

ζ3

0.47
Short-term
Revisit
Intention

0.50
δ9

SQSAS

NV9

0.99
SI

ε3

Mid-term
Revisit
Intention

0.75

0.87

0.97

0.99

Long-term
Revisit
Intention

0.86

SL

MI

ML

ε4

ε5

ε6

0.97
LI

ε7

ζ4

0.87
LL

ε8

Fig. 2. Results of structural model for temporal destination revisit intention (TDRI).

t-value ¼ 2.30), short-term revisit intention on mid-term
revisit intention (b ¼ 0.75, t-value ¼ 12.29), and mid-term
revisit intention on long-term revisit intention (b ¼ 0.86, tvalue ¼ 19.38). The final TDRI structural model is
presented in Fig. 2.
The statistical results provided three major findings: (1)
destination satisfaction directly influences short-term revisit intention only and satisfaction is connected to midterm and long-term revisit intention in an indirect way
through short-term revisit intention; (2) novelty seeking
does not affect short-term revisit intention, but it is a

significant direct antecedent of mid-term revisit intention
and an indirect antecedent of long-term revisit intention;
and (3) a significant relationship exists between short-term
and mid-term revisit intention, as well as between mid-term
and long-term revisit intention.
5. Discussion and conclusions
Many businesses seek repeat customers because such
customers are believed to produce more sales revenue and
help reduce marketing costs (Hennig-Thurau & Hansen,


ARTICLE IN PRESS

S.C. (Shawn) Jang, R. Feng / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 580–590

2000; Reichheld & Sasser, 1990). Tourism marketers also
believe that repeat visitors are important in increasing
revenue in destinations and in saving marketing dollars.
Because of a flood of tourism products and services,
destination marketers have greater difficulties in drawing
travelers to their destinations in increasingly competitive
market environments. On the contrary, tourists are given
many options that can satisfy their travel needs, which
directly influences destination choice. It is certain that
continuous repeaters make up the most attractive segment
from the destination perspective, because they would
reduce long-term marketing costs. However, if they focus
only on continuous repeaters, destination managers and
marketers may misunderstand the movement of their
market and allocate their resources inefficiently. To avoid
inefficiency, destinations should further understand their
entire market structure, which consists of other segments,
including continuous repeaters and deferred repeaters. It is
important for marketers to note the life-long values of both
continuous repeaters and deferred repeaters. As pointed
out by Oppermann (2000), frequent patronage is not
always a true indicator of destination loyalty because of
spurious loyalty (not very positive attitude but high repeat
purchase). This indicates why it is more important for
destinations to examine tourists’ revisit intention than
actual revisit. In addition, it is also necessary to understand
how the revisit intention changes over time and identify
appropriate time intervals during which a purchase may or

may not occur. Thus, examining destination revisit
intentions from a time viewpoint as suggested in this study
may be of a great significance for both practical and
theoretical reasons.
Time is an essential component of natural and human
phenomena. The ultimate goal in addressing TDRI should
be to investigate and comprehend the lifetime value (LTV)
of repeat travelers. Although it may be difficult to fully
understand the LTVs of travelers within the 5-year time
span adopted in this study, this exploratory research may
provide a useful stepping stone to tourism researchers in
determining the importance of the temporal perspective in
destination revisit intention. Looking back to the tourist
typologies on repeat visitation by Gitelson and Crompton
(1984) and Oppermann (1999), this study theoretically
explained the formation of infrequent, frequent, and very
frequent repeaters. The temporal perspective of destination
revisit intention should make it easier to understand tourist
revisit behavior.
The model of TDRI formation in this study examined
two potential antecedents of destination revisit intention:
satisfaction and novelty seeking. Previous research has
shown that satisfaction is an important predictor of
intention to revisit (Petrick & Backman, 2002). In this
study, satisfaction was a significant direct factor influencing short-term revisit intention, which was consistent with
previous literature that has emphasized the role of
satisfaction in customer and repeat travel behavior.
However, satisfaction had no direct impact on mid-term

587

and long-term revisit intention. Thus, the direct effect of
satisfaction may not be significant in developing long-term
business retention unless satisfaction can be continuously
given.
Meanwhile, novelty was identified as a significant, direct,
and positive antecedent of mid-term revisit intention.
Because the term expresses a tendency to seek new and
adventurous experiences, novelty seems to be a factor in
switching behavior. This study revealed another function
of novelty in reinforcing and recovering revisit intention.
This new function of novelty also offers a theoretical clue
as to why the RFM paradigm and the recency notion are
not fully appropriate for destination relationship marketing. According to the final model, while novelty seeking
directly influences mid-term revisit intention, there is no
direct relationship between novelty seeking and long-term
revisit intention. A possible explanation may come from a
theoretical perspective. Neutralizing the effect of novelty
seeking on long-term revisit intention, other factors that
are not included in the study model may exist, one of which
can be perceived behavioral control. Perceived behavioral
control is defined as one’s perception of how easy or
difficult it is to perform the behavior (Eagly & Chaiken,
1993). In accordance with the theory of planned behavior
by Ajzen (1991), people intend to engage in behaviors to
the extent that they believe that they have control over
them. In the case of destination revisit intention, tourists’
perception of the ability to control actual revisit behaviors
may decrease over time due to the uncertainty of the future.
As a result, the decrease of long-term revisit intention

because of low perceived behavioral control may counteract the increased revisit intention from novelty seeking.
Following the proposition that long-term commitment
depends on accumulated satisfaction, it is essential to
understand how to satisfy repeat travelers. Some researchers have concluded that repeat travelers differ from firsttime travelers in many ways, for instance, in using
information sources (Chen & Gursoy, 2000), in destination
image (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991), in visiting behavior
(Oppermann, 1997), and in expenditure (Tang & Turco,
2001). Particularly, Yuksel (2001) argued that repeat and
first-time visitors develop satisfaction based on different
components of destination attributes. Another interesting
idea comes from the study by Gyte and Phelps (1989)
showing that travelers with reinforcing revisit intention
tend to visit different resorts when they came back to the
same destination areas. This tendency is understandable
because deferred repeaters are novelty-seekers, while
continuous repeaters are inherent novelty avoiders. Overall, the findings of this study suggest that management can
influence repeat visits from the short, medium, and longterm perspectives. Travel destinations can motivate travelers to revisit within a year or so by maximizing traveler
satisfaction. Thus, destination management should take
special care of visitor satisfaction because satisfied visitors
will come back to experience this satisfaction again within
a short period. In addition, management needs to plan


ARTICLE IN PRESS
588

S.C. (Shawn) Jang, R. Feng / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 580–590

rejuvenation to appeal to novelty seekers who have visited.
New attractions can be developed or new natural resources

can be used to attract past visitors to revisit within medium
terms. However, practically speaking, destinations may
improve visitor revisit intention within a shorter term if
they can provide different products or services season by
season. If that is the case, destinations can make it possible
for the same visitors to revisit sooner than suggested by this
study.
Furthermore, Kozak (2001) pointed out that satisfaction
with a destination would facilitate not only revisit to the
destination but also a visit to a neighboring destination.
These extant findings may lead to future research on
secondary destination decisions. How do repeat travelers
make choices after they decide to revisit a destination?
How does novelty seeking function at this stage? The
answers to these questions will help a destination develop
appropriate strategies to attract different segments as well
as develop marketing partnerships with neighborhood
destinations.
It is not deniable that this study has limitations. Using a
country (Canada) as a destination, this study adopted a
five-year term to test the revisit intention cycle. However,
Oppermann (1998) proposed a conceptual model for
destination choice suggesting that the likelihood of an
individual visiting a particular destination would decline
with an increase in the distance traveled. Thus, the 5-year
length of the reinforcing cycle may not be appropriate for
destinations with smaller geographical scope. Another
limitation is related to the sample size of this study. Kline
(2005) suggested that an ideal goal for the ratio of the
number of observations to the number of free parameters

in the SEM is 20 and a realistic minimum target is 10. This
study falls short of the suggested ideal goal, even though it
approximately meets the minimum target. In addition, this
study may have more limitations due to its exploratory
nature. While this study introduced a new research
direction for understanding revisit intentions, there remains a great scope for further research exploring the
influence of time on tourists’ repeat visits.
For future research, further efforts should be directed
toward developing more comprehensive temporal models
that can explain revisit intentions using a schema, a system
of relationships that combine additional possible determinants as suggested by Kozak, Huan, and Beaman (2002).
That could better explain the effect of time on revisit
intentions, further verifying tourist loyalty.
Acknowledgements
The data, from which the sample of this study was
drawn, were collected by the Coopers & Lybrand
Consulting Group on behalf of Canadian Tourism
Commission and the former United States Travel and
Tourism Administration. The authors would like to
acknowledge their contributions. Neither the collector
nor the sponsors of the original data are responsible for

the results of this study. The authors also appreciate the
consistent support of Dr. Joseph T. O’Leary at Texas
A&M University and Dr. Alastair M. Morrison at Purdue
University during this research study.

References
Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of
behavior in personality and social psychology. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 20 (pp. 1–63). New
York: Academic Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior
& Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1974). Factors influencing intentions and the
intention-behavior relation. Human Relations, 27, 1–15.
Anderson, C. A. (1983). Imagination and expectation: The effect of
imagining behavioral scripts on personal intentions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 293–305.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling
in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Anderson, R. E., & Srinivasan, S. S. (2003). E-satisfaction and E-loyalty:
A contingency Framework. Psychology and Marketing, 20(2), 123–138.
Bachelard, G. (1932). L’intuition de l’instant. Paris: Denoel.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A test of some
key hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41,
607–627.
Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction, and
behavior intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785–804.
Baloglue, S., & Erickson, R. E. (1998). Destination loyalty and switching
behavior of travelers: A Markov analysis. Tourism Analysis, 2,
119–127.
Bello, D. C., & Etzel, M. J. (1985). The role of novelty in the pleasure
travel experience. Journal of Travel Research, 24, 20–26.
Bergadaa, M. M. (1990). The role of time in the action of the consumer.
Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 289–302.
Bergson, H. (1959). L’evolution creatrice. Paris: PUF.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw
Hill Book, Co.
Bigne, J. E., Andreu, L., & Gnoth, J. (2005). The theme park experience:

An analysis of pleasure, arousal and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 26, 833–844.
Bloemer, J. M. M., & Kasper, H. D. P. (1995). The complex relationship
between consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 16, 311–329.
Braudel, F. (1969). Ecrits sur l’histoire. Paris: Flammarion.
Chen, J. S., & Gursoy, D. (2000). Cross-cultural comparison of the
information sources used by first-time and repeat travelers and its
marketing implications. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 19(2), 191–203.
Chen, J. S., & Gursoy, D. (2001). An investigation of tourists’ destination
loyalty and preferences. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality management, 13(2), 79–85.
Cohen, E. (1979). Rethinking the sociology of tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 6(1), 18–35.
Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects
of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral
intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2),
193–218.
Crompton, J. (1979). Motivation for pleasure vacation. Journal of Leisure
Research, 6, 408–424.
Danaher, P. J., & Haddrell, V. (1996). A comparison of question scales for
measuring customer satisfaction. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 7(4), 4–26.
Darnell, A. C., & Johnson, P. S. (2001). Repeat visits to attractions:
A preliminary economic anaysis. Tourism Management, 22, 119–126.


ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.C. (Shawn) Jang, R. Feng / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 580–590
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort
Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D., & Miniard, P. W. (1990). Consumer behavior
(6th ed.). Chicago, IL: The Dryden Press.
Faison, E. (1977). The neglected variety drive: A useful concept for
consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 172–175.
Fakeye, P. C., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Image differences between
prospective, first-time, and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grand
Valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30(2), 10–16.
Feng, R., & Jang, S. (2004). Temporal destination loyalty: A structural
initiation. Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research, 9, 207–221.
Fishbein, M. (1967). Attitude and the prediction of behavior. In M.
Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement
(pp. 477–492). New York: Wiley.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior:
An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fredricks, A. J., & Dossett, D. L. (1983). Attitude-behavior relations: A
comparison of the Fishbein-Ajzen and the Bentler-Speckart models.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 501–512.
Frochot, I., & Hughes, H. (2000). HISTOQUAL: The development
of a historic houses assessment scale. Tourism Management, 21(2),
157–167.
Gitelson, R. J., & Crompton, J. L. (1984). Insights into the repeat vacation
phenomenon. Annals of Tourism Research, 11, 199–217.
Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects of pricecomparison advertising on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value,
transaction value, and behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62,
46–59.
Gyte, D. M., & Phelps, A. (1989). Patterns of destination repeat business:
British tourists in Mallorca, Spain. Journal of Travel Research, 28(1),
24–28.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998).
Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:

Prentice Hall.
Hebb, D. O., & Thompson, W. R. (1954). The social significance of animal
studies. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology
(pp. 551–552). Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Hennig-Thurau, T., & Hansen, U. (2000). Chapter 1: Relationship
marketing—Some reflections on the state-of-the-art of the relational
concept. In T. Hennig-Thurau, & U. Hansen (Eds.), Relationship
marketing: Gaining competitive advantage through customer satisfaction
and customer retention (pp. 3–27). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.
Heskett, J. L., Jones, T. O., Loveman, G. W., Sasser, W., Jr., &
Schlesinger, L. (1994). Putting the service profit chain to work.
Harvard Business Review, March-April, 105–111.
Hirschman, E. C. (1984). Experience seeking: A subjectivist perspective of
consumption. Journal of Business Research, 12, 115–136.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 1–55.
Hughes, A. M. (1995). Making a database pay off using recency,
frequency, and monetary analysis. Journal of Database Marketing,
3(1), 77–89.
Jaccard, J., & King, G. (1977). A probabilistic model of the relationship
between beliefs and behavioral intentions. Human Communication
Research, 3, 332–342.
Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL VIII manual. Mooresville,
IN: Scientific Software.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling
(2nd Ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Knutson, B. (1988). Ten laws of customer satisfaction. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 29, 14–17.
Kozak, M. (2001). Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct destinations. Annals

of Tourism Research, 28(3), 784–807.
Kozak, M., Huan, T. C., & Beaman, J. (2002). A systematic approach to
non-repeat and repeat travel: with measurement and destination
loyalty concept implications. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,
12(4), 19–38.

589

Kumar, P. (2002). The impact of performance, cost, and competitive
considerations on the relationship between satisfaction and
repurchase intent in business markets. Journal of Service Research,
5(1), 55–68.
Lee, T.-H., & Crompton, J. (1992). Measuring novelty seeking in tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 732–751.
Lewis, R., & Pizam, A. (1981). Guest surveys: A missed opportunity.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 22(3), 37–44.
McAlister, L. (1982). A dynamic attribute satiation model of varietyseeking behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 141–150.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. trans. C. Smith,
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Milman, A., & Pizam, A. (1995). The role of awareness and familiarity
with a destination: The central Florida case. Journal of Travel
Research, 33(3), 21–27.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and
consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research,
17, 460–469.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989). Equity and disconfirmation
perceptions as influences on merchant and product satisfaction.
Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 372–383.

Olsen, S. O. (2002). Comparative evaluation and the relationship between
quality, satisfaction, and repurchase loyalty. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 30(3), 240–249.
Oppermann, M. (1997). First-time and repeat visitors to New Zealand.
Tourism Management, 18(3), 177–181.
Oppermann, M. (1998). Destination threshold potential and the
law of repeat visitation. Journal of Travel Research, 37(November),
131–137.
Oppermann, M. (1999). Predicting destination choice: A discussion of
destination loyalty. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5, 51–65.
Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel
Research, 39(August), 78–84.
Pearson, P. H. (1970). Relationship between global and specified measures
of novelty seeking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34,
199–204.
Petrick, J. F. (2002). An examination of golf vacationers’ novelty. Annals
of Tourism Research, 29(2), 384–400.
Petrick, J. F. (2004). Are loyal visitors desired visitors? Tourism Management, 25, 463–470.
Petrick, J. F., & Backman, S. J. (2002). An examination of the
determinants of golf travelers’ satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research,
40(February), 252–258.
Petrick, J. F., Morais, D. D., & Norman, W. (2001). An examination of
the determinants of entertainment vacationers’ intentions to revisit.
Journal of Travel Research, 40(August), 41–48.
Quelette, J.A., & Wood, W., (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life:
The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future
behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 54–74.
Reichheld, F. F., & Sasser, W. E. (1990). Zero, defection: Quality comes to
service. Harvard Business Review, 68(1), 105–111.
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in tourism:

A strategy for tourism marketers. Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing, 7(4), 79–106.
Ross, G. F. (1993). Ideal and actual images of backpacker visitors to
northern Australia. Journal of Travel Research, 32(2), 54–57.
Schmidhauser, H. (1976). Neue erkenntnisse uber gesetzmassigkeiten bei
der wahl des reiseziels (New insights in the regularities in destination
choice). Jahrbuch fur Fremdenverkehr, 24/25, 86–102.
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of
reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer
Research, 15, 325–343.
Shim, S., Eastlick, M. A., Lotz, S. L., & Warrington, P. (2001). An online
prepurchase intentions model: The role of intention to search. Journal
of Retailing, 77, 397–416.


ARTICLE IN PRESS
590

S.C. (Shawn) Jang, R. Feng / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 580–590

Shoemaker, S., & Lewis, R. C. (1999). Customer loyalty: The future of
hospitality marketing. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18, 345–370.
Skogland, I., & Siguaw, J. A. (2004). Are your satisfied customers loyal?
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45(3), 221–234.
Su, A. Y. (2004). Customer satisfaction measurement practice in Taiwan
hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23, 397–408.
Tang, Q., & Turco, D. M. (2001). Spending behaviors of event tourists.
Journal of Convention and Exhibition Management, 3(2), 33–40.
Taylor, S. A., & Baker, T. L. (1994). An assessment of the relationship
between service quality and customer satisfaction in the formation of

consumers’ purchase intention. Journal of Retailing, 70(2), 163–178.
Triandis, H. C. (1979). Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. In
MM. Page (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska.
van den Putte, B. (1991). 20 years of the theory of reasoned action of
Fishbein and Ajzen: A meta-analysis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Warshaw, P. R., & Davis, F. D. (1985). Disentangling behavioral
intention and behavioral expectation. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 21, 213–228.
Wind, Y., & Lerner, D. (1979). On the measurement of purchase data:
Surveys versus purchase diaries. Journal of Marketing Research, 16,
39–47.
Wirtz, J., Mattila, A., & Tan, R. (2000). The moderating role of targetarousal on the impact of affect on satisfaction: An examination in the
context of service experiences. Journal of Retailing, 76(3), 347–365.

Woodside, A. G., & MacDonald, R. (1994). General systems framework
of customer choice processes for tourism services. In R. V.
Weiermair,K. Gasser (Ed.), Spoilt for Choice: Decision Making
Processes and Preference Changes of Tourists—Intertemporal and
Intercountry Perspectives (pp. 30–59). Thaur, Austria: Kulturverlag.
Yang, Z., & Peterson, R. T. (2004). Customer perceived value,
satisfaction, and loyalty: The role of switching costs. Psychology &
Marketing, 21(10), 799–822.
Yi, Y. (1990). A critical review of consumer satisfaction. In S. Valerie
Zeithaml (Ed.), Review of Marketing (pp. 68–123). Chicago: American
Marketing Association.
Yim, C.-K., & Kannan, P. K. (1999). Consumer behavioral loyalty: A
segmentation model and analysis. Journal of Business Research, 44(2),
75–92.
Yuksel, A. (2001). Managing customer satisfaction and retention: A case

of tourist destinations, Turkey. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 7(2),
153–168.
Zuckerman, M. (1971). Dimensions of sensation seeking. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36(1), 45–52.
Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of
sensation seeking. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Further reading
Thompson, J. (1996). The fourth dimension. Beverage World, 115(June),
34–36.