The effect of customer engagement and travel satisfaction drivers on destination loyalty

0

The effect of customer engagement and travel

satisfaction drivers on destination loyalty

Double Degree Master Advanced International Business Management and Marketing

University of Groningen University of Newcastle

Faculty of economics and Business Business School

Drs. H.A. Ritsema Dr. N. Heirati

1

Abstract

Loyalty is one of the most important topics in Marketing; however destination loyalty is not a worldwide known phenomenon. Due to the changing environment of the marketplace and the way consumers are connected to the rest of the world nowadays, it is increasingly important for researchers and marketers to know what the drivers for destination loyalty are and how customers can be engaged to their destination. A literature review is done to find the drivers of destination loyalty and a framework is developed. The aim of this research is to test relationships between specific aspects of a destination (image, personality and attachment) and destination loyalty trough travel satisfaction and the relationships between travel satisfaction, customer engagement and attitudinal destination loyalty. To test the relationships, a survey was developed to collect quantitative data, using a sample of people all

around the world (N=192).

The data show that destination attachment and destination personality have a positive influence on travel satisfaction, with destination personality having a strong influence and attachment having a moderate influence. Destination image did have a negative influence on travel satisfaction, however was found not to be significant. This might be the result of visitors having a different image of the destination before they travel to their destination. Travel satisfaction and customer engagement have a positive influence on destination loyalty; however customer engagement as a moderator does not have a significant influence.

2

Acknowledgement

This dissertation project is the last thing I have to do before graduating at the University of Groningen and at the Newcastle University Business School. I would never have graduated without the support of some people and I would like to thank them in this acknowledgement.

First of all, I would like to thank my supervisors Dr. Heirati from Newcastle University Business School and Drs. Ritsema from the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Groningen for providing feedback and support throughout the process of this dissertation. Second of all, I would like to thank my parents and the rest of my family for their unconditional support not only during this dissertation but through my whole study.

3

Table of content

1.3 Overall research aim and questions 8

1.4 Research rationale 8

1.5 Structure of thesis 9

1.6 Conclusion 10

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction 11 2.2 The drivers 11 2.2.1 Destination image 11 2.2.2 Destination personality 12 2.2.3 Destination attachment 13 2.3 Customer engagement 14 2.4 Travel satisfaction 14 2.5 Destination loyalty 15 2.6 Hypotheses of drivers 15

2.6.1 The link between destination image and travel satisfaction 15 2.6.2 The link between destination personality and travel satisfaction 16 2.6.3 The link between destination attachment and travel satisfaction 16

2.7 Hypotheses of the effect of customer engagement 17

2.8 Conceptual model 19

2.9 Conclusion 19

4 3.1 Introduction 21 3.2 Research strategy 21 3.2.1 Research paradigm 21 3.2.2 Research methods 21 3.2.3 Sampling strategy 22 3.2.4 Data analysis 22 3.3 Measures constructs 22 3.4 Data Collection 24 3.5 Ethical considerations 25 3.6 Conclusion 26 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS 27 4.1 Introduction 27 4.2 Descriptive analysis 27 4.2.1 Sample characteristics 27 4.2.2 Descriptive results 30

4.3 Model and construct evaluation 32

4.3.1 Reliability 32

4.3.2 Validity 35

4.4 Hypotheses testing 35

4.4.1 Drivers regressed on travel satisfaction 36

4.4.2 Travel satisfaction regressed on destination loyalty 37

4.4.3 Travel satisfaction and customer engagement 37

4.5 Additional testing 38 4.5.1 Gender ` 38 4.5.2 Age 38 4.5.3 Repeat visitations 39 4.6 Conclusion 40 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 41 5.1 Introduction 41

5.2 Specific aspects of a destination 41

5.3 Effects of travel satisfaction and customer engagement 41

5

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 43

6.1 Introduction 43

6.2 Contribution to theory and managerial implications 43

6.3 Limitations and further research 44

6

List of tables

Table 2.1: Different definitions of destination image

Table 2.2: Summary of studies who used Aaker’s BPS (1997) Table 2.3: Hypotheses

Table 3.1: Measurement model specification Table 3.2: Ethical issues and actions

Table 4.1: Respondents’ characteristics Table 4.2: Descriptive statistics of constructs Table 4.3: Reliability assessment

Table 4.4: Convergent and discriminant validity Table 4.5: Regression analysis

Table 4.6: Independent T-test Table 4.7: ANOVA age

Table 4.8: Turkey test age, significance Table 4.9: Descriptive age groups Table 4.10: ANOVA groups

Table 4.11: Turkey test groups

Table 4.12: Descriptive repeat visitations Table 4.13: Summary of hypotheses

List of figures

Figure 2.1: Conceptual model

List of abbreviations

7

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction

One of the most important topics in Marketing is customer loyalty, since it is linked to a better corporate performance (Toufaily et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2014). Creating and maintaining customer loyalty helps businesses to create a long-term, mutually beneficial relationship with customers (Pan et al., 2012). Loyal customers spend more money and they are more likely to create positive word-to-mouth marketing. The same holds for destinations. Destination loyalty is not a worldwide known phenomenon. The degree of loyalty towards a destination lays in tourists their intention to revisit a certain destination and in their intention to recommend the destination to other people (Zhang et al., 2014). The positive experiences of a tourist on a destination could lead to repeat visits and positive word of mouth. Loyal destination customers tend to stay longer on a destination and tend to spend more money (Oppermann, 2000). Destination loyalty has always been measured and based on the brand loyalty literature. Since loyalty is such an important topic in the marketing literature, the purpose of this research is to find the drivers of destination loyalty and how to engage customers.

This first chapter presents the background of the study. Based on the background, the research aim and questions are presented. The research rationale is outlined and the structure of this thesis is explained.

1.2 Background

8

Research has shown that the image of the destination perceived by tourists play an important role in their destination choice, post-trip evaluation, and future behaviours (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Gallarza, Saura, & García, 2002). However, destination personality is becoming increasingly important for marketers to create a unique destination personality (Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Guido, 2001; Ekinci & Hosany, 2006).

Recent research suggests that engaging tourist’s post trip could facilitate visitors become advocates and ambassadors for the destination by creating word-of-mouth marketing and sharing their experiences online (Mistilis, Buhalis, and Gretzel, 2014), but this has never been tested. Due to the upcoming importance of customer engagement in the marketing literature, it is important to test whether and how it is to be used by marketers to increase destination loyalty.

1.3 Overall research aim and research questions

The purpose of this research is to investigate:

How specific aspects of a destination, including image, personality and attachment, influence attitudinal destination loyalty trough travel satisfaction and how customer engagement may affect these relationships

In doing so, this study addresses following specific research questions:

1. To what extent do destination image, destination personality and destination attachment have an influence on travel satisfaction?

2. To what extent do travel satisfaction and customer engagement influence destination loyalty?

3. To what extent does the level of customer engagement affect the relationship between travel satisfaction and destination loyalty?

1.4 Research rationale

9

interest to researchers and marketers, as marketers have to change their strategy to create and maintain destination loyalty due to the changing market environment (Opperman, 2000; Zhang et al., 2014). The right marketing strategy could be important for destination to create a higher level of tourist visits, especially given the range of opportunities and challenges created by the emergence of social media that marketers of destinations can use in their advantage (Stepchenkova & Mills 2010). Based on the brand literature, it is important to test whether customer can also get engaged in the marketing of a destination. (Potential) tourists can find and post information online anytime, however this is supported by tourism literature (Ye, Law, and Gu 2009).

This research will try to find drivers which could increase destination loyalty. These drivers could be used by marketers when advertising the destination. The drivers are the following specific aspects: destination image, destination personality and destination attachment. All three of them have been investigated in relation to destination loyalty; however some found a direct relationship, while others found an indirect relationship (Fleury-Bahi, Felonneau, & Marchand, 2008). Therefore, a literature review is necessary to find what has been investigated and to develop own hypotheses.

1.5 Structure of the thesis

10 1.6 Conclusion

11

Chapter 2: Literature review

2.1 Introduction

The first chapter presented the background of this research and the research aim and questions were developed. This research will focus on how to use the specific aspects of a destination to drive destination loyalty and how customer engagement can have an effect on these relationships. This chapter reviews the existing literature to set up a theoretical framework, provide definitions and develop hypotheses.

2.2 The drivers

The three specific aspects of a destination in this research are destination image, destination personality and destination attachment. First, definitions will be provided of all the constructs. In the second part of the literature review, the theoretical framework will be outlined and the relationships between the constructs will be hypothesized.

2.2.1 Destination image

A lot of research has been done on the construct destination image, and a lot of research leads to a lot of definitions. An overview of a few definitions is shown in table 2.1, which is from the article of Zhang et al. (2014). Despite the multiple different definitions of destination image, the following definition is generally used: “a compilation of beliefs and impressions based on information processing from various sources over time that result in a mental representation of the attributes and benefits sought of a destination” (Crompton, 1979; Gartner, 1993). This definition will also be used in this research.

Author Definition

Hunt (1971) Impression that a person or persons hold

about a state in which they do not reside

Lawson and Bond-Bovy (1977) An expression of knowledge,

impressions, prejudice, imaginations and emotional thoughts an individual has of a specific object or place

12

impressions that a person has of a destination

Embacher and Buttle (1989) Ideas or conceptions held individually or

collectively of the destination under investigation

Echtner and Ritchie (1991) The perceptions of individual destination

attributes and holistic impression made by a the destination

Gartner (1996) Destination images are developed by

three hierarchically interrelated components: cognitive, affective and conative

Baloglu and McClearly (1999) An individual’s mental representation of

knowledge, feelings, and global impressions about a destination Murphy, Pritchard & Smith (2000) A sum of associations and pieces of

information connected to a destination which would include multiple

components of the destination and personal perception

Bigne et al (2001) The subjective interpretation of reality

made by tourist

Kim and Richardson (2003) A totally of impressions, beliefs, ideas,

expectations, and feelings accumulated toward a place over time

Table 2.1: Different definitions of destination image

2.2.2 Destination personality

13

Aaker has developed the Brand Personality Scale (BPS) in 1997 to capture personality aspects of brands. It has been the most used reliable and valid measurement instrument to measure personality. It consists of five dimensions: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. It was created for the brand literature, however is also used for other purposes. BPS has also been used to measure destination personality. In table 2.2 from the article of Usakli & Bolaglu (2011), it is shown that many more researchers used this instrument.

Reference Method

Ekinci & Hosany (2006) Structured: Aaker’s (1997) BPS, content

validity, 27 items of BPS, 5-point Likert-type scale

Hosany et al. (2006) Structured: Aaker’s (1997) BPS, content

validity, 27 items of BPS, 5-point Likert-type scale

Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorf (2007)

Structured: 20 items of Aaker’s (1997) BPS, 5-point Likert-type scale

Unstructured: Open-ended questions

Murphy et al. (2007a) Structured: 20 items of Aaker’s (1997)

BPS, 5-point Likert-type scale Murphy, Benckendorff,

& Moscardo (2007b)

Structured: 20 items of Aaker’s (1997) BPS, 5-point Likert-type scale

Pitt et al. (2007) Content analysis: a list of 922 synonyms

to Aaker’s (1997) 42 personality traits were collected, and then, categorized according to Aaker’s (1997) BP dimensions.

Table 2.2: Summary of studies who used Aaker’s BPS (1997)

2.2.3 Destination attachment

14

bit of destination attachment, before even visiting the destination. The destination attachment is then based on stories about the destination from family and friends or what is told by mass media (Halpenny, 2006).

2.3 Customer engagement

In the marketing literature, a lot is written about customer engagement with a strong behavioral focus, for example activities such as word-of-mouth, recommendations, blogging and writing reviews. These activities go beyond the purchasing process (MSI, 2010). Some researchers and practitioners show behavioral orientation (Bijmolt et al., 2010; van Doorn et al., 2010; Shevlin, 2007; Verhoef, Reinartz, & Krafft, 2010;). However, other researchers state that customer engagement has to become a broader concept with psychological parts as well (Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek, 2009; Patterson, Yu, & de Ruyter, 2006, 2011a; Vivek, 2009;). A customer may acquire information on the internet about a brand by participate in a discussion on a forum (Brodie et al. 2013). This customer is not connected to the brand yet, since it has not bought anything, however is engaged to the brand. An engaged customer must have psychological connection with a brand (Hollebeek 2011b; So, King, and Sparks, 2014). King & Sparks (2015) define customer engagement “as a customer’s personal connection to a brand as manifested in cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses outside of the purchase”.

2.4 Travel satisfaction

15

destination is able to meet their travel needs and expectations. Travel satisfaction is primarily a function to see whether the post-travel experience met the pre-travel expectation (Chen & Chen, 2010). In this research, destination satisfaction will be measured to the extent in which the expectations and travel needs were able to meet on a certain destination.

2.5 Destination loyalty

Destination loyalty can be measured on three different levels, (1) the behavioural approach, (2) the attitudinal approach, and (3) the composite approach (Jacoby & Chestnut, 1978). Since this is a cross-sectional research, it is only possible to measure destination loyalty in the attitudinal approach. Aspects can be measured trough repurchase intentions, intention to recommend the product or service to others, and the likelihood of switching or buying more (Mattila, 2001; Reynolds & Arnold, 2000; Selnes & Gonhaug 2000). Travel destinations can be seen as products, because tourists can revisit or recommend the destination to others. This leads to the definition of destination loyalty: the positive expression of tourist to intend to revisit the destination or to recommend it to friends or family.

2.6 Hypotheses of drivers

2.6.1 The link between destination image and travel satisfaction

16

destination image has an indirect influence on destination loyalty, trough travel satisfaction. The following hypothesis was developed:

H1: Destination image is positively related to travel satisfaction.

2.6.2 The link between destination personality and travel satisfaction

Tourist destinations around the world are competing with each other, and assigning a personality to a destination has become an important part for the marketing of a tourist destination (Stepchenkova & Mills, 2010). One destination can differentiate from different destinations by using a distinctive destination personality (Murphy, et al., 2007). According to Usakli & Baloglu (2011), the perception of tourists of the destinations’ personality has an influence on their attitude and behavior towards that destination. However, Bekk et al. (2015) state that it is not the destinations’ personality alone that has an influence on tourists their attitude and behavior towards a destination, but the fit between the destinations’ personality and their own personality. Tourists might evaluate a place more positively when they perceive a fit between themselves and the place, in terms of their own personality dimensions. A well-established brand personality can lead to strong emotional ties to a brand (Aaker et al., 2004). Since destination personality is based on the definition of brand personality, the same should account for destination personality. It will help a consumer to emotionally connect to a destination (Park & Jung, 2010). Therefore:

H2: Destination personality is positively related to travel satisfaction.

2.6.3 The link between destination attachment and travel satisfaction

17

such as the acquisition of positive memories, they would have more attached feelings towards a destination (Brocato, 2006; Hou et al., 2005; Lee, 1999).

However, on the other hand, there are researchers who suggest the link between destination attachment and customer satisfaction has the opposite direction. They state that feelings of attachment towards a destination leads to higher level of customer satisfaction (Fleury-Bahi et al., 2008; Halpenny, 2006; Mowen, Graefe, & Virden, 1997; Scott & Vitardas, 2008; Wickham, 2000). A significant relationship between destination satisfaction, destination attachment and destination loyalty was found (Lee et al., 2003), however this research had one important limitation, which was that a possible relationship between destination attachment and destination satisfaction was overlooked. Research found a relationship between place attachment and satisfaction in recreation and residency literature (Fleury-Bahi et al., 2008; Halpenny, 2006; Stedman, 2002; Wickham, 2000). Since a set of positive beliefs and emotions can also be formed on a tourist destination, the following hypothesis is developed:

H3: Destination attachment is positively related to travel satisfaction.

2.7 Hypotheses of the effect of customer engagement

18

However, it is still important to test this relationship to find out if destination loyalty is affected by the destination image, personality and attachment trough travel satisfaction. Therefore:

H4: Travel satisfaction is positively related to destination loyalty

Marketing researchers state that customer engagement may enhance loyalty and purchase decisions (Hollebeek, 2009; Patterson, Yu, & de Ruyter, 2006). Customer engagement with a brand leads to a connection with the brand and leads to a favorable consumers’ brand perception and attitudes. Brand loyalty could be the result (So, King, and Sparks, 2014; Sprott, Czellar, and Spangenberg, 2009; Vivek, Beatty, and Morgan 2012). Therefore: Brand loyalty represents a customer’s deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred brand consistently (Oliver 1999). In contrast, CE summarizes customers’ beyond-purchase connections with the brand (So, King, and Sparks, 2014; Vivek, Beatty, and Morgan, 2012). Marketing scholars argue that CE may enhance loyalty and purchase decisions (Hollebeek 2009; Patterson, Yu, & de Ruyter 2006) through a strong, enduring psychological connection accompanied by interactive brand experiences beyond purchase (Brodie et al. 2011). CE with a brand influences consumer outcomes such as brand perceptions and brand attitudes, and therefore influences brand loyalty (Sprott, Czellar, & Spangenberg 2009). Furthermore, an engaged individual is likely to develop more favorable attitudes toward a product, company, or brand, leading to loyalty toward the entity (Vivek, Beatty, & Morgan 2012; So, King, & Sparks, 2014).

Therefore, the following hypotheses is developed:

H5: Customer engagement is positively related to destination loyalty

19

customer engagement can react as a moderator on the relationship between travel satisfaction and destination loyalty. Therefore:

H6: Customer engagement has a positive influence on the relationship between travel satisfaction and destination loyalty

2.8 Conceptual model

In figure 2.1, the conceptual model of the framework is presented and the relationships between the constructs are shown.

Figure 2.1: Conceptual model

2.9 Conclusion

In chapter 2, a literature review is provided. Based on the literature review, definitions of the constructs are given and a theoretical framework is developed. Based on the

20

theoretical framework, six hypotheses are developed and summarized in table 2.2. Next chapter will present the methodology to test this theoretical framework.

H1 Destination image is positively related to travel satisfaction H2 Destination personality is positively related to travel satisfaction H3 Destination attachment is positively related to travel satisfaction H4 Travel satisfaction is positively related to destination loyalty H5 Customer engagement is positively related to destination loyalty

H6 Customer engagement has a positive influence on the relationship between travel satisfaction and destination loyalty

21

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 Introduction

In the first chapter, the research aim and questions have been developed. In the second chapter, a literature review was presented and hypotheses were formed. An empirical research is necessary to test these hypotheses and the methodology of this research will be presented in this chapter. First, the research strategy will be presented, after that the measures of the constructs will be explained and at the end of the chapter data collection and ethical considerations will be presented.

3.2 Research strategy 3.2.1 Research paradigm

The research paradigm in this research is considered positivism. Positivist researchers are likely “to work with an observable social reality and that the end product of such research can be law-like generalisations similar to those produced by the physical and natural scientists” (Remenyi et al., 1998, p.32). This research is based on relationships between constructs and wants to describe the strength between the constructs.

3.2.2 Research methods

22

many researchers used it before, which means it is a reliable and valid measurement instrument. The results of the second pre-test are shown in appendix B.

After these two pre-tests, the final version of the survey was developed and this one is shown in appendix C.

3.2.3 Sampling strategy

There are two types of sampling techniques, non-probability and probability sampling. Non-probability sampling will be used in this research and the sampling techniques will be self-selection and snowball (Stevens, 2009)

3.2.4 Data analysis

The data of the analysis will be done in three steps. First, the characteristics of the respondents will be presented to see if it is a representative sample. Second, the reliability and validity of the constructs will be measured and analysed. The last step is to test the hypotheses; the relationships will be tested with a regression analysis with IBM SPSS 23.0. Regression analysis is needed; because this research is examine the relationships between a dependent variable and its underlying predictors (Stevens, 2009). Additional testing is done to see whether there are differences between groups, based on characteristics such as gender and age, to find out if marketers should focus on a certain group.

3.3 Measures construct

Destination loyalty, travel satisfaction, destination image, destination personality and destination attachment were measured by instruments from previous research. All five constructs are measured with a 7 point Likert scale. Customer engagement is measured based on the definition, which was provided in the literature review. In

table 4.1, the used measures are presented with their source.

Construct Variab le numb er

Variable definition Measure

s

Source

Destination loyalty

DL1 Your attempt to revisit the specific destination?

7 point Likert

Zhang et al., (2014)

23

friends and family to visit this specific destination?

DL3 I love staying at this specific destination.

7 point Likert

Yuksel et al., (2010)

DL4 I feel better when I stay at this destination.

scale

DL5 I like this specific destination more than other destinations Destination

image

DI1 How would you describe the

image that you had of the destination before you travelled there? 7 point Likert scale Bigné et al. (2001)

DI2 The specific destination met my pre-travel image

DI3 I had a lot of knowledge about this specific destination

DI4 My feelings for this destination met my pre travel feelings DI 5 Advertising or promotional

efforts had an influence on my pre-travel image

Destination DP1 Sincere 7 point Bekk et al.,

personality DP2 Reliable scale (2015) and

DP3 Successful Likert Usakli and

DP4 Trustworthy Baloglu, (2011) DP5 Straight DP6 Daring DP7 Exciting DP8 Original DP9 Spirited DP10 Young DP11 Elegant DP12 Sophisticated DP13 Charming DP14 Glamorous DP15 Stylish

DP16 I can identify myself with this specific destination

7 point Likert DP17 I am quite similar to the

personality of the specific destination

scale

DP18 This destination is consistent with how I see myself

DP19 This specific destination is exactly the right destination for me

Destination attachment

DA1 This specific destination means a lot to me

7 point Likert

Yuksel et al., (2010)

24

specific destination

DA3 I feel strong sense of belonging to this specific destination Travel

satisfaction

TS1 My time on this specific

destination was worth my time and effort 7 point Likert Chen and Phou, (2013) TS2 My experience on this

destination was excellent

scale

TS3 This destination did meet my pre-travel expectations

TS4 Overall, I was satisfied with my travel experience on the specific destination

Customer engagemen t

CE1 Did you search for information about the destination before you travelled there?

Yes/No Based on

literature and definitions

CE2 If yes, how? Thick box

Social media YouTube Travel books Blogs

Information from friends and family

Other

CE 3 Did you share information about this specific destination?

Yes/No

CE4 If yes, how? Thick box

On social media I wrote a blog

I told friends and family about it I posted videos on YouTube

Table 3.1: Measurement model specification

3.4 Data collection

25 3.5 Ethical consideration

In business and management research, there are two different views on ethics: the deontological view and the teleological view (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2011). The first view states that research which is done unethically can never be justified. The second view states that research can be done unethically, as long the benefits weigh more than the costs. This research is done in the first view. There are several ethical issues arising during a research. These are shown in table 3.2 and the actions that are done to make sure this research was ethical.

Before respondents started the survey, an information sheet was shown to them. This information sheet stated that the survey was anonymous and that they could withdraw anytime. Their answers could not be identified and drawn back to them and will only be used for this research. The researcher was the only one who had access to the data. In case, the participants had any question, the name and email address were also provided on the information sheet.

Ethical issues Actions

The privacy of the participants No personal questions were asked

during the survey, their answers could not be identified and drawn back to them Voluntary nature of the participants In the information sheet, it was stated

that respondents could withdraw at any time

Consent and possible deception of participants

It was stated on the information sheet that if they would start the survey, their

consent would be assumed.

Furthermore, the name and email address of the researcher were on the information sheet as well if someone wanted more information

Maintenance of the confidentiality if data provided by individuals or identifiable participant and their anonymity

The researcher is the only one who has access to the data. They are stored on a computer behind a password and the data will be used for this research only. Reactions of participants to the way in

which you seek to collect data, including embarrassment, stress, discomfort, pain and harm

The data collection method does not harm any (potential) participants or the researcher or could lead to any uncomfortable feelings

26 3.6 Conclusion

27

Chapter 4: Survey findings: Description,

analysis and synthesis

In previous chapters, the literature was reviewed, hypotheses were formed and a survey was developed. In this chapter, the outcomes of the survey will be presented and the hypotheses will be tested. First, the characteristics of the sample are outlined. Secondly, the normality, reliability and the validity of the constructs are tested. Regression analysis will be used to test the hypotheses. Additional tests are performed to investigate on which groups marketers should focus. A discussion and interpretation of the findings will be presented in the chapter 5.

4.2 Descriptive analysis

The link to the survey was posted on several social media. 287 people clicked on the link and 230 started the survey, which is a participation rate of 80.13%. However, 38 people did not finish the survey, or did not fill in all the questions. This led to a valid data set of N=192 respondents.

4.2.1 Sample characteristics

The sample profile contains the following variables: gender, age, country of origin and educational level. The descriptive statistics of the respondents are all presented in table 4.1.

28

sample; however this is not expected to have an influence on the results of this research.

29

Variable Category Observed

frequency

Percentage

Sample Valid size 192 100%

Gender Male 89 46.4 Female 103 53.6 Age 18-25 97 50.5 26-35 44 22.9 36-45 7 3.6 46-55 30 15.6 56-65 10 5.2 66 and older 4 2.1

Country of origin Aruba 1 0.5

Australia 1 0.5 Bulgaria 1 0.5 China 14 7.3 Colombia 1 0.5 France 13 6.8 Germany 8 4.2 India 2 1.0 Indonesia 1 0.5 Ireland 1 0.5 Italy 2 1.0 Malaysia 1 0.5 Moldova 1 0.5 The Netherlands 119 62 Poland 3 1.6 Russia 1 0.5 Rwanda 2 1.0 Spain 2 1.0 Sweden 2 1.0 Taiwan 9 4.7 Ukraine 1 0.5 United Kingdom 2 1.0 USA 4 2.1

Educational level High school 20 10.4

Vocational education 28 14.6 University of Applied science 44 22.9 Bachelor/Master 91 47.4 Other 9 4.7

30 4.2.2 Descriptive results

The outcomes of the survey were uploaded in SPSS 23.0 (IBM SPSS, 2015) to be able to perform tests. Before testing the hypotheses, the normality, reliability and validity of the different constructs are assessed.

It is possible to assess the normality using graphical and non-graphical tests; however graphical tests are preferred (Stevens, 2009). There are different non-graphical tests such as the chi-square test goodness of fit, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, the Shapiro-Wilk test and the use of skewness and kurtosis coefficients. Wilk, Shapiro and Chen (1968) found that the combination of skewness and kurtosis and the Shapiro-Wilk test were most useful to test normality, which led to the use of the skewness and kurtosis to assess normality. “The Skewness value provides an indication of the symmetry of the distribution. Kurtosis, on the other hand, provides information about the ‘peakedness’ of the distribution” (Pallant, 2010, p.57). When the skewness and kurtosis perform a value of 0, the distribution of a construct is perfectly normal (Pallant, 2010). However, a value of ±2 for both skewness and kurtosis is within the normal distribution range (deVellis, 2012).

As shown in table 4.2, the mean of the items range between 1.30 and 6.11. The standard deviations range between 0.864 and 1.818. As shown in the table as well, most skewness and Kurtosis fall within the range of ±2, so it can be stated that these variables are normally distributed. DL3, TS1, TS3 and TS4 score higher than + 2 on their kurtosis test, which would suggest they are not normally distributed. However, this could be the result of the large sample size (N<80). For large samples, a distribution from -2.58 till +2.58 can be used (Field, 2013; Hair et al., 2014). This means that DL3 is also normally distributed.

31

Construct Mean SD Skewnes

s

Kurtosis Destination loyalty

Attitudinal loyalty

DL1 _{How likely is your intention to revisit}

your last destination

4.96 1.718 -0.674 -0.416

DL2 _{How likely is your intention to}

encourage friends and family to visit your last destination?

5.66 1.234 -1.204 1.642

Affective loyalty

DL3 _{I love staying at this specific}

destination

5.63 1.238 -1.457 2.551

DL4 _{I feel better when I stay at this}

destination

5.03 1.450 -0.773 0.189

DL5 _{I like this specific destination more}

than other destinations

4.34 1.604 -0.367 -0.624

Destination image

DI1 _{How would you describe the image}

that you had of the destination before you travelled there?

5.29 1.081 -0.341 0.294

DI2 _{The specific destination met my}

pre-travel image

5.13 1.384 -1.039 0.758

DI3 _{I had a lot of knowledge about this}

destination

4.48 1.521 -0.371 -0.363

DI4 _{My feelings fort his destination met}

my pre-travel feelings

4.81 1.478 -0.636 -0.579

DI5 _{Advertising or promotional efforts had}

an influence on my pre-travel image

3.57 1.762 0.037 -1.082 Destination personality Human characteristics DP1 _{Sincere 5.04 1.231 -0.828 0.390} DP2 _{Reliable 5.23 1.220 -1.000 1.061} DP3 _{Succesful 5.38 1.138 -1.026 1.591} DP4 _{Trustworthy 5.25 1.189 -0.722 0.395} DP5 _{Straight 5.12 1.181 -0.563 -0.162} DP6 _{Daring 4.26 1.401 -0.301 -0.422} DP7 _{Exciting 5.02 1.308 -0.639 0.041} DP8 _{Original 4.97 1.418 -0.613 -0.120} DP9 _{Spirited 5.35 1.286 -1.060 1.018} DP10 _{Young 4.77 1.407 -0.464 -0.187} DP11 _{Elegant 4.54 1.503 -0.324 -0.642} DP12 _{Sophisticated 4.31 1.348 -0.161 -0.345} DP13 _{Charming 5.24 1.289 -0.674 0.193} DP14 _{Glamorous 4.24 1.513 -0.185 -0.599} DP15 _{Stylish 4.56 1.496 -0.378 -0.400} Own characteristics

DP16 _{I can identify myself with this specific}

destination

4.94 1.307 -0.575 0.196

32

the specific destination

DP18 _{This destination is consistent with}

how I see myself

4.43 1.509 -0.274 -0.593

DP19 _{This specific destination is exactly the}

right destination for me

4.70 1.491 -0.447 -0.224

Destination attachment

DA1 _{This specific destination means a lot}

to me

4.77 1.659 -0.512 -0.602

DA2 _{I am very attached to this destination 4.51 1.766 -0.398 -0.833}

DA3 _{I feel strong sense of belonging to}

this destination

4.44 1.818 -0.289 -1.002

Travel satisfaction

TS1 _{My time on this specific destination}

was worth my time and effort

6.11 0.967 -1.870 5.742

TS2 _{My experience on this specific}

destination was excellent

6.06 0.890 -1.024 1.213

TS3 _{This destination did meet my}

pre-travel expectations

5.84 1.100 -1.544 3.167

TS4 _{Overall, I was satisfied with my travel}

experience on the specific destination

6.07 1.010 -1.809 5.189

Customer engagement

CE1 _{Did you search for information about}

the destination before you travelled there? If yes, how?

1.83 1.466 0.635 -0.103

CE2 _{Did you share information about your}

destination after you visited (for

example, pictures, articles, comments etc.)? If yes, how?

1.30 0.864 0.358 0.251

Table 4.2: Descriptive statistics of constructs

4.3 Model and construct evaluation

Before testing the hypotheses, the reliability and the validity of the constructs are assessed as well to test the quality of the model.

4.3.1 Reliability

33

The most common measure to test reliability is the Cronbach Alpha. The Cronbach Alpha tests the internal consistency of the scale items between one variable. According to the deVellis (2003), it is ideal when the Cronbach alpha coefficient is above 0.7, however above 0.6 is also acceptable (Naresh et al, 2007). The reliability test results are shown in table 4.3. Destination image and customer engagement show a Cronbach alpha above 0.6, which is acceptable. Destination loyalty, destination personality and travel satisfaction perform a Cronbach alpha above the 0.8, which is high and destination attachment performs a Cronbach alpha above 0.9, which is very high.

However, with the elimination of DI5, the AVE of destination image increased to 0.554 from 0.463 and Cronbach Alpha increased to 0.737 from 0.663.

Construct Item loading AVE Cronb ach Alpha Destination loyalty 0.593 0.818 Attitudinal loyalty 0.651

DL1 How likely is your intention to revisit your last destination

0.818

DL2 How likely is your intention to encourage friends and family to visit your last destination?

0.796

Affective loyalty 0.553

DL3 I love staying at this specific destination 0.764

DL4 I feel better when I stay at this destination 0.750

DL5 I like this specific destination more than other destinations

0.717

Destination image 0.463 0.663

DI1 How would you describe the image that you had of the destination before you travelled there?

0.836

DI2 The specific destination met my pre-travel image 0.834

DI3 I had a lot of knowledge about this destination 0.685

DI4 My feelings fort his destination met my pre-travel feelings

0.593

34 DP4 Trustworthy 0.783 DP5 Straight 0.610 Excitement 0.528 DP6 Daring 0.808 DP7 Exciting 0.743 DP8 Original 0.723 DP9 Spirited 0.702 DP10 Young 0.649 Conviviality 0.585 DP11 Elegant 0.838 DP12 Sophisticated 0.805 DP13 Charming 0.783 DP14 Glamorous 0.743 DP15 Stylish 0.640 Own characteristics 0.805

DP16 I can identify myself with this specific destination 0.923

DP17 I am quite similar to the personality of the specific destination

0.922

DP18 This destination is consistent with how I see myself 0.873

DP19 This specific destination is exactly the right destination for me

0.870

Destination attachment 0.894 0.940

DA1 This specific destination means a lot to me 0.960

DA2 I am very attached to this destination 0.944

DA3 I feel strong sense of belonging to this destination 0.932

Travel satisfaction 0.767 0.894

TS1 My time on this specific destination was worth my time and effort

0.910

TS2 My experience on this specific destination was excellent

0.907

TS3 This destination did meet my pre-travel expectations 0.861

TS4 Overall, I was satisfied with my travel experience on the specific destination

0.822

Customer engagement 0.596 0.681

CE1 Did you search for information about the destination before you travelled there? If yes, how?

0.860

CE2 Did you share information about your destination after you visited (for example, pictures, articles, comments etc.)? If yes, how?

0.673

35 4.3.2 Validity

First, the multicollinearity of the model was analyzed by using a correlation test. This test is done to see whether the different independent variables have a separate effect (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). The results are shown in table 4.4. A correlation with a value of 0 indicates there is no relationship between the two variables, while a high value indicates a very strong relationship. If the value is above 0.9, it indicates substantial collinearity (Hair et al. 2006). As shown in the table, none of the variables show multicollinearity. Following an approach suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981) the discriminant validity of constructs was assessed. This approach proposes that discriminant validity is demonstrated if the square root of the AVE is greater than the corresponding correlations. As presented in Table, the square roots of the AVE values are constantly greater than the corresponding correlations and no individual correlations were higher than the corresponding reliabilities, indicating satisfactory discriminant validity. AVE DL DI DP DA TS CE DL 0.593 0.768 DI 0.554 0.442 0.678 DP 0.595 0.610 0.462 0.771 DA 0.894 0.685 0.488 0.693 0.946 TS 0.767 0.577 0.248 0.632 0.536 0.876 CE 0.596 0.235 0.224 0.154 0.167 0.028 0.772

Table 4.4: Convergent and discriminant validity Note: Diagonal entries show square foot of AVE.

4.4 Hypotheses testing

36

R2 _{F Sign. Beta Sign. t-value}

Travel satisfaction 0.420 45.331 ** H1 DI → TS -0.054 n.s. -0.870 H2 DP → TS 0.509 ** 6.549 H3 DA → TS 0.207 * 2.593 Destination loyalty without interaction 0.381 58.177 ** H4 TS → DL 0.571 ** 9.975 H5 CE → DL 0.219 ** 3.820 Destination loyalty with interaction 0.390 40.054 ** H6 TS → DL 0.579 ** 10.124 CE → DL 0.220 ** 3.865 TS x CE → DL -0.095 ** -1.655

Table 4.5: Regression analysis results *p<0.05 **p<0.01

4.4.1 Destination image, destination personality and destination attachment regressed on travel satisfaction

The different aspects of a destination were regressed on travel satisfaction. The following model was used to test these relationships.

Travel satisfaction = ẞ0 + ẞ1*destination image + ẞ2*destination personality + ẞ3*destination attachment + ε

37 4.4.2 Travel satisfaction and customer engagement regressed on destination loyalty

The following regression model is used to show the relationship between travel satisfaction, customer engagement and destination loyalty.

Destination loyalty = ẞ0 + ẞ1*travel satisfaction + ẞ2*customer engagement + ε The overall variance explained by the model was 38.1% and was significant (F=58.177, p<0.0005). Travel satisfaction has a positive influence (beta=0.571, p=<0.0005) and is significant and therefore H4 is accepted. Customer engagement has a positive influence (beta=0.219, p<0.0005) and is significant and therefore H5 is accepted.

4.4.3 Travel satisfaction and customer engagement regressed on destination loyalty with interaction

The following regression model is used to show the relationship between travel satisfaction, customer engagement and destination loyalty, with customer engagement also performing as a moderator.

Destination loyalty = ẞ0 + ẞ1*travel satisfaction + ẞ2*customer engagement + ẞ3*travel satisfaction*customer engagement + ε

38 4.5 Additional testing

Some additional test were performed to test whether there was a difference between the results of male and females, to see whether there is a difference between the different age groups and whether there is a difference between the respondents who state they never, sometimes and always go back to the same destination.

4.5.1 Gender

To test the difference between males and female, an independent sample t test was performed; the results show a difference between the answers of males and females. The results are shown in table 4.14. Females score a higher mean on all the constructs; however these results are not significant. It cannot be stated that there is a difference between man and woman in showing destination loyalty, customer engagement and travel satisfaction.

Construct Male/female Mean p

Destination loyalty Male 4.9775 0.088

Female 5.2524 0.088

Customer Male 2.9326 0.157

engagement Female 3.3107 0.156

Travel satisfaction Male 5.9270 0.158

Female 6.1044 0.159

Table 4.6: Independent T-test

4.5.2 Age

To perform a test between the different age groups, the one way ANOVA was used. The test of Homogeneity showed a significance of 0.134, which means the homogeneity of the variances, was not violated. The overall model is significant F (2.071), p=0.023.

Test of homogeneity of variances ANOVA

Levene statistic p F P

1.170 0.134 2.071 0.023

Table 4.7: ANOVA age

39 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66+ 18-25 1.000 26-35 0.870 1.000 36-45 0.966 1.000 1.000 46-55 1.000 0.871 0.947 1.000 56-65 0.046 0.013 0.102 0.135 1.000 66+ 0.862 0.978 0.998 0.830 0.097 1.000

Table 4.8: Turkey test age, significance

It can be concluded that the respondents in age group of 56-65 show a lower destination loyalty (mean=4.06) than the respondents in the age groups of 18-25 and 26-35 (mean=5.11 and mean=5.33).

N Mean 18-25 97 5.11 26-35 44 5.33 36-45 7 5.45 46-55 30 5.04 56-65 10 4.06 66+ 4 5.75 Total 192 5.12

Table 4.9: Descriptives age groups

4.5.3 Repeat visitations

A one way ANOVA test was also used to see whether there was a difference between people who state they always, sometimes or never go back to destinations. The test of Homogeneity showed a significance of 0.132, this means the homogeneity of the variances was not violated. The overall model is significant F (3.434), p=0.034.

Test of homogeneity of variances ANOVA

Levene statistic p F P

2.046 0.132 3.434 0.034

Table 4.10: ANOVA groups

40

Always Sometimes Never

Always 1.000

Sometimes 0.026 1.000

Never 0.099 0.962 1.000

Table 4.11: Turkey test groups, significance

It can be concluded there is a significant difference between the destination loyalty means of the people who state that they always or sometimes go back to a destination. N Mean Always 11 5.9636 Sometimes 158 5.0658 Never 23 5.1304 Total 192 5.1250

Table 4.12: Descriptives repeat visitations

4.6 Conclusion

This chapter presented the outcomes of the survey and tested the hypotheses. The chapter started by presenting the descriptive analysis, followed by testing the normality, reliability and validity of the constructs. Later, the hypotheses were tested using regression analysis. Additional testing was performed to test on which groups marketers should focus. The outcome is shown in table 4.6. The next chapter will discuss the results and answer the research questions.

H1 Destination image is positively related to travel satisfaction Rejected

H2 Destination personality is positively related to travel satisfaction Accepted H3 Destination attachment is positively related to travel satisfaction Accepted

H4 Travel satisfaction is positively related to destination loyalty Accepted

H5 Customer engagement is positively related to destination loyalty Accepted

H6 Customer engagement has a positive influence on the

relationship between travel satisfaction and destination loyalty

Rejected

41

Chapter 5: Discussion

5.1 Introduction

The purpose of this research was to investigate how specific aspects of a destination, including image, personality and attachment, influence attitudinal destination loyalty trough travel satisfaction and how customer engagement may affect these relationships. From this aim, research questions were formed and an empirical study was performed. In the previous chapter, the findings from the research were presented. This chapter will use these findings to answer the research questions.

5.2 Different aspects of a destination

The first research question considers to what extent specific aspects of a destination have an influence on attitudinal destination loyalty trough travel satisfaction. The three different aspects are image, personality and attachment.

In line with previous research and findings, it has been established in previous chapter that destination personality and destination attachment have a positive influence on travel satisfaction (beta=0.509 and beta=0.207). H2 and H3 were therefore proven. Destination personality has more influence on travel satisfaction than destination attachment.

Destination image has a negative influence on destination loyalty (beta=-0.054), but this result was not significant. Therefore, H1 had to be rejected. This could be the result if tourists have too many expectations from their destination image.

5.3 Effects of travel satisfaction and customer engagement

The second and third questions consider to what extent travel satisfaction and customer engagement influence attitudinal destination loyalty and to what extent customer engagement influences these relationships.

42

As shown in previous chapter, it can be stated that travel satisfaction and customer engagement both have a positive influence on destination loyalty (beta=0.571 and beta=0.219)

Therefore, both hypotheses H4 and H5 are proven.

To what extent does the level of customer engagement affect the relationship between travel satisfaction and destination loyalty?

In previous chapter, it is found that the interaction effect of travel satisfaction and customer engagement did not have a significant effect on the relationship between travel satisfaction and destination loyalty.

Therefore, H6 has to be rejected and it is not proven in this research.

However, the moderating effect had a significant influence on a 0.1 level (p=0.100). In this research, it is not enough. This is still a very interesting result and a refinement of the hypothesis or research design could lead to more reliable results in the future.

5.4 Conclusion

43

Chapter 6: Conclusions

6.1 Introduction

In previous chapters, the findings from the empirical research are discussed and the research questions are answered. In this final chapter, the contribution to the theory will be explained, limitations of this research and suggestions for further research will be presented and this dissertation will end with a conclusion.

6.2 Contribution to theory and managerial implications

A positive relationship was found between destination attachment and travel satisfaction, and thus an indirect relationship to destination loyalty. A positive relationship was also found between destination personality and travel satisfaction and thus an indirect relationship to destination loyalty. Destination personality was measured based on the destination characteristics and on the perceived fit by the tourist, this is in line with the research of Bekk et al. (2015).

In the previous chapter, it is not proven there is a difference between the destination loyalty of male and females, but there is a difference between the age groups. As proven in the independent t-test, the younger generations show a higher destination loyalty than the older generations. This means that marketers should focus on the younger generations when advertising destinations.

It is also proven that destination personality has a strong indirect effect on destination loyalty (trough travel satisfaction), this means that marketers should use personality characteristics in their advertisements to attract people to visit their destinations.

44 6.3 Limitations and further research

The first limitation of this research is the respondent’s sample. Even though, the respondents came from many different countries, more than half of the respondents had the Dutch nationality. As well, more than half of the respondents were in the age group of 18-25 years old. This could influence the results of the survey, since different nationalities and different ages could have different experiences. This would lead to a different outcome of the results of the survey.

The measurement of the constructs can be criticized. Destination loyalty is measured based on attitudinal loyalty. Due to the time limit, it was not possible to measure behavioural destination loyalty; this would lead to a more reliable outcome. The same goes for customer engagement. The measurement for this construct has not been used by any research before, which means the reliability of this measurement is not proven.

More research should be done on the customer engagement construct in this research. The theory should be expanded and more variables should be added to this construct to make it more complete. The construct of destination loyalty should be measured on a behavioral level, since companies might find attitudinal level not enough.

This research should be carried out to a more culturally different based sample. In this research, most of the respondents had the Dutch nationality. Since people all around the world travel to destinations, the sample should contain a more nationality distribution.

6.4 Conclusions

45

Chapter 7: References

Aaker, J. L. (1997). “Dimensions of Brand Personality.” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, pp 347–356.

Aaker, J. L., Susan, F., & Brasel, S. A. (2004). “When good brands do bad.” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31, pp. 1-16.

Aydin, S., and G. Ozer. (2005). “The Analysis of Antecedents of Customer Loyalty in the Turkish Mobile Telecommunication Market.” European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 7/8, pp. 910-25.

Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). “A model of destination image formation.” Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 868-897.

Bigné, J. E., Sánchez, M. I., & Sánchez, J. (2001). “Tourismimage, evaluation variables, and after purchase behavior: inter-relationship.” Tourism Management, Vol. 26, pp. 607-616.

Bijmolt, T. H. A., P. S. H. Leeflang, F. Block, M. Eisenbeiss, B. G. S. Hardie, A. Lemmens, and P. Saffert. (2010). “Analytics for Customer Engagement.” Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 341-56.

Brodie, R. J., L. D. Hollebeek, B. Juric, and A. Ilic. (2011). “Customer Engagement: Conceptual Domain, Fundamental Propositions, and Implications for Research.” Journal of Service Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 252-71.

Chen, C. F., & Chen, F. S. (2010). “Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists.” Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 29-35.

Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd _{edn). New York: Erlbaum}

46

Crompton, J. L. (1979). “An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination and the, influence of geographical location upon that image.” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 18-23.

DeVellis R. Scale development: theory and applications: theory and application. Thousand Okas, CA: Sage; 2003.

DeVellis, R., 2012. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. 3rd ed. Capel Hill: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991). “The meaning and measurement of destination image.” Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 2-12.

Ekinci, Y., & Hosany, S. (2006). “Destination personality: an application of brand personality to tourism destination.” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45, pp. 127-139. Field, A., 2013. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS. 4th ed. London: SAGE Publications Fornell, C. & Bookstein, F. L., 1982. Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), pp. 440-452.

Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F., (1981). “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No 1, pp. 39-50.

Fournier, S. (1998). “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research”. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, pp 343 - 373.

Gartner, W. C. (1996). Tourism Development: Principles, Policies, and Policies. New York: VanNostram Reinhold.

47

Halpenny, E.A. (2006). Environmental behaviour, place attachment and park visitation: a case study of visitors to Point Pele National Park. Doctoral Thesis, University of Waterloo.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th _{ed.). Harlow, Essex: Prentice-Hall.}

Hidalgo, C. M., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 21, pp 273–281.

Hollebeek, L. D. (2009). “Demystifying Customer Engagement: Toward the

Development of a Conceptual Model.” Paper read at ANZMAC 2009 conference, at Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 30 November-2 December.

Hollebeek, L. D. (2011a). “Demystifying Customer Brand Engagement: Exploring the Loyalty Nexus.” Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 27 No. 7/8, pp. 1-23.

IBM SPSS. (2015). IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh, Version 23.0. Armonk, NY.

Keller, K. L. (1998). Building, measuring and managing brand equity. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Kim, H., & Richardson, S. L. (2003). “Motion picture impacts on destination images”. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 30 No 1, pp 216 – 237.

Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). “Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season holiday destination”. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38 No 1, pp 260– 269.

Milligan, M. J. (1998). “Interactional past and potential: the social construction of place attachment.” Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 21, pp. 1-33.

Mistilis, N., D. Buhalis, and U. Gretzel. (2014). “Future Edestination Marketing: Perspective of an Australian Tourism Stakeholder Network.” Journal of Travel Research.

48

Murphy, L., Moscardo, G., & Benckendorff, P. (2007). “Using brand personality to differentiate regional tourism destinations.” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41, pp. 5-14.

Murphy, L., P. Benckendorff, and G. Moscardo. (2007a). “Destination Brand

Personality: Visitor Perceptions of a Regional Tourism Destination.” Tourism Analysis Vol 12, pp. 419–432.

Murphy, L., P. Benckendorff, and G. Moscardo. (2007b). “Linking Travel Motivation, Tourist Self-Image and Destination Brand Personality.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 22, pp. 45–59.

Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Oppermann, M. (1998). “Destination threshold potential and the law of repeat visitation.” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 131-137.

Oppermann, M. (2000). “Tourism destination loyalty.” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 78-84.

Pallant, J., 2010. SPSS Survival Manual. Australia: Allen and Unwin Book Publishers.

Pan, Y., Sheng, S. and Xie, F.T. (2012), “Antecedents of customer loyalty: an

empirical synthesis and reexamination”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 150-158.

Patterson, P., T. Yu, and K. de Ruyter. (2006). “Understanding Customer Engagement in Services.” Paper read at ANZMAC 2006: Advancing Theory, Maintaining Relevance, at Brisbane, QLD 4-6 December.

Phau, I., & Lau, K. C. (2000). “Conceptualising brand personality: a review and research propositions”. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 9 No 1, pp. 52 - 69.

49

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. (2009) Research methods for business students, 5th _{ed. Pearson Education India.}

Shevlin, R. Customer Engagement Is Measurable 2007. http://marketingroi. wordpress.com/2012/10/02/customer-engagementis-measurable/.

Sirgy, M. J. (1982). “Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review”. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, pp. 287 - 300.

Stevens, J.P. (1992). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (2 nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stevens, J.P. (2009). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (2 nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Toufaily, E., Ricard, L. and Perrien, J. (2013), “Customer loyalty to a commercial website: descriptive meta-analysis of the empirical literature and proposal of an integrative model”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 9, pp. 1436-1447. Usakli, A., and S. Baloglu. (2011), “Brand Personality of Tourist Destinations: An Application of Self-Congruity Theory”, Tourism Management, Vol 32, pp 114–127. Van Doorn, J., K. N. Lemon, V. Mittal, S. Nass, P. Doreén, P. Pirner, and P. C. Verhoef. (2010). “Customer Engagement Behaviour: Theoretical Foundations and Reserach Directions.” Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 253-66.

Verhoef, P.C., Reinartz, W.J. and Krafft, M. (2010), “Customer engagement as a new perspective in customer management”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 247-252.

Vivek, S. D. (2009). “A Scale of Consumer Engagement.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

Wilk, H.B., Shapiro, S.S., & Chen, H.J. (1968). A comparative study of various tests of normality. Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 63, pp. 1343 – 1372 Zhang, H. et al. (2014). “Destination image and tourist loyalty: a meta-analysis”.

50

Chapter 8: Appendix

Appendix A

Theoretical Framework

Data Cleaning Records

Original sample size 15

No. of cases removed – Incomplete responses 0

No. of cases removed – Invalid responses 0

Missing value replaced No