http://jtr.sagepub.com/Journal of Travel Research

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/51/3/342The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0047287511410321

2012 51: 342 originally published online 30 May 2011Journal of Travel ResearchGirish Prayag and Chris Ryan

Attachment, Personal Involvement, and SatisfactionAntecedents of Tourists' Loyalty to Mauritius: The Role and Influence of Destination Image, Place

  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  Travel and Tourism Research Association

can be found at:Journal of Travel ResearchAdditional services and information for    

  http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/51/3/342.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- May 30, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record 

- Mar 28, 2012Version of Record >>

at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Journal of Travel Research51(3) 342 –356© 2012 SAGE PublicationsReprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0047287511410321http://jtr.sagepub.com

In the context of tourist destinations, visitor loyalty remains an important indicator of successful destination develop-ment. Many studies exist on the antecedents of tourists’ loy-alty, including motivation, destination image, trip quality, perceived value, and satisfaction, in different settings such as country, states, city, and islands (see Bigné, Sanchez, and Sanchez 2001; Chen and Tsai 2007; Chi and Qu 2008; Huang and Hsu 2009; Prayag 2009). Yet only recently have place attachment and personal involvement as predictors of destina-tion loyalty been of interest to tourism academics (Alexandris, Kouthouris, and Meligdis 2006; Hwang, Lee, and Chen 2005; Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010). Specifically, these two predictors have been extensively examined for leisure and recreational sites (see Iwasaki and Havitz 1998; Kim, Scott, and Crompton 1997; Kyle et al. 2004), and more recently extended to heritage sites (Poira, Butler, and Airey 2004). To date, no studies in the tourism literature have exam-ined simultaneously the structural relationships between des-tination image, place attachment, personal involvement, and satisfaction as antecedents of loyalty in a SIDS (Small Island Developing State). Given their unique appeal as tourist des-tinations because of geographical, cultural, and social speci-ficities, many SIDS have high levels of repeat visitation, thereby suggesting that tourists may have a stronger emo-tional attachment compared to more traditional destinations. An understanding of the antecedents of visitor loyalty, therefore, may offer service providers and destination mar-keters additional opportunities to improve the perceived

relevance, emotional attachment, involvement, image and satisfaction of visitors as well as the marketing of touristic sites (Chen and Tsai 2007; Chi and Qu 2008; Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010). Also, identifying the relative importance of these factors in determining loyalty may enable destinations to allocate more efficiently scarce resources, thereby consolidat-ing visitor retention.

In addition, the variety of scales measuring place attach-ment and personal involvement in different fields, including tourism, as well as the similarities between items/dimensions of such scales with the affective component of destination image, for example, require a more integrated approach toward understanding tourist affection to places and its influence on future behavior. For example, destination image measurement has centered on measuring cognitive, affec-tive, and conative components (Beerli and Martin 2004; Gallarza, Saura, and Garcia 2002; Tasci and Gartner 2007). Specifically, cognitive images have been measured using lists of functional and psychological attributes while affective images have been measured almost exclusively using Russel, Ward, and Pratt’s (1981) affective grid scale or variants

410321 JTRXXX10.1177/0047287511410321Prayag, RyanJournal of Travel Research

1SKEMA Business School, Sophia Antipolis, France2Waikato Management School, Hamilton, New Zealand

Corresponding Author:Girish Prayag, SKEMA Business School, 60 Rue Dostoievski, BP85, Sophia Antipolis, France Email: girish.prayag@skema.edu

Antecedents of Tourists’ Loyalty to Mauritius: The Role and Influence of Destination Image, Place Attachment, Personal Involvement, and Satisfaction

Girish Prayag1 and Chris Ryan2

Abstract

This article evaluates a theoretical model based on hypothesized relationships among four constructs, namely, destination image, place attachment, personal involvement, and visitors’ satisfaction as antecedents of loyalty. These relationships are explored for a sample of 705 international visitors staying in hotels on the island of Mauritius. Confirmatory factor analysis is used initially to ascertain the dimensions of the various constructs but also to assess the convergent and discriminant validity of the measurement items. The structural model indicates that destination image, personal involvement and place attachment are antecedents of visitors’ loyalty but this relationship is mediated by satisfaction levels. The findings offer important implications for tourism theory and practice.

Keywords

destination image, place attachment, personal involvement, loyalty, satisfaction, Mauritius

at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prayag and Ryan 343

thereof. More recently, Hosany and Gilbert’s (2010) Destination Emotion Scale (DES) is another useful tool for measuring visitors’ emotional attachment to destinations. However, these existing scales only measure visitors’ emo-tional response to the physical environment while attach-ment can also develop as a result of interactions between hosts and guests. Trauer and Ryan (2005) argued that tour-ism encounters are service relationships that can stimulate emotional attachment through the special interest focus and a level of enduring involvement on the part of participants. This may explain the proliferation of scales in leisure and recreation fields measuring the relationship between place attachment and personal involvement.

Some notable features of these various scales are (1) feel-ings of pleasure are measured for both affective image and personal involvement; (2) feelings of enjoyment are mea-sured for place attachment, affective image, and personal involvement; (3) the importance of a destination or site to the visitor is measured for both place attachment and personal involvement. Consequently, the relationship between some of these constructs remains unclear, inconclusive, and at times contradictory in tourism and other fields. Yet the con-ceptual similarities between items and dimensions suggest that relationships and interrelationships may exist, not yet fully understood in the tourism field for different types of attractions, sites, and destinations. Hence, the main purpose of this study is to evaluate a theoretical model incorporating these constructs (destination image, place attachment, per-sonal involvement, and satisfaction) as antecedents of loyalty. By doing so, the study (1) broadens the applicability of the con-cept of place attachment and personal involvement to tourist destinations and (2) provides evidence of their importance as antecedents of satisfaction and loyalty for SIDS.

Theoretical BackgroundThe Construct of Destination Image and its Measurement

Destination image is devoid of a theoretical base but its influence on pre-, in situ, and postpurchase decisions is well accepted (Beerli and Martin 2004). Most definitions of the term relate to individual (Crompton 1979) or group percep-tions of a place (Jenkins 1999). More recently, Tasci, Gartner, and Cavusgil (2007) suggested that “destination image is an interactive system of thoughts, opinions, feelings, visu-alizations, and intentions toward a destination” (p. 200), which not only recognizes the multiplicity of elements (cog-nitive, affective, and conative) forming the construct but also their influence on the purchase decision process. An overall or composite image is formed as a result of interactions between these elements (Gartner 1993; Lin et al. 2007).

Destination image is also described in terms of attribute-based and holistic components (Echtner and Ritchie 1991). The former refers to the perception of individual attributes or

destination features (e.g., local cuisine), known as cognitive images, while the latter refers to mental pictures or place imagery based on both cognitive (e.g., safe for family) and affective images (e.g., enjoyable experience). These authors also suggest that attribute-based and holistic components possess functional (measurable) and psychological (abstract) characteristics. While recognizing the lack of homogeneity with respect to the attributes defining an individual’s percep-tions (Beerli and Martin 2004), the majority of studies have relied on lists of attributed measures using scaling methods to assess image perceptions (Gallarza, Saura, and Garcia 2002; Tasci and Gartner 2007; Prayag 2009). Also, in sev-eral instances, the validity and reliability of scales used were not established, casting doubt on their psychometric proper-ties (Beerli and Martin 2004). To date, combining structured and unstructured methods is considered the most appropriate measurement approach (Echtner and Ritchie 1991; Tasci and Gartner 2007).

The Construct of Place Attachment and its MeasurementIn the recreation and leisure field, many studies have explored the nature and nuances of people’s emotional rela-tionship with places, including their interactions with sig-nificant others (Manzo 2003). This relationship has been conceptualized in numerous ways and under various related terms such as sense of place (Stedman 2003; Tuan 1980), place attachment (Kaltenborn 1998; Williams and Vaske 2003), and place bonding (Hammitt, Backlund, and Bixler 2006). However, place attachment remains the most popular term and is defined as the emotional bond between an indi-vidual and a particular spatial setting (Williams et al. 1992). However, the relationship between place attachment and other constructs such as sense of place, the meaning attached to a spatial setting (e.g., nature park) by a person or group (Stedman 2003); place belonging, a social bonding that may also entail a spiritual connection toward social and commu-nal environments shared by individuals (e.g., river or reli-gious site); and place bonding, a strong emotional tie, temporary or lasting, between a person and a particular place or site (e.g., lake or heritage site) (Hammitt, Backlund, and Bixler 2006), remains to be clarified given that these con-cepts are poorly articulated and often cannot be differenti-ated by their definitions (Stedman 2003). Some argue that sense of place, place dependence, and place identity are forms of place attachment (Williams et al. 1992; Williams and Vaske 2003; Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010), while others suggest that sense of place is the broader term and place attachment is a subdimension (Jorgensen and Stedman 2001; Kyle et al. 2004; Stedman 2003).

While recognizing this conceptual debate, place attach-ment is considered as the overarching concept in this study, with two subdimensions of place identity and place depen-dence, as suggested by tourism scholars (e.g., George and

at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

344 Journal of Travel Research XX(X)

George 2004; Gross and Brown 2008; Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010). Place identity refers to “an individual’s strong emotional attachment to particular places or settings” (Proshansky, Fabian, and Kaminoff 1983, p. 61). As such, place identity can increase one’s feelings of belonging to a tourist destination (Tuan 1980) and the tourism setting can enable individuals to both express as well as affirm this iden-tity (Kyle et al. 2004). Hou, Lin, and Morais (2005) found that place identity was the stronger predictor of place attach-ment among Hakka than non-Hakka visitors to Pei-Pu (Taiwan), suggesting that one’s self-identity and relationship with a place contributes to feelings of attachment. In a heri-tage context, Poira, Reichel, and Biran (2006) argued that the same site may have different meanings for different people. Yet site attributes and visitors’ own identity can lead to feel-ings of belongingness and emotional involvement (Poira, Butler, and Airey 2004).

Place dependence (functional attachment) has been defined as “how well a setting serves goal achievement given an existing range of alternatives” (Jorgensen and Stedman 2001, p. 234). It reflects the importance of a place in providing features and conditions that support specific goals or desired activities (Williams and Roggenbuck 1989). New Zealand, for example, would provide a fulfilling expe-rience for tourists seeking specifically pristine natural envi-ronments, adventurous activities, and unique cultural activities (e.g., Maori) and who consider the destination as an impor-tant place for such activities. Place dependence is also a form of bonding (Hammitt, Backlund, and Bixler 2006), where places satisfying several needs typically lead to a more embedded, extensive, or deeper place dependence compared to places where fewer needs are met (Stokols and Shumaker 1981). Hence, this functional attachment is embodied in the destination or area’s physical characteris-tics (Williams and Vaske 2003) and is strongly related to the perception that the setting possesses unique qualities (Williams et al. 1992).

Various scales have been proposed to measure place iden-tity and place dependence. The number of items used to mea-sure each dimension varies according to the setting and how place attachment is conceptualized. For example, Hou, Lin, and Morais (2005) used 12 items on a Taiwanese sample of cultural domestic visitors while Alexandris, Kouthouris, and Meligdis (2006) measured attachment levels of recreational skiers in Greece using 11 items. More recently, Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim (2010) measured place identity and place dependence on a sample of international visitors to Didim-Turkey using 3 items for each dimension. Yet most studies draw from the 12-item scale proposed by Williams and Vaske (2003) on forest recreation sites, validated using a sample of university students. Applications of the place attachment scale, therefore, in an island destination setting remain limited. Nonetheless, the tendency among research-ers in tourism and other fields seems to be fewer items that have greater reliability and validity (Gross and Brown 2008;

Hou, Lin, and Morais 2005; Williams and Vaske 2003; Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010).

The Construct of Personal Involvement and Its MeasurementInteractions between people and landscapes, objects, and environments are not necessarily sufficient to develop place attachment (Cresswell 2004). It is through involvement between people, and between people and place, that emo-tional bonds are formed (Pretty, Chipuer, and Bramston 2003). Therefore, related to the concept of place attachment is the involvement level of visitors with the destination experience. While numerous and varied definitions of the concept exist (Havitz and Dimanche 1990), most studies involving place attachment conceptualize involvement in terms of personal relevance (Kyle and Chick 2002). This implies that personal involvement reflects the degree to which a person devotes himself or herself to an activity, associated product, or experience (Gross and Brown 2008; Zaichkowsky 1985). It has also been described as an unob-servable state of motivation, arousal, or interest toward a recreational activity or associated product (Gursoy and Gavcar 2003; Iwasaki and Havitz 1998). The application of the personal involvement concept in tourism remains limited because of its complexity (Gursoy and Gavcar 2003). Involvement, as an attitude, is formed and learnt during interaction with the social environment (Sherif and Sherif 1967), but this interaction does not have to be necessarily on-site (e.g., for religious and heritage sites) and can be shaped by individual differences and experiences (Poira, Reichel, and Biran 2006). Evidence also suggests that differ-ent facets of involvement are likely to influence behaviors such as satisfaction and loyalty differently (Laurent and Kapferer 1985), but involvement does not systematically lead to expected differences in behavior (Havitz and Dimanche 1997).

Personal involvement has been measured either using Zaichkowsky’s (1985) Personal Involvement Inventory or Laurent and Kapferer’s (1985) Consumer Involvement Profile. While the former scale is unidimensional, the latter is multidimensional and displays stronger content and face validity (Havitz and Dimanche 1997). However, this multi-dimensionality remains the subject of much debate in the leisure and recreation field (Funk, Ridinger, and Moorman 2004). There is a growing recognition that the various com-ponents of involvement do not equally influence an indi-vidual’s involvement profile, that different patterns of involvement exist according to activities, products, or indi-vidual characteristics, and all instruments proposed and used to date have weaknesses (Havitz and Dimanche 1997). As a result, researchers have used different numbers of items to measure the construct, but almost all studies using the Consumer Involvement Profile scale measure five dimen-sions (importance, pleasure, sign, risk probability, and risk

at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prayag and Ryan 345

consequence) or variants thereof. The importance dimension refers to the interest in, or perceived importance of, the product/service. The pleasure dimension refers to the hedonic value or pleasure value attributed to the product/service. The dimension of sign refers to the symbolic value attributed by the consumer to the product/service. Risk probability refers to the perceived probability of making a poor purchase deci-sion while risk consequence refers to the perceived impor-tance of negative consequences associated with purchase of the product/service (Dimanche, Havitz, and Howard 1991; Laurent and Kapferer 1985; Gursoy and Gavcar 2003). Others have used a modified version of this scale, known as the Enduring Involvement scale (McIntyre and Pigram 1992) but in the purchase of a vacation, Gursoy and Gavcar (2003) showed that only three dimensions—pleasure/interest, risk probability, and risk consequence—were relevant. Hence, to date there is no standardized instrument to measure personal involvement.

The Construct of Loyalty and Its MeasurementThe most popular definition of loyalty is that of Oliver (1999), whereby “loyalty is a deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a preferred product/service consis-tently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand set purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switch-ing behavior” (p. 34). Loyalty for a tourist destination has been the subject of intense academic debate (see Oppermann 2000; Baker and Crompton 2000; Yoon and Uysal 2005) mostly with respect to its measurement. To date, loyalty has been measured using three approaches to data usage: (1) behavioral data, (2) attitudinal data, and (3) composite (combination of both). The behavioral approach is based on measuring brand purchase sequence, brand purchase propor-tion, or probability of purchase (Jacoby and Chestnut 1978). This approach has been criticized for its lack of clarity with respect to its conceptual framework and inability to explain the factors that influence customer loyalty (Yoon and Uysal 2005).

Proponents of attitudinal approaches argue that differ-ences exist between customers’ intentional and spurious loyalty. The former refers to loyalty on the basis of brand preference whereas the latter refers to repeat purchase that may not be related to commitment to the brand but simply on the basis of time convenience, monetary rewards or lack of substitutes (Oppermann 2000). Therefore, a positive attitude toward a brand today is not a sufficient indicator of loyalty. A customer needs to have such an attitude for several years for loyalty to develop. This approach has been criticized as well, given that neither the data collected on attitudinal mea-sures are convincing (Jacoby and Chestnut 1978) nor the sur-vey instruments used to collect such data are psychometrically

sound (Pritchard, Howard, and Havitz 1992). The composite approach is an integration of behavioral and attitudinal mea-sures (Yoon and Uysal 2005). However, researchers should move a step backwards to behavioral measures only, since measuring attitudes over a long time period is often outside the scope of a study and is in most cases impractical (Oppermann 2000). In the tourism field, visitors’ positive experiences, intention to return to the same destination, and positive word-of-mouth effects to friends and/or relatives have been considered as adequate measures for tourist loy-alty assessment (Bigné, Sanchez, and Sanchez 2001; Chi and Qu 2008; Yoon and Uysal 2005). Thus, this is the measure-ment approach adopted in the present study.

The Theoretical ModelThe theoretical model was constructed on the basis of the causal relationships that existed in the literature between the exogenous and endogenous variables rather than the rela-tionships among the exogenous variables themselves. Except for the empirical study of Hou, Lin, and Morais (2005) that assessed the relationships and interrelationships between three constructs (destination attractiveness akin to destina-tion image, personal involvement, and place attachment), no other study has assessed these relationships and their effects on satisfaction and loyalty simultaneously. Interestingly, Hou, Lin, and Morais (2005), using the Enduring Involvement scale, established a positive relationship between involve-ment and destination attractiveness in the context of a cul-tural tourism destination. Prentice, Guerin, and McGugan (1998) argued that highly involved cultural tourists appear to perceive more personal relevance from their experiences compared to low-involvement ones. By extension, a similar relationship can be inferred for holiday visitors, but it remains unclear from the existing literature whether this relationship would be stable across various visitor groups (e.g., holiday, culture, heritage, and adventure) and settings (e.g., country, city, local areas and island destinations). Hence, the first hypothesis of this study is as follows:

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between personal involvement and destination image.

The literature reveals similar conceptual bases for place attachment and destination image given that both are attitude constructs, have cognitive and affective components, and influence behavior. In fact, Jorgensen and Stedman (2001) equate place identity with the cognitive component (e.g., a site/destination can be part of a tourist’s self-image), place dependence with the conative component (e.g., the depen-dence expressed for a site/destination is relative to the behaviors performed there), and place attachment with the affective component of attitude (e.g., the emotion felt or asso-ciated with the site/destination). Given that place attachment

at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

346 Journal of Travel Research XX(X)

is an emotional reaction to a physical and social setting, while destination image depicts the cognitive and affective components of a setting, it can be argued that destination image is an antecedent of place attachment. This relation-ship remains unexplored among international tourists visit-ing an island destination but was confirmed among domestic tourists visiting a cultural site (Hou, Lin, and Morais 2005). Therefore, we expect that a more favorable destination image will lead to stronger place attachment. Thus, the sec-ond hypothesis of this study is as follows:

Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between destination image and place attachment.

The positive relationship between destination image and satisfaction is well established in the tourism literature for different types of destinations, including island destinations (see Bigné, Sanchez, and Sanchez 2001; Chi and Qu 2008; Prayag 2009). Consequently, the third hypothesis of this study is as follows:

Hypothesis 3: The more positive the images are, the higher the satisfaction levels.

However, the direction of the relationship between satis-faction and personal involvement remains unclear in the literature. Hwang, Lee, and Chen (2005) established a posi-tive relationship between the two constructs with a sample of mainly domestic visitors using interpretation services in Taiwanese national parks. Lankford, Hetzler, and Kitajima (1996) found that only the sign dimension of personal involvement was significantly correlated with satisfaction scores for wave-surfing Japanese tourists in Hawaii. Given that personal involvement has been defined as a motive, and existing studies (e.g., Ross and Iso-Ahola 1991; Yoon and Uysal 2005) establish motivation as an antecedent of satis-faction, this study suggests that personal involvement is an antecedent of satisfaction. This relationship remains to be tested with a sample of international tourists. Hence, the fourth hypothesis is as follows:

Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relationship between personal involvement and satisfaction.

Likewise, contradictions and ambiguity exist as to whether place attachment is an antecedent of satisfaction or vice versa (Stedman 2003). George and George (2004) suggest that satisfactory experiences at each visit reinforce tourists’ place attachment, thereby affecting future behavior. Lee and Allen (1999) found that attachment of beach visitors was predicted by satisfaction with sun, sand, and beach attributes. More recently, Hwang, Lee, and Chen (2005) and Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim (2010) established a positive relationship between place attachment and satisfaction using a sample of

domestic and international visitors respectively. These suggest a more stable structural relationship between attachment and satisfaction. Hence, the fifth hypothesis is as follows:

Hypothesis 5: There is a positive relationship between place attachment and satisfaction.

Sufficient evidence exists in the literature to suggest that personal involvement is an antecedent of place attachment (see Hou, Lin, and Morais 2005; Hwang, Lee, and Chen 2005; Kyle et al. 2004). However, not all dimensions of involvement are related to place attachment. For example, Moore and Graefe (1994) showed that involvement was only related to place identity for rail-trail users in the United States. Gross and Brown (2008), studying tourists experi-ences in South Australia, found that attraction (importance and pleasure) was a negative predictor for place dependence and had no statistically significant predictive relationship for place identity. Therefore, of interest is whether the relationship between personal involvement and place attachment will hold true for visitors to an island destination. Consequently, the sixth hypothesis of this study is as follows:

Hypothesis 6: There is a positive relationship between personal involvement and place attachment.

It is well accepted that satisfaction has a positive influ-ence on loyalty through favorable revisit intentions and recommendations to others (Bigné, Sanchez, and Sanchez 2001; Chen and Tsai 2007; Kozak 2003; Prayag 2008). Satisfied visitors are more likely to revisit and recommend the destination to others (Chen and Tsai 2007). Hence, the seventh and eight hypotheses are as follows:

Hypothesis 7: There is a positive relationship between satisfaction and revisit intentions.

Hypothesis 8: There is a positive relationship between satisfaction and recommendation intention to others.

Similarly, personal involvement can also be used to pre-dict attitudes and behaviors (Havitz and Dimanche 1990, 1997), but this relationship is less stable across different activities and settings. For example, Kyle et al. (2004) found a positive relationship between involvement and behavioral loyalty among hikers along a trail in the United States. However, Kim, Scott, and Crompton (1997) found that the dimension of perceived risk for personal involvement was negatively related to future intentions of birdwatchers to go birding. Therefore, inconclusive evidence exists on the rela-tionship between personal involvement and loyalty. This relationship using intention to recommend and revisit as proxies has not been tested empirically for tourist destina-tion loyalty. Hence, the ninth and tenth hypotheses are as follows:

at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prayag and Ryan 347

Hypothesis 9: There is a positive relationship between personal involvement and revisit intentions.

Hypothesis 10: There is a positive relationship between personal involvement and recommendation inten-tions to others.

As for the relationship between place attachment and loyalty, Alexandris, Kouthouris, and Meligdis (2006) found that place identity and place dependence were significant predictors of skiers’ loyalty in Greece. Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim (2010) confirmed a similar relationship mediated by satisfaction for international visitors to an island destination. Therefore, it can be argued that a positive relationship exists between place attachment and loyalty. Hence, the eleventh and twelfth hypotheses are as follows:

Hypothesis 11: There is a positive relationship between place attachment and revisit intentions.

Hypothesis 12: There is a positive relationship between place attachment and recommendation intentions to others.

These relationships and the corresponding hypotheses are illustrated in Figure 1.

MethodStudy Site

The Republic of Mauritius is a group of four islands in the Indian Ocean, of which Mauritius is the largest with its 177 km of coastline. While English is the official language, French and the Mauritian Creole are widely spoken. Ethnically, the majority of the population is Indian but many people of African and European descent have settled there. The island is an international holiday destination for European tourists mainly from France, United Kingdom, and Germany (Prayag 2009). Similar to other island destinations, the tour-ism industry is a pillar of economic and social development

in Mauritius and contributes approximately 26% to GDP while employing 28.5% of the workforce (World Travel and Tourism Council [WTTC] 2010). The product-led tourism strategy of the island is reflected in the government’s selec-tive tourism policy, which emphasizes the development of boutique luxury hotels, four- to five-star beach resorts and a multitude of golf courses, spas, and beauty centers (Travel and Tourism Report on Mauritius 2007). While offering primarily a sun, sand, and sea product anchored in resort-based experiences, tourism authorities on the island have lately embarked on product and market diversification for promoting tourism growth (Prayag 2009). New tourism products such as adventure, golf, and cultural tourism have been developed for niche markets (Soper 2007). Official tourism statistics for the year 2008 recorded 930,456 inter-national tourists arrival and these tourists were primarily middle aged, of high-income groups, travel with family, and include a high level of repeaters (33%) (Handbook of Tourism Statistics 2008).

Mauritius was chosen as the site of this study primarily for three reasons. First, the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index shows only two island states, Barbados and Mauritius, appearing in the top 50 countries for overall destination com-petitiveness (World Economic Forum 2009). Second, the island has a high level of repeat visitation among European visitors, suggesting some level of place attachment and per-sonal involvement. Third, in the sub-Saharan African region, Mauritius and Seychelles are the only two islands that have registered either positive growth in tourist numbers or tour-ism receipts in the past 3 years despite the global economic downturn (WTTC 2010). These factors indicate the robust-ness and competitiveness of the tourism industry in Mauritius and offer a valuable case study for understanding tourist loy-alty and its antecedents.

Questionnaire DevelopmentThe questionnaire was developed using the mixed method approach recommended by others (e.g., Echtner and Ritchie

Destination image

Personal involvement

Place attachment

Overall satisfaction

Revisit Intentions

H1

H2

H3H4

H5

H9

H7

H11 Recommendation Intentions

H8

H10

H12

H6

Figure 1. Theoretical model and hypotheses

at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

348 Journal of Travel Research XX(X)

1991; Pike and Ryan 2004; Tasci and Gartner 2007). Initially, 103 in-depth interviews with international tourists were undertaken to identify destination specific images. The find-ings, which are not reported in detail here but can be seen elsewhere (Prayag and Ryan 2011), allowed for the identifi-cation of common, unique, psychological, and functional characteristics of the destination. The attributes identified con-verged around themes of friendly people, scenery, culture, and exotic, that are typical of island destinations (Gossling 2003). A list of 10 attributes (exotic, reputation, accessibil-ity, service level, variety and quality of accommodation, cultural and historical attractions, beaches and watersports, scenery and natural attractions, shopping facilities, and cul-tural diversity of the place) was retained on the basis that they best represented the core image of Mauritius as a holi-day destination and measured on a 7-point satisfaction scale (1 = very dissatisfied and 7 = very satisfied). Place attach-ment was measured using 12 items on a 7-point scale anchored on 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree to represent place identity and place dependence (Kyle, Graefe, and Manning 2005; Williams and Vaske 2003). Personal involvement was measured using a multifaceted scale com-prising 15 items measuring five dimensions (importance, pleasure, sign, risk consequence, and risk probability). Each dimension was measured using three items derived from other studies (e.g., Dimanche, Havitz, and Howard 1991; Gursoy and Gavcar 2003) and anchored on a similar scale as place attachment.

To date, there is no agreement on the best way to mea-sure customer satisfaction but the literature congregates around two distinct ways—transaction specific and overall satisfaction (Lee, Back, and Kim 2009). Transaction spe-cific refers to satisfaction with specific objects (e.g., local cuisine) or encounters (e.g., hotel employees), whereas overall satisfaction is a cumulative construct summing satisfaction with various facets of the destination. In gen-eral, overall satisfaction is a more stable construct than transaction-specific satisfaction (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1994). Hence, overall satisfaction was measured in this study using a single item on a 7-point scale (1 = very dissatisfied and 7= very satisfied). Similar to other studies (e.g., Bigné, Sanchez, and Sanchez 2001; Kozak 2003), tourist loyalty was measured using two proxies, revisit intention and likeliness to recommend on a 7-point scale (1 = very unlikely and 7 = very likely). The questionnaire was originally designed in English and translated into two other languages, French and German. The method of back-translation (Soriano and Foxall 2002) by native speakers of French and German who were proficient in English was used to ensure that the translated versions reflected the meanings and intent of the original questionnaire. Prior to the data collection, the questionnaires were pilot tested with 50 international tourists, which revealed no major problems and only minor changes were made in the wording of some statements.

Sample Design and Data Collection

International tourists older than age 18 years staying at resort complexes were considered as the target study popula-tion. Since accurate data on the size of this population were unavailable, a quota sampling using nationality of tourists from key generating markets of Mauritius was chosen as the sampling procedure. Only five main nationalities were con-sidered (French, British, South African, German, and Indian) given that these visitors represented more than two-thirds (70.3%) of international arrivals to the island (Handbook of Tourism Statistics 2008). Also, structural equation modeling requires a minimum of 200 respondents for effective param-eter estimation (Hair et al. 2005). Data were collected from hotel guests for three months using self-completion in the presence of the interviewer. Of the 1256 tourists approached at resort-based beaches, 733 were interviewed. Of these, 28 questionnaires had to be discarded, leading to a response rate of 57.4% based on 705 useable questionnaires.

FindingsSociodemographic Profile of Sample

A sociodemographic profile of the sample is provided in Table 1. The typical respondent was older than age 31 years, well educated, married, and visiting for holiday purposes. Official statistics show a similar profile, except for a lower average length of stay (9.9 nights) (Handbook of Tourism Statistics 2008).

Confirmatory Factor AnalysisTo assess the measurement quality of the endogenous vari-ables in the theoretical model, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was undertaken for each scale to provide a test of convergent and discriminant validity for the various indica-tors (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). A number of measures including the normed fit index (NFI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the normed chi-square statistic (χ2/df) were used to evaluate the mea-surement quality. The normed chi-square is preferred to the chi-square statistic given the latter is sensitive to sample size (Hu and Bentler 1999). Cut-off values of 0.9 for NFI, GFI, and AGFI (Hair et al. 2005), RMSEA values less than 0.06, and χ2/df values less than 3 suggest acceptable fit (Hu and Bentler 1999). Initial analyses suggested that of the 10 image items, only 7 (Table 2) met the minimum requirement of 0.5 for standardized beta coefficient to represent a con-struct (Kline 2005), had critical ratios outside of the thresh-old range of ±1.96 (Byrne 2001), and were statistically significant (p<0.01). The goodness of fit of the image scale (Table 2) is adequate, and the items represented traditional images of island destinations. Of the 12 place attachment

at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prayag and Ryan 349

items, only 8 had standardized beta coefficients in excess of 0.5 and the goodness of fit was adequate (Table 2). The items represented both place identity and place dependence. Of the 15 personal involvement items, only 6 had standard-ized beta coefficients in excess of 0.5 and represented dimensions of importance, pleasure, and sign only. Given that all the remaining items assessed had significant stan-dardized beta coefficients in excess of 0.5, convergent valid-ity of the three scales is established (Steenkamp and Van Trijp 1991). The NFI, GFI, AGFI, and RMSEA for all three scales were within the recommended threshold, indicating acceptable model fit. However, overall satisfaction and intentions to revisit and recommend were measured using one item each; CFA was not undertaken on these exogenous variables.

For evidence of discriminant validity, the test of the proportion of variance extracted for each construct should exceed the square of correlation coefficients representing its correlation with other factors (Fornell and Larcker 1981). As shown in Table 3, destination image and place attachment are a pair of scales with a high correlation (0.651). The square of this correlation takes a value of 0.423, which is lower than the amount of variance extracted (AVE) for each factor (0.51 and 0.56, respectively), thereby indicating ade-quate discriminant validity. The scales representing destina-tion image, place attachment, and personal involvement met the minimum level of 0.5 for AVE and 0.7 for composite reliability (CR) (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Hence, we conclude that the scales represent the constructs measured. However, the discriminant validity of the overall satisfaction measure and intentions to recommend and revisit cannot be established, given that these were measured using single items.

Structural Equations ModelingThe next stage of the analysis involved specifying the struc-tural model and the maximum likelihood (ML) procedure was used to test it. The initial results showed (χ2 = 727.532, df = 79, χ2/df = 3.29, p = 0.000, NFI = 0.893, GFI = 0.922, AGFI = 0.893, RMSEA = 0.057) that the model was accept-able on the basis of RMSEA, GFI, and χ2/df but unaccept-able on the basis of the cut-off value of 0.9 for other fit indices (Hair et al. 2005). An examination of the t values suggested that most of the paths were significant at the less than 1% level, except for the path between place attachment and intention to recommend, which was significant at the 5% level. Three paths were insignificant (personal involve-ment → overall satisfaction, personal involvement → inten-tion to recommend, and personal involvement → intention to revisit) and therefore deleted. Furthermore, there was no reason to assume that the latent constructs were independent of each other and, therefore, the covariances between them were allowed to vary. The revised model showed acceptable

Table 1. Sociodemographic Profile of Sample

Demographics Frequency Counts %

Gender Male 346 49.3 Female 356 50.7Age group (years) <20 27 3.8 20-30 163 23.1 31-40 182 25.8 41-50 163 23.1 51-60 122 17.4 ≥61 48 6.8Nationality German 120 17.0 South African 151 21.4 Indian 126 17.9 French 154 21.8 British 134 19.0 Other 20 2.9Average monthly household income Very low 6 0.9 Low 12 1.9 Moderately low 13 2.0 Neither low nor high 121 19.0 Moderately high 182 28.4 High 233 36.4 Very high 73 11.4Highest educational qualification

Primary school 21 3.1 High/secondary school 142 20.5 Professional/diploma University degree 223 32.2 Postgraduate degree 92 13.3Marital status Single 109 15.6 Married 444 63.5 Partner 102 14.6 Separated/divorced 33 4.7 Widow/widower 11 1.6Purpose of visit Holiday 600 85.3 Visiting friends and relatives 61 8.7 Business 30 4.3 Honeymoon 61 8.7 Other 13 1.8Holiday package Yes 300 42.7 No 402 57.3Visitation level First-time 332 49.3 Repeat 342 50.7 Avg. length of stay (days) 15.4

at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

350 Journal of Travel Research XX(X)

fit (χ2 = 493.84, df = 218, χ2/df = 2.27, NFI = 0.927, GFI = 0.945, AGFI = 0.924, RMSEA = 0.042). The structural model (Figure 2) shows coefficients in standardized form and can be considered a more parsimonious model given that it pro-vided support for all the hypothesized relationships except for hypotheses 4, 9, and 10 (Table 4). The results (Figure 2) indicated, for example, that personal involvement was posi-tively related to destination image (β = 0.614, p < 0.001) indicating that as the involvement of tourists increases so does their satisfaction levels with image attributes. Destination image was positively related to place attachment (β = 0.166,

p < 0.001) and overall satisfaction (β = 0.514, p < 0.001). The squared multiple correlations (SMC = R2) indicated that most of the variance (SMC = 0.81) in place attachment could be explained by the direct effects of personal involvement and destination image. For overall satisfaction, 39% of the variance (SMC = 0.39) was explained by the direct effects of destination image and place attachment. As for revisit and recommend intentions, 18% and 12% of the variance respec-tively could be explained by the combined effects of per-sonal involvement, destination image, place attachment, and overall satisfaction.

Table 2. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Standardized β Coefficient Critical Ratios Goodness of Fit

Destination Image Items χ2/df (3.648/5) = 0.730; p < 0.01; NFI = 0.996; AGFI = 0.989; RMSEA = 0.043

DI1: Cultural and historical attractions 0.674 11.829* DI2: Cultural diversity 0.735 14.948* DI3: Variety and quality of accommodation 0.587 9.192* DI4: General level of service 0.596 8.976* DI5: Accessibility of the destination 0.557 8.843* DI6: Reputation of the island 0.668 11.732* DI7: Exoticness of the place 0.534 8.675* Place attachment items χ2/df (8.29/10) = 0.829; p < 0.01;

NFI = 0.997; GFI = 0.997; AGFI = 0.990; RMSEA = 0.035

PA1: Mauritius is a very special destination to me 0.799 18.838* PA2: I identify strongly with this destination 0.682 17.464* PA 3: No other place can provide the same holiday

experience as Mauritius0.601 15.042*

PA4: Holidaying in Mauritius means a lot to me 0.721 19.833* PA5: I am very attached to this holiday destination 0.738 18.614* PA6: Mauritius is the best place for what I like to do on

holidays0.776 18.159*

PA7: Holidaying here is more important to me than holidaying in other places

0.602 12.891*

PA8: I would not substitute any other destination for the types of things that I did during my holidays in Mauritius

0.557 12.314*

Personal involvement items χ2/df (14.51/7) = 2.074; p = 0.043; NFI = 0.988; GFI = 0.993; AGFI = 0.980; RMSEA = 0.039

PI1: I get pleasure from being on holidays here 0.741 18.362* PI2: I attach great importance to being on holiday in Mauritius 0.726 17.431* PI3: I have a lot of interest in Mauritius as a holiday

destination0.775 18.837*

PI4: Being on holiday here is a bit like giving a gift to one’s self 0.722 17.359* PI5: I give myself pleasure by getting involved in the various

things to do here0.521 9.511*

PI6: You can tell a lot about a person/family by whether or not they go on holidays

0.564 9.078*

Note: *p < 0.001. NFI = normed fit index; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prayag and Ryan 351

Table 3. Correlation of Constructs, Variance Extracted, and Alpha Coefficients

Measures DI PA PI IRec IRev OSAverage variance

extractedComposite Reliability

Destination image (DI) 1.00 0.510 0.816Place attachment (PA) 0.651 1.00 0.566 0.877Personal involvement (PI) 0.614 0.891 1.00 0.557 0.836Intention to recommend (IRec) 0.250 0.330 0.296 1.00 − −Intention to revisit (IRev) 0.370 0.412 0.370 0.437 1.00 − −Overall satisfaction (OS) 0.610 0.482 0.448 0.251 0.294 1.00 − −

Destination image

Personal involvement

Place attachment

DI1

DI2

DI3

DI4

DI5

DI6

DI7

PI1 PI3

Revisit

Recommend

PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 PA5 PA6 PA7 PA8

β=0.614*

β=0.166* β=0.148**

β=0.790*

β=0.514*

β=0.273*

β=0.124**

0.70

0.73 0.80 0.71 0.50 0.40

0.46

0.55

0.500.56

0.51

0.72

0.52

0.76 0.70 0.56 0.80 0.80

0.72

0.49 0.47

R2=0.38

R2=0.81

R2=0.39

R2=0.12Overall satisfaction

R2=0.18

β=0.119**

β=0.353*

*p<0.001**p<0.01

PI4PI2 PI5 PI6

Figure 2. Structural model

In summary, the direct, indirect, and total effects can be seen in Table 4, and eight structural paths were evident: (1) personal involvement → destination image → overall satisfaction→ revisit intentions; (2) personal involvement → destination image → overall satisfaction→ recommend intentions; (3) personal involvement → place attachment → overall satisfaction→ revisit intentions; (4) personal involvement → place attachment → overall satisfaction→ recommend intentions; (5) personal involvement → desti-nation image → place attachment→ overall satisfaction→ revisit intentions; (6) personal involvement → destination image → place attachment→ overall satisfaction→ recom-mend intentions; (7) personal involvement → destination image → place attachment→ revisit intentions; and (8) personal involvement → destination image → place

attachment→ recommend intentions. These paths indi-cated that personal involvement and destination image are important antecedents of place attachment and these constructs being important antecedents of overall satis-faction and loyalty. In particular, overall satisfaction mediates the relationship between destination image and future intentions and that between place attachment and future intentions.

Discussion and ImplicationsThe purpose of this study was to assess a theoretical model of antecedents of loyalty and the results conform to some extent to the propositions made earlier, thereby having theo-retical and managerial implications.

at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

352 Journal of Travel Research XX(X)

Theoretical Implications

The findings confirm the applicability of the place attach-ment construct for tourist destinations as suggested by others (e.g., Gross and Brown 2008; Hou, Lin, and Morais 2005; Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010). However, for Mauritius, place identity was the strongest construct defining place attachment thereby suggesting that tourists are able to develop more emotional than functional attachment because of satisfaction with image attributes and personal involve-ment. The latter remains a complex construct when applied to a tourist destination. Nonetheless, the two dimensions of importance and pleasure are replicated in an island context as well, suggesting their robustness as measures of personal involvement. The poor performance of Risk Probability and Risk Consequence items may indicate that the multidimen-sionality of the construct was not fully captured in the scale.

Personal involvement was also an antecedent of place attachment as suggested in other studies (e.g., Gross and Brown 2008; Hou, Lin, and Morais 2005; Hwang, Lee, and Chen 2005), thereby supporting Poira, Butler and Airey’s (2001) suggestion that understanding visitor patterns and experiences in certain settings should consider subjective notions and the significance attached. For example, tourists who perceived a site as part of their own heritage indicated having higher satisfaction from their visit because of per-sonal involvement, with no links necessarily to the destina-tion image. We extend this proposition by showing that tourists, who are more personally involved in the destination experience, became more satisfied with the image and devel-oped stronger attachment with Mauritius.

We also provide empirical support for the positive effect of place attachment on loyalty, as suggested by others (e.g., Alexandris, Kouthouris, and Meligdis 2006; Yuksel, Yuksel,

and Bilim 2010), albeit in a different setting. Support was also found for the positive relationship between destination image and loyalty mediated by satisfaction. These relation-ships suggest that for island destinations, the emotional con-tent of the experience and satisfaction with destination attributes have an impact on tourists’ future behavior. The positive relationship between destination image and place attachment reinforce Prentice, Guerin, and McGugan’s (1998) argument that tourists can enjoy a fundamentally cognitive experience but more expert tourists are able to fully grasp the deeper and more meaningful symbolisms of the destination. This may explain the high repeat visitation to the island.

Likewise, the positive relationship between place attach-ment and overall satisfaction is not surprising, given that in the leisure and recreational fields, this relationship has been explained by the contribution of place dependence to satis-factory experiences with site attributes (Williams and Vaske 2003). This may also explain the structural path between per-sonal involvement and destination image. The more person-ally involved are tourists in the destination experience, the more relevant becomes destination attributes in providing that desired experience (Hou, Lin, and Morais 2005). While Gross and Brown (2008) found no relationship between importance and pleasure items of involvement and place identity, this study confirms otherwise. As tourists gave more importance and derived more pleasure from the desti-nation experience, they perceived the place as being more attuned to their self-concept. Hence, highly involved tourists constitute an asset for the development of positive percep-tions of destination attributes and place attachment.

The structural path between overall satisfaction and loy-alty is consistent with the literature (Chen and Tsai 2007; Chi and Qu 2008; Kozak 2003; Prayag 2008). However, con-trary to previous studies (Bigné, Sanchez, and Sanchez 2001),

Table 4. Hypothesis Testing, Paths, and Effects

Hypothesis Path Direct effects Indirect effects Total effects Testing Result

Hypothesis 1 Personal involvement → Destination image 0.614 − 0.614 SupportedHypothesis 2 Destination image→ Place attachment 0.166 − 0.166 SupportedHypothesis 3 Destination image → Overall satisfaction 0.514 0.024 0.538 SupportedHypothesis 4 Personal involvement → Overall satisfaction − − − Not

supportedHypothesis 5 Place attachment → Overall satisfaction 0.148 − 0.148 SupportedHypothesis 6 Personal involvement → Place attachment 0.790 0.101 0.891 SupportedHypothesis 7 Overall satisfaction → Revisit intentions 0.124 − 0.124 SupportedHypothesis 8 Overall satisfaction→ Recommendation

intentions0.119 − 0.119 Supported

Hypothesis 9 Personal involvement → Revisit intentions − − − Not supported

Hypothesis 10 Personal involvement → Recommendation Intentions

− − − Not supported

Hypothesis 11 Place attachment → Revisit intentions 0.353 0.018 0.371 SupportedHypothesis 12 Place attachment → Recommendation

intentions0.273 0.017 0.290 Supported

at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prayag and Ryan 353

this research provides tenable evidence on the relationship between overall satisfaction and both likelihood to recom-mend and revisit intention. Therefore, as satisfaction lev-els increase, the propensity to return and recommend increases. Hence, word-of-mouth recommendations are crit-ical for loyalty.

In addition, this study does not establish any significant direct relationship between personal involvement and satis-faction, unlike the study of Hwang, Lee, and Chen (2005), but provides support for Lankford, Hetzler, and Kitajima’s (1996) proposition that no conclusive evidence exist on this relationship. Intuitively, if a destination has more personal relevance to a tourist, he or she should derive more satisfac-tion from the holiday experience. However, other factors such as expectations, motivations, and personal characteris-tics may intervene in this relationship (Havitz and Dimanche 1997), providing explanation for the existence of no signifi-cant path between the two constructs. Also, no significant relationship was found between personal involvement and loyalty. While studies by Sparks (2007) and Kim, Scott, and Crompton (1997) established such a direct influence, albeit negative in the latter case, this study confirms only an indi-rect relationship mediated by other variables such as desti-nation image, overall satisfaction, and place attachment. This indirect influence is not uncommon (Kyle et al. 2004) given that the personal relevance of the destination in the choice process and the experience on site are likely to influ-ence whether one recommends and returns to the same destination.

Managerial ImplicationsLooking beyond the structural relationships identified, the findings have some important managerial implications. Satisfaction with attractions (e.g., cultural and historical), infrastructure (accessibility and accommodation), and intan-gible attributes (reputation and exoticness) are the most important determinants of place attachment. Investing in facilitating accessibility, and better cultural/historical attrac-tions, for example, will most likely increase place attach-ment through place identity and place dependence. Also, given that place dependence is related to the perception that a setting possesses unique qualities (Williams et al. 1992), the findings of this study suggest that tourism authorities in Mauritius need to reinforce and improve the current posi-tioning of Mauritius through intangible attributes such as reputation and exoticness of the place. These attributes were rated highly satisfactory and can also be used to differentiate the island effectively from other competing island destinations.

Likewise, high involvement in the destination experience can contribute to positive evaluations of destination attri-butes, thereby contributing to a fundamentally cognitive as well as an emotional experience resulting in place attach-ment. Thus, these findings reinforce Stedman’s (2003)

proposition that a place or site can sustain visitors by market-ing place attributes and emotional well-being. These in turn can have an influence on satisfaction and loyalty. Hence, island destinations can fulfill brand promises and develop place attachment by emphasizing cognitive and affective destination experiences. Yet this will be dependent on desti-nation marketers’ ensuring that on-site experiences at least meet, if not exceed, the initial expectations of visitors. Encouraging social interactions and participation in touris-tic activities on-site may generate high levels of involve-ment and attachment.

The findings also suggest that image is a key determinant of satisfaction, attachment, satisfaction, and loyalty. Therefore, it must possess an inherent “truth” for tourists to develop affection. Destination managers must monitor the evolution of this image and adjust advertising, public relations, promo-tional messages, and advising to travel agents and tour oper-ators to correct deviations from the complex image acquired by visitors on-site. Also, the indirect influence that image has on revisit and recommend intentions through satisfaction requires destination marketers to proactively manage both projected and received images for successful destination development. This enables the generation of positive word of mouth from the existing visitor base of a destination.

In conclusion, the study contributes to expand empirically the antecedents of tourist loyalty. However, the study has certain limitations. First, the scale used for measuring per-sonal involvement displayed poor validity, which suggests that the relationships inferred in the structural model should be treated with caution. However, this provides an opportu-nity for further research identifying the applicability of this scale to tourist destinations and/or using a phenomenological approach to find alternative ways of understanding personal involvement in a tourist destination context. Second, the structural model assumes unidirectional relationships among the various constructs, but in reality, bidirectional linkages may exist, which need further investigation. Third, satisfac-tion and the two proxies of loyalty were measured using one item each. Multi-item measures for these constructs in future studies would improve the understanding of the varied effects of their antecedents and measuring overall satisfaction using sum of satisfaction levels with various attributes could pos-sibly provide a different insight into these relationships. Fourth, the affective component of destination image was not measured and this could be included in future studies to assess specifically the relationship between affective image, place attachment, and personal involvement. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to explore these avenues in future research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

354 Journal of Travel Research XX(X)

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-ship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Alexandris, K., C. Kouthouris, and K. Meligdis. (2006). “Increas-ing Customers’ Loyalty in a Skiing Resort: The Contribution of Place Attachment and Service Quality.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18 (5): 414-25.

Anderson, J. C., and D. W. Gerbing. (1988). “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3): 411-23.

Baker, D. A., and J. L. Crompton. (2000). “Quality, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions.” Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (3): 785-804.

Beerli, A., and J. D. Martin. (2004). “Factors Influencing Destina-tion Image.” Annals of Tourism Research, 31 (3): 657-81.

Bigné, J., M. Sanchez, and J. Sanchez. (2001). “Tourism Image, Evaluation Variables and After-Purchase Behaviour: Inter-Relationships.” Tourism Management, 22 (6): 607-16.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chen, C., and D. Tsai. (2007). “How Destination Image and Evalu-ative Factors Affect Behavioural Intentions.” Tourism Manage-ment, 28 (4): 1115-22.

Chi, C. G. Q., and H. Qu. (2008). “Examining the Structural Relationships of Destination Image, Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty: An Integrated Approach.” Tourism Man-agement, 29 (4): 624-36.

Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A Short Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

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, 17 (4): 18-24.

Dimanche, F., M. E. Havitz, and D. R. Howard. (1991). “Testing the Involvement Profile (IP) Scale in the Context of Selected Rec-reational and Touristic Activities.” Journal of Leisure Research, 23 (1): 51-66.

Echtner, C. M., and J. B. R. Ritchie. (1991). “The Meaning and Measurement of Destination Image.” Journal of Tourism Stud-ies, 2 (2): 2-12.

Fornell, C., and D. Larcker. (1981). “Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 39-50.

Funk, D., L. Ridinger, and A. Moorman. (2004). “Exploring Origins of Involvement: Understanding the Relationship between Consumer Motives and Involvement with Professional Teams.” Leisure Sciences, 26 (1): 35-61.

Gallarza, M. G., I. G. Saura, and H. C. Garcia. (2002). “Destination Image: Towards a Conceptual Framework.” Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (1): 56-78.

Gartner, W. C. (1993). “Image Formation Process.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 2 (2/3): 191-215.

George, B. P., and B. P. George. (2004). “Past Visits and the Inten-tion to Revisit a Destination: Place Attachment as the Mediator and Novelty Seeking as the Moderator.” Journal of Tourism Studies, 15 (2): 51-66.

Gossling S. (2003). Tourism and Development in Tropical Islands: Political Ecology Perspectives. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Gross, M. J., and G. Brown. (2008). “An Empirical Structure Model of Tourists and Places: Progressing Involvement and Place Attachment into Tourism.” Tourism Management, 29 (6): 1141-51.

Gursoy, D., and E. Gavcar. (2003). “International Leisure Tourists’ Involvement Profile.” Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (4): 906-26.

Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and R. L. Tatham. (2005). Multivariate Data Analysis. 6th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hammitt, W. E., E. A. Backlund, and R. D. Bixler. (2006). “Place Bonding for Recreation Places: Conceptual and Empirical Development.” Leisure Studies, 25 (1): 17-41.

Handbook of Tourism Statistics. (2008). Ministry of Tourism, Leisure, and External Communications. Port-Louis, Mauritius: Ministry of Tourism.

Havitz, M. E., and F. Dimanche. (1990). “Propositions for Testing the Involvement Construct in Recreational and Tourism Con-texts.” Leisure Sciences, 12 (2): 179-95.

Havitz, M. E., and F. Dimanche. (1997). “Leisure Involvement Revis-ited: Conceptual Conundrums and Measurement Advances.” Journal of Leisure Research, 29 (3): 245-78.

Hosany, S., and D. Gilbert. (2010). “Dimensions of Tourists’ Emo-tional Experiences toward Hedonic Holiday Destinations.” Journal of Travel Research, 49 (3): 351-64.

Hou, J., C. Lin, and D. B. Morais. (2005). “Antecedents of Attach-ment to a Cultural Tourism Destination: The Case of Hakka and Non-Hakka Taiwanese Visitors to Pei-Pu, Taiwan.” Journal of Travel Research, 44 (4): 221-33.

Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. (1999). “Cut-off Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria ver-sus New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modelling, 11 (3): 1-55.

Huang, S., and C. H. C. Hsu. (2009). “Effects of Travel Motivation, Past Experience, Perceived Constraint, and Attitude on Revisit Intention.” Journal of Travel Research, 48 (1): 29-44.

Hwang, S., C. Lee, and H. Chen. (2005). “The Relationship among Tourists’ Involvement, Place Attachment and Interpretation Satisfaction in Taiwan’s National Park.” Tourism Manage-ment, 26 (2): 143-56.

Iwasaki, Y., and M. E. Havitz. (1998). “A Path Analytic Model of the Relationships between Involvement, Psychological Com-mitment and Loyalty.” Journal of Leisure Research, 30 (2): 256-80.

Jacoby, J., and R. W. Chestnut. (1978). Brand Loyalty: Measure-ment and Management. New York: John Wiley.

at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prayag and Ryan 355

Jenkins, O. H. (1999). “Understanding and Measuring Tourist Des-tination Images.” International Journal of Tourism Research, 1 (1): 1-15.

Jorgensen, B. S., and R. C. Stedman. (2001). “Sense of Place as an Attitude: Lakeshore Owners’ Attitudes toward Their Prop-erties.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21 (3): 233-48.

Kaltenborn, B. P. (1998). “Effects of Sense of Place on Responses to Environmental Impacts.” Applied Geography, 18 (2): 169-89.

Kim, S., D. Scott, and J. L. Crompton. (1997). “An Exploration of the Relationships among Social Psychological Involvement, Behavioural Involvement, Commitment, and Future Intentions in the Context of Birdwatching.” Journal of Leisure Research, 29 (3): 320-41.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 2nd edition. New York: Guilford.

Kozak, M. (2003). “Measuring Tourist Satisfaction with Multiple Destination Attributes.” Tourism Analysis, 7 (3/4): 229-40.

Kyle, G., and G. Chick. (2002). “The Social Nature of Leisure Involvement.” Journal of Leisure Research, 34 (4): 426-48.

Kyle, G. T., A. Graefe, and R. Manning. (2005). “Testing the Dimensionality of Place Attachment in Recreational Settings.” Environment and Behavior, 37 (2): 153-77.

Kyle, G. T., A. Graefe, R. Manning, and J. Bacon. (2004). “Effects of Place Attachment on Users’ Perceptions of Social and Envi-ronmental Conditions in a Natural Setting.” Journal of Envi-ronmental Psychology, 24 (2): 213-25.

Lankford, S. L., R. Hetzler, and T. Kitajima. (1996). “Crowding and Satisfaction with Ocean Recreation: A Cross-Cultural Perspec-tive.” Paper presented at the 4th World Congress of the World Leisure and Recreation Association, Cardiff, Wales, UK.

Laurent, G., and J. Kapferer. (1985). “Measuring Consumer Involve-ment Profiles.” Journal of Marketing Research, 22: 41-53.

Lee, C. C., and L. Allen. (1999). “Understanding Individual’s Attachment to Selected Destinations: An Application of Place Attachment.” Tourism Analysis, 4 (3/4): 173-85.

Lee, Y. K., K. J. Back, and J. Y. Kim. (2009). “Family Restaurant Brand Personality and Its Impact on Customer’s Emotion, Satis-faction, and Brand Loyalty.” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 33 (3): 305-28.

Lin, C. H., B. Morais, D. L. Kerstetter, and J. S. Hou. (2007). “Examining the Role of Cognitive and Affective Image in Pre-dicting Choice across Natural, Developed, and Theme-Park Destinations.” Journal of Travel Research, 46: 183-94.

Manzo, L. C. (2003). “Beyond House and Haven: Toward a Revi-sioning of Emotional Relationships with Places.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23 (1): 47-61.

McIntyre, N., and J. J. Pigram. (1992). “Specialization Re-Examined: The Case of Vehicle Based Campers.” Leisure Sciences, 14 (1): 17-31.

Moore, R. L., and A. R. Graefe. (1994). “Attachments to Recreation Settings: The Case of Rail-Trail Users.” Leisure Sciences, 16 (1): 17-31.

Oliver, R. L. (1999). “Whence Consumer Loyalty?” Journal of Marketing, 63: 33-44.

Oppermann, M. (2000). “Predicting Destination Choice—A Dis-cussion of Destination Loyalty.” Journal of Vacation Market-ing, 5 (1): 51-65.

Parasuraman, A., V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry. (1994). “Reas-sessment of Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measur-ing Service Quality: Implications for further Research.” Journal of Marketing, 58 (1): 111-24.

Pike, S., and C. Ryan. (2004). “Destination Positioning Analysis through a Comparison of Cognitive, Affective, and Conative Perceptions.” Journal of Travel Research, 42: 333-42.

Poira, Y., R. Butler, and D. Airey. (2001). “Tourism Sub-Groups: Do They Exist?” Tourism Today, 1 (1): 14-22.

Poira, Y., R. Butler, and D. Airey. (2004). “Links between Tourists, Heritage, and Reasons for Visiting Heritage Sites.” Journal of Travel Research, 43: 19-28.

Poira, Y., A. Reichel, and A. Biran. (2006). “Heritage Site Percep-tions and Motivations to Visit.” Journal of Travel Research, 44: 318-26.

Prayag, G. (2008). “Image, Satisfaction and Loyalty: The Case of Cape Town.” Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 19 (2): 205-24.

Prayag, G. (2009). “Tourists’ Evaluation of Destination Image, Sat-isfaction and Future Behavioral Intentions—The Case of Mau-ritius.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26 (8): 836-53.

Prayag, G., and C. Ryan. (2011). “The Relationship between the Push and Pull Factors of a Tourist Destination: The Role of Nationality—An Analytical Qualitative Research Approach.” Current Issues in Tourism, 14 (2): 121-43.

Prentice, R. C., S. Guerin, and S. McGugan. (1998). “Visitor Learn-ing at a Heritage Attraction: A Case Study of Discovery as a Media Product.” Tourism Management, 19 (1): 5-23.

Pretty, G. H., H. M. Chipuer, and P. Bramston. (2003). “Sense of Place amongst Adolescents and Adults in Two Rural Australian Towns: The Discriminating Features of Place Attachment, Sense of Community and Place Dependence in Relation to Place Identity.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23 (3): 273-87.

Pritchard, M. P., D. R. Howard, and M. E. Havitz. (1992). “Loyalty Measurement: A Critical Examination and Theoretical Exten-sion.” Leisure Sciences, 14 (2): 155-64.

Proshansky, H. M., A. K. Fabian, and R. Kaminoff. (1983). “Place Identity: Physical World Socialization of the Self.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3: 57-83.

Ross, E. L. D., and S. E. Iso-Ahola. (1991). “Sightseeing Tourists’ Motivation and Satisfaction.” Annals of Tourism Research, 18 (2): 226-37.

Russel, J. A., L. M. Ward, and G. Pratt. (1981). “Affective Quality Attributed to Environments: A Factor Analytic Study.” Envi-ronment and Behavior, 13 (3): 259-88.

Sherif, C., and M. Sherif. (1967). Attitude, Ego-Involvement and Change. New York: John Wiley.

Soper, A. K. (2007). “Developing Mauritianness: National Identity, Cultural Heritage Values and Tourism.” Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2 (2): 94-109.

at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

356 Journal of Travel Research XX(X)

Soriano, M., and G. Foxall. (2002). “A Spanish Translation of Mehrabian and Russel’s Emotionality Scales for Environmen-tal Consumer Psychology.” Journal of Consumer Behavior, 2 (1): 23-26.

Sparks, B. (2007). “Planning a Wine Tourism Vacation? Factors that Help to Predict Tourist Behavioral Intentions.” Tourism Management, 28 (5): 1180-92.

Stedman, R. C. (2003). “Is It Really Just a Social Construction? The Contribution of the Physical Environment to Sense of Place.” Society and Natural Resources, 16 (8): 671-85.

Steenkamp, J. B., and H. C. M. Van Trijp. (1991). “The Use of LISREL in Validating Marketing Constructs.” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8: 283-99.

Stokols, D., and S. A. Shumaker. (1981). “People and Places: A Transactional View of Settings.” In Cognition, Social Behav-iour and the Environment, edited by J. Harvey. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 441-88.

Tasci, A. D. A., and W. C. Gartner. (2007). “Destination Image and Its Functional Relationships.” Journal of Travel Research, 45: 413-25.

Tasci, A. D. A., W. C. Gartner, and S. T. Cavusgil. (2007). “Conceptu-alization and Operationalization of Destination Image.” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31 (2): 194-223.

Trauer, B., and C. Ryan. (2005). “Destination Image, Romance and Place Experience—An Application of Intimacy Theory in Tourism.” Tourism Management, 26 (4): 481-91.

Travel and Tourism Report on Mauritius. (2007). “Business Wire, November.” http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/c73468 (accessed August 31, 2008).

Tuan, Y. F. (1980). “Rootedness versus Sense of Place.” Landscape, 24: 3-8.

Williams, D. R., M. E. Patterson, J. W. Roggenbuck, and A. E. Watson. (1992). “Beyond the Commodity Metaphor: Examin-ing Emotional and Symbolic Attachment to Place.” Leisure Sci-ences, 14: 29-46.

Williams, D. R., and J. W. Roggenbuck. (1989). “Measuring Place Attachment: Some Preliminary Results.” NRPA Symposium on Leisure Research, San Antonio, Texas.

Williams, D. R., and J. J. Vaske. (2003). “The Measurement of Place Attachment: Validity and Generalisability of a Psycho-metric Approach.” Forest Science, 49 (6): 830-40.

World Economic Forum. (2009). The Travel and Tourism Competi-tiveness Index 2009: Measuring Sectoral Drivers in a Down-turn. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

World Travel and Tourism Council. (2010). Travel and Tourism Eco-nomic Impact Report. London: World Travel and Tourism Council.

Yoon, Y., and M. Uysal. (2005). “An Examination of the Effects of Motivation and Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty: A Struc-tural Model.” Tourism Management, 26: 45-56.

Yuksel, A., F. Yuksel, and Y. Bilim. (2010). “Destination Attach-ment: Effects on Consumer Satisfaction and Cognitive, Affective and Conative Loyalty.” Tourism Management, 31 (2): 274-84.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). “Measuring the Involvement Con-struct.” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3): 341-52.

Bios

Girish Prayag: Dr. Girish Prayag is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at SKEMA Business School in France. Prior to this appointment, he was a lecturer at the University of Mauritius and doctoral student at the Waikato Management School in New Zealand. His research interests are related to destination manage-ment, airline marketing, consumer behaviour and island tourism.

Chris Ryan: Chris Ryan is Professor of Tourism at the University of Waikato, editor of the journal Tourism Management, and a member of the International Academy for the Study of Tourism. He has published more than 100 articles, many of which appear in tourism leading journals. His research interests are related to impacts of tourism, tourist behavior, research methods and epistemologies.

at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from