Familiarity and visit characteristics as determinants of tourists' experience at a cruise destination

Tourism Management Perspectives 30 (2019) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management Perspectives journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tmp

Familiarity and visit characteristics as determinants of tourists' experience at a cruise destination Silvia Sanz-Blasa, Daniela Buzovaa, Elena Carvajal-Trujillob, a b

T

⁎

Department of Marketing, University of Valencia, Avda de los Naranjos s/n., 46022, Valencia, Spain Department of Business Administration and Marketing, University of Huelva, Plaza de la Merced, 21002 Huelva, Spain

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Cruise tourism Familiarity Visit arrangement Length of stay Satisfaction

The main aim of this study was to examine the differences in the interrelationships between destination imagesatisfaction-behavioural intention across cruise tourists with varying visit characteristics (length of stay and type of visit arrangement) and familiarity. The data for the study was obtained through interviews with cruise passengers visiting a major Spanish port of call. The results revealed that both familiarity (informational and behavioural) and type of visit arrangement (excursion versus independent visit) moderated the hypothesized structural relationships. The moderating role of length of stay onshore was only demonstrated on the impact of satisfaction on behavioural intentions. The findings make several contributions to the current literature on cruise tourist behaviour.

1. Introduction While modern cruise ships have often been defined as “floating cities” (Bennett, 2016), or “floating “B&Bs” (Pranić, Marušić, & Sever, 2013), port-of-call destinations remain a foremost part of the cruise holiday experience (Hung & Petrick, 2011; Weeden, Lester, & Thyne, 2011). However, there has been limited academic research surrounding cruise tourists' behaviour onshore (De Cantis, Ferrante, Kahani, & Shoval, 2016; Thyne, Henry, & Lloyd, 2015). Prior studies have established a positive path between destination image-satisfaction-behavioural intentions of land tourists in various types of travel destinations (Coban, 2012; Ramseook-Munhurrun, Seebaluck, & Naidoo, 2015; Setiawan, Troena, & Armanu, 2014). Nonetheless, the strength of the relationships between those constructs has been found to differ across different segments of visitors (Assaker, Hallak, Assaf, & Assad, 2015; Tavitiyaman & Qu, 2013). In contrast to “land-based” tourists, cruise passengers pay a much shorter visit to the destination (Ozturk & Gogtas, 2016), usually buy an excursion package (Parola, Satta, Penco, & Persico, 2014) and discover (and compare) up to 5–6 ports of call in a single cruise trip (Teye & Paris, 2010). Therefore, all those characteristics may condition cruisers' experience, restricting the visit to a few hours and only a part of destinations' sightseeing, which may leave cruisers “insatiate” and willing to return (Andriotis & Agiomirgianakis, 2010). In this regard, factors such as destination familiarity, length of stay or type of visit organisation might

⁎

affect the links between destination image-satisfaction-behavioural intention in a higher degree for cruise tourists than for land-based ones. In non-cruise contexts, it has been demonstrated that familiarity acts as a moderator on the relationships between destination image, satisfaction and loyalty (Brunner, Stöcklin, & Opwis, 2008; Jin, Lee, & Lee, 2015; Lee & Tussyadiah, 2012). Similarly, Liu, Li, and Yang (2015) found that type of visit organisation (packaged versus self-organized) moderated the causal paths between those constructs in the case of outbound Chinese tourists. The study contributes to the existing tourism literature in several ways. First, there is a paucity of research analysing the moderating effect of familiarity and visit characteristics on the interrelationships between destination image, satisfaction and behavioural intentions (Parola et al., 2014; Sanz-Blas, Buzova, & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2015). More specifically, and in regards to familiarity, the study addresses Baloglu's (2001) recommendation for incorporating the concept of bidimensional familiarity (i.e. individual's past experience and contact with information sources) when exploring loyalty formation. Furthermore, the study provides evidence on the impact of visit length on the structural links among destination image-satisfaction-behavioural intentions, which has not been previously explored. In view of the above, the present study examined the moderating effects of familiarity and visit characteristics on the structural relationships between destination image, satisfaction and behavioural intentions in a cruise port context. In particular, this study sets out to

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Sanz-Blas), [email protected] (D. Buzova), [email protected] (E. Carvajal-Trujillo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.01.005 Received 30 July 2018; Received in revised form 17 January 2019; Accepted 18 January 2019 2211-9736/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Tourism Management Perspectives 30 (2019) 1–10

S. Sanz-Blas et al.

investigate the moderating impact of (1) behavioural familiarity (reflecting past experience with the destination (Baloglu, 2001)), (2) informational familiarity (referring to the level of exposure to destination-related information (Baloglu, 2001)), (3) type of visit organisation (self-organized versus packaged excursion) and (4) visit length on the interactions between destination image, satisfaction and behavioural intentions.

(2015). Thus, the structural relationships among image, satisfaction and future intention when studying tourist behaviour have been verified by numerous studies. Nevertheless, the strength of those interrelationships has been found to differ as some factors, such as personal characteristics (Assaker et al., 2015; Homburg & Giering, 2001), novelty seeking tendencies (Kim & Kim, 2015) or past experience (Chi, 2012; Morais & Lin, 2010) exert a moderating influence on them. In this regard, Liu et al. (2015) and Brunner et al. (2008) call for more research in order to gain knowledge about the moderators of the sequence destination imagetourist satisfaction-behavioural intentions. In particular, Assaker et al. (2015, p. 11) pointed out that the moderating role of “travel mode, travel time, trip characteristics” should be explored by future studies. In view of this statement, the following paragraphs discuss destination familiarity and visit characteristics (type of visit organisation and length) as moderators by reviewing the theoretical bases and research carried out so far.

2. Literature review 2.1. The relationships among destination image, tourist satisfaction and behavioural intentions Central to understanding tourist behaviour is the image–satisfaction–behavioural intention model (Chi & Qu, 2008; Ryu, Han, & Kim, 2008; Toudert & Bringas-Rábago, 2016). A considerable amount of literature has been published on the relationships between those three constructs. Destination image is defined as tourists' knowledge, feelings and perceptions about a destination (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Kim, 2018). The construct can be disaggregated into three dimensions: cognitive, affective and conative (Enright & Newton, 2005; Kim, 2018). Destination image is essential in understanding tourists' actual and future behaviour toward a place (Lin & Kuo, 2018). The present research focuses on the cognitive facet of destination image, as it captures better the destination's characteristics (Chen & Phou, 2013) and is directly observable, describable and measurable (Kim, 2018). Satisfaction in the tourism context is viewed as the result of comparing the expectations about a service with the perceived experience after experimenting it (Chen & Chen, 2010; Cong, 2016). Therefore, tourists will be satisfied with a destination when the result of comparing their expectations with the real destination experience is favourable, while tourist dissatisfaction will be the outcome of a negative “expectations-actual experience” balance (Chen & Chen, 2010; Chi & Qu, 2008; Cong, 2016). Behavioural intention is understood as the probability of purchasing a product/service based on consumer's evaluation and interests (Han & Ryu, 2007; Oliver, 1997). Extant studies often use the terms “behavioural intentions” and “loyalty” interchangeably (Chiou & Shen, 2006; Meng & Han, 2018; Tanford & Jung, 2017), when both, intention to repurchase and recommend are explored (Han, 2013; Meng & Han, 2018). In line with the literature, the present research defines behavioural intentions as tourist's return and word-of-mouth intention toward a destination. Albaity and Melhem (2017) argue that destinations' success depends on satisfaction as the unifying element between destination image and behavioural intention. Prior research has shown that destination image affects tourist satisfaction in a positive way (Bhat & Darzi, 2018; Castro, Armario, & Ruiz, 2007; Jin et al., 2015). Evidence suggests that a favourable perception of a travel destination influences tourists' behavioural intentions toward it (Bhat & Darzi, 2018; Jalilvand, Samiei, Dini, & Manzari, 2012; Zhang, Fu, Cai, & Lu, 2014). Park and Njite (2010) confirmed the impact of destination image on intention to revisit and willingness to recommend it. In a winter destination setting, Hallmann, Zehrer, and Müller (2015) found that both, cognitive and affective image dimensions, affected future revisit intention. Tourist satisfaction is a key determinant of future behavioural intentions (Prayag, Hosany, & Odeh, 2013), in terms of intention to return (Alegre & Cladera, 2009) and spread positive word-of-mouth (Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Previous studies in the cruise context revealed that overall satisfaction positively influenced cruiser tourists' loyalty, composed of the intention to return as land tourists and recommend the destination (Brida, Pulina, Riaño, & Zapata- Aguirre, 2012; Sanz-Blas & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014). A positive significant path coefficient between overall destination satisfaction and cruiser tourists' word-of-mouth attitude has also been evidenced by Satta, Parola, Penco, and Persico

2.2. Destination familiarity as moderator Familiarity is often defined in terms of past experiences with a travel destination (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987). Nevertheless, many researchers consider familiarity bidimensional in nature (Baloglu, 2001; Seo, Kim, Oh, & Yun, 2013; Shen, Li, Teglio, & Zhang, 2016), including not only previous experience with a destination (behavioural familiarity or experiential familiarity), but also the amount of direct or indirect information acquired on that destination (information familiarity or informational familiarity). Considering the above, familiarity is an integrated concept, encompassing previous visit, amount of information, and past experience with a travel destination (Baloglu, 2001). In this regard, familiarity has been deemed a component of knowledge (Cordell, 1997), which goes beyond the mere experience with a particular place, thus influencing tourists' decision-making processes (Casaló, Flavián, & Guinalíu, 2008; Ha & Jang, 2010; Seo et al., 2013). Destination and sightseeing familiarity was not only found to directly and positively affect destination image formation (Baloglu, 2001; Beerli & Martin, 2004; Woodside & Lysonski, 1989), tourist satisfaction (Faullant, Matzler, & Füller, 2008) and intentions to visit the destination (Yang, Yuan, & Hu, 2009), but also to play a moderating role on the relationships between those variables (image-satisfaction-intention) (Brunner et al., 2008; Kim, Hallab, & Kim, 2012; Rodriguez-Molina, Frias-Jamilena, & Castaneda-Garcia, 2013; San Martin, Collado, & Rodriguez del Bosque, 2013). 2.2.1. Behavioural familiarity As regards behavioural familiarity, a review of the existing literature revealed that the strength of the interrelationships between image, satisfaction, and future behavioural intention varied depending on tourists' previous experience (Rodriguez-Molina et al., 2013). In this sense, Chi (2012) found that the impact of image on satisfaction increased as a result of more experience. In contrast, Liu, Li, and Kim (2017) showed that destination image had a stronger positive effect on satisfaction for first-time visitors. San Martin et al. (2013) reported on the greater impact of satisfaction on tourist loyalty in the case of firsttime tourists as opposed to repeaters. This result is different from the obtained by Rodriguez-Molina et al. (2013), who found that satisfaction was a better predictor of future intentions for repeat visitors. Lastly, it should be noted that both, Faullant et al. (2008) and Rodriguez-Molina et al. (2013) indicated that the more often tourists visited the destination, the stronger the relationship between destination image and loyalty. On another note, evidence suggests no empirical support for the moderating impact of tourists' previous experience on some of the interrelationships proposed in the research model (Fig. 1). For example, Kim et al. (2012), who reported that destination experience affected the 2

Tourism Management Perspectives 30 (2019) 1–10

S. Sanz-Blas et al.

Fig. 1. Proposed research model.

impact of some image factors on the intention to revisit, being weakly associated with the cultural attractiveness factor. Similarly, Huang, Afsharifar, and van der Veen (2015) revealed that tourist prior visit moderated only the effects of some of the image components on tourist satisfaction. In a study conducted by Liu et al. (2017), it was shown that satisfaction and destination image had the same significant impact on future behaviour for first-time visitors and returning ones. In a similar vein, Faullant et al. (2008) found that the effect of satisfaction on loyalty was the same in both groups (first-time and repeat visitors). Hence, we posit that:

2.3. The moderating role of visit characteristics Visit characteristics such as travel organisation, visitor group size and legth of stay can play an essential role in explaining tourist activity (Roovers, Hermy, & Gulinck, 2002; Smallwood, Beckley, & Moore, 2012). Though previous studies have demonstrated that visit-related characteristics could influence destination evaluation (Maumbe, Deng, & Selin, 2014; Weaver, Weber, & McCleary, 2007), there is a lack of understanding on their effect on tourist experience in a cruise destination.

Hypothesis 1. Behavioural familiarity has a moderating effect on the impact of (a) destination image on satisfaction, (b) destination image on tourists' future behavioural intentions and (c) tourist satisfaction on tourists' future behavioural intentions.

2.3.1. Type of visit arrangement Ports of call visits constitute an essential component of the cruise holiday experience and the type visit arrangement is an important decision for a cruise tourist to make. Cruise passengers have mainly two options: either buy a cruise-line excursion package or organise the destination visit on their own (Thyne et al., 2015). Pre-arranged excursions usually include a guided tour provided by a local incoming agency, and transport at the destination. Purchasing an onshore excursion provides comfort to tourists, as it implies that the company will handle any problem, which may occur during the visit, and thus guarantees visitor's security in the unknown environment of the travel destination (Parola et al., 2014; Pearce, 1982). Nevertheless, several studies have found a growing trend among young cruiser tourists toward undertaking self-organized tours (Henry & Thyne, 2007; Macpherson, 2008), as a cheaper option for tighter budgets. Another group of cruise passengers that usually prefer to visit cruise destinations independently are repeat cruisers, who are more experienced in planning and organizing port of call visits (Douglas & Douglas, 2004). The purchase of a pre-arranged cruise excursion has been found to positively moderate the interaction between tourist satisfaction and intention to revisit, yet no evidence was found for its moderating effect on the relationship between satisfaction and positive word-of-mouth likelihood (Parola et al., 2014). However, though not in a cruise-based context, Liu et al. (2015) demonstrated that the type of travel arrangement (independent versus packaged travelers) affected the relationships between destination image, tourists' satisfaction at the destination, and behavioural intentions. In particular, the impact of destination image on both tourist satisfaction and behavioural intentions was greater in the case of independent tourists.

2.2.2. Informational familiarity Regarding the informational dimension of the familiarity concept (informational familiarity), a search of the literature revealed few studies which have confirmed that previous destination knowledge obtained through information sources could strengthen the relationships between: (1) destination image and satisfaction; (2) destination image and behavioural intention, and (3) satisfaction and behavioural intention (Sanz-Blas et al., 2015). In this way, the better the knowledge of a destination, the stronger the influence of image on satisfaction and behavioural intention, as well as the impact of satisfaction on intention. However, several studies in non-tourism contexts showed no empirical support for the moderating role of this variable on some of the relationships of the model. The findings of Casaló et al. (2008) and Fandos and Flavián (2011) demonstrated no significant differences on the influence of satisfaction on loyalty between consumers with high and low levels of informational familiarity. Hence, taking into account the above results, together with the paucity of research on moderating effects of familiarity on the influence of destination image on satisfaction and loyalty and the impact of satisfaction on future behavioural intentions in a cruise destination context, the following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 2. Informational familiarity has a moderating effect on the impact of (a) destination image on satisfaction, (b) destination image on tourists' future behavioural intentions and (c) tourist satisfaction on tourists' future behavioural intentions. 3

Tourism Management Perspectives 30 (2019) 1–10

S. Sanz-Blas et al.

cruise ship arrivals (i.e. April to July). Data was gathered from cruise ships from varying sizes to guarantee that the sample is not biased. Convenience sampling was employed as data collection procedure since no data about the size and characteristics of the survey population were available. Data were gathered by means of personal interviews based on a structured questionnaire available in English, German, Italian and French, resulting in 492 valid questionnaires. The respondents were approached at the hall of the Passengers' Terminal of the port of Valencia, once they have visited the city and before embarking on the cruise ship. The interviewers were present at the port a couple of hours before cruise ships' scheduled departure, as not all cruise passengers would return to the ship at the last moment. Respondents' participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous. Fig. 3 provides a summary of the steps in the data collection process. As for the characteristics of the sample, the male respondents accounted for 54.8% of the total, while 45.2% were female cruise tourists. Their ages were ranging from 18 to 82 years distributed into three groups: < 35 years (29.7%), 35–54 years (37%), 55 < years (33.3%). In terms of education, 36.6% of the sample had completed high school studies, while 63.4% hold a university degree. Regarding interviewees' occupations, the largest part of them were employed (61.8%), followed by the group of retired/pensioners, which comprised 24.8% of the sample. As long as travel companion is concerned, 37.8% of the cruiser passengers indicated they were travelling with a partner, whereas 22% of the sample was on board with their family. The rest of the respondents were travelling in mixed groups of friends, couples, families or were solo travelers (2%). Regarding the nationality of the interviewed cruise tourists, the majority were Europeans (82,7%), (with Italian, German, French and British passengers being most numerous), while 14.7% were USA citizens, and 2,6% came from other parts of the world. As for respondents' familiarity with the port of call, 62.8% had not previously visited the port of call and only 20.73% had consulted several information sources about Valencia before the visit. More than half of the tourists visited the city on their own, while 40.2% purchased a cruise excursion. As for the average time spent at the destination, 53.65% of the respondents spent < 6 h.

In light of these contradictory findings, the moderating effect of the type of visit arrangement on the interactions between the three constructs requires further investigation, leading to the formulation of the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 3. The type of visit arrangement has a moderating effect on the impact of (a) destination image on satisfaction, (b) destination image on tourists' future behavioural intentions and (c) tourist satisfaction on tourists' future behavioural intentions. 2.3.2. Visit length Another essential factor influencing tourists' evaluation of travel destinations is the visit length (Alegre & Pou, 2006). Leiper (2004) highlights the fact that visitors perceive the same destination differently, being the time available in that destination a major determinant of their experience. This view is supported by Ozturk and Gogtas (2016), who stated that a limited exposure to a destination could cause differences in how it is perceived. Time constraints influence significantly tourists' activity in a destination (Caldeira & Kastenholz, 2014), which is even more true in the case of cruise passengers, for whom time is a limited resource onshore (Larsen & Wolff, 2016). Furthermore, the amount of time spent at a cruise destination may influence visitors' behavioural intentions. In this regard, Andriotis and Agiomirgianakis (2010) suggested that return intention of cruise tourists might be higher because of the limited time spent onshore. Similarly, in a study conducted by Brida et al. (2012) length of stay at a cruise port was found to be one of the main factors that positively influenced cruiser tourists' perception and their intention to revisit the destination either as cruisers or as land tourists. On another note, several studies have explored the moderating role of time spent at a particular destination on tourists' experience, though examining different constructs' relationships than those proposed in our research model and using data from non-cruise domains (Albaity & Melhem, 2017; Kim & Lee, 2016; Lin & Chen, 2013; Neal, Uysal, & Sirgy, 2007). Thus, in a rural tourism context, Kim and Lee (2016) demonstrated that length of stay moderated positively the relationships between perceived value and satisfaction. Therefore, we postulate that length of stay onshore will exert a moderating impact on cruise tourists' behaviour:

3.3. Measures

Hypothesis 4a. The length of the onshore visit has a moderating effect on the impact of (a) destination image on satisfaction, (b) destination image on tourists' future behavioural intentions and (c) tourist satisfaction on tourists' future behavioural intentions. Fig. 1 illustrates the research model of the study.

The survey questionnaire was designed using previously validated measurement scales. Destination image was assessed by fifteen items based on Sanz-Blas and Carvajal-Trujillo (2014), representing four dimensions: tourism resources (Restou); infrastructure and atmosphere (Infatm); urban environment (Urbenv); and socioeconomic environment (Socenv). The construct was operationalized as a first-order reflective and a second-order formative one. Satisfaction was measured by three items adapted from Oliver (1980) and Flavián, Guinalíu, and Gurrea (2006), while to assess the future behavioural intentions toward the cruise destination (likelihood to revisit and recommend), three items were used following Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman (1996) and Cater and Zabkar (2009). All constructs were evaluated on a multiple-item Likert scale of 5 points. As for the familiarity variable, behavioural familiarity was assessed by the following question “Have you visited the city of Valencia before?” as in Chen and Lin (2012) and Prats, Camprubí, and Coromina (2016). The informational familiarity construct was operationalized via multiple information sources (e.g. travel agency”; “catalogues, TV and magazines”; “destination webpage”, etc.), following Baloglu (2001) and Seo et al. (2013). Regarding the visit characteristics, respondents were asked about the type of shore visit (excursion versus independent) (following Parola et al. (2014)) and the duration of their stay onshore (in hours) (as in Brida et al. (2012)).

3. Methods 3.1. Study setting Valencia is one of the leading Spanish cruise ports receiving approximately half a million cruise tourists in the last years (Puertos del Estado, 2018). The number of cruise passengers calling at the port of Valencia has more than doubled in the last decade: (179.209 cruise tourists in 2007 versus 412.328 in 2017). Valencia can be classified as a discovery port: “one that is not world-famous, but provides the sense of discovering an unknown treasure” (Pallis, 2015). As such, it can be deemed representative of a great part of the Mediterranean cruise ports. Fig. 2 provides a map of the port of Valencia indicating the main cruise passenger areas. 3.2. Sample and data collection The target population of the study included cruise tourists who visited the city of Valencia. The data collection was carried out during the period in which the port of Valencia receives the greatest number of 4

Tourism Management Perspectives 30 (2019) 1–10

S. Sanz-Blas et al.

Fig. 2. Map of the port of Valencia.

Fig. 3. Data collection process.

3.4. Data analysis

(see Table 1). The composite reliability and the average variance extracted (AVE) values were above the recommended limits (0.7 and 0.5 respectively). As for composite reliability, the values were 0.91 for behavioural intention to 0.98 for satisfaction. Furthermore, the average variance extracted (AVE) was 0.78 for behavioural intention and 0.93 for satisfaction. The discriminant validity was assessed following the procedure proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981), establishing that in all cases the square root of the AVEs is greater than the correlations between constructs (see Table 2). As formative measurements are not supposed to covariate given their conceptual characteristics, the tests for reliability and validity are not appropriate for constructs with formative indicators (Bollen & Lennox, 1991). In these cases, the multicollinearity of the formative indicators should be assessed by means of the variance inflation factor (VIF). In all cases, the VIF values were lower than five (all of them were ranged 1.371–1.838), thus rejecting the hypothesis of multicollinearity of the formative indicators composing the destination image scale (see

Partial Least Square (PLS) path modelling was used to test the proposed model. PLS can be used to assess both reflective (satisfaction and behavioural intentions) and formative constructs (destination image), which makes it suitable for the purposes of this study (Henseler, Ringle, & Sinkovics, 2009; Henseler, Wilson, & Westberg, 2011). 4. Results 4.1. Measurement model assessment Firstly, the reflective and formative measurement models were tested before estimating the structural model. For constructs with reflective indicators (satisfaction and behavioural intention) the attributes of reliability and validity were evaluated. Every standardized loading fell within the range of 0.706–0.972 and all were significant 5

Tourism Management Perspectives 30 (2019) 1–10

S. Sanz-Blas et al.

Table 1).

Table 1 Reliability and convergent validity.

4.2. Structural model

Construct/ Dimension/ Indicator

Before testing the moderation effects, the entire sample was submitted for analysis of the structural model. The results are presented in Table 3. Bootstrapping (5000 resamples) was used to generate standard errors and t-statistics (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011). The results indicate that the path coefficient for the impact of destination image on satisfaction was significantly > 0 (β = 0,500, p < 0,001). Similarly, the influence of travel satisfaction on behavioural intentions is confirmed (β = 0,810, p < 0,001). Nevertheless, the direct impact of destination image on behavioural intentions is not significant (β = 0,035, p > 0,05). Regarding destination image, the dimension of city infrastructure and atmosphere (Infatm, weight = 0.7269) is the one that contributes in a greater extent to enhance and develop the image of the destination.

Image (secondorder factor) Tourist resources Restou1 Restou2 Restou3 Restou4 Infrastructure of the city and atmosphere Infatm1 Infatm2 Infatm3 Infatm4 Infatm5 Infatm6 Urban environment Urbenv1 Urbenv2 Socioeconomic environment Socenv1 Socenv2 Satisfaction (reflective) Sat1 Sat2 Sat3 Behavioural intention (reflective) Int1 Int2 Int3

4.3. Moderation assessment To test the moderating effect of familiarity and visit characteristics, a multi-group comparison approach was applied (Henseler & Fassott, 2010), whereby the moderating variables were divided into two value categories. To test respondents' behavioural familiarity, the participants were divided into two groups: the first group comprised 309 tourists, who had never visited the destination, while the second one was composed of 183 respondents, who had already been to Valencia at least once. In order to distinguish between respondents with low and high extent of exposure to destination-related information, the average value of the number of information sources consulted was used as in Seo et al. (2013). The mean value was 2, so that cruise passengers who had checked two or less information sources were assigned low informational familiarity (n = 390), while the rest of the respondents were labelled as having high informational familiarity (n = 102). To test the moderating influence of the length of stay onshore, the respondents were separated in two groups, using the average time spent at the destination as a cut-off value (6 h). As a result, the first group was composed of tourists whose port-of-call visit has been equal or less than 6 h (n = 264), while the second group comprised those who have spent more than 6 h onshore (n = 228). The last moderator to be tested was the type of visit arrangement. According to the way respondents organized their port of call visit, the sample was classified in two groups: (1) tourists who bought a prearranged excursion (n = 198) and (2) tourists who visited the destination on their own (294). In a bid to ensure that group differences were exclusively based on familiarity and visit characteristics, we controlled for variables such as gender and age, applying chi-square tests. The results of the analyses revealed p-values > .05, indicating that the controlling variables exert no effect on the moderating ones. Table 4 shows the results of the conducted multi-group analysis. The moderating impact of behavioural familiarity on the links between image and satisfaction, on one hand, and satisfaction and behavioural intention, on the other, is significant at the 5% level (H1a, H1c are supported). The results reveal that destination image can have a larger impact on satisfaction for those tourists who were already familiar with the destination, while satisfaction leads to greater behavioural intentions for those who visit the port of call for the first time. In regards to informational familiarity, the results of the structural model were found to be different depending on its level. Thus, for respondents with high informational familiarity destination image had a greater impact on satisfaction, and satisfaction, in turn, leaded to greater behavioural intentions (H2a, H2c are confirmed). The different visit characteristics also significantly moderated the relations in the proposed research model. Our findings indicate that

VIF

Weight

1.426

0.234

1.838

0.726

1.371

0.212

1.816

0.027

Loading

t-value

0.904 0.858 0.887 0.710

51.76 28.93 36.15 12.87

0.741 0.824 0.758 0.734 0.735 0.731

24.86 39.05 24.32 25.52 25.57 25.28

0.908 0.919

36.33 46.25

0.953 0.904

71.98 32.47

0.957 0.967 0.972

71.20 82.57 103.84

0.955 0.959 0.706

128.57 176.72 15.24

Composite reliability

AVE

n.a

n.a

0.904

0.704

0.944

0.600

0.910

0.835

0.926

0.863

0.976

0.932

0.911

0.777

n.a.: not applicable.

visit mode choice moderates the links between destination image and satisfaction and satisfaction and behavioural intentions (H3a, H3c are supported). That is, destination image will lead to higher satisfaction, and satisfaction will have a stronger impact on behavioural intentions for those cruisers who decide to buy an excursion package instead of visiting the port of call on their own. Regarding the moderating role of length of stay at the cruise port of call, both groups showed similar results regarding the impact of destination image on satisfaction. This result leads to reject the Hypothesis 4a. However, satisfaction was demonstrated to produce a larger impact on behavioural intentions for those cruise tourists who spent less than the average amount of time onshore as compared to those who stayed for more than 6 h (H4c confirmed). Given that the results of the structural model assessment indicated a non-significant relationship between destination image and behavioural intentions, the hypothesized moderating effects were not tested on that structural link (H1b, H2b, H3b and H4b). 5. Discussion and conclusions In this study we examined the moderating effects of cruise tourists' familiarity with the destination and visit characteristics on the relationships between destination image, satisfaction and behavioural intentions within a cruise port of call context. The main theoretical contribution of the research lies in establishing the moderating influence of informational and behavioural familiarity and type of visit arrangement on the links among image-satisfaction-behavioural intentions. Our findings show that the effect of destination image on satisfaction, as well as the impact of satisfaction on behavioural 6

Tourism Management Perspectives 30 (2019) 1–10

S. Sanz-Blas et al.

Table 2 Discriminant validity.

Table 4 Multi-group analysis. Image

Image Satisfaction Behavioural intention

n.a. 0.245 0.178

Satisfaction

Behavioural intention

Satisfaction A

0.930 0.674

0.780

Note: The bold elements on the diagonal represent the values of the AVE of each construct. Below the diagonal, the squared correlations among constructs are represented. All the correlations are significant at the 0.05 level. n.a.: not applicable.

intentions varies across cruise tourists with differing levels of destination familiarity, both informational and behavioural, and type of visit arrangement (guided versus self-organized). The results also revealed that length of stay moderates the relationship between satisfaction and behavioural intentions. Our findings suggest that both informational and behavioural familiarity moderate the relationships between destination image and satisfaction, and satisfaction and behavioural intentions. Specifically, for those tourists who are familiar with the port of call destination either, as a result of a past visit, or because of having been exposed to a greater number of information sources, the intensity of the destination image-satisfaction link is more pronounced. This may be explained by the fact that those tourists are able to develop a more complete destination image, which thereby becomes a more determinant factor in tourist satisfaction compared to visitors with low destination familiarity. This result is, however, in contrast with the findings obtained by Liu et al. (2017) in a non-cruise context, which show that this effect is stronger for first-time visitors. However, the study conducted by Bhat and Darzi (2018) found no empirical support for the posited moderating effect. Nevertheless, in the case of cruise passengers who visit the port of call for the first time, satisfaction better enhances the behavioural intentions toward the destination. These results differ from previously published studies in other tourism settings (Faullant et al., 2008; Liu, Lin, & Wang, 2012; Liu et al., 2017; San Martín et al., 2013) and a possible explanation could be the nature of the cruise holiday. Cruise holidays only allow for a limited exposure to ports' of call sightseeing, which, accordingly, may enhance tourists' intention to further explore the destination by future revisit. The findings also reveal that the impact of satisfaction on behavioural intentions is significantly greater for cruise tourists who had consulted various information sources before visiting the port of call. It should be noted that previous studies have only tested this moderator in non-tourism contexts and found a non-significant effect (Casaló et al., 2008; Fandos & Flavián, 2011). Another important finding is that the strength of the effect of satisfaction on behavioural intentions is seen to be different depending on the visit characteristics. In particular, for visitors on a cruise excursion, the links between these constructs were found to be stronger as compared to those cruisers who visit the port on their own. A possible

Behavioural intention B

Image Satisfaction

β 0.467 –

β 0.819 –

p-value 0.000 –

βA – 0.815

βB – 0.468

p-value – 0.000

Image Satisfaction

βc 0.337 –

βD 0.633 –

p-value 0.000 –

βc – 0.764

βD – 0.883

p-value – 0.006

Image Satisfaction

βE 0.504 –

βF 0.615 –

p-value 0.032 –

βE – 0.792

βF – 0.853

p-value – 0.049

Image Satisfaction

βG 0.556 –

βH 0.504 –

p-value 0.226 –

βG – 0.829

βH – 0.716

p-value – 0.047

a) no behavioural familiarity; b) behavioural familiarity; c) low informational familiarity, d) high informational familiarity, e) self- organized, f) excursion; g) < 6 h of stay, h) > 6 h of stay.

explanation for this might be that the level of satisfaction and willingness to return and recommend the destination of those passengers, who visited the port independently are affected by various destination services (local transport, tourist information, restaurant services, shopping services, etc.), while the experience of the visitors who preferred a cruise excursion depended greatly on the tour company, whose quality of service is more easily controlled. This finding is consistent with past research demonstrating that the effect of this relationship was more important for cruisers who bought an excursion than for those who arranged the visit on their own (Parola et al., 2014). Nevertheless, it is also true, that the findings of the current study do not support the results obtained by Liu et al. (2015), who found that for independent visitors, satisfaction is better in explaining behavioural intentions. The strength of the relationship between satisfaction and behavioural intention is also stronger for those cruise tourists who have spent less than 6 h onshore. This might be interpreted in the following way: a cruise tourist who is satisfied with the port of call, but has spent a short amount of time onshore, is likely to return, so as to have more opportunities to explore and enjoy the destination. The impact of length of stay on cruise tourists' future behavioural intentions, though suggested by past research (e.g. Brida et al., 2012), had not yet been empirically tested on the relationships established by the present study, and thus, cannot be discussed in light of earlier work. 5.1. Implications The findings of this research provide insights for cruise destination marketers, pointing out familiarity and visit characteristics as key factors influencing cruise tourists' evaluation of ports of call. DMOs should strive to create a satisfactory cruise experience especially for those passengers visiting the destination for the first time, as it will greatly improve their willingness to return and recommend it to others. This

Table 3 Results of the structural model.

Destination image → Satisfaction Satisfaction → Behavioural intention Destination image → Behavioural intention

(β)

t-Value (bootstrap)

0.500 0.810 0.035ns

9.320 18.380 0.619

Formative measures Restou → Destination image Infatm → Destination image Urbenv → Destination image Socenv → Destination image

Note: ns – not significant. 7

Weights

t-Value (bootstrap)

0.235 0.727 0.211 0.028

3.990 5.199 3.825 0.180

Tourism Management Perspectives 30 (2019) 1–10

S. Sanz-Blas et al.

could be achieved by coordinating the tourist services upon cruise ship arrival, assuring the availability of information and the quality of the services provided onshore. In this regard, local governments should make private tourism and hospitality businesses aware of the importance of this type of visitors for the destination and for their potential as future land-based tourists. Another recommendation regarding visitors arriving onboard cruise ships is to increase their familiarity with the destination, providing relevant information for cruise tourists on different media (online and offline). In this way, cruise passengers will not only rely on their perceptions of the destination once onshore, but they could also receive some impressions of the port of call beforehand, either via the cruise port website, or via leaflets handed out on board before disembarking, among others. Given the positive effect of taking a cruise excursion on cruisers' destination experience, DMOs are advised to market the options available both on their websites, and onshore, once cruisers disembark. Moreover, it is recommended that they incentivize local tour companies to offer shore excursions that are adequate for this tourism segment (having in mind their visiting time constraints).

Bennett, M. (2016). Competing with the Sea: Contemporary cruise ships as omnitopias. Performance Research, 21(2), 50–57. Bhat, S. A., & Darzi, M. A. (2018). Antecedents of tourist loyalty to tourist destinations: A mediated-moderation study. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 4(2), 261–278. Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305–314. Brida, J., Pulina, M., Riaño, E., & Zapata- Aguirre, S. (2012). Cruise visitors' intention to return as land tourists and to recommend a visited destination. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 23(3), 395–412. Brunner, T., Stöcklin, M., & Opwis, K. (2008). Satisfaction, image and loyalty: New versus experienced customers. European Journal of Marketing, 42(9/10), 1095–1105. Caldeira, A., & Kastenholz, E. (2014). Spatiotemporal behavior of urban tourist: The impact of length of stay. Revista Turismo & Desenvolvimento, 2(21−22), 111–121. Casaló, L., Flavián, C., & Guinalíu, M. (2008). The role of perceived usability, reputation, satisfaction and consumer familiarity on the website loyalty formation process. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 325–345. Castro, C., Armario, E., & Ruiz, D. (2007). The influence of market heterogeneity on the relationship between a destination's image and tourists' future behaviour. Tourism Management, 28(1), 175–187. Cater, B., & Zabkar, V. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of commitment in marketing research services: The client's perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(7), 785–797. Chen, C., & Lin, Y. (2012). Segmenting mainland Chinese tourists to Taiwan by destination familiarity: A factor-cluster approach. International Journal of Tourism Research, 14(4), 339–352. Chen, C. F., & Chen, F. S. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31, 29–35. Chen, C.-F., & Phou, S. (2013). A closer look at destination: Image, personality, relationship and loyalty. Tourism Management, 36, 269–278. Chi, C. (2012). An examination of destination loyalty differences between first-time and repeat visitors. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 36(1), 3–24. Chi, C., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism Management, 29(4), 624–636. Chiou, J., & Shen, C. (2006). The effects of satisfaction, opportunism, and asset specificity on consumers' loyalty intention toward internet portal sites. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17(1), 7–22. Coban, S. (2012). The effects of the image of destination on tourist satisfaction and loyalty: The case of Cappadocia. European Journal of Social Sciences, 29(2), 222–232. Cong, L. C. (2016). A formative model of the relationship between destination quality, tourist satisfaction and intentional loyalty: An empirical test in Vietnam. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 26, 50–62. Cordell, V. (1997). Consumer knowledge measures as predictors in product evaluation. Psychology & Marketing, 14(3), 241–260. De Cantis, S., Ferrante, M., Kahani, A., & Shoval, N. (2016). Cruise passengers' behavior at the destination: Investigation using GPS technology. Tourism Management, 52, 133–150. Douglas, N., & Douglas, N. (2004). Cruise ship passenger spending patterns in Pacific island ports. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6(4), 251–261. Enright, J. M., & Newton, J. (2005). Determinants of tourism destination competitiveness in Asia pacific: Comprehensiveness and universality. Journal of Travel Research, 43(4), 339–350. Fakeye, P. C., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Image differences between prospective, firsttime, and repeat visitors to the lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30(2), 10–16. Fandos, C., & Flavián, C. (2011). Consequences of consumer trust in PDO food products: The role of familiarity. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 20(4), 282–296. Faullant, R., Matzler, K., & Füller, J. (2008). The impact of satisfaction and image on loyalty: The case of Alpine ski resorts. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 18(2), 163–178. Flavián, C., Guinalíu, M., & Gurrea, R. (2006). The role played by perceived usability, satisfaction and consumer trust on website loyalty. Information & Management, 43(1), 1–14. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1). Ha, J., & Jang, S. (2010). Perceived values, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: The role of familiarity in Korean restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(1), 2–13. Hair, J., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 139–152. Hallmann, K., Zehrer, A., & Müller, S. (2015). Perceived destination image: An image model for a winter sports destination and its effect on intention to revisit. Journal of Travel Research, 54(1), 94–106. Han, H. (2013). Effects of in-flight ambience and space/function on air travelers' decisión to select a low-cost airline. Tourism Management, 37, 125–135. Han, H., & Ryu, K. (2007). Moderating role of personal characteristics in forming restaurant customers' behavioral intentions: An upscale restaurant setting. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 15(4), 25–53. Henry, J., & Thyne, M. (2007). Getting them off the boat: An exploratory study into cruise ship passenger and crew motivations to disembark. Proceedings of the ANZMAC conference (pp. 684–691). Dunedin: Otago University. Henseler, J., & Fassott, G. (2010). Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: An illustration of available procedures. Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 713–735). Heidelberg: Springer Berlin. Henseler, J., Ringle, C., & Sinkovics, R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20(1),

5.2. Limitations and future research suggestions The present study is subject to some limitations, which should be acknowledged. For instance, the study was limited to the context of a single European cruise port. Limitations also include aspects associated with convenience sampling, meaning that it is not possible to estimate the bias in the sample. Another limitation of the study is that data was gathered during spring and summer, which might have influenced the results of the study, as this period coincides with the high tourist season. Therefore, it would be interesting to assess the proposed model of interlinked constructs and its moderators when cruisers visit the port of call destination in low or off-season. Future studies might extend the validity of the present research by testing the proposed theoretical model in other cruise ports of call. An interesting comparative future study could assess the proposed theoretical model across tourists from different cultures to examine if the documented moderating effects vary across cruise passengers from different origins. Moreover, it could be beneficial in the future to address the impact of other moderating variables such as motivation, size of travelling party or intergroup contact. Furthermore, a possible research direction would be to include additional variables in the presented model such as tourist involvement, motivations and emotional experiences. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.01.005. References Alba, J., & Hutchinson, J. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411–453. Albaity, M., & Melhem, S. B. (2017). Novelty seeking, image, and loyalty – The mediating role of satisfaction and moderating role of length of stay. International tourists' perspective. Tourism Management Perspectives, 23, 30–37. Alegre, J., & Cladera, M. (2009). Analysing the effect of satisfaction and previous visits on tourist intentions to return. European Journal of Marketing, 43(5/6), 670–685. Alegre, J., & Pou, L. (2006). The length of stay in the demand for tourism. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1343–1355. Andriotis, K., & Agiomirgianakis, G. (2010). Cruise visitors' experience in a Mediterranean port of call. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12, 390–404. Assaker, G., Hallak, R., Assaf, A., & Assad, T. (2015). Validating a structural model of destination image, satisfaction, and loyalty across gender and age: Multigroup analysis with PLS-SEM. Tourism Analysis, 20(6), 577–591. Baloglu, S. (2001). Image variations of turkey by familiarity index: Informational and experiential dimensions. Tourism Management, 22(2), 127–133. Beerli, A., & Martin, J. (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 657–681.

8

Tourism Management Perspectives 30 (2019) 1–10

S. Sanz-Blas et al. 277–319. Henseler, J., Wilson, B., & Westberg, K. (2011). Managers' perceptions of the impact of sport sponsorship on brand equity: Which aspects of the sponsorship matter Most? Sport Marketing Quarterly, 20(1), 7–21. Homburg, C., & Giering, A. (2001). Personal characteristics as moderators of the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty—An empirical analysis. Psychology & Marketing, 18(1), 43–66. Huang, S., Afsharifar, A., & van der Veen, R. (2015). Examining the moderating role of prior knowledge in the relationship between destination experiences and tourist satisfaction. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 1–15. Hung, K., & Petrick, J. (2011). Why do you cruise? Exploring the motivations for taking cruise holidays, and the construction of a cruising motivation scale. Tourism Management, 32(2), 386–393. Jalilvand, M., Samiei, N., Dini, B., & Manzari, P. (2012). Examining the structural relationships of electronic word of mouth, destination image, tourist attitude toward destination and travel intention: An integrated approach. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1–2), 134–143. Jin, N., Lee, S., & Lee, H. (2015). The effect of experience quality on perceived value, satisfaction, image and behavioral intention of water park patrons: New versus repeat visitors. International Journal of Tourism Research, 17(1), 82–95. Kim, J. H. (2018). The impact of memorable tourism experiences on loyalty behaviors: The mediating effects of destination image and satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 57(7), 856–870. Kim, K., Hallab, Z., & Kim, J. N. (2012). The moderating effect of travel experience in a destination on the relationship between the destination image and the intention to revisit. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 21(5), 486–505. Kim, K., & Lee, S. (2016). A study on the relationships among experience, perceived value, and satisfaction of rural tourism-the moderating effect of length of stay. Journal of Agricultural Extension & Community Development, 23(1), 1–14. Kim, S., & Kim, H. (2015). Moderating effects of tourists' novelty-seeking tendencies on the relationship between satisfaction and behavioral intention. Tourism Analysis, 20(5), 511–522. del Estado, P. (2018). Estadística mensual. Retrieved from: http://www.puertos.es/es-es/ estadisticas/Paginas/estadistica_mensual.aspx. Larsen, S., & Wolff, K. (2016). Exploring assumptions about cruise tourists' visits to ports. Tourism Management Perspectives, 17, 44–49. Lee, G., & Tussyadiah, I. (2012). Exploring familiarity and destination choice in international tourism. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 17(2), 133–145. Leiper, N. (2004). Tourism management (3rd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Pearson Education. Lin, C.-H., & Kuo, B. Z.-L. (2018). The moderating effects of travel arrangement types on tourists' formation of Taiwan's unique image. Tourism Management, 66, 233–243. Lin, Y., & Chen, C. (2013). Passengers' shopping motivations and commercial activities at airports–the moderating effects of time pressure and impulse buying tendency. Tourism Management, 36, 426–434. Liu, C., Lin, W., & Wang, Y. (2012). Relationship between self-congruity and destination loyalty: Differences between first-time and repeat visitors. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1), 118–123. Liu, X., Li, J., & Kim, W. (2017). The role of travel experience in the structural relationships among tourists' perceived image, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 17(2), 135–146. Liu, X., Li, J., & Yang, Y. (2015). Travel arrangement as a moderator in image–satisfaction–behavior relations an investigation of Chinese outbound travelers. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 21(3), 225–236. Macpherson, C. (2008). Golden goose or Trojan horse? Cruise ship tourism in Pacific development. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 49(2), 185–197. Maumbe, K., Deng, J., & Selin, S. (2014). Investigating the relationships between visitor and trip characteristics, vacation planning, visitor spending, and destination evaluation: The case of Garrett County, Maryland. Tourism Analysis, 19(5), 557–571. Meng, B., & Han, H. (2018). Working-holiday tourism attributes and satisfaction in forming Word-of-mouth and revisit intentions: Impact of quantity and quality intergroup contact. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 9(September), 347–357. Morais, D., & Lin, C. (2010). Why do first-time and repeat visitors patronize a destination? Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(2), 193–210. Neal, J., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. (2007). The effect of tourism services on travelers' quality of life. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 154–163. Oliver, R. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469. Oliver, R. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ozturk, U., & Gogtas, H. (2016). Destination attributes, satisfaction, and the cruise visitor's intent to revisit and recommend. Tourism Geographies, 18(2), 194–212. Pallis, T. (2015). Cruise shipping and urban development: State of the art of the industry and cruise ports. 2015/14Paris: OECD Publishing. Park, Y., & Njite, D. (2010). Relationship between destination image and tourists' future behavior: Observations from Jeju island, Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 15(1), 1–20. Parola, F., Satta, G., Penco, L., & Persico, L. (2014). Destination satisfaction and cruiser behaviour: The moderating effect of excursion package. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 13, 53–64. Pearce, P. L. (1982). The social psychology of tourist behaviour. Pergamon Press. Pranić, L., Marušić, Z., & Sever, I. (2013). Cruise passengers' experiences in coastal destinations–floating “B&Bs” vs. floating “resorts”: A case of Croatia. Ocean and Coastal Management, 84, 1–12. Prats, L., Camprubí, R., & Coromina, L. (2016). Examining the role of familiarity, information sources, length of stay and satisfaction to the image perception model.

European Journal of Tourism Research, 13. Prayag, G., Hosany, S., & Odeh, K. (2013). The role of tourists' emotional experiences and satisfaction in understanding behavioral intentions. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2(2), 118–127. Ramseook-Munhurrun, P., Seebaluck, V., & Naidoo, P. (2015). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, perceived value, tourist satisfaction and loyalty: Case of Mauritius. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 175, 252–259. Rodriguez-Molina, M., Frias-Jamilena, D., & Castaneda-Garcia, J. (2013). The moderating role of past experience in the formation of a tourist destination's image and in tourists' behavioural intentions. Current Issues in Tourism, 16(2), 107–127. Roovers, P., Hermy, M., & Gulinck, H. (2002). Visitor profile, perceptions and expectations in forests from a gradient of increasing urbanisation in Central Belgium. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59(3), 129–145. Ryu, K., Han, H., & Kim, T. (2008). The relationships among overall quick-casual restaurant image, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(3), 459–469. San Martin, H., Collado, J., & Rodriguez del Bosque, I. (2013). An exploration of the effects of past experience and tourist involvement on destination loyalty formation. Current Issues in Tourism, 16(4), 327–342. Sanz-Blas, S., Buzova, D., & Carvajal-Trujillo, E. (2015). Investigating the moderating effect of information sources on cruise tourist behaviour in a port of call. Current Issues in Tourism, 1–9. Sanz-Blas, S., & Carvajal-Trujillo, E. (2014). Cruise passengers' experiences in a Mediterranean port of call. The case study of Valencia. Ocean and Coastal Management, 102, 307–316. Satta, G., Parola, F., Penco, L., & Persico, L. (2015). Word of mouth and satisfaction in cruise port destinations. Tourism Geographies, 17(1), 54–75. Seo, S., Kim, O., Oh, S., & Yun, N. (2013). Influence of informational and experiential familiarity on image of local foods. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 295–308. Setiawan, P., Troena, E., & Armanu, N. (2014). The effect of e-WOM on destination image, satisfaction and loyalty. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 3(1), 22–29. Shen, D., Li, X., Teglio, A., & Zhang, W. (2016). The impact of information-based familiarity on the stock market. Working Paper, 2016(8)Castellón, España: Universidad Jaume I. Smallwood, C., Beckley, L., & Moore, S. (2012). An analysis of visitor movement patterns using travel networks in a large marine park, North-Western Australia. Tourism Management, 33(3), 517–528. Tanford, S., & Jung, S. (2017). Festival attributes and perceptions: A meta-analysis of relationships with satisfaction and loyalty. Tourism Management, 61, 209–220. Tavitiyaman, P., & Qu, H. (2013). Destination image and behavior intention of travelers to Thailand: The moderating effect of perceived risk. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(3), 169–185. Teye, V., & Paris, C. (2010). Cruise line industry and Caribbean tourism: Guests' motivations, activities, and destination preference. Tourism Review International, 14(1), 17–28. Thyne, M., Henry, J., & Lloyd, N. (2015). Land ahoy: How cruise passengers decide on their shore experience. Tourism in Marine Environments, 10(3–4), 177–187. Toudert, D., & Bringas-Rábago, N. (2016). Impact of the destination image on cruise repeater's experience and intention at the visited port of call. Ocean and Coastal Management, 130, 239–249. Weaver, P., Weber, K., & McCleary, K. (2007). Destination evaluation: The role of previous travel experience and trip characteristics. Journal of Travel Research, 45(3), 333–344. Weeden, C., Lester, J., & Thyne, M. (2011). Cruise tourism: Emerging issues and implications for a maturing industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 18(1), 26–29. Woodside, A., & Lysonski, S. (1989). A general model of traveler destination choice. Journal of Travel Research, 7(4), 8–14. Yang, J., Yuan, B., & Hu, P. (2009). Tourism destination image and visit intention: Examining the role of familiarity. Journal of China Tourism Research, 5(2), 174–187. Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1), 45–56. Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–46. Zhang, H., Fu, X., Cai, L., & Lu, L. (2014). Destination image and tourist loyalty: A metaanalysis. Tourism Management, 40, 213–223. Silvia Sanz-Blas is an Associate Professor of Marketing in the Faculty of Economics at University of Valencia (Spain). She received her Ph.D. in Business and Economics from the University of Valencia. Her primary research interests include tourism, consumer behavior, e-commerce and mobile commerce and her work has been published in Tourism Management, The Services Industries Journal, Journal of Service Management, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Internet Research, Online Information Review, Journal of Air Transport Management, and the best Spanish refereed journals.

9

Tourism Management Perspectives 30 (2019) 1–10

S. Sanz-Blas et al. Daniela Buzova is a PhD candidate in marketing (awarded a fellowship by the Spanish Ministry of Education) at the University of Valencia, Spain. Her research, focusing on cruise tourism, destination marketing, tourist behavior and eWOM, has been published in Psychology & Marketing, Current Issues in Tourism and International Journal of Tourism Research.

Elena Carvajal-Trujillo is an assistant professor of Marketing in the Faculty of Business Science Management, University of Huelva (Spain). She received her Ph.D. in Business Administration from University of Seville in Spain. Her research interests include consumer behavior and tourism and Internet marketing. Her research has appeared in journal as International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, International Journal of Hospitality Management and Tourism Management.

10