Role of motivations for luxury cruise traveling, satisfaction, and involvement in building traveler loyalty

International Journal of Hospitality Management 70 (2018) 75–84

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhm

Original Research Article

Role of motivations for luxury cruise traveling, satisfaction, and involvement in building traveler loyalty Heesup Hana, Sunghyup Sean Hyunb, a b

T

⁎

College of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Sejong University, 98 Gunja-Dong, Gwanjin-Gu, Seoul 143-747 Republic of Korea School of Tourism, Hanyang University, 17 Haengdang-dong, Seongdonggu, Seoul 133-791, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Luxury cruise Travel motivations Loyalty Satisfaction Structural equation modeling

Given the lack of empirical research explicating luxury cruise travelers’ post-purchase behavior, the present study attempted to test the relationship between cruise travel motivations and satisfaction, and to identify the impact of such association on traveler loyalty by considering the moderating effect of traveler involvement. Measurement instruments for study variables were identified to include a sufficient level of validity and reliability. Results of the structural model assessment generally supported the hypothesized associations. Our theoretical model had a satisfactory level of prediction power for loyalty. Each research variable played a crucial role either as a predictor or mediator. Traveler satisfaction was of utmost importance in building loyalty. Findings from the structural invariance assessment supported the moderating impact of traveler involvement on satisfaction and loyalty. This relationship was stronger when luxury cruise travelers’ involvement level was high. Implications for cruise practitioners and researchers are discussed.

1. Introduction Loyal customers bring enormous advantages to every firm (Brunner et al., 2008), allowing for a continuous profit stream and reduction of marketing/promotion costs (Korte, 1995; Lee et al., 2017; TaghiPourian and Bakhsh, 2015). The expenses regarding acquiring new and nonloyal patrons are undoubtedly higher than those expenses of keeping the existing repeat and loyal patrons (Korte, 1995; Reichheld and Teal, 1996). The criticality of customer loyalty is thus not overemphasized in the competitive tourism marketplace (Chua et al., 2017; Mechinda et al., 2010). Particularly, in the cruise industry, increasing competition is a main concern for every cruise operator (Chua et al., 2017; Han et al., 2016; Shim et al., 2017). For past few decades, the fast expansion of the cruise tourism has accelerated the severe competitions among cruise companies in the marketplace (Han and Hyun, 2017). Despite cruise traveling is one of the most preferred vacation types (Brida et al., 2015), a significant increase in passengers’ switching behaviors has increasingly becoming a challenging issue in the cruise industry (Chua et al., 2015; Han and Hyun, 2017; Hwang and Hyun, 2016; Shim et al., 2017). Given this competitive market situation and increased customer switching, improving passenger loyalty is fundamental for any cruise line’s success (Lee et al., 2017; Hwang and Hyun, 2016) as loyalty patrons show behavioral tendency of repeat purchases and positive word-of-mouth behaviors that are favorable for a company (Mechinda

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Han), [email protected] (S.S. Hyun).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.10.024 Received 2 July 2017; Received in revised form 6 October 2017; Accepted 29 October 2017 Available online 21 November 2017 0278-4319/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

et al., 2010; Oliver, 1997, 1999; TaghiPourian and Bakhsh, 2015). The cruise line industry is undoubtedly considered as one of the most popular, profitable, and rapidly growing segments of the global tourism industry (Brida et al., 2012b; Brida et al., 2014; Chua et al., 2017). The cruise tourism generates considerable social and economic impacts on destinations (Brida et al., 2012b; Brida et al., 2015; Sun et al.,2014), creating a significant number of jobs in such destinations (Sun et al., 2014). With the growth of the cruise tourism market, many cruise lines recently center on improving passengers’ vacation experiences more than ever as their marketing/service strategies for attracting new customers and retaining existing customers (Chua et al., 2017; Han and Hyun, 2017). Thus, while cruise traveling, passengers not only experience different cruise port destinations but also experience/enjoy diverse entertainment programs, facilities, foods, and beverages (Chua et al., 2015). In recent decades, many existing studies in diverse sectors comprising hospitality and tourism claimed that purchase motivations (Caber and Albayrak, 2016; Han and Hyun, 2017; Hsu et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2017) and customer satisfaction (Brida et al., 2012b; Brida and Coletti, 2012; Brunner et al., 2008; Han and Hyun, 2015; Ostrowski et al., 1993; Park et al., 2004) are major constructs in explaining customer retention and customer loyalty generation procedure. These researchers repeatedly identified that motivations and satisfaction are key driving forces of customer post-purchase behaviors, and thus should be

International Journal of Hospitality Management 70 (2018) 75–84

H. Han, S.S. Hyun

major categories of cruise travel motivations, namely “escape/relaxation”, “self-esteem and social recognition”, “learning/discovery and thrill”, and “bonding”, and they demonstrated that these four factors are adjuncts of one global construct of motivations for cruising. These identified motivation categories cover most factors of Hong Kong cruise tourists’ motivations (i.e., “escape from normal life”, “self-discovery”, “cultural understanding”, “social status”, “health and exercise”, “selfdiscovery”, “business purpose”, and “beautiful environment and scenery”) explored by Qu and Ping’s (1999) research and are in general coincided with those cruising motivations identified and utilized in Jung and Han’s (2016) recent research in a cruise sector. Jung and Han (2016) asserted that self-esteem and social recognition (the first factor), escape and relaxation (the second factor), learning, discovery, and thrill (the third factor), and bonding (the fourth factor) are important constituents of passengers’ motivations for cruise traveling, which contribute to strengthening their emotional experiences while cruising and loyalty intentions for the cruise line. Overall, these motivations factors have been widely utilized to understand the motives of traveling and its role in the cruise industry (Han and Hyun, 2017; Hung and Petrick, 2011; Jung and Han, 2016; Qu and Ping, 1999). Consistently, the present study employed these four dimensions of travel motivations in the luxury cruise sector. Self-esteem and social recognition are vacationers’ strong motives of traveling with a cruise (Han and Hyun, 2017; Qu and Ping, 1999). The dimension of self-esteem and social recognition is associated with travelers’ self-worthy feeling as well as with feeling of consuming a certain tourism product (e.g., luxury cruise product) to impress others, which eventually enhances these travelers’ perception of self-enhancement and social approval (Hung and Petrick, 2011). Thus, in the cruise context, self-esteem and social recognition have often been categorized into one common dimension (Hung and Petrick, 2011; Jung and Han, 2016). The category of escape and relaxation is the next dimension of cruise travel motivations. The crucial constituents of pleasure traveling are escaping, which refers to the transient change of individuals’ ordinary/routine environments by engaging in traveling, and relaxing that indicates psychological/emotional and bodily states of reducing fatigue (Crompton, 1979; Qu and Ping, 1999). Individuals often want to escape from the environment in which they work/live in everyday lives and to relax by lessening physical and mental stress/exhaustion obtained from such routine environment (Jung and Han, 2016). Individuals’ such aspirations can be an important motive of cruise traveling (Andriotis and Agiomirgianakis, 2010; Han and Hyun, 2017). The learning, discovery, and thrill are another category of vacationers’ motivations for cruise traveling. Seeking for learning, discovery, and thrill is undoubtedly one of the critical motives for pleasure vacation (Duman and Mattila, 2005) such as cruise vacation (Lee et al., 2017). Conceptually, this dimension is consistent with novelty that indicates travelers’ desire to seek new and unique/different knowledge and experiences and lessening boredom from their everyday lives (Lee et al., 2017; Lee and Crompton, 1992). The last category of vacationers’ motivations of traveling with a cruise is bonding. Crompton (1979) conceptualized this factor as the procedure of building/developing a close interpersonal relationship between/among an individual and his/ her family members, friends, or others by traveling together. When enjoying cruise vacation and its related activities together, the relationship closeness between passengers and their accompanying family, friends, or other travelers is often enriched (Hung and Perick, 2011; Jung and Han, 2016). Unlike a simple feeling of individuals’ liking, bonding is a strongly interactive and reciprocal process (Lee et al., 2017).

incorporated into a framework explicating customer loyalty. While these motivations are believed to be important, research about cruising motivations and its role in decision formation has been rarely explored in the luxury cruise sector. In addition, little research has made an empirical integration of a higher-order framework of purchase motivations into the loyalty generation model in hospitality and tourism. Studies that examine the combined effect of purchase motivations and satisfaction on traveler loyalty are also not abundant in the cruise industry. Moreover, the criticality role of traveler involvement has often been stressed by tourism researchers (Chua et al., 2017; Iwasaki and Havitz, 2004; Pritchard and Howard, 1997). Unlike other research constructs driving customer loyalty/retention in a direct/indirect manner, involvement has a moderating nature that affects the associations between loyalty and its possible predictors (Han et al., 2017). In spite of its importance, the role of traveler involvement in the cruise sector has hardly been explored. Furthermore, an integrative approach including this higher-order nature of travel motivations, traveler satisfaction, and the moderating nature of traveler involvement has not been made for explanation of traveler loyalty formation, particularly in the luxury cruise context. In order to fill these gaps existing in the extant tourism literature, this study aimed to develop a robust theoretical framework of traveler loyalty comprising cruise travel motivations ([a] self-esteem and social recognition, [b] escape and relaxation, [c] learning, discovery, and thrill, and [d] bonding) and traveler satisfaction by considering the moderating impact of involvement. Specifically, we attempted (1) to unearth the clear role of travel motivations and satisfaction in building loyalty, (2) to identify the adequacy of the higher-order structure of motivations and its function within the proposed theoretical framework, (3) to test the mediating impact of satisfaction, (4) to discover the relative criticality of study variables in determining traveler loyalty, and (5) to identify the moderating role of traveler involvement in the luxury cruise industry. In the following section, a thorough review of the literature is presented. Subsequently, methods used in this research and results of the findings are provided. Lastly, discussion and implications are stated. 2. Literature review 2.1. Motivations in tourism Motivations, which have long been a critical topic in tourism and consumer behavior (Caber and Albayrak, 2016; Mak et al., 2009), are a significant internal variable that arouses and guides individuals’ behaviors (Crompton and McKay, 1997). According to Crompton and McKay (1997), motivations of tourism indicate an active process of internal factors such as needs/wants that create a psychological state of tension within individuals. In a similar manner, Lee et al. (2017) described tourism motivations as individuals’ activated psychological states that direct them toward the fulfillment of tourism needs (Lee et al., 2017). When travelers’ needs are stimulated, they form travel motivations, which drive these travelers to take actions to meet their tourism needs and decrease tension (Hsu et al., 2017). In travelers’ decision-making process, individuals choose, encode, process, and remember most information in the way coherent with their motivations of travel (Crompton, 1979; Lee et al., 2017). Motivations are hence of utmost criticality in traveler behavior (Hsu et al., 2017). 2.2. Travel motivations in the cruise industry In a cruise context, in order to comprehend passengers’ motivations for travel, Hung and Petrick (2011) used a psychometric procedure based on Churchill’s (1979) widely accepted paradigm for developing measures. According to them, motivations for cruising differ from travelers’ motivations for common traveling. Hung and Petrick’s (2011) qualitative and quantitative methodological approaches identified four

2.3. Traveler satisfaction Ensuring consumer satisfaction along with increase in consumer retention and loyalty generation is paramount for firm’s profit increase and its long-term success in the service industry (Rychalski and Hudson, 76

International Journal of Hospitality Management 70 (2018) 75–84

H. Han, S.S. Hyun

2017). Satisfaction refers to “a judgment that a product or service feature, or the product or service itself, provided (or is providing) a pleasurable level of consumption fulfillment, including the levels of under or over fulfillment” (Oliver, 1997, p. 13). The key aspect of satisfaction includes overall evaluations of product experiences after purchase (Bitner and Ziethaml, 2003; Fornell, 1992). Oliver (1997) indeed asserted that while one of the facets includes individuals’ fulfillment responses, the main aspect of satisfaction is the judgment/ evaluation of such fulfillment reactions comprising affective/emotional responses. In consumer behavior, this view is more broadly supported by researchers (e.g., Hunt, 1997; Bitner and Ziethaml, 2003). Satisfaction is seldom conceptualized as emotional/feeling reactions (Han et al., 2009). For instance, Kotler (1997) described satisfaction as individuals’ feeling of pleasure/disappointed derived from the comparison between their expectations and actual outcomes. Baker and Crompton (2000) indicated that patrons’ emotional state itself after experiencing the product is satisfaction. However, these definitions failed to distinguish satisfaction from emotions or emotional responses, which refers to customers’ affective fulfillment and overall feeling responses triggered during product/service consumption (Han et al., 2009; Oliver, 1997).

Han, 2016; Kao et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2017). Prebensen et al. (2010) attempted to explore the associations among tourist motivations with sun and sand destinations, satisfaction, and word-of-mouth intention. Their results showed that motivations significantly increased the level of overall satisfaction with the experiences at the destinations and contributed to enhancing positive word-of-mouth behaviors for the destinations. Fan and Hsu (2014) examined potential Chinese cruise vacationers’ motivations and expectations and their impact on intention formation. Their findings revealed that motivations of cruise traveling exerted a significant influence on loyalty intentions comprising recommendation and repeat cruising intentions. Chua et al. (2015) examined cruise vacationers’ decision-making process. They empirically identified that novelty whose concept comprises learning, discovery, and thrill significantly affected vacationers’ favorable behavioral intentions for a cruise line. Jung and Han (2016) investigated the impact of perceived risk and affective experiences on the formation of cruise passenger intentions to be loyal. Their results showed that cruise tourism motives elicited passengers’ pleasurable experiences and that this relationship influences loyalty intentions. More recently, in the cruise context, Lee et al. (2017) investigated cruise travelers’ loyalty formation by considering the role of cognitive and affective factors. Their empirical findings revealed that novelty/ thrill/adventure, one of the travel motivation factors, significantly induced a positive evaluation of travelers’ overall experiences with a cruise and increased traveler willingness to engage in repeat patronages and recommendations of the cruise tourism product. Accordingly, we put forth the following research hypotheses:

2.4. Traveler loyalty Increasing the number of loyal customers and maintaining them with a firm is central for the firm’s long-term success (TaghiPourian and Bakhsh, 2015). A highly loyal customer repeatedly purchases a product/service and possesses a positive sense of attitudinal loyalty toward the brand (Pritchard and Howard, 1997). Given this, generating and maintaining traveler loyalty has always been an important issue among industry practitioners and academics in the tourism industry (Bowen and Chen, 2015; Chua et al., 2017; Shoemaker and Lewis, 1999). Loyalty can be described as customers’ deeply held level of commitment to purchase a preferred product/service in a constant manner in the future (Oliver, 1999). Traveler loyalty comprises two main aspects (attitudinal and behavioral loyalty) (Oppermann, 2000). Behavioral aspect focuses on one’s purchasing frequency whereas attitudinal facet centers on his/her psychological attachment to a specific product/ brand (Oliver, 1997, 1999; Chua et al., 2017). In the tourism industry, the attitudinal approach for the assessment of traveler loyalty has been more commonly utilized than the behavioral approach as individuals’ purchase/consumption of an international tourism product is somewhat infrequent or occasional among many international travelers (Mechinda et al., 2010; Oppermann, 2000). The attitudinal approach was accordingly centered on in the present research.

H1. Travel motivations have a positive influence on traveler satisfaction. H2. Travel motivations have a positive influence on traveler loyalty.

2.6. Impact of satisfaction A considerable amount of the tourism and consumer behavior literature has demonstrated the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty (e.g., Bowen and Chen, 2015; Brida and Coletti, 2012; Brida et al., 2012a; Cong, 2016; Chi and Qu, 2008; Kasiri et al., 2017; Silvestre et al., 2008). Bowen and Chen (2015) identified that customer satisfaction is directly linked to customer loyalty, which in turn increases the performances of service organizations. Recently in the tourism context, Kasiri et al. (2017) examined the associations among service quality, satisfaction, and traveler loyalty using leisure/shopping tourists, education tourists, and medical tourists as samples. Their empirical results showed that satisfaction along with quality was a significant determinant of traveler loyalty. In the cruise sector, Silvestre et al. (2008) investigated the cruise passengers’ intention formation. Their finding revealed that the satisfaction of cruise passengers along with their perceptions of safety, services/hospitality, and cleanliness significantly increased their level of loyalty intentions. Similarly, Brida and Coletti (2012) identified that cruise passengers’ probability of revisiting a cruise port destination significantly depends on the level of satisfaction with their tourism experiences at the destination. Brida et al. (2012b) also demonstrated that cruise passengers’ overall satisfaction is positively linked to their loyalty. In their research loyalty comprises both revisit and recommendation intentions. Researchers in the cruise industry agree that passengers’ satisfactory experiences with cruise tourism bring diverse benefits (e.g., repeat business, monetary spending, word-of-mouth referrals, profit increase) to cruise companies (Han and Hyun, 2017; Han et al., 2016; Shim et al., 2017) as well as to cruise port destinations (Brida et al., 2012a; Brida et al., 2014; Brida et al.,2015). Given this, satisfaction is often regarded as an essential concept in cruise tourism. Satisfied travelers repeatedly buy a tourism product and express positive comments about the product contributing to its market reputation (Chi and Qu, 2008). Yet, traveler dissatisfaction

2.5. Impact of travel motivations Comprehending the underlying motivations related to tourism activities possibly increase our understanding of the reason that they travel and the needs that they want to fulfill from their trips (Jones, 2011; Strikatanyoo and Campiranon, 2010). Travelers’ motivations are thus considered to be an essential force behind their all tourism behaviors, and thus the topic of motivations is broadly researched in the tourism sector (Andriotis and Agiomirgianakis, 2010; Jones, 2011; Qu and Ping, 1999; Sun et al., 2014). According to Lam and Hsu (2006), individuals travel as they are pulled by diverse external forces of a tourism destination and pushed by their internal tourism motives. This internal intrinsic tourism motives are described as push motivation factors (e.g., rest/relaxation, escape, thrill seeking, social bonding, selfesteem/prestige/social recognition, novelty seeking, adventure seeking) (Kao et al., 2008; Lam and Hsu, 2006; Pearce and Lee, 2005; Yoon and Uysal, 2005). Many empirical studies in the extant tourism literature have supported that travel motivations are a vital determinant of customer satisfaction and loyalty (Chua et al., 2015; Fan and Hsu, 2014; Jung and 77

International Journal of Hospitality Management 70 (2018) 75–84

H. Han, S.S. Hyun

H4b. Traveler involvement significantly moderates the association between travel motivations and traveler loyalty.

leads to switching behaviors and negative comments about the tourism product to current and potential buyers (Cong, 2016). Based on these evidences, it seems plausible to postulate that traveler loyalty is a function of traveler satisfaction. H3: Traveler satisfaction has a positive influence on traveler loyalty.

H4c. Traveler involvement significantly moderates the association between traveler satisfaction and traveler loyalty. 3. Method

2.7. Traveler involvement and its impact

3.1. Measurement development

While there are many variations on the description or definition of the term “involvement” (Chua et al., 2017; Koufaris, 2002), it is widely accepted that involvement is the level of one’s concentration and interest aroused by a particular activity or experience (Novak et al., 2003). According to Novak et al. (2003), when one’s involvement state is high, he/she becomes wholly absorbed and is totally immersed in the activity. In addition, it is likely that his/her awareness level is narrowed to and concentrated on such activity itself when involved highly (Cheng et al., 2016; Havitz and Dimanche, 1999; Hsu and Lu, 2004). The terms “involvement”, “flow”, and “engagement” are alternatively utilized in the existing literature. The concept of involvement has been widely applied in a variety of activities (e.g., traveling, leisure, shopping, internet use, gambling, and sports) (Chua et al., 2017; Hsu and Lu, 2004; Taheri et al., 2014). The key aspect of this construct encompasses one’s absorption, deep concentration, and immersion (Edmonds et al., 2006; Havitz and Dimanche, 1999; Taheri et al., 2014). Havitz and Dimanche (1999) and Cheng et al. (2016) asserted that with leisure/tourism involvement, an individual continues to involve himself/herself in the particular leisure/tourism activity and be concerned about it, expressing himself/herself in life through the activity. The high involvement in leisure/tourism activities optimizes leisurers’ or travelers’ experiences (Chua et al., 2017; Havitz and Dimanche, 1999). When travelers choose a tourism product, involvement plays a vital role in their decision formation (Chua et al., 2017; Han et al., 2017). Existing studies verified that higher traveler involvement in a particular tourism product/service influences his/her decision-making process contributing to enhancing the likelihood of traveler loyalty toward the product/service (Chua et al., 2017; Iwasaki and Havitz, 2004; Pritchard and Howard, 1997). Han et al. (2017) investigated the impact of involvement on casino players’ decision formation. Their findings revealed that casino players feel a stronger level of satisfaction and build a stronger loyalty when these players are highly absorbed in casino games than when the players are less involved in the games. That is, their empirical findings supported the moderating role of involvement in the casino sector. This result was consistent with Kim et al.’s (2010) research finding that restaurant patrons’ involvement had a significant moderating role in patrons’ decision-making process. Depending on the level of involvement, customers differ in the extent of their decision process (Laurent and Kapferer, 1985). In the consumer decision-making process, the concern is that the product or activity is relevant to the needs and values of customer, and therefore that the customer will make a careful purchase decision (e.g., whether or not to patronize a leisure service establishment) (Bloch et al., 1986; Clarke and Belk, 1979). Thus, an understanding of involvement has significant implications for understanding consumer behavior. Individuals who are highly involved with a certain product/service generally have greater knowledge about the product or service, consciously or deliberately process product message, discuss the product/service with others, make a better product/service choice, and regard it as an important source of pleasure (Chua et al., 2017; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Hawkins and Mothersbough, 2009). Moreover, strong involvement in cruise traveling maximizes passengers’ experiences whereas weak involvement diminishes their pleasant cruising experiences (Chua et al., 2017). Given these, the following research hypotheses were developed regarding the impact of traveler involvement:

A survey questionnaire included (1) a thorough description of our research and its purposes, (2) 22 measurement items for the assessment of study constructs, and (3) inquiries for personal characteristics. That is, the questionnaire comprised a total of three sections. The measurement items used in this study were employed from existing studies in the extant tourism and consumer behavior literature (i.e., Chua et al., 2015; Chua et al., 2017; Crompton, 1979; Hung and Petrick, 2011; Koufaris, 2002; Jung and Han, 2016; Oliver, 1997; Webster et al., 1993; Zeithaml et al., 1996). Multiple items were used. In addition, a sevenpoint Likert scale was used (“Strongly disagree” [1] – “Strongly agree” [7]). Specifically, self-esteem and social recognition were evaluated with 4 items (e.g., “I cruise to increase my feelings of self-worth”). Escape and relaxation were measured with 2 items (e.g., “I cruise to give my mind a rest”). Learning, discovery, and thrill were evaluated with 4 items (e.g., “I cruise to enjoy activities that provide a thrill”). Bonding was assessed with 2 items (e.g., “I cruise to interact with friends/family”). To measure traveler satisfaction, 3 items were used (e.g., “Overall, I am satisfied with my experience with this cruise line”). Traveler involvement was evaluated with 3 items (e.g., “I was intensely absorbed in this cruise traveling”). Lastly, 4 items were utilized to assess traveler loyalty (e.g., “I will travel with this cruise line again in the near future”). These measurement items modified to be adequate in the present research setting were included in the initial version of the survey questionnaire. A pretest was conducted with graduate students and faculty members in the tourism department for the enhancement of content validity. A slight amendment was made based on the result of this pre-test. Then, the amended version of the survey questionnaire was reviewed by industry and academic experts. A minor improvement was made based on their feedback. 3.2. Data collection The sample population of the present study was general US luxury cruise travelers. Using an online survey method is effective to reach such general US customers of luxury cruise lines. Thus, a web-based survey method was employed to collect the data by using the online marketing research company’s survey system. An invitation of the survey with the description of the research was sent to general US customers of luxury cruise lines on July 2015. According to Hwang and Han (2014) and De La Vina and Ford (2001), a luxury cruise trip that serves upper class passengers is considered as a cruise trip product whose price exceeds US$350.00 per day. Given this, in this study, only those customers (1) who experienced an upper class cruise trip whose price started at a rate of $350.00 per day and (2) who took such luxury cruise vacation within the past year were used as samples. These screened customers were asked to access to the survey by clicking the link in the survey invitation e-mail. A total of 320 filled questionnaires were gathered through this process. The average time for the participants to complete the survey questionnaire was about 8 min. After excluding unusable and several extreme cases, the usable responses obtained were 286 cases. These responses were used for data analysis. While the samples of this study did not completely represent the entire population of our research interest, this study using a Web-based survey method efficiently reached a broader range of samples than a field survey methodology, which is better representative of the population of interest.

H4a. Traveler involvement significantly moderates the association between travel motivations and traveler satisfaction. 78

International Journal of Hospitality Management 70 (2018) 75–84

H. Han, S.S. Hyun

structural model adequately fits the data in the luxury cruise context (Goodness-of-fit statistics for the structural model: χ2 = 371.104, df = 142, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.613, RMSEA = 0.075, CFI = 0.942, IFI = 0.942, TLI = 0.930). Fig. 1 and Table 2 summarize the findings from the structural model assessment. As shown in Fig. 1, the analytical result of the higher-order factor structure of travel motivations revealed that such first-order constructs as (a) self-esteem and social recognition, (b) escape and relaxation, (c) learning, discovery, and thrill, and (d) bonding and the higher-order overall latent construct were significantly and positively related. Within the structural model including the higher-order factor structure of motivations, the coefficients (standardized) for such associations were 0.516 ([a] self-esteem and social recognition), 0.830 ([b] escape and relaxation), 0.912 ([c] learning, discovery, and thrill), and 0.439 ([d] bonding). The relationships were all significant (p < 0.01). This proposed model was slightly better than the structural model comprising the first-order factor structure of motivations (χ2 = 374.933, df = 134, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.798, RMSEA = 0.079, CFI = 0.939, IFI = 0.939, TLI = 0.922). The direct paths from motivation factors to traveler satisfaction and to traveler loyalty were mostly insignificant within this structural model encompassing the first-order factor structure of motivations (β SESRTS = 0.090, p > 0.05; β ER-TS = 0.338, p < 0.05; β LDT-TS = 0.036, p > 0.01; β B-TS = 0.109, p > 0.05; β SESR-TL = 0.220, p < 0.01; β p > 0.05; β LDT-TL = −0.309, p > 0.01; β BER-TL = 0.048, TL = 0.064, p > 0.05). This result was also in line with the confirmatory factor analysis result. Specifically, the higher-order confirmatory factor analysis model including four first-order factors and one common latent factor (χ2 = 171.406, df = 49, p < 0.001, χ2/ df = 3.498, RMSEA = 0.078, CFI = 0.934, IFI = 0.935, TLI = 0.911) was significantly better than the first-order confirmatory factor analysis model only comprising the four first-order motivation factors (χ2 = 182.940, df = 47, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 3.892, RMSEA = 0.101, CFI = 0.927, IFI = 0.928, TLI = 0.897) (Δχ2 (2) = 11.534, p < 0.01). It was therefore apparent that the 4 first-order dimensions of travel motivations significantly belong to one global higher-order factor of travel motivations. This finding was consistent with the result of the structural model that also indicates the one global factor higherorder model provides an adequate representation of the observed findings. The hypothesized impact of traveler motivations on traveler satisfaction was tested. Our results showed that travelers motivations exerted a positive and significant effect on traveler satisfaction (β TMTS = 0.496, p < 0.01). Hence, hypothesis 1 was supported. Hypothesis 2 was tested. As expected, the influence of traveler motivations on traveler loyalty was significant and positive (β TM-TL = 0.199, p < 0.01). Therefore, hypothesis 2 was supported. The proposed influence of traveler satisfaction on traveler loyalty was evaluated. Result of this study revealed that traveler loyalty was a significant and positive

Regarding gender, among 286 survey participants, more respondents were female cruise travelers (63.3%). Male travelers were about 36.7%. In terms of education level, more than a half of the participants reported that they held either a university degree or graduate degree (55.3%). Approximately 49.0% reported that their annual income was between US$40,000–$84,999, and 29.3% indicated that their income was over US$85,000–$84,999. In addition, about 21.7% reported their income was US$39,999 or less. Regarding the age of our samples, about 35.0% of the participants were over 55 years old, and about 38.4% were between 35 and 54 years old. The remaining 26.6% of the respondent group were between 18 and 34 years old. In terms of recency of cruise traveling, about 22.7% reported within the last 3 months, and about 55.2% indicated within the past 6 months. In addition, all participants reported their luxury cruise traveling experience was within the last 1 year. When the frequency of cruise trip within the past 5 years was asked, approximately 58.4% of the participants reported 1–2 time(s), and about 36.7% indicated 3–6 times. The remaining 4.9% of the respondent group reported over 7 times. 4. Results 4.1. Reliability and validity assessment Using a confirmatory factor analysis, a measurement model containing all research variables (motivation factors, traveler satisfaction, and traveler loyalty) was generated. We utilized a maximum likelihood estimation method. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the model included a satisfactory fit to the data (Goodness-of-fit statistics for the measurement model: χ2 = 410.643, df = 185, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.220, RMSEA = 0.065, CFI = 0.954, IFI = 0.954, TLI = 0.943). All standardized loadings between observed variables and latent constructs were significant (p < 0.01). Composite reliability was calculated for the assessment of internal consistency among measurement items for each latent factor. As reported in Table 1, our calculation revealed that all values exceeded the minimum threshold of 0.70 (Hair et al., 1998). The values ranged from 0.789 to 0.931. Then, average variance extracted values were calculated. Our results showed that all values were greater than the suggested cutoff of 0.500 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In addition, as shown in Table 1, these values ranging from 0.516 to 0.817 were greater than the pair of between-construct correlations. These results supported convergent and discriminant validity of the measures for study variables. 4.2. Structural model assessment and hypotheses testing In order to evaluate the proposed theoretical framework, a structural equation modeling with a maximum likelihood estimation approach was conducted. Our results indicated that the generated Table 1 Measurement model (correlations, AVE, reliability, mean, and SD). Constructs

SESR

ER

SESR ER LDT B TS TI TL Mean (SD)

1.000 0.318a (0.101)b 0.407 (0.166) 0.370 (0.137) 0.260 (0.068) 0.291 (0.085) 0.414 (0.171) 3.785 (1.578)

1.000 0.626 0.235 0.371 0.447 0.387 5.518

LDT

(0.392) (0.055) (0.138) (0.200) (0.150) (1.117)

1.000 0.301 0.342 0.405 0.365 5.415

B

(0.091) (0.117) (0.164) (0.133) (1.012)

1.000 0.203 0.259 0.288 4.844

TS

(0.041) (0.067) (0.083) (1.563)

1.000 0.814 (0.663) 0.789 (0.623) 5.751 (1.066)

TI

1.000 0.779 (0.607) 5.563 (1.159)

TL

1.000 5.201 (1.325)

AVE (CR) 0.673 0.651 0.516 0.755 0.817 0.783 0.751

(0.889) (0.789) (0.810) (0.858) (0.931) (0.915) (0.924)

Note1. SESR = self-esteem and social recognition, ER = escape and relaxation, LDT = learning, discovery, and thrill, B = bonding, TS = traveler satisfaction, TI = traveler involvement, TL = traveler loyalty. Note2. Goodness-of-fit statistics for the measurement model: χ2 = 410.643, df = 185, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.220, RMSEA = 0.065, CFI = 0.954, IFI = 0.954, TLI = 0.943. Note3. All standardized factor loadings were significant (p < 0.01). a Correlations. b Squared correlations.

79

International Journal of Hospitality Management 70 (2018) 75–84

H. Han, S.S. Hyun

.886

SESR4

.981

.757

TS1 .841

.774

.933

.607 SESR

R2 = .267

LDT

.730

H3:.749** H1:.496**

L = low traveler involvement group Hypothesized moderating impact of traveler involvement

Traveler Satis.

.830**

H = high traveler involvement group

H4a H:.513** L:.417*

H4b H:.121 L:.303*

H2:.199** .912**

.439**

R2 = .831

R2 = .193

B

Traveler Loyalty

.731

LDT4

.700

.979

.869

TL1

.878

Independent variable

H2 H3

Total impact on loyalty: β motivations = 0.571** β satisfaction = 0.749** Indirect impact of travel motivations on loyalty: β = 0.372**

Dependent variable →

Standardized estimate

Traveler 0.496 satisfaction → Traveler 0.199 loyalty 0.749 → Traveler loyalty Total variance explained (R2): R2 for TL = 0.749 R2 for TS = 0.246 R2 for SESR = 0.267

TL4

motivations on traveler loyalty was assessed. As reported in Table 2, travel motivations significantly affected traveler loyalty indirectly through traveler satisfaction (β TM-TS-TL = 0.372, p < 0.01). This implies that traveler satisfaction significantly mediated the influence of travel motivations on loyalty. Regarding the total impact of study variables, the influence of traveler satisfaction on loyalty (β = 0.749, p < 0.01) was found to be greater than that of travel motivations (β = 0.571, p < 0.01).

Table 2 Structural model assessment and hypotheses testing.

Traveler motivations Traveler motivations Traveler satisfaction

R2 = .

.863

.850

H1

H4c H:.796** L:.692**

Travel Motiv.

.645 .756

.879 .924 R2 = .

R2 = .689

ER

.516**

TS3

Fig. 1. Structural model estimation and test for metric invariance. Note 1. SESR = self-esteem and social recognition, ER = escape and relaxation, LDT = learning, discovery, and thrill, B = bonding, TS = traveler satisfaction, TL = traveler loyalty Note 2. Goodness-of-fit statistics for the structural model: χ2 = 371.104, df = 142, p < 0.001, χ2/ df = 2.613, RMSEA = 0.075, CFI = 0.942, IFI = 0.942, TLI = 0.930 Note 3. Goodness-of-fit statistics for the baseline model: χ2 = 599.073, df = 297, p < 0.001, χ2/ df = 2.017, RMSEA = 0.060, CFI = 0.924, IFI = 0.925, TLI = 0.913 Note 4. Two identical structural models were evaluated (models for high [n = 181] and low [n = 105] traveler involvement groups). *p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

t-value

5.375** 3.547** 12.801**

4.3. Test for metric invariance A structural invariance test was conducted. In order to generate the baseline model, the survey responses were split into high and low traveler involvement groups based on the result of K-means cluster analysis. The high group included 181 cases, and the low group included 105 cases. A baseline line model generated had an excellent fit to the data (Goodness-of-fit statistics for the baseline model: χ2 = 599.073, df = 297, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.017, RMSEA = 0.060, CFI = 0.924, IFI = 0.925, TLI = 0.913). The details of the findings from the baseline model assessment are displayed in Table 3. This model was compared to the nested models in sequence where a particular linkage is restricted to be equivalent across high and low traveler involvement groups, employing a chi-square test. The proposed moderating impact of involvement on the link between travel motivations and traveler satisfaction was tested. As reported in Table 3, findings from the chi-square test revealed that the linkage was not significantly different between high and low groups (Δχ2 (1) = 0.041, p > 0.05). Thus, hypothesis 4a was not supported.

R2 for ER = 0.689 R2 for LDT = 0.831 R2 for B = 0.193

Note1. SESR = self-esteem and social recognition, ER = escape and relaxation, LDT = learning, discovery, and thrill, B = bonding, TS = traveler satisfaction, TL = traveler loyalty. Note2. Goodness-of-fit statistics for the structural model: χ2 = 371.104, df = 142, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.613, RMSEA = 0.075, CFI = 0.942, IFI = 0.942, TLI = 0.930. *p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

function of traveler satisfaction (β TS-TL = 0.749, p < 0.01). This finding supported hypothesis 3. Our proposed theoretical framework accounted for about 74.9% of the total variance in traveler loyalty. In addition, about 24.6% of variance in traveler satisfaction was accounted for by travel motivations. The indirect impact of travel 80

International Journal of Hospitality Management 70 (2018) 75–84

H. Han, S.S. Hyun

The strongest dimension of travel motivations was the learning, discovery, and thrill. Our result is partly consistent with the research conducted by Andriotis and Agiomirgianakis (2010) who asserted that exploration together with escape is one of the key cruise travel motivations. In addition, this finding was partially in line with Han and Hyun’s (2017) research that stressed the particular importance of the thrill and discovery among cruise motivation factors. From the practical point of view, cruise operators should actively create discovering, learning, and thrilling vacation image of luxury cruise traveling. This effort would contribute to differentiating luxury cruise travel from other types of leisure/tourism/vacation activities. The second strongest factor of travel motivation was the escape and relaxation. This result is fully consistent with Hung and Petrick’s (2011) research employing a second-order structure of cruising motivations. This finding implies that travelers relate cruising with escaping from their mundane environment and associate cruising with resting and diminishing their mental fatigue and that these become the most significant motive for cruise traveling. Therefore, marketers of luxury cruise lines should develop promotional video/message showing that passengers enjoy relaxing on the cruise and escape feelings from their daily life in order to promote the cruise product to the potential/existing customers in an effective manner. Such dimensions as the self-esteem and social recognition and the bonding were also identified as important motivation factors. Researchers in cruise tourism agree that centering solely on the learning, discovery, and thrill or the escaping and relaxing (Han and Hyun, 2017; Hung and Petrick, 2011) is not efficient to sufficiently satisfy travelers’ increasing intricate needs and wants when cruise traveling. Particularly, such needs and wants become more sophisticated when travelers are consuming a luxury tourism product (e.g., take a luxury cruise vacation) (Hwang and Hyun, 2017; Hyun and Han, 2015). Given this, effectual service programs or strategies for the increase in passengers’ self-esteem, social recognition, and bonding should be developed in order to fulfill every aspect of luxury cruise travelers’ diverse and intricate needs and wants. Results of the structural invariance assessment showed that the linkage from traveler satisfaction to loyalty differed significantly across the involvement groups (Δχ2 (1) = 5.074, p < 0.05). Our finding related to the moderating impact of involvement is consistent with previous studies that also identified its moderating role (e.g., Bian and Moutinho, 2008; Browne and Kaldenberg, 1997; Dholakia, 1998; Tuu and Olsen, 2010). In this research, the magnitude of the association strength regarding the linkage was significantly stronger in the high group (β TS-TL = 0.796, p < 0.01) than in the low group (β TSTL = 0.692, p < 0.01). This result implies that at the similar level of traveler satisfaction, passengers who feel high involvement in cruise traveling form a stronger level of loyalty than those with low involvement. From a theoretical perspective, the mechanism underlying the convoluted associations among travel motivations, satisfaction, and loyalty for cruise product has been hardly unearthed. In the present research, we successfully uncovered the moderation mechanism of traveler involvement in cruise tourism affecting motivations, satisfaction, and loyalty relationships. Moreover, theoretically, our result informs that the concept of satisfaction is more evocative in loyalty formation for cruise travelers with high involvement. The use of the concept of involvement as moderator is thus to be essential in clearly explaining cruise travelers’ post-purchase behaviors. From the managerial aspect, our findings also offer useful insights. Recognizing the critical moderating nature of traveler involvement, luxury cruise operators should make every endeavor in providing high involvement experiences to their passengers for the increase of loyalty. As our empirical results demonstrated, when passengers are deeply absorbed and intensely engrossed in cruise traveling, their judgment of overall cruise experiences is more likely to result in the enhancement of repeat cruising and positive word-of-mouth behaviors that are directly related to the revenue increase and marketing-associated cost saving.

Table 3 Structural invariance model assessment and chi-square test. Linkages

High involvement group (n = 181)

Low involvement group (n = 105)

β

t-value

β

t-value

TM → TS

0.513

4.713**

0.417

2.368*

TM → TL

0.121

1.952

0.303

2.257*

TS → TL

0.796

11.641**

0.692

7.709**

Baseline model (estimated freely)

Nested model (restricted to be equivalent)

χ2 (297) = 599.073 χ2 (297) = 599.073 χ2 (297) = 599.073

χ2 (298) = 599.114 χ2 (298) = 601.918 χ2 (298) = 604.147

a

b

c

Chi-square difference test: a Δχ2 (1) = 0.041, p > 0.05 (H4a: Not supported) b Δχ2 (1) = 2.845, p > 0.05 (H4b: Not supported) c Δχ2 (1) = 5.074, p < 0.05 (H4c: Supported) Note1. TM = travel motivations, B = bonding, TS = traveler satisfaction, TL = traveler loyalty. Note2. Goodness-of-fit statistics for the baseline model: χ2 = 599.073, df = 297, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.017, RMSEA = 0.060, CFI = 0.924, IFI = 0.925, TLI = 0.913. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

The difference with the travel motivations–traveler loyalty relationship across involvement groups was assessed. Our results showed no significant statistical different on such relationship (Δχ2 (1) = 2.845, p > 0.05). Hence, hypothesis 4b was not supported. Lastly, the difference on the traveler satisfaction–loyalty association between high and low involvement groups was tested. As expected, the linkage was significantly different across groups (Δχ2 (1) = 5.074, p < 0.05). This result of the invariance test supported hypothesis 4c. 5. Discussion and implications This research aimed to build a strong theoretical framework explaining luxury cruise travelers’ loyalty formation by considering the interrelationships between travel motivations and traveler satisfaction. The particular role of traveler involvement as a moderator was also examined. Results from the structural analysis in general supported the hypothesized relationships. The proposed impact of involvement on passenger loyalty generation process was also generally supported. Our model included a sufficient level of ability in predicting traveler loyalty for luxury cruise product as its accountability for the total variance in loyalty was about 74.9%. Each research variable played a critical role as a direct/indirect contributor to the enhancement of traveler loyalty. The relationship strength between satisfaction and loyalty was higher when passengers felt highly absorbed in cruise traveling and its related activities. Overall, our research framework clearly explicates the complex psychological process of luxury cruise travelers’ post-purchase behavior. Luxury cruise line management faces increasingly sophisticated and demanding consumers and competitors’ challenges. In such a challenging market situation, the present research provides cruise line management clear comprehension about the underlying mechanism of the loyalty generation process. The hierarchical order structure of travel motivations demonstrated in the present study is a specific useful and important point. Our evaluation of the structural model showed that the higher-order latent constructs satisfactorily captured the commonality underlying among such first-order factors as (a) self-esteem and social recognition, (b) escape and relaxation, (c) learning, discovery, and thrill, and (d) bonding. That is, a comprehensive assessment of the motivations for cruise traveling was sufficiently reflected for this second-order structure. This finding adds significant implications to the motivation and behavior literature in tourism. The parsimonious higher-order travel motivation typology addresses practitioners and academics’ need of conceptualizing or theorizing complex variables more concisely. 81

International Journal of Hospitality Management 70 (2018) 75–84

H. Han, S.S. Hyun

Moreover, cruise operators should vigorously find passengers who have had comparatively high involvement experiences while traveling with the cruise by conducting a short user survey. These passengers should be targeted with particular programs or special incentives. By doing so, such passengers’ loyalty formation could be further fortified. Furthermore, for the passengers who feel somewhat low involvement while cruise traveling, cruise line practitioners should develop fun recreational activities, improve the fitness and sport centers to be modern and be adequate for target customer group, provide educational programs for various age groups, and diverse supplementary facilities/ services (e.g., internet café, oxygen room, educational class, and beauty bar). These endeavors would help such passengers feel more intensively absorbed in the cruise traveling, which eventually contributes to loyalty enhancement and repeat business. Our results revealed that traveler satisfaction is a vital determinant of traveler loyalty. Its comparative importance in building loyalty was even stronger than motivations. This finding is in line with previous studies that emphasized the importance of satisfaction enhancement in tourism and consumer behavior (Brida and Coletti, 2012; Brida et al., 2012a; Brida et al., 2012b; Kasiri et al., 2017; Ting, 2004). Theoretically, it can be necessary for cruise researchers to actively include passenger satisfaction as a main concept when developing a sturdy conceptual framework accounting for cruise travelers’ loyalty formation and post-purchase behaviors. From a practical perspective, as demonstrated in this study, enhancing cruise travel motivations will be essential in improving travelers’ satisfaction level. Nonetheless, recognizing that such motivations’ accountability of the variance in traveler satisfaction was somewhat low in the present research, luxury cruise practitioners should also find other ways to maximize passengers’ satisfactory experiences with their cruise vacation. According to the existing cruise studies in the tourism literature (Brida et al., 2013; Chua et al., 2015), quality and value are of importance in boosting passengers’ overall satisfaction level while cruise traveling. For luxury cruise operators, providing quality and valuable cruising experiences along with eliciting travel motivations could induce the increase in satisfaction level. Reflecting on the present study results and previous research findings, the allocation of monetary and non-monetary resources needs to be centered on enhancing cruise vacationers’ satisfaction level in order to efficiently build strong intentions to repurchase the luxury cruise product and encourage their family, friends, and others to purchase it. The results of this study provided the first indication that passengers’ overall evaluation with their cruse travel experiences is more important in eliciting their loyalty for the luxury cruise product than travel motivation factors. Our proposition that the effect of travel motivations on traveler loyalty would differ between high and low involvement groups was not supported. That is, hypothesis 4b was not supported. However, interestingly, such a relationship was only significant in the low involvement group (β TM-TL = 0.303, p < 0.05). The insignificant relationship in the high involvement group was resulted from the complete mediating impact of traveler satisfaction (β TM-TS-TL = 0.408, p < 0.01). In other words, traveler satisfaction perfectly mediated the influence of travel motivations on loyalty in the high involvement group, while satisfaction partially mediated the motivations–loyalty link in the low group. Accordingly, it is inappropriate to conclude that the impact of travel motivations on loyalty is not significant for those passengers who feel high involvement of luxury cruise traveling. In our theoretical framework, results associated with the moderating role of traveler involvement in the motivations–loyalty linkage should be therefore interpreted with caution. Regarding the insignificant moderating impact of traveler involvement on the motivation – satisfaction linkage (hypothesis 4a), this unexpected result would be derived from the high correlations among study variables. This implied that although the correlations did not significantly exceed the problematic level, our results were not entirely free from multicollinearity issue. An investigation of the indirect impact of travel motivations showed

that traveler satisfaction acted as an important mediator in the proposed conceptual framework. This result is consistent with many tourism and consumer behavior studies that stressed the significant mediating role of satisfaction (Kasiri et al., 2017; Oliver, 1993; Taylor and Baker, 1994). In addition, our fining is line with Han et al.’s (2016) study that identified the mediating nature of passenger satisfaction in the cruise context. In particular, traveler satisfaction partially mediated the impact of cruise travel motivations on traveler loyalty. Practically, our findings offer luxury cruise operators meaningful information in that increasing passengers’ level of satisfaction is undoubtedly a fundamental element for the maximum use of travel motivations in building passenger loyalty. From a theoretical aspect, understanding the mediating nature of traveler satisfaction in the luxury cruise sector, tourism researchers should utilize this mediator in a vigorous manner when developing a conceptual framework/theory or deepening the existing theory/model. As with many other studies, the present study had few limitations. First, the sample of the present research was drawn from the cruise industry. Hence, generalizing the findings of this study to other leisure/ tourism/hospitality sectors needs to be cautiously done. For future study, testing our theoretical framework in other leisure/tourism/hospitality contexts is therefore needed. Second, this study employed a web-based survey methodology for data collection. It would be true that capturing the survey respondents’ likely cruising experiences is somewhat difficult by using this survey method. A field survey is therefore recommended for future cruise research. Third, in the present research, the total variance in traveler loyalty was sufficiently accounted for by research variables within the proposed framework. Nevertheless, previous cruise studies in the literature have identified that ports of call, performances, environmental issues, and price perception/sensitivity are critical reasons that cruise travelers select/repurchase a specific cruise line (e.g., Brida et al., 2013; Chua et al., 2015; Sun et al., 2014). Integrating these factors into our theoretical framework would increase our understanding of passengers’ loyalty generation process and post-purchase behaviors for luxury cruise product. Lastly, while there has been a considerable growth of the cruise industry throughout the world, empirical studies on cruise travelers’ behaviors at ports are not abundant (Brida et al., 2014; Brida et al.,2015). Hence, future research should investigate such cruise travelers’ behaviors at ports (e.g., spending patterns, buying behaviors). In addition, since “greening” is undoubtedly a critical issue in cruise tourism (GTG, 2014; IGLU Cruise, 2012), cruise ship passengers’ loyalty generation process for both cruise lines and cruise ports by considering the green issue can be a meaningful extension of this research. Funding This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017S1A5A2A01024220) References Andriotis, K., Agiomirgianakis, G., 2010. Cruise visitors’ experience in a Mediterranean port of call. Int. J. Tour. Res. 12 (4), 390–404. Baker, D.A., Crompton, J.L., 2000. Quality, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. Ann. Tour. Res. 27 (3), 785–804. Bian, X., Moutinho, L., 2008. The role of product involvement, knowledge, and perceptions in explaining consumer purchase behavior of counterfeits: direct and indirect effects. Res. Memorandum Hull Univ. Bus. School 77, 1–34. Bitner, M.J., Ziethaml, V.A., 2003. Service marketing. Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi. Bloch, P.H., Sherrell, D.L., Ridgway, N.M., 1986. Consumer search: an extended framework. J. Consum. Res. 13 (1), 119–126. Bowen, J.T., Chen, S.L., 2015. Transitioning loyalty programs: a commentary on the relationship between customer loyalty and customer satisfaction. Inte. J. Contemp. Hospital. Manage. 27 (3), 415–430. Brida, J.G., Coletti, P., 2012. Tourist’s intention of returning to a visited destination: cruise ship passengers in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia. Tour. Mar. Environ. 8 (3), 127–143.

82

International Journal of Hospitality Management 70 (2018) 75–84

H. Han, S.S. Hyun

32, 386–393. Hunt, H.K., 1997. CS/D-Overview and future research direction. In: Hunt, H.K. (Ed.), Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction. Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, pp. 455–458. Hwang, J., Han, H., 2014. Examining strategies for maximizing and utilizing brand prestige in the luxury cruise industry. Tour. Manage. 40, 244–259. Hwang, J., Hyun, S., 2016. Perceived firm innovativeness in cruise travelers’ experience and perceived luxury value: the moderating effect of advertising effectiveness. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 21, 101–128. Hwang, J., Hyun, S., 2017. First-class airline travelers’ tendency to seek uniqueness: how does it influence their purchase of expensive tickets? J. Travel Tour. Market. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2016.1251376. in press. Hyun, S., Han, H., 2015. Luxury cruise travelers: other customer perceptions. J. Travel Res. 54 (1), 107–121. IGLUCruise, 2012. How Green Is Cruising? Cruise Blog. Retrieved from http://www. iglucruise.com/blog/2012/12/20/how-green-is-cruising (07.09.11). Iwasaki, Y., Havitz, M.E., 2004. Examining relationships between leisure involvement, psychological commitment, and loyalty to a recreation agency. J. Leisure Res. 36 (1), 45–72. Jones, R.V., 2011. Motivations to cruise: an itinerary and cruise experience study. J. Hospital. Tour. Manage. 18 (1), 30–40. Jung, H., Han, H., 2016. Loyalty intention formation for cruise travel: moderating impact of perceived risk and mediating impact of affective experience. J. Tour. Sci. 40 (4), 181–196. Kao, M.C., Patterson, I., Scott, N., Li, C.K., 2008. Motivations and satisfaction of Taiwanese tourists who visit Australia: an exploratory study. J. Travel Tour. Market. 24 (1), 17–33. Kasiri, L.A., Cheng, K.T.G., Sambasivan, M., Sidin, S.M., 2017. Integration of standardization and customization: impact on service quality, customer satisfaction, and loyalty. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 35, 91–97. Kim, W., Ok, C., Canter, D.D., 2010. Contingency variables for customer share of visits to full-service restaurant. Int. J. Hospital. Manage. 29 (1), 136–147. Korte, C., 1995. Kundenzufriedenheit. Planung und Analyse 6, 36–39. Kotler, P., 1997. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Koufaris, M., 2002. Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Inf. Syst. Res. 13 (2), 205–223. Lam, T., Hsu, C.H.C., 2006. Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination. Tour. Manage. 27 (4), 589–599. Laurent, G., Kapferer, J.N., 1985. Measuring consumer involvement profiles. J. Market. Res. 22 (1), 41–53. Lee, T.H., Crompton, J., 1992. Measuring novelty seeking in tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 19 (4), 732–751. Lee, S., Chua, B., Han, H., 2017. Role of service encounter and physical environment performances, novelty, satisfaction, and affective commitment in generating cruise passenger loyalty. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 22, 131–146. Mak, A.H.N., Wong, K.K.F., Chang, R.C.Y., 2009. Health or self-indulgence? The motivations and characteristics of spa-goers. Int. J. Tour. Res. 11 (2), 185–199. Mechinda, P., Serirat, S., PoPaijit, N., Lertwannawit, A., Anuwichanont, J., 2010. The relative impact of competitiveness factors and destination equity on tourist’s loyalty in Koh Chang, Thailand. Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 9 (10), 99–114. Novak, T.P., Hoffman, D.L., Duhachek, A., 2003. The influence of goal-directed and experiential activities on online flow experiences. J. Consum. Psychol. 13 (1/2), 3–16. Oliver, R.L., 1993. Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. J. Consum. Res. 20 (3), 418–430. Oliver, R.L., 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Oliver, R.L., 1999. Whence consumer loyalty? J. Market. 63, 33–34. Oppermann, M., 2000. Tourism destination loyalty. J. Travel Res. 39, 78–84. Ostrowski, P., O’Brien, T., Gordon, G., 1993. Service quality and customer loyalty in the commercial airline industry. J. Travel Res. 32, 16–24. Park, J., Robertson, R., Wu, C., 2004. The effect of airline service quality on passengers behavioral intentions: a Korean case study. J. Air Transp. Manage. 10, 435–439. Pearce, P.L., Lee, U., 2005. Developing the travel career approach to tourist motivation. J. Travel Res. 43 (3), 226–237. Prebensen, N., Skallerud, K., Chen, J.S., 2010. Tourist motivation with sun and sand destinations: satisfaction and the WOM-effect. J. Travel Tour. Market. 27, 858–873. Pritchard, M.P., Howard, D.R., 1997. The loyal traveler: examining a typology of service patronage. J. Travel Res. 35 (4), 2–10. Qu, H., Ping, E.W.Y., 1999. A service performance model of Hong Kong cruise travelers’ motivation factors and satisfaction. Tour. Manage. 20, 237–244. Reichheld, F., Teal, T., 1996. The Loyalty Effect. Harvard Business, School Press Boston, MA. Rychalski, A., Hudson, S., 2017. Asymmetric effects of customer emotions on satisfaction and loyalty in a utilitarian service context. J. Bus. Res. 71, 84–91. Shim, C., Kang, S., Kim, I., Hyun, S.S., 2017. Luxury-cruise travellers’ brand community perception and its consequences. Curr. Issues Tour. 20 (14), 1489–1509. Shoemaker, S., Lewis, R.C., 1999. Customer loyalty: the future of hospitality marketing. Int. J. Hospital. Manage. 18 (4), 345–370. Silvestre, A.L., Santos, C.M., Ramalho, C., 2008. Satisfaction and behavioral intentions of cruise passengers visiting the Azores. Tour. Econ. 14 (1), 169–184. Strikatanyoo, N., Campiranon, K., 2010. Agritourist needs and motivations: the Chiang Mai case. J. Travel Tour. Market. 27, 166–178. Sun, X., Feng, X., Gauri, D.K., 2014. The cruise industry in China: efforts, progress and challenges. Int. J. Hospital. Manage. 42, 71–84. TaghiPourian, M.J., Bakhsh, M.M., 2015. Loyalty: from single-stage loyalty to four-stage

Brida, J.G., Garrido, N., Such, M.J., 2012a. Cruise Passengers’ Satisfaction in the Caribbean port of call of Cartagena de Indias: a cross-section data analysis. Benchmark.: Int. J. 19 (1), 52–69. Brida, J.G., Pulina, M., Riaño, E.M.M., 2012b. Measuring visitor experiences at a modern art museum and linkages to the destination community. J. Heritage Tour. 7 (4), 285–299. Brida, J.G., Pulina, M., Riafio, E., Zapata-Aguirre, S., 2013. Cruise passengers in a homeport: a market analysis. Tour. Geogr. 15 (1), 68–87. Brida, J.G., Fasone, V., Scuderi, R., Zapata-Aguirre, S., 2014. ClustOfVar and the segmentation of cruise passengers from mixed data: some managerial implications. Knowledge-Based Syst. 70, 128–136. Brida, J.G., Bukstein, D., Tealde, E., 2015. Exploring cruise ship passenger spending patterns in two Uruguayan ports of call. Curr. Issues Tour. 7, 684–700. Browne, B., Kaldenberg, D., 1997. Conceptualizing self-monitoring: links to materialism and product involvement. J. Consum. Market. 14 (1), 31–44. Brunner, T.A., Stocklin, M., Opwis, K., 2008. Satisfaction, image and loyalty: new versus experienced customers. Eur. J. Market. 42 (9/10), 1095–1105. Caber, M., Albayrak, T., 2016. Push or pull? Identifying rock climbing tourists’ motivations. Tour. Manage. 55, 74–84. Cheng, T., Hung, S., Chen, M., 2016. The influence of leisure involvement on flow experience during hiking activity: using psychological commitment as a mediate variable. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 21 (1), 1–19. Chi, C.G.Q., Qu, H., 2008. Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction, and destination loyalty: an integrated approach. Touri. Manage. 29, 624–636. Chua, B., Lee, S., Goh, B., Han, H., 2015. Impacts of cruise service quality and price on vacationers’ cruise experience: moderating role of price sensitivity. Int. J. Hospital. Manage. 44, 131–145. Chua, B., Lee, S., Han, H., 2017. Consequences of cruise line involvement: a comparison of first-time and repeat passengers. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 29 (6), 1658–1683. Churchill, G.A., 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J. Market. Res. 16, 64–73. Clarke, K., Belk, R.W., 1979. The effects of product involvement and task definition on anticipated consumer effort. Adv. Consum. Res. 6 (1), 313–318. Cong, L.C., 2016. A formative model of the relationship between destination quality, tourist satisfaction and intentional loyalty: an empirical test in Vietnam. J. Hospital. Tour. Manage. 26, 50–62. Crompton, J.L., McKay, S.L., 1997. Motives of visitors attending festival events. Ann. Tour. Res. 24 (2), 425–439. Crompton, J.L., 1979. Motivations for pleasure vacation. Ann. Tour. Res. 6 (4), 408–424. Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1975. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: Experiencing Flow in Work and Play. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Dholakia, U.M., 1998. Involvement-response models of joint effects: an empirical test and extension. In: Alba, J.W., Hutchinson, J.W. (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research. Association for Consumer Research, Prove, UT, pp. 499–506. Duman, T., Mattila, A.S., 2005. The role of affective factors on perceived cruise vacation value. Tour. Manage. 26, 311–323. Edmonds, E., Muller, L., Connell, M., 2006. On creative engagement. Visual Commun. 5 (3), 307–322. Fan, D.X.F., Hsu, C.H.C., 2014. Potential mainland Chinese cruise travelers’ expectations, motivations, and intentions. J. Travel Tour. Market. 31, 522–535. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18, 39–50. Fornell, C., 1992. A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience. J. Market. 56 (1), 6–21. GTG (Green Traveler Guide), 2014. Cruise Industry Claims Eco-progress. Green Travel News. Retrieved from http://greentravelerguides.com/green-cruise-ship-trends/ (07.09.11). Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Han, H., Hyun, S., 2015. Customer retention in the medical tourism industry: impact of quality, satisfaction, trust, and price reasonableness. Tour. Manage. 46, 20–29. Han, H., Hyun, S., 2017. Cruise travel motivations and repeat cruising behavior: impact of relationship investment. Curr. Issues Tour. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500. 2017.1313204. Han, H., Back, K., Barrett, B., 2009. Influencing factors on restaurant customers’ revisit intention: the roles of emotions and switching barriers. Int. J. Hospital. Manage. 28, 563–572. Han, H., Hwang, J., Lee, M.J., 2016. Antecedents of travellers’ repurchase behaviour for luxury cruise product. Current Issues in Tourism. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 13683500.2016.1194812. Han, H., Lee, J., Hwang, J., 2017. A study of brand prestige in the casino industry: the moderating role of customer involvement. Tour. Hospital. Res. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1177/1467358415627302. in press. Havitz, M.E., Dimanche, F., 1999. Leisure involvement revisited: drive properties and paradoxes. J. Leisure Res. 31 (2), 122–149. Hawkins, D.I., Mothersbough, D.L., 2009. Consumer Behavior: Building Marketing Strategy. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY. Hsu, C., Lu, H., 2004. Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Inf. Manage. 41, 853–868. Hsu, C., Lee, W., Chen, W., 2017. How to catch their attention? Taiwanese flashpackers inferring their travel motivation from personal development and travel experience. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 22, 117–130. Hung, K., Petrick, J.F., 2011. Why do you cruise? Exploring the motivations for taking cruise holidays, and the construction of a cruising motivation scale. Tour. Manage.

83

International Journal of Hospitality Management 70 (2018) 75–84

H. Han, S.S. Hyun

empirical study of different conceptual relationships Journal of Targeting. Meas. Anal. Market. 18 (3/4), 239–251. Webster, J., Trevino, L.K., Ryan, L., 1993. The dimensionality and correlates of flow in human computer interactions. Comput. Human Behav. 9 (4), 411–426. Yoon, Y., Uysal, M., 2005. An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: a structural model. Tou. Manage. 26 (1), 45–56. Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., 1996. The behavioral consequences of service quality. J. Market. 60 (2), 31–46.

loyalty. Int. J. New Technol. Res. 1 (6), 48–51. Taheri, B., Jafari, A., O’Gorman, K., 2014. Keeping your audience: presenting a visitor engagement scale. Tour. Manage. 42, 321–329. Taylor, S.A., Baker, T.L., 1994. An assessment of the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers' purchase intentions. J. Retail. 70 (2), 163–178. Ting, D.H., 2004. Service quality and satisfaction perceptions: curvilinear and interaction effect. Int. J. Bank Market. 22 (6), 407–420. Tuu, H.H., Olsen, S.O., 2010. Nonlinear effects between satisfaction and loyalty: an

84