The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
EJM
43,5/6
670
Received May 2007
Revised November 2007,
February 2008
Accepted February 2008
European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 43 No. 5/6, 2009
pp. 670-685
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0566
DOI 10.1108/03090560910946990
Analysing the effect of
satisfaction and previous visits on
tourist intentions to return
Joaquı́n Alegre and Magdalena Cladera
Department of Applied Economics, University of the Balearic Islands,
Palma de Mallorca, Illes Balears, Spain
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse the determinants of tourist intentions to revisit a
destination, paying special attention to the effects of satisfaction and the number of previous visits. In
order to guarantee an incentive to improve the product, satisfaction must be the main determinant. A
second objective is to analyse the contribution that satisfaction with different aspects of a destination
makes on overall satisfaction.
Design/methodology/approach – A structural equation model (SEM) has been estimated. Some of
the variables involved in the model are ordinal. Thus, tetrachoric, polychoric and polyserial
correlations were calculated and then used as the input for structural equation modelling.
Findings – Both satisfaction and the number of previous visits have a positive effect on intention to
return. However, the main determinant is satisfaction. Satisfaction with different aspects of the
destination has a differing effect on overall satisfaction. Attributes associated with the basic sun and
sand tourist product are the main determinants of overall satisfaction.
Practical implications – To promote repeat visits, it is crucial to identify the determinants of the
intention to return. The factors that influence this variable can be improved in order to increase the
likelihood of repeat visits.
Originality/value – Methods to estimate SEM with categorical variables have not been applied
before to the field of tourism. In comparison with previous studies of repeat visitation, the main
contribution of the model is that it simultaneously takes into consideration two causal links with the
number of previous visits, the first affecting overall satisfaction and the second having a direct effect
on a tourist’s intention to return.
Keywords Customer satisfaction, Travel, Tourism, Customer retention, Repeat buying
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In an increasingly competitive international tourism market with emerging new
destinations, mature tourist destinations can gain a competitive edge through repeat
visitation. Repeat visitors are a stable market for a destination and they also provide
free advertising in the form of word-of-mouth recommendations to family members
and friends (Reid and Reid, 1993; Lau and McKercher, 2004; Oppermann, 2000a). To
promote repeat visits to a destination, it is crucial to identify the determinants of the
intention to return. In this way, the factors that influence this variable can be improved
in order to increase the likelihood of repeat visits there. In literature on tourism where
this subject has been analysed, the decision to revisit a destination is seen to be a
complex decision that involves numerous interrelated factors (satisfaction with the
stay, tourist motivations, prior experience of the destination, etc.). As a result,
structural equation modelling (SEM) is particularly appropriate for analysing Tourist
decisions to revisit a destination. intentions to
Nonetheless, although in recent years there has been a growing use of SEM in
tourism analyses (see Reisenger and Turner, 1999, for the application of these models return
to tourism), the technique tends to be limited to models involving continuous and
normal variables. However, surveys are an important source of information in tourism
analyses and data for numerous variables is often gathered in a categorical way. 671
Although methods have been developed to estimate this type of model with categorical
variables (see Kupek, 2005 for a review of these procedures), they have not been
applied to the field of tourism. In the case of tourist intentions to return, data on this
variable is traditionally gathered in a dichotomous way in surveys conducted with
tourists at the end of their stay at a destination. Consequently, this variable has been
analysed using binary logit models (Juaneda, 1996; Moutinho and Trimble, 1991;
Alegre and Cladera, 2006). With these models, the effects of a set of explanatory
variables on the likelihood of a return visit to a destination can be estimated. However,
they do not allow more complex inter-dependencies to be specified, while this can be
done with SEM.
In this paper, a SEM is specified and estimated to analyse the determinants of
tourist intentions to revisit a destination, paying special attention to the effects that
satisfaction with the stay and the number of prior visits have on this variable. In the
proposed model, two endogenous variables are specified: the intention to return and
overall satisfaction with the stay. The model was estimated using a representative
sample of tourists visiting the Balearic Islands, one of the Mediterranean’s leading sun
and sand destinations. The data that is used is taken from the Tourist Expenditure
Survey in the Balearic Islands. The main objective of this survey is to estimate tourist
expenditure. However, in addition to the expenditure variables, information regarding
the variables involved in the proposed model is also collected. In the questionnaire, the
intention to return takes the form of a binary variable. Additionally, some of the
variables specified as determining the intention to return and overall satisfaction are
also reflected in the survey in a categorical way. As a result, in this paper, polyserial,
tetrachoric and polychoric correlations have been estimated for pairs of variables, then
using these correlations as the input for structural equation modelling (Jöreskog, 2005;
Kupek, 2005). This methodology has not been applied before to the field of tourism.
However, it may be particularly useful when using data obtained from surveys, where
numerous variables are often gathered in a categorical way.
Repeat holidays at a familiar destination and a declared intention to revisit it are
two signs of destination loyalty that are often taken into account in literature
(Oppermann, 2000a). The main factors that determine a declared intention to revisit a
destination seem to be tourist satisfaction with their stay, specific motivations in
choosing a destination and tourist attachment to it, where the latter can be measured in
terms of the repeat visitation rate.
The main objective of this article is to study the effect of the number of previous
visits and satisfaction on the intention to return. This subject is particularly relevant
for mature tourist destinations. Using the terminology of the Tourist Area Life Cycle
(Butler, 1980), when a destination has achieved its stagnation stage, if measures for
updating and repositioning the tourist product are not adopted, the destination’ decline
will occur. On the other hand, in an increasingly competitive international tourism
EJM market with emerging new destinations, mature tourist destinations can gain a
43,5/6 competitive edge through repeat visitation. Repeat visitors are a stable market for a
destination and they also provide free advertising in the form of word-of-mouth
recommendations to family members and friends (Reid and Reid, 1993; Lau and
McKercher, 2004; Oppermann, 2000a).
Some loyalty typologies based on attitude-behaviour relationships (Day, 1969;
672 Backman and Crompton, 1991; Pritchard et al. 1992; Dick and Basu 1994; Baloglu,
2001) suggest the existence of spurious loyalty. For this loyalty category, repeat
purchases can be accounted for by time convenience, monetary rewards, a lack of
substitutes or lack of information about them, and the psychological costs of
discontinuation (Oppermann, 2000a). This type of repeater does not offer any incentive
to update or improve the quality of the product, thus contributing toward the
destination’s decline. In order to guarantee an incentive to improve the product, the
relationship between satisfaction and the intention to repurchase a holiday must be the
main determinant.
A second objective of this study is to analyse the contribution that satisfaction with
different aspects of a destination makes to overall satisfaction. This information could
be used to define strategies to improve overall satisfaction with stays, in turn
increasing the likelihood of a further visit to the destination.
The model that is proposed in this paper explains both tourist satisfaction with stays
and the intention to return, incorporating satisfaction with different aspects of the
destination, the perceived price/quality ratio, tourist motivations and the number of
previous visits as explanatory variables. In comparison with previous studies of repeat
visitation, the main contribution of this model is the fact that it simultaneously takes into
consideration two causal links with the number of previous visits, the first affecting
overall satisfaction and the second having a direct effect on a tourist’s intention to revisit
the destination. By estimating the model, the total impact of previous visits on a tourist’s
intention to return can be measured, and it can be compared with the effect of
satisfaction. Given the interrelations among the variables that affect an intended future
visit, a SEM was used to estimate the importance of the different effects.

Literature review
Many studies of consumer intentions to make repeat purchases or, in our case, to
revisit a destination, have focused on the factors that determine this intention. The
determinants that are most often suggested are a satisfactory prior experience,
perceived quality, a previous repeat visit to a destination and tourist motivations. Over
the last few years, several studies have examined the interrelations among these
variables (i.e. quality, satisfaction, previous experience and loyalty) using structural
equation modelling (Baker and Crompton, 2000; Bigneé et al., 2001; Pritchard, 2003;
Petrick, 2004b; Yoon and Uysal, 2005; Um et al., 2006).
In marketing literature, it is accepted that satisfaction has a positive influence on
post-purchase behaviour (Anderson and Sullivan, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992;
Fornell, 1992; Keaveney, 1995; Oliver, 1980; Oliver and Swan, 1989). According to the
prevailing theory, perceived quality leads to consumer satisfaction, which in turn
generates intentions such as word-of-mouth recommendations or a further intended
visit to a destination (Brady and Robertson, 2001). This relationship has been
examined within the general framework of tourism services by Appiah-Adu et al.
(2000), Bigneé et al. (2001), Murphy et al. (2000), Bramwell (1998), Oppermann (2000a) Tourist
and Postma and Jenkins (1997). intentions to
The impact that overall satisfaction and/or satisfaction with different aspects of a
destination have on a tourist’s intention to revisit it or recommend it to others has been return
analysed by Alegre and Cladera (2006), Um et al. (2006), Yoon and Uysal (2005), Petrick
(2004a), Caneen (2003), Pritchard (2003), Kozak (2001), Baker and Crompton (2000),
Kozak and Rimmington (2000), Juaneda (1996) and Ross (1993). These studies show 673
that tourist satisfaction has a positive effect on the probability of a return visit to a
destination. Thus tourist satisfaction with a destination has become a key indicator for
regional tourist industries (Kozak, 2001; Kozak and Rimmington, 2000). Previous
studies have shown that different aspects of a destination contribute, to a differing
extent, to overall satisfaction (Danaher and Arweiler, 1996; Kozak and Rimmington,
2000; Murphy et al., 2000, Alegre and Cladera, 2006). It therefore seems appropriate to
explain tourist satisfaction with a destination as a complex concept, based on tourist
perceptions of different aspects of the destination.
Both satisfaction and the intention to return can also be influenced by tourist
motivations. Different studies have explored the possible influence that travel
motivations might have on holiday satisfaction (Mannel and Iso Ahola, 1987; Ross and
Iso Ahola, 1991; Fielding et al., 1992). Yoon and Uysal (2005) put forward the
hypothesis that travel motivations might have a direct effect on the intention to return.
Their results confirm the hypothesis, particularly for motivations that are more closely
related to internal or emotional aspects or push motivations.
It has been suggested in literature that the intention to return is also influenced by
the number of previous visits to a destination. A number of studies show that repeat
visitors have a higher probability of returning to a destination than first-timers (Gyte
and Phelps, 1989; Court and Lupton, 1997; Gitelson and Crompton, 1984; Kozak and
Rimmington, 2000; Milman and Pizam, 1995, Mazursky, 1989; Perdue, 1985; Sonmez
and Graefe, 1998). The positive relationship between previous visits and the intention
to return may be a consequence of routine behaviour (Woodside and MacDonald, 1994;
Oppermann, 2000b; Odin et al., 2001) or a way to avoid the risk of a bad holiday by
choosing somewhere familiar (Mitchell and Greatorex, 1993). According to Oppermann
(1998), a somewhat dissatisfied tourist might return to a destination because it is
perceived to be less risky to go somewhere with known shortcomings than to visit a
new destination that might be worse. In that case, there would be little pressure from
the demand side to introduce innovations to traditional holiday products. As a result,
repetition would discourage efforts to improve or update the tourist product
(Weiermair, 2001), thus contributing toward a destination’s decline. For a destination to
be competitive, repeat visitation intentions must be based on satisfaction with services
offered at the destination.
Bigneé et al. (2001) show that a destination’s image plays a direct antecedent role in
perceived quality, satisfaction, a tourist’s intention to revisit the destination and their
willingness to recommend it to others. Repeat visitors can be expected to have a better
adjusted image of a destination than first-timers. Consequently, for repeat visitors,
there is less likely to be a discrepancy between their experiences and their expectations.
Following this line of thought, if the number of prior visits influences a tourist’s image
of a destination (Fayeke and Crompton, 1991), it will also affect satisfaction and their
intention to visit it again.
EJM Research model
43,5/6 The hypothetical relations among the variables that might affect a tourist’s intention to
return are shown in Figure 1. The proposed relations are based on literature reviewed
in the previous section. In the model it is assumed that overall satisfaction is influenced
by both satisfaction with different aspects of a destination (Danaher and Arweiler,
1996; Kozak and Rimmington, 2000; Murphy et al., 2000) and prior experience of it
674 (Bigneé et al., 2001). In turn, overall satisfaction influences the intention to return
(Baker and Crompton, 2000; Juaneda, 1996; Kozak, 2001; Kozak and Rimmington, 2000;
Yoon and Uysal, 2005), which also depends on the number of previous visits to the
destination (Court and Lupton, 1997; Gitelson and Crompton, 1984; Gyte and Phelps,
1989; Kozak and Rimmington, 2000; Mazursky, 1989; Milman and Pizam, 1995; Perdue,
1985; Sonmez and Graefe, 1998). Other factors, such as motivations in choosing a
destination or opinions regarding the price/quality ratio are also considered to
influence tourists’ overall satisfaction and their intention to return (Fielding et al., 1992;
Mannel and Iso Ahola, 1987; Ross and Iso Ahola, 1991).
Satisfaction has been presented as a multi-dimensional concept. Tourist satisfaction
is the result of a tourist’s perception of different aspects of a destination, and these
different aspects play differing roles in determining overall satisfaction (Danaher and
Arweiler, 1996; Kozak and Rimmington, 2000; Murphy et al., 2000; Alegre and Cladera,
2006). In the model, satisfaction levels with key aspects of the destination are included
as determinants of overall satisfaction.
The model’s endogenous variables are overall satisfaction and the intention to
return. In the model, overall satisfaction is determined by:
.
partial satisfaction levels;
.
the number of previous visits;
.
the motivations that led the tourist to choose the destination; and
. their assessment of the price/quality ratio.

As for the intention to return, it is assumed to be influenced by:

. the number of visits;
.
overall satisfaction;

Figure 1.
Proposed research model
 .
travel motivations; and Tourist
.
the tourist’s opinion of the price/quality ratio. intentions to
This model was estimated by means of structural equation modelling. return
By estimating the model proposed in Figure 1, the aim is to analyse the effect that
satisfaction and the number of prior visits have on the intention to return. As we have
already commented, if repeat visits are to offer an incentive to update and improve the 675
tourist product, the main determinant of the intention to return must be satisfaction
with the stay and not an inertia-driven habit. Second, with the results that are obtained
from estimating the model, those aspects of the destination that are most influential in
determining overall satisfaction can be identified, thus providing information on key
factors that must be promoted in order to boost the overall satisfaction of tourists
visiting the destination.

Data
The geographical framework for our empirical analysis was the Balearic Islands, one
of Europe’s top sun and sand destinations. Located in the Western Mediterranean, the
archipelago accounts for 22 per cent of all Spain’s hotel accommodation (INE, 2003). In
2004, approximately 10 million tourists visited the Balearics. The destination is
currently characterized by a high percentage of repeat visitors who accounted for 67.3
per cent of its tourists in 2003, 33.6 per cent of whom had visited the islands four times
or more.
The data used in the study was drawn from the Survey on Tourist Expenditure in
the Balearic Islands, conducted by the regional government and University of the
Balearic Islands. The main objective of the survey was to estimate tourist expenditure.
Nevertheless, in addition, other data related to the socio-demographic characteristics of
tourists, their motivations in visiting the Balearics, their assessment of the destination,
intention to return and satisfaction levels was requested. For the model’s estimation,
data was taken for the high seasons of 2002 and 2003, comprising a total of 6,848
observations. The Survey on Tourist Expenditure in the Balearic Islands has been
conducted every year from 1989 to 2004. Although some changes have been made to
compile information on new subject areas, the use of a relatively brief questionnaire
has been a priority. Complex questions have been avoided, given the circumstances
when the data is collected (before the tourists’ departure from the airport).
As for the variables that were taken into consideration in this study, the survey
includes a question about tourist intentions to return, asking them to indicate whether
they plan to revisit the Balearics on another holiday, limiting their reply to either “yes”
or “no”. Likewise they are asked how many times they have visited the Balearics. The
reply to this question is limited to the following categories: “one”, “two”, “three”, “four”
and “more than four” times.
The tourists are also asked about their overall level of satisfaction (ranging from a
value of 1 if they were not at all satisfied to a value of 10 if they were very satisfied).
Similarly, their level of satisfaction with different aspects of the destination is also
measured: that is, satisfaction with the scenery, beaches, climate, quality of the
accommodation, quality of the environment and urban setting, cleanliness of public
areas, price of food and drink, price of leisure activities, treatment they were given,
hospitality of the local residents, safety, nightlife, cultural attractions, tranquillity and
EJM noise. They are also asked to state their opinion of the price/quality ratio, choosing one
43,5/6 of five possible replies: “expensive”, “quite expensive”, “normal”, “quite cheap” and
“cheap”. In the survey, they are also requested to indicate the reasons that led them to
choose the Balearics from a range of motives that include the climate and beaches,
quality of the accommodation and surroundings, and price factor. All these factors are
collected as binary variables (yes/no).
676 The information concerning tourist satisfaction with different aspects of the
destination was summarized into five variables. A prior principal components analysis
allowed us to identify the five dimensions with the greatest variance and the variables
associated with each of them. The correlation coefficients between the variables and
components greater than 0.5 are shown in Table I. As a result of this analysis,
variables with a common source of variance were averaged and included in the model.
The Cronbach coefficient a for the 19 items was 0.91. The a corresponding to each
average is shown in Table I. The first average (sunshine and beaches) summarizes
assessments of the basic components of a sun and sand holiday (the scenery, beaches,
climate, quality of the accommodation, quality of the environment and urban setting,
and cleanliness of public areas). The second average (prices) covers price assessments
of food and drink, leisure activities and shopping. The third average (hospitality)
summarizes the perceived treatment the tourists received, safety, and the hospitality of
the local residents. The fourth (social life) averages out their assessments of the
cultural activities, nightlife, information and signing. Finally, the fifth average
(tranquillity) summarizes opinions of the quietness or noise levels.

Cumulative
Factor variance
a loading (%) Communalities

1. Scenery 0.82 0.59 24.9 0.38

Beaches 0.71 0.56
Climate 0.64 0.49
Quality of accommodation 0.52 0.49
Quality of environment 0.80 0.71
Quality of urban surroundings 0.75 0.65
Cleanliness 0.72 0.63
2. Price of meals 0.89 0.86 12.7 0.83
Price of leisure 0.84 0.82
Price of shopping 0.84 0.81
3. Nightlife 0.82 0.60 10.2 0.75
Information 0.68 0.78
Signing 0.66 0.58
Cultural activities 0.63 0.52
4. Treatment 0.80 0.72 9.7 0.68
Hospitality 0.76 0.66
Safety 0.58 0.67
Table I.
Principal component 5. Tranquillity 0.62 0.68 7.2 0.66
analysis and Cronbach a Noise 0.71 0.61
for the average Total variance 64.7
The hypothetical model proposed in this study has one special characteristic: some of the Tourist
variables that are involved are ordinal. Using this kind of variable in structural equation intentions to
modelling requires different techniques from those used with continuous variables
(Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1981; Jöreskog, 2005; Bollen, 1989; Kupek, 2005). More specifically, return
Jöreskog and Sörbom (1981, chapter 4) discuss a methodology that involves computations
of tetrachoric, polychoric or polyserial correlations when categorical variables with two or
more categories are considered. To estimate the model, the first step consists of estimating 677
these correlations and their asymptotic covariance matrix, and the second step consists of
estimating the parameters of the model using weighted least squares (Jöreskog, 2005). The
results reported in this paper were obtained by applying this procedure using LISREL.

Results
As explained above, the estimation procedure that was used in this study consists of
calculating polyserial, tetrachoric or polychoric correlations for pairs of variables, by
assuming that they have an underlying continuous scale whose large sample joint
distribution is bivariate normal, then going on to use these correlations as the input for
structural equation modelling (Jöreskog, 2005; Kupek, 2005). The assumption of
underlying bivariate normality must be tested before the correlations are used to
estimate the parameters of the SEM. Jöreskog (2005) developed an RMSEA (root mean
square error of approximation) measure of population discrepancy similar to Steiger’s
(1990) RMSEA measure for SEM. Through further simulation studies, this author
found that there are no serious effects of non-normality unless the RMSEA is larger
than 0.1. Using these criteria, the hypothesis of approximate underlying bivariate
normality was not rejected for any pair of variables.
The model’s estimated standardized path coefficients are presented in Figure 2, and
Table II reports parameter estimates and their standard errors, t-values and

Figure 2.
Standardized path
coefficients
 EJM

678
43,5/6

Table II.
Parameter estimates
Intention to return Overall satisfaction
Coefficient Standard error t-value Significance Coefficient Standard error t-value Significance

Overall satisfaction 0.453 0.017 26.739 0.000

Price-quality ratio 0.147 0.022 6.780 0.000 0.092 0.029 3.109 0.002
Number of previous visits 0.147 0.018 8.256 0.000 0.052 0.011 4.816 0.000
Sat. sunshine and beaches 0.298 0.052 5.759 0.000
Sat. prices 0.058 0.035 1.649 0.099
Sat. hospitality 0.127 0.048 2.614 0.009
Sat. social life 0.285 0.040 7.173 0.000
Sat. tranquillity 0.054 0.038 1.428 0.153
Mot. climate and beaches 0.113 0.026 4.301 0.000 0.030 0.019 1.587 0.113
Mot. quality 0.153 0.026 5.833 0.000 0.055 0.017 3.239 0.001
Mot. prices 2 0.073 0.025 2 2.892 0.004 2 0.029 0.017 21.712 0.087
significance levels. In order to test the model, Table III presents some indicators of the Tourist
model’s goodness of fit, with values that suggest a satisfactory goodness of fit. intentions to
Additionally, the squared multiple correlations (SMC) for the endogenous variables are
0.31 for the intention to return and 0.53 for overall satisfaction. The results show that return
partial levels of satisfaction influence overall satisfaction, with the greatest impact
being made by satisfaction with the components of the sun and sand product. Prior
research has also shown that different attributes of the destination contribute to the 679
final level of satisfaction (Danaher and Arweiler, 1996; Kozak and Rimmington, 2000;
Alegre and Cladera, 2006). Overall satisfaction is also positively influenced by the
number of previous visits, motivations in choosing the Balearic Islands as a destination
and the tourists’ opinion of the price/quality ratio. However, not all the travel
motivations affect overall satisfaction. Those that proved significant were the quality
of the accommodation and quality of the environment. This means that tourists who
are motivated by quality declare higher satisfaction levels. Price as a motivation is also
significant ( p-value , 0.10), with a negative sign, indicating that tourists motivated by
prices have a lower level of overall satisfaction. As for opinions of the price/quality
ratio, the result is just as expected: a more favourable opinion has a positive effect on
overall satisfaction.
As for the determinants of the intention to return, the main determinant is overall
satisfaction, in line with the findings obtained by Alegre and Cladera (2006), Um et al.
(2006), Yoon and Uysal (2005), Kozak (2001). According to a number of studies showing
that repeat visitors have a higher probability of returning to a destination than
first-timers (Gyte and Phelps, 1989; Court and Lupton, 1997; Gitelson and Crompton,
1984; Kozak and Rimmington, 2000; Milman and Pizam, 1995; Sonmez and Graefe,
1998), this paper shows that the number of previous visits also has a positive impact on
intention to return, together with the climate, beaches and quality as motivations and
opinions of the price/quality ratio. Choosing the destination because of its price has a
negative effect on the intention to return. This result can be related to the idea that
consumers who decide to buy a product or service because of its price, are more likely
to be very open to competing offers. (O’Malley, 1998). That is, if a cheaper product
comes along, the consumer is likely to choose it (Solomon, 1996).
The results of the estimated coefficients indicate that satisfaction is more important
in determining the intention to return than the number of previous visits. The value of
the coefficient that measures the direct effect of satisfaction is 0.45, while the direct
effect of the number of previous visits is 0.15, and the total effect (which also takes into
account the indirect effect of satisfaction) is 0.17.
From the results that were obtained, it is interesting to note that, quality as a
motivation and opinions of the price-quality ratio have a positive effect on the intention
to return (both directly and also indirectly through overall satisfaction). In this respect,

Chi-square DF RMSEA SRMR GFI NFI NNFI CFI

10.057 (0.074) 5 0.012 (1.00) 0.021 0.999 0.997 0.983 0.998

Notes: p-value in parentheses; DF ¼ Degrees of freedom; RMSEA ¼ Root mean square error of Table III.
approximation; SRMR ¼ Standardised root mean squared residual; GFI ¼ Goodness of fit; Goodness of fit measures
NFI ¼ Normed fit index; NNFI ¼ Non-normed fit index; CFI ¼ Comparative fit index for original model
EJM to increase the likelihood of a return visit by tourists, decision-makers at destinations
43,5/6 should strive to improve the tourist product on offer.
In summary, the results indicate that both satisfaction and the number of previous
visits influence a tourist’s intention to revisit a destination. The results show that
overall satisfaction is the main direct determinant of the intention to return. Repetition
has a significant influence on the intention to return, both directly and indirectly
680 through its impact on overall satisfaction. However, the indirect effect is a very weak
one.
The results also confirm the multidimensional nature of satisfaction. Tourist
satisfaction with different aspects of a destination has a differing effect on overall
satisfaction. In the case of the Balearic Islands, attributes associated with the climate,
beaches, quality of the destination and hospitality can be seen to be the main
determinants of satisfaction.
As for the relationship between travel motives and satisfaction, the results only
partly confirm those obtained by Yoon and Uysal (2005). In the estimated model,
tourists’ travel motives have a very limited influence on their level of satisfaction.
However, what is confirmed is the former’s direct effect on tourist intentions to return.

Conclusions
In tourism analyses, certain fields of study often involve an analysis of sets of variables
with interdependent relations, in which case SEM is an appropriate method to use.
Standard methods for dealing with this kind of model assume that the variables under
consideration are continuous and normally distributed. This has been seen as a
limitation when using them with surveys where the data for a number of variables is
collected in a categorical way. Meanwhile, procedures for using SEM with categorical
variables have not been extended to tourism research. This study demonstrates one
application of one of these procedures for analysing the determinants of the intention to
return to a tourist destination: a variable that has been measured dichotomously.
Studying the factors that influence a tourist’s intention to return is an area of crucial
importance, particularly in the case of mature destinations where repeat visitors
constitute an important part of the total number of tourist arrivals. In the context of the
Tourist Area Life Cycle Model (Butler, 1980), a high percentage of repeat visitors to
mature holiday destinations has been interpreted as an indicator of stagnation,
considering it to be a sign of the destination’s incapacity to attract new tourists.
However, this interpretation does not seem compatible with the justifiable goal that
destinations seek to forge a sense of loyalty among tourists. Repeat tourists are a key
asset for mature tourist destinations and they should be one of the key focuses of
attention in restructuring processes. The results presented in this study indicate that
two key issues should be taken into account.
First, if, as the results of this study show, satisfaction is the main determinant of the
intention to return, given how interested decision-makers at destinations are in
increasing the likelihood of future visits by tourists, it should encourage them to
dedicate more effort to improving and updating the product on offer in order to
increase satisfaction levels. However, it must be acknowledged that achieving this
objective is not easy, given that tourist satisfaction depends on a number of variables,
such as hospitality factors, quality of environment, etc. Controlling these variables is a
complex and difficult task.
 A second key issue is to determine what aspects of the destination have a greater Tourist
impact on the intention to return. If overall satisfaction can be considered to be a direct intentions to
determinant of the intention to return, this global assessment is made up of satisfaction
with different aspects of the destination. Finding out which aspects have a greater return
impact on the intention to return should be regarded as crucial in the planning process
of restructuring a destination’s holiday product.
In the case of the Balearic Islands, for the first key issue, the results of this study 681
show that the effects of the number of previous visits on satisfaction and the intention
to return are significant, but moderate in strength. The main determinant of a tourist’s
intention to return is the level of satisfaction with the current stay. As for the second
key issue, the results indicate that the level of satisfaction with basic components of the
sun and sand product plays a crucial role on overall satisfaction. Thus, tourist
intentions to return may increase if decision-makers at destinations improve the
performance of the basic attributes that define the sun and sand product.

References
Alegre, J. and Cladera, M. (2006), “Repeat visitation in mature sun and sand holiday
destinations”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 288-97.
Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, M.W. (1990), “Customer satisfaction and retention across firms”,
in Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (Eds), TIMS College of Marketing
Special Interest Conference on Service Marketing, Nashville, TN, September.
Appiah-Adu, K., Fyall, A. and Singh, S. (2000), “Marketing culture and customer retention in the
tourism industry”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 95-113.
Backman, S.J. and Crompton, J.L. (1991), “Differentiating between high, spurious, latent, and
loyalty participants in two leisure activities”, Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 1-17.
Baker, D.A. and Crompton, J.L. (2000), “Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions”, Annals
of Tourism Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 785-804.
Baloglu, S. (2001), “An investigation of a loyalty typology and the multidestination loyalty of
international travellers”, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 41-52.
Bigneé, J.E., Sánchez, M.I. and Sánchez, J. (2001), “Tourism image, evaluation variables and
after-purchase behaviour: inter-relationship”, Tourism Management, Vol. 22 No. 6,
pp. 607-16.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Wiley Series in Probability and
Mathematical Statistics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Brady, M.K. and Robertson, C.J. (2001), “Searching for a consensus on the antecedent role of
service quality and satisfaction: an exploratory cross-national study”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 53-60.
Bramwell, B. (1998), “User satisfaction and product development in urban tourism”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 35-47.
Butler, R. (1980), “The concept of tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for management of
resources”, Canadian Geographer, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 5-12.
Caneen, J.M. (2003), “Cultural determinants of tourism intention to return”, Tourism Analysis,
Vol. 8, pp. 237-42.
Court, B. and Lupton, R.A. (1997), “Customer portfolio development, modelling destination
adopters, inactives and rejecters”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 35-43.
EJM Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.
43,5/6
Danaher, P.J. and Arweiler, N. (1996), “Customer satisfaction in the tourist industry: a case study
of visitors to New Zealand”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 89-93.
Day, G.S. (1969), “A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty”, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 9, pp. 29-35.
682 Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework”,
Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Fayeke, P.C. and Crompton, J.L. (1991), “Image differences between prospective, first-time, and
repeat visitors to the lower Rio Grande Valley”, Journal of Travel Research, Fall, pp. 10-16.
Fielding, K., Pearce, P.L. and Hughes, K. (1992), “Climbing Ayers Rock: relating visitor
motivation, time perception and enjoyment”, The Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 40-52.
Fornell, C. (1992), “A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 6-21.
Gitelson, R.J. and Crompton, J.L. (1984), “Insights into the repeat vacation phenomenon”, Annals
of Tourism Research, Vol. 11, pp. 199-217.
Gyte, D.M. and Phelps, A. (1989), “Patterns of destination repeat business: British tourists in
Mallorca, Spain”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 24-8.
INE. Spanish Statistics Office (2003), Cifras INE, Boletı́n Informativo del INE, May, Madrid.
Jöreskog, K.G. (2005), “Structural equation modeling with ordinal variables using LISREL”,
available at: www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/ordinal.htm
Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (1981), LISREL V. User’s Guide, National Education Resources,
Chicago, IL.
Juaneda, C. (1996), “Estimating the probability of return visits using a survey of tourist
expenditure in the Balearic Islands”, Tourism Economics, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 339-52.
Keaveney, S.M. (1995), “Customer switching behavior in service industries: an exploratory
study”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 71-82.
Kozak, M. (2001), “Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct destinations”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 784-807.
Kozak, M. and Rimmington, M. (2000), “Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an
off-season holiday destination”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 260-9.
Kupek, E. (2005), “Log-linear transformation of binary variables: a suitable input for SEM”,
Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 28-40.
Lau, A.L.S. and McKercher, B. (2004), “Exploration versus acquisition: a comparison of first-time
and repeat visitors”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 279-85.
Mannel, R.C. and Iso Ahola, S.E. (1987), “Psychological nature of leisure and tourism experience”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 14, pp. 314-31.
Mazursky, D. (1989), “Past experience and future tourism decisions”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 333-44.
Milman, A. and Pizam, A. (1995), “The role of awareness and familiarity with a destination:
the central Florida case”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 21-7.
Mitchell, V.W. and Greatorex, M. (1993), “Risk perception and reduction in the purchase of
consumer services”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 179-200.
Moutinho, L. and Trimble, J. (1991), “A probability of revisitation model: the case of winter visits Tourist
to the Grand Canyon”, The Services Industries Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 439-57.
intentions to
Murphy, P., Pritchard, M.P. and Smith, B. (2000), “The destination product and its impact on
traveller perceptions”, Tourism Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 43-52. return
O’Malley, L. (1998), “Can loyalty schemes really build loyalty?”, Marketing Intelligence
& Planning, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 47-55.
Odin, Y., Odin, N. and Valette-Florence, P. (2001), “Conceptual and operational aspects of brand 683
loyalty. An empirical investigation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 75-84.
Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 46-9.
Oliver, R.L. and Swan, J.E. (1989), “Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and satisfaction
in transactions: a field survey approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 21-35.
Oppermann, M. (1998), “Destination threshold potential and the law of repeat visitation”, Journal
of Travel Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 131-7.
Oppermann, M. (2000a), “Tourism destination loyalty”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 78-84.
Oppermann, M. (2000b), “Where psychology and geography interface in tourism research and
theory”, in Woodside, A.G., Grouch, G.I., Mazanec, J.A., Oppermann, M. and Sakai, M.Y.
(Eds), Consumer Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure, CABI Publishing,
Wallingford, pp. 9-38.
Perdue, R.R. (1985), “Segmenting state travel information inquirers by timing of the destination
decision and previous experience”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 6-11.
Petrick, J.F. (2004a), “Are loyal visitors desired visitors?”, Tourism Management, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 463-70.
Petrick, J.F. (2004b), “First timers’ and repeaters’ perceived value”, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 463-70.
Postma, A. and Jenkins, A.K. (1997), “Improving the tourist’s experience: quality management
applied in tourist destinations”, in Murphy, P.E. (Ed.), Quality Management in Urban
Tourism, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 183-97.
Pritchard, M.P. (2003), “The attitudinal and behavioral consequences of destination
performance”, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 61-73.
Pritchard, M.P., Howard, D.R. and Havitz, M.E. (1992), “Loyalty measurement: a critical
examination and theoretical extensions”, Leisure Science, Vol. 14, pp. 155-64.
Reid, L. and Reid, S. (1993), “Communicating tourism supplier services: building repeat tourist
relationships”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 2 Nos 2/3, pp. 3-19.
Reisenger, Y. and Turner, L. (1999), “Structural equation modelling with LISREL: application in
tourism”, Tourism Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 71-88.
Ross, E.L.D. and Iso Ahola, S.E. (1991), “Sightseeing tourists’ motivation and satisfaction”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 226-37.
Ross, G.F. (1993), “Destination evaluation and vacation preferences”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 477-89.
Solomon, M. (1996), Consumer Behavior, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Sonmez, S.F. and Graefe, A.R. (1998), “Determining future travel behavior from past travel
experience and perceptions of risk and safety”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 171-7.
EJM Steiger, J.H. (1990), “Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation
approach”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 173-80.
43,5/6 Um, S., Chon, K. and Ro, Y. (2006), “Antecedents of revisit intention”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 1141-58.
Weiermair, K. (2001), “Improvements in competitiveness for tourism enterprises through new
forms and regimes of governance”, paper presented at Seminar on Tourism Policy and
684 Economic Growth, OECD, Berlin, 6-7 March.
Woodside, A.G. and MacDonald, R. (1994), “General systems framework of customer choice
processes for tourism services”, in Gasser, R.V. and Weiermair, K. (Eds), Spoilt for Choice.
Decision-Making Processes and Preference Changes of Tourists. Intertemporal and
Intercountry Perspectives, Kultur Verlag, Vienna, pp. 30-59.
Yoon, Y. and Uysal, M. (2005), “An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on
destination loyalty: a structural model”, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 45-56.

Further reading
Bitner, M.J. (1990), “Evaluating service encounter: the effects of physical surroundings and
employee responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 69-82.
Camerer, C.F. and Loewenstein, G. (2004), “Behavioral economics: past, present, future”,
in Camerer, C.F., Loewenstein, G. and Rabin, M. (Eds), Advances in Behavioral Economics,
Princeton University Press, New York, NY.
Chon, K. (1989), “Understanding recreational travelers’ motivation, attitude and satisfaction”,
The Tourist Review, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 3-7.
Crompton, J.L. and Love, L.L. (1995), “The predictive validity of alternative approaches to
evaluating the quality of a festival”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 11-24.
Decrop, A. (2000), “Tourists’ decision making and behavior processes”, in Pizam, A. and
Mansfeld, Y. (Eds), Consumer Behavior in Travel and Tourism, The Haworth Hospitality
Press, New York, NY, pp. 103-33.
Decrop, A. and Snelders, D. (2005), “A grounded typology of vacation decision making”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 121-32.
Inman, J.J. and Zeelenberg, M. (2002), “Regret in repeat purchase versus switching decisions:
the attenuating role of decision justifiability”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 116-28.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), “Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk”,
Econometrica, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 263-91.
Laibson, D. and Zeckhauser, R. (1998), “Amos Tversky and the ascent of behavioral economics”,
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 7-47.
Lee, C. and Allen, L. (1999), “Understanding individuals’ attachment to selected destinations:
an application of place attachment”, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 4 Nos 3/4, pp. 173-85.
McFadden, D. (1999), “Rationality for economists?”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 19
Nos 1-3, pp. 73-105.
Oppermann, M. (1999), “Predicting destination choice – a discussion of destination loyalty”,
Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 51-65.
Samuelson, W. and Zeckhauser, R. (1988), “Status quo and omission biases”, Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty, Vol. 1, March, pp. 7-59.
Sirakaya, E. and Woodside, A.G. (2005), “Building and testing theories of decision making by
travellers”, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 815-32.
Swan, J.E. and Trawick, F. (1981), “Disconfirmation of expectations and satisfaction with a retail Tourist
service”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 57, Fall, pp. 49-67.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974), “Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases”,
intentions to
Science, Vol. 185 No. 4157, pp. 1124-31. return

About the authors

Joaquı́n Alegre is Professor in the Department of Applied Economics at the University of the 685
Balearic Islands, Palma de Mallorca, Spain. Research interests include topics concerning
microeconomic analysis of tourist demand, tourists’ loyalty, and tourism industry. Teaching
fields are in applied statistics and econometrics.
Magdalena Cladera is Professor in the Department of Applied Economics at the University of
the Balearic Islands, Palma de Mallorca, Spain. Research interests include topics concerning
microeconomic analysis of tourist demand, tourists’ loyalty, and tourism industry. Teaching
fields are in applied statistics and econometrics. Magdalena Cladera is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: mcladera@uib.es

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints