Temporal destination revisit intention: The effects of novelty seeking and satisfaction

Abstract

Destination revisit intention has been viewed as an important research topic both in academia and the tourism industry. It is important to observe tourists’ revisit intentions from a time perspective because the intention often changes over time. To understand the formation of temporally changing destination revisit intention, this study explored the effects of tourists’ novelty-seeking and destination satisfaction on the revisit intentions measured on short-term, mid-term, and long-term bases. The results indicated that satisfaction was a direct antecedent of short-term revisit intention, but not of mid-term or of long-term revisit intention, and that novelty seeking was a significant antecedent of mid-term revisit intention that was connected to long-term revisit intention. The roles of novelty seeking and destination satisfaction in establishing and reinforcing destination revisit intention as well as developing long-term commitment were discussed as well.

Introduction

Repeat purchase has been accepted as one of the most important subjects in contemporary marketing. In many studies, benefits of repeat purchase are often noted as (1) attracting previous customers is more cost-effective than gaining new ones; (2) 5% increase in customer retention could increase profit by 25–85%; and (3) customer retention tends to yield positive word-of-mouth referral (Reichheld & Sasser, 1990; Shoemaker & Lewis, 1999).

In tourism, repeat visits have also been accepted as an important phenomenon at the level of the economy as a whole and for the individual attraction (Darnell & Johnson, 2001). Indeed, many travel destinations rely heavily on repeat visitors (Darnell & Johnson, 2001; Gitelson & Crompton, 1984). To understand why travelers make repeat visits, many studies have focused on the antecedents of destination revisit intention in recent years. The studies have identified major antecedents of revisit intention including satisfaction (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Kozak, 2001; Petrick, Morais, & Norman, 2001; Yuksel, 2001), quality related constructs (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Chen & Gursoy, 2001; Frochot & Hughes, 2000; Yuksel, 2001), perceived value (Petrick, Morais, & Norman, 2001), past vacation experience (Chen & Gursoy, 2001; Kozak, 2001; Petrick et al., 2001), safety (Chen & Gursoy, 2001), image (Milman & Pizam, 1995; Ross, 1993), attachment (Petrick, 2004), and cultural difference (Chen & Gursoy, 2001; Reisinger & Turner, 1998).

As suggested in the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB), behavioral intentions signify motivational components of a behavior and represent the degree of conscious effort that a person will exert in order to perform a behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). In turn, behavioral intention depends upon cognitive evaluations of the behavior (attitude) and perceptions of social pressure (subjective norm) (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Warshaw and Davis (1985, pp. 214) defined behavioral intentions as “the degree to which a person has formulated conscious plans to perform or not perform some specified future behavior.” That is, intention to perform a behavior is the proximal cause of such a behavior (Shim, Eastlick, Lotz, & Warrington, 2001). Including past behavior in the TRA may increase the explained variance in behavior (Bagozzi, 1981; Fredricks & Dossett, 1983), but Ajzen (1987) maintained that past behavior offers little theoretical content in explaining what lies behind a behavior since it often shows superficial patterns, not the causes of human action.

Some empirical studies have examined the relationship between behavioral intention and actual behavior. Using meta-analytic techniques, Sheppard, Hartwick, and Warshaw (1988) extensively reviewed research literature that included 87 cases for the predictability of intention and behavior, and reported a mean correlation of 0.53 between intention and behavior. Van den Putte (1991) conducted a more extensive meta-analysis based on 113 research papers and provided a mean correlation of 0.62, which indicated that behavior could be reasonably predicted from intention. Another meta-analysis by Quelette and Wood (1998) agreed that behavior is guided by intentions. Moreover, Eagly and Chaiken (1993) suggested that TRA and TPB could be used to predict sets of behavior aggregated over time from intention for the corresponding time period. For example, intention that is queried for six-month period can predict behavior for the same 6-month period. On the other hand, based on Wind & Lerner's (1979) claim, the relationships between behavior intentions and actual behavior may differ, meaning the relationship could be weak. However, it seems to be generally agreed that understanding tourist behavioral intention is critical in predicting future behavior. In the same vein, revisit intention can serve as a useful tool in predicting future revisit behavior.

Even though the extant research findings are well focused on the determinants of repeat visit intention, understanding tourists’ revisit intention and their behavior remains limited. Particularly, previous research has rarely addressed temporal issues related to destination revisit (Oppermann, 2000). Oppermann (1999, p. 58) suggested that time is significant in tourist retention and loyalty because “time firstly plays a role in identifying appropriate time intervals during which a purchase may or may not take place”. Darnell and Johnson (2001, p. 125) also noted the significance of temporal viewpoint to destination management, indicating, “the time profile of repeat visiting has important implications for visit flows.” Therefore, in order to better understand temporal destination revisit intention (TDRI), this study explored the effects of tourists’ novelty seeking and destination satisfaction on TDRI, which is measured with short-term, mid-term, and long-term revisit intentions.