Abstract

This study examined the correlation between tourists’ perception/evaluation of destination attributes and their overall satisfaction. Using the data gathered from 34 previous studies and applying the metaanalysis method, this study found that destination image, destination quality, and destination attribute satisfaction have significant positive effects on the tourists’ overall satisfaction, whether the latter variable is singly or multiply scaled; all the overall estimates have small to medium sizes. However, three issues should be taken into account when interpreting this correlation. First, not all of the components of the attribute-based constructs (destination image, destination quality, destination attribute satisfaction) can have significant effects on the overall tourist satisfaction. Second, the unfavourable attributes of a destination may have some negative influences on tourist satisfaction. Third, the attribute-based constructs represent the external/common antecedents of overall tourist satisfactions; their predicting power may be eliminated when controlled by other internal/personal forces, such as personal values. Implications for future research and destination attributes management are discussed based on these observations.

Highlights

  • Within the tourism literature, many individual efforts have been made in examining the linear relationships among destination image, tourist satisfaction and tourist intention (Bigné, Sánchez, and Sánchez, 2001; Chen and Tsai, 2007; Chi and Qu, 2008; Jin, Lee, and Lee, 2015; Liu, Li, and Yang, 2015; Park and Njite, 2010; Prayag and Ryan, 2012; Wang and Hsu, 2010)

  • Two syntheses have been attempted to Nghiêm-Phú, B. (2018) / European Journal of Tourism Research 19 pp. 98-115 verify the relationship between destination image and tourist intention (Zhang, Fu, Cai, and Lu, 2014), and between satisfaction and tourist intention (Dolnicar, Coltman, and Sharma, 2015)

  • The researchers defined five categories of destination image, and three types of tourist loyalty. Their analysis revealed that almost all the image components had some significant effects on tourist loyalty; joint image, did not have a significant influence on attitudinal loyalty

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Many individual efforts have been made in examining the linear relationships among destination image, tourist satisfaction and tourist intention (image satisfaction intention to revisit and/or recommend) (Bigné, Sánchez, and Sánchez, 2001; Chen and Tsai, 2007; Chi and Qu, 2008; Jin, Lee, and Lee, 2015; Liu, Li, and Yang, 2015; Park and Njite, 2010; Prayag and Ryan, 2012; Wang and Hsu, 2010). The researchers defined five categories of destination image (cognitive, affective, overall, joint cognitive and affective, and self-congruity), and three types of tourist loyalty (attitudinal, behavioural, and composite). Dolnicar, Coltman, and Sharma (2015) used the database of 25 papers published in Annals of Tourism Research, Journal of Travel Research, and Tourism Management between 2002 and 2011. The outcome of their analysis showed that satisfaction (tourist satisfaction, overall satisfaction, recovery satisfaction, and satisfaction) and intention (behavioural intention, loyalty, word-of-mouth, and intention) had a significant correlation. No study has been done to synthesise the correlation between destination image and tourist satisfaction

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call