The Russian Tourist Market

Transcription

1 Conative Image and Personal Normative Belief in determining the Intention to Revisit a Tourism Destination The Russian Tourist Market Nikolaos Stylos a, Chris Vassiliadis b, Andreas Andronikidis b a Department for Marketing, Innovation, Leisure and Enterprise, University of Wolverhampton Business School, UK b Department of Business Administration, University of Macedonia, Greece AMA SERVSIG 2014 June 2014, Thessaloniki, Greece

2 PRESENT THE LATEST ON TOURISM DESTINATIONS GROWTH PROPOSE A MODEL THAT BETTER EXPLAINS TOURISTS DECISION MAKING OF DESTINATION IN VACATIONS SELECTION PROCEDURE SHOW THE IMPORTANCE OF CONATIVE IMAGE & PNB PROVIDE USEFUL INSIGHTS & PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR DESTINATION MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS (DMOs) 2/15 LEARNING OUTCOMES

3 WORLD (2012) GREECE (2012) DIRECT CONTRIBUTION: US$ 2.1 tn DIRECT EMPLOYMENT: 101 mn jobs (3.4% total employment) TOTAL CONTRIBUTION: US$ 6.6 tn (9.3% GDP) TOTAL EMPLOYMENT: 260 mn Jobs (8.7% total employment) INVESTMENTS: US$ 760 bn (4.7% total) VISITOR EXPORTS: US$ 1.2 tn (5.4%) PROJ. CONTR. INCREASE ( 13): 3.2% (WTTC & UNWTO, 2013) DIRECT CONTRIBUTION: US$ 16.2 bn DIRECT EMPLOYMENT: 330,500 jobs (8.8% total employment) TOTAL CONTRIBUTION: US$ 40.9 bn (16.4% GDP) TOTAL EMPLOYMENT: 689,000 jobs (18.3% total employment) INVESTMENTS: US$ 4.2 bn (13.8% total) VISITOR EXPORTS: US$ 15.4 bn (26.5%) PROJ. CONTR. INCREASE ( 13): 0.6% (WTTC & SETE, 2013) 3/15 TOURISM FOR THE WORLD & GREECE

4 HYPOTHESIZED THEORETICAL RELATIONSHIPS DIRECT FACTORS NEW IN PROPOSED MODEL AFFECTIVE DESTINATION IMAGE EMOTIONAL AFFECT COGNITIVE DESTINATION IMAGE PERCEIVED DESTINATION QUALITY INTENTION TO REVISIT TOURISM DESTINATION CONATIVE DESTINATION IMAGE PERSONAL NORMATIVE BELIEF 4/15 INITIAL THEORETICAL MODEL

5 SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM: POSITIVISM QUALITATIVE METHODS FOR CONSTRUCTS SPECIFICATION QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGY: HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE FINAL SELF-ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRE HYPOTHESES TESTING CRITICAL INCIDENT TECHNIQUE (CIT) REPORT OF REAL INCIDENTS (POSITIVE or NEGATIVE) 81 undergraduate students, vacations without parents DELPHI METHOD PANEL OF 6 INDUSTRY EXPERTS, 3 ROUND-REVIEWS OF SCALES 5/15 PILOT STUDY IMPROVEMENT OF QUESTIONS PHRASING & INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL ITEMS 41 Russian tourists departing from Int. Airport MAKEDONIA via charter flights to airports of Russian Federation METHODOLOGY & DESIGN OF RESEARCH

6 2. TYPE OF INVESTIGATION 4. NATURE OF STUDY 6. TIME HORIZON 8. DATA COLLECTION 10 Latent variables initially assumed (factors) 45 Observed variables initially assessed Exploratory Descriptive Hypotheses Testing Invariance Analysis Cross-sectional (oneshot) 32 consecutive days of on-site field research Self-administered questionnaire with closeended questions (except for a few open-ended control ones) 1. PROBLEM STATEMENT 9. DATA ANALYSIS Specify factors for selecting a Tourism destination (Revisit intention) Descriptive Statistics Reliability, Validity, Normality analyses Exploratory factor analysis Confirmatory factor analysis Hypotheses testing via Structural Equation Modeling 3. STUDY SETTING Country: Greece Int. Airport MAKEDONIA Departing charter-flights 35 undergraduate field researchers, working it teams of 5 2 sponsors 24 hr access to departure lounges and TRANSIT area of the airport 5. SAMPLING DESIGN Inbound tourists flying back to Russian Fed Sample Size: 1204 using 1) General assessment, 2) SEM-related, 3) Timeseries on real airport data On-site Intercept Method 7. MEASUREMENT & MEASURES Factors scaling Measurement items design 6/15 DESIGN OF QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH (adapted from Sekaran and Bougie, 2010)

7 45 INDICATORS 62 LATENT VARIABLES (10 constructs + 52 error terms) -,15,01 -,15,08,22,16,24 -,03,06,58,06,14,17,17 -,07, PARAMETERS -,10 e23,56 CΙ5 e22,57 CΙ19 e21,40 CΙ22 e20,46 CΙ23 e19,45 CΙ24 e18,56 CΙ25 e17,53 e16,23 CΙ6 CΙ10 e14,47 CΙ16 e13,37 CΙ17 e12,54 CΙ18 e11,47 CΙ21 e10,54 CΙ27 e9,44 CΙ8 e8,27 CΙ11 e7,30 CΙ12 e5,58 CΙ14 e4,51 CΙ28 e3,33 CΙ1 e2,55 CΙ2 e1,70 CΙ3,67,75,76,64,68,75,72,48,61,69,74,68,74,66,52,55,76,72,57,74,84 Attractive Conditions e37,91,95,97 Must-be Conditions,98 e38 e39,82,68 Appealing Activities,70,49 Natural Environment e40 Cognitive Image,32 res_52 e24,17 e25 -,18 e26 -,12-,02,11 -,02,03 e27,51 -,27e28 e29 e30 e48,06 e47,01 e46 -,15 -,15,20 e45 -,13,21 -,05 e44,17 e43,19,24,07 e42 e41,50 AI1,40 AI2,63,71,64 AI4,85,79,92 AI5,89,95,91 AI6,82,61 AI7,37 AI8,61,47,73 CnI11,54 CnI10,68,85,74 CnI9,60,83,77 CnI6,49,70,65 CnI5,42,77 CnI4,68,59 CnI3,47 CnI2,44 Affective Image Conative Image,27,93,73 Total Destination Impact,88,77 EA e31,76,57 PQ e32,86 Personal Normative Belief,77,59 PNB3 e51 res_53,68,46 PNB2 e50,45,63,40 PNB1 e49,30,38 res_54,41,94,89 Int1,85,92 Intention to,89 Int2,78 Revisit Destination Int3,70,84 Int4 e36 e35 e34,08 e33 -,03,15 7/15 FINAL STRUCTURAL MODEL

8 Model Fit Indices Normed Chi-Square Root Mean Square Error of Approximation Comparative Fit Index Parsimony Normed Fit Index Tucker-Lewis Index Standardized Root Mean Residual Criteria χ 2 / df<5 0.05< RMSEA <0.08 (acceptable fit) RMSEA <0.05 (good fit) RMSEA <0.07 (good fit) with CFI>0.90 CFI >0.90 (acceptable fit) CFI >0.95 (good fit) PNFI>0.60 (acceptable fit) TLI>0.90 (good fit) SRMR<0.08 (with CFI>0.92) Coefficients Criteria Cronbach s alpha (Internal Consistency) 0.70 (George, 2003) 0.60 (Robinson et al., 1991) Composite Reliability (CR) (Hair et al., 2010) 0.60 (Bagozzi and Kimmel, 1995) Factor Loadings (Convergent Validity) Average Variance Extracted (AVE) (Convergent Validity) Average Variance Extracted (AVE) (Discriminant Validity) 0.50 and ideally, 0.71 (Hair et al., 2010) 0.50 (Gursoy and Gavcar, 2003) 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) 0.50 & CR > AVE (Dillon and Goldstein, 1984) AVE > MSV & AVE > ASV (Hair et al., 2010; Holmes-Smith, 2001) 8/15 MODEL FIT INDICES AND CRITERIA FOR RELIABILITY & VALIDITY

9 HYPOTHESIZED THEORETICAL RELATIONSHIPS DIRECT FACTORS NEW IN PROPOSED MODEL AFFECTIVE DESTINATION IMAGE COGNITIVE DESTINATION IMAGE TOTAL DESTINATION IMPACT INTENTION TO REVISIT TOURISM DESTINATION H 2 H 1 CONATIVE DESTINATION IMAGE PERSONAL NORMATIVE BELIEF Hypothesis Description Result H 1 Personal normative belief positively affects tourists intention to revisit destination Confirmed H 2 The explanatory value of the model in reflecting intention to revisit destination on behalf of Russian tourists is significant by including conative image and personal normative belief Confirmed 9/15 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES on FINAL PROPOSED MODEL

10 Fit Indices Measurement Model Structural Model Criteria χ 2 / df for p< for p<0.001 <3 (<5) CFI >0.90 PNFI >0.60 TLI >0.90 RMSEA <0.08 SRMR <0.08 (CFI>0.92) Endogenous Latent Variables R 2 Attractive Conditions.907 Appealing Activities.677 Natural Environment.492 Must-be Conditions.968 Total Destination Impact.730 Personal Normative Belief.861 Intention to Revisit destination /15 FIT INDICES FOR THE MODEL TESTED & SQUARED MULTIPLE CORRELATIONS

11 TOURISM DESTINATION PRODUCT PLANNERS SHOULD REINFORCE DESTINATION S POSITIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND MINIMIZE DRAWBACKS. 1) Good climate, great beaches, beautiful landscape 2) Availability of hotels, Relaxing, Local cuisine, family-oriented, parties 3) Good quality infrastructure, political stability, standards hygiene & cleanliness 4) Cultural attractions & monuments, opportunities for sports, wine-tourism through: Pop-culture tourism (movies, documentaries, photography, arts) 11/15 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS 1

12 DMO MARKETING MANAGERS SHOULD PROMOTE TOURISM DESTINATION USING INTERACTIVE MEDIA INVITING INDIVIDUALS TO IMAGINE THEMSELVES EXPERIENCING THE DESTINATION PRIOR TO TRIP. 1) New media (e.g. internet, websites with flash videos, interactive TV, DVDs) 2) Social Networks (e.g. facebook, twitter, wayn) 3) Blogs and internet fora 4) Virtual game-worlds 12/15 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS 2

13 DMO MANAGERS NEED TO CAREFULLY MONITOR HOW THEIR TARGET MARKETS INTERACT WITH FAMILY, FRIENDS, COLLEGUES, PARTNERS, ONLINE CONTACTS. 1) Surveys (e.g. online, phone, personal interview) 2) Word-of-mouth 3) Get info through social media 13/15 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS 3

14 THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION! Nikolaos Stylos, Ph.D. 14/15 The University of Wolverhampton February 7, 2014

15 REFERENCES Aarts, H., Verplanken, B., & Knippenberg, A. (1998). Predic>ng behavior from ac>ons in the past: Repeated decision making or a mafer of habit?. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 15, pp Ajzen, I. (1985). From inten9ons to ac9ons: A theory of planned behavior (pp ). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organiza9onal behavior and human decision processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and opera>on of axtudes. Annual review of psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp Bagozzi, R. (1992). The self- regula>on of axtudes, inten>ons, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp Cohen, J. (1988). Sta9s9cal Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. (2 nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing. Cronin Jr, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer sa>sfac>on on consumer behavioral inten>ons in service environments. Journal of retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, actude, inten9on, and behavior: An introduc9on to theory and research. Boston: Addison Wesley. Golob, T. (2003). Structural Equa>on Modeling for Travel Behavior Research. Transporta9on Research Part B, Vol. 37, pp Hair, J. F. Jr., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson (2010). Mul9variate Data Analysis (7 th ed.). New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Pren>ce Hall. Jang, S. S., Bai, B., Hu, C., & Wu, C. M. E. (2009). Affect, travel mo>va>on, and travel inten>on: A senior market. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp Jang, S. & Feng, R. (2007). Temporal des>na>on revisit inten>on: the effects of novelty seeking and sa>sfac>on, Tourism Management, Vol. 28, pp Malhotra, N. K., & McCort, J. D. (2001). A cross- cultural comparison of behavioral inten>on models- Theore>cal considera>on and an empirical inves>ga>on. Interna9onal Marke9ng Review, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp McNamara, J. F. (1992). Sample Sizes for School Preference Survey. Interna9onal Journal of Educa9on Reform, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp Mou>nho, L. (1987). Consumer behaviour in tourism. European journal of marke9ng, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp Niininen, O., Szivas, E., & Riley, M. (2004). Des>na>on loyalty and repeat behaviour: an applica>on of op>mum s>mula>on measurement. Interna9onal Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp Swan, J. (1981). Disconfirma>on of expecta>ons and sa>sfac>on with a retail service. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp Triandis, H. C. (1977, 1980). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. World Travel & Tourism Council (2013). Travel & Tourism Economic Impact World. hfp:// accessed Feb 1, 2014.