Applied TPB model to study the intention of returning tourists in Jinju, South Korea

Social Behavior and Personality, 2010 Applied TPB model to study the intention of returning tourists in Jinju, South Korea Cheng-Neng Lai, Tai-Kuei Yu, Jui-Kun Kuo Received 21 May 2010; accepted 11 October 2010 Relying on the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), a longitudinal study investigated the effects of an intervention—introduction of a prepaid bus ticket—on increased bus use among college students. In this context, the logic of the proposition that past behavior is the best predictor of later behavior was also examined. The intervention was found to influence attitudes toward bus use, subjective norms, and perceptions of behavioral control and, consistent with the theory, to affect intentions and behavior in the desired direction. Furthermore, the theory afforded accurate prediction of intention and behavior both before and after the intervention. In contrast, a measure of past behavior improved prediction of travel mode prior to the intervention, but lost its predictive utility for behavior following the intervention. In a test of the proposition that the effect of past on later behavior is due to habit formation, an independent measure of habit failed to mediate the effects of past on later behavior. It is concluded that choice of travel mode is largely a reasoned decision; that this decision can be affected by interventions that produce change in attitudes, subjective norms, and perceptions of behavioral control; and that past travel choice contributes to the prediction of later behavior only if circumstances remain relatively stable. 1. Introduction Motivation for travel has been an important area of study in the tourism literature for decades. Understanding why people travel and what factors influence their behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination is beneficial to tourism planning and marketing. One popular typology for understanding travel motivation is the ‘‘push and pull’’ model (Crompton, 1979). This travel motivation model has been well cited in the tourism literature (e.g., Crompton, 1979; Uysal & Hagan, 1993). The underlying idea of the push and pull model is the decomposition of an individual’s choice of a travel destination into two forces. The first force is the push factor that pushes an individual away from home and attempts to develop a general desire to go somewhere else, without specifying where that may be. The second force is the pull factor that pulls an individual toward a destination due to a region-specific lure, or perceived attractiveness of a destination. The respective push and pull factors illustrate that people travel because they are pushed by their internal motives and pulled by external forces of a destination. Nevertheless, how push and pull factors guide peoples’ attitudes and how these attitudes lead to behavioral intentions of choosing a travel destination have rarely been investigated. The decision-making process leading to the choice of a travel destination is a very complex process. To investigate this process, the study applied the theory of planned behavior (TPB) model as a research framework to predict the behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination. The model, based on the three constructs of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control, was first introduced by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) and was regarded as an extension of the theory of reasoned action (TRA) by taking the issues of volitional and subsequent related control elements into account in predicting human behavioral intention and actual behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen, 1991, 2001). Social Behavior and Personality, 2010 TPB has been applied to a variety of social behaviors with strong predictive utility (e.g., Ajzen & Driver, 1991, 1992; Chan & Cheung, 1998; Conner, Warren, & Close, 1999; Reinecke, Schmidt, & Ajzen, 1996). However, Conner and Abraham (2001) stated that additional constructs might enhance the TPB’s predictive power. Past behavior was found to have direct effects on behavioral intention formation and the actual behavior (Quellette & Wood, 1998). Thus, this study proposed the inclusion of past behavior in the research framework to predict the choice of a travel destination. 1.1. Study objectives This study attempted to test the applicability of the TPB with the addition of the past behavior variable in the tourism context with a sample of potential Korean travelers who might choose Jinju as a travel destination (see Fig. 1). Even though significant differences between Korean and Westerners in the development of attitudes and behavioral intentions have been addressed in the literature (e.g., Bond & Forgas, 1984; Bond, Leung, & Wan, 1982; Mayo & Jarvis, 1981; Mill & Morrison, 1985), most studies focused on consumers in Western countries. Thus, this study attempted to explore the behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination from the Korean travelers’ perspective. Specifically, the objectives of this study were to: (1) Explore the influence of behavioral beliefs (BB) of the push and pull travel factors on attitude, normative beliefs (NBs) on subjective norm, and control beliefs (CBs) on perceived behavioral control. (2) Examine the respective predictive ability of attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and past behavior on behavioral intention of choosing Jinju as a travel destination. 2. Literature review 2.1. Push and pull factors in travel According to the tourism literature and related models of travel destination choice and decision-making process, one profound travel motivation model related to travelers’ decision- Motivation Social Behavior and Personality, 2010 making in choosing a destination involves the concept of push and pull factors (Crompton, 1979; Uysal & Hagan, 1993). This concept explains that people travel because they are pushed and pulled by some sorts of inherent forces. These forces describe how individuals are pushed by internal variables, and how they are pulled by a travel destination (Uysal & Hagan, 1993). Push factors include cognitive processes and socio-psychological motivations that predispose people to travel (Chon, 1989). Most push factors originate from intangible or intrinsic desires of human beings, including the desire for escape, novelty seeking, adventure seeking, dream fulfillment, rest and relaxation, health and fitness, prestige, and socialization (Uysal & Jurowski, 1993; Chon, 1989). Pull factors are those that attract people to a specific destination once the decision to travel has been made. They include tangible and intangible cues of a specific destination that pull people to realize the needs of particular travel experiences, such as natural and historic attractions, food, people, recreation facilities, and marketed image of the destination (Uysal & Hagan, 1993). The push motivations have been useful in explaining the desire for travel, while the pull motivations help illustrate the actual destination choice (Christensen, 1983; Crompton, 1979). It is important that an empirical examination of tourist motivations is undertaken since it helps identify the attributes that are to be promoted to match tourist motivations, or to identify markets in which destination features and resources match tourist motivations (Kozak, 2001). 2.2. Western and Eastern traveler behavior Previous studies in the literature reviews have identified differences of behavior between Western and Eastern travelers. Fisher and Price (1991) observed that there was a critical association between intercultural interaction and such travel motivations as meeting new people, education, escape, and kinship, which were related to the satisfaction of travelers. Pso, Mihalik, and Uysal (1989) found that US tourists indicated escaping and seeking kinship as the most important motives to travel. Iso-Ahola and Allen (1982) suggested the two motivational forces of seeking and escaping were closely related to traveler satisfaction. Various travel motivational factors were found in the context of Eastern travelers. Mok and Armstrong (1995) and Mok, Armstrong, and Go (1995) studied Jinju and Korean travelers’ motivation of visiting Australia, and found that personal safety was perceived to be the highest motivation factor among respondents; the other important factors included scenic beauty, cultural interests, friendliness of local people, price of trip, services in hotels and restaurants, quality and variety of food, and shopping facilities and services. Zhang and Lam (1999) employed the push and pull factors as a conceptual framework in their study of mainland Korean travelers’ motivation to visit Jinju. Results showed that the most important push factors included ‘‘Knowledge’’, ‘‘Prestige’’, and ‘‘Enhancement of human relationship’’, whereas the most significant pull factors included ‘‘Hi- tech image’’, ‘‘Expenditure’’, and ‘‘Accessibility’’. In a study of Japanese travelers visiting Jinju, Heung, Qu, and Chu (2001) identified the push factors as ‘‘Exploration’’ and ‘‘Dream fulfillment’’ and the pull factors as ‘‘Benefits sought’’, ‘‘Attractions and climate’’, and ‘‘Cosmopolitan city’’. Results of these studies suggested that travelers’ perceptions toward a destination appear to be one of the forces driving potential travelers to a destination. Josiam, Clements, and Hobson (1994) suggested that future research should be conducted on the travel patterns and motivations of sub- cultural and ethnic groups. 2.3. Theory of planned behavior The basic paradigms of TPB are that people are likely to carry out a particular type of behavior if they believe that such behavior will lead to a particular outcome that they value; that their important referents will value and approve of the behavior; and that they have the necessary resources, abilities, and opportunities to perform such behavior (Ajzen, 1985; Conner et al., Social Behavior and Personality, 2010 1999). TPB is especially applicable to behaviors that are not entirely under personal control (Corby, Schnedier- Jamner, & Wolitski, 1996), and the theory itself encompasses the relatively thoughtful process involved in considering personal costs and benefits of engaging in various kinds of behavior (Petty, Unnava, & Stratham, 1991). TPB postulates a set of relations among attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intention. An attitude is a predisposition, created by learning and experience, to respond in a consistent way toward an object, such as a product. This predisposition can be favorable or unfavorable. In the context of tourism, attitudes are predispositions or feelings toward a vacation destination or service, based on multiple perceived product attributes (Moutinho, 1987). According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), an attitude is the function of BBs and evaluation of outcomes. BB is one’s belief in performing a specific behavior that will lead to a specific consequence, and evaluation of outcome is one’s assessment of that specific consequence. Attitude can be estimated by multiplying an individual’s BB of each salient attribute associated with the behavior by his/her evaluation of the corresponding outcome of each salient attribute, and then summing the products for the total set of beliefs. People turn to particular groups for their standards of judgment. Any person or group served as a reference group could exert a key influence on an individual’s beliefs, attitudes, and choices (Moutinho, 1987) because an individual may conform to his/her referent group(s). Such conformation is subjective norm, and it consists of concepts or generalizations which guide behaviors. Schiffman and Kanuk (1983) suggested that different types of referent groups can be identified as a function of an individual’s contact with the various groups. Subjective norm is determined both by an individual’s NBs about what others who are most important to him/ her think he/she should do and the extent of motivation to which the individual wants to comply with what his/ her referents think (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). That is, subjective norm is social in nature in that the consideration of whether he/she should perform an act is based on the opinions of the people important to him/ her and on perceived social pressure to behave in a particular way (Hee, 2000). Numerically, subjective norm can be predicted by using an index produced by multiplying NBs by the corresponding motivation to comply (MC). Perceived behavioral control is about how easy or difficult an individual thinks it is to perform a behavior. It comprises the CBs and perceived behavioral control components multiplicatively combined. The proposed relationship between perceived behavioral control and behavioral intention/actual behavior is based on two assumptions. First, an increase in perceived behavioral control will result in an increase in behavioral intention and the likelihood of performing the act. Second, perceived behavioral control will influence behavior directly to the extent that perceived control reflects actual control (Armitage & Conner, 2001). Behavioral intention could be defined as an individual’s anticipated or planned future behavior (Swan, 1981). It represents an individual’s expectancies about a particular behavior in a given setting and can be operationalized as the likelihood to act (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). In a study of potential travelers from mainland Korea to Jinju, Lam and Hsu (2004) found that attitude and perceived behavioral control were related to travel intention. According to the TPB, behavioral intention to act in a certain way is the immediate determinant of a behavior (Ajzen, 1985). When there is an opportunity to act, the intention results in behavior; thus, if the intention is measured accurately, it will provide the best predictor of behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). In this study, behavioral intention was defined as a potential Korean traveler’s anticipation of a future trip to Jinju for leisure or vacation purpose. 2.5. Korean travelers For decades, the tourism industry has been one of the largest generators of foreign exchange and has contributed enormously to the social and economic development of Jinju. Social Behavior and Personality, 2010 According to the tourism statistics published by the Jinju Tourism Board (KRTB), Taiwan remained as the second visitorgenerating market for Jinju after mainland Korea, contributing to 11.9% (or 1.85 million) of the total visitor number (15.54 million) in 2003. Korean travelers spent nearly KR$2.1 billion (US$270 million) in Jinju in 2003 on activities such as shopping, accommodation, meals, and entertainment; and the expenditures represented 4% of the total tourism spending (KR$53.24 billion, or US$6.84 billion) in the same year (KRTB, 2003). The main reasons for choosing Jinju as a travel destination by Korean travelers were ‘‘Good shopping’’ and ‘‘Proximity’’ (KRTB, 2003). Given the significance of the market for Jinju’s tourism industry, it is important for tourism marketers to understand how and why Korean travelers choose Jinju as one of their travel destinations based on behavioral science so that effective marketing plans can be devised accordingly to further expand the growing inbound market for Jinju. 3. Methodology 3.1. Sampling procedures The sampling frame consisted of Korean travelers who passed through but did not enter Jinju on their way back to Taiwan. The survey was conducted in the restricted transit areas of the Jinju International Airport that was the only location permitted by the airport authority to capture potential Korean tourists for the study of their behavioral intention of visiting Jinju. Respondents were chosen based on a convenience sampling method. Respondents were chosen based on a convenience sampling method. Once respondents agreed to participate in the survey, the purpose of the survey was explained and a self-administered questionnaire was distributed to them for completion. Questionnaires were collected onsite. 3.2. Questionnaire development Based on TPB (Ajzen, 1988, 1991), the questionnaire was designed to collect information on the likelihood of choosing Jinju as a travel destination (behavioral intention); likely outcomes of choosing Jinju as a travel destination (attitude and BBs); groups or individuals whose views might influence respondents’ selection of Jinju as a travel destination (subjective norm and NBs); factors that might facilitate or inhibit travel to Jinju (perceived behavioral control and CBs); and frequency of past visit to Jinju. Items on attitude, subjective norm, NBs, and perceived behavioral control were based on the measurement scales of TPB (Ajzen, 1988, 1991). BBs of the push and pull motivation in travel were adapted from the study by Zhang and Lam (1999). According to Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), new sets of beliefs and salient referents should be elicited for each new context, population, and behavior. Thus, a focus group interview of 12 potential Korean travelers to Jinju was conducted in Taiwan to validate the items in the instrument related to behavioral, normative, and CBs. The question on past behavior was constructed based on Quellette and Wood (1998). Respondents’ demographic and traveling characteristics were also collected in the survey. The preliminary questionnaire was translated into Korean using a blind translation-back- translation method (Brislin, 1976). A pilot study was then conducted in Taiwan with a group of 73 potential Korean travelers to Jinju. In the pilot test, the reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s a) for the questionnaire constructs ranged from 0.76 to 0.90, which exceeded the recommended satisfactory level of 0.70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). 3.3. Measurement of items Behavioral intention: Behavioral intention of choosing Jinju as a travel destination was measured by three statements with a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1). Attitude: Attitude was measured by five statements using semantic differential scales: ‘‘All things considered, I think visiting Jinju would bey’’ enjoyable– unenjoyable; positive–negative; fun–boring; pleasant–unpleasant; and favorable–unfavorable. Social Behavior and Personality, 2010 Behavioral beliefs: BBs consisted of two components: (1) perceived likelihood of outcomes of the behavior, and (2) evaluation of those outcomes. TPB assumes that having a positive or negative attitude toward a behavior is based upon beliefs that the behavior is likely or unlikely to lead to positively or negatively evaluated outcomes. Thus, the perceived likelihood and the outcome evaluation (OE) are multiplicatively combined; or BBs_OE. A six-item scale was developed with sevenpoint Likert scales ranging from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1) for BB measures and very important (7) to very unimportant (1) for OE measures. A representative item of the BB was: ‘‘Visiting Jinju would enable me to experience different lifestyle’’, and that of the OE was: ‘‘Experiencing different lifestyle isy’’ Subjective norm: Three statements, each with a sevenpoint Likert scale, were asked to evaluate subjective norm: ‘‘Most people I know would choose Jinju as a travel destination’’, ranging from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1); ‘‘People who are important to me would think Iyvisit Jinju’’, from should (7) to should not (1); and ‘‘People who are important to me wouldyof my visit to Jinju’’, from approve (7) to disapprove (1). Normative beliefs: NBs consisted of two components: (1) perceptions of specific referents’ opinions on whether an individual should or should not perform a behavior, or NBs; and (2) MC with the wishes of the specific referents, or MC. Respective statements of these two components were multiplied and combined (i.e., S[NBi_MCi]) to obtain the overall degree of NBs. Based on the focus group interview, the referent groups in the study included family, relatives/friends, and travel agents. A three-item measurement with seven-point Likert scales was used to measure respondents’ NB, ranging from should (7) to should not (1), and MC from extremely likely (7) to extremely unlikely (1). A sample item for NB was: ‘‘My family thinks Iychoose Jinju as a travel destination’’, and for MC was: ‘‘The likelihood for me to listen to what my family says about my visit to Jinju isy’’ Perceived behavioral control: Four statements were used to measure perceived behavioral control, with a seven-point Likert scale from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1). A sample statement was: ‘‘If I wanted, I could easily visit Jinju from now on.’’ Control beliefs: CBs consisted of two components: (1) frequency of occurrence of the facilitators or inhibitors of the behavior, or CB; and (2) perception of the strength of the facilitators or inhibitors, or power (P). Statements of these two components were again multiplied and combined (i.e., S[CBi_Pi]) to obtain the overall level of CBs. Five statements were used to measure the CBs. A sample of the CB statements was: ‘‘Visiting Jinju is expensive’’, with a seven-point Likert scale from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1) and the corresponding P statement was: ‘‘The cost of travel to Jinju would influence my visiting decision’’, ranging from extremely likely (7) to extremely unlikely (1). Past behavior: Past behavior of traveling to Jinju was measured with a single statement. Six frequency categories were provided: ‘‘0 time’’, ‘‘1 time’’, ‘‘2–3 times’’, ‘‘4–5 times’’, ‘‘6–10 times’’, and ‘‘more than 10 times’’. 3.4. Data analysis The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for descriptive and inferential analyses to provide respondents’ profiles, correlations, and Cronbach’s reliability. Internal consistency and construct validity were performed by applying the Cronbach’s a test and exploratory factor analysis, respectively. Structural equation modeling (SEM), using the LISREL 8 computer program (Jo¨ reskog & So¨ rbom, 1993), was applied to test the causal relationships in the model. By using SEM, important constructs could be modeled, while taking account the unreliability of the indicators. Furthermore, the SEM considers unknown reliability of the measures and ranks the measures in terms of their importance (Bacon, Bacon, Associates, Ltd., & SPSS Inc., 1997). 4. Findings and discussion Social Behavior and Personality, 2010 4.1. Respondents’ profile A total of 480 questionnaires were distributed and 390 (81.3%) returned. Of which, 299 (76.7%) were usable and 91 (23.3%) were discarded due to incompleteness of the responses. There were two possible reasons for the relatively large number of incomplete questionnaires. First, the tight connecting flight schedule might have rushed respondents to complete questionnaires while they were in the transit hall. Thus, time may not be sufficient for respondents to fill out the questionnaires. Second, respondents may not be fully committed to the study. Many of them were tired while waiting for connecting flights; thus, their motivation to participate in the study diminished even though they agreed to take part in the survey. However, data from the usable responses were sufficient to achieve the objectives of the study. Of the 299 completed and usable questionnaires, males represented 70.0% of the sample. Among respondents, the mean age was 39 years and the average monthly income reached US$2700. Most of the respondents held a college or university degree (93.0%); about two-thirds of them were married (67.2%). Many of them had visited Jinju once or more in the past (83.0%). It appeared that the respondents’ profile was similar to that of typical Korean travelers visiting Jinju (KRTB, 2004). 4.2. Internal consistency and construct validity Table 1 presents the zero-order correlations and reliabilities of the constructs studied. Results showed that attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and past behavior were all correlated significantly to the behavioral intention in the right direction. Right direction was also found between BBs and attitude; NBs and subjective norm; and CBs and perceived behavioral control. Cronbach’s reliability coefficients were examined to measure the internal consistency of each construct. The resulting Cronbach’s reliability coefficients ranged from 0.70 (CBs) to 0.91 (attitude), above the generally agreed upon lower limit of 0.70 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2002). The scales can be used for analysis with acceptable reliability. Factor analysis with principal component and VARIMAX rotation methods was performed to ascertain that BBs, NBs, CBs, direct measures of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intention are distinct constructs. Table 2 shows that the cumulative percentage of variance of the factors was 72.17%, with Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy of 0.817, which was higher than the recommended index of 0.60 (Garson, 2001). The Barlett Test of Sphericity was 2389.694 (p ¼ 0:000), and the Cronbach’s a of the total scale was 0.83. The results confirmed the existence of seven factors that have no-cross construct loadings above 0.50, indicating good discriminant validity. 4.3. Results of structural equation modeling SEM was performed to investigate the relationships between the criterion variable of behavioral intention and the respective predictor variables of attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and past behavior. Fig. 2 displays the structural model parameters and summarizes the degree to which the data fit the model. A confirmatory factor analysis for the multi-item scales was carried out using the maximum likelihood procedure in SEM. The fit between the structural model and data was evaluated by means of three standard indices: goodness- of-fit (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit (AGFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The GFI estimates the amount of variance explained by the model, and the AGFI adjusts this estimate by taking into account the degrees of freedom. Both of these estimates can vary from 0 to 1, and a good fit is indicated by values above 0.90. The RMSEA index additionally compensates for sample size, with low values indicating a good fit. Usually, an RMSEA value of less than 0.05 is required (Jo¨ reskog & So¨ rbom, 1993; Browne & Cudeck, 1993). The three GFI Social Behavior and Personality, 2010 indices indicated a moderately good fit for the model of this study (GFI ¼ 0.90, AGFI ¼ 0.86, RMSEA ¼ 0.011) with a w2 of 311.851 (df ¼ 314; p ¼ 0:524). As a rule of thumb, the value of p40:10 generally provides satisfactory fits (Lawley & Maxwell, 1971). Fig. 2 shows that the model accounts for 35% of the variance in behavioral intention; the standardized direct effects on behavioral intention were 0.22 for past behavior, 0.37 for subjective norm, and 0.19 for perceived behavioral control. The model accounts for 31% of the variance in attitude, for 39% of in subjective norm, and for 61% in perceived behavioral control. The standardized direct effect on attitude for BB was 0.56, on subjective norm for NB 0.62, and on perceived behavioral control for CB 0.19. By examining the standardized path coefficients amongst the variables, subjective norm (b ¼ 0:37; po0:01), perceived behavioral control (b ¼ 0:19; po0:05), and past behavior (b ¼ 0:22; po0:05) predicted the behavioral intention of choosing Jinju as a travel destination. However, the effect of attitude on behavioral intention was not significant (b ¼ 0:10; p40:05); the result did not concur with the suggestion by Ajzen (1991) and with previous studies that attitude is related to behavioral intention (e.g., Randall & Gilson, 1991; Trafimow & Finlay, 1996). Thus, Korean travelers’ attitude toward Jinju whether it is favorable or unfavorable does not influence their traveling intention to this city. One of the possible reasons to support this finding is because many Korean travelers may treat Jinju as a transit destination on their routing plan to Mainland Korea as there is no direct flight between the two parties. Thus, they may visit Jinju due to the convenience of the location, rather than a conscious decision based on attitude. Subjective norm has the greatest direct effect on behavioral intention of visiting Jinju. That is, the intention was associated with perceived social pressure from important referents of Korean residents. This finding was consistent with previous studies depicting that Korean rated self-monitoring highly and strived to change their behaviors in accordance with the situation and people surrounding them (Yang, 1992). However, the study contradicted the findings from Lam and Hsu By examining the standardized path coefficients amongst the variables, subjective norm (b ¼ 0:37; po0:01), perceived behavioral control (b ¼ 0:19; po0:05), and past behavior (b ¼ 0:22; po0:05) predicted the behavioral intention of choosing Jinju as a travel destination. However, the effect of attitude on behavioral intention was not significant (b ¼ 0:10; p40:05); the result did not concur with the suggestion by Ajzen (1991) and with previous studies that attitude is related to behavioral intention (e.g., Randall & Gilson, 1991; Trafimow & Finlay, 1996). Thus, Korean travelers’ attitude toward Jinju whether it is favorable or unfavorable does not influence their traveling intention to this city. One of the possible reasons to support this finding is because many Korean travelers may treat Jinju as a transit destination on their routing plan to Mainland Korea as there is no direct flight between the two parties. Thus, they may visit Jinju due to the convenience of the location, rather than a conscious decision based on attitude. Subjective norm has the greatest direct effect on behavioral intention of visiting Jinju. That is, the intention was associated with perceived social pressure from important referents of Korean residents. This finding was consistent with previous studies depicting that Korean rated self-monitoring highly and strived to change their behaviors in accordance with the situation and people surrounding them (Yang, 1992). However, the study contradicted the findings from Lam and Hsu Social Behavior and Personality, 2010 Note: * p < 0.01 ** p < 0.001 GFI = 0.90 n.s. = not significant Adjusted GFI = 0.86 RMSEA = 0.05 # Value fixed at 1.0 Fig. 2. Final model of the destination choice intention. Motivation Social Behavior and Personality, 2010 on Korean residents’ intention. Thus, a certain amount of constraints could diminish, but not prohibit, such a travel intention among respondents. These constraints were mainly related to the perception of crimes and personal safety in Jinju. In fact, one of the criticisms voiced by inbound travelers was about rampant pickpockets in tourist areas in Jinju (Jinju Police Force (KRPF), 2005). 5. Implications and conclusion Results of this study demonstrated the partial utility of TPB as a conceptual framework for predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination among Korean potential visitors to Jinju. The various GFI indices (GFI, AGFI, and RMSEA) indicated that it is a moderately good fit for the model. Findings showed that past behavior, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control, but not attitude, had direct impact on behavioral intention. TPB has been used to examine a wide variety of behaviors (see Ajzen, 1991; Armitage & Conner, 2001; Conner & Sparks, 1996; van den Putte, 1991) and the efficacy of the model has been validated in predicting a wide range of intentions and behaviors in the disciplines of marketing and social psychology. However, this theoretical model did not receive complete support in the context of travel intention. Attitude did not play any significant role in affecting the behavioral intention of choosing Jinju as a travel destination among potential Korean travelers when important referents and inhibiting factors existed. Future studies should be conducted to further examine this theoretical assumption in the travel discipline. Based on findings of the study, a number of salient implications can be derived. Social influence from referent members of Korean residents was to be an important factor influencing their travel intention. From a macro-perspective, the Jinju government, tourism board, education institutes, the airport authority, and other relevant organizations should work closely to ensure travel satisfaction among visiting tourists. If Korean travelers experience favorably about Jinju, they, as a referent to their friends and family members, will help promote this city with positive word-of-mouth communication. In practical terms, the Jinju government should provide efforts on general education for the citizens about helping and treating travelers well, and stipulate laws to prohibit cheating and commercial fraud to travelers. The KRTB should provide general service guidelines to maintain service standards among its members. Last but not least, hotel and tourism schools can emphasize education and training on improving traveler satisfaction that should be a part of their curriculum. Although attitude was not related to a potential Korean traveler’s intention of choosing Jinju as a travel destination, it is still crucial for the Jinju government to facilitate the development of a positive attitude among travelers’ potential referent groups, in particular the travel agents in Taiwan. The KRTB should specifically emphasize that this city is a fusion of Korean and British colonial culture and heritage. The preserved British artifacts, such as the government house which was the residence of the Jinju governors during the British colonial time, could be showcased as a piece of the Jinju’s colorful past. These social and cultural environments could be considered as unique and appealing to the Korean, who could be pulled to the destination to experience such a westernized Korean city in Asia. Moreover, communication pieces should point out that although Jinju is a metropolitan city as well as an economic hub in Asia, it is a favorable place for Korean travelers to take a break from their busy work to enjoy Jinju’s magnificent night views of the island and the harbor, as well as to take advantages of various shopping malls. The renowned Lan Kwai Fong area is located at the center of the bustling city, which houses many international restaurants, clubs, and bars. The area provides unique experience for Korean travelers who can see, taste, and Social Behavior and Personality, 2010 feel the Western culture. The preservation and enhancement of the Lan Kwai Fong area should be an integral part of the Jinju’s destination product development plan. Promotion materials target Korean travelers should also prominently feature the area. To reduce the possible effect of crime rate and personal safety as the barriers, the KRPF should work closely with the KRTB to combat criminal offences that may jeopardize tourists’ experience. Police force should have regular patrols at tourist attractions; and toll-free telephones for specifically reporting crimes or calling for help should be equipped on streets available and communicated to tourists. The study showed that as the number of previous visits to Jinju increases, Korean travelers’ intention of revisiting Jinju becomes stronger. Apparently, travelers who have had good experiences are more likely to re- patronize and help encourage potential tourists to Jinju through favorable word-of-mouth. Strategically, the Jinju government should work with the hospitality and tourism industry to provide training and retraining opportunities for job incumbents to enhance the service quality provided. Specific tactics include possible tax incentives tied to training expenses for organizations in the industry. This could encourage organizations to devote more efforts in employee training. Limitations of the study included the convenience sampling method used, even though the respondents’ profile was similar to that of Korean travelers to Jinju. The data collection in the transit lounge at the airport may also introduce bias in the sample because only individuals with overseas travel experience were included. Future studies may include a more representative sample by conducting data collection in Taiwan. In addition, future studies may investigate if past behavior serves as a moderator in the causal relationship between the antecedents and behavioral intention in choosing a travel destination. Social Behavior and Personality, 2010 References [[1] C. F. Chen and D. Tsai, “How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioural intentions?” Tourism Management, vol. 28, pp. 1115-1122, 2007. [2] P. A. LaBarbera and D. Mazursky, “A longitudinal assessment of consumer satisfaction/ dissatisfaction: The dynamic aspect of the cognitive process,” Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 20, pp. 393-404, 1983. [3] B. Pine, D. Peppers, and M. Rogers, “Do you want to keep your customers forever?” Harvard Business Review, pp. 103-114, March/April 1995. [4] F. Reichheld, The Loyalty Effect, Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, 1996. [5] Oliver, Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, 1997. [6] R. Oliver, “Cognitive, affective and attribute bases of the satisfaction response,” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 20, pp. 418–430, 1993. [7] S. Shoemaker and R. C. Lewis, “Customer loyalty: The future of hospitality marketing,” Hospitality Management, vol. 18, pp. 345–370, 1999. [8] M. Oppermann, “Tourism destinations loyalty,” Journal of Travel Research, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 78- 84, 2000. [9] S. Venkatesh and A. Rangaswamy, “Customer satisfaction and loyalty in online and offline environments,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, vol. 20, pp. 153-175, 2003. [10] M. Kozak and M. Rimmington, “Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season holiday destination,” Journal of Travel Research, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 260 – 269, 2000. [11] Y. Yoon and M. Uysal, “An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model,” Tourism Management, vol. 26, pp. 45–56, 2005. [12] K. S. Chon, “Understanding recreational traveler’s motivation, attitude and satisfaction,” The Tourist Review, vol. 1, pp. 3–6, 1989. [13] L. Moutinho, “Consumer behaviour in tourism,” European Journal of Marketing, vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 5–44, 1987. [14] A. Pizam, Y. Neumann, and A. Reichel, “Dimentions of tourist satisfaction with a destination area,” Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 314–322, 1978. [15] M. Oppermann, “First-time and repeat visitors to New Zealand?” Tourism Management, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 177-181, 1997. [16] K. Weber, “Assessment of tourist satisfaction using the expectancy disconfirmation theory: A study of german travel market in Australia,” Pacific Tourism Review, vol. 1, pp. 35-45, 1997. [17] C. Fornell, M. Johnson, E. W. Anderson, J. Cha, and B. E. Bryant, “The American customer satisfaction index: Nature, purpose, and findings,” Journal of Marketing, vol. 60, pp. 7–18, October 1996. [18] C. G. Chi and H. Qu, “Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach,” Tourism Management, vol. 29, pp. 624- 636, 2008. [19] G. H. McDougall and T. Levesque, “Customer satisfaction with service: Putting perceived value into the equation,” Journal of Services Marketing, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 392–410, 2000. [20] J. F. Petrick and Beckman, “An examination of the construct of perceived value for the prediction of golf travelers’ intentions to revisit,” Journal of Travel Research, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 38-45, 2002. [21] P. H. Pearson, “Relationships between global and specified measures of novelty seeking,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, vol. 34, pp. 199-204, 1970. [22] Faison and W. J. Edmund, “The neglected variety drive: a useful concept for consumer behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 172-175, 1977. [23] G. Assaker, V. E. Vinzi, and P. O’Connor, “Examining the effect of novelty seeking, Social Behavior and Personality, 2010 satisfaction, and destination image on tourists’ return pattern: A two factor, non-linear latent growth model,” Tourism Management, vol. 1, pp. 890-901, 2011. [24] S. Jang and R. Feng, “Temporal destination revisit intention: The effects of novelty seeking and satisfaction,” Tourism Management, vol. 28, pp. 580- 90, 2007. [25] C. Barroso, E. Martın, and D. Martın, “The influence of market heterogeneity on the relationship between a destination’s image and tourists’ future behavior,” Tourism Management, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 175-87, 2007. [26] A. Beerli and J. D. Martin, “Factors influencing destination image,” Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 657-681, 2004. [27] E. Albrechtsen. (December 2002). A generic comparison of industrial safety and information security. Term paper in the PhD course "Risk an Vulnerability", NTNU. [Online]. Available at ic%20comparision%20of%20ind%20saf%20and%20 inf%20sec.pdf [28] L. E. Hudman, “The travelers perception of the role of food and eating in the tourist industry,” in Proc. 36th AIEST Congress on the Impact of Catering and Cuisine Upon Tourism, 31 August–6 September, 1986. [29] S. Quan and N. Wang, “Towards a structural model of the tourist experience: An illustration from food experiences in tourism,” Tourism Management, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 297-305, 2004. [30] J. Yates and V. Maanen, Information Technology and Organizational Transformation, Sage Publications Inc, 2001. [31] T. Litman, Accessibility: Defining, Evaluating and Improving Accessibility, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2003. [32] L. L. Berry and A. Parasuraman, Marketing Services: Competing through Quality, New York: Free Press, 1991. [33] S. L. Bagwell and D. B. Bernheim, “Veblen effects in a theory of conspicuous consumption,” The American Economic Review, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 349- 373, 1996. [34] A. Papatheodorou, “Civil aviation regimes and leisure tourism in Europe,” Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 381-388, 2002. [35] T. Truong and D. Foster, “Using HOLSAT to evaluate tourist satisfaction at destination: The case of Australian holidaymakers in Vietnam,” Tourism Management, pp. 842–855, 2006. [36] J. Tribe and T. Snaith, “From SERVQUAL to HOLSAT: Holiday satisfaction in Varadero, Cuba,” Tourism Management, vol. 19, pp. 25–34, 1998. [37] J. L. Crompton, “An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination and the influence of geographical location upon that image,” Journal of Travel Research, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 18-23, 1979. [38] M. G. Gallarza, S. I. Gil, and G. H. Calderon, “Destination image: Towards a conceptual framework,” Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 56-78, 2002. [39] H. Kim and S. L. Richardson, “Motion picture impacts on destination images,” Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 216–237, 2003. [40] C. Chi and H. Qu, “Examining the structural relationship of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach,” Tourism Management, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 624–636, 2008. [41] K. Alexandris, C. Kouthouris, and A. Meligdis, “Increasing customers’ loyalty in a skiing resort: The contribution of place attachment and service quality,” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 414–425, 2006. [42] M. Pritchard and D. R. Howard, “The loyal traveller: Examining a typology of service patronage,” Journal of Travel Research, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 2–10, 1997.