Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development ISSN 1822-6760 / eISSN 2345-0355 2014. Vol. 36. No. 4: 927–936 doi: 10.15544/mts.2014.087
INTERACTION BETWEEN SATISFACTION AND LOYALTY OF LITHUANIAN RURAL TOURISTS: A MODERATING EFFECT OF PERCEIVED VALUE 1
Lina Pilelienė1, Viktorija Grigaliūnaitė2 Assoc. Prof., Vytautas Magnus University, S. Daukanto st. 28, Kaunas 44246, Lithuania. Tel. +370 37 327856. E-mail
[email protected] 2 Specialist (researcher), Master student, Vytautas Magnus University. E-mail
[email protected] Received 22 06 2014; accepted 22 09 2014
The moderating effect of perceived value on the effect of Lithuanian rural tourist satisfaction to loyalty (behavioural and attitudinal) is being analyzed in the article. The positive effect of tourist satisfaction to loyalty is widely analyzed and discussed in scientific literature. Nevertheless, this effect is considered as complex due to the possibility of other variables’ moderating effect. Tourist’s perceived value may be regarded as such variable. Scientific researches about the moderating effect of perceived value in a framework of rural tourism in Lithuania is weak; therefore, the analysis of the interaction effect between tourist satisfaction and loyalty is relevant. Furthermore, as tourist loyalty is composited from behavioral and attitudinal loyalty, the moderating effect of perceived value may differ regarding these approaches. The aim of this article is to determine the interaction effect between Lithuanian rural tourist satisfaction and loyalty (behavioural and attitudinal) regarding perceived value as a moderator variable. While achieving the aim of the article, quantitative questionnaire research and the analysis of the research results using structural equation modelling are applied. As a research result, the interaction effect of Lithuanian rural tourist satisfaction to loyalty is determined and the moderating effect of perceived value is assessed. Keywords: Lithuanian tourism, perceived value, rural tourism, tourist satisfaction, tourist loyalty. JEL codes: M31, M39.
1. Introduction Relevance of the research. The relation between customer satisfaction and loyalty is widely analyzed in scientific literature. Despite the variety of researches where satisfaction was found to be an antecedent of customer loyalty (Rufín, 2012), considering the complexity of the interaction between satisfaction and loyalty, several studies have attempted to take a deeper look at this relationship by considering the extent to which other variables might have a moderating effect on this relationship (Gonçalves, 2012). Few researches discuss the triad of Perceived Value – Satisfaction – Loyalty as more reflective phenomenon (Callarisa Fiol, 2009; Hur, 2013; Peña, 2012). However, B. Velázquez et al. (2009) suggest that when it comes Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Aleksandras Stulginskis University, Lithuanian Institute of Agrarian economics. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. The material cannot be used for commercial purposes.
927
to tourism, the definition of customer loyalty differs; moreover, same measures for generating repeat purchases that work for many products and services do not work. Furthermore, H. Zhang et al. (2014) argue that tourist loyalty is composited from behavioural loyalty, which is reflected by intention to revisit, and attitudinal loyalty, reflected by intention to recommend. Consequently, relations between satisfaction, perceived value, attitudinal loyalty and relations between satisfaction, perceived value, behavioural loyalty may differ and this makes the triad of Perceived Value – Satisfaction – Loyalty even more complex phenomenon. Therefore, the problem analyzed in the article is: what is the interaction between Lithuanian rural tourist satisfaction and loyalty (behavioural and attitudinal)? and what is the moderating effect of perceived value to this interaction? The object of the research is the interaction effect between tourist satisfaction and loyalty (behavioural and attitudinal) regarding perceived value as a moderator variable. The aim of the research is to determine the interaction effect between Lithuanian rural tourist satisfaction and loyalty (behavioural and attitudinal) regarding perceived value as a moderator variable. Research methods. Achieving to determine the relations between satisfaction, loyalty, and perceived value in tourism industry regarding Lithuanian rural tourists, there was empirically substantiated that both, satisfaction and perceived value affect tourist loyalty (behavioural and attitudinal); additionally tourist perceived value moderates the effect of satisfaction on loyalty (behavioural and attitudinal). Questionnaire research was provided to obtain Lithuanian rural tourists’ valuations of latter variables. Structural equation modelling (SEM) using partial least squares (PLS) path modelling methodology was applied for statistical analysis. 2. Scientific substantiation As there is increased competition for tourists (Artuğer, 2013), achieving to be successful, a thorough analysis of tourist loyalty and its antecedents is very important (Jurdana, 2012). Therefore, two antecedents of tourist loyalty are taken under consideration in this research: satisfaction and perceived value. While analyzing different models of Customer Satisfaction Indexes, X. Yang and P. Tian (2004) argue that talking about the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty, some researcher suggested perceived value is much more significant than satisfaction. Perceived value concerns the “value-for-money” aspect as the customer experiences it. It is seen to be affected by perceived quality as well as by expectations (Bayol, 2000). On the other hand, W. Hur et al. (2013) argue that customer satisfaction leads to customer loyalty, while lowering price consciousness. Scientific literature suggest that customers’ value perceptions seem to drive their future behaviour: repurchase intentions and word-of-mouth referrals (MingYuan, 2014). However, many other researchers consider latter behaviour as consequences of customer loyalty (Dick, 1994; Juščius, 2006). Furthermore, revisit inten-
928
tion and recommendations to others are the most commonly used measures for tourist loyalty and precisely these variables reflect behavioral and attitudinal loyalties, of which the complete tourist loyalty is composed (Zhang, 2014). Customer perceived value results from an evaluation of the relative rewards and sacrifices associated with the offering (Hsin Hsin, 2009). Moreover, according to W. Ming-Yuan et al. (2014), perceived value is an essential factor to the level of satisfaction: the concepts of perceived value and satisfaction are mostly similar and easily confused when discussed. Thus, satisfaction and perceived value are two complementary yet distinct constructs. As it was mentioned in our previous studies (Grigaliūnaitė, 2014a), in the largest part of customer satisfaction research methodologies (e.g. American Customer Satisfaction index, European Customer Satisfaction index, Norwegian Customer Satisfaction barometer, Swedish Customer Satisfaction barometer, etc.), as well as in the tourists satisfaction researches (Mat Som, 2011; Salleh, 2013), the main consequence of satisfaction is considered to be loyalty to the destination. Moreover, the study of C. Hsin Hsin et al. (2009) substantiates the influence of the degree of customer perceived value to interfere with the relationship between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty, making a background for further studies. 3. Research methodology Endeavouring to make deep analysis of the relations between satisfaction, loyalty, and perceived value in tourism industry regarding Lithuanian rural tourists, there was hypothesized that loyalty is composited from the attitudinal loyalty, which is reflected by intention to recommend and behavioural loyalty, which is reflected by intention to revisit. Furthermore, both satisfaction and perceived value affect loyalty (behavioural and attitudinal) (Pilelienė, 2014); additionally perceived value moderate the effect of satisfaction on loyalty (behavioural and attitudinal) (Hsin Hsin, 2009) (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. The hypothesized model
929
Consequently, the structural model, linking tourist satisfaction and behavioural and attitudinal loyalty with perceived value moderating these relationships, could be written in the standardized form (1, 2): Behavioural Loyalty = β1 Satisfaction + β2 Perceived Value + β3 Satisfaction * Perceived Value (1) Attitudinal Loyalty = β4 Satisfaction + β5 Perceived Value + β6 Satisfaction * Perceived Value (2) The determinants of tourist satisfaction and perceived value are excluded from the analysis regarding the aim of the research. Consequently, by partially differentiating equations 1, 2 with respect to satisfaction, the impact of satisfaction on behavioural and attitudinal loyalty could be attained (3, 4): ∂ Behavioural Loyalty / ∂ Satisfaction = β1 + β3 Perceived Value
(3)
∂ Attitudinal Loyalty / ∂ Satisfaction = β4 + β6 Perceived Value
(4)
The research is based on the previously elaborated theoretical Lithuanian Tourist Satisfaction Index (LTSI) model (Pilelienė, 2014) and Lithuanian Rural Tourist Satisfaction Index (LRTSI) model (Grigaliūnaitė, 2014b). The manifest variables of the corresponding latent variables formed a questionnaire for respondents’ evaluations (the questionnaire is available from the authors upon request). The survey was conducted in January and February, 2014; 10-point evaluation scale was applied for the questionnaire. Random sampling method was applied for the determination of sample size; research precision was ± 5 percent. Consequently, sample size was 200 respondents. 27 percent of male and 73 percent of female participated in the survey. Structural equation modelling (SEM) using partial least squares (PLS) path modelling methodology is applied for statistical analysis. 4. Analysis of the research results Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Loyalty evaluations’ model is provided in Fig. 2. Low evaluations of perceived value and satisfaction indicate frustrated tourist. Low evaluations of satisfaction, but average evaluations of perceived value and vice versa indicate that tourist is satisfied. With the average evaluations of satisfaction and very high evaluations of perceived value or high evaluations of satisfaction and average / high / very high evaluations of perceived value tourist is considered as loyal to the rural destination. With the very high evaluations of satisfaction as well as perceived value tourist remains satisfied and this create the phenomenon of the relations between satisfaction – perceived value – loyalty regarding Lithuanian rural tourists.
930
Fig. 2. Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Loyalty evaluations’ model Regarding the reflective research measurement model, outer loadings are represented in Table 1. All outer loadings are higher than 0.8. As a result, manifest variables of measurement model were identified as reliable. Table 1. Outer Loadings Variables CUSA1 CUSA1* PERV1 CUSA1* PERV1 CUSA1* PERV2 CUSA1* PERV2 CUSA2 CUSA2* PERV1 CUSA2* PERV1 CUSA2* PERV2 CUSA2* PERV2 CUSA3
0.8769
Satisfaction * Perceived Value 1 0
Satisfaction * Perceived Value 2 0
0
0
0.8782
0
0
0
0
0
0.8761
0
0
0
0
0.8969
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.8885
0
0
0
0.8774
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.8507
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.851
0
0
0
0
0.866
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.8606
0
0
0
0.8621
0
0
Intention to recommend
Intention to revisit
Perceived Value
Satisfaction
0
0
0
0
0
0
931
Variables
Intention to recommend
Intention to revisit
Perceived Value
Satisfaction
Satisfaction * Perceived Value 1
Satisfaction * Perceived Value 2
0
0
0
0
0.885
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.8923
0
0
0
0
0.8819
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.8893
0 1 0 0
1 0 0 0
0 0 0.9293 0.9328
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
CUSA3* PERV1 CUSA3* PERV1 CUSA3* PERV2 CUSA3* PERV2 CUSL1 CUSL2 PERV1 PERV2
Measurement model obtained discriminant validity at two criteria. In view of the first criterion, the lowest value of was found greater than the latent construct‘s highest correlation with any other latent construct. In view of the second discriminant validity assessment criterion, all manifest variables’ loadings of their corresponding latent variables were higher than its’ cross loadings. The sufficient degree of convergent validity of reflective constructs indicated by AVE values is high above 0.5. Values of Composite Reliability and Cronbach’s Alpha are obtained higher than 0.7 and this displays the internal consistency reliability of reflective constructs. Consequently, the reflective measurement model was considered as reliable and valid with reference to discriminant validity, convergent validity and internal consistency reliability. Values of communality are greater than 0.5; hence the quality of the measurement model for each block is sufficient. R square values of endogenous latent variables in the structural model are substantial (Table 2). Table 2. Values of AVE, Composite Reliability, R Square, Cronbach’s Alpha, Communality Variables Intention to recommend Intention to revisit Perceived Value Satisfaction Satisfaction * Perceived Value1 Satisfaction * Perceived Value2
0.7551 0.7115 0 0
Cronbach’s Alpha 1 1 0.8465 0.8427
0.9522
0
0.9397
0.7684
0.9521
0
0.9397
0.7681
1 1 0.8669 0.7607
Composite Reliability 1 1 0.9287 0.9051
0.7684 0.7681
AVE
932
R Square
Communality 1 1 0.8669 0.7607
Evaluating cross-validated redundancy measure for the endogenous latent variables, the chosen omission distance d was 7 (200 / 7 ≠ integer). Cross-validated redundancy values (Q2) for endogenous latent variables are above zero (Table 3). Consequently, structural model is assessed as displaying predictive relevance. Table 3.Stone-Geisser’s Q2 Total Intention to recommend Intention to revisit
SSO 200 200
SSE 49.8471 59.8659
1-SSE/SSO 0.7508 0.7007
Six path coefficients, shown in Table 4, are statistically significant. Perceived value directly positively statistically significantly influences intentions to recommend as well as intentions to revisit and this substantiates the fact that H3 and H4 are accepted. Satisfaction directly positively statistically significantly affects intentions to recommend as well as intentions to revisit. Thus, H1 and H2 are accepted. Despite this, the values of coefficients β3 and β6 are negative (respectively 0.0731 and -0.0794) and statistically significant (T Statistics > 1.96). Accordingly, H5 and H6 are accepted. Moreover, one standard deviation increase in perceived value will not only affect intention to recommend by 0.46 and intention to revisit by 0.27, but it would also decrease the impact of satisfaction to intention to revisit from 0.581 to 0.507 and from satisfaction to intention to recommend from 0.421 to 0.342. Consequently, these results imply that with higher levels of perceived value, the impact of satisfaction on loyalty (attitudinal and behavioural) is lower. Table 4. Paths Coefficients and their significances Variables Path Coefficient Standard Deviation T Statistics Perceived Value –> Intention to recommend 0.4609 0.0741 6.2179 Perceived Value –> Intention to revisit 0.2712 0.0748 3.6274 Satisfaction –> Intention to recommend 0.4216 0.0699 6.029 Satisfaction –> Intention to revisit 0.581 0.07 8.3013 Satisfaction * Perceived Value –> -0.0731 0.0305 2.4008 Intention to revisit Satisfaction * Perceived Value –> -0.0794 0.0365 2.1788 Intention to recommend
The elaborated model with the moderating effects of perceived value is provided in Figure 3. Satisfaction and perceived value are influenced by their determinants. Latter variables influence tourists’ intentions to revisit rural destination. The effect of satisfaction on intentions to revisit is higher in comparison with the effect of perceived value. Furthermore, perceived value decreases the impact of satisfaction to intentions to revisit. Nevertheless, latter effect of satisfaction on intentions to revisit remains higher in comparison with the effect of perceived value. Tourists’ intentions to recommend are also affected by satisfaction and perceived value. Despite this, contrary to intentions to revisit, perceived value has a higher
933
effect on tourists’ intentions to recommend in comparison with the effect of satisfaction. Moreover, perceived value decreases the impact of satisfaction to intentions to recommend. Additionally, the interaction effect is higher for the variable intentions to recommend. Consequently, perceived value has considerably higher influence on tourists’ intentions to recommend than satisfaction has and satisfaction has considerably higher influence on tourists’ intentions to revisit than perceived value has.
Fig. 3. The moderating effect of perceived value The research results imply that for the Lithuanian rural tourist the higher level of perceived value makes the level of satisfaction less important, meaning that perceived value may compensate the perceived disadvantages in the factors that affect tourist satisfaction. Moreover, perceived value has higher influence on Lithuanian rural tourists’ intentions to recommend in comparison with the influence of satisfaction on the latter variable. Furthermore, satisfaction has higher influence on intentions to revisit in comparison with the influence of perceived value on latter variable. Consequently, taking into consideration the fact that complete tourist loyalty composites of both (behavioural and attitudinal loyalty), it could be stated that both satisfaction and perceived value must be managed adequately. 5. Conclusions 1. Analyzing the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty, some researcher suggested perceived value is much more significant than satisfaction. Scientific literature suggest that customers’ value perceptions seem to drive their future behaviour: repurchase intentions and word-of-mouth referrals. The influence of the degree of customer perceived value to interfere with the relationship between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty, documented in scientific literature lays a background for further studies.
934
2. The research results proved that perceived value moderates the effect of tourists’ satisfaction on loyalty. For the Lithuanian rural tourist the higher level of perceived value makes the level of satisfaction less important when achieving latter tourist’s loyalty to the rural destination, meaning that perceived value may compensate the perceived disadvantages in the factors that affect tourist satisfaction. 3. Perceived value has higher influence on Lithuanian rural tourists’ intentions to recommend in comparison with the influence of satisfaction on the latter variable. Furthermore, satisfaction has higher influence on intentions to revisit in comparison with the influence of perceived value on latter variable. Consequently, taking into consideration the fact that complete tourist loyalty composites of both (behavioural and attitudinal loyalty), it could be stated that both satisfaction and perceived value must be managed adequately. References Artuğer, S., Cetinsoz, B., C., Kılıc, I. (2013). The Effect of Destination Image on Destination Loyalty: An Application In Alanya // European Journal of Business and Management. Vol. 5. No. 13: 124–136. Bayol, M.-P., de la Foye, A., Tellier, C., Tenenhaus, M. (2000). Use of PLS Path Modelling to estimate the European Consumer Satisfaction Index (ECSI) model // Statistica Applicata. Vol. 12. No. 3: 361–375. Callarisa Fiol, L. J., Bigne Alcaniz, E., Moliner Tena, M. A., Garcia, J. (2009). Customer Loyalty in Clusters: Perceived Value and Satisfaction as Antecedents // Journal Of Business-ToBusiness Marketing, Vol. 16. No. 3: 276–316. Dick, A. S., Basu, K. (1994). Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual Framework // Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. Vol. 22. No. 2: 99–113. Gonçalves, H. M., Sampaio, P. (2012). The customer satisfaction-customer loyalty relationship: Reassessing customer and relational characteristics moderating effects // Management Decision. Vol. 50 Iss: 9: 1509–1526. Grigaliūnaitė, V., Pilelienė, L. (2014a). Interaction Between Satisfaction and Loyalty of Lithuanian Tourists: a Moderating Effect of Natural Features // Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development. Vol. 36. No. 2: 288–296. Grigaliūnaitė, V., Pilelienė, L. (2014b). Rural Tourist Satisfaction Index: A Case of Lithuania // Materials of 20th Annual International Scientific Conference “Research for Rural Development 2014”, Jelgava (Forthcoming). Hsin Hsin, C., Yao-Hua, W., Wen-Ying, Y. (2009). The impact of e-service quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty on e-marketing: Moderating effect of perceived value // Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. Vol. 20. No. 4: 423–443. Hur, W., Kim, Y., Park, K. (2013). Assessing the Effects of Perceived Value and Satisfaction on Customer Loyalty: A ‘Green’ Perspective // Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management. Vol. 20. No. 3: 146–156. Jurdana, D., Frleta, D. (2012). Tourism Development of Rural Areas – the Customer Perspective // Conference Proceedings: International Conference Of The Faculty Of Economics Sarajevo (ICES): 191–205. Juščius, V., Navickas, V., Jonikas, D. (2006). Empirical Researches of Relationship Marketing: the Role in Foreign Countries and Lithuania // Engineering Economics. Vol. 4. No. 49. Mat Som, A. P., Shirazi, S. F. M., Marzuki, A., Jusoh, J. (2011). A critical analysis of tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty // Journal of Global Management. Vol. 2. No. 2: 178–183.
935
Ming-Yuan, W., Wei-Chin, L., Mei-Ju, C., Chien-Jung, H. (2014). Nostalgia, Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Loyalty of Cruise Travel // International Journal Of Organizational Innovation. Vol. 6. No. 4: 184–191. Peña, A., Jamilena, D., Molina, M. (2012).The perceived value of the rural tourism stay and its effect on rural tourist behaviour // Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Vol. 20. No. 8: 1045–1065. Pilelienė, L., Grigaliūnaitė, V. (2014). Lietuvos turistų pasitenkinimo indekso modelis: teorinės įžvalgos // Organizacijų vadyba: Sisteminiai tyrimai. Nr. 69: 107–118. Rufín, R., Medina, C., & Rey, M. (2012). Adjusted expectations, satisfaction and loyalty development // Service Industries Journal. Vol. 32. No. 14: 2185–2202. Velázquez, B., Saura, I., Molina, M. (2009). La formación de la lealtad y su contribución a la gestión de destinos turísticos // Cuadernos de Administración. Vol. 22. No. 39: 75–98. Yang, X., Tian, P. (2004). National Customer Satisfaction Measurement: Past and Future. – http://jgxy.usx.edu.cn/DAOM/072_XiaomingYang.pdf [2014 07 22]. Zhang, H., Fu, X., Cai, L. A., Lu, L. (2014). Destination image and tourist loyalty: a metaanalysis // Tourism Management. Vol. 40: 213–223. SĄVEIKA TARP LIETUVOS KAIMO TURISTŲ PASITENKINIMO IR LOJALUMO: SUVOKIAMOS VERTĖS ĮTAKA Lina Pilelienė, Viktorija Grigaliūnaitė Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas Įteikta 2014 06 22; priimta 2014 09 22 Santrauka Straipsnyje analizuojama suvokiamos vertės įtaka Lietuvos kaimo turistų pasitenkinimo ir lojalumo sąveikai. Mokslinėje literatūroje yra plačiai analizuojamas turistų pasitenkinimo teigiamas poveikis turistų lojalumui. Nepaisant to, ši sąveika vis dar laikoma sudėtingu reiškiniu, vertinant galimas papildomų kintamųjų įtakas turistų pasitenkinimo ir lojalumo ryšiui. Turistų suvokiama vertė gali būti laikoma vienu tokių kintamųjų, taigi svarbu nustatyti sąveiką tarp suvokiamos vertės, turistų pasitenkinimo ir lojalumo. Straipsnio tikslas – nustatyti suvokiamos vertės įtaką Lietuvos turistų pasitenkinimo ir lojalumo sąveikai. Siekiant nusibrėžto tikslo, atlikta kiekybinio tyrimo rezultatų analizė, pasitelkiant struktūrinį lygčių modeliavimą. Tyrimo rezultate nustatoma sąsaja tarp Lietuvos kaimo turistų pasitenkinimo ir lojalumo bei turistų suvokiamos vertės įtaka šiai sąsajai. Nustatyta, kad, didėjant turistų suvokiamai vertei, mažėja jų pasitenkinimo įtaka lojalumui. Didinant turistų suvokiamą vertę, galima kompensuoti veiksnių, darančių įtaką pasitenkinimui, trūkumus. Raktiniai žodžiai: kaimo turizmas, Lietuvos turizmas, suvokiama vertė, turistų lojalumas, turistų pasitenkinimas. JEL kodai: M31, M39.
936
