An Examination of the Relationship among Motivation, Satisfaction...
�
2903
In tourism business, loyalty to products measured by three different indicators, namely the intention to continue buying the same product, buy more of the same
product, and willingness to recommend the product to others Valle, et al. 2006. In the higher competitive conditions of tourism industry, destination marketers
are required to attract new tourists, create and maintain tourist loyalty to the brand of a tourist product. Therefore, measuring and analyzing the determining factor
of customer loyalty becomes an important part in tourism marketing. Familiarity with the destination, overall satisfaction, socio demographic profiles, and
motivation, becomes determinant factor of tourist willingness to make repeat purchases. General Managers use a variable satisfaction as the standard tourist
loyalty. However, satisfaction will not create loyalty to the product, without trust Lee and Cunningham, 2001. Placing confidences in satisfaction as the only thing
that is most important in building loyalty, many are indisputable. Consumer satisfaction only explains a quarter of loyalty behavioral deviation or repeat
purchase Burhan, et al. 2003; and Szymanski and Herand, 2001. Likewise researchers like Mittal and Kamakura 2001; Burham, et al. 2003 suggested
understanding the various factors that can build product loyalty, not merely of tourist satisfaction.
Product loyalty can be measured by various indicators, among others Assael 1992: 65; Jamaludin, et al. 1992, namely: 1 the extent of the products movement
or consumer likes to switch to other products, 2 how long those customers have used these products, 3 whether the product has become a lifestyle, 4 whether
customers want to recommend the product to others. While Anastassova 2011; Gallarza and Saura, 2006 states that to be an indicator of loyalty products to
destinations can be seen from the characteristic includes three aspects: the cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects. Lee, et al. 2010 explains there are several
indicators in the measurement of product loyalty, namely: 1 the number of visits over five years using the same product, 2 the number of positive recommendations
given tourists on others to use or select an existing product, 3 an intention or desire still to make a purchase or visit on products previously purchased, 4 have an
emotional attachment that is strong because it has a positive experience on products purchased, 5 have a tolerance for a price adjustment. Based on the above discussion,
it can be prepared the conceptual framework of the study. The main variable in this study are intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and satisfaction, trust, and loyalty
products. The relationship of these variables can be seen in picture 2.1:
3. ANALYSIS RESULT 3.1. Methods of Data Collection and Analysis Method
The object of this study is foreign tourists who do diving in Bali. Given this very
large study population, the researchers restricted their study on Tulamben area,
2904
�
I. Wayan Suardana
Nusa Penida and Candidasa. Selection of study sample of 300 people conducted by using a non-probability sampling method. From 300 respondents who were
involved in this research, only 250 were considered and included in the analysis, while the remaining 50 were not included, because the responses were incomplete.
Whole respondents are foreign tourists who do diving in Bali more than one visit. Research data collection is done by using a questionnaire. The questionnaire
contains a number of statements that were developed from the grating instrument. The questionnaire was chosen to collect data because respondents are people who
know themselves, the statement by the subjects to researchers is true and trustworthy and interpretation of the subject of the questionstatement filed to
the subject is the same as what is meant by the researcher. Preparation of a questionnaire based on the indicators refers to the theory. The
indicators used in this study is an indicator reflective. In the reflective models, groups of manifest variables associated with latent variables assumed to measure
indicators that manifests construct. Seen as an indicator of the effects of latent variables that can be observed empirically. The hallmark of the variables measured
in the reflective scale is togetherness between the measuring indicators common factor Hair, et al., 2010. Prior to the data collection was done, the questionnaire
was tested for validity and reliability with 50 respondents who were not included in the data analysis. By using the minimal requirements corrected item-total
correlation of 0.30 for validity and Cronbach’s alpha of 0.60 for reliability. The test results showed all items of questions shows valid and reliable in measuring variable
research. This research uses a quantitative approach to implement the data analysis, the
analytical methods used in analyzing empirical data gathered researchers include 1 analysis of descriptive statistics intended to determine the frequency distribution
Picture 2.1: The interrelated variables
An Examination of the Relationship among Motivation, Satisfaction...
�
2905
of the answers from the questionnaire, 2 statistical analysis of inferential used to test the research hypothesis is Structural Equation Modeling SEM, 3 used Sobel
test to test the indirect effect. Before testing the hypotheses, researchers have tested the validity and reliability of data used in the data analysis. Referring to Hair, et
al., 2010: 627, an indicator is said to be valid if t e”1,96 and reliable if the construct reliability
� 0.50. Based on these requirements, all the indicators or question items declared valid and reliable in measuring the variables.
3.2. The Result of Structural Equation Modeling SEM Analysis The variables in this research include intrinsic motivation variable X1, extrinsic
motivation X2, satisfaction X3, and loyalty products Y1.
3.2.1. Measurement Model The following table presents the average yield and loading factor of each indicator
in each research variable. Based on Table 4.1, noted that all indicators measured the variables significantly.
The analysis also showed that the most powerful indicator as a measure of intrinsic motivation X1 is the relationshipsocial cohesion X1.3. If it is associated with
the result of the descriptive analysis, it shows that this indicator is in the category of higherbetter category average 3,772 range in the category of 3,41 to 4,20,
although it is not the highest indicator that perceived by the respondents. This shows that tourists will obtain a high intrinsic motivation, primarily due to the
high correlationsocial cohesion which is owned by the travelers. Extrinsic motivation X2 variable shows that the most powerful indicator as measurement
is, following friend’s activities X2.4. If it is associated with the result of the descriptive analysis, it shows that this indicator is also highest indicator that
perceived by respondents and this indicator is in the higherbetter category average 3,900 range in the category of 3,41 to 4,20. This shows that travelers will
get extrinsic high motivation, primarily due to high desire to follow the activities of friends, thus supporting high extrinsic motivation for travelers to do diving in
Bali. Next, the results of confirmatory factor analysis in Table 4.1 shows that strongest indicators as a measure of satisfaction X3 is that diving activity helps
relieve stress X3.4. If it is associated with the result of descriptive analysis, it shows that this indicator is in the higherbetter category average 3,956 range in
the category of 3,41 to 4,20, although it is not the highest indicator that perceived by the respondents. This shows that tourists will receive high satisfaction, mainly
due to the perception that the high diving activity helps relieve stress. In fact, the activity related to nature, such as diving, is very helpful to relieve stress, thus
supporting tourist’s high satisfaction to do diving in Bali. In the belief variable X4, it shows that the third indicator, namely the
competence and knowledge of diving in Bali service providers X4.3 has the highest
2906
�
I. Wayan Suardana
Table 4.1 The Result of Loading Factor
Variable Indicator
Mean Loading Sig Intrinsic motivation X1 X1.1 For knowledge
4.108 0.565 0.000
X1.2 To improve the competence 4.052
0.671 0.000 of diving
X1.3 To establish a relation or social 3.772
0.679 0.000 cohesion
X1.4 For sensation or relaxation 3.528
0.548 Fix
Extrinsic Motivation X2 X2.1To improve diving achievement 3.832
0.613 0.000 X2.2 Diving di Bali gets adequate facilities 3.740
0.470 0.000 X2.3 Bali has underwater diversity
3.892 0.632 0.000
X2.4 Following an invitation of a friend 3.900
0.681 Fix
Satisfaction X3 X3.1 Diving is a main choice in travelling
4.024 0.508 0.000
X3.2 Experience gained is precisely the 4.064
0.485 0.000 same as expected
X3.3 On the whole diving environment 3.868
0.507 0.000 in Bali is as expected
X3.4 On the whole the service given is 3.956
0.626 0.000 as expected,
X3.5 On the whole th need for diving 4.016
0.413 0.000 is fulfilled
X3.5 Overall it is interesting to do diving in Bali
4.020 0.500
Fix Trust X4
X4.1 believe that my provider would 3.908
0.564 0.000 act in my best interest
X4.2 I would characterize my current 4.000
0.568 0.000 provider as honest
X4.3 In general, my provider is very 3.968
0.659 0.000 knowledgeable about diving and its
services X4.4 I general, destination safety
4.028 0.630
Fix for diving
Product loyalty Y1 Y1.1 Do not want to switch from
3.500 0.496
Fix diving in Bali.
Y1.2 Always choose diving when 3.832
0.734 0.000 travelling in Bali.
Y1.3 Diving becomes life style 3.968
0.594 0.000 Y1.4 Would recommend diving
4.140 0.519 0.000
to others Y1.5 Would like to come back to the
3.868 0.571 0.000
destination in 2 years’ time
An Examination of the Relationship among Motivation, Satisfaction...
�
2907
value of loading factor compared to four other indicators. If it is associated with the result of descriptive analysis, it shows that this indicator is in the higher
better category average 3,832 range in the category of 3,41 to 4,20, although it is not the highest indicator that perceived by the respondents. This shows that
travelers are considered to have high trust, primarily seen from the competence and diving operators knowledge in Bali.
On product loyalty variable Y1, it shows that the second indicator who always choose diving Y1.2 has the highest value of loading factor compared to four other
indicators. If it is associated with the result of descriptive analysis, it shows that this indicator is in the higherbetter category average 3,832 range in the category
of 3,41 to 4,20, although it is not the highest indicator that perceived by the respondents. This shows that travelers are considered high loyalty, primarily seen
from the attitude that always choose diving in the tour.
3.2.2. Structural equation model SEM Assumption Testing Assuming that must be fulfilled prior to SEM analysis, is the assumption of
normality, absence of outliers, and linearity. The multivariate normality assumption was tested with the help of software AMOS 6. In univariate normal distribution of
data has been dominant since the absolute value of CR compared with the distribution of the critical value Z at ± = 5 ± 2.58 shows the value smaller than
the value of Z. In univariate test, there are two indicators which is not normal distributed, those are data X3.2 with X.4.3, with each value of 4.116 and 4.601.
However, based on arguments of central limit, if the sample is greater then the statistics will be normally distributed. With a sample size of n = 250, then the data
of this research is agreed meet the arguments of central limit, so the assumption of normality of the data is not critical and can be ignored.
To test the presence or absence of outliers, can be seen with Mahalanobis Distance Md. Mahalanobis distance is evaluated using a value of 128.565. From
Mahalanobis distance to the most far distant observation point is the 175th respondent with a value Md = 87.069. Compared to the value 150.7, the value of
175th Md point is 128 565, so it can be concluded that all points of observation is not an outlier. Linearity assumption testing is done with Curve Fit method.
Linearity test results shows all models were significant linear because the Sig value is 0.05, thus concluded that the assumption of linearity has been
fulfilled.
3.2.3. Goodness-of-fit measures for the structural equation model The test results of overall goodness of fit models, according to the results of SEM
analysis, to determine whether the hypothetical model supported by empirical data, are given in Table 4.2 below:
2908
�
I. Wayan Suardana
Table 4.2 Goodness of Fit Testing Results Overall Model
Criteria Cut-of value
Result Remarks
Chi Square Small
347,938 Good Model
p-value � 0,05
0,060 Good Model
CMINDF � 2,00
1,869 Good Model
GFI � 0,90
0,912 Good Model
AGFI � 0,90
0,882 Marginal
TLI � 0,95
0,950 Good Model
CFI � 0,95
0,960 Good Model
RMSEA � 0,05
0,059 Good Model
Goodness of Fit Overall test result based on picture and table 4.2 shows that 7 of the 8 criteria indicate a good model except AGFI marginal. According to
Hair,et al, 2010, the best criteria that is used as a good indication of the model, is the value of Chi Square DF is less than 2, and RMSEA was
under 0,08. In this research, the value of CMINDF and RMSEA has fulfilled the cut-off value. Chi square results show Ç2 = 347.938, with a probability
value of 0.060 which is above the limit of 0.05. It means that there is no difference between the sample covariance matrix and population covariance
matrix, therefore the model is acceptable. An index measuring the suitability of the model GFI, AGFI, TLI, CFI, RMSEA, and CMIN DF are in the expected
range of values Hair, et al 2010. Therefore, the SEM models in this research is suitable and feasible to be used, to allow interpretation for further discussion. It
also shows that this model could be replicated in similar samples of the same population.
3.2.4. Analysis of Structural Equation Modeling SEM In this structural model, eight 8 hypothesized relationship between the variables
direct influence have been tested. This test used the value of standardized estimate regression weight in the form loading factor. If standardized estimate regression
weight »i 0,050, with CR t table = 2.00, and the probability ± = 0.05, then the loading factor lambda parameters »i of the indicator is valid. The results showed
all variable indicators have standardized estimates regression weight in the form loading factor or lambda »i 0.50, the critical value CR 2,000 and has a probability
of less than 0.05 mark means 0.001. Thus, it can be said that all the indicators of the latent variable are valid or significant to reflect latent variables. The results
of testing the relationship between the research variables, is fully presented as follows:
An Examination of the Relationship among Motivation, Satisfaction...
�
2909
Table 4.3 Structural Model SEM Results: Direct Impact
Relationship between variables Std coefficient P-value Remarks
H1: Intrinsic Motivation X1 � Satisfaction X3
0.341 0.001
Significant H2: Intrinsic Motivation X1
� Product Loyalty Y 0.187
0.022 Significant
H3: Extrinsic motivation X2 � Satisfaction X3
0.232 0.001
Significant H4: Extrinsic motivation X2
�Trust X4 0.028
0.679 Non Significant
H5: Extrinsic Motivation X2 � Product loyalty Y1 0.357
0.001 Significant
H6: Satisfaction X3 � TrustX4
0.471 0.001
Significant H7: Satisfaction X3
� Product Loyalty Y1 0.093
0.169 Non Significant
H8: Trust X4 � Product Loyalty Y1
0.304 0.007
Significant
Graphically presented as follows the dashed lines denote that the relationship is not significant:
Figure 4.1: The Structural Model of SEM Result
The calculation results in Table 4.3 and Fig. 4.1, shows that from eight hypotheses constructed in this research, only two were not significant, those are
the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty, and extrinsic motivation with trust. This indicates that there is a mediating role in the satisfaction and trust, in
the relationship between motivation and loyalty. This shows the significance of direct effect between extrinsic motivation and trust, as well as satisfaction and
product loyalty. The influence of regression coefficient from intrinsic motivation X1 and
extrinsic motivation X2 to the satisfaction of 0,341 and 0,232 with a significance level of 5 shows the first hypothesis H1 and H3 is proved. The positive mark
of coefficient indicates that both relationship are directly proportional. This finding illustrates, that when the tourists have high intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, he
2910
�
I. Wayan Suardana
also has a tendency to get high satisfaction. Satisfaction was obtained because of the encouragement from the inside and the outside environment of the individual,
to realize the motivation. These finding proves the implementation of the self- determination theory, where satisfaction or pleasure is created from the sincerity
with a strong push from within ourselves. It is also consistent with the opinion of Ryan and Deci 1985 that intrinsic motivation is the internalization of a process in
obtaining satisfaction. These findings are also consistent and corroborate the findings Yoon and Uysal 2005; Lee 2009; Esichikul, 2012; Schuler, et al. 2010;
Gnoth 1997; Vallerand 2010; Correaia, et al. 2009; Crompton, 1979. This research also shows that trust is influenced by traveler satisfaction, while
extrinsic motivation is not able to prove the existence of such influence. Coefficient value is 0,471 with 5 significance. This proves that the only satisfaction of
antecedent is from trust, so that the hypothesis H6 is proven, while the H4 is not proven. These findings support the theory of marketing relationship Berry, 1995,
that customer satisfaction is very important but not sufficient to achieve marketing goals. To create travelers trust, necessarily needed positive experience of the
travelers. Besides the above facts, it also shows that external influences, namely destination, was not affecting the tourists trust. Diving becomes specific activities,
so that experience is the main consideration in deciding to purchase a product, rather than advertising information or facilities in destinations. Satisfaction with
the tourist destinations and facilities which are perceived by return travelers are more satisfying than the first visitors. This finding indicates that the respondents
feel the trust when they find satisfaction in the tour. These findings support previous research, which states that satisfaction Yen, et al., 2004; Sanchez-Franco,
2009; Rexha, et al., 2003; Walters, et al., 1999; Kim et al., 2011 and Chiung and Wen 2007 has positive effect on traveler’s trust.
In addition, the result of this research indicates that the product loyalty is influenced by intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and trust with 5
significance. Regression coefficient indicated by 0,.187 intrinsic motivation, 0,57 extrinsic motivation, and 0,304 trust value. In addition to proving the second
hypothesis H2, the fifth hypothesis H5 and eighth hypothesis H8, these findings suggest that respondents would be loyal if they have motivation for the
visit, and trust. So travelers are loyal to the products, not only because they are satisfied, but rather on the trust that arises and strong motivation from within and
from outside tourists. Although satisfaction had no significant effect, but remained a strong predictor in the decisive return visit Sirdesmukh, Singh and Sabol 2002;
Lin and Lu 2010. Travelers’ satisfaction can indirectly affect product loyalty, but through trust. This proves that the satisfaction not be the sole determinant of a
return visit, but on the motivation of the individual Olsen, Wilcox and Olsson, 2005. This indicates that the loyalty to products are used not solely because of
satisfied, but because they believe in the product and has a strong motivation to
An Examination of the Relationship among Motivation, Satisfaction...
�
2911
travel back. In addition to the direct effect test, the SEM is also known indirect effect. The indirect effect is the result of multiplying two 2 direct effects. Testing
approach of the indirect affect is using Sobel Test tools, for the two no significant direct effect above, those are the effect of extrinsic motivation on trust, as well as
the influence of satisfaction on product loyalty. Here are presented the results of the indirect effect:
Table 4.4 Indirect Effect
Relationship between variables Std
P-value Remarks coefficient
Mediation 1. Extrinsic Motivation X2 �
0.232x0.471 0.009
Significant Satisfaction X3
� Trust X4 = 0.109
Full mediation Mediation 2. Satisfaction X3
� Trust X4 � 0.471x0.304
0.002 Significant
Product loyalty Y1 = 0.143
Full mediation
The test results as follows: The indirect effect between extrinsic motivation X2 on trust X4 via satisfaction X3, obtained p value of 0.009 0.05 and the
coefficient of the indirect influence of 0,109. So the conclusion is, there is a significant indirect effect between extrinsic motivation X2 on trust X4 via satisfaction X3.
It means, that the higher value of extrinsic motivation X2, will affect the value of trust X4 through satisfaction X3. This illustrates that the tourists motivation
does not only incr ease the loyalty of the product but also increase tourist satisfaction. Furthermore, this research shows that satisfaction becomes full
mediators on motivational influence with trust. These findings corroborate the findings of Ryan and Deci, 1985 and Mundet and Ribera, 2001.
The indirect effect between satisfaction X3 on products loyalty Y1 through the trust X4, obtained p value of 0.002 0.05 and the coefficient of the indirect
influence of 0.143. So it can be concluded that there is a significant indirect effect between satisfaction X3 on products loyalty Y1 through the trust X4. It means
that, the higher value of satisfaction X3, will affect the value of products loyalty Y1 through trust X4. In other words, that the satisfaction not only increase loyalty
but also increase the tourist trust. This formulation also showed that trust acts as a mediator on the effect of satisfaction with the product loyalty. So trust as a
fundamental element for the success of a relationship marketing Berry, 1995. This finding is consistent with Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Kim, et al 2011; Caceres
and Paparoidamis, 2007.
4. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION From these results, it is known that the loyalty of the product is not only determined
by the satisfaction and trust but also determined by a strong motivation from the
2912
�
I. Wayan Suardana
past experience. In other words, the existence of a strong motivation can make consumers remain loyal to the products they used, even though at that time they
feel dissatisfaction or distrust of the product. The findings also show the role of satisfaction and trust as an intermediary variable or full mediator on the relationship
between motivation and loyalty, because extrinsic motivation indirectly affect trust. Meanwhile, satisfaction also indirectly affects the loyalty to the product. This shows
that the satisfaction and trust are needed in increasing the tourist motivation to grow the tourist loyalty to the product. Empirically, this model proves tourists
encouragement directly or indirectly increase product loyalty, if tourists get the satisfaction and trust from the past experience. The loyalty shown by the intention
to re-use the same product while travelling, recommending the same product to others, and have a tendency to be directly involved in the same activities in the
future. The result of this research provides a theoretical and practical implication. These
findings are consistent and reinforce the results of previous researches, particularly those which are conducted by Yoon and Uysal 2005; Kim, Lee, and Klenosky,
2003; Careres and Paparoidamis, 2007; Sirdeshmukh, et al 2002: Kim, et al, 2011. Theoretically, the consistency of these findings suggests the establishment
robustness from the influence of motivation, satisfaction and trust in improving tourist loyalty. Besides, these findings also strengthen and deepen the
implementation of the theory of decision-making on the behavior of tourists Swarbrooke abd Horner, 2007, relationship marketing Berry, 1995 and self-
determination theory Ryan and Deci, 1985. Furthermore, for tourism marketing practitioners, this research provides an
overview that should be considered in developing a marketing strategy, particularly in building product loyalty in tourism services. The findings of this
research indicate that satisfaction is not the only determinant of loyalty to the product, but is also determined by the level of their trust and their strong
motivation from within and from outside. The evidence of the mediating role of satisfaction and trust indicates that the tourist motivation is not only able to
increase loyalty but also build satisfaction level and tourists trust, which ultimately make loyal travelers. The existence of satisfaction and consumers trust,
making tourists thinks less of other alternatives which are available in the tourism market. Further, increase customer satisfaction and trust will be very useful in
making consumers remain loyal, especially at the time of high competition and barriers to move are very less. Satisfaction and trust can be built through the
development of emotional relationships and the development of product differentiation that can benefit the tourists both economically and emotionally.
Product differentiation is done by determining new things rather than the perspective that is commonly used. In addition, all the factors that influence
satisfaction, especially motivation, can be clearly identified and integrated in
An Examination of the Relationship among Motivation, Satisfaction...
�
2913
synergy to create a quality experience travel to all service aspects, that allows for travelling back and recommending others.
5. CONCLUDING COMMENTS From the above results, some conclusions were obtained as follows: 1 intrinsic
motivation and extrinsic motivation influence on satisfaction, 2 extrinsic motivation and satisfaction affect the trust, 3 the intrinsic motivation; extrinsic
motivation, satisfaction, and trust affect the product loyalty. Tourist satisfaction tested into a full mediation on relationship between extrinsic motivation and trust.
Besides, trust is also a full mediator in the relationship between satisfaction and product loyalty. Satisfaction and trust become variables into the relationship
between motivation and product loyalty. It means, to build product loyalty, not just satisfaction and trust are concerned, but tourist motivation has to be noted as
well. This research has several weaknesses that need to be overcome for researchers who are interested to make research about product loyalty, especially in the subject
of research. This research was conducted on the diving activities as a representation of the tourism market. To obtain findings that can be generalized in the tourism
market, researchers need to use other tourist activities to test the consistency of findings across the market.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments of Prof. Dr. IKG. Bendesa, M.A.D.E, and the anonymous reviewers for providing constructive comments.The authors also thanking
Prof Dr. Made Antara, MS for his editorial assistance.
References
Anastassova, L. 2011, Tourist Loyalty and Destination Brand Image Perception: the Case of Sunny Beach Resort, Bulgaria. European Journal of Tourism Research.4 2. ISSN: 1994-7658.
pp 191-204. Assael, Henry. 1992, Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action. Fourth Edition. Publishing
Company. Baker, Dwayne A. and Crompton, John L. 2000, Quality, Satisfaction And Behavioral Intentions.
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 27, No. 3. pp. 785-804, Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Beggs, B. A., and Elkins, D. J. 2012, The Influence of Leisure Motivation on Leisure Satisfaction. LARNet; The Cyber Journal of Applied Leisure and Recreation Research. Volume 15, Issue 3, Fall
2012, Pp 1-12. Benito, Oscar G., and Partal, Mercedes. M. 2012 Role of Retailer Positioning and Product
Category on the Relationship Between Store Brand Consumption and Store Loyalty. Journal of Retailing 88. No. 2. Elsevier.
Berry, L.L., and Parasuraman, A. 1991, Marketing Service-Competing Trough Quality. New York: Free Press.
2914
�
I. Wayan Suardana
Berry, LL. 1983a, Relationship Marketing: Emerging Perspective on Service Marketing. In L.L. Berry and G.I. Shostack dan G. Upah eds, Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Berry, LL. 1995 b, Relationship Marketing of Services-Growing Interest, Emerging Perspectives. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science. Vol. 23. No.4. pp. 236-245.
Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd. 2006, A Note on the Theory and Measurement of Trust in Explaining Differences in Economic Growth. Cambridge Journal of Economics. Vol. 30. Pp. 371–387.
Bowen, John T. and Chen, Shiang-Lih. 2001, The relationship between customer loyalty and customer satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13 5.pp
213-217. Caceres, R.C. and Paparoidamis, N. G. 2007, Service quality, relationship satisfaction, trust,
commitment and business-to business loyalty. European Journal of Marketing. Vol 41. No. 7 8, 2007. Pp 836-867. Emerald group Publishing Limited.
Chauduri, a. and Holbrook, M.B. 2001, The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Effect to Brand Performance. The Role of Brand Loyalty, Marketing Science. Vol 17. No 1. pp 45-65.
Cheng, C.F. and Lee, A. H. 2011, The influence of Relationship Marketing Strategy and Transaction Cost on Customer Satisfaction, Perceived Risk, and Customer Loyalty. African
Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5 13, pp 5199-5209. ISSN 1993-8233. Chow, S. and Holden, R. 1997, Toward an Understanding of Loyalty: the Moderating role of
Trust. Journal of Managerial Issues. Fall 1997; 9, 3. ABIINFORM Research. Pp 275-298. Correia, Antonia, and Moital, Miguel. 2009, Antecedents and Consequences of Prestige
Motivation in Tourism An Expectancy-Value Motivation. In Kozak, M., and Decrop, A., ed. Handbook of Tourism Behavior Theory Practice. New York: Routledge Taylor Frrancis Group.
Cosic, M. and Djuric, M. D. 2010, Relationship Marketing in The Tourist Services Sector. UTMS Journal of Economics, Vol. 1 No 1. pp. 53-60.
Crompton, J. L. 1979, Motivations for Pleasure Vacations. Annals of Tourism Research. Vol 6. pp 408-424.
Deci, E. L. Ryan, R. M. 1985, The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11. Pp 227-268.
Deng, Z. Yaobin Lu, Kwok Kee Wei, and Jinlong Zhang. 2010, Understanding Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Empirical Study of Mobile Instant Messages in China.
International Journal of Information Management 30. pp 289-300. Elsevier. Dick, A. S., and K. Basu 1994, Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Framework. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 2, pp. 99-113. Esichikul, Ranee. 2012, Travel Motivations, Behavior and Requirements of European Senior
Tourists to Thailand. PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. Vol. 10, No. 2, Special Issue. pp 47-58.
Evan, Joel R. and Laskin, Richard L., 1994, The Relationship Marketing Process: A Conceptualization and Application. Industrial Marketing Management 23, pp 439-452. New
York: Avenue of the Americans. Forgas Coll S., Ramon Palau S., Javier Sanchez Gracia, Luis J Callarisa Fiol. 2012, Urban
destination loyalty drivers and cross national moderator effects: The case of Barcelona. Tourism Management xxx. 1-12. Elsevier.
An Examination of the Relationship among Motivation, Satisfaction...
�
2915
Franco, Manuael J Sanchez. 2009, The Moderating Effects of Involvement on the Relationship Between Satisfaction, Trust and Commitment in e-Banking. Journal Interactive Marketing.
Vol 23. Pp 247-258. Fullerton, G., 2005, The Role of Commitment in Service Relationship. Kingston, Ontario : School
of Business Acadia University, limited publication, p. 3-18. Gagne, Maryle‘ne and Deci, Edward L. 2005, Self-Determination Theory and Work Motivation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior. Vol. 26, pp 331–362. Published online in Wiley InterScience. Gallarza M.G and Saura, I G. 2006, Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty:
an investigation of university students travel behavior. Tourism Management 27 2006 pp 437-452. Elsevier.
Garbarino, E., and Johnson, M. 1999, The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, And Commitment in Customer Relationship. Journal of Marketing, Vol 63. No. 2. pp 70-87.
Gnoth, J. Bigne J.E, and Andreu, L. 2006, ”Waiting Time Effects on the Leisure Experince and Visitor Emotions”. In Kozak, M and Luisa Andreu. Progress in Tourism Marketing. UK:
Advances in Tourism Research Series. Gray, Jerry I., Frederick A. Starke. 1984, Organizational Behavior, Concepts and Applications.
Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. 2010, Multivariate Data Analysis. Seventh
Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Holden, A., and Sparrowhawk, J. 2002, Understanding the Motivations of Ecotourist: the Case
of Trekkers in Annapurna, Nepal. International Journal of Tourism Research. Vol 4. pp 435- 446. Publish in Wiley InterScience.
Hui, T K., David Wan and Alvin Ho. 2007, Tourist satisfaction, recommendation and revisiting Singapore. Tourism Management 28. Pp 965-975.
Jamaludin, M., Johari, S. Aziz, A., Kayat, K., Yusof, A.R.M., 2012, Examining Structural Relationship between Destination Image, Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty.
International Journal of Independent Research and Studies – IJIRS ISSN: 2226-4817; EISSN: 2304- 6953. Vol. 1, No.3. pp. 89-96
Jang, S. and Feng, R. 2007, Temporal destination revisit intention: The effects of novelty seeking and satisfaction. Tourism Management. 28. pp 580-590.
Javalgi, R.R.G., Moberg, C. 1997, Service Loyalty: Implications for Service Providers. The Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 11 3, pp 165-179.
Joynathsing, C., dan Ramkissoon, H., 2010, “Understanding the Behavioral Intention of European Tourists”. International Research Symposium in Service Management. ISSN 1694-
0938. Mairitius, 24-27 August 2010. Keating, B., Kriz, A. 2008, Outbound Tourism from China: Literature Review and Research
Agenda. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 15. pp. 32–41. Kim, J. Soongeun Hong, Jinyoung Min and Heeseok Lee. 2011, Antecedents of application
service continuance: A synthesis of satisfaction and trust. Expert Systems With Applications 38 2011 pp 9530-9542. Elsevier.
Kim, S., Lee, C., and Klenosky, D.B. 2003, The Influence of Push and Pull factors at Korean National parks. Tourism Management, 24. pp 169-180.
2916
�
I. Wayan Suardana
Kouthouris, Charilaos. 2009, An Examination of the Relationships between Motivation, Involvement and Intention to continuing Participation among Recreational Skiers.
International Journal of S port Management Recreation Tourism. Vol. 4. pp. 1-19. Latu, Tavite M. and Everett, Andre M. 2000, Review of Satisfaction Research And Measurement
Approaches. Science and Research Internal Report 183. New Zealand: Department of Conservation.
Lau, G., and Lee, S. 1999, Consumers’ Trust in a Brand and Link to Brand Loyalty. Journal of Market Focused Management. Vol 4. pp. 341-370.
Lee, M., and Cunningham, L.F. 2001, A CostBenefit Approach to Understanding Service Loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing. Vol 15. No 2. pp 113-130.
Lee, M-S. Huey-Der Hsiao, and Ming Fen Yang. 2010, The Study of the Relationships among Experiential Marketing, Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty. The
International Journal of Organizational Innovation. pp. 352-378. Lee, T. H. 2009, A Structural Model to Examine How Destination Image, Attitude, and
Motivation Affect the Future Behavior of Tourists. Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 31: 215–236, Taylor Francis Group, LLC.
Li, Xiang Robert, Petrick, James F. 2010, Revisiting the Commitment-Loyalty Distinction in Cruising Context. Journal of Leisure Research. First Quarter 2010; Vol 42, 1. proquest. pp. 67-
90. Lin, Long-Yi and Ching-Yuh Lu. 2010, The Influence of Corporate Image, Relationship
Marketing, and Trust on Purchase Intention: The Moderating Effects of Word-Of-Mouth. Tourism Review. Vol. 65 No. 3. pp. 16-34. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Lindenberg, S. 2001, Intrinsic Motivation in a New Light. Kyklos, 54 23. M’Sallem, W. Bouhlel, and Mohamed Nabil Mzoughi. 2011, The Perceived Ethical Behavior
of Bankers: A North African Persfective. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, Vol. 1. No 2. pp 45-54.
Mayer, R. C., Gavin, M. B. 2005, Trust in Management and Performance: Who Minds The Shop While the Employees Watch The Boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 874–888.
Mittal, V., WA. Kamakura 2001, Satisfaction, repurchase Intent, and Repuchase Behavior: Investigating the Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristics. Journal of Marketing Reserach
38 1. pp 131-142. Moliner, M.A., Javier Sa´nchez, Rosa M. Rodriguez and Luý´s Callarisa. 2007, Perceived
Relationship Quality and Post-Purchase Perceived Value an Integrative Framework. European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 41 No. 1112. pp. 1392-1422. Emerald Group Publishing
Limited. Moorman, Christine, Gerald Zaltman and Rohit Deshpande. 1993, Relationship Between
Providers and User of Marketing Research: The Dynamics of Trust Within and Between Organization. Journal of Marketing Research. 29 August. pp. 314-329.
Morgan R.M. and Hunt S. D. 1994, The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. Journal of Marketing. Vol 58 1994 pp. 20-38.
Niininem, O. Edith Szivas, and Michael Riley. 2004, Destination Loyalty and Repaet Behaviour: an Application of Optimum Stimulation Measurement. International Journal of Tourism
An Examination of the Relationship among Motivation, Satisfaction...
�
2917
Research. Vol. 6. pp 439-447. Wiley Interscience. O’Malley, L. and Tynan, C. 2000, Relationship marketing in consumer markets Rhetoric or
reality? European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 7. pp 797-815. MCB University Press. Oliver, R.L. 1997, Satisfaction. A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY. Park, Duk-Byeong and, Yoon, Yoo-Shik. 2009, Segmentation by Motivation in Rural Tourism:
A Korean case study. Tourism Management 30. pp. 99–108. Journal homepage: www.elsevier.comlocatetourman.
Payne. 1993, The Essence of Services Marketing. Englewood Cliffs NJ Peppers, D M Rogers. 2004, Managing Customer Relationship: A Strategic Framework. New
Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. Reid, R.D. and Bojanic, D.C. 2010, Hospitality Marketing Management. Fifth Editions. United
States of America: Wiley Sons. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. 2000, Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and
New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25. pp 54-67. Salegna, Gary J., and Goodwin, Stephen A. 2005, Consumer Loyalty To Service Providers: An
Integrated Conceptual Model. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfactions and Complaining Behavior. Vol 24. ABIINFORM Research. pp 42-54.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., and Sabol, B. 2002, Consumer Trust, Value, and Loyalty in Relational Exchanges. Journal of Marketing, Vol 66, 1; proquest, pp 55-37.
Stiglbauer, B., Gnambs, T., Gamsjager, M. 2001, The Interactive Effects of Motivations and Trust in Anonymity on Adolescents’ Enduring Participation in Web-Based Social Science
Research: a Longitudinal Behavioral Analysis. International Journal of Internet Science. Vol 6 1, pp 29-43. IJIS .NET
Swarbrooke John. and Susan Horner. 2007, Consumer Behaviour in Tourism. Second edition. London. Butterworth Heinemann.
Szymanski, DM, and DH. Herard. 2001, Customer Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis of the Emperical Evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 29 1. pp 16-35.
Taleghani, M. Choobeh, and Mousavian, S.J. 2011, The Role of Loyalty Dimensions in Customer Orientation Process For New Enterprises in Tourism Industries of Iran. Australian Journal
of Business and Management Research, Vol 1. No.6. pp 143-151. Um, S. Kaye Chon. Younghee Ro. 2006, Antecedens of Revisi Intention. Annals of Tourism
Research. Vol. 33. No.4 pp 1141-1158. Valle, Patricia Oom do., João Albino Silva, Júlio Mendes, Manuela Guerreiro. 2006, Tourist
Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty intention: A Structural and Categorical Analysis. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 1, Issue 1. Pp. 25-44.
Business-and-Management.com Vallerand, Robert. J. 2004, Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in Sport. Encylopedia of Applied
Psychology. Vol. 2. Elsevier.s Walter A, Thilo A Mueller, Gabriele Helfert. 1999, The Impact of Satisfaction, Trust,
and Relationship Value on Commitment: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Result. Un publish.
2918
�
I. Wayan Suardana
Yen, T., Liu, H., and Tuan, C. 2004, Managing Relationship Efforts to Influence Loyalty: An Empirical Study on the Sun Link Sea Forest and Recreation Park Taiwan. International Journal
of Organization Innovation. Vol 2. No 2. pp 179-194. Yi, Y. 1991, A Critical Review of Consumer Satisfaction. In Zeithaml, V.A ed. Review of
Marketing. 1990. American Marketing Association. Chicago. IL. pp 68-12. Yoon, Y. and Uysal. M. 2005, An examination of the Effects of Motivation and Satisfaction on
Destination Loyalty: a Structural Model. Tourism Management. 26 2005 45–56. Yuksel, A. Yuksel, F., and Bilim, Y. 2010, Destination attachment: Effects on customer
satisfaction and cognitive, affective and co-native loyalty. Tourism Management 31. pp 274- 284. www.elsevier.comlocatetourma.
Yuksel, A., and Yuksel, F. 2007, Shopping Risk Perceptions: Effects on Tourists’ Emotions, Satisfaction and Expressed Loyalty Intentions. Tourism Management 28 2007 pp. 703–713.
www.elsevier.comlocatetourma
