Journal of Travel Research http://jtr.sagepub.

com/

Antecedents of Tourists' Loyalty to Mauritius: The Role and Influence of Destination Image, Place
Attachment, Personal Involvement, and Satisfaction
Girish Prayag and Chris Ryan
Journal of Travel Research 2012 51: 342 originally published online 30 May 2011
DOI: 10.1177/0047287511410321

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/51/3/342

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Travel Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/51/3/342.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Mar 28, 2012

OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 30, 2011

What is This?

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013

410321
21Prayag, RyanJournal of Travel Research
JTRXXX10.1177/00472875114103

Journal of Travel Research

Antecedents of Tourists’ Loyalty to 51(3) 342­–356

© 2012 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
Mauritius: The Role and Influence of sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047287511410321

Destination Image, Place Attachment,

http://jtr.sagepub.com

Personal Involvement, and Satisfaction

Girish Prayag1 and Chris Ryan2

Abstract
This article evaluates a theoretical model based on hypothesized relationships among four constructs, namely, destination
image, place attachment, personal involvement, and visitors’ satisfaction as antecedents of loyalty. These relationships are
explored for a sample of 705 international visitors staying in hotels on the island of Mauritius. Confirmatory factor analysis is
used initially to ascertain the dimensions of the various constructs but also to assess the convergent and discriminant validity
of the measurement items. The structural model indicates that destination image, personal involvement and place attachment
are antecedents of visitors’ loyalty but this relationship is mediated by satisfaction levels. The findings offer important
implications for tourism theory and practice.

Keywords
destination image, place attachment, personal involvement, loyalty, satisfaction, Mauritius

In the context of tourist destinations, visitor loyalty remains
an important indicator of successful destination develop-
ment. Many studies exist on the antecedents of tourists’ loy-
alty, including motivation, destination image, trip quality,
perceived value, and satisfaction, in different settings such as
country, states, city, and islands (see Bigné, Sanchez, and
Sanchez 2001; Chen and Tsai 2007; Chi and Qu 2008; Huang
and Hsu 2009; Prayag 2009). Yet only recently have place
attachment and personal involvement as predictors of destina-
tion loyalty been of interest to tourism academics (Alexandris,
Kouthouris, and Meligdis 2006; Hwang, Lee, and Chen
2005; Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010). Specifically, these
two predictors have been extensively examined for leisure
and recreational sites (see Iwasaki and Havitz 1998; Kim,
Scott, and Crompton 1997; Kyle et al. 2004), and more
recently extended to heritage sites (Poira, Butler, and Airey
2004). To date, no studies in the tourism literature have exam-
ined simultaneously the structural relationships between des-
tination image, place attachment, personal involvement, and
satisfaction as antecedents of loyalty in a SIDS (Small Island
Developing State). Given their unique appeal as tourist des-
tinations because of geographical, cultural, and social speci-
ficities, many SIDS have high levels of repeat visitation,
thereby suggesting that tourists may have a stronger emo-
tional attachment compared to more traditional destinations.
An understanding of the antecedents of visitor loyalty,
therefore, may offer service providers and destination mar-
keters additional opportunities to improve the perceived
relevance, emotional attachment, involvement, image and
satisfaction of visitors as well as the marketing of touristic
sites (Chen and Tsai 2007; Chi and Qu 2008; Yuksel, Yuksel,
and Bilim 2010). Also, identifying the relative importance of
these factors in determining loyalty may enable destinations to
allocate more efficiently scarce resources, thereby consolidat-
ing visitor retention.
In addition, the variety of scales measuring place attach-
ment and personal involvement in different fields, including
tourism, as well as the similarities between items/dimensions
of such scales with the affective component of destination
image, for example, require a more integrated approach
toward understanding tourist affection to places and its
influence on future behavior. For example, destination image
measurement has centered on measuring cognitive, affec-
tive, and conative components (Beerli and Martin 2004;
Gallarza, Saura, and Garcia 2002; Tasci and Gartner 2007).
Specifically, cognitive images have been measured using
lists of functional and psychological attributes while affective
images have been measured almost exclusively using Russel,
Ward, and Pratt’s (1981) affective grid scale or variants
1
SKEMA Business School, Sophia Antipolis, France
2
Waikato Management School, Hamilton, New Zealand
Corresponding Author:
Girish Prayag, SKEMA Business School, 60 Rue Dostoievski, BP85,
Sophia Antipolis, France
Email: girish.prayag@skema.edu

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013

Prayag and Ryan
thereof. More recently, Hosany and Gilbert’s (2010)
Destination Emotion Scale (DES) is another useful tool for
measuring visitors’ emotional attachment to destinations.
However, these existing scales only measure visitors’ emo-
tional response to the physical environment while attach-
ment can also develop as a result of interactions between
hosts and guests. Trauer and Ryan (2005) argued that tour-
ism encounters are service relationships that can stimulate
emotional attachment through the special interest focus and
a level of enduring involvement on the part of participants.
This may explain the proliferation of scales in leisure and
recreation fields measuring the relationship between place
attachment and personal involvement.
Some notable features of these various scales are (1) feel-
ings of pleasure are measured for both affective image and
personal involvement; (2) feelings of enjoyment are mea-
sured for place attachment, affective image, and personal
involvement; (3) the importance of a destination or site to the
visitor is measured for both place attachment and personal
involvement. Consequently, the relationship between some
of these constructs remains unclear, inconclusive, and at
times contradictory in tourism and other fields. Yet the con-
ceptual similarities between items and dimensions suggest
that relationships and interrelationships may exist, not yet
fully understood in the tourism field for different types of
attractions, sites, and destinations. Hence, the main purpose
of this study is to evaluate a theoretical model incorporating
these constructs (destination image, place attachment, per-
sonal involvement, and satisfaction) as antecedents of loyalty.
By doing so, the study (1) broadens the applicability of the con-
cept of place attachment and personal involvement to tourist
destinations and (2) provides evidence of their importance as
antecedents of satisfaction and loyalty for SIDS.
Theoretical Background
The Construct of Destination
Image and its Measurement
Destination image is devoid of a theoretical base but its
influence on pre-, in situ, and postpurchase decisions is well
accepted (Beerli and Martin 2004). Most definitions of the
term relate to individual (Crompton 1979) or group percep-
tions of a place (Jenkins 1999). More recently, Tasci,
Gartner, and Cavusgil (2007) suggested that “destination image
is an interactive system of thoughts, opinions, feelings, visu-
alizations, and intentions toward a destination” (p. 200),
which not only recognizes the multiplicity of elements (cog-
nitive, affective, and conative) forming the construct but also
their influence on the purchase decision process. An overall
or composite image is formed as a result of interactions
between these elements (Gartner 1993; Lin et al. 2007).
Destination image is also described in terms of attribute-
based and holistic components (Echtner and Ritchie 1991).
The former refers to the perception of individual attributes or
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013
343
destination features (e.g., local cuisine), known as cognitive
images, while the latter refers to mental pictures or place
imagery based on both cognitive (e.g., safe for family) and
affective images (e.g., enjoyable experience). These authors
also suggest that attribute-based and holistic components
possess functional (measurable) and psychological (abstract)
characteristics. While recognizing the lack of homogeneity
with respect to the attributes defining an individual’s percep-
tions (Beerli and Martin 2004), the majority of studies have
relied on lists of attributed measures using scaling methods
to assess image perceptions (Gallarza, Saura, and Garcia
2002; Tasci and Gartner 2007; Prayag 2009). Also, in sev-
eral instances, the validity and reliability of scales used were
not established, casting doubt on their psychometric proper-
ties (Beerli and Martin 2004). To date, combining structured
and unstructured methods is considered the most appropriate
measurement approach (Echtner and Ritchie 1991; Tasci and
Gartner 2007).
The Construct of Place
Attachment and its Measurement
In the recreation and leisure field, many studies have
explored the nature and nuances of people’s emotional rela-
tionship with places, including their interactions with sig-
nificant others (Manzo 2003). This relationship has been
conceptualized in numerous ways and under various related
terms such as sense of place (Stedman 2003; Tuan 1980),
place attachment (Kaltenborn 1998; Williams and Vaske
2003), and place bonding (Hammitt, Backlund, and Bixler
2006). However, place attachment remains the most popular
term and is defined as the emotional bond between an indi-
vidual and a particular spatial setting (Williams et al. 1992).
However, the relationship between place attachment and
other constructs such as sense of place, the meaning attached
to a spatial setting (e.g., nature park) by a person or group
(Stedman 2003); place belonging, a social bonding that may
also entail a spiritual connection toward social and commu-
nal environments shared by individuals (e.g., river or reli-
gious site); and place bonding, a strong emotional tie,
temporary or lasting, between a person and a particular place
or site (e.g., lake or heritage site) (Hammitt, Backlund, and
Bixler 2006), remains to be clarified given that these con-
cepts are poorly articulated and often cannot be differenti-
ated by their definitions (Stedman 2003). Some argue that
sense of place, place dependence, and place identity are
forms of place attachment (Williams et al. 1992; Williams
and Vaske 2003; Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010), while
others suggest that sense of place is the broader term and
place attachment is a subdimension (Jorgensen and Stedman
2001; Kyle et al. 2004; Stedman 2003).
While recognizing this conceptual debate, place attach-
ment is considered as the overarching concept in this study,
with two subdimensions of place identity and place depen-
dence, as suggested by tourism scholars (e.g., George and
344 Journal of Travel Research XX(X)
George 2004; Gross and Brown 2008; Yuksel, Yuksel, and
Bilim 2010). Place identity refers to “an individual’s strong
emotional attachment to particular places or settings”
(Proshansky, Fabian, and Kaminoff 1983, p. 61). As such,
place identity can increase one’s feelings of belonging to a
tourist destination (Tuan 1980) and the tourism setting can
enable individuals to both express as well as affirm this iden-
tity (Kyle et al. 2004). Hou, Lin, and Morais (2005) found
that place identity was the stronger predictor of place attach-
ment among Hakka than non-Hakka visitors to Pei-Pu
(Taiwan), suggesting that one’s self-identity and relationship
with a place contributes to feelings of attachment. In a heri-
tage context, Poira, Reichel, and Biran (2006) argued that the
same site may have different meanings for different people.
Yet site attributes and visitors’ own identity can lead to feel-
ings of belongingness and emotional involvement (Poira,
Butler, and Airey 2004).
Place dependence (functional attachment) has been
defined as “how well a setting serves goal achievement
given an existing range of alternatives” (Jorgensen and
Stedman 2001, p. 234). It reflects the importance of a place
in providing features and conditions that support specific
goals or desired activities (Williams and Roggenbuck 1989).
New Zealand, for example, would provide a fulfilling expe-
rience for tourists seeking specifically pristine natural envi-
ronments, adventurous activities, and unique cultural activities
(e.g., Maori) and who consider the destination as an impor-
tant place for such activities. Place dependence is also a
form of bonding (Hammitt, Backlund, and Bixler 2006),
where places satisfying several needs typically lead to a
more embedded, extensive, or deeper place dependence
compared to places where fewer needs are met (Stokols
and Shumaker 1981). Hence, this functional attachment is
embodied in the destination or area’s physical characteris-
tics (Williams and Vaske 2003) and is strongly related to
the perception that the setting possesses unique qualities
(Williams et al. 1992).
Various scales have been proposed to measure place iden-
tity and place dependence. The number of items used to mea-
sure each dimension varies according to the setting and how
place attachment is conceptualized. For example, Hou, Lin,
and Morais (2005) used 12 items on a Taiwanese sample of
cultural domestic visitors while Alexandris, Kouthouris, and
Meligdis (2006) measured attachment levels of recreational
skiers in Greece using 11 items. More recently, Yuksel,
Yuksel, and Bilim (2010) measured place identity and place
dependence on a sample of international visitors to Didim-
Turkey using 3 items for each dimension. Yet most studies
draw from the 12-item scale proposed by Williams and
Vaske (2003) on forest recreation sites, validated using a
sample of university students. Applications of the place
attachment scale, therefore, in an island destination setting
remain limited. Nonetheless, the tendency among research-
ers in tourism and other fields seems to be fewer items that
have greater reliability and validity (Gross and Brown 2008;
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013
Hou, Lin, and Morais 2005; Williams and Vaske 2003;
Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010).
The Construct of Personal
Involvement and Its Measurement
Interactions between people and landscapes, objects, and
environments are not necessarily sufficient to develop place
attachment (Cresswell 2004). It is through involvement
between people, and between people and place, that emo-
tional bonds are formed (Pretty, Chipuer, and Bramston
2003). Therefore, related to the concept of place attachment
is the involvement level of visitors with the destination
experience. While numerous and varied definitions of the
concept exist (Havitz and Dimanche 1990), most studies
involving place attachment conceptualize involvement in
terms of personal relevance (Kyle and Chick 2002). This
implies that personal involvement reflects the degree to
which a person devotes himself or herself to an activity,
associated product, or experience (Gross and Brown 2008;
Zaichkowsky 1985). It has also been described as an unob-
servable state of motivation, arousal, or interest toward a
recreational activity or associated product (Gursoy and
Gavcar 2003; Iwasaki and Havitz 1998). The application of
the personal involvement concept in tourism remains limited
because of its complexity (Gursoy and Gavcar 2003).
Involvement, as an attitude, is formed and learnt during
interaction with the social environment (Sherif and Sherif
1967), but this interaction does not have to be necessarily
on-site (e.g., for religious and heritage sites) and can be
shaped by individual differences and experiences (Poira,
Reichel, and Biran 2006). Evidence also suggests that differ-
ent facets of involvement are likely to influence behaviors
such as satisfaction and loyalty differently (Laurent and
Kapferer 1985), but involvement does not systematically
lead to expected differences in behavior (Havitz and
Dimanche 1997).
Personal involvement has been measured either using
Zaichkowsky’s (1985) Personal Involvement Inventory or
Laurent and Kapferer’s (1985) Consumer Involvement
Profile. While the former scale is unidimensional, the latter
is multidimensional and displays stronger content and face
validity (Havitz and Dimanche 1997). However, this multi-
dimensionality remains the subject of much debate in the
leisure and recreation field (Funk, Ridinger, and Moorman
2004). There is a growing recognition that the various com-
ponents of involvement do not equally influence an indi-
vidual’s involvement profile, that different patterns of
involvement exist according to activities, products, or indi-
vidual characteristics, and all instruments proposed and used
to date have weaknesses (Havitz and Dimanche 1997). As a
result, researchers have used different numbers of items to
measure the construct, but almost all studies using the
Consumer Involvement Profile scale measure five dimen-
sions (importance, pleasure, sign, risk probability, and risk
Prayag and Ryan
consequence) or variants thereof. The importance dimension
refers to the interest in, or perceived importance of, the product/
service. The pleasure dimension refers to the hedonic value
or pleasure value attributed to the product/service. The
dimension of sign refers to the symbolic value attributed by
the consumer to the product/service. Risk probability refers
to the perceived probability of making a poor purchase deci-
sion while risk consequence refers to the perceived impor-
tance of negative consequences associated with purchase of
the product/service (Dimanche, Havitz, and Howard 1991;
Laurent and Kapferer 1985; Gursoy and Gavcar 2003).
Others have used a modified version of this scale, known as
the Enduring Involvement scale (McIntyre and Pigram 1992)
but in the purchase of a vacation, Gursoy and Gavcar (2003)
showed that only three dimensions—pleasure/interest, risk
probability, and risk consequence—were relevant. Hence, to
date there is no standardized instrument to measure personal
involvement.
The Construct of
Loyalty and Its Measurement
The most popular definition of loyalty is that of Oliver
(1999), whereby “loyalty is a deeply held commitment to
re-buy or re-patronize a preferred product/service consis-
tently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or
same brand set purchasing, despite situational influences
and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switch-
ing behavior” (p. 34). Loyalty for a tourist destination has
been the subject of intense academic debate (see Oppermann
2000; Baker and Crompton 2000; Yoon and Uysal 2005)
mostly with respect to its measurement. To date, loyalty
has been measured using three approaches to data usage:
(1) behavioral data, (2) attitudinal data, and (3) composite
(combination of both). The behavioral approach is based on
measuring brand purchase sequence, brand purchase propor-
tion, or probability of purchase (Jacoby and Chestnut 1978).
This approach has been criticized for its lack of clarity with
respect to its conceptual framework and inability to explain
the factors that influence customer loyalty (Yoon and
Uysal 2005).
Proponents of attitudinal approaches argue that differ-
ences exist between customers’ intentional and spurious
loyalty. The former refers to loyalty on the basis of brand
preference whereas the latter refers to repeat purchase that
may not be related to commitment to the brand but simply on
the basis of time convenience, monetary rewards or lack of
substitutes (Oppermann 2000). Therefore, a positive attitude
toward a brand today is not a sufficient indicator of loyalty.
A customer needs to have such an attitude for several years
for loyalty to develop. This approach has been criticized as
well, given that neither the data collected on attitudinal mea-
sures are convincing (Jacoby and Chestnut 1978) nor the sur-
vey instruments used to collect such data are psychometrically
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013
345
sound (Pritchard, Howard, and Havitz 1992). The composite
approach is an integration of behavioral and attitudinal mea-
sures (Yoon and Uysal 2005). However, researchers should
move a step backwards to behavioral measures only, since
measuring attitudes over a long time period is often outside
the scope of a study and is in most cases impractical
(Oppermann 2000). In the tourism field, visitors’ positive
experiences, intention to return to the same destination, and
positive word-of-mouth effects to friends and/or relatives
have been considered as adequate measures for tourist loy-
alty assessment (Bigné, Sanchez, and Sanchez 2001; Chi and
Qu 2008; Yoon and Uysal 2005). Thus, this is the measure-
ment approach adopted in the present study.
The Theoretical Model
The theoretical model was constructed on the basis of the
causal relationships that existed in the literature between the
exogenous and endogenous variables rather than the rela-
tionships among the exogenous variables themselves. Except
for the empirical study of Hou, Lin, and Morais (2005) that
assessed the relationships and interrelationships between
three constructs (destination attractiveness akin to destina-
tion image, personal involvement, and place attachment), no
other study has assessed these relationships and their effects
on satisfaction and loyalty simultaneously. Interestingly,
Hou, Lin, and Morais (2005), using the Enduring Involvement
scale, established a positive relationship between involve-
ment and destination attractiveness in the context of a cul-
tural tourism destination. Prentice, Guerin, and McGugan
(1998) argued that highly involved cultural tourists appear to
perceive more personal relevance from their experiences
compared to low-involvement ones. By extension, a similar
relationship can be inferred for holiday visitors, but it remains
unclear from the existing literature whether this relationship
would be stable across various visitor groups (e.g., holiday,
culture, heritage, and adventure) and settings (e.g., country,
city, local areas and island destinations). Hence, the first
hypothesis of this study is as follows:
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between
personal involvement and destination image.
The literature reveals similar conceptual bases for place
attachment and destination image given that both are attitude
constructs, have cognitive and affective components, and
influence behavior. In fact, Jorgensen and Stedman (2001)
equate place identity with the cognitive component (e.g., a
site/destination can be part of a tourist’s self-image), place
dependence with the conative component (e.g., the depen-
dence expressed for a site/destination is relative to the
behaviors performed there), and place attachment with the
affective component of attitude (e.g., the emotion felt or asso-
ciated with the site/destination). Given that place attachment
346 Journal of Travel Research XX(X)
is an emotional reaction to a physical and social setting,
while destination image depicts the cognitive and affective
components of a setting, it can be argued that destination
image is an antecedent of place attachment. This relation-
ship remains unexplored among international tourists visit-
ing an island destination but was confirmed among domestic
tourists visiting a cultural site (Hou, Lin, and Morais 2005).
Therefore, we expect that a more favorable destination
image will lead to stronger place attachment. Thus, the sec-
ond hypothesis of this study is as follows:
Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between
destination image and place attachment.
The positive relationship between destination image and
satisfaction is well established in the tourism literature for
different types of destinations, including island destinations
(see Bigné, Sanchez, and Sanchez 2001; Chi and Qu 2008;
Prayag 2009). Consequently, the third hypothesis of this
study is as follows:
Hypothesis 3: The more positive the images are, the
higher the satisfaction levels.
However, the direction of the relationship between satis-
faction and personal involvement remains unclear in the
literature. Hwang, Lee, and Chen (2005) established a posi-
tive relationship between the two constructs with a sample
of mainly domestic visitors using interpretation services in
Taiwanese national parks. Lankford, Hetzler, and Kitajima
(1996) found that only the sign dimension of personal
involvement was significantly correlated with satisfaction
scores for wave-surfing Japanese tourists in Hawaii. Given
that personal involvement has been defined as a motive, and
existing studies (e.g., Ross and Iso-Ahola 1991; Yoon and
Uysal 2005) establish motivation as an antecedent of satis-
faction, this study suggests that personal involvement is an
antecedent of satisfaction. This relationship remains to be tested
with a sample of international tourists. Hence, the fourth
hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relationship between
personal involvement and satisfaction.
Likewise, contradictions and ambiguity exist as to whether
place attachment is an antecedent of satisfaction or vice
versa (Stedman 2003). George and George (2004) suggest
that satisfactory experiences at each visit reinforce tourists’
place attachment, thereby affecting future behavior. Lee and
Allen (1999) found that attachment of beach visitors was
predicted by satisfaction with sun, sand, and beach attributes.
More recently, Hwang, Lee, and Chen (2005) and Yuksel,
Yuksel, and Bilim (2010) established a positive relationship
between place attachment and satisfaction using a sample of
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013
domestic and international visitors respectively. These suggest
a more stable structural relationship between attachment and
satisfaction. Hence, the fifth hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 5: There is a positive relationship between
place attachment and satisfaction.
Sufficient evidence exists in the literature to suggest that
personal involvement is an antecedent of place attachment
(see Hou, Lin, and Morais 2005; Hwang, Lee, and Chen
2005; Kyle et al. 2004). However, not all dimensions of
involvement are related to place attachment. For example,
Moore and Graefe (1994) showed that involvement was only
related to place identity for rail-trail users in the United
States. Gross and Brown (2008), studying tourists experi-
ences in South Australia, found that attraction (importance
and pleasure) was a negative predictor for place dependence
and had no statistically significant predictive relationship for
place identity. Therefore, of interest is whether the relationship
between personal involvement and place attachment will
hold true for visitors to an island destination. Consequently,
the sixth hypothesis of this study is as follows:
Hypothesis 6: There is a positive relationship between
personal involvement and place attachment.
It is well accepted that satisfaction has a positive influ-
ence on loyalty through favorable revisit intentions and
recommendations to others (Bigné, Sanchez, and Sanchez
2001; Chen and Tsai 2007; Kozak 2003; Prayag 2008).
Satisfied visitors are more likely to revisit and recommend
the destination to others (Chen and Tsai 2007). Hence, the
seventh and eight hypotheses are as follows:
Hypothesis 7: There is a positive relationship between
satisfaction and revisit intentions.
Hypothesis 8: There is a positive relationship between
satisfaction and recommendation intention to others.
Similarly, personal involvement can also be used to pre-
dict attitudes and behaviors (Havitz and Dimanche 1990,
1997), but this relationship is less stable across different
activities and settings. For example, Kyle et al. (2004) found
a positive relationship between involvement and behavioral
loyalty among hikers along a trail in the United States.
However, Kim, Scott, and Crompton (1997) found that the
dimension of perceived risk for personal involvement was
negatively related to future intentions of birdwatchers to go
birding. Therefore, inconclusive evidence exists on the rela-
tionship between personal involvement and loyalty. This
relationship using intention to recommend and revisit as
proxies has not been tested empirically for tourist destina-
tion loyalty. Hence, the ninth and tenth hypotheses are as
follows:
Prayag and Ryan
H1
involvement
H3
Destination
H6 image
H2
Figure 1. Theoretical model and hypotheses
Hypothesis 9: There is a positive relationship between
personal involvement and revisit intentions.
Hypothesis 10: There is a positive relationship between
personal involvement and recommendation inten-
tions to others.
As for the relationship between place attachment and
loyalty, Alexandris, Kouthouris, and Meligdis (2006) found
that place identity and place dependence were significant
predictors of skiers’ loyalty in Greece. Yuksel, Yuksel, and
Bilim (2010) confirmed a similar relationship mediated by
satisfaction for international visitors to an island destination.
Therefore, it can be argued that a positive relationship exists
between place attachment and loyalty. Hence, the eleventh
and twelfth hypotheses are as follows:
Hypothesis 11: There is a positive relationship between
place attachment and revisit intentions.
Hypothesis 12: There is a positive relationship between
place attachment and recommendation intentions to
others.
These relationships and the corresponding hypotheses are
illustrated in Figure 1.
Method
Study Site
The Republic of Mauritius is a group of four islands in the
Indian Ocean, of which Mauritius is the largest with its
177 km of coastline. While English is the official language,
French and the Mauritian Creole are widely spoken.
Ethnically, the majority of the population is Indian but many
people of African and European descent have settled there.
The island is an international holiday destination for European
tourists mainly from France, United Kingdom, and Germany
(Prayag 2009). Similar to other island destinations, the tour-
ism industry is a pillar of economic and social development
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013
347
Personal H9
H4 H7 Revisit
Intentions
Overall
H10
satisfaction
H8
H11 Recommendation
H5
Intentions
Place H12
attachment
in Mauritius and contributes approximately 26% to GDP
while employing 28.5% of the workforce (World Travel and
Tourism Council [WTTC] 2010). The product-led tourism
strategy of the island is reflected in the government’s selec-
tive tourism policy, which emphasizes the development of
boutique luxury hotels, four- to five-star beach resorts and a
multitude of golf courses, spas, and beauty centers (Travel
and Tourism Report on Mauritius 2007). While offering
primarily a sun, sand, and sea product anchored in resort-
based experiences, tourism authorities on the island have
lately embarked on product and market diversification for
promoting tourism growth (Prayag 2009). New tourism
products such as adventure, golf, and cultural tourism have
been developed for niche markets (Soper 2007). Official
tourism statistics for the year 2008 recorded 930,456 inter-
national tourists arrival and these tourists were primarily
middle aged, of high-income groups, travel with family, and
include a high level of repeaters (33%) (Handbook of
Tourism Statistics 2008).
Mauritius was chosen as the site of this study primarily
for three reasons. First, the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness
Index shows only two island states, Barbados and Mauritius,
appearing in the top 50 countries for overall destination com-
petitiveness (World Economic Forum 2009). Second, the
island has a high level of repeat visitation among European
visitors, suggesting some level of place attachment and per-
sonal involvement. Third, in the sub-Saharan African region,
Mauritius and Seychelles are the only two islands that have
registered either positive growth in tourist numbers or tour-
ism receipts in the past 3 years despite the global economic
downturn (WTTC 2010). These factors indicate the robust-
ness and competitiveness of the tourism industry in Mauritius
and offer a valuable case study for understanding tourist loy-
alty and its antecedents.
Questionnaire Development
The questionnaire was developed using the mixed method
approach recommended by others (e.g., Echtner and Ritchie
348 Journal of Travel Research XX(X)
1991; Pike and Ryan 2004; Tasci and Gartner 2007). Initially,
103 in-depth interviews with international tourists were
undertaken to identify destination specific images. The find-
ings, which are not reported in detail here but can be seen
elsewhere (Prayag and Ryan 2011), allowed for the identifi-
cation of common, unique, psychological, and functional
characteristics of the destination. The attributes identified con-
verged around themes of friendly people, scenery, culture,
and exotic, that are typical of island destinations (Gossling
2003). A list of 10 attributes (exotic, reputation, accessibil-
ity, service level, variety and quality of accommodation,
cultural and historical attractions, beaches and watersports,
scenery and natural attractions, shopping facilities, and cul-
tural diversity of the place) was retained on the basis that
they best represented the core image of Mauritius as a holi-
day destination and measured on a 7-point satisfaction scale
(1 = very dissatisfied and 7 = very satisfied). Place attach-
ment was measured using 12 items on a 7-point scale
anchored on 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree to
represent place identity and place dependence (Kyle, Graefe,
and Manning 2005; Williams and Vaske 2003). Personal
involvement was measured using a multifaceted scale com-
prising 15 items measuring five dimensions (importance,
pleasure, sign, risk consequence, and risk probability). Each
dimension was measured using three items derived from
other studies (e.g., Dimanche, Havitz, and Howard 1991;
Gursoy and Gavcar 2003) and anchored on a similar scale as
place attachment.
To date, there is no agreement on the best way to mea-
sure customer satisfaction but the literature congregates
around two distinct ways—transaction specific and overall
satisfaction (Lee, Back, and Kim 2009). Transaction spe-
cific refers to satisfaction with specific objects (e.g., local
cuisine) or encounters (e.g., hotel employees), whereas
overall satisfaction is a cumulative construct summing
satisfaction with various facets of the destination. In gen-
eral, overall satisfaction is a more stable construct than
transaction-specific satisfaction (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and
Berry 1994). Hence, overall satisfaction was measured in
this study using a single item on a 7-point scale (1 = very
dissatisfied and 7= very satisfied). Similar to other studies
(e.g., Bigné, Sanchez, and Sanchez 2001; Kozak 2003),
tourist loyalty was measured using two proxies, revisit
intention and likeliness to recommend on a 7-point scale
(1 = very unlikely and 7 = very likely). The questionnaire
was originally designed in English and translated into two
other languages, French and German. The method of back-
translation (Soriano and Foxall 2002) by native speakers
of French and German who were proficient in English was
used to ensure that the translated versions reflected the
meanings and intent of the original questionnaire. Prior to
the data collection, the questionnaires were pilot tested with
50 international tourists, which revealed no major problems
and only minor changes were made in the wording of some
statements.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013
Sample Design and Data Collection
International tourists older than age 18 years staying at
resort complexes were considered as the target study popula-
tion. Since accurate data on the size of this population were
unavailable, a quota sampling using nationality of tourists
from key generating markets of Mauritius was chosen as the
sampling procedure. Only five main nationalities were con-
sidered (French, British, South African, German, and Indian)
given that these visitors represented more than two-thirds
(70.3%) of international arrivals to the island (Handbook of
Tourism Statistics 2008). Also, structural equation modeling
requires a minimum of 200 respondents for effective param-
eter estimation (Hair et al. 2005). Data were collected from
hotel guests for three months using self-completion in the
presence of the interviewer. Of the 1256 tourists approached
at resort-based beaches, 733 were interviewed. Of these, 28
questionnaires had to be discarded, leading to a response rate
of 57.4% based on 705 useable questionnaires.
Findings
Sociodemographic Profile of Sample
A sociodemographic profile of the sample is provided in
Table 1. The typical respondent was older than age 31 years,
well educated, married, and visiting for holiday purposes.
Official statistics show a similar profile, except for a lower
average length of stay (9.9 nights) (Handbook of Tourism
Statistics 2008).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
To assess the measurement quality of the endogenous vari-
ables in the theoretical model, confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) was undertaken for each scale to provide a test of
convergent and discriminant validity for the various indica-
tors (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). A number of measures
including the normed fit index (NFI), goodness-of-fit index
(GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the normed
chi-square statistic (χ2/df) were used to evaluate the mea-
surement quality. The normed chi-square is preferred to the
chi-square statistic given the latter is sensitive to sample size
(Hu and Bentler 1999). Cut-off values of 0.9 for NFI, GFI,
and AGFI (Hair et al. 2005), RMSEA values less than 0.06,
and χ2/df values less than 3 suggest acceptable fit (Hu and
Bentler 1999). Initial analyses suggested that of the 10
image items, only 7 (Table 2) met the minimum requirement
of 0.5 for standardized beta coefficient to represent a con-
struct (Kline 2005), had critical ratios outside of the thresh-
old range of ±1.96 (Byrne 2001), and were statistically
significant (p<0.01). The goodness of fit of the image scale
(Table 2) is adequate, and the items represented traditional
images of island destinations. Of the 12 place attachment
Prayag and Ryan 349

Table 1. Sociodemographic Profile of Sample items, only 8 had standardized beta coefficients in excess of
0.5 and the goodness of fit was adequate (Table 2). The
Demographics Frequency Counts %
items represented both place identity and place dependence.
Gender Of the 15 personal involvement items, only 6 had standard-
Male 346 49.3 ized beta coefficients in excess of 0.5 and represented
Female 356 50.7 dimensions of importance, pleasure, and sign only. Given
Age group (years) that all the remaining items assessed had significant stan-
<20 27 3.8 dardized beta coefficients in excess of 0.5, convergent valid-
20-30 163 23.1 ity of the three scales is established (Steenkamp and Van
31-40 182 25.8 Trijp 1991). The NFI, GFI, AGFI, and RMSEA for all three
41-50 163 23.1 scales were within the recommended threshold, indicating
51-60 122 17.4 acceptable model fit. However, overall satisfaction and
≥61 48 6.8 intentions to revisit and recommend were measured using
Nationality one item each; CFA was not undertaken on these exogenous
German 120 17.0 variables.
South African 151 21.4 For evidence of discriminant validity, the test of the
Indian 126 17.9 proportion of variance extracted for each construct should
French 154 21.8 exceed the square of correlation coefficients representing its
British 134 19.0 correlation with other factors (Fornell and Larcker 1981). As
Other 20 2.9 shown in Table 3, destination image and place attachment
Average monthly household income are a pair of scales with a high correlation (0.651). The
Very low 6 0.9 square of this correlation takes a value of 0.423, which is
Low 12 1.9 lower than the amount of variance extracted (AVE) for each
Moderately low 13 2.0 factor (0.51 and 0.56, respectively), thereby indicating ade-
Neither low nor high 121 19.0 quate discriminant validity. The scales representing destina-
Moderately high 182 28.4 tion image, place attachment, and personal involvement met
High 233 36.4 the minimum level of 0.5 for AVE and 0.7 for composite
Very high 73 11.4 reliability (CR) (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Hence, we
Highest educational conclude that the scales represent the constructs measured.
qualification However, the discriminant validity of the overall satisfaction
Primary school 21 3.1 measure and intentions to recommend and revisit cannot be
High/secondary school 142 20.5 established, given that these were measured using single
Professional/diploma items.
University degree 223 32.2
Postgraduate degree 92 13.3
Marital status Structural Equations Modeling
Single 109 15.6 The next stage of the analysis involved specifying the struc-
Married 444 63.5 tural model and the maximum likelihood (ML) procedure
Partner 102 14.6 was used to test it. The initial results showed (χ2 = 727.532,
Separated/divorced 33 4.7 df = 79, χ2/df = 3.29, p = 0.000, NFI = 0.893, GFI = 0.922,
Widow/widower 11 1.6 AGFI = 0.893, RMSEA = 0.057) that the model was accept-
Purpose of visit able on the basis of RMSEA, GFI, and χ2/df but unaccept-
Holiday 600 85.3 able on the basis of the cut-off value of 0.9 for other fit
Visiting friends and relatives 61 8.7 indices (Hair et al. 2005). An examination of the t values
Business 30 4.3 suggested that most of the paths were significant at the less
Honeymoon 61 8.7 than 1% level, except for the path between place attachment
Other 13 1.8 and intention to recommend, which was significant at the
Holiday package 5% level. Three paths were insignificant (personal involve-
Yes 300 42.7 ment → overall satisfaction, personal involvement → inten-
No 402 57.3 tion to recommend, and personal involvement → intention
Visitation level to revisit) and therefore deleted. Furthermore, there was no
First-time 332 49.3 reason to assume that the latent constructs were independent
Repeat 342 50.7 of each other and, therefore, the covariances between them
Avg. length of stay (days) 15.4 were allowed to vary. The revised model showed acceptable

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013

350 Journal of Travel Research XX(X)

Table 2. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Standardized
β Coefficient Critical Ratios Goodness of Fit
2
Destination Image Items χ /df (3.648/5) = 0.730; p < 0.01;
NFI = 0.996; AGFI = 0.989;
RMSEA = 0.043
DI1: Cultural and historical attractions 0.674 11.829*
DI2: Cultural diversity 0.735 14.948*
DI3:Variety and quality of accommodation 0.587 9.192*
DI4: General level of service 0.596 8.976*
DI5: Accessibility of the destination 0.557 8.843*
DI6: Reputation of the island 0.668 11.732*
DI7: Exoticness of the place 0.534 8.675*
Place attachment items χ2/df (8.29/10) = 0.829; p < 0.01;
NFI = 0.997; GFI = 0.997;
AGFI = 0.990; RMSEA = 0.035
PA1: Mauritius is a very special destination to me 0.799 18.838*
PA2: I identify strongly with this destination 0.682 17.464*
 PA 3: No other place can provide the same holiday 0.601 15.042*
experience as Mauritius
PA4: Holidaying in Mauritius means a lot to me 0.721 19.833*
PA5: I am very attached to this holiday destination 0.738 18.614*
 PA6: Mauritius is the best place for what I like to do on 0.776 18.159*
holidays
 PA7: Holidaying here is more important to me than holidaying 0.602 12.891*
in other places
 PA8: I would not substitute any other destination for the 0.557 12.314*
types of things that I did during my holidays in Mauritius
Personal involvement items χ2/df (14.51/7) = 2.074; p = 0.043;
NFI = 0.988; GFI = 0.993;
AGFI = 0.980; RMSEA = 0.039
PI1: I get pleasure from being on holidays here 0.741 18.362*
PI2: I attach great importance to being on holiday in Mauritius 0.726 17.431*
 PI3: I have a lot of interest in Mauritius as a holiday 0.775 18.837*
destination
PI4: Being on holiday here is a bit like giving a gift to one’s self 0.722 17.359*
 PI5: I give myself pleasure by getting involved in the various 0.521 9.511*
things to do here
 PI6:You can tell a lot about a person/family by whether or not 0.564 9.078*
they go on holidays
Note: *p < 0.001. NFI = normed fit index; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of
approximation.

fit (χ2 = 493.84, df = 218, χ2/df = 2.27, NFI = 0.927, GFI = 0.945,
AGFI = 0.924, RMSEA = 0.042). The structural model
(Figure 2) shows coefficients in standardized form and can
be considered a more parsimonious model given that it pro-
vided support for all the hypothesized relationships except
for hypotheses 4, 9, and 10 (Table 4). The results (Figure 2)
indicated, for example, that personal involvement was posi-
tively related to destination image (β = 0.614, p < 0.001)
indicating that as the involvement of tourists increases so
does their satisfaction levels with image attributes. Destination
image was positively related to place attachment (β = 0.166,
p < 0.001) and overall satisfaction (β = 0.514, p < 0.001).
The squared multiple correlations (SMC = R2) indicated that
most of the variance (SMC = 0.81) in place attachment could
be explained by the direct effects of personal involvement
and destination image. For overall satisfaction, 39% of the
variance (SMC = 0.39) was explained by the direct effects of
destination image and place attachment. As for revisit and
recommend intentions, 18% and 12% of the variance respec-
tively could be explained by the combined effects of per-
sonal involvement, destination image, place attachment, and
overall satisfaction.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013

Prayag and Ryan 351

Table 3. Correlation of Constructs, Variance Extracted, and Alpha Coefficients

Average variance Composite

Measures DI PA PI IRec IRev OS extracted Reliability
Destination image (DI) 1.00 0.510 0.816
Place attachment (PA) 0.651 1.00 0.566 0.877
Personal involvement (PI) 0.614 0.891 1.00 0.557 0.836
Intention to recommend (IRec) 0.250 0.330 0.296 1.00 − −
Intention to revisit (IRev) 0.370 0.412 0.370 0.437 1.00 − −
Overall satisfaction (OS) 0.610 0.482 0.448 0.251 0.294 1.00 − −

PI1 PI2 PI3 PI4 PI5 PI6

0.72 0.73 0.80 0.71 0.50 0.40

DI1 Personal
β=0.614*
0.46 R2=0.38 involvement
DI2 R2=0.18
0.55 β=0.790*
Destination β=0.124**
Revisit
DI3 0.50 image β=0.514* R =0.39
2

0.56 β=0.353*
DI4 Overall satisfaction R2=0.12
0.51 β=0.119**
Recommend
DI5 0.72 β=0.148**
β=0.166* β=0.273*

DI6 R2=0.81
0.52
Place
DI7
attachment

0.76 0.70 0.56 0.80 0.80 0.70 0.49 0.47

PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 PA5 PA6 PA7 PA8

*p<0.001
**p<0.01

Figure 2. Structural model

In summary, the direct, indirect, and total effects can be
seen in Table 4, and eight structural paths were evident:
(1) personal involvement → destination image → overall
satisfaction→ revisit intentions; (2) personal involvement
→ destination image → overall satisfaction→ recommend
intentions; (3) personal involvement → place attachment
→ overall satisfaction→ revisit intentions; (4) personal
involvement → place attachment → overall satisfaction→
recommend intentions; (5) personal involvement → desti-
nation image → place attachment→ overall satisfaction→
revisit intentions; (6) personal involvement → destination
image → place attachment→ overall satisfaction→ recom-
mend intentions; (7) personal involvement → destination
image → place attachment→ revisit intentions; and
(8) personal involvement → destination image → place
attachment→ recommend intentions. These paths indi-
cated that personal involvement and destination image
are important antecedents of place attachment and these
constructs being important antecedents of overall satis-
faction and loyalty. In particular, overall satisfaction
mediates the relationship between destination image and
future intentions and that between place attachment and
future intentions.
Discussion and Implications
The purpose of this study was to assess a theoretical model
of antecedents of loyalty and the results conform to some
extent to the propositions made earlier, thereby having theo-
retical and managerial implications.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013

352 Journal of Travel Research XX(X)

Table 4. Hypothesis Testing, Paths, and Effects

Hypothesis Path Direct effects Indirect effects Total effects Testing Result
Hypothesis 1 Personal involvement → Destination image 0.614 − 0.614 Supported
Hypothesis 2 Destination image→ Place attachment 0.166 − 0.166 Supported
Hypothesis 3 Destination image → Overall satisfaction 0.514 0.024 0.538 Supported
Hypothesis 4 Personal involvement → Overall satisfaction − − − Not
supported
Hypothesis 5 Place attachment → Overall satisfaction 0.148 − 0.148 Supported
Hypothesis 6 Personal involvement → Place attachment 0.790 0.101 0.891 Supported
Hypothesis 7 Overall satisfaction → Revisit intentions 0.124 − 0.124 Supported
Hypothesis 8 Overall satisfaction→ Recommendation 0.119 − 0.119 Supported
intentions
Hypothesis 9 Personal involvement → Revisit intentions − − − Not
supported
Hypothesis 10 Personal involvement → Recommendation − − − Not
Intentions supported
Hypothesis 11 Place attachment → Revisit intentions 0.353 0.018 0.371 Supported
Hypothesis 12 Place attachment → Recommendation 0.273 0.017 0.290 Supported
intentions

Theoretical Implications
The findings confirm the applicability of the place attach-
ment construct for tourist destinations as suggested by others
(e.g., Gross and Brown 2008; Hou, Lin, and Morais 2005;
Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010). However, for Mauritius,
place identity was the strongest construct defining place
attachment thereby suggesting that tourists are able to
develop more emotional than functional attachment because
of satisfaction with image attributes and personal involve-
ment. The latter remains a complex construct when applied
to a tourist destination. Nonetheless, the two dimensions of
importance and pleasure are replicated in an island context
as well, suggesting their robustness as measures of personal
involvement. The poor performance of Risk Probability and
Risk Consequence items may indicate that the multidimen-
sionality of the construct was not fully captured in the scale.
Personal involvement was also an antecedent of place
attachment as suggested in other studies (e.g., Gross and
Brown 2008; Hou, Lin, and Morais 2005; Hwang, Lee, and
Chen 2005), thereby supporting Poira, Butler and Airey’s
(2001) suggestion that understanding visitor patterns and
experiences in certain settings should consider subjective
notions and the significance attached. For example, tourists
who perceived a site as part of their own heritage indicated
having higher satisfaction from their visit because of per-
sonal involvement, with no links necessarily to the destina-
tion image. We extend this proposition by showing that
tourists, who are more personally involved in the destination
experience, became more satisfied with the image and devel-
oped stronger attachment with Mauritius.
We also provide empirical support for the positive effect
of place attachment on loyalty, as suggested by others (e.g.,
Alexandris, Kouthouris, and Meligdis 2006; Yuksel, Yuksel,
and Bilim 2010), albeit in a different setting. Support was
also found for the positive relationship between destination
image and loyalty mediated by satisfaction. These relation-
ships suggest that for island destinations, the emotional con-
tent of the experience and satisfaction with destination
attributes have an impact on tourists’ future behavior. The
positive relationship between destination image and place
attachment reinforce Prentice, Guerin, and McGugan’s (1998)
argument that tourists can enjoy a fundamentally cognitive
experience but more expert tourists are able to fully grasp the
deeper and more meaningful symbolisms of the destination.
This may explain the high repeat visitation to the island.
Likewise, the positive relationship between place attach-
ment and overall satisfaction is not surprising, given that in
the leisure and recreational fields, this relationship has been
explained by the contribution of place dependence to satis-
factory experiences with site attributes (Williams and Vaske
2003). This may also explain the structural path between per-
sonal involvement and destination image. The more person-
ally involved are tourists in the destination experience, the
more relevant becomes destination attributes in providing
that desired experience (Hou, Lin, and Morais 2005). While
Gross and Brown (2008) found no relationship between
importance and pleasure items of involvement and place
identity, this study confirms otherwise. As tourists gave
more importance and derived more pleasure from the desti-
nation experience, they perceived the place as being more
attuned to their self-concept. Hence, highly involved tourists
constitute an asset for the development of positive percep-
tions of destination attributes and place attachment.
The structural path between overall satisfaction and loy-
alty is consistent with the literature (Chen and Tsai 2007;
Chi and Qu 2008; Kozak 2003; Prayag 2008). However, con-
trary to previous studies (Bigné, Sanchez, and Sanchez 2001),

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013

Prayag and Ryan
this research provides tenable evidence on the relationship
between overall satisfaction and both likelihood to recom-
mend and revisit intention. Therefore, as satisfaction lev-
els increase, the propensity to return and recommend
increases. Hence, word-of-mouth recommendations are crit-
ical for loyalty.
In addition, this study does not establish any significant
direct relationship between personal involvement and satis-
faction, unlike the study of Hwang, Lee, and Chen (2005),
but provides support for Lankford, Hetzler, and Kitajima’s
(1996) proposition that no conclusive evidence exist on this
relationship. Intuitively, if a destination has more personal
relevance to a tourist, he or she should derive more satisfac-
tion from the holiday experience. However, other factors
such as expectations, motivations, and personal characteris-
tics may intervene in this relationship (Havitz and Dimanche
1997), providing explanation for the existence of no signifi-
cant path between the two constructs. Also, no significant
relationship was found between personal involvement and
loyalty. While studies by Sparks (2007) and Kim, Scott, and
Crompton (1997) established such a direct influence, albeit
negative in the latter case, this study confirms only an indi-
rect relationship mediated by other variables such as desti-
nation image, overall satisfaction, and place attachment.
This indirect influence is not uncommon (Kyle et al. 2004)
given that the personal relevance of the destination in the
choice process and the experience on site are likely to influ-
ence whether one recommends and returns to the same
destination.
Managerial Implications
Looking beyond the structural relationships identified, the
findings have some important managerial implications.
Satisfaction with attractions (e.g., cultural and historical),
infrastructure (accessibility and accommodation), and intan-
gible attributes (reputation and exoticness) are the most
important determinants of place attachment. Investing in
facilitating accessibility, and better cultural/historical attrac-
tions, for example, will most likely increase place attach-
ment through place identity and place dependence. Also,
given that place dependence is related to the perception that
a setting possesses unique qualities (Williams et al. 1992),
the findings of this study suggest that tourism authorities in
Mauritius need to reinforce and improve the current posi-
tioning of Mauritius through intangible attributes such as
reputation and exoticness of the place. These attributes were
rated highly satisfactory and can also be used to differentiate
the island effectively from other competing island destinations.
Likewise, high involvement in the destination experience
can contribute to positive evaluations of destination attri-
butes, thereby contributing to a fundamentally cognitive as
well as an emotional experience resulting in place attach-
ment. Thus, these findings reinforce Stedman’s (2003)
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013
353
proposition that a place or site can sustain visitors by market-
ing place attributes and emotional well-being. These in turn
can have an influence on satisfaction and loyalty. Hence,
island destinations can fulfill brand promises and develop
place attachment by emphasizing cognitive and affective
destination experiences. Yet this will be dependent on desti-
nation marketers’ ensuring that on-site experiences at least
meet, if not exceed, the initial expectations of visitors.
Encouraging social interactions and participation in touris-
tic activities on-site may generate high levels of involve-
ment and attachment.
The findings also suggest that image is a key determinant
of satisfaction, attachment, satisfaction, and loyalty. Therefore,
it must possess an inherent “truth” for tourists to develop
affection. Destination managers must monitor the evolution
of this image and adjust advertising, public relations, promo-
tional messages, and advising to travel agents and tour oper-
ators to correct deviations from the complex image acquired
by visitors on-site. Also, the indirect influence that image
has on revisit and recommend intentions through satisfaction
requires destination marketers to proactively manage both
projected and received images for successful destination
development. This enables the generation of positive word
of mouth from the existing visitor base of a destination.
In conclusion, the study contributes to expand empirically
the antecedents of tourist loyalty. However, the study has
certain limitations. First, the scale used for measuring per-
sonal involvement displayed poor validity, which suggests
that the relationships inferred in the structural model should
be treated with caution. However, this provides an opportu-
nity for further research identifying the applicability of this
scale to tourist destinations and/or using a phenomenological
approach to find alternative ways of understanding personal
involvement in a tourist destination context. Second, the
structural model assumes unidirectional relationships among
the various constructs, but in reality, bidirectional linkages
may exist, which need further investigation. Third, satisfac-
tion and the two proxies of loyalty were measured using one
item each. Multi-item measures for these constructs in future
studies would improve the understanding of the varied effects
of their antecedents and measuring overall satisfaction using
sum of satisfaction levels with various attributes could pos-
sibly provide a different insight into these relationships.
Fourth, the affective component of destination image was
not measured and this could be included in future studies to
assess specifically the relationship between affective image,
place attachment, and personal involvement. Therefore, it
would be worthwhile to explore these avenues in future
research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
354 Journal of Travel Research XX(X)
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Alexandris, K., C. Kouthouris, and K. Meligdis. (2006). “Increas-
ing Customers’ Loyalty in a Skiing Resort: The Contribution of
Place Attachment and Service Quality.” International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18 (5): 414-25.
Anderson, J. C., and D. W. Gerbing. (1988). “Structural Equation
Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step
Approach.” Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3): 411-23.
Baker, D. A., and J. L. Crompton. (2000). “Quality, Satisfaction
and Behavioral Intentions.” Annals of Tourism Research, 27
(3): 785-804.
Beerli, A., and J. D. Martin. (2004). “Factors Influencing Destina-
tion Image.” Annals of Tourism Research, 31 (3): 657-81.
Bigné, J., M. Sanchez, and J. Sanchez. (2001). “Tourism Image,
Evaluation Variables and After-Purchase Behaviour: Inter-
Relationships.” Tourism Management, 22 (6): 607-16.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS:
Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chen, C., and D. Tsai. (2007). “How Destination Image and Evalu-
ative Factors Affect Behavioural Intentions.” Tourism Manage-
ment, 28 (4): 1115-22.
Chi, C. G. Q., and H. Qu. (2008). “Examining the Structural
Relationships of Destination Image, Tourist Satisfaction and
Destination Loyalty: An Integrated Approach.” Tourism Man-
agement, 29 (4): 624-36.
Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A Short Introduction. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). “An Assessment of the Image of Mexico
as a Vacation Destination and the Influence of Geographical
Location upon that Image.” Journal of Travel Research, 17 (4):
18-24.
Dimanche, F., M. E. Havitz, and D. R. Howard. (1991). “Testing the
Involvement Profile (IP) Scale in the Context of Selected Rec-
reational and Touristic Activities.” Journal of Leisure Research,
23 (1): 51-66.
Echtner, C. M., and J. B. R. Ritchie. (1991). “The Meaning and
Measurement of Destination Image.” Journal of Tourism Stud-
ies, 2 (2): 2-12.
Fornell, C., and D. Larcker. (1981). “Structural Equation Models
with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal
of Marketing Research, 18: 39-50.
Funk, D., L. Ridinger, and A. Moorman. (2004). “Exploring
Origins of Involvement: Understanding the Relationship between
Consumer Motives and Involvement with Professional Teams.”
Leisure Sciences, 26 (1): 35-61.
Gallarza, M. G., I. G. Saura, and H. C. Garcia. (2002). “Destination
Image: Towards a Conceptual Framework.” Annals of Tourism
Research, 29 (1): 56-78.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013
Gartner, W. C. (1993). “Image Formation Process.” Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing, 2 (2/3): 191-215.
George, B. P., and B. P. George. (2004). “Past Visits and the Inten-
tion to Revisit a Destination: Place Attachment as the Mediator
and Novelty Seeking as the Moderator.” Journal of Tourism
Studies, 15 (2): 51-66.
Gossling S. (2003). Tourism and Development in Tropical Islands:
Political Ecology Perspectives. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Gross, M. J., and G. Brown. (2008). “An Empirical Structure
Model of Tourists and Places: Progressing Involvement and
Place Attachment into Tourism.” Tourism Management, 29 (6):
1141-51.
Gursoy, D., and E. Gavcar. (2003). “International Leisure Tourists’
Involvement Profile.” Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (4):
906-26.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and
R. L. Tatham. (2005). Multivariate Data Analysis. 6th edition.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hammitt, W. E., E. A. Backlund, and R. D. Bixler. (2006). “Place
Bonding for Recreation Places: Conceptual and Empirical
Development.” Leisure Studies, 25 (1): 17-41.
Handbook of Tourism Statistics. (2008). Ministry of Tourism, Leisure,
and External Communications. Port-Louis, Mauritius: Ministry
of Tourism.
Havitz, M. E., and F. Dimanche. (1990). “Propositions for Testing
the Involvement Construct in Recreational and Tourism Con-
texts.” Leisure Sciences, 12 (2): 179-95.
Havitz, M. E., and F. Dimanche. (1997). “Leisure Involvement Revis-
ited: Conceptual Conundrums and Measurement Advances.”
Journal of Leisure Research, 29 (3): 245-78.
Hosany, S., and D. Gilbert. (2010). “Dimensions of Tourists’ Emo-
tional Experiences toward Hedonic Holiday Destinations.”
Journal of Travel Research, 49 (3): 351-64.
Hou, J., C. Lin, and D. B. Morais. (2005). “Antecedents of Attach-
ment to a Cultural Tourism Destination: The Case of Hakka and
Non-Hakka Taiwanese Visitors to Pei-Pu, Taiwan.” Journal of
Travel Research, 44 (4): 221-33.
Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. (1999). “Cut-off Criteria for Fit Indexes
in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria ver-
sus New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modelling, 11 (3):
1-55.
Huang, S., and C. H. C. Hsu. (2009). “Effects of Travel Motivation,
Past Experience, Perceived Constraint, and Attitude on Revisit
Intention.” Journal of Travel Research, 48 (1): 29-44.
Hwang, S., C. Lee, and H. Chen. (2005). “The Relationship among
Tourists’ Involvement, Place Attachment and Interpretation
Satisfaction in Taiwan’s National Park.” Tourism Manage-
ment, 26 (2): 143-56.
Iwasaki, Y., and M. E. Havitz. (1998). “A Path Analytic Model of
the Relationships between Involvement, Psychological Com-
mitment and Loyalty.” Journal of Leisure Research, 30 (2):
256-80.
Jacoby, J., and R. W. Chestnut. (1978). Brand Loyalty: Measure-
ment and Management. New York: John Wiley.
Prayag and Ryan
Jenkins, O. H. (1999). “Understanding and Measuring Tourist Des-
tination Images.” International Journal of Tourism Research,
1 (1): 1-15.
Jorgensen, B. S., and R. C. Stedman. (2001). “Sense of Place as
an Attitude: Lakeshore Owners’ Attitudes toward Their Prop-
erties.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21 (3): 233-48.
Kaltenborn, B. P. (1998). “Effects of Sense of Place on Responses
to Environmental Impacts.” Applied Geography, 18 (2): 169-89.
Kim, S., D. Scott, and J. L. Crompton. (1997). “An Exploration
of the Relationships among Social Psychological Involvement,
Behavioural Involvement, Commitment, and Future Intentions
in the Context of Birdwatching.” Journal of Leisure Research,
29 (3): 320-41.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation
Modeling. 2nd edition. New York: Guilford.
Kozak, M. (2003). “Measuring Tourist Satisfaction with Multiple
Destination Attributes.” Tourism Analysis, 7 (3/4): 229-40.
Kyle, G., and G. Chick. (2002). “The Social Nature of Leisure
Involvement.” Journal of Leisure Research, 34 (4): 426-48.
Kyle, G. T., A. Graefe, and R. Manning. (2005). “Testing the
Dimensionality of Place Attachment in Recreational Settings.”
Environment and Behavior, 37 (2): 153-77.
Kyle, G. T., A. Graefe, R. Manning, and J. Bacon. (2004). “Effects
of Place Attachment on Users’ Perceptions of Social and Envi-
ronmental Conditions in a Natural Setting.” Journal of Envi-
ronmental Psychology, 24 (2): 213-25.
Lankford, S. L., R. Hetzler, and T. Kitajima. (1996). “Crowding and
Satisfaction with Ocean Recreation: A Cross-Cultural Perspec-
tive.” Paper presented at the 4th World Congress of the World
Leisure and Recreation Association, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Laurent, G., and J. Kapferer. (1985). “Measuring Consumer Involve-
ment Profiles.” Journal of Marketing Research, 22: 41-53.
Lee, C. C., and L. Allen. (1999). “Understanding Individual’s
Attachment to Selected Destinations: An Application of Place
Attachment.” Tourism Analysis, 4 (3/4): 173-85.
Lee, Y. K., K. J. Back, and J. Y. Kim. (2009). “Family Restaurant
Brand Personality and Its Impact on Customer’s Emotion, Satis-
faction, and Brand Loyalty.” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 33 (3): 305-28.
Lin, C. H., B. Morais, D. L. Kerstetter, and J. S. Hou. (2007).
“Examining the Role of Cognitive and Affective Image in Pre-
dicting Choice across Natural, Developed, and Theme-Park
Destinations.” Journal of Travel Research, 46: 183-94.
Manzo, L. C. (2003). “Beyond House and Haven: Toward a Revi-
sioning of Emotional Relationships with Places.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 23 (1): 47-61.
McIntyre, N., and J. J. Pigram. (1992). “Specialization Re-Examined:
The Case of Vehicle Based Campers.” Leisure Sciences, 14 (1):
17-31.
Moore, R. L., and A. R. Graefe. (1994). “Attachments to Recreation
Settings: The Case of Rail-Trail Users.” Leisure Sciences, 16
(1): 17-31.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). “Whence Consumer Loyalty?” Journal of
Marketing, 63: 33-44.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013
355
Oppermann, M. (2000). “Predicting Destination Choice—A Dis-
cussion of Destination Loyalty.” Journal of Vacation Market-
ing, 5 (1): 51-65.
Parasuraman, A., V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry. (1994). “Reas-
sessment of Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measur-
ing Service Quality: Implications for further Research.” Journal
of Marketing, 58 (1): 111-24.
Pike, S., and C. Ryan. (2004). “Destination Positioning Analysis
through a Comparison of Cognitive, Affective, and Conative
Perceptions.” Journal of Travel Research, 42: 333-42.
Poira, Y., R. Butler, and D. Airey. (2001). “Tourism Sub-Groups:
Do They Exist?” Tourism Today, 1 (1): 14-22.
Poira, Y., R. Butler, and D. Airey. (2004). “Links between Tourists,
Heritage, and Reasons for Visiting Heritage Sites.” Journal of
Travel Research, 43: 19-28.
Poira, Y., A. Reichel, and A. Biran. (2006). “Heritage Site Percep-
tions and Motivations to Visit.” Journal of Travel Research,
44: 318-26.
Prayag, G. (2008). “Image, Satisfaction and Loyalty: The Case of
Cape Town.” Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism
and Hospitality Research, 19 (2): 205-24.
Prayag, G. (2009). “Tourists’ Evaluation of Destination Image, Sat-
isfaction and Future Behavioral Intentions—The Case of Mau-
ritius.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26 (8): 836-53.
Prayag, G., and C. Ryan. (2011). “The Relationship between the
Push and Pull Factors of a Tourist Destination: The Role of
Nationality—An Analytical Qualitative Research Approach.”
Current Issues in Tourism, 14 (2): 121-43.
Prentice, R. C., S. Guerin, and S. McGugan. (1998). “Visitor Learn-
ing at a Heritage Attraction: A Case Study of Discovery as a
Media Product.” Tourism Management, 19 (1): 5-23.
Pretty, G. H., H. M. Chipuer, and P. Bramston. (2003). “Sense of
Place amongst Adolescents and Adults in Two Rural Australian
Towns: The Discriminating Features of Place Attachment,
Sense of Community and Place Dependence in Relation to
Place Identity.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23 (3):
273-87.
Pritchard, M. P., D. R. Howard, and M. E. Havitz. (1992). “Loyalty
Measurement: A Critical Examination and Theoretical Exten-
sion.” Leisure Sciences, 14 (2): 155-64.
Proshansky, H. M., A. K. Fabian, and R. Kaminoff. (1983). “Place
Identity: Physical World Socialization of the Self.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 3: 57-83.
Ross, E. L. D., and S. E. Iso-Ahola. (1991). “Sightseeing Tourists’
Motivation and Satisfaction.” Annals of Tourism Research, 18
(2): 226-37.
Russel, J. A., L. M. Ward, and G. Pratt. (1981). “Affective Quality
Attributed to Environments: A Factor Analytic Study.” Envi-
ronment and Behavior, 13 (3): 259-88.
Sherif, C., and M. Sherif. (1967). Attitude, Ego-Involvement and
Change. New York: John Wiley.
Soper, A. K. (2007). “Developing Mauritianness: National Identity,
Cultural Heritage Values and Tourism.” Journal of Heritage
Tourism, 2 (2): 94-109.
356 Journal of Travel Research XX(X)
Soriano, M., and G. Foxall. (2002). “A Spanish Translation of
Mehrabian and Russel’s Emotionality Scales for Environmen-
tal Consumer Psychology.” Journal of Consumer Behavior, 2
(1): 23-26.
Sparks, B. (2007). “Planning a Wine Tourism Vacation? Factors
that Help to Predict Tourist Behavioral Intentions.” Tourism
Management, 28 (5): 1180-92.
Stedman, R. C. (2003). “Is It Really Just a Social Construction? The
Contribution of the Physical Environment to Sense of Place.”
Society and Natural Resources, 16 (8): 671-85.
Steenkamp, J. B., and H. C. M. Van Trijp. (1991). “The Use of
LISREL in Validating Marketing Constructs.” International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 8: 283-99.
Stokols, D., and S. A. Shumaker. (1981). “People and Places: A
Transactional View of Settings.” In Cognition, Social Behav-
iour and the Environment, edited by J. Harvey. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 441-88.
Tasci, A. D. A., and W. C. Gartner. (2007). “Destination Image and
Its Functional Relationships.” Journal of Travel Research, 45:
413-25.
Tasci, A. D. A., W. C. Gartner, and S. T. Cavusgil. (2007). “Conceptu-
alization and Operationalization of Destination Image.” Journal
of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31 (2): 194-223.
Trauer, B., and C. Ryan. (2005). “Destination Image, Romance
and Place Experience—An Application of Intimacy Theory in
Tourism.” Tourism Management, 26 (4): 481-91.
Travel and Tourism Report on Mauritius. (2007). “Business Wire,
November.” http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/c73468
(accessed August 31, 2008).
Tuan, Y. F. (1980). “Rootedness versus Sense of Place.” Landscape,
24: 3-8.
Williams, D. R., M. E. Patterson, J. W. Roggenbuck, and A. E.
Watson. (1992). “Beyond the Commodity Metaphor: Examin-
ing Emotional and Symbolic Attachment to Place.” Leisure Sci-
ences, 14: 29-46.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on December 27, 2013
Williams, D. R., and J. W. Roggenbuck. (1989). “Measuring Place
Attachment: Some Preliminary Results.” NRPA Symposium on
Leisure Research, San Antonio, Texas.
Williams, D. R., and J. J. Vaske. (2003). “The Measurement of
Place Attachment: Validity and Generalisability of a Psycho-
metric Approach.” Forest Science, 49 (6): 830-40.
World Economic Forum. (2009). The Travel and Tourism Competi-
tiveness Index 2009: Measuring Sectoral Drivers in a Down-
turn. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
World Travel and Tourism Council. (2010). Travel and Tourism Eco-
nomic Impact Report. London: World Travel and Tourism Council.
Yoon, Y., and M. Uysal. (2005). “An Examination of the Effects of
Motivation and Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty: A Struc-
tural Model.” Tourism Management, 26: 45-56.
Yuksel, A., F. Yuksel, and Y. Bilim. (2010). “Destination Attach-
ment: Effects on Consumer Satisfaction and Cognitive, Affective
and Conative Loyalty.” Tourism Management, 31 (2): 274-84.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). “Measuring the Involvement Con-
struct.” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3): 341-52.
Bios
Girish Prayag: Dr. Girish Prayag is an Assistant Professor of
Marketing at SKEMA Business School in France. Prior to this
appointment, he was a lecturer at the University of Mauritius and
doctoral student at the Waikato Management School in New
Zealand. His research interests are related to destination manage-
ment, airline marketing, consumer behaviour and island tourism.
Chris Ryan: Chris Ryan is Professor of Tourism at the University
of Waikato, editor of the journal Tourism Management, and a
member of the International Academy for the Study of Tourism.
He has published more than 100 articles, many of which appear in
tourism leading journals. His research interests are related to
impacts of tourism, tourist behavior, research methods and
epistemologies.