It is wellestablished that tourism induced by film and television (TV) (screen tourism) is a phenomenon of global significance, and a number of studies since the 1990s have explored its impacts on specific destinations and communities. While some research provides insights into motivations of screen tourists, understanding of the experiences of screen tourists in film and TV locations remains an emerging area of inquiry. Consequently, the aim of this paper is to explore the interface between the screen tourist and the destination. The results of empirical research with screen tourists to the Isle of Mull (Scotland) to view the filming location for the children’s TV show Balamory are discussed. First, the degree to which people are attracted to a location through film connections and the types of visits are explored. Second, the nature of visit experiences is analysed, allowing some consideration of emerging issues for both visitors and the destination. Third, the visitor propensity to return for a future visit is examined. The paper identifies that the lower the influence of Balamory for the visit, the higher the level of adult satisfaction, and that a return visit was more likely if visitors were satisfied with their trip, especially if Balamory was not the only reason for the visit. A structural equation modelling approach is adopted to explore some of the issues induced by an evaluation of visit experiences and the perceived likelihood of repeat visits, generating a range of widely applicable implications for screen tourism destination management and development.
Trang 1Social interactions and intentions to revisit for agritourism service
encounters
Hyungsuk Chooa,*, James F Petrickb,1
a School of Human Movement, Sports, and Leisure Studies, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43402, USA
b Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University, 2261 TAMU College Station, TX 77843, USA
h i g h l i g h t s
The study suggests a model integrating agritourists’ interactions with service providers, companions, and other customers
Interactions with service providers and those with companions positively affected satisfaction with the farm visit
Interactions with companions influenced satisfaction more than those with other customers
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 2 March 2012
Accepted 18 July 2013
Keywords:
Social interactions
Satisfaction
Revisit intentions
Agritourism
a b s t r a c t
This study addresses how agritourists’ social interactions affect their satisfaction and, in turn, revisit intentions Adopting social exchange theory and resource theory, the study proposes that social in-teractions with service providers, local residents, companion tourists, and other customers influence satisfaction, which in turn affects revisit intentions For this, an onsite survey was conducted to examine the proposed model and test the hypotheses Subjects (N¼ 266) were tourists who visited farms All, but one of the hypotheses were supported or partially supported by the data and the proposed model also had an acceptablefit Results provide direction for the development of a theoretical framework to un-derstand revisit intentions by seeking to improve the social exchange relationships with agritourists In addition, the results call for the incorporation of social interactions as a component of the agritourism servicescape
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved
1 Introduction
Agritourism has long been a phenomenon in many countries,
but its popularity has only recently increased for farmers, tourists
and consumers of agricultural products and services (Sharpley &
Vass, 2006) On the supply side, as traditional methods of
agricul-ture production system are becoming less viable, farming
com-munities have experienced economic and social challenges,
including decreased farm incomes (Busby & Rendle, 2000) Thus,
farmers have looked for alternatives to help diversify traditional
farm operations, hoping to reverse the steady erosion of net farm
incomes (Fleischer & Pizam, 1997) Farm diversification into
tourism, in general, presents a potential to generate additional
in-come, diversify the farming economy, lower risks and uncertainties
and form a symbiotic relationship with agriculture for farming communities (Clarke, 1999) Agritourism also provides benefits to tourists and consumers Since the majority of the general popula-tion may have little or no contact with agriculture, agritourism could also be a mechanism by which urbanites can enjoy nature and culture, learn about agriculture and purchase locally grown farm products (Sonnino, 2004) In sum, agritourism has been commonly guided and motivated by a vision for a thriving, diverse, small-scale farm that remains profitable, enhances the environ-ment, enriches the indigenous culture, and improves the quality of life for farmers and consumers
While a growing body of literature related to agritourism exists, the vast majority has dealt with tourism from the supply side (Jolly
& Reynolds, 2005; McIntosh & Bonnemann, 2006) To date, little attention has been given to farm tourists and their relationships with farmers even though the recent growth in agritourism has been driven by both demand and supply (Tew & Barbieri, 2012) There are considerable opportunities for growth of the demand for agritourism as an increasing number of farmers are diversifying into tourism businesses (Lobo et al., 1999) Therefore, it is believed
* Corresponding author Tel.: þ1 419 372 7862; fax: þ1 419 372 0383.
E-mail addresses: hchoo@bgsu.edu , hyungsuk.choo@gmail.com (H Choo),
jpetrick@tamu.edu (J.F Petrick).
1 Tel.: þ1 979 845 8806; fax: þ1 979 845 0446.
Contents lists available atScienceDirect Tourism Management
j o u r n a l h o me p a g e : w w w e l s e v i e r c o m/ l o ca t e / t o u r m a n
0261-5177/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.
Tourism Management 40 (2014) 372e381
Trang 2that research should be conducted to understand the factors
affecting consumers’ perspectives for agritourism activities in order
tofill this gap
Like other forms of tourism, agritourism involves much service
This creates a need to focus on service encounters in which a
customer interacts with staff and/or other customers (Bitner,
Booms, & Tetreault, 1990) Service encounters often occur in the
presence of multiple customers and service providers who share
the servicescape with each other, involving a series of interactions
and/or relationships In this sense, it would appear to be important
to integrate the types of interactions at service encounters to
un-derstand how those influence customers’ service experiences In
the service marketing literature, service encounters have typically
represented social encounters in which employees’ interpersonal
skills affect customer satisfaction and behavior (Bitner, Booms, &
Mohr, 1994; Bowers, Martin, & Luker, 1990) and where customers
influence one another indirectly as a part of the environment or
directly through interpersonal encounters (Bitner et al., 1994;
Martin, 1996) Similarly, tourism scholars have examined the
dyadic interface between tourists and employees (Solnet, 2007)
and customer-to-customer interactions (Huang & Hsu, 2010; Wu,
2007) Additionally, interactions with tourists’ companions and
with local residents might also be critical parts of tourists’ tourism
experiences
This study therefore sets out to examine an integrated social
interaction in agritourism service encounters including four
distinctive relationships including: 1) agritourist-to-service
pro-vider, 2) agritourist-to-local resident, 3) agritourist-to-companion
tourist, and 4) agritourist-to-other customer Taking findings
related to social exchange theory (Homans, 1958) and affect theory
of social exchange (Lawler, 2001), this study will examine the link
between agritourists’ social interactions and satisfaction with their
service experience Moreover, these four types of social interactions
will be compared to see how these interactions can individually or
in combination, positively influence post-purchase behaviors It is
hoped that this study will provide marketing implications for
developing tourism businesses on farms by seeking to understand
the social exchange relationships that agritourists have
2 Literature review
2.1 Agritourism and service encounters
The primary reason for the recent emergence of tourism as an
important rural economic activity can be found from the supply
side Farm-based tourism has increasingly given farmers an
op-portunity to generate additional income (Knowd, 2006), to be an
avenue for direct marketing to consumers (Sonnino, 2004; Tew &
Barbieri, 2012; Veeck, Che, & Veeck, 2006) and as a way to
coun-teract social and economic problemsdloss of income, increased
expenses, globalization, and othersdassociated with the decline of
traditional agriculture industries (McGehee, 2007) In general,
farmers diversify into tourism services for significant and steady
retail sales of farming products, but opportunities for educating
agritourists and consumers about the farming and farming
re-sources and offering entertainment/recreation services are useful
side benefits of these activities While these potential benefits have
attracted many farmers into agritourism, farmers should keep in
mind that this activity requires them to have extended marketing
practices Compared to long supply chains of traditional
agricul-tural systems as a part of the production system, agritourism
in-volves much service, including direct interactions with agritourists
and consumers This suggests attention needs to be paid to service
encounters in both agritourism research and practice
In the service marketing literature, service encounters are
defined as any period of time during which a customer interacts with a service (Bitner, 1990; Shostack, 1985) This definition in-cludes discrete, separate, and distinct events and behaviors, as well
as customers’ interactions with all the dimensions of a service However, a majority of service encounter scholars believe that interpersonal interactions between customers and service pro-viders are typically important because it is during this time when customers judge the services provided to them and most services involve at least one human being interacting with another (Czepiel, 1990; Shostack, 1985) Hence, such an encounter has been the focus
of service marketing research
While different scholars have paid attention to specific types of interactions during service encounters, an integrated model explaining three discrete relationships has been identified in gen-eral service environments: organization, customer-to-service provider, and customer-to-customer interactions (Yi & Gong, 2009) All of these interactions seem relevant to general tourism service encounters, but they are not necessarily the same for small-scale operations which predominate in agritourism Agritourists seem not to distinguish their interactions with orga-nizations or employees because farm owners themselves are ser-vice providers in many cases (Wilson, 2007) Therefore, out of the three types of interactions, this study will not consider customer-to-organization interactions
Agritourists do encounter local residents, although not on a regular basis Local residents’ behavior toward tourists can influ-ence whether the experiinflu-ence of agritourists is pleasant Tourist-to-other customer interactions have received scholarly attention in that the presence of other customers can affect the nature of the service outcome and process Lastly, as the indigenous presence of social groups has been recognized in the tourism literature (Crompton, 1981), travel companions might also influence the tourism experience A vast majority of leisure tourists do not travel solo and most tourism statistics indicate an average travel party over two Although the phenomenon of tourists’ interaction with their companions has not been identified well in the tourism literature, this specific interaction, afforded by families and friends
in shared leisure activities, has been explored through the concept
of leisure companionship in otherfields (Iso-Ahola & Park, 1996; McCormick, 1999) In sum, this study suggests that at least four types of social interactions exist in agritourismdwith service pro-viders, companion tourists, other customers, and local residents This study will further examine how these interactions influence revisit intentions through satisfaction
2.2 Satisfaction and social exchange theory Satisfaction is one of the most heavily researched topics in consumer behavior and marketing The importance of under-standing satisfaction is primarily based on its potential outcomes, such as: loyalty and commitment (Cronin & Taylor, 1992), word-of-mouth (Huia, Wan, & Ho, 2006), complaining behavior (Landon,
1977), and repurchase intentions (Hu, 2003; Petrick, 2004; Petrick & Backman, 2001, 2002; Petrick, Morais, & Norman, 2001; Petrick, Tonner, & Quinn, 2006)
Customer satisfaction has generally been conceptualized as a post-purchase evaluative judgment concerning a specific purchase choice (Westbrook & Oliver, 1999) Satisfaction is created more from feelings-based criteria than cognitive criteria, yet it tends to relate as much to perceptions of the intermediate steps of personal exchange during the process of service delivery as to its actual outputs (Nowak & Washburn, 1998) Satisfaction is further complicated by the influence of personal and social variables such
as needs, disposition, traveling companions and previous
H Choo, J.F Petrick / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 372e381
Trang 3experience (Crompton & Love, 1995; Kozak, 2001) This suggests
that the importance of examining various antecedents of
satisfac-tion (Cronin & Taylor, 1992)
According to social exchange theory, interpersonal interaction
includes exchanges of resources and satisfaction is primarily
influenced by the social and economic outcomes of those
ex-changes (Homans, 1958) On the contrary, the
expectancy-disconfirmation paradigm, which is arguably a dominant
satisfac-tion framework, focuses on internal processing which involves
comparison of the actual and expected performance of a product or
service (Oliver, 1977) Therefore, a key advantage of social exchange
theory is that it considers the interpersonal variables influencing
satisfaction Successful relationships are characterized by
reci-procity (Gouldner, 1960), and it is likely that they are the keys to
positive feelings about sustained social relationships Social
ex-change theory was originally built upon rational choice assumption
of human behavior, but Lawler and his colleagues connected rates
of social exchanges and positive emotions (Lawler, Thye, & Yoon,
2000; Lawler & Yoon, 1993) The theory takes its specific form as
an affect theory of social exchange, which conceives of the
impor-tance of emotion as an outcome of social exchanges for relational
commitment (Lawler, 2001; Lawler & Thye, 2006) This theory
accordingly supports the affective outcome (i.e., satisfaction)
resulted from social interactions that this study asserts
Social exchange relationships evolve when an individual who
supplies rewarding services to another obligates them To discharge
this obligation, the second must in turn furnish benefits to the first
(Blau, 1964) To the extent that both parties apply the reciprocity
norm to their relationships, favorable treatment by either party is
reciprocated, leading to mutually beneficial outcomes (Rhoades &
Eisenberger, 2002) Similar to above reasoning, the four types of
interactions suggested in this study have been recognized Of these,
the interactions with service providers (Morais, Dorsch, &
Backman, 2004; Sierra & McQuitty, 2005) or other customers
(Huang & Hsu, 2010; Rosenbaum & Massiah, 2007; Wu, 2007) have
been identified both in the general service and tourism literatures
with respect to positive post-purchase behaviors In addition to
these two parities, some tourism scholars have suggested that
direct and indirect interactions with local residents can play a role
in creating positive tourist experiences (Carmichael, 2006; Fick &
Ritchie, 1991) Within a travel group, Kozak and Duman (2012)
recently investigated the role of other members in a family affect
a spouse’ (or partner’)s vacation satisfaction, concluding the
post-purchase evaluation is part of a joint-decision making process
Combining these prior evidences, the following four hypotheses
were derived
Hypothesis 1 Interactions with service providers will have a
positive effect on satisfaction
Hypothesis 2 Interactions with local residents will have a
posi-tive effect on satisfaction
Hypothesis 3 Interactions with companion tourists will have a
positive effect on satisfaction
Hypothesis 4 Interactions with other customers will have a
positive effect on satisfaction
2.3 Satisfaction and resource theory
Resource theory is a social psychological framework for
under-standing social interactions and relationships It is closely related to
social exchange theory, which very broadly refers to any conceptual
model or theoretical approach that focuses on the exchange of
re-sources between or among people In this way, social interactions
are seen as providing the means by which persons can obtain needed resources from others and, thus, gain satisfaction as a result
of the effect these transactions have on them (Rettig & Bubolz,
1983) Consequently, resource theory represents a broad concep-tual framework that helps us to understand interpersonal behavior and the relationships between individuals in everyday life In particular, this theory posits that the resources exchanged by those having relationships are expected to be qualitatively different as well as engaging in a greater quantity of exchanges (Foa & Foa,
1976)
Within the resource theory framework, resources can be broadly
defined as “any item, concrete or symbolic, which can become the object of exchange among people” (Foa & Foa 1980, p 78) Resources can be classified into six classes: (1) Lovedan expression of affec-tionate regard, warmth, or comfort; (2) Statusdan evaluative judgment conveying high or low prestige, regard, or esteem; (3) Information eany advice, knowledge, opinions, or suggestions; (4) Moneydany coin or token that has some standard of exchange value; (5) Goodsdany tangible items that are exchanged; and (6) Servicesdactivities provided to or by an individual
According toFoa and Foa (1980), individuals satisfy personal needs through resource exchanges with others Incorporating the material and nonmaterial needs of an individual with another, resource theory has the potential to assist in understanding satis-faction in an agritourism context where both material and non-material exchanges are necessarily common According to some relationship scholars (Buunk & Verhoeven, 1991; Miller & Berg,
1982), the type of relationship is an influential factor in social ex-changes, as previous research in social psychology has indicated that different types of social interaction have distinct effects on life satisfaction Among them,Rook (1987a, 1987b) compared the role
of companionship and other social relationships on life satisfaction, emphasizing the important nature of shared experiences and ac-tivities associated with companionships Accordingly, when the tourist-to-companion tourist interaction is compared with the tourist-to-other customers interaction on satisfaction judgment, the effect of the former may be more significant than the latter in agritourism encounters In a similar vein, how tourists interact with service providers is hypothesized to be more prominent in their satisfaction judgment than their interaction with other local resi-dents (i.e., other local farmers) This does not mean that in-teractions with local residents are not important, but rather to understand how tourists’ interactions with service providers and local residents both influence agritourism encounters Therefore, the specific hypotheses regarding the type of relationship are: Hypothesis 5 The effect of agritourists’ interactions with their own companions on satisfaction will be stronger than the effect of agritourists’ interactions with other customers on satisfaction Hypothesis 6 The effect of agritourists’ interactions with service providers on satisfaction will be stronger than the effect of agri-tourists’ interactions with local residents on satisfaction
2.4 Revisit intentions Many tourism scholars have increasingly discussed the concept
of revisit intentions and its antecedents by examining their bene-ficial rewards; creating positive word-of-mouth, achieving better cost-effectiveness by repeat visitors, and increasing economic profit (Shoemaker & Lewis, 1999) In agritourism, as seasonal changes are part of the farming environment, this also creates the importance of attracting a high portion of repeat tourists The concept of revisit intentions is adopted and modified from both social psychology and marketing perspectives In social
H Choo, J.F Petrick / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 372e381
Trang 4psychology, the intention to continue/to stay in a relationship is
referred to as relationship maintenance by social exchange theory
(Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) Consistent with this conceptualization of
revisit intentions as an extension of the relationship framework,
this study examines the relationship between agritourists’
in-teractions at agritourism experiences and their revisit intentions,
mediated by satisfaction A number of tourism researchers in this
domain have suggested several other key antecedents of revisit
intentions, though theoretical and empirical findings are quite
consistent in suggesting satisfaction positively related to revisit
intentions (Chen & Tsai, 2007; Kozak, 2001; Petrick, 2004; Yuksel,
2001) This study thus postulates that satisfaction will ultimately
influence agritourists’ intention to revisit the farm in the following:
Hypothesis 7 There will be a positive relationship between
satisfaction and revisit intentions
3 Methodology
3.1 Survey development
Following resource theory’s suggestion that social interactions
include as many as six different resources, a preliminary 18 items
(Table 2) were included to measure the concept of interaction with
service providers In addition to 14 items suggested in the previous
literature (Morais, Backman, & Dorsch, 2003), 4 additional items
relevant to agritourism context were included For agritourists’ in-teractions with local residents, companions, and other customers, the same items were used excluding six irrelevant items (three items each of interactions through product and money exchange e.g., local residents/companions/other customers offered discounts) All var-iables were measured onfive-point Likert-type scales ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) In addition, four sets of polar items on afive-point modified semantic differential summa-tion scale for satisfacsumma-tion and the two items on a 5-point scale for revisit intentions were adopted fromBaker and Crompton (2000)
andGrewal, Monroe, & Krishnan (1998)respectively
3.2 Data collection Texas was selected for the study site due to its significant contribution of agriculture to the whole country Although data is unavailable for the total number of farms involved in tourism in Texas, according to the National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) in 2008, Texas led the nation in number of farms (229,000), total land in farms (129 million acres), and livestock and product commodity sales ($9.3 billion) in 2008
Word-of-mouth recommendations obtained from agricultural professionals in practice, academics, and the government resulted
in the identification of 19 Texas farms engaged with tourism ac-tivity Among those, five relevant agritourism farms located in central Texas, were chosen based on the distance and year-round availability They were contacted for possible participation and three farms agreed to participate in study The data were collected from February to March 2009 via onsite surveys Every 5th visitor was systematically approached (Dillman, 2000) and informed about the purpose of the survey in advance before they were given the questionnaire During an 8-week period, a total of 307 surveys were returned Of those, 21 incomplete or duplicate responses were identified and removed In addition, responses from those who stated that they routinely visited the farm almost every week (20 responses) were also removed as they were identified as local customers who purchase farm products Thus, 266 were kept in the final sample for analysis, and the response rate was 82.6%
As shown inTable 1, the majority of respondents were women (59.4%) and in the 18 to 39 age cohort (63.1%) Agritourists tended
to be highly educated with 82.8 percent having completed college and the average income being $69,000 Among the respondents, 58.3 percent were employed either full-time or part-time Among them, 29.5% were repeaters and the average number of visits among the repeaters was 2.9 times Of the respondents, 255 (95.9%) accompanied companions The average party size was 2.6 ranging from 2 to 19, and their visit/s was/were mainly with their families (60.8%) or friends (34.0%)
4 Results 4.1 Measures The measurement models of all constructs (i.e., social in-teractions with service providers, companions, and other customers, satisfaction, and revisit intentions) except social interactions with local residents were identified In this step, social interactions with local residents was dropped from thefinal structural model due to its low reliability (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998) (Cronbach’s alpha¼ 402) and too many missing values (35.1% nonresponse rate for this construct) (Raymond & Roberts, 1987)
Factor analyses were preliminarily conducted (Mulaik, 2004) in order to reduce the number of variables for the three social in-teractions scales and unidimensionality of satisfaction and revisit intentions scales The social interaction scale had not been
Table 1
Demographic characteristics of the sample.
Gender
Age
Marital status
Employment status
Education background
Post graduate work started/completed 32.2%
Ethnic background
H Choo, J.F Petrick / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 372e381
Trang 5sufficiently tested since its development in a tourism setting
(Morais et al., 2003) Hence, it was determined that it would be
more appropriate to conduct a multi-step process for examining
and refining each scale Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to
examine the dimensional structure and properties of the measure
relevant to the study context was chosen as suggested by Churchill
(1979) Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure with 79e.91 (Kaiser,
1970) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Bartlett, 1950) of 10,211
(p< 001) found that the data were appropriate for factor analysis
Various cutoff criteria were used to determine the number of
fac-tors derived, such as eigenvalues, scree plot, percentage of variance,
item communalities, and factor loadings (Hair et al., 1998) Items
with loadings lower than 4 and with loadings higher than 4 on
more than one factor were eliminated For social interactions with
service providers, output of the EFA with a Varimax rotation using
SPSS 15.0 suggested three factors (social interactions through love,
money, and service), which explained 64.2% of the variance Two
latent factors were identified for social interactions with
compan-ions (social interactcompan-ions through love and information) and
explained 68.8% of the variance Analysis of social interactions with
other customers revealed two factors (social interactions through
status and information), explaining 68.7% of the variance In total,
17 items were removed in this preliminary step due to low factor loadings or dual factor loadings and details of the results of the EFA are shown inTable 2 The reliability coefficients of factors identified for the three social interactions ranged from 70 to 93, which exceeded the minimum standard for reliability of 70 recom-mended byNunnally and Bernstein (1994) For the satisfaction and revisit intentions constructs, factor analyses confirmed one factor each, accounting for 92.4% and 91.5% of the total variance, respec-tively Reliability coefficients of 92 and 90 respectively, indicated acceptable reliability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994)
4.2 The hypothesized structural models AMOS 17.0 was employed to examine the structural models For this, Skewness and Kurtosis tests were preliminary performed to evaluate normality of the data The absolute value for univariate skewness and kurtosis ranged from 03 to 2.09 and from 01 to 3.79 respectively and fell within conventional criteria of normality (Kline, 2005)
Table 2
Result of exploratory factor analyses.
Souvenirs_S: Service providers provided or shared souvenirs .85
Equipment_S: Service providers provided or shared good quality
equipment to use in this visit (basket, bag, etc).
.68
Fondness_C: My companions were very fond of me during the visit .84
Importance_C: My companions treated me as an important person .83
Attraction_C: My companion(s) provided me with information on
attraction, lodging, or restaurant around the farm.
.64 Problem_C: My companion(s) provided me with information about the
problems.
.83
Special_O: Other customers treated me special.
Attraction_O: Other customers provided me with information on attraction,
lodging, or restaurant around the farm.
.85 Problem_O: Other customers provided me with information about the problems .63
If I were to visit a farm again, the probability that it would be this farm
again.
.96 The likelihood that I’d consider visiting this farm again is 96
Note: FC: Factor loadings, EV: Eigen value, VE: Variance extracted, RC: Reliability Coefficient, S, C, and O indicate Service providers, Companion tourists, and Other customers respectively.
H Choo, J.F Petrick / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 372e381
Trang 6The nine constructs were incorporated into the structural model
to examine the hypothesized relationships among the latent factors
Since some of the factors were measured by more than four items, a
parceling procedure (Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994) was adopted This
procedure, by combining items randomly into composites, can help
reduce random errors, increase the stability of the parameter
esti-mates, improve the variable to sample size ratio, remedy small
sample sizes, and simultaneously maintain the properties of
mul-tiple indicators (Bagozzi & Edward, 1998; Hallak, Brown, & Lindsay,
2012) In addition, a structural model that is based on parceled items
is more“parsimonious” than a model with individual items (Little,
Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002), and parameter estimates
calculated when item parcels are used are more stable and
there-fore, more generalizable (Cunningham, 2007) Researchers often
recommend the use of item parceling strategies, particularly when
the underlying research questions involve relationships between
the constructs rather than the functioning of individual items
(Labouvie & Ruetsch, 1995; Rocha & Chelladurai, 2012) For this
study, a total of ten parcels were created for thefive social
inter-action dimensions having more than four items
Maximum likelihood model estimation was used to test thefit
the hypothesized structural model In the hypothesized structural
model, the seven social interaction constructs were exogenous, and
predicted satisfaction, which in turn predicted revisit intentions
The results of the SEM showed that the proposed model provided a
goodfit to the data (Table 3) (c2(162)¼ 426.01 p < 001, CFI ¼ 91;
NNFI¼ 90; GFI ¼ 90; IFI ¼ 94; RFI ¼ 93; and RMSEA ¼ 07) These
fit indices appropriately met the cutoff requirements of suggested
modelfit indices by Kline (2005) and Bollen (1989) The
hypothe-sized structural model indicated that all standard factor loadings
were greater than 50 (Kline, 2005) and no variable has modi
fica-tion indices (MI) scores greater than 100 Moreover, the present MI
results were fairly complex, and did not present a theoretically
meaningful solution to improve the modelfit further
In the hypothesized model, all the indicators loaded significantly
and substantively on their factors (p< 05), suggesting convergent
validity (Bagozzi & Yi,1988) As shown inTable 4, the average variance extracted (AVE) exceeded 5, further supporting convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) The correlations among factors were not higher than 85 (Kenny, 2012) In addition, the most conservative method using AVE also confirmed the discriminant validity because the AVE for each construct was greater than the squared correlation coefficients for the corresponding inter-constructs and this confirms discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) (Table 4) The items included in the hypothesized model are identified inFig.1, which also shows the standard path coefficients and standard deviations 4.3 Alternative model
In order to validate the hypothesized model and the mediating role of satisfaction, an alternative model which included direct paths between the social interaction constructs and revisit in-tentions was also examined Thec2difference test examined the null hypotheses of no significant difference with a nested struc-tured model If the null hypothesis is sustained, the more con-strained model would be tentatively accepted
A set offit statistics indicated that the alternative model moder-atelyfit the data (c2(155)¼ 413.21, p < 001, CFI ¼ 90; NNFI ¼ 89; GFI¼ 90; IFI ¼ 93; RFI ¼ 93; and RMSEA ¼ 07) The change in chi-square indicated that thefit of the alternative model did not perform better than the hypothesized structural model (Dc2¼ 12.8, df ¼ 7,
p< 01) Examination of the individual path coefficients indicated that three paths were found to be positive and statistically significant (baMoneyeService Providers¼ 08, p < 05,baServiceeService Providers¼ 12,
p< 01,baInformationeCompanion¼ 09, p < 05) Although three of the seven direct paths from the seven social interaction constructs to revisit intentions were statistically significant (p < 05), all three path coefficients indicated only weak direct relationships, whereas the paths between the six social interaction constructs and satisfaction and those between satisfaction and revisit intentions remained relatively strong and significant (Fig 2) Although these results technically indicated partial mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986), given the fact that the more parsimonious hypothesized modelfit the data better and only three paths from social interaction to revisit in-tentions were statistically significant with the relatively weaker path loadings, it was concluded that the hypothesized structural modelfit the data better than the alternative model
4.4 Hypotheses testing Path coefficients estimated by SEM and the results of hypotheses 1
to 6 are presented in Fig 1 The path coefficient from social in-teractions with service providers to satisfaction was significant at the 01 level, indicating a positive relationship (bLoveeService Providers¼ 31,
p< 01,bServiceeService Providers¼ 25, p < 01,bMoneyeService Providers¼ 11,
Table 4
Correlation (squared correlation), average variance extracted (AVE), and mean of the hypothesized model.
3 Service_S 762 (.566) 476 (.228) 1
5 Information_C 549 (.301) 485 (.235) 643 (.413) 702 (.491) 1
6 Status_O 012 (.000) 032 (.001) 018 (.000) 075 (.006) 051 (.003) 1
7 Information_O 103 (.011) 160 (.026) 158 (.025) 175 (.031) 223 (.050) 482 (.232) 1
8 SA 568 (.323) 315 (.099) 665 (.442) 614 (.377) 642 (.412) 080 (.006) 254 (.065) 1
9 RI 447 (.200) 251 (.063) 451 (.203) 487 (.237) 458 (.210) 240 (.058) 160 (.026) 756 (.572) 1
All correlations are significant at p < 05.
Table 3
Comparison of overall fit indices for the hypothesized and alternative models
(N ¼ 266).
Hypothesized
structural
model
426.01
(162)
Alternative
model
413.21
(155)
Note: RMSEA: Root mean square error of approximation, CFI: Comparative Fit Index,
GFI: goodness-of-fit index, NNFI: Non-normed Fit Index, IFI: Incremental Fit Index,
RFI: Relative Fit Index.
*p < 05.
H Choo, J.F Petrick / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 372e381
Trang 7p< 05) The path coefficients from the two factors of social
in-teractions with companions to satisfaction were also significant,
indicating a positive relationship (bLoveeCompanions¼ 28, p < 01,
bInformationeCompanions¼ 15, p < 05) Yet, for the path coefficients
between the two factors of social interactions with other
customers and satisfaction, only the path coefficient from the
Sta-tus_O factor to satisfaction was positive and statistically significant
(bStatuseOther customers¼ 12, p < 05) The path coefficient from the Information_O factor to satisfaction was negative, yet statistically insignificant (bInformationeOther Customers¼ .09, p > 10) The rela-tionship between satisfaction and revisit intentions showed a posi-tive relationship, significant at the 01 level (bSatisfaction¼ 68, p < 01) Therefore, while hypothesis 1 and 3 were supported, hypothesis 4 was only partially supported
Fig 1 Estimation of the hypothesized structural model.
H Choo, J.F Petrick / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 372e381
Trang 8Hypothesis 5 was not able to be examined due to removal of social
interaction with local residents But, the Love_S factor for social
interaction with service providers had the highest explanatory
po-wer for satisfaction among all types of social interactions, based on
the relative values of the path coefficients shown inFig 1 For
hy-pothesis 6, the effect of social interactions with companions on
satisfaction was higher than that of social interactions with other
customers (bLoveeCompanions¼ 28, p < 01,bInformationeCompanions¼ 15,
p < 05); bStatuseOther customers ¼ 12, p < 05, bInformationeOther
Customers¼ .09, p > 05) Therefore, hypothesis 6 was supported
5 Discussion and implications
The purposes of this study were to: (1) integrate observable
interpersonal interactions between service providers, local
resi-dents, companions, and other customers in small-scale farms
involved in tourism; and (2) examine the relationships between the
interactions and revisit intentions mediated by satisfaction
The proposed model examined integrated social interactions
that have been observed in tourism contexts particularly for
small-scale tourism operations on farms, and extends Yi and Gong’s work
regarding service encounters as an exchange process(2009) By
examining agritourism service encounters from a social exchange
perspective, this study suggests that agritourism operators need to
consider a tourist’s interpersonal interactions and how those
in-teractions influence his/her tourism experiences Providing an
op-portunity for positive and supportive interactions using
agritourism programs and services could help improve tourists’
satisfaction with their tourism experience As important as a person
perceives the process and outcome of the relationship, he/she will
most likely devote him/herself to it Thus, it is believed to be an
important part of functional social exchange because it ensures that
partners will put forth the effort necessary to produce mutually
desirable outcomes However, it should be noted that all social
interactions make important, but complementary contributions to
tourists’ satisfaction judgment
The results of this study supported Hypothesis 1 to 6, except
hypotheses 2 and 5, which included social interactions with local
residents The integrated model indicated that social interactions
with service providers through love, money, and service exchange
and those with companions through love and information
ex-change positively affected satisfaction with the farm visit For the
effect of interactions with other customers, exchange of status
re-sources was positive, but the link between interactions through
exchange of information resources was neither positive nor
sta-tistically significant Additionally, this study demonstrated that the
types of relationships were also important indicators in comparing
the effects of interactions on satisfaction, as interactions with
companions influenced satisfaction more than those with other
customers Although the tourism literature has not paid attention
to the relationships between tourists’ and their companions
asso-ciated with service experiences, this study revealed an important
role of travel companions on agitourists’ overall experience
5.1 Theoretical implications
This study contributed to the repeat visit and satisfaction
liter-atures because it examined an alternative theoretical explanation
focusing on social interactions To the best of the authors’
knowl-edge, this is thefirst study in tourism to examine social interactions
with service providers, companions, and other customers
simulta-neously in the visitors’ domain Although there are different types of
social interactions that can play critical roles in tourism service
encounters, previous research has focused mainly on those
in-teractions respectively with service providers and customers By
integrating observable social interactions at agritourism encoun-ters, this study provides a framework for understanding the con-tributions of different types of social interactions to satisfaction and revisit intention that are grounded in social exchange theory and resource theory In general, relationships between customers and tourism operations are based on repetitive interactions over time, which provide opportunities for customers to develop an enduring, positive relationship with service providers, companions, and other customers This implies the importance of examining the role of social interactions from a customer perspective drawn from social exchange theory, which has only been applied to local residents in the tourism literature (Gursoy, Chi, & Dyer, 2009; Perdue, Long, & Kang, 1999) Additionally, the study provided empirical support to the hypothesized influence of social interactions on satisfaction and
to the usefulness of resource theory as an alternative theoretical framework to explain satisfaction and revisit intentions Different from previous studies on customers’ social interactions with service providers (Solnet, 2007) and other customers (Huang & Hsu, 2010), this study adopted resource theory, which suggests multidimen-sional constructs of social interactions The usefulness of resource theory in measuring customers’ social interactions is manifest in important contributions to the research (Berg, Piner, & Frank, 1993) This study could also contribute to developing a servicescape framework specific to agritourism or possibly relevant to general tourism The servicescape concept builds upon well-established research traditions in environmental psychology and marketing that the design of the physical environment can be an extremely important element in influencing consumption patterns and prac-tices by emphasizing the co-creation of experience between service providers and customers The servicescape is typically comprised of three dimensions: ambient conditions, spatial layout and signs/ symbols/artifacts and the concept (Bitner, 1992) It has been argued that these dimensions remain invaluable to tourism marketing (Abubakar, 2002) However, many servicescape researchers have increasingly moved beyond a consumption setting’s physical dimension to less palpable dimensions, including social dimensions which are also housed within the servicescape (Hightower, 2010; Rosenbaum & Massiah, 2011; Tombs & McColl-Kennedy, 2003) The importance of social dimensions is particularly evident in tourism as tourists fulfill not only their utilitarian needs but also their social and psychological needs Therefore, an integrated model of the three interactions during agritourism encounters can serve as a basis for the social elements framework that are encapsulated in the tourism servicescape A servicescape frame-work embracing three types of interactions into three dimensions
of the physical elements advocates that the service setting is not only physically appealing and symbolically welcoming, but also socially supportive and engaging (Rosenbaum & Massiash, 2011) 5.2 Managerial implications
Regarding social interactions with service providers, steps should
be taken to encourage customereservice provider interactions, as the current research suggested that these benefit customers In particular, in terms of the dimensions of social interactions with service providers, an important tenet can be suggested As the theoretical framework suggested that particularistic resources exchanged may help increase customers’ satisfaction with their experience, this study provides evidence that providers who wish for their customers to return should exchange love and services For example, providers could create personalized interactions to let their customers know how they are cared for and how important they are
On the other hand, monetary benefits such as price discounts did not sustain customer satisfaction as highly as care and personal re-lationships did The value associated with a price discount can be
H Choo, J.F Petrick / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 372e381
Trang 9perceived as just a cheaper price that is applicable to all customers,
which might be why offering a price discount was the least valuable
resource that customers were looking for In order to provide
uni-versal resources more effectively, results of this study suggest they
need to be designed to convey personal care and attention towards
individual tourists rather than monetary benefits
Regarding interactions between unacquainted customers, status
exchanges were found to be important aspects Thus, educating
customers on the types of behavior expected of them might be
important As in some other service contexts, sharing the
envi-ronment with unacquainted people and standing in line at the
farmer’s market, which are common aspects of agritourism, are
possible serious challenges However, agritourism environments
that convey high prestige and regard among unacquainted
cus-tomers could be managed as a satisfying experience through proper
customer education
For farm tourists, it was found that families, friends, and
rela-tives play important roles as travel companions who exchange care
and warmth through shared experience as well as being a source of
information related to farm visits Accordingly, when developing
marketing programs, operators should emphasize the wants and
needs of travel groups as well as those of individual tourists
Although interaction with companions is not directly controllable,
agritourism services could provide a context for mutual enjoyment
and shared experience, leading to couple-, family-, and
group-friendly environments As a vast majority of respondents were
accompanied by their family to the farms, service providers should
emphasize in their advertising family-friendly environmental
characteristics that could enhance satisfaction for the travel party
with whom agritourists will travel
5.3 Limitations and further research
Additional efforts in scale development need to be done to ensure
the validity and reliability of the social interactions scales used as the
process of developing the social interactions scale adopting resource
theory in the tourismfield is fairly new In particular, due to dual
factor loading and insufficient factor loading scores, all items
belonging to the product dimension of social interactions with
ser-vice providers were not included in thefinal model Therefore, the
influence of product exchange could not be tested in this study,
although at face value it appears to be theoretically and practically
important Subsequent efforts in scale formation addressing this
dimension should be made for more theoretical completeness
Additionally, a high item nonresponse rate of social interactions
with local residents resulted in the deletion of this concept from the
final model for this study The characteristics of study farms (i.e.,
standalone farms without near farms or many neighbors) and the
lack of a concrete definition of “local residents” from the various
agritourists’ perspectives (i.e., local visitors, out-of-state visitors)
are potential reasons for the high item nonresponse rate A more
specific definition of “local resident” relevant to the various types of
agritourists needs to be determined for future research In addition,
the data collection for this study relied on survey informant
gath-ered at only three farms in Texas, so the result of the study likely
should not be generalized beyond the study population
Finally, this study suggests that the success of tourism business on
farms can be derived from the integration of social encounters into a
meaningful experience developing trust and attachment to current
visitors Understanding agritourists behavior on small-scale tourism
operations, might not only broaden the horizons of theoretical
advancement for agritourist behavior, but also help small-scale
tourism operations develop marketing strategies and define their
own markets specific to them for a more successful business
References Abubakar, B (2002) Developing a framework for understanding a tourism service setting Service Marketing Quarterly, 23(3), 17e34
Bagozzi, R P., & Edward, J R (1998) A general approach for representing constructs
in organizational research Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45e87
Bagozzi, R P., & Heatherton, T F (1994) A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: application to state self-esteem Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 35e67
Bagozzi, R P., & Yi, Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74e94
Baker, D A., & Crompton, J L (2000) Quality, Satisfaction and Behavioral intentions Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785e804
Baron, R M., & Kenny, D A (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical consider-ations Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173e1182
Bartlett, M S (1950) Test of significance in factor analysis The British Journal of Psychology & Marketing, 3, 77e85
Berg, J H., Piner, K E., & Frank, S M (1993) Resource theory and close relationships.
In U G Foa, J Converse, K Y Tornblom, & E B Foa (Eds.), Resource theory: Explorations and application San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc
Bitner, M J (1990) Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical sur-roundings and employee responses Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 69e82
Bitner, M J., Booms, B H., & Mohr, L A (1994) Critical service encounters: the employee’s viewpoint Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 95e106
Bitner, M J., Booms, B H., & Tetreault, M S (1990) The service encounter: diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 71e84
Blau, P M (1964) Exchange and power in social life New York: Wiley
Bowers, M R., Martin, C L., & Luker, A (1990) Trading places: employees as cus-tomers, customers as employees Journal of Services Marketing, 4(2), 55e69
Busby, G., & Rendle, S (2000) The transition from tourism on farms to farm tourism Tourism Management, 21, 635e642
Buunk, B P., & Verhoeven, K (1991) Companionship and support at work: a microanalysis of the stress-reducing features of social interaction Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(3), 243e258
Carmichael, B A (2006) Linking quality tourism experiences, residents’ quality of life, and quality experiences for tourists In G Jennings, & N Polovitz Nickerson (Eds.), Quality tourism experiences (pp 113e131) Burlington: Butterworthe Heinemann, Elsevier
Chen, C.-F., & Tsai, D (2007) How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28, 1115e1122
Clarke, J (1999) Marketing structuring for farm tourism: beyond the individual provider of rural tourism Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(1), 26e48
Crompton, J L (1981) Dimensions of the social group role in pleasure vacations Annals of Tourism Research, 4, 550e568
Crompton, J L., & Love, L L (1995) Predictive validity of alternative approaches of evaluating quality of a festival Journal of Travel Research, 34(1), 11e24
Cronin, J J., Jr., & Taylor, S A (1992) Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension Journal of Marketing, 56(July), 55e66
Cunningham, E (2007) Structural equation modeling using AMOS Brunswick, Vic-toria, Australia: Starsline
Czepiel, J A (1990) Service encounters and service relationships: implications for research Journal of Business Research, 20, 13e21
Dillman, D A (2000) Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method New York: John Wiley & Sons
Fick, G R., & Ritchie, J R (1991) Measuring service quality in the travel and tourism industry Journal of Travel Research, 30(1), 2e9
Fleischer, A., & Pizam, A (1997) Rural tourism in Israel Tourism Management, 18(6), 367e372
Foa, E B., & Foa, U G (1976) Resource theory of social exchange Morristown, N.J: General Learning Press
Foa, E B., & Foa, U G (1980) Resource Theory: Interpersonal Behavior As Exchange.
In K J Gergen, M S Greenberg, & R H Willis (Eds.), Social Exchange: Advances
in Theory and Research New York: Plenum Press
Gouldner, A W (1960) The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement American Sociological Review, 25, 161e178
Grewal, D., Monroe, K B., & Krishnan, R (1998) The effects of price-comparison advertising on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions Journal of Marketing, 62(April), 46e59
Gursoy, D., Chi, C G.-Q., & Dyer, P (2009) An examination of locals’ attitudes Annals
of Tourism Research, 36, 715e734
Hair, J H., Anderson, R E., Tatham, R L., & Black, W C (1998) Multivariate data analysis with readings Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Hallak, R., Brown, G., & Lindsay, N J (2012) The place identity e performance relationship among tourism entrepreneurs: a structural equation modelling analysis Tourism Management, 33, 143e154
Hightower, R J (2010) Commentary on conceptualizing the servicescape construct
in ‘a study of the service encounter in eight countries’ Marketing Management Journal76e86 Spring
Homans, G C (1958) Social behavior as exchange American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597e606
Hu, B (2003) The impact of destination involvement on travelers’ revisit intentions West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University
H Choo, J.F Petrick / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 372e381
Trang 10Huang, J., & Hsu, C H C (2010) The impact of customer-to-customer interaction on
cruise experience and vacation satisfaction Journal of Travel Research, 49, 79e92
Huia, T K., Wan, D., & Ho, A (2006) Tourists’ satisfaction, recommendation and
revisiting Singapore Tourism Management, 28(4), 965e975
Iso-Ahola, S E., & Park, C J (1996) Leisure-related social support and self
deter-mination as buffers to stress-illness relationship Journal of Leisure Research, 28,
169e187
Jolly, D A., & Reynolds, K A (2005) Consumer demand for agricultural and on-farm
nature tourism UC Small Farm Center Research Brief Retrieved from http://
www.sfc.ucdavis.edu/agritourism/agtourbrief0601.pdf
Kaiser, H F (1970) A second generation Little Jiffy Psychometrika, 35, 401e415
Knowd, I (2006) Tourism as a mechanism for farm survival Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 14(1), 24e41
Kozak, M (2001) Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct destinations Annals of Tourism
Research, 28(3), 784e807
Kozak, M., & Duman, T (2012) Family members and vavation satisfaction: Proposal of
a conceptual framework International Journal of Tourism Research, 14, 192e204
Labouvie, E., & Ruetsch, C (1995) Testing for equivalence of measurement scales:
simple structure and metric invariance reconsidered Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 30, 63e76
Landon, E L (1977) A model of consumer complaint behavior In R L Day (Ed.),
Consumer satisfaction, dissatisfaction and complaining behavior (pp 31e35).
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University School of Business
Lawler, E J (2001) An affect theory of social exchange The American Journal of
Sociology, 107(2), 321e352
Lawler, E J., & Thye, S R (2006) Social exchange theory of emotion handbooks of
sociology and social research US: Springer
Lawler, E J., Thye, S R., & Yoon, J (2000) Emotion and group cohesion in productive
exchange The American Journal of Sociology, 106(3), 616e657
Lawler, E J., & Yoon, J (1993) Power and the emergence of commitment behavior in
negotiated exchange American Sociological Review, 58, 465e481
Little, T D., Cunningham, W A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K F (2002) To parcel or not
to parcel: exploring the question, weighing the merits Structural Equation
Modeling, 9, 151e173
Lobo, R E., Goldman, G E., Jolly, D A., Wallace, B D., Schrader, W L., & Parker, S A.
(1999) Agritourism benefits agriculture in San Diego County Retrieved from
http://www.sfc.ucdavis.edu/agritourism/agritourSD.html
McCormick, B (1999) Contribution of social support and recreation companionship
to the life satisfaction of people with persistent mental illness Therapeutic
Recreation Journal, 33(4), 320e332
McGehee, N G (2007) An agritourism systems model: a Weberian perspective.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(2), 111e124
McIntosh, A J., & Bonnemann, S M (2006) Willing workers on organic farms
(WWWOF): the alternative farm stay experience Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
14(1), 82e99
Martin, C L (1996) Customer-to-customer relationships: satisfaction with other
customers’ public behavior Journal of Consumer Affairs, 30(1), 146e169
Miller, L C., & Berg, J H (1982) Selectivity and urgency in social exchange In
V J Derlega (Ed.), Communication, intimacy, and close relationship New York:
Academic Press
Morais, D B., Backman, S J., & Dorsch, M J (2003) Toward the operationalization of
resource investments made between customers and providers of a tourism
service Journal of Travel Research, 41(May), 362e374
Morais, D B., Dorsch, M J., & Backman, S J (2004) Can tourism providers buy their
customers’ loyalty? Examining the influence of customer-provider investments
on loyalty Journal of Travel Research, 2004(February), 235e243
Mulaik, S A (2004) Objectivity in science and structural equation modeling In
D Kaplan (Ed.), The sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social
sciences (pp 425e446) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Nowak, L., & Washburn, J (1998) Antecedents to client satisfaction in business
services Journal of Services Marketing, 12(6), 441e452
Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I (1994) Psychometric theory (3rd ed.) New York:
McGraw-Hill
Oliver, R L (1977) Effect of expectation and disconformation on post-purchase
product evaluation: an alternative interpretation Journal of Applied
Psychol-ogy, 62(4), 480e486
Perdue, R R., Long, T., & Kang, Y S (1999) Boomtown tourism and resident quality
of life: the marketing of gaming to host community residents Journal of
Busi-ness Research, 44(3), 165e177
Petrick, J F (2004) The role of quality, value, and satisfaction in predicting cruise
passengers’ behavioral intentions Journal of Travel Research, 42, 397e407
Petrick, J F., & Backman, S J (2001) An examination of golf travelers’
satisfac-tion, perceived value, loyalty, and intentions to revisit Tourism Analysis, 6(3/
4), 223e237
Petrick, J F., & Backman, S J (2002) An examination of the construct of perceived
value for the prediction of golf travelers’ intentions to repurchase Journal of
Travel Research, 41, 34e45
Petrick, J F., Morais, D B., & Norman, W C (2001) An examination of the
de-terminants of entertainment vacationers’ intentions to visit Journal of Travel
Research, 40(1), 41e48
Petrick, J F., Tonner, C., & Quinn, C (2006) The utilization of critical incident
technique to examine cruise passengers’ repurchase intentions Journal of Travel
Research, 44(3), 273e280
Raymond, M., & Roberts, D (1987) A comparison of methods for treating incomplete
data in selection research Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 13e26
Rettig, K D., & Bubolz, M M (1983) Interpersonal resource exchanges as indicators
of quality of marriage Journal of Marriage and The Family, 45(3), 497e509
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R (2002) Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698e714
Rocha, C M., & Chelladurai, P (2012) Item parcels in structural equation modeling:
an applied study in sport management International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 2(1), 46e53
Rook, K S (1987a) Reciprocity of social exchange and social satisfaction among older women Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 145e154
Rook, K S (1987b) Social support versus companionship: effects on life stress, loneliness, and evaluations by others Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 52(6), 1132e1147
Rosenbaum, M S., & Massiah, C A (2007) When customers receive support from other customers exploring the influence of intercustomer social support on customer voluntary performance Journal of Service Research, 9(3), 257e270
Rosenbaum, M S., & Massiah, C A (2011) An expanded servicescape perspective Journal of Service Management, 22, 471e490
Sharpley, R., & Vass, A (2006) Tourism, farming and diversification: an attitudinal study Tourism Management, 27, 1040e1052
Shoemaker, S., & Lewis, R C (1999) Customer loyalty: the future of hospitality marketing Hospitality Management, 18, 345e370
Shostack, G L (1985) Planning the service encounter In J A Czepiel, Michael R.Solomon, & C F Surprenant (Eds.), The service encounter (pp 243e254) Lexington, MA: Lexington Books
Sierra, J J., & McQuitty, S (2005) Service providers and customers: social exchange theory and service loyalty Journal of Services Marketing, 19(6), 392e400
Solnet, D (2007) Employee-customer linkages: a social identification perspective
in a hotel industry context Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 14(2), 129e143
Sonnino, R (2004) For a ‘piece of bread’? Interpreting sustainable development through agritourism in Southern Tuscany European Society for Rural Sociology, 44(3), 285e300
Tew, C., & Barbieri, C (2012) The perceived benefits of agritourism: the provider’s perspective Tourism Management, 33, 215e224
Thibaut, J W., & Kelley, H H (1959) The social psychology of groups New York: John Wiley & Sons
Tombs, A., & McColl-Kennedy, J R (2003) Social-servicescape conceptual model Marketing Theory, 3(4), 447e475
Veeck, G., Che, D., & Veeck, A (2006) America’s changing farmscape: a study of agricultural tourism in Michigan The Professional Geographer, 58(3), 235e248
Westbrook, R A., & Oliver, R L (1999) The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction Journal of Consumer Research, 18(June), 84e91
Wilson, L.-A (2007) The family farm business? Insights into family, business and ownership dimensions of open-farms Leisure Studies, 26(3), 357e374
Wu, C H.-J (2007) The impact of customer-to-customer interaction and customer homogeneity on customer satisfaction in tourism serviceethe service encounter prospective Tourism Management, 28, 1518e1528
Yi, Y., & Gong, T (2009) An integrated model of customer social exchange rela-tionship: the moderating role of customer experience Service Industries Journal, 29(11), 1513e1528
Yuksel, A (2001) Managing customer satisfaction and retention: a case of tourist destinations, Turkey Journal of Vacation Marketing, 7(2), 153e168
Hyungsuk Choo is an Assistant Professor at Bowling Green State University Her research interest focuses on exploring the applicability of service marketing principles and social-psychology in the context of agritourism and festi-vals/events identifying the sustainability theory and prac-tice from consumers’ perspective.
Jim Petrick is a Full Professor and Research fellow at Texas A&M University His research explores the determinants of tourists’ purchase behaviors In the past eleven years, he has been awarded more than $2 million in research grants and has been recognized for his research abilities with the following awards: Emerging Scholar of Distinction – from the International Academy for the Study of Tourism (2009), Agri-life Research Fellow (2008), Most Outstanding Conference Paper (TTRA National Conference, 2001), Holland America Line Westours Research Award (2004 & 2000), American Society of Travel Agents Future Tourism Leader Award (1999), and the Excellence in Research Award from RCRA (1998).
H Choo, J.F Petrick / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 372e381