Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management

ISSN: 1936-8623 (Print) 1936-8631 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm20

Relationships Among Tourist Profile, Satisfaction

and Destination Loyalty: Examining Empirical
Evidences in Antalya Region of Turkey

Bahattin Ozdemir , Akin Aksu , Rüya Ehtiyar , Beykan Çizel , Rabia Bato Çizel
& Ebru Tarcan İçigen

To cite this article: Bahattin Ozdemir , Akin Aksu , Rüya Ehtiyar , Beykan Çizel , Rabia Bato Çizel
& Ebru Tarcan İçigen (2012) Relationships Among Tourist Profile, Satisfaction and Destination
Loyalty: Examining Empirical Evidences in Antalya Region of Turkey, Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 21:5, 506-540, DOI: 10.1080/19368623.2012.626749

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2012.626749

Published online: 15 Jun 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1592

View related articles

Citing articles: 23 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=whmm20
Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 21:506–540, 2012
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1936-8623 print/1936-8631 online
DOI: 10.1080/19368623.2012.626749

Relationships Among Tourist Profile,

Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty:
Examining Empirical Evidences in Antalya
Region of Turkey

BAHATTIN OZDEMIR, AKIN AKSU, RÜYA EHTIYAR,

and BEYKAN ÇIZEL
School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

RABIA BATO ÇIZEL

Department of Economics and Business Administration,
Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

EBRU TARCAN İÇIGEN

School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

The present study aims to make a contribution to the body of

knowledge in destination management and marketing by improv-
ing understanding of the relationships among tourist profile,
satisfaction, and loyalty. Drawing upon theoretical and empir-
ical evidences in the relevant literature, three hypotheses were
developed and tested. A survey of 10,393 foreign tourists visiting
Antalya was carried out in the summer of 2008 and the data were
analyzed using chi-square test, independent sample t test, and
ANOVA. Research findings indicated that there were significant
relationships among tourist profile, satisfaction, and loyalty. The
article ends with theoretical and practical implications in predict-
ing tourists’ satisfaction and loyalty levels and increasing tourism
marketing effectiveness of Antalya as a holiday destination.

KEYWORDS tourist profile, tourist satisfaction, destination

loyalty, Turkey, Antalya

Address correspondence to Akın Aksu, PhD, Akdeniz University School of Tourism

and Hotel Management, Akdeniz Universitesi Turizm İsletmeciligi ve Otelcilik Yuksekokulu
Dumlupinar Bulvari 07058 Kampus, Antalya, Turkey. E-mail: [email protected]

506
 Relationships Among Tourist Profile 507

INTRODUCTION

Despite the fact that a number of international tourists visit sun and sea
destinations (Alegra & Cladera 2006), there is a fierce competition among
countries, regions, and cities aiming at attracting sun and sea seekers.
Therefore, it is essential to gain a deep understanding to what extent the
sun and sea seeking tourists are satisfied with a destination, why they are
loyal to a destination, and the effects of the tourists’ sociodemographic
and travel behavior characteristics on their satisfaction and loyalty levels.
It is commonly believed that destinations can improve their competitive-
ness and strengthen their survival by satisfying tourists and retaining them.
Particularly, the competitive environment requires an attainment of cus-
tomer satisfaction through delivery of quality services in order to survive
(Benkenstein, Yavas, & Forberger, 2003). Besides, destination choice and
tourists’ evaluation of destination performance may be affected by travel-
ers’ sociodemographic and travel behavior characteristics (Sheldon & Mak,
1987; Um & Crompton, 1990; Armstrong & Mok, 1995; Baloglu & McCleary,
1999). Thus, understanding the tourists’ profile and the possible differences
in their satisfaction and loyalty levels depending on the variations in their
sociodemographic and travel-behavior characteristics is also critical to create
a sustainable competitive advantage for tourist destinations.
In fact, one of the major reasons for studying satisfaction and loyalty is
the profitability that is generally believed to be generated and sustained
by satisfied, loyal tourists (Beck, Martin, Xu, & Qu, 2004). Accordingly,
recent studies have focused on investigating tourist satisfaction with and
loyalty to sun and sea destinations as well as identifying their demographic
and travel behavior characteristics. For instance, Kozak, Bigne, and Andreu
(2004) conducted research in Calpe, a sun and sea destination of Spain, and
investigated relationships among tourist satisfaction, destination loyalty and
destination attractiveness. They also identified the sociodemographic and
travel behavior characteristics of tourists visiting Calpe. Kozak and Beaman
(2006) examined the relationships between tourist satisfaction and destina-
tion loyalty. Similarly, Alegra and Cladera (2006) investigated the influence
of satisfaction on destination loyalty in mature sun and sea destinations.
However, the empirical findings of those or similar studies could have not
presented a clear understanding of the effects of tourists’ sociodemographic
or travel behavior characteristics on satisfaction and loyalty.
The current study makes its investigation in Antalya, which is a lead-
ing sun and sea holiday destination on the Mediterranean Coast of Turkey.
The tourism industry in Antalya is recognized with its sharp development
in last two decades in terms of increased number of international tourist
arrivals and tourism establishments. However, there is very little scholarly
effort made to investigate the satisfaction and loyalty levels of foreign tourists
visiting the region.
508 B. Ozdemir et al.

Though there are plenty of empirical and conceptual findings on tourist

satisfaction in the mainstream tourism literature and the role of the tourism
industry in Antalya region is recognized well, there is not much data in
tourist’ satisfaction with Antalya cited as an example of a mass tourism des-
tination. Thus, it is imperative to study if foreign tourists are satisfied with
the tourism services being offered to them in Antalya region. Additionally,
there has been very little effort made to examine the relationships between
tourist profile, tourist satisfaction and loyalty. Against this background, the
current study (a) identifies tourists’ profile of a sun and sea destination, (b)
examines satisfaction and loyalty levels of tourists visiting the destination,
and (c) investigates the relationships among tourist profile, satisfaction, and
loyalty constructs. It is believed that associating the tourist profile variable
with satisfaction and loyalty is likely to contribute to destination manage-
ment and marketing practice in the region. It will also help destination and
resort managers better understand tourists’ preferences and in turn, influence
their behavioral intensions and develop effective strategies.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

Tourist Profile
The characteristics that constitute tourist profile are critical factors in ana-
lyzing satisfaction and loyalty. Accordingly, sociodemographic and travel
behavior variables are generally used in tourism research in order to identify
the characteristics of tourists.
The sociodemographic variables mostly include age, gender, income,
marital status, occupation, education, and nationality. On the other hand,
variables such as decision-making time taken to select a destination, travel
companion, past travel experience, length of stay, holiday organization
mode, type of accommodation used, type of transport, activities under-
taken on holiday, and sources of information are frequently used in tourism
research in order to identify the travel behavior characteristics of tourists
(Huh, Uysal, & McCleary, 2006; Kozak et al., 2004).
Although those variables are very useful for featuring the characteris-
tics of tourists visiting a destination, combining them into a wider construct
such as tourist profile variable will eventually simplify the inclusion of them
into complex models such as destination choice, market segmentation, sat-
isfaction and loyalty. Accordingly, in the relevant literature there are also
studies that exemplified the conceptualization of tourist profile construct.
For instance, Franch, Martini, Inverardi, and Bufa (2006) identified tourists’
profile of the Dolimite area of Italy using two dimensions: sociodemographic
characteristics and the organization of the holiday. Kozak et al. (2004)
also characterized tourist profile as an amalgam of sociodemographic vari-
ables, in addition to travel behavior variables. In Chun’s study (2009),
 Relationships Among Tourist Profile 509

the tourist profile included demographic features of guests visiting inter-

national tourist hotels in Taiwan. Variables measured were age, gender,
purpose of trip, occupancy, and education. The study also revealed that
different segments of international tourist markets could be identified in
terms of demographics and characteristic features of the tourists. Castano,
Moreno, and Crego (2007) examined the profile of tourists visiting Spain; and
they identified eight types of tourist profile including professional, urban,
holiday, holiday-sun-and-beach-active population, holiday-sun-and-beach-
inactive population, holiday-rural, rural-sun-and-beach, and active-rural.
Their study conceptualized the tourist profile construct into two dimensions:
sociodemographic characteristics and travel patterns.
Those arguments lead to the assumption that the tourist profile con-
struct has two main dimensions: (a) sociodemographic characteristics and
(b) travel behavior characteristics. This conceptualization of tourist profile
makes it easier to associate the construct with different variables such as
satisfaction and loyalty. However, limited with the literature review of the
current study, it may be asserted that tourist profile construct was rarely
included into the research design in the previous studies as a validated
research variable, which is associated with satisfaction and loyalty.

Satisfaction
Although customer satisfaction has been extensively studied in marketing,
scholars have not yet agreed upon a generally accepted definition of it.
Fornell (1992) described customer satisfaction as an overall postpurchase
evaluation of the experience by the customer. Chi and Qu (2008), on the
other hand, defined satisfaction as a consequence of customers’ assess-
ment of perceived quality. In parallel with the diversified definitions of
satisfaction, researchers have also developed several models including the
expectancy-disconfirmation paradigm (Oliver, 1980), the perceived perfor-
mance model (Churchill & Suprenant, 1982), attribution models (Folkes,
1984), affective models (Westbrook, 1987), and equity models in order to
explain satisfaction. Among those, the widely accepted understanding of
customer satisfaction is the expectancy disconfirmation theory (Oliver, 1980).
Expectancy-disconfirmation theory posits that customers form their satisfac-
tion as a result of subjective comparisons between their expectations and
perceptions related to a product or service. The expectancy-disconfirmation
model embraces four components: expectations, perceived performance,
disconfirmation, and satisfaction/dissatisfaction (Kivela, Inbakaran, & Reece,
1999). If the perceived performance exceeds expectations, then it is accepted
that satisfaction occurs. Conversely, dissatisfaction is a result of the discrep-
ancy between performance and expectations. If the perceived expectations
are met with performance, there are neither satisfaction nor dissatisfaction,
510 B. Ozdemir et al.

in other words there is a zero disconfirmation (Weiss, Feinstein, & Dalbor,

2004).
Within the expectancy-disconfirmation framework, customer satisfac-
tion can be measured via direct or indirect methods. Indirect method
employs two sets of questions: the first set captures the expectations prior
to consumption and the second set measures the post-perceptions of a
consumption experience. Customer satisfaction is determined by contrast-
ing the expectations with perceptions. Specifically, satisfaction is formulated
as the gap between expectation scores and perception scores of customers.
However, Yuan, Wu, Zhang, Goh, and Stout (2008) reported some short-
comings of using the construct of expectations including (a) a disagreement
regarding the definition of expectations, (b) difficulty to properly distinguish
between expectation and perceived performance by consumers, (c) cus-
tomers’ inability to form precise and confident expectations on a new
product, (d) changing expectations through multiple information sources,
and (e) influence of cultural differences in attitudes and behavior.
With the development of direct measurement method, recent studies
have viewed customer satisfaction from the perspective of performance eval-
uations, which is also known as the performance-only approach. Eliminating
the need for evaluating expectations and perceptions separately, direct
method uses a Likert-type scale that mostly includes options ranging from
worse than expected to better than expected. This method of satisfaction
measurement assumes that customers compare perceptions and expecta-
tions mentally when being asked to mark their perceptions of performance
and so there is no need for the use of expectations. In fact, performance is
believed to be the only reliable and valid measure of satisfaction by some
researchers (Yuan et al., 2008). Supporting this notion, the empirical findings
of Yuksel and Rimmington (1998) and Fallon and Schofield (2003) showed
that the performance-only model was superior to the other alternatives in
predicting customer satisfaction.
Satisfaction has also gained considerable attention from tourism
researchers. Since tourist satisfaction can influence the destination choice
of potential visitors (Huh et al., 2006), it is seen as a critical variable
when identifying a destination’s performance (Korzay & Alvarez, 2005).
For instance, Compo and Garau (2008) identified that tourist satisfaction
was a good indicator of the financial results of destinations. Consequently,
tourism and hospitality literature is abundant of studies on tourist satis-
faction. Many researchers have examined tourists’ satisfaction with specific
tours, tour guides, travel agencies, the behavior of local people, and specific
destinations (Chi & Qu, 2009). However, in the related literature, tourist sat-
isfaction was mainly attributed to satisfaction with destination. Particularly,
destination choice is associated with tourists’ believes that the particular des-
tination will meet their predetermined criteria. Accordingly, monitoring the
 Relationships Among Tourist Profile 511

tourist satisfaction is a critical activity of destination management. The critical

importance of satisfaction for tourist destinations is doubled when its influ-
ence on repeat visits and positive word-of-mouth (WOM) recommendation
is considered.
In the tourism context, the measurement of tourist satisfaction with a
destination has been explored through taking different approaches including
the expectancy disconfirmation theory, congruity model and performance-
only model. However, Yuan et al. (2008) advised that tourist satisfaction
should be measured through employing a multi-attribute approach. Oliver
(1993, p. 421) defined attribute satisfaction as “the consumer’s subjective
satisfaction judgment resulting from observations of attribute performance.”
Therefore, it is important in tourism to distinguish satisfaction with individual
attributes of destination from overall satisfaction with destination (Chi & Qu,
2009). Accordingly, researchers in the tourism field illustrated tourist satis-
faction as the tourists’ evaluation of the destination attributes (Kozak et al.,
2004; Pizam & Milman, 1993). During their holidays in a destination tourists
experience a wide range of attributes such as hotels, restaurants, shops,
beaches, cultural, natural, and historical attractions, and they may assess
each attribute separately. Consequently, it is logical to think that overall
satisfaction is a function of satisfaction with specific destination attributes
such as accommodation, transportation, activities, and attractions. Kozak
and Rimmington (2000) affirmed that destination attributes were critical to
the overall satisfaction levels of tourists with destination. Therefore, overall
satisfaction and attribute satisfaction are related constructs. The underlying
assumption of this argument is that (dis)satisfaction with the overall des-
tination is a function of (dis)satisfaction with one of the attributes of the
destination (Huh et al., 2006). In the same vein, Chi and Qu (2008) reported
that attribute satisfaction had significant direct effect on overall satisfaction.
In particular, there are recent academic attempts to identify destina-
tion attributes that (dis)satisfy tourists during their holidays in sun and sea
destinations. Between the 1950s and the early 1980s, the package-holiday
concept, which is also seen as the synonym of mass tourism, was created
and developed well. That type of holiday concept was mainly designed
for price-sensitive European consumers who were sun and sea seekers in
general (Aguilo, Alegre, & Sard, 2005). In fact, the sun and sea seekers
constitute a major market segment in the contemporary tourism industry
(Prebensen & Kleiven, 2006), and the success and survival of many tourist
destinations are contingent upon selling their services to this large group.
It should perhaps be noted that there are significant variations between the
sun and sea seekers and other tourists traveling with different purposes. The
study by Prebensen and Kleiven (2006) on Norwegian tourists provided evi-
dence that sun and sea seekers may behave differently than other tourists
with relation to holiday type, participation in the decision, tourist motives,
and activities. For instance, sun and sea seeking tourists are mostly motivated
512 B. Ozdemir et al.

by the sun/warmth and avoiding stress. Family considerations and hopes for
a peaceful stay are also important characteristics of the sun- and sea-seeking
tourists. The most frequent activities taken during their holiday are traditional
sun activities, learning about the destination, and trips. Cultural activities are
clearly not common among those travelers. Sun and sea holidaymakers are
less responsible for their holiday choice than the other tourists.
As a major tourism market segment, researchers paid considerable
attention to examine the satisfaction of sun and sea seekers in different desti-
nations. For instance, Kozak et al. (2004) employed a 12-item attribute-based
satisfaction measurement instrument. They included accommodation facili-
ties, quality of accommodation, restaurant facilities, shops/stores offering,
personal safety, tourist information, beach cleanliness, state of the roads,
beach promenades, drinkable water, traffic flow, and parking facilities in
their instrument. In a study by Chi and Qu (2008), the destination attributes
encompassed seven domains of tourism activities: accommodation, dining,
shopping, attractions, activities and events, environment, and accessibility.
Heung and Qu (2000) examined Japanese tourists’ satisfaction levels with
a 31-attribute measurement instrument. Consequently, 31 attributes were
factor analyzed into eight dimensions: people, overall convenience, price,
accommodations and food, commodities, attractions, culture, and climate
and image.

Loyalty
Loyalty has gained a growing attention in recent years, since the impor-
tance of loyal customers has been recognized due to the increasing
competition. Particularly, loyal customers are seen as more profitable
to an organization than new customers. Consequently, the efforts made
by marketing researchers resulted in the accumulation of a substantive
body of knowledge on the topic. However, there is no general consen-
sus among researchers and practitioners as to what exactly constitutes
loyalty and how it is demonstrated. In essence, researchers frequently
accept that the construct of loyalty comprises both behavioral and emo-
tional aspects (Wilkins, Merrilees, & Herington, 2010). Accordingly, loyalty
has been investigated by adopting three different perspectives including
behavioral approach, psychological attachment approach, and compos-
ite approach (Croes, Shani, & Walls, 2010). The behavioral interpretation
of loyalty includes the act of a consumer who repeatedly buys the
same brand. Taking this perspective, some researchers measure loyalty
on the basis of the customer’s intention to recommend or to repurchase
(Kandampully & Suhartanto, 2003). The followers of the psychological
attachment approach advocate that a loyal customer is not only a repeat
buyer but also one who maintains a positive attitude towards the prod-
uct, service, or provider of products or services. The composite approach,
 Relationships Among Tourist Profile 513

on the other hand, suggests a combination of the behavioral and psycho-

logical dimensions. Since the behavioral loyalty is seen as more relevant
to the actual purchase behavior than attitudinal intentions (Wilkins et al.,
2010), researchers have frequently preferred the measurement of behavioral
intentions as the indicators of loyalty.
In the tourism context, Oppermann (2000) argued that loyalty research
in tourism should adopt the behavioral approach. Following this suggestion,
tourism researchers frequently has taken a behavioral approach to loyalty
when conceptualizing and measuring the destination loyalty variable. For
instance, Lee, Graefe, and Burns (2007) related loyalty to behavioral consis-
tency that facilitates repurchasing actions of customers. Similarly, Cai, Wu,
and Bai (2004) defined loyalty as the frequency of repeat visits. In this
sense, a customer’s repeat patronage represents loyalty. Besides retention
of existing customers, loyalty is also seen as the free WOM advertising
made by loyal customers. Chen and Gursoy (2001) described destination
loyalty as the level of tourists’ perceptions of a destination as a recom-
mendable place. Consequently, postpurchase behavioral intentions were
seen to be at the heart of loyalty (Han, Back, & Barrett, 2009). Drawing
on the arguments in the literature, it is argued that loyalty can be charac-
terized by two dimensions (a) likelihood to repurchase and (b) likelihood
to make favorable recommendations to others. Consequently, as identified
by Chi and Qu (2008), the interpretation of loyalty, in the tourism context,
refers to tourists’ intentions to revisit the destination, and their willingness
to recommend it to others. Similarly, in the tourism literature, researchers
conceptualized destination loyalty as the intention to revisit the destination
(Juaneda, 1996; Gyte & Phelps, 1989; Kozak, 2001) and/or as the willing-
ness to make positive recommendations to other people (Franch et al., 2006;
Kozak & Rimmington, 2000).

Hypotheses
Extensive consumer behavior research demonstrates that individuals with
different educational backgrounds, occupations, or incomes tend to exhibit
characteristically differentiated behavioral patterns (Ozdipciner, Li, & Uysal,
2010). In this sense, it is plausible to assume that there are relations between
tourist profile, tourist satisfaction and loyalty. In other words, the differences
in sociodemographic and travel behavior characteristics may lead to vari-
ances in satisfaction and loyalty levels of tourists’ visiting a sun and sea
destination. Compo and Garau’s (2008) study demonstrated that there were
variances in the satisfaction level of tourists depending on their nationalities.
The findings of the study by Huh and Uysal (2003) indicated that overall
satisfaction varied according to gender variable. Additionally, Tsiotsou and
Vasioti (2006) empirically showed that education and age could discrimi-
nate consumers who are highly satisfied from those who are less satisfied
with tourism services. Specifically, less educated people were less satisfied
514 B. Ozdemir et al.

with the travel services whereas more educated people were more satisfied.
Moreover, younger people were less satisfied than older people. However,
demographic variables displayed little difference in a study conducted by
Andereck and Caldwell (1994).
The role of the length of a trip in tourists’ satisfaction was also inves-
tigated. For instance, Neal (2003) found significant differences between
satisfaction levels of short-term visitors and long-term visitors. Particularly,
short-term visitors were less satisfied than long-term visitors. Huh and Uysal
(2003) also found that overall satisfaction varied according to the length of
stay. Aktas, Aksu, and Cizel (2003) carried out a study in the Antalya region
and they showed that there were significant relationships between satisfac-
tion and length of stay, the number of accompanying people and repeat
visits to Antalya.
An examination of tourist loyalty by Merchinde, Serirat, and Gulid
(2009) revealed that male tourists tended to be more loyal than females.
Croes et al. (2010) empirically found that nationality, age and income sig-
nificantly differed across the loyalty segments including first time visit, one
previous visit and multiple visits. Since empirical evidences in the related lit-
erature are limited and presented contradictory findings, further investigation
is needed to understand the relationship among tourist profile, satisfac-
tion and loyalty. On the basis of the foregoing discussion, the following
hypotheses are advanced to guide the current study.

H1: There is a significant relationship between tourist profile variable

and the level of tourists’ satisfaction with a destination.
H2: There is a significant relationship between tourist profile variable
and the level of tourists’ loyalty to a destination.

Satisfaction is widely accepted as a good predictor of postpurchase behav-

ior including repurchase, purchase intentions, brand choice and switching
behavior (Tsiotsou & Vasioti, 2006) and extensive efforts have been made
to investigate the effect of satisfaction on tourists’ postpurchase behavioral
intentions. Many empirical studies have documented that customer satisfac-
tion gave rise to higher customer loyalty and positive WOM recommendation
(Chi & Qu, 2009).
In the related literature, there are also empirical evidences that tourist
satisfaction is a good predictor of destination loyalty. It is generally believed
that if tourists are satisfied with destination, they are more likely to revisit
and to use positive WOM endorsements (Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Empirical
evidence of Chi and Qu’s study (2008), for instance, revealed that destina-
tion loyalty was influenced by tourist satisfaction. Moreover, the analyses
of Kozak and Beaman (2006) confirmed that satisfaction was a significant
indicator of intention to recommend a destination and intention to revisit.
In Kozak and Rimmington’s (2000) study, the level of overall satisfaction
 Relationships Among Tourist Profile 515

was a strong indicator of tourists’ intentions to visit the destination in the

future. Additionally, overall satisfaction had significant impact on the inten-
tion to recommend the destination to others. Although the linkage between
customer satisfaction and behavioral loyalty has been well established, some
researchers have found contradictory results. For instance, Lee et al. (2007)
found that service quality was a more powerful predictor of behavioral loy-
alty than satisfaction. Moreover, behavioral intentions may also be contingent
on switching barriers (Han et al., 2009). For example, visitors may choose
to return to a destination in order to establish and strengthen their interper-
sonal relations with the local people, or with fellow tourists (Kim & Jamal,
2007; Levy & Hassay, 2005). It is also worth mentioning that being satisfied
with a destination does not necessarily lead to repeat visitation since visitors
may engage novelty-seeking behavior in order to enjoy new experiences
and this leads them to visit new destinations. In order to clarify the relation-
ship between satisfaction and loyalty, this study developed the following
hypothesis for empirical testing.

H3: There is a significant relationship between tourist satisfaction

variable and loyalty to a destination.

Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework, which embodies the relation-

ships posited in the aforementioned hypotheses. As it can be seen from the
figure, the tourist profile has two dimensions: sociodemographic and travel
behavior characteristics. It also demonstrates that the tourist profile is directly
related with tourists’ satisfaction with a destination and loyalty to a destina-
tion. Moreover, there is also a significant relationship between satisfaction
and loyalty.

METHODOLOGY
Study Site
The current study conducted its examination among foreign visitors to
Antalya which is a sun and sea tourism destination located on the

Socio-demographic Tourist satisfaction

characteristics with destination

Tourist profile
Travel behavior Tourist loyalty to
characteristics destination

FIGURE 1 The theoretical relationships among tourist profile, satisfaction and loyalty.
516 B. Ozdemir et al.

Mediterranean Coast of Turkey. “With its 8000 kilometers of coast, its attrac-
tive Mediterranean climate and its beautiful beaches, Turkey possesses the
necessary resources for sun-sea-sand tourism” (Alvarez, 2010, p. 123). In fact,
the Turkish tourism industry is largely dependent on international tourists
who are seen as ‘sun and sea seekers’ visiting the country especially in the
summer season (Koc, 2005). In fact, international tourism generates over 80%
of Turkey’s total tourism revenues (Akal, 2010). Accordingly, there are stud-
ies verifying the relationship between economical growth and international
tourism in Turkey (Gokovali, 2010). Specifically, tourism revenues gener-
ated by international tourists support the development of Turkish Economy
by contributing to reducing external deficits, increasing employment and
improving balance of payments (Cimat & Bahar, 2003).
Moreover, tourism has developed rapidly as one of the largest indus-
tries of Turkey in recent decades. According to the figures presented in a
report (TYD, 2008) by the Turkish Tourism Investors Association, the share
of tourism industry in the gross national product of Turkey was 2.9%. The
proportion of tourism investments in the total investments was 5.5% while
the share of manufacturing as the leading industry of Turkish economy was
18.6%. Tourism also contributed to the employment in 2008 with a share of
13.7% in the total employment created in Turkey while the share of manu-
facturing was 48%. Additionally, the forecasts of World Tourism Organization
indicate that Turkish tourism industry will experience averagely 5.5% annual
growth until 2020 and the tourist arrivals will be 27 million by that year
(Aksu & Silva, 2009).
Due to the significance of tourism in the economical development of
country, it is centrally governed by the state authorities with respect to
planning, promoting and controlling of tourism investments especially for
the purpose of creating resort areas which are mainly accommodate the
sun and sea seekers (Duman & Kozak, 2010). Consequently, “the coun-
try has been successful in attracting large numbers of sun and sea seeking
tourists and in expanding resort areas” (Tosun, Timothy, & Öztürk, 2003,
p. 157). As a result of tourism investment incentive policies towards creat-
ing large-scale mass tourism establishments in sun-sand coastal regions of
the country, the accommodation capacity has dramatically increased (Akal,
2010) especially for the 10-year period following 1980. The supportive
tourism policies also led to improving the quality of tourist accommodation
and to sharp increases in tourism revenues and tourist arrivals (Gokovali,
2010). However, the development of Turkish tourism industry relying mainly
on the mass tourism is challenged in terms of the deepening the inequali-
ties among the developed and underdeveloped regions, creating inequalities
among social classes in the tourism regions (Tosun et al. 2003), causing
seasonal and territorial concentration of tourism activities which also leads
to seasonal employment and migrant employees (Aykac, 2010), generat-
ing a dependence on foreign tour operators (Erkus-Ozturk, 2010), lacking
 Relationships Among Tourist Profile 517

the environmental consciousness and neglecting the needs of local people

(Kuvan & Akan, 2005).
In fact, Turkey with available natural, cultural and historical resources
for different types of tourism activities can spread the tourism around the
country. At least, those resources have a potential to supplement the existing
mass tourism activities and in this way, the satisfaction and loyalty levels of
tourists may be increased.
Considering the constant increases in the number of night spending
and the number of tourism establishments, it is noteworthy that one of
the leading tourism destinations of Turkey is Antalya (Erkus-Ozturk, 2010).
In particular, tourism is the backbone industry of Antalya and directly
contributes to the economic development of the region. Antalya is approxi-
mately 546 kilometers from Ankara and as of the 2009 census; Antalya has a
population of 1,095,157 and located on a 1,417 km2 area. Antalya’s tourism
has witnessed rapid growth in the foreign market, especially since 1990
(ATSO). Now Antalya is a favorite travel destination for European tourists.
Tourist resources in Antalya are diverse and abundant and have a high
potential to gratify the sun and sea seekers. The region is well known for
its mild climate, magnificent landscapes and natural scenes, as well as the
beautiful beaches and colorful culture—all of which attract millions of visi-
tors every year. For instance, in 2008, tourist arrivals from foreign countries
including Germany, Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), France,
England, and Netherlands, amounted to more than 9 million people. The
tourist arrivals were approximately 6 million in 2005 and 7.2 million in
2007. When compared to the total tourist arrivals to Turkey, the propor-
tion of tourists visiting Antalya has increased from 31.24% to 32.52% in 2008
(Antalya Tourism Office, 2008). Problems, however, have emerged with the
rapid development of tourism in Antalya. As one of the indicators of this
rapid development, the number of five-star hotels has increased dramatically
in the region with more than 250 currently in operation. The huge numbers
of large hotel firms operating in the region and the increasing flow of inter-
national tourists generate a stress on environmental resources. For instance,
deforestation resulting from allocation of forest areas to the construction
of large-scale tourism-related buildings is a major, but a silent, problem in
the region (Kuvan, 2010). Moreover, tourism makes little contribution to
the sustainable development of tourism industry in Antalya because of very
nature of the mass tourism (Kuvan, 2010) being implemented in the region.
In fact, public and private attention has been mainly paid to the rapid
development of tourism for the purpose of increasing tourism receipts
rather than the concerns for protecting the natural and cultural resources.
Additionally, the huge mass tourism establishments are settled in the resort
areas, which are generally very much segregated from the city center.
Strengthened with the all-inclusive concept widely implemented by hotel
firms in the region, the distance between resort areas and city center results
in a situation where tourists do not (need to) enter the city center to fulfill
518 B. Ozdemir et al.

their needs (Erkus-Ozturk, 2010). Thus, it is frequently observed that in the

region tourism fails to create an environment in which tourists can expe-
rience the daily life of the city and/or local people (Ozturkmen, 2005).
All these negative factors should also be viewed as threats to the tourist
satisfaction and retention in the long term.

Sampling and Data Collection

The sample population for this study comprised foreign tourists who vis-
ited Antalya in July, August, September, and October of 2008, which are
the peak-season months of the region. Data for the study were gathered
with self-administered questionnaires. Specifically, survey methodology was
used due to its cost effectiveness and the reduction of response errors
(Hurst, 1994). All the items in the original questionnaire were translated
into four languages to accommodate tourists’ nationalities: English, French,
German, and Russian. For each nationality, the number of questionnaires
was computed in accordance with the proportion of the nationalities in the
population for the reference period. In this computation, the previous years’
statistical data of tourist nationalities were considered.
The survey was conducted at the departure lounge of Antalya
International Airport Terminal I. On average, the survey days in a month
were restricted to 6 days including week and weekend days. Since there
was an obligation to have permission from airport authorities to enter the
departure lounge of the airport, the restriction to survey days was inevitable.
The frequency of flights was considered while selecting the days of a month.
In each day, the survey was carried out between 9:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.
in the morning and between 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. in the afternoon; on
average 400 to 450 usable questionnaires were collected.
The distribution of questionnaires was carried out by four groups of
24 trained undergraduate students. Each group consisted of six students. Any
serious communication problem between respondents and students was not
experienced since the students were selected based on their ability to at least
basically communicate in languages of prospective respondents. The ques-
tionnaires were given while the prospective respondents were waiting for
boarding time. Respondents were approached and informed about the aim
of the survey and then asked whether they would participate in the survey.
Respondents had approximately 20–25 minutes to fill in the questionnaires.
In total 12,000 questionnaires (questionnaires were equally distributed in all
languages: English, French, German, and Russian) were distributed. Overall,
10,393 useable questionnaires were completed and analyzed.

Survey Instrument
The questionnaire consisted of three major parts: (a) tourist attribute satis-
faction, (b) destination loyalty, and (c) tourists’ sociodemographic and travel
 Relationships Among Tourist Profile 519

behavior information. The first part consisted of 18 items that had to be rated
on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = extremely dissatisfied; 7 = extremely satisfied).
To develop an instrument for measuring tourist satisfaction, the relevant
literature was examined. A review of the literature indicates that some com-
mon attributes are important for tourist in evaluating the performance of
destinations. For example, Chi and Qu (2009) claimed that destinations are
amalgams of core components including attractions and support services.
Attractions may be artificial or natural and they draw tourists to a destina-
tion. On the other hand, support services (such as accommodations, food,
shopping, and transportation) are also essential to attract tourists. In order
to provide a gratifying holiday experience all these core components of des-
tination should be satisfactory. Additionally, infrastructure, safety/security,
hygiene/sanitation, condition of natural environments, consumer protec-
tion, and accessibility are also important attributes of tourist destinations.
Drawing upon the most relevant tourism literature and destination attributes
applicable to Antalya situation, an attribute list was established. Pre-testing
was conducted by a group of tourism academicians and representatives of
the tourism industry. Of the optional attributes possible, 18 were selected
as being applicable to Antalya’s situation. In other terms, the satisfaction
items were developed considering the unique aspects of the specific tourist
destination. For example, Turkish cuisine was seen as a unique attribute
of a Turkish destination and was therefore included in the questionnaire.
Following the scale, a single overall satisfaction question was asked in
order to assess respondents’ overall satisfaction with Antalya (1 = extremely
dissatisfied; 7 = extremely satisfied).
Two single-item measures were employed to assess tourists’ loyalty to
the destination: (a) tourists’ intentions to revisit Antalya and (b) their willing-
ness to recommend Antalya as a favorable destination to others. Respondents
were asked to evaluate their intention and willingness with a 3-point scale,
with responses of “yes,” “not sure,” and “no.”
The final section of questionnaire was designed to capture socio-
demographic and travel behavior information of tourists. Sociodemographic
characteristics include gender, age, education, occupation, nationality,
marital status, and income. The following variables constitute travel behav-
ior characteristics: holiday organization mode, form of package or tour,
accompanying person, and length of stay.

Data Analyses
Data were analyzed in several stages employing varying statistical tech-
niques. Descriptive statistics including frequencies and percentage scores
were generated to evaluate the respondents’ sociodemographic and travel
behavior information. Mean rating was used to rank the respondents’ satis-
faction levels to the 18 satisfaction attributes. Respondents’ satisfaction levels
520 B. Ozdemir et al.

were compared across the demographic and travel behavior variables using
analysis of variance (ANOVA), or independent t-test. A series of chi-square
analysis were performed to identify the relationship between dimensions of
tourist profile and loyalty to destination.

RESEARCH FINDINGS
Profile of Respondent Tourists
This study conceptualizes the tourist profile construct with two dimen-
sions: sociodemographic characteristics, and travel behavior information.
Accordingly, Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics that were generated
to evaluate the respondents’ demographic profile and their travel behavior.
As is seen in Table 1, the majority of the respondents participating in the
study were females (60.9%) whereas only 39.1% were males. Most of the
respondents (81%) were within the age range of 15 to 44. Over 51% of the
respondents were married, and more than half of the respondents (54.9%)
reported that they had a personal annual income of less than C12,000
(approximately US$15,350). The findings revealed that respondents with an
undergraduate degree constituted the most frequently occurring education
group (52%), while approximately 30% of the respondents’ had secondary-
or primary-level education. In terms of occupation, the respondents were
likely to be either government officials (31.5%) or employed (30.7%). With
regard to nationality of respondents, tourists from CIS dominated the sample
with a proportion of 47.1%, which was followed by German and Austrian
(14.3%).
As shown in Table 1, the majority of the respondents (84.9%) visited
Antalya through joining a package tour. With regard to travel companions,
the majority (88.3%) of the respondents was traveling with partners (spouse,
spouse and children, friends/relatives or other people). Only 11.7% of the
respondents traveled alone. The vast majority of the respondents (81.7%)
reported that they preferred an all-inclusive holiday as the form of package
tour. In terms of length of stay, 59.9% of the respondents stayed in Antalya
between 6 and 10 days.

Validity and Reliability of the Destination Satisfaction Scale

Factor analysis was performed in order to determine the construct valid-
ity of the destination satisfaction scale. In the factor analysis, principal
component analysis with Varimax rotation was used, and factors with an
eigenvalue equal to or greater than 1 were considered as significant. A fac-
tor loading of 0.4 was used as a cut-off point to include items in a factor.
All the items in the scale had a loading value of more than 0.63. As a
result, all of the 18 items were retained and reduced to one factor, which
 Relationships Among Tourist Profile 521

TABLE 1 Sociodemographic characteristics and travel behavior information of respondents

Sociodemographic characteristics Travel behavior information

Variables N % Variables N %

Gender Holiday organization mode

Female 6,211 60.9 Individually 1,497 15.1
Male 3,986 39.1 Package tour 8,406 84.9
Age Accompanying person
15–24 3,252 31.8 Travel alone 1,140 11.7
25–34 2,798 27.3 Spouse 1,900 19.5
35–44 2,238 21.9 Spouse and children 2,707 27.7
45–54 1,330 13.0 Friends/relatives 2,39 24.5
55–64 471 4.6 Others 1,618 16.6
65 or above 145 1.4 Form of package tour
Education level Only room 616 6.2
Primary 349 3.7 Bed and breakfast 351 3.5
Secondary 2,587 27.1 Half board 503 5.1
Undergraduate 4,966 52.0 Full board 343 3.5
Postgraduate 998 10.4 All-inclusive 8,092 81.7
Others 656 6.9 Length of stay
Occupation 1–5 days 663 6.7
Government 3,043 31.5 6–10 days 5,940 59.9
official 11–15 days 2,909 29.4
Employed 2,965 30.7 16–20 days 198 2.0
Student 1,644 17.0 21 days or more 199 2.0
Others 930 9.6
Self-employed 488 5.1
Retired 310 3.2
Unemployed 281 2.9
Nationality
CIS 4,427 47.1
German – 1343 14.3
Austrian
English 345 3.7
Dutch 814 8.7
Scandinavian 809 8.6
French 431 4.6
Eastern Europe 416 4.4
Others 806 8.6
Marital Status
Married 5,134 51.8
Single 4,783 48.2
Annual Income
C 0–5.999 2,956 34.8
C 6.000–11.999 1,708 20.1
C 12.000–17.999 972 11.4
C 18.000–23.999 697 8.2
C 24.000–29.999 703 8.3
C 30.000 or 1,460 17.2
above
522 B. Ozdemir et al.

explained 53.4% of the total variance. To ensure whether the data were
suitable for factor analysis, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO = 0.95) measure of
sampling adequacy and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity were employed. The
Barlett’s test of sphericity showed that the overall correlation matrix was
significant (p < .000). The KMO measure was 0.95, which is above the
acceptable value of 0.50 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2005).
These tests indicated that the 18 items were factorable and factor analysis
was appropriate.
As suggested by Oliver (1993) and Hsu (2003), attribute satisfaction
leads directly to overall satisfaction. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume
that there should be a significant direct relationship between respon-
dents’ attribute satisfaction scores and their overall satisfaction with Antalya.
To test this relationship, the respondents’ scores of single overall satisfac-
tion question and attribute-based satisfaction scores were associated through
employing the Pearson correlation coefficient test. The test revealed that
there was a direct relationship (53.6%) between two variables and it was sta-
tistically significant (p = .000). Consequently, the construct validity was also
satisfied in this study, in that there was a significant relationship between
destination satisfaction scale and single overall satisfaction question.
A Cronbach’s alpha test was used to determine the internal consistency
of the destination satisfaction scale. The reliability test indicated that the
reliability coefficient for the scale exceeded the recommended significant
level of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1967), as the reliability coefficient of the destination
satisfaction scale was 94.7%. Therefore, it can be deduced that there is good
internal consistency among the variables within the scale.

Satisfaction with Destination Attributes and Loyalty to Destination

Consistent with the measurement of attribute-based destination satisfac-
tion, Table 2 displays the mean scores for all the 18 satisfaction attributes.
Suitability for family vacation turned out to be the number one satisfaction
attribute. In contrast, hygiene and sports activities are the least satisfac-
tory attributes for Antalya. The mean ratings of the 18 satisfaction attributes
ranged from 5.26 to 5.82, indicating an essentially high level of perceived
satisfaction among the respondents. The average score of overall satisfac-
tion was 5.48 on a 7-point scale. Employing the overall mean score of the
scale as a cut-off point to distinguish high-satisfactory and low-satisfactory
attributes, it was revealed that accommodation facilities, cultural values, food
and beverage facilities, personal safety, historical places, nature, suitability
for family vacation, and hospitality of local people were high satisfactory
attributes. Conversely, local transportation services; Turkish cuisine; shop-
ping opportunities; cleanliness; cultural activities; sports activities; hygiene;
and interaction with local people, tourist information, and accessibility are
low-satisfactory attributes.
 Relationships Among Tourist Profile 523

TABLE 2 Satisfaction mean scores for destination attributes

Attributes M SD

Local transportation services 5.47 1.40

Accommodation facilities 5.57 1.40
Hospitality of local people 5.71 1.36
Turkish cuisine 5.41 1.48
Food and beverage facilities 5.48 1.49
Shopping offers 5.45 1.50
Cleanliness 5.28 1.51
Personal safety 5.53 1.43
Cultural activities 5.36 1.47
Historical places 5.62 1.38
Nature 5.68 1.42
Sports activities 5.26 1.54
Hygiene 5.26 1.48
Suitability for family vacation 5.82 1.33
Interaction with local people 5.33 1.56
Cultural values 5.64 1.41
Accessibility 5.43 1.41
Tourist information 5.38 1.53
Overall mean score of the scale 5.48

In this study, loyalty was measured by two dimensions: intention to

revisit and willingness to recommend Antalya as a holiday destination. Of the
respondents, 61.3% reported that they were intended to revisit Antalya in the
future, and 77.1% of them responded that they would positively recommend
Antalya to other people. Considering the positive behavioral intentions of
the respondents, it might be concluded that the majority of tourists in the
sample could be regarded as loyal to Antalya as a holiday destination.

Hypotheses Testing
H1 proposes that there is a relationship between tourist profile and tourist
satisfaction. In order to test this hypothesis, ANOVA and independent t test
were used to compare the total score of destination satisfaction scale across
sociodemographic and travel behavior variables. This examination revealed
that significant differences were found across gender, marital status, age,
education, occupation, nationality, and annual income groups. Moreover,
the satisfaction levels of participating tourists were also significantly different
with regards to holiday organization mode, form of package tour and travel
companion. Table 3 shows these results.
The effect of gender on satisfaction was estimated through a t test, and
the test results indicated that there was a significant difference between the
satisfaction scores of males and females (t value = 7.403; p = .000). When
the satisfaction mean scores of two groups were compared it is observed that
female tourists had a higher satisfaction level than their male counterparts.
524 B. Ozdemir et al.

TABLE 3 The relation between tourist profile and satisfaction

Sociodemographic characteristics Travel behavior information

t value Significance t value Significance

Gender 7.403 0.000 Holiday organization mode −2.743 0.006

Female (100.78) Individually (97.64)

Male (97.15) Package tour (99.55)

t value Significance F value Significance

Marital status −7.383 0.000 Accompanying person 16.204 0.000

Married (97.59) Travel alone (100.6)

Single (101.16) Spouse (99.5)
Spouse and children (101.1)
F value Significance Friends/relatives (96.1)
Others (99.8)
Age 14.607 0.000

F value Significance
15–24 (97.0)
25–34 (99.6) Form of package tour 22.143 0.000
35–44 (101.4)
45–54 (100.1) Only room (90.8)
55–64 (105.3) Bed and breakfast (95.9)
65 and above (102.5) Half board (97.7)
Full board (99.2)
F value Significance All-inclusive (100.1)

Education 9.105 0.000 F value Significance

Primary (98.5) Length of Stay 1.921 0.104

Secondary (99.3)
Undergraduate (100.0) 1–5 days (96.7)
Postgraduate (95.1) 6–10 days (99.3)
Others (101.0) 11–15 days (99.6)
16–20 days (99.7)
F value Significance 21 days and more (100.2)
Occupation 14.667 0.000

Government official (100.7)

Worker (98.2)
Business owner (95.9)
Student (96.5)
Retired (107.1)
Unemployed (100.3)
Others (102.3)

F Value Significance

Nationality 23.532 0.000

CIS (101.4)
German – Austrian (93.8)
English (100.7)

(Continued)
 Relationships Among Tourist Profile 525

TABLE 3 (Continued)

Sociodemographic characteristics Travel behavior information

Dutch (99.4)
Scandinavian (93.7)
French (95.4)
Eastern Europe (100.9)
Others (101.6)

F Value Significance
Annual
Income 7.296 0.000

0–5.999 Euro (99.5)

6.000–11.999 Euro (100.1)
12.000–17.999 Euro (100.9)
18.000–23.999 Euro (101.1)
24.000–29.999 Euro (99.3)
30.000 Euro (96.1)

Note. The values in parentheses indicate the means of groups.

Similarly, the t-test results in Table 3 revealed that there was a statistically
significant difference between satisfaction mean scores of married and single
tourists (t value = –7.383; p = .000) and these results also signified that single
tourists had a higher satisfaction level than the married ones.
The effects of remaining sociodemographic variables on satisfaction
were investigated through performing ANOVA. Following the ANOVA,
Scheffe test was conducted in order to identify the differences among
variable groups.
Analysis demonstrated that there were significant differences among
satisfaction levels of tourists in different age groups (F value = 14.607; p =
.000). Generally, the younger age groups had significantly lower satisfaction
mean scores than the older ones except the 65 or above group, which had
102.5 mean score. Then, it seems that the younger respondents had lower
satisfaction levels than older ones.
It is also possible to suggest a relationship between education level
and satisfaction of tourists since the results of ANOVA (F value = 9.105;
p = .000) revealed that there were statistically significant differences among
respondents who had different levels of education. More specifically, there
were significant differences between secondary and postgraduate education
levels, and undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
Relying on the results of ANOVA (F value 14.667; p = .000), it was
seen that the occupation variable led to differences in satisfaction lev-
els of tourists. It might be argued, then, that governmental officials had
higher satisfaction levels than employed respondents, the self-employed,
and students. On the other hand, retirees had higher satisfaction levels than
governmental officials, workers, and students. Among occupational groups,
526 B. Ozdemir et al.

retirees had the highest satisfaction levels and self-employed respondents

had the lowest.
Depending on the nationality, respondent tourists also had varying sat-
isfaction levels with regard to the results of ANOVA (F value = 23.532;
p = .000). The statistically significant differences were seen among CIS,
German-Austrian, Scandinavian, and French tourists. On the other hand,
German-Austrian tourists had lower satisfaction levels than English, Dutch,
and Eastern European tourists. The results indicated that tourists coming
from CIS had a higher satisfaction level than other nationalities. This is an
interesting finding, but it seems to be consistent with the previous findings of
this study when the sociodemographic profile of CIS tourists is considered.
Among the respondents from CIS, 69.4% was female, 53.9% were govern-
ment officials, and 73.6% had an undergraduate education; those figures
represent higher proportions than the corresponding percentages in other
nationalities. Those figures also highlight that the majority of respondents
from CIS is in the higher satisfaction groups in terms of sociodemographic
variables.
When it comes to the income variable, ANOVA results (F value 7.296;
p = .000) also reported significantly different satisfaction levels among
respondents with different levels of income. A comparison among satis-
faction mean scores of income groups clearly revealed that tourists with an
income level of C30,000 or above had lower satisfaction levels than the
tourists in the other income groups.
Within H1, the influence of travel behavior variables on tourists’ sat-
isfaction was also investigated. The statistically significant results of t test
(t value = –2.743; p = .006) on the relationship between holiday organi-
zation mode and satisfaction indicated that the satisfaction levels of tourists
traveling independently was lower than those traveling with package tours.
The results of ANOVA (F value = 16.204; p = .000) and subsequent
Scheffe test which were performed to investigate the effects of travel com-
panion on tourists’ satisfaction revealed that the most satisfied tourists were
the ones traveling with spouse and children while the least satisfied respon-
dents were the tourists accompanied by friends or relatives. This finding
can also be deciphered that tourists traveling with their families were more
satisfied with Antalya as a holiday destination.
ANOVA results (F value = 22.143; p = .000) on the relationship between
preferred form of package tour and tourist satisfaction showed that there
were significant differences among the satisfaction mean scores of tourists
preferred different forms of package tour. Regarding the mean scores, it is
plausible to state that the all-inclusive package holiday is the most satisfac-
tory form of package tour. An interesting result of the study was that, there
was no significant relationship between length of stay and satisfaction levels
of tourists. It might be deduced that long- or short-length of stays had no
effect in increasing or decreasing the satisfaction levels of tourists.
 Relationships Among Tourist Profile 527

The results of the analyses testing the first hypothesis showed that the
tourist profile correlated with tourist satisfaction variable. The only exception
was the length of stay variable. In this instance, the findings partly supported
the first hypothesis of the study.
The second hypothesis of the study assumed that there is a relation-
ship between tourist profile and loyalty to destination. Table 4 shows the
cross-tabulation of relationships between sociodemographic variables of
tourist profile and loyalty to destination. Additionally, the relationships were
statistically tested through using chi-square test.
The findings in Table 4 indicated that 64% of females and 57.2% of
males had the intention to revisit Antalya. The results of chi-square test
confirmed that the difference between males and females was statistically
significant. It seems that females had more positive intentions than males
to revisit Antalya. Similarly, the proportion of females willing to recommend
Antalya to others was greater than the proportion of males as seen in Table 4
and this difference was also statistically supported by chi-square test results.
Then, it is possible to state that female tourists were more loyal than males.
Within the age variable, the percentage of tourists with positive inten-
tions to revisit Antalya were greater in the 25–34 age group, 35–44 age
group, and 55–64 age group, and those were also statistically significant
with reference to theresults of chi-square. In terms of willingness to recom-
mend Antalya to others, the proportions of tourists who had willingness to
make positive WOM in all age groups were higher than 70%, but the per-
centages were greater especially in the 55–64 and 65 or above age groups.
The differences among age groups were statistically significant.
Regarding the education variable, the percentage of respondents with
positive revisit and referral intentions in the undergraduate group was
greater than the percentages of other education groups. Chi-square results
also statistically confirmed the differences among groups.
When the occupation variable is considered, governmental officials had
the strongest intention to revisit and willingness to recommend while the
self-employed and employed respondents had lower percentages. With rela-
tion to chi-square statistics, it is possible to claim that the differences among
occupational groups were significant.
The figures in Table 4 also provide evidences that nationality is an
effective variable on loyalty. More specifically, tourists from CIS had greater
intention to revisit and willingness to recommend Antalya than others. The
lowest percentages belonged to German-Austrian and French tourists. Chi-
square test results confirmed that the differences among nationalities were
statistically significant.
Considering the marital status, it is seen from Table 4 that 57.4% of mar-
ried respondents and 65.5% of single respondents had a positive intention
to revisit Antalya. The difference between married and single respondents
was also statistically significant with reference to the chi-square test results.
528 B. Ozdemir et al.

TABLE 4 The relations between demographic variables and loyalty to the destination

Intention to revisit Antalya Willingness to recommend

(%) Antalya to others (%)

Demographics Yes Not sure No Yes Not sure No

Gender
Female 64.0 31.0 5.1 79.9 17.0 3.0
Male 57.2 35.8 7.0 73.0 21.8 5.2
Chi-square statistics Pearson chi-square value = Pearson chi-square value =
42,952 p = .000 62,944 p = .000
Age
15–24 58.2 35.3 6.5 73.9 21.4 4.8
25–34 64.2 30.4 5.4 79.5 17.2 3.3
35–44 63.9 30.9 5.2 78.7 18.3 3.0
45–54 59.5 34.2 6.4 76.0 19.4 4.5
55–64 63.8 31.3 4.9 81.3 14.8 3.9
65 or above 52.4 41.0 6.7 85.6 9.6 4.8
Chi-square statistics Pearson chi-square value = Pearson chi-square value =
32,130 p = .000 42,823 p = .000
Education level
Primary 58.6 34.2 7.2 70.3 22.3 7.4
Secondary 58.5 36.5 5.0 76.0 20.7 3.3
Undergraduate 66.8 28.1 5.0 80.6 15.9 3.4
Postgraduate 46.5 43.1 10.4 68.2 24.8 7.0
Others 56.8 35.7 7.5 74.2 22.4 3.4
Chi-square statistics Pearson chi-square value = Pearson chi-square value =
168,455 p = .000 98,151 p = .000
Occupation
Government 70.9 25.4 3.7 83.6 13.8 2.6
official
Employed 52.7 39.8 7.5 72.8 22.6 4.7
Self-employed 51.4 36.4 12.1 68.8 26.0 5.2
Student 59.6 33.6 6.8 74.4 20.6 5.0
Retired 61.3 35.4 3.3 80.9 16.9 2.1
Unemployed 64.6 29.6 5.8 79.5 14.5 6.0
Others 62.7 33.8 3.5 78.5 19.1 2.4
Chi-square statistics Pearson chi-square value = Pearson chi-square
242,976 p = .000 value =129,715 p = .000
Nationality
CIS 72.2 24.7 3.1 83.7 13.9 2.3
German/Austrian 40.6 52.5 6.9 62.1 32.6 5.2
English 55.7 35.9 8.4 81.8 14.7 3.6
Dutch 55.6 34.8 9.6 71.7 22.1 6.2
Scandinavian 56.3 37.0 6.7 76.8 18.2 4.9
French 34.1 50.0 15.9 64.2 28.8 7.0
Eastern European 56.7 32.2 11.0 75.2 18.8 6.1
Others 67.0 26.6 6.5 79.7 16.2 4.1
Chi-square statistics Pearson chi-square value = Pearson chi-square value =
635,310 p = .000 323,416 p = .000
(Continued)
 Relationships Among Tourist Profile 529

TABLE 4 (Continued)

Intention to revisit Antalya Willingness to recommend

(%) Antalya to others (%)

Demographics Yes Not sure No Yes Not sure No

Marital status
Married 57.4 36.1 6.5 75.1 20.8 4.0
Single 65.5 29.5 5.0 79.5 16.9 3.6
Chi-square statistics Pearson chi-square value = Pearson chi-square value =
59,314 p = .000 24,078 p = .000
Annual income ( C)
0–5,999 65.4 29.7 4.9 80.3 16.8 2.9
6,000–11,999 66.6 28.6 4.8 78.9 17.7 3.4
12,000–17,999 67.1 29.0 4.0 81.9 15.5 2.6
18,000–23,999 66.0 28.8 5.2 82.6 14.7 2.8
24,000–29,999 55.8 36.9 7.2 71.9 23.8 4.3
30,000 or above 50.9 39.6 9.5 71.6 20.9 7.6
Chi-square statistics Pearson chi-square value = Pearson chi-square value =
127,915 p = .000 98,328 p = .000

Similarly, chi-square test results also confirmed the difference between the
percentages of married and single tourists who had a willingness to make
positive WOM. Therefore, it can be asserted that single tourists were more
loyal than married ones.
Regarding the cross-tabulated relations between annual income and
revisit intention, and between annual income and willingness to recom-
mend, it was revealed that the percentages of tourists’ with C24,000–
C29,999 and C30,000 or above annual income were lower than the other
income groups and these differences were statistically significant.
The relationships between travel behavior variables and loyalty to desti-
nation are presented in Table 5. Chi-square test was performed to statistically
test the significance of the differences among groups.
Within the travel companion variable, the percentages of respondents
who were accompanied by friends/relatives were the lowest with relation to
revisit intention and willingness to recommend Antalya. Chi-square statistics
also confirmed the significance of differences among groups.
Regarding the relationship between holiday organization mode and
revisit intention variables, it is seen from Table 4 that the percentage of
respondents organizing their travel individually was slightly lower than the
percentage of respondents preferring package tour. With reference to the
results of the chi-square test (Pearson chi-square value = 3.999; p = .135),
it is clear that the difference between two groups was not statistically
significant. When the effect of holiday organization mode variable on
willingness to recommend was analyzed, it was revealed that 73.6% of
respondents traveling individually and 78% of respondents preferring
package tours were willing to recommend Antalya to others. The difference
530 B. Ozdemir et al.

TABLE 5 The relationship between travel behavior and loyalty to the destination

Intention to revisit Antalya Willingness to recommend

(%) Antalya to others (%)

Travel behavior Yes Not sure No Yes Not sure No

Accompanying person
Travel alone 66.6 27.6 5.8 76.3 18.6 5.1
Spouse 62.1 32.6 5.2 78.0 18.4 3.7
Spouse and 62.5 32.1 5.4 78.4 18.5 3.1
children
Friends/relatives 55.4 37.8 6.7 74.9 20.9 4.2
Others 63.6 30.6 5.8 79.3 17.0 3.7
Chi-square statistics Pearson chi-square value = Pearson chi-square value =
49,275 p = .000 18,816 p = .016
Holiday organization mode
Individually 58.8 34.9 6.3 73.6 21.5 4.9
package tour 61.7 32.5 5.8 78.0 18.2 3.8
Chi-square statistics Pearson chi-square value = Pearson chi-square value =
3,999 p = .135 12,336 p = .002
Form of package tour
Only room 53.4 37.6 9.0 71.0 22.5 6.5
Bed & breakfast 57.5 33.3 9.2 74.1 18.4 7.5
Half board 47.5 42.0 10.6 68.2 25.8 6.0
Full board 57.1 38.3 4.5 71.3 24.2 4.5
All inclusive 62.7 32.0 5.3 78.4 18.2 3.4
Chi-square statistics Pearson chi-square value = Pearson chi-square value =
73,722 p = .000 57,769 p = .000
Length of stay
1–5 days 51.7 38.5 9.7 67.6 26.7 5.7
6–10 days 61.2 33.1 5.6 78.3 18.0 3.7
11–15 days 62.4 32.1 5.5 78.1 18.5 3.4
16–20 days 70.6 23.7 5.6 70.5 22.2 7.4
21 days or above 73.0 24.8 2.2 74.4 20.5 5.1
Chi-square statistics Pearson chi-square value = Pearson chi-square value =
45,621 p = .000 42,035 p = .000

between those percentages was statistically significant with reference to the

chi-square statistics.
When it comes to the form of package tour variable, the percentages
of respondents with a preference to all-inclusive package holiday were
the highest both for revisit intention and willingness to recommend. The
differences among the percentages were statistically significant.
The percentages of respondents who had positive intention to revisit
and willingness to recommend Antalya varied depending on the length
of stay variable. For instance, the proportions of tourists staying between
16 and 20 days and 21 days or above were higher than the percentages of
other groups. Chi-square test results statistically supported the significance
of the differences among groups.
The results produced by the analyses testing the second hypothesis indi-
cated that all of the sociodemographic variables of this study influenced the
 Relationships Among Tourist Profile 531

tourists’ revisit intention and willingness to recommend. Except the effect

of holiday organization mode on revisit intention, all other travel behavior
variables were also influential factors both on revisit intention and willing-
ness to recommend. Consequently, the second hypothesis of this study was
partly supported by the research findings. In sum, it may be assumed that
tourist profile affects the tourists’ loyalty to a destination.
The third and final hypothesis of this study asserts that there is a rela-
tionship between satisfaction with a destination and loyalty to a destination.
To test the final hypothesis, the relationship between the satisfaction mean
scores of respondents and the intention to revisit dimension of loyalty, and
the relationship between satisfaction mean scores of respondents and will-
ingness to recommend dimension were investigated through performing
ANOVA and Scheffe tests.
ANOVA results (F value = 744.498; p = .000) demonstrated that satis-
faction levels of tourists in the sample varied depending on their intention
to revisit Antalya. More specifically, there was a clear difference among the
satisfaction mean scores of respondents with positive intentions (M score =
105.22), indecisive respondents (M score = 90.50) and respondents with
negative intentions (M score = 78.31). Therefore, it can be concluded that
the satisfaction levels of respondents were higher for the ones who had
a positive intention to revisit Antalya than the other groups. The results
of ANOVA (F value 761.149; p = .000) on the relationship between sat-
isfaction and willingness to recommend variable revealed that there were
statistically significant differences among the respondents. In particular, the
satisfaction mean score of respondents (M score = 103.48) who had a will-
ingness to recommend Antalya to others was higher than the other two
groups as indecisive (M score = 86.08) and unwillingness (M score = 71.99).
Consequently, the analyses conducted to identify the relationships among
satisfaction, intention to revisit, and willingness to recommend showed that
the respondents who were satisfied with Antalya as a holiday destination
were more loyal to the destination. In particular, the results suggested that
the happier tourists were with the destination, the more likely they would
return and recommend the destination to others. These findings supported
the third hypothesis of the study.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The major purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships among
tourist profile, satisfaction and loyalty. Accordingly, the hypotheses of the
study suggested that tourist profile is associated with satisfaction and loyalty
(H1 and H2) and satisfaction is related with loyalty to a destination (H3). The
hypotheses were tested using data collected from 10,393 foreign tourists vis-
iting Antalya in the 2008 summer season. H1 and H2 were partly supported.
532 B. Ozdemir et al.

Except the effect of length of stay variable on satisfaction, and the effect
of holiday organization mode variable on revisit intention, all other socio-
demographic and travel behavior variables were influential on satisfaction
and loyalty. H3 was fully supported by the research findings. The results of
the study are significant for theoretical and practical reasons.

Theoretical Implications
From a theoretical perspective, the current study confirmed the notion that
the conceptualization of tourist profile construct with sociodemographic and
travel behavior variables is a useful tool to investigate the construct itself and
to establish relationships between tourist profile variable and other variables.
This conceptualization of tourist profile is also consistent with prior studies
by Franch et al. (2006), Kozak et al. (2004), Castano et al. (2007), and Chun
(2009). Therefore, the current study is also a confirmation of the findings of
previous studies on tourist profile.
Findings of the current study also supported the view that tourist sat-
isfaction assessment should take a multi-attribute approach. Additionally,
empirical findings also confirmed that there was a positive relationship
between the measurement of attribute satisfaction and overall satisfaction.
This is consistent with the results of the studies conducted by Kozak and
Rimmington (2000), Chi and Qu (2008), and Chi and Qu (2009), which indi-
cated that attribute satisfaction leads to overall satisfaction. Thus, the findings
of the study confirm the argument that it is imperative to measure satisfaction
with individual attributes of destination because tourists’ satisfaction with
the attributes leads to their satisfaction with the overall destination (Pizam,
Neumann, & Reichel, 1978). Moreover, as stated by Chi and Qu (2009) the
multi-attribute model has two main advantages. First, postpurchase evalua-
tions of consumers are more likely to be affected by the attribute satisfaction
than the overall satisfaction. Second, some specific questions can be asked
about each destination attribute and consequently a higher diagnostic value
can be obtained in order to determine whether certain attributes are more
critical in predicting overall satisfaction than others.
The current study also confirmed the widely accepted assumption that
customer satisfaction is a key factor in destination management to gain
repeat businesses. This implies that increasing tourist satisfaction maximizes
tourist retention. Therefore, the current study can be seen as another step in
clarifying the significant relationship between satisfaction and loyalty which
was also established and empirically supported by Yoon and Uysal, (2005),
Kozak and Beaman (2006), and Chi and Qu (2008).
Moreover, the results also revealed that Antalya as a holiday destination
has been serving the tourist market well. The high figures of satisfaction,
revisit intention, and referral intention indicated that tourists were satis-
fied with their traveling experiences in general, were interested to visit the
 Relationships Among Tourist Profile 533

destination again, and intended to refer the destination to other people.

Those findings are also consistent with the empirical findings of a previous
study by Aktas et al. (2003), which was conducted in Antalya.
It was also interesting to find that in the package tour preferences,
all-inclusive packages were preferred by most of the participants in the
study. This finding was consistent with the nature of tourism in Antalya,
since most of the tours that are marketed to bring tourists to Antalya
are all-inclusive packages (Ozdipciner et al., 2010). Indeed, all-inclusive
package holiday concept encompasses the idea of being protected in a
resort (Issa & Jayawardena, 2003). The overall all-inclusive holiday package
includes all or at least most of the details of the vacation and those details
are taken care of by travel intermediaries such as a travel agency and/or a
resort after an initial payment. From the perspective of tourists as consumers,
overall convenience and economy are the most important reasons for pur-
chasing a package tour (Heung & Chu, 2000). As a standardized, quality
controlled, and repeatable offer (Lo & Lam, 2004), an all-inclusive pack-
age tour promises consistency and eliminates surprises, especially regarding
unexpected costs (Issa & Jayawardena, 2003), and it also allows tourists to
know the cost and content of the overall holiday package (Malia, 1993). It is
therefore reasonable to assume that all of these factors have an influence
on consumers’ level of satisfaction with an all-inclusive package holiday in
tourist destination.
Additionally, the current study revealed that there was a significant
difference between the satisfaction levels of individuals traveling indepen-
dently and those traveling with package tours. Particularly, the satisfaction
of individual travelers was less than the satisfaction of respondents traveling
through a package tour. This tends to support the notion that travel expe-
rience and level of satisfaction might be significantly different between the
two groups (Yuan et al., 2008).

Managerial Implications
From a practical perspective, the study also revealed a number of inter-
esting findings that would be of help for decision makers. The analysis
has given some very important insight into the role of tourist profile on
tourists’ satisfaction and loyalty. The findings of the study established that
sociodemographic and travel behavior variables did affect tourists’ satis-
faction with destination and loyalty to destination. Destination and resort
promoters in Antalya could also develop different marketing strategies
through understanding the complexity of the relationships among tourist
profile, satisfaction, and loyalty. Marketers could predict the level of satis-
faction of prospective tourists if their sociodemographic and travel behavior
characteristics are known. Moreover, marketers could segment better the
market in order to satisfy the needs of certain group of consumers and
plan more effective positioning strategies. For instance, in the current study,
534 B. Ozdemir et al.

females were more satisfied and were more loyal to the destination than
males. It would be better to classify females as a significant target market
and to communicate the suitability of Antalya as an ideal holiday desti-
nation for families and females. In terms of the nationality variable, the
study showed that satisfaction and loyalty levels may change among tourists.
For example, satisfaction and loyalty levels of CIS tourists were higher than
German-Austrian tourists. The CIS market is well known as a crisis-resistant
market. Decision makers in Antalya can benefit from this advantage of the
market and try to protect current market share by using suitable marketing
strategies. In addition, it is strongly recommended that periodic assessments
of visitors’ profiles and their level of satisfaction with destinations should be
made by destination managers and promoters.
Moreover, tourist satisfaction should be taken into account when
assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a tourism destination. Such an
assessment can also be useful to form the strategic and operational plan-
ning of tourism destinations. An examination of each destination attribute’s
impact on tourists’ satisfaction helps identify the strengths and weaknesses
of the destination. The study revealed the fact that the participating tourists
viewed Antalya as a suitable holiday destination for families. Additionally,
accommodation facilities, cultural values, food and beverage facilities, per-
sonal safety, historical places, nature, and hospitality of local people were
also high satisfactory attributes. In order to attain customers’ positive evalu-
ation, destination management in Antalya region should pay much attention
to these influential satisfaction attributes and make investment in maintain-
ing service quality of accommodation facilities, preserving the cultural and
historical values and creating interactions between foreign tourists and local
people. Although local transportation services, Turkish cuisine, shopping
offers, cleanliness, cultural activities, sports activities, hygiene, interaction
with local people, tourist information, and accessibility are low-satisfactory
attributes, these factors should not be neglected. Conversely, their quality
should be improved and should always be guaranteed to avoid dissatis-
fied customers. For instance, destination or resort managers should consider
offering more menu options to tourists and creating opportunities to sample
unique local cuisine. At the same time, food sanitation should be taken into
consideration. Transportation is another important travel attribute, because
tourists spend a lot of time in the tour buses on their excursions and
transfers from airport to hotel and vice versa. Tour operators should make
improvements in this aspect by ensuring punctual service and safe driv-
ing. Destination managers should also focus on promoting the city’s cultural
attractions and sports events so as to improve tourists’ satisfaction with these
factors. Additionally, efficient accessibility to a destination is one of the most
important attributes for the development of any destination. For this reason,
accessibility in terms of transportation and information should be improved
through investing in developing effective transportation and communication
technologies.
 Relationships Among Tourist Profile 535

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

The following limitations were inherent in the study, thus readers should
interpret the findings and implications with caution. First, the study was
conducted in the summer, and thus findings were limited to summer travel-
ers. Tourists who travel in different seasons may form different opinions of
a destination. Since the domestic tourists are also important for the tourism
development of Antalya as a holiday destination, focusing only on foreign
tourists was another limitation of the current study. Future study would be
implemented to examine the satisfaction of domestic tourists to this particu-
lar region. Comparisons can also be made between these two markets for the
development of a more through tourism policy. Additionally, the population
of the study was also limited to visitors of a sun and sea tourist destination.
Therefore, the results from the study may not be generalized beyond this
population. Replicating similar studies in other tourist destinations would be
imperative for increasing the generalizability of these findings. The current
study assumed a direct linkage between satisfaction and loyalty. Although
this assumption was supported by the empirical evidences of the current
study, the linkage between satisfaction and behavioral intentions is not as
simple as it may seem. In the related literature there are also evidences that
loyalty may be influenced by some other variables such as service quality or
switching barriers. Therefore, it is suggested for future research that a more
comprehensive model of the relationships between satisfaction and behav-
ioral intensions can be developed by including additional variables such as
service quality and switching barriers. Lastly, destination loyalty was mea-
sured by two single item measures. The use of a multiple-item measurement
scale in further studies may improve the interpretation of destination loyalty.
The development of multiple-item measures would strengthen the reliability
of findings and assist future tourism research.
On a closing note, it should be underscored that the results reported
here provide an empirical validation of the proposed relationships some of
which were also partly or fully established and empirically tested by previous
studies. In this sense, several important implications surface from the empiri-
cal findings of the current research. First, tourists’ evaluations of a destination
in terms of relevant attributes are determinants of their satisfaction. A sec-
ond implication is that satisfaction and loyalty is influenced by tourist profile
construct. Third, tourist satisfaction gives rise to loyalty to a destination.

REFERENCES

Aguilo, E., Alegre, J., & Sard, M. (2005). The persistence of the sun and sand tourism
model. Tourism Management, 26, 219–231.
Akal, M. (2010). Economic implications of international tourism on Turkish econ-
omy. Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, 5(1),
131–152.
536 B. Ozdemir et al.

Aksu, A., & Silva A. C. (2009). A look for low season tourist profile: Antalya region
of Turkey example. Quality and Quantity, 43, 317–332.
Aktas, A., Aksu, A. A., & Cizel, B. (2003). Tourist profile research: Antalya region
example 2001. Tourism Review, 58(1), 34–40.
Alegra, J., & Cladera, M. (2006). Repeat visitation in mature sun and sea holiday
destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 44, 288–297.
Alvarez, M. D. (2010). Marketing of Turkey as a tourism destination. Anatolia: An
International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 21(1), 123–138.
Andereck, K. L., & Caldwell, L. L. (1994). Variable selection in tourism market
segmentation models. Journal of Travel Research, 33(2), 40–46.
Antalya Tourism Office. (2008). Foreign Travelers’ Statistics. Retrieved from http://
antalyakultur.gov.tr/belge/1-70672/2008-yili.html
Armstrong, R. W., & Mok, C. (1995). Leisure travel destination choice crite-
ria of Hong Kong residents. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 4(1),
99–104.
ATSO. (2009). Structure of Antalya. Retrieved from www.atso.org.tr/english
Aykac, A. (2010). Tourism employment: Towards an integrated policy approach.
Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 21(1),
11–27.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals
of Tourism Research, 26, 868–897.
Beck, J., Martin, L., Xu, Z., & Qu, H. (2004). Cross border traveler satisfac-
tion to the Shenzhen special economic zone of China. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 11(2), 47–64.
Benkenstein, M., Yavas, U., & Forberger, D. (2003). Emotional and cognitive
antecedents of customer satisfaction in leisure services: The case of the Rostock
Zoo. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 10(3), 173–184.
Cai, L. A., Wu, B., & Bai, B. (2004). Destination image and loyalty. Tourism Review
International, 7(3/4), 153–162.
Castano, B. J. M., Moreno, S. A., & Crego, D. A., (2007). Tourist profiles in a
sample of Spanish subjects: An empirical segmentation model in relation to
travel patterns and characteristics of the traveler. Estudios Turisticos, 17(1),
57–76.
Chen, J. S., & Gursoy, D. (2001). An investigation of tourists’ destination loyalty and
preferences. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
13(2), 79–85.
Chi, C. G., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destina-
tion image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: an integrated approach.
Tourism Management, 29, 624–636.
Chi, C. G., & Qu, H. (2009). Examining the relationship between
tourists’ attribute satisfaction and overall satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 18(1), 4–25.
Chun, M. K. (2009). The managerial implications of an analysis of tourist pro-
files and international hotel employee service attitude. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 28, 302–309.
Churchill, G. A., Jr., & Suprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the determinants
of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 491–504.
 Relationships Among Tourist Profile 537

Cimat, A., & Bahar, O. (2003). Turizm sektörünün Türkiye ekonomisi içindeki yeri
ve önemi üzerine bir deerlendirme [An assessment of tourism sector and its
significance in the Turkish economy]. Akdeniz BF Dergisi, 6, 1–18.
Compo, S., & Garau, J. B. (2008). The influence of nationality on the generation of
tourist satisfaction with a destination. Tourism Analysis, 13(1), 81–92.
Croes, R., Shani, A., & Walls, A. (2010). The value of destination loyalty: myth or
reality? Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 19(2), 115–136.
Duman, T., & Kozak, M. (2010). The Turkish tourism product: differentiation and
competitiveness. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality
Research, 21(1), 89–106.
Erkus-Ozturk, H. (2010). Planning of tourism development: The case of Antalya.
Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 21(1),
107–122.
Fallon, P., & Schofield, P. (2003). Just trying to keep the customer satisfied: A com-
parison of models used in the measurement of tourist satisfaction. Journal of
Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 4(3/4), 77–96.
Folkes, V. S. (1984). Consumer reactions to product failure: An attributional
approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 398–409.
Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish
experience. Journal of Marketing, 56(1), 6–21.
Franch, M., Martini, U., Inverardi, P. L. N., & Bufa, F. (2006). From reconstruction and
analysis of tourist profiles to some suggestions to destination management—
an empirical research in the dolomites area. Tourism Review, 61(2),
30–37.
Gokovali, U. (2010). Contribution of tourism to economic growth in Turkey.
Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 21(1),
139–153.
Gyte, D. M., & Phelps, A. (1989). Patterns of destination repeat business: British
tourists in Mallorca, Spain. Journal of Travel Research, 28(1), 24–28.
Hair, J. F. J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2005).
Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Han, H., Back, K., & Barrett, B. (2009). Influencing factors on restaurant customers’
revisit intention: The roles of emotions and switching barriers. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 563–572.
Heung, V. C. S., & Chu, R. (2000). Important factors affecting Hong Kong con-
sumers’ choice of a travel agency for all-inclusive package tours. Journal of
Travel Research, 39(1), 52–59.
Heung, V. C. S., & Qu, H. (2000). Hong Kong as a travel destination: An analysis
of Japanese tourists’ satisfaction levels, and the likelihood of them recom-
mending Hong Kong to others. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 9(1/2),
57–80.
Hsu, C. H. (2003). Mature motor-coach travelers’ satisfaction: A preliminary
step toward measurement development. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, 20(10), 1–19.
Huh, J., & Uysal, M. (2003). Satisfaction with cultural/heritage sites: Virginia his-
toric triangle. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 4(3/4),
177–194.
538 B. Ozdemir et al.

Huh, J., Uysal, M., & McCleary, K. (2006). Cultural/heritage destinations: Tourist
satisfaction and market segmentation. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure
Marketing, 14(3), 81–99.
Hurst, F. (1994). En route surveys. In J. R. B. Ritchie & C. R. Goeldner (Eds.), Travel,
tourism, and hospitality research: A handbook for managers and researchers
(2nd ed., pp. 453–471). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Issa, J., & Jayawardena C. (2003). The all-inclusive concept in the Caribbean.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(3),
197–171.
Juaneda, C. (1996). Estimating the probability of return visits using a survey of tourist
expenditure in the Balearic Islands. Tourism Economics, 2, 339–352.
Kandampully, J., & Suhartanto, D. (2003). The role of customer satisfaction and
image in gaining customer loyalty in the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 10(1), 3–25.
Kim, H., & Jamal, T. (2007). Touristic quest for existential authenticity. Annals of
Tourism Research, 34(1), 181–201.
Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R., & Reece, J. (1999). Consumer research in the restaurant
environment. Part 1: A conceptual model of dining satisfaction and return
patronage. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
11(5), 205–222.
Koc, E. (2005). New product development in the Turkish tourism market: The case
of football tourism. Journal of Sport Tourism, 10(3), 165–173.
Korzay, M., & Alvarez, M. D. (2005). Satisfaction and dissatisfaction of Japanese
tourists in Turkey. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 16(2), 176–193.
Kozak, M. (2001). Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct destinations. Annals of Tourism
Research, 28, 785–808.
Kozak, M., & Beaman, J. (2006). Relationship between satisfaction and future
behavior. Tourism Analysis, 11, 397–409.
Kozak, M., Bigne, E., & Andreu, L. (2004). Satisfaction and destination loyalty:
A comparison between non-repeat and repeat tourists. Journal of Quality
Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 5(1), 43–59.
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an
off-season holiday destination. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 260–269.
Kuvan, Y. (2010). Mass tourism development and deforestation in Turkey. Anatolia:
An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 21(1), 155–168.
Kuvan, Y., & Akan, P. (2005). Residents’ attitudes toward general and forest-related
impacts of tourism: The case of Belek, Antalya. Tourism Management, 26,
691–706.
Lee, J., Graefe A. R., & Burns, R. C. (2007). Examining the antecedents of destination
loyalty in a forest setting. Leisure Sciences, 29, 463–481.
Levy, S. E., & Hassay, D. N. (2005). Visitor communities. Journal of Hospitality and
Leisure Marketing, 12(4), 57–72.
Lo, A., & Lam, T. (2004). Long-haul and short-haul outbound all-inclusive package
tours. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 9(2), 161–176.
Maila, B. (1993). All in one. Incentive, 167, 75–83.
 Relationships Among Tourist Profile 539

Merchinde, P., Serirat, S., & Gulid, N. (2009). An examination of tourists’ attitudi-
nal and behavioral loyalty: Comparison between domestic and international
tourists. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 15(2), 129–148.
Neal, J. D. (2003). The effect of length of stay on travelers’ perceived satisfaction
with service quality. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism,
4(3/4), 167–176.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model for the antecedents and consequences of
satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 460–469.
Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction
response. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 418–430.
Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research,
39(1), 78–84.
Ozdipciner, N. S., Li, X., & Uysal, M. (2010). An examination of purchase decision-
making criteria: A case of Turkey as a destination. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 19, 514–527.
Oztürkmen, A. (2005). Turkish tourism at the door of Europe: Perceptions of
image in historical and contemporary perspectives. Middle Eastern Studies, 41,
605–621.
Pizam, A., & Milman, A. (1993). Predicting satisfaction among first time visitors to
a destination by using the expectancy disconfirmation theory. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 12, 197–209.
Pizam, A., Neumann, Y., & Reichel, A. (1978). Dimensions of tourist satisfaction with
a destination area. Annals of Tourism Research, 5, 314–322.
Prebensen, N. K., & Kleiven, J. (2006). Determined sun-seekers and others-travel
motives, holiday type, and holiday behavior among Norwegian charter tourists.
Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 14(1), 75–97.
Sheldon, P. J., & Mak, J. (1987). The demand for package tours: A mode choice
model. Journal of Travel Research, 25(3), 13–17.
Tosun, C., Timothy, D. J., & Öztürk, Y. (2003). Tourism growth, national devel-
opment and regional inequality in Turkey. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
11(2/3), 133–161.
Tsiotsou, R., & Vasioti, E. (2006). Using demographics and leisure activities to
predict satisfaction with tourism services in Greece. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 14(2), 69–82.
TYD. (2008). Selected data on Turkish tourism. Turkish Tourism Investors
Association.
Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice.
Annals of Tourism Research, 17, 432–448.
Weiss, R., Feinstein, A. H., & Dalbor, M. (2004). Customer satisfaction of theme
restaurant attributes and their influence on return intent. Journal of Foodservice
Business Research, 7(1), 23–41.
Westbrook, R. A. (1987, August). Product/consumption-based affective responses
and post purchase processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 258–270.
Wilkins, H., Merrilees, B., & Herington, C. (2010). The determinants of loyalty in
hotels. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 19(1), 1–21.
540 B. Ozdemir et al.

Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and
satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management,
26(1), 45–56.
Yuan, J. J., Wu, C. K., Zhang, J., Goh, B. K., & Stout, B. L. (2008). Chinese
tourist satisfaction with Yunnan Province, China. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 16(1), 181–202.
Yuksel, A., & Rimmington, M. (1998). Customer-satisfaction measurement. Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 39(6), 60–71.