The role of motivation in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidence in rural tourism

lable at ScienceDirect

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tourism Management xxx (2009) 1–6

Contents lists avai

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

The role of motivation in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidencein rural tourism

Marıa Devesa a,*, Marta Laguna a, Andres Palacios b

a Fac. CC. Sociales, Jurıdicas y de la Comunicacion, Universidad de Valladolid, Plaza de la Tierra, 3, 40001 Segovia- Spainb Escuela de Magisterio, Plaza de Colmenares s/n, 40001-Segovia-Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 10 September 2008Accepted 15 June 2009

Keywords:MotivationSatisfactionRural tourismCluster analysisSpain

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 921 112122; fax:E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. De

(M. Laguna), [email protected] (A. Palacios).

0261-5177/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.006

Please cite this article in press as: Devesa, MManagement (2009), doi:10.1016/j.tourman

a b s t r a c t

Motivation and satisfaction are two concepts widely studied in tourism literature; the relevance of theseconstructs being derived from their impact on tourist behaviour. The purpose of this paper is to inves-tigate the relationship between motivation and visitor satisfaction. A survey questionnaire was distrib-uted to visitors at a rural destination in Spain and the data analysed by ANOVA, factor and clusteranalyses. The results verified our hypothesis that motivation is a determinant of the visit assessmentcriteria and, as a direct consequence, of the level of satisfaction (specific factors) of the visitor. However,this investigation also detected the existence of certain elements, which are independent of the reasonsthat motivated the journey (general factors), but which affect general satisfaction. Based on our findings,implications for management and marketing are presented.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Tourism can be considered, in one of its many aspects, as a socio-psychological experience (Castano, 2005; Ross & Iso-Ahola, 1991;Rubio, 2003; Wacker, 1996). Although factors such as socio-demographic characteristics affect tourist behaviour, other factorsrelated to the customer’s subjective experience are stronglyemerging to explain this complex process. In this context, motiva-tion and satisfaction are two essential elements that determineindividual behaviour in the field of tourism.

A review of previous literature on tourism motivation reveals thatpeople travel because they are ‘‘pushed’’ into travelling by internalreasons or factors, or because they are ‘‘pulled’’ by destination attri-butes (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1977, 1981; Uysal & Jurowski, 1994).Push factors are more related to internal or emotional aspects, such asthe desire for escape, rest and relaxation, adventure, or social inter-action. Pull factors are linked to external, situational, or cognitiveaspects, of which, attributes of the chosen destination, leisure infra-structure and cultural or natural features are examples. Nevertheless,these destination attributes may reinforce push motivations (Yoon &Uysal, 2005).

þ34 921 112101.vesa), [email protected]

All rights reserved.

., et al., The role of motivatio.2009.06.006

Thus, motivation has become a meta-concept that functions asa trigger for travel behaviour and determines different aspects oftourist activity, in respect of (i) the reasons for travelling or why, (ii)the specific destination or where, (iii) and the results obtained oroverall satisfaction with the trip (Castano, Moreno, Garcıa, & Crego,2003).

The last element of the cycle is key in the field of tourism. Itsrelevance lies in the role it plays in repetitive purchase or servicepatterns, i.e. in the loyalty towards a product, brand or destination(Barsky & Nash, 2002; Garcıa & Gil, 2005; Yoon & Uysal, 2005); inthe favourable criticism it generates and therefore, the positivemarketing communicated by word of mouth (Oh, 1999; Opper-mann, 2000; Rodrıguez del Bosque, San Martın, & Collado, 2006);or in the increase of company benefits (Anderson, Fornell, &Lehman, 1994).

The relationship between motivation and satisfaction hasalready been studied in tourism research from different perspec-tives and working methodologies (see, for example, Ibrahim & Gill,2005; Laguna & Palacios, 2009; Oliver, 1980; Severt, Wang, Chen, &Breiter, 2007), and applied studies have been carried out fordifferent sectors of the market (Devesa & Palacios, 2005, 2006;Garcıa & Gil, 2005; Lee, Lee, & Wicks, 2004; Lopes, 2006; Qu & Ping,1999; Rodrıguez del Bosque et al., 2006, among others). Roman,Recio, and Martın (2000) point out that the current demand trendtowards greater segmentation can be mostly explained because ofthe diversification of visitor motivation. Therefore, diversification isa very valuable element when directing the expansion of emerging

n in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidence in rural tourism, Tourism

Fig. 1. Research structure and methodology.

M. Devesa et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2009) 1–62

ARTICLE IN PRESS

tourism products such as rural tourism. Moreover, these authorsaffirm that an offer exclusively based on countryside and fresh air isinsufficient to be considered as a determining factor for a satisfac-tory experience of a visit.

The object of this research is to analyse the relation existingbetween motivation and satisfaction obtained by visitors in therural tourism sector. More specifically, the study examines theinfluence of motivation d as trigger factor and antecedent fortourism behaviour d on the satisfaction obtained by the visitor tothe destination. We maintain that individuals visiting a particulartourist destination, irrespective of the reason, will obtain a higheror lower satisfaction level depending on their evaluation of thoseaspects of their visit or destination which are more closely relatedto their motivation for travel.

2. Methodology

In order to achieve the proposed objectives, data collected ina survey designed for visitors to a rural tourism destination in Spainhas been used. Rural tourism in this area, the Province of Segovia(situated in the central region of the country), can be considereda reliable, representative sample of rural tourism in Spain, which

Table 1Cluster definition by motivation variables.

Cluster (cluster size) Cluster name

A (129 individuals) Visitor looking for tranquillity, rest and contac

B (69 individuals) Cultural visitor

C (40 individuals) Proximity, gastronomic and nature visitor

D (50 individuals) Return tourist

Please cite this article in press as: Devesa, M., et al., The role of motivatioManagement (2009), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.006

currently is a growing segment of the market and a very valuableresource for the inner provinces.

Interviews were carried out in a range of places, at various timesof day and at different periods (between April and October, 2004)and 316 valid responses were obtained. The sample was balanced interms of sex, with a slight predominance of men (52%); a mean agearound 45–49 years; a high proportion with university degrees andin employment. There were no statistically significant differencesarising from the different periods when the survey was collected.All significant variables in the research allow us to consider thedifferent sub-sets as a unique tourist sample with a sample error of�5.49% for a significance level of 95%.

The research structure and the analysis methodology used aresummarized in Fig. 1.

Two different scales were used: a motivation scale and a satis-faction scale. The motivation scale (a 10-point Likert-scale)included 17 items regarding push and pull factors. Their identifi-cation was determined in accordance with our literature review,including and adapting some items in order to complete a fulladaptation of the population and destination attributes studied. Asregards the satisfaction scale, we assumed the concept of multidi-mensionality and, therefore, the idea that the evaluation made by

Motivating variables with significant differences

t with nature. U Looking for tranquillityU Non-expensive routine escapeU RestU Knowing new placesU Contact with natureU Proximity

U Monuments sightseeingU Cultural motivationU Knowing new places

U Working reasonsU Gastronomic reasonsU ProximityU Visiting natural parksU Practising sportsU Contact with nature

U Visiting friendsU Owning a second residenceU Local festivitiesU Rest

n in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidence in rural tourism, Tourism

Table 2Expected relationship between motivational typologies and tourists’ evaluation offeatures offered.

Motivational typologies Expected feeling according to the hypothesison features offered

A.- Visitor looking for tranquillity,rest and contact with nature

U AccessU Parking facilitiesU TranquillityU Conservation of natural heritageU Price evaluation

B.- Cultural visitor U AccessU Road signpostingU Parking facilitiesU Opening hours of monumentsU Guided toursU Conservation of monumental heritage

C.- Proximity, gastronomicand nature visitor

U Parking facilitiesU Lodging qualityU Lodging availabilityU Conservation of natural heritageU Sport facilitiesU Gastronomic qualityU Restaurants equipment/facilitiesU Restaurants availability

D.- Return tourist U AccessU Complementary offer tourist activitiesU TranquillityU Conservation of monumental heritage

M. Devesa et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2009) 1–6 3

ARTICLE IN PRESS

individuals of their own experience is the result of a complexprocess involving a high number of elements. The scale wasdeveloped with 18 items on a 10-point Likert-scale correspondingto different attributes of the destination and some aspects of thejourney (hospitality infrastructure, treatment received, cultural andnatural heritage conservation, etc.). The selection of these attri-butes was based on previous research on destination satisfaction. Inboth cases, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the final scales resultedin a robust value (0.849 and 0.823, respectively).

Table 3Average differences between tourists’ evaluation of features offered and visit satisfaction

Evaluation of different aspects offered to tourist Motivational typology and degree of s

Type A Visitor looking fortranquillity, rest andcontact with nature

Type B

Degree of satisfaction(more satisfied–lesssatisfied)

Degree(moresatisfie

Less More t Sig. Less

Access evaluation 5.93 7.28 L4.42 0.00 5.48Road signposting evaluation 5.61 6.29 �1.85 0.07 4.21Parking facilities evaluation 6.45 7.06 �1.85 0.07 5.06Lodgings quality evaluation 6.38 7.12 �0.82 0.42 6.13Lodgings availability 6.14 7.13 �1.12 0.27 5.00Opening hours of monuments 5.87 6.81 L3.10 0.00 5.38Price evaluation 5.25 5.82 �1.62 0.11 4.70Guided tours evaluation 7.11 7.24 �0.21 0.84 7.28Treatment received 7.21 8.08 L4.52 0.00 7.15Tranquillity 7.61 8.54 L4.43 0.00 7.32Conservation of monumental heritage 6.85 7.60 �1.86 0.17 7.05Conservation of natural heritage 7.02 7.80 L3.36 0.00 7.10Facilities for sports practice 5.68 6.50 �0.99 0.32 5.56Gastronomic quality evaluation 7.56 8.00 L1.95 0.05 7.64Restaurant equipment/facilities 6.83 7.74 L4.52 0.00 7.12Restaurant availability 6.25 7.09 L3.22 0.00 4.93Evaluation of tourist information 6.00 7.00 L3.33 0.00 6.46Complementary offer of leisure activities

(riding, festivals, performances.)5.24 6.26 L1.95 0.05 3.94

Please cite this article in press as: Devesa, M., et al., The role of motivatioManagement (2009), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.006

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was carried out with thesurvey’s items as a complement to evaluate the validity of thestudy on both motivation and satisfaction scales. Polychoriccorrelation matrices and unweighted least squares (ULS) wereused as algorithms to perform the calculations, as this strategyallows the establishment of consistent estimations withoutneeding to assume multinormality in the variables (Ruiz, 2000).The results obtained highlight the validity of the indicators usedin each of the factors of the scale, both on the satisfaction andmotivation scales.

However, given that satisfaction with a particular destination issomething more than just visitor satisfaction with the servicesutilized and destination attributes (Truong & Foster, 2006; Yu &Goulden, 2006); a measure containing the overall satisfaction levelobtained with the visit was also included. This measure reinforcesthe holistic focus that we undertook for our study.

Finally, the questionnaire also included socio-demographicitems (age, gender, marital status, place of residence, employmentstatus) and trip-related characteristics (composition and size oftravel group, type of accommodation rented, daily expenditure perperson).

3. Results

3.1. Tourist segmentation by visit motivation

A cluster analysis was run in order to identify visit motivationand to segment visitors’ destinations. A factorial analysis of classi-fication variables had previously been carried out in order toguarantee the absence of correlations between factorial scores anda standard measurement system (see Table A1 in the Appendix).The cluster analysis, carried out using a non-hierarchical classifi-cation method with the factorial scores of five factors (see Table A2in the Appendix), identified four groups of visitors based on theirmotives, as shown in Table 1.

by motivational typology.

atisfaction (more satisfied–less satisfied)

Cultural visitor Type C Proximity,gastronomic andnature visitor

Type D Return Tourist

of satisfactionsatisfied–lessd)

Degree of satisfaction(more satisfied–lesssatisfied)

Degree of satisfaction(more satisfied–lesssatisfied)

More t Sig. Less More t Sig. Less More t Sig.

6.11 �1.35 0.18 4.75 6.08 �1.70 0.10 6.06 6.91 �1.47 0.165.83 L3.29 0.00 5.88 6.75 �1.62 0.16 5.59 6.52 �1.37 0.187.00 L5.60 0.00 3.63 6.83 L4.26 0.00 5.29 6.66 L2.09 0.056.58 �0.41 0.69 3.00 6.00 L2.27 0.04 5.71 7.33 �1.44 0.187.31 �1.97 0.08 1.00 6.33 L8.29 0.00 5.40 7.00 �1.24 0.256.46 L2.21 0.03 6.00 7.36 L2.59 0.01 4.62 6.52 L2.57 0.014.84 �0.25 0.80 5.57 6.00 �0.78 0.44 4.35 5.55 L1.98 0.058.20 L2.38 0.02 5.67 8.00 �1.58 0.17 5.63 8.09 L3.02 0.027.80 L2.06 0.04 7.38 8.36 L3.36 0.00 6.53 8.28 L4.03 0.007.89 �1.90 0.06 7.75 8.45 �1.78 0.08 7.24 8.41 L2.54 0.017.74 L1.98 0.05 7.13 7.91 �1.38 0.18 6.65 7.66 L2.44 0.027.06 0.10 0.92 7.00 8.27 L0.62 0.02 6.82 7.45 �1.82 0.084.57 0.96 0.35 3.25 6.44 L3.50 0.01 6.20 6.63 �0.43 0.678.31 L2.06 0.04 7.43 8.25 L2.21 0.03 6.88 7.84 L2.60 0.017.73 �2.03 0.06 7.29 7.64 �0.77 0.45 6.71 7.52 L2.34 0.026.67 L3.12 0.00 6.11 7.18 L2.01 0.03 5.63 7.24 L3.26 0.007.53 L2.56 0.01 4.71 6.73 L3.54 0.00 5.56 7.00 L2.06 0.056.58 L4.42 0.00 5.00 7.00 L3.61 0.00 5.75 7.15 L2.08 0.04

n in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidence in rural tourism, Tourism

M. Devesa et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2009) 1–64

ARTICLE IN PRESS

The first cluster is made up of visitors looking for tranquillityand rest through contact with nature and spending little money. Itis the biggest cluster and, therefore, the most representative in therural tourism destination analysed. It is formed by variables thatwould define visitors as searching for tranquillity and rest throughcontact with nature as an escape from living in the city. The secondmost relevant cluster is composed of visitors whose motivation isrelated to culture and monuments, as well as the desire to discovernew places. They show statistically significant differences in thedistance that they have to cover in order to arrive at their chosendestination. They are, therefore, long distance cultural visitors.

A third cluster is comprised of visitors with a shared interestmotivated by gastronomy or visiting natural parks, and whoseresidence is not very far away from the area visited. In addition, thevisitors in this group might also enjoy practising sport during theirvisits. We have named them ‘‘gastronomic and nature visitors.’’ Thelast cluster has been named ‘‘return tourism’’ and their mainmotivation is visiting friends and relatives (VFR). It is composed ofpeople that live in cities close to the destinations visited, who owna house or use their family and friends’ accommodation in order toattend local festivities, or just to rest.

Table 4Expected and found relationship between the motivational typologies, visit satisfaction

Motivational typologies Expected differences among the tooffered according to the hypothesis

A1-A2.- Visitor looking for tranquillity,rest and contact with nature

AccessTranquillityConservation of natural heritageParking facilities evaluationPrice evaluation

B1-B2.- Cultural visitor Road signpostingParking facilities evaluationMonuments Opening hoursGuided toursConservation of monumental herAccess

C1- C2.- Proximity, gastronomicand nature visitor

Parking facilities evaluationLodging qualityLodging availabilityConservation of natural heritageSports facilitiesGastronomic qualityRestaurants availabilityRestaurants equipment/facilities

D1-D2.- Return tourist Complementary offer leisure actiTranquillityConservation of monumental herAccess

Please cite this article in press as: Devesa, M., et al., The role of motivatioManagement (2009), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.006

3.2. Evaluation of satisfaction with the experience in the destinationand motivation of the visit

Once the motivational typologies had been established, weaimed to prove the initial hypothesis, which suggests that moti-vation is an important factor in the visit evaluation criteria and, asa consequence, in the satisfaction of what has been experienced.For this reason, we set up indicators of the facilities offered totourists and the main characteristics associated with each of themotivational typologies, as outlined in Table 2. For example, thecultural visitor is someone that has to cover a long distance in orderto arrive at the chosen destination. As a consequence, we includeaspects related to access (roads, signposting and parking), inaddition to the opening hours of monuments, guided tours andconservation of cultural heritage. On the other hand, the visitorwho is interested in gastronomy and nature, in a significant numberof cases, spends the night at the destination and, thus, tends to beparticularly aware of the availability and quality of lodging andrestaurants.

After identifying which aspects of the features offered to touristsare pertinent to each motivational typology, we need only to

and tourists’ evaluation of features offered.

urists’ evaluation of features Found differences in the tourists’evaluation of features offered

AccessTranquillityConservation of natural heritageMonuments opening hoursReceived treatmentGastronomic qualityRestaurants availabilityRestaurants equipment/facilitiesComplementary offer leisure activitiesTourist information

Road signpostingParking facilities evaluationMonuments Opening hoursGuided tours

itage Conservation of monumental heritageReceived treatmentGastronomic qualityRestaurants availabilityComplementary offer leisure activitiesTourist information

Parking facilities evaluationLodging qualityLodging availabilityConservation of natural heritageSports facilitiesGastronomic qualityRestaurants availabilityComplementary offer leisure activitiesTourist informationReceived treatmentMonuments Opening hours

vities Complementary offer leisure activitiesTranquillity

itage Conservation of monumental heritageParking facilities evaluationMonuments opening hoursReceived treatmentPrice evaluationGuided toursRestaurants equipment/facilitiesGastronomic qualityRestaurants availabilityTourist information

n in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidence in rural tourism, Tourism

M. Devesa et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2009) 1–6 5

ARTICLE IN PRESS

compare the evaluations of those indicators associated with eachmotivation. Even so, we have defined more satisfied tourists asthose whose general satisfaction is above average and less satisfiedtourists as those whose general satisfaction is below average. Thevalues are presented in Table 3.

As we had presumed, the evaluations of the rest and relaxationvisitors exhibit some significant differences in the aspects related totranquillity, conservation of natural heritage and access. However,we did not find statistically significant differences in the evaluationof parking facilities and prices, which we had initially expected. Infact, this latter aspect was negatively assessed by both more satis-fied and less satisfied people. We also found these low satisfactionlevels in the rest of the motivational typologies. From this point on,we assumed the lack of satisfaction with prices to be a constantfeature of all the people interviewed, irrespective of their motiva-tion for the visit.

Long distance cultural visitors, indicating a high degree ofsatisfaction, tended to evaluate the various aspects of thefeatures offered, which were related to their own motivation(monument and museum opening hours, guided tours, conser-vation of monumental heritage, road signposting and parkingfacilities), more positively and with statistically significantdifferences. We also found considerable differences in unex-pected aspects such as restaurant availability and complementaryleisure activities.

The differences expected regarding visitors that we havenamed ‘‘gastronomic and nature visitors’’ were found to berelated to their visiting goals. They have been divided into fourlarge groups: conditions of stay (ease of parking, suitable offer ofhigh quality lodgings); satisfactory gastronomic options; anappropriate conservation of natural heritage; and adequatefacilities for the practice of sports. Once more, our data confirmsthat visit satisfaction is related, among other factors, to visitmotivation.

Finally, the return tourists also show significant differences in theaspects regarded as important in this type of tourism: tranquillity,complementary leisure activities and conservation of monumentalheritage. However, differences are not significant in terms of eval-uation of access.

Despite this clear relationship between motivation and satis-faction, certain aspects of the tourist attraction evaluation seemto be especially sensitive when comparing more satisfied and lesssatisfied visitors, independent of the motivation of their visits.This is the case in the evaluation of treatment received. Accord-ing to this aspect, those tourists showing a higher satisfactionlevel produced higher average evaluations, regardless of themotivation of their visits. Treatment received represents anindependent satisfaction element with no links to motivation.Positive evaluation, therefore, influences satisfaction in everygroup of visitors: rest, cultural, gastronomic, and return. We havealso found other determining aspects, such as complementaryleisure activities, gastronomic quality, restaurant availability andtourist information. In all cases, a lower evaluation is closelyrelated to lower satisfaction levels and vice versa. These are allindependent satisfaction elements with no links to motivationand can, therefore, be considered factors of general satisfaction.This information is summarized in Table 4.

4. Conclusions

Understanding the variables that moderate and determinetourism satisfaction is extremely important in a highly competitivecontext with informed and demanding tourists. It is an essentialcondition for the success of any destination and a crucial aid tocompetitiveness. The relationship between motivation and

Please cite this article in press as: Devesa, M., et al., The role of motivatioManagement (2009), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.006

satisfaction has been demonstrated in previous tourism literatureand that individuals travelling to a particular destination can havevery different motives. This highlights the existence of differentmotivation schemes for a particular destination that affect tourists’expectations and, therefore, their overall satisfaction. Thus, a morein depth study of the relationship between the two concepts, witha special emphasis on identifying the segmentation of visitors’motives, is needed.

The present study has characterized four market segments forthe sample of visitors: a visitor looking for tranquillity, rest andcontact with nature; cultural visitor; proximity-gastronomic andnature visitor; and return tourist. These typologies have beenidentified using motivational factors relating to a particular ruraldestination in Spain. The results have shown that individuals makedifferent evaluations of certain factors, activities and destinationattributes depending on their relation to the reasons that motivatedor determined the trip.

This fact allows us to identify the existence of a relationshipbetween typologies of visitors classified according to theirmotives and their evaluation of elements that compose thedestination’s tourist opportunities and the visitor’s experience.For example, the tourists that we have named ‘‘cultural visitors’’,who present high levels of satisfaction, have registered statisti-cally significant higher evaluations of those items related to theircultural motivation, inter alia: monument and museum openinghours, guided tours and the conservation of monumental heri-tage. This reveals the existence of certain specific satisfactoryelements directly linked to the motivation for the trip. Therefore,service providers at tourist destinations need also to focus onthese specific attributes and services as they will impact on thetourist’s level of satisfaction.

On the other hand, we have also found the existence of certainelements that strongly affect global satisfaction and functionindependently of the reasons motivating the trip. We could callthem ‘‘general satisfiers.’’ Aspects like treatment received,gastronomy quality, opening hours, availability of services(restaurants and leisure activities), and tourist information, affectvisitor satisfaction in all identified segments. However, some ofthem d as is the case with gastronomic quality d can havea specific character, as they are connected to the motivation ofa certain visitor typology.

The identification of these attributes, which are able to deter-mine visitor satisfaction independently from the visit motivation, isvery useful in the direction of marketing planning for the desti-nation. This is especially true of those decisions linked to itsconfiguration and planning as a product. Destination managers willhave to dedicate the necessary resources and effort to ensure thatsuch aspects are correctly managed because of their influence onthe visitors’ general satisfaction, regardless of their motivation andsocio-demographic characteristics.

The diversity in the tourist market also requires improvedidentification and strengthening of those attributes that function asspecific satisfactory elements. These elements may determine thesatisfaction of certain segments. We need to be especially carefulwith those segments that, either because of their size or appeal, area priority for a particular destination.

Finally, a few limitations of the study should be addressed.First, the sample was drawn exclusively from visitors to a specificrural tourism destination in Spain. This may cause possible non-representation issues and, thus, the results should not begeneralized. Second, the sample was comprised of people whocame only from regions within Spain. It could be interesting, asa future line of research, to replicate the study with a question-naire adapted to international tourists as different cultural valuesmay affect both service delivery and visitor experience.

n in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidence in rural tourism, Tourism

M. Devesa et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2009) 1–66

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Appendix. Supplementary material

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, inthe online version, at doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.006.

References

Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehman, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction,market share and profitability: findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing,58(3), 53–66.

Barsky, J., & Nash, L. (2002). Evoking emotion: affective keys to hotel loyalty. CornellHotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 39–46.

Castano, J. M. (2005). Psicologıa Social de los viajes y del turismo. Madrid: ThomsonParaninfo.

Castano, J. M., Moreno, A., Garcıa, S., & Crego, A. (2003). Aproximacion psicosociala la motivacion turıstica: variables implicadas en la eleccion de Madrid comodestino. Estudios Turısticos, 158, 5–41.

Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research,6(4), 408–424.

Dann, G. M. S. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of TourismResearch, 4(4), 184–194.

Dann, G. M. S. (1981). Tourism motivation: an appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research,8(2), 187–219.

Devesa, M., & Palacios, A. (2005). Predicciones en el nivel de satisfaccion percibidapor los turistas a partir de variables motivacionales y de valoracion de la visita.Informacion Comercial Espanola, 821, 241–255.

Devesa, M., & Palacios, A. (2006). Determinantes de la satisfaccion percibida en elturismo rural. In D. Blanquer (Dir.) (Ed.), Turismo en los espacios rurales (pp. 199–220). Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch.

Garcıa, M., & Gil, I. (2005). Expectativas, satisfaccion y lealtad en los servicioshoteleros. Un enfoque desde la cultura nacional. Papers de Turisme, 37(38), 7–25.

Ibrahim, E. E., & Gill, J. (2005). A positioning strategy for a tourist destination, basedon analysis of customers perceptions and satisfactions. Marketing Intelligence &Planning, 23(2), 172–188.

Laguna, M., & Palacios, A. (2009). La calidad percibida como determinante detipologıas de clientes y su relacion con la satisfaccion: aplicacion a los ser-vicios hoteleros. Revista Europea de Direccion y Economıa de la Empresa, 18(3),189–212.

Please cite this article in press as: Devesa, M., et al., The role of motivatioManagement (2009), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.006

Lee, C. K., Lee, Y. K., & Wicks, B. (2004). Segmentation of festival motivation bynationality and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 25(1), 61–70.

Lopes, E. (2006). La motivacion turıstica: el caso de la region de las aguas termalesde Goias, Brasil. Boletın de la A.G.E, 42, 303–314.

Oh, H. (1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: a holisticperspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18, 67–82.

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences ofsatisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 460–469.

Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research,39(1), 78–84.

Qu, H., & Ping, E. W. Y. (1999). A service performance model of Hong Kong cruisetravelers’ motivation factors and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 20(2),237–244.

Rodrıguez del Bosque, I. A., San Martın, H., & Collado, J. (2006). The role of expec-tation in the consumer satisfaction formation process: empirical evidence inthe travel agency sector. Tourism Management, 27(3), 410–419.

Roman, M. V., Recio, M., & Martın, M. T. (2000). Segmentacion del turismo rurala traves de indicadores de satisfaccion: aplicacion al caso de Andalucıa. InD. Blanquer (Dir.) (Ed.), Comercializacion de Productos, Gestion de Organizaciones,Aeropuertos y Proteccion de la Naturaleza (pp. 111–125). Valencia: Tirant loBlanch.

Ross, E. L. D., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1991). Sightseeing tourists’ motivation and satis-faction. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(2), 226–237.

Rubio, A. (2003). Sociologıa del Turismo. Barcelona: Ariel.Ruiz, M. A. (2000). Introduccion a los modelos de ecuaciones estructurales. Madrid:

UNED.Severt, D., Wang, Y., Chen, P., & Breiter, D. (2007). Examining the motivation,

perceived performance, and behavioural intentions of convention attendees:evidence from a regional conference. Tourism Management, 28(2), 399–408.

Truong, T. H., & Foster, D. (2006). Using HOLSAT to evaluate tourist satisfaction atdestinations: the case of Australian holidaymakers in Vietnam. TourismManagement, 27(5), 842–855.

Uysal, M., & Jurowski, C. (1994). Testing the push and pull factors. Annals of TourismResearch, 21(4), 844–846.

Wacker, N. (1996). Changing demands. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(1), 31–34.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.

Yu, L., & Goulden, M. (2006). A comparative analysis of international tourists’satisfaction in Mongolia. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1331–1342.

n in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidence in rural tourism, Tourism