Structural Effects of Tourist Satisfaction, Perceived Value, Familiarity and Image on Tourist Loyalty of Thailand Tourism Destination: A Multi-group Analysis

Main Article Content

Pornpimol Lortae
Montree Piriyakul


This research examines (1) the image, satisfaction, familiarity, perceived value, and loyalty to travel destinations of Thai and foreign tourists. Using structural equation modeling (SEM) as grounded in a research framework, the researcher also compares (2) Thai, Chinese and other Asian, and European and American tourists through successive applications of SEM called multi-group analysis.

     In this research investigation, the researcher employed both qualitative and quantitative research methods. In the quantitative phase of research, the researcher collected germane data from three nationality groups: Thai, Chinese and other Asian, European and American. The total sample was 544 tourists. These tourists had visited Thai seacoast provinces more than once. Phuket, Phang-Nga, Chon Buri, and Surat Thani were randomly selected as provinces to be investigated.

     In the quantitative phase, the research instrument was a five-rating scale questionnaire

In addition, insofar as concerns the quantitative phase, the researcher analyzed the data collected in terms of percentage, mean (M), and standard deviation (SD) and he coefficient of variation (CV). CV was applied in lieu of SD - CV is also the SD but with relative to M so that it can be interpreted through exact thresholds. Finally, multi-group analysis of SEM were employed for three models by nationality groups. In the qualitative phase of research, nine key informants from the tourism industry were interviewed by means of the semi-structured in-depth interview method and analyzed by mean of content analysis.

     It was found that for all three SEM models, perceived value influenced destination loyalty at the highest level. Next in descending order were tourist satisfaction, destination image, and destination familiarity. Although the pattern of these models are similar, the size of path coefficients can differ. Nevertheless, this still means that the analysis of tourists of any nationality revealed there were similar factors influencing their decision to revisit the same tourist destinations. The qualitative research results confirmed the facts disclosed in the quan-titative phase of research.

          The findings of both quantitative and qualitative investigation allowed the framing of a grounded theory synthesized from data and information as : “Perceived value is the factor that changes the relationship between tourism resources and tourism destination loyalty


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Lortae , P. ., & Piriyakul, M. . . (2020). Structural Effects of Tourist Satisfaction, Perceived Value, Familiarity and Image on Tourist Loyalty of Thailand Tourism Destination: A Multi-group Analysis. Dusit Thani College Journal, 13(3), 198–214. Retrieved from
Research Article


1. Baloglu, S., and McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868-897.
2. Baloglu, S. (2001). Image variations of Turkey by familiarity index: Informational and experiential dimensions. Tourism Management, 22(2), 127-133.
3. Bigné, J. E., Mattila, A. S., & Andreu, L. (2008). The Impact of Experiential Consumption Cognitions and Emotions on Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Services Marketing, 22(4), 303-315.
4. Castro, C., Armario, E., & Ruiz, D. (2007). “The Influence of Market Heterogeneity on the Relationship Between a Destination’s Image and Tourists’ Future Behavior.
Tourism Management. 28:175-187.
5. Chen, C.-F., and Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions? Tourism Management 28(4), 1115-1122.
6. Chen, C.-F., and Chen, F.-S. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management 31(1), 29-35.
7. Chi, C. G., & Qu, H.(2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach Tourism Management 29(4), 624-636.
8. Forgas-Coll, S., Palau-Samwell, R., Sánchez-García, J., & Callarisa-Fiol, L. J. (2012).Urban destination loyalty drivers and cross-national moderator effects: The case of Barcelona. Journal Tourism Management, 33(6), 1309-1320
9. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Hawkins, D. I., & Mothersbaugh, D. L. (2010). Consumer Behavior: Building Marketing Strategy (11th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Practice, 18(2), 139-152.
10. Hawkins, D. I., & Mothersbaugh, D. L. (2010). Consumer Behavior: Building Marketing Strategy (11th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
11. Henseler, J., Hubona, G. and Ray, P.A. (2016) "Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines", Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2-20,
12. Kastenholz, E., Carneiro, M. J., Eusébio, C., (2006), Studying visitor loyalty torural tourist destinations .In Kozak, Andreu (Eds.), Progressin Tourism Marketing .Advances in Tourism Research Studies. Elsevier, Oxford, Amsterdam, 239–253.
13. Kotler, P., Bowen, J., & Makens, J. C. (2003). Marketing for hospitality and tourism (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
14. Lee, S., Jeon, S., and Kim, D. (2011). The impact of tour quality and tourist satisfaction on tourist loyalty: The case of Chinese tourists in Korea. Tourism Management, 32(5), 1115-1124.
15. Liu, Y., and Zhou, X. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and customer loyalty:
A conceptual framework. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2009 6th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management, ICSSSM '09.
16. Matzler, K., Bailom, F., Hinterhuber, H. H., Renzl, B., & Pichler, J. (2004). The asymmetric relationship between attribute-level performance and overall customer satisfaction: A reconsideration of the importance-performance Analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(4), 271-277.
17. Mechinda P., Serirat, S., & Guild, N. (2009). An examination of tourists’ attitudinal and behavioral loyalty: Comparison between domestic and international tourists.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 15(2), 129-149.
18. Milman, A., & Pizam, A. (1995). The role of awareness and familiarity with a destination: The central Florida case. Journal of Travel Research, 33(3), 21-27.
19. National Reform Council, (2015). Tourism Development. Bangkok : Bureau of Printing
The Secretariat of the House of Representatives.
20. Ngamsom B. (2001). The impacts of a bundle of travel determinants on repeat visitation: An Exploratory study of tourism in Thailand. Unpublished doctoral thesis Oklahoma State University Oklahoma.
21. Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Tourism Research, 39, 78-84.
22. Plog, Stanley C. (1974). Why Destination Areas Rise and Fall in Popularity. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly. 14(4), 55-58.
23. Rittichainuwat, B.N. and Chakraborty, G. (2009). Perceived travel risks regarding terrorism and disease; the case of Thailand. Tourism Management, 30(3), 410-418.
24. Shoemaker, S. and Lewis, R. (1999). Customer loyalty: The future of hospitality marketing. Hospitality Management, 18, 349.
25. Snepenger, D., & Snepenger, M. (1993). Information search by pleasure travelers. In M. A. Kahn, M. D. Olsen & T. Var (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Hospitality and Tourism (830-835). New York, NY: Van Nostr and Reinhold.
26. Thiumsak, T. & Ruangkanjanases, (2016). Factors influencing international visitors to revisit Bangkok, Thailand. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 4(3), 220-230.
27. Yoon, Y. and Uysal, M. (2005), an examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1), 45-56.