Tourism Management 32 (2011) 1159e1165

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

An examination of food tourist’s behavior: Using the modified

theory of reasoned action
Young Hoon Kim a, *, MinCheol Kim b,1, Ben K. Goh c, 2
a
Department of Nutrition and Hospitality Management, The University of Mississippi, P.O. Box 1848, University, MS 38677, USA
b
College of Economics and Commerce, Cheju National University, The Republic of Korea
c
Department of Nutrition, Hospitality and Retailing, College of Human Sciences, Texas Tech University, PO Box 41240, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A number of studies have been conducted to examine the behavior of tourists. However, there has been
Received 17 March 2010 little research done on food tourism examining food tourist’s behavior. Food tourism is one of the fastest
Accepted 19 October 2010 growing industries and areas of interest in the tourism industry today. The current study provides an
integrated approach to understand the effect of food tourists’ behavior based on perceived value and
Keywords: satisfaction as it relates to their intention to revisit using the modified theory of reasoned action (TRA).
Food tourism
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of perceived value on intention to revisit (H1) and
The modified theory
satisfaction (H2), and satisfaction on intention to revisit (H3). Empirical findings indicated that H1, H2,
of reasoned action (TRA)
Perceived value
and H3 were supported significantly in this study (p < 0.01). H1 was supported (b ¼ 0.67) showing the
Satisfaction perceived value is the antecedent of satisfaction. H2 and 3 suggested that attendees’ intention to revisit is
Future intention to revisit predicted by the perceived value (b ¼ 0.13) and satisfaction (b ¼ 0.67) respectively. The most significant
Customer retention contribution of this study is a theoretical understanding with empirical results using the new factors (i.e.,
perceived value, satisfaction, and intention to revisit) in the context of the modified TRA rather than
using the original factors. The implications will be very useful for food festival organizers as well as
destination marketing organizations.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
In the competitive marketplace of tourism, an efficient and
effective marketing strategy that attracts new visitors while
maintaining (revisiting) current tourists is one of the key factors for
success. Accordingly, a number of studies have been conducted to
examine a tourists’ behavior using significant factors such as
perceived value, satisfaction, and intention to revisit (Kim, Eves, &
Scarles, 2009; Petrick, 1999, 2004; Smith & Costello, 2009; Yoon
& Uysal, 2005). However, there was little research on food
tourism in this area. Food tourism is fast becoming one of the most
popular and interesting areas in the tourism industry today.
Many studies on perceived value and satisfaction revealed that
they have a strong effect on future intention to revisit or repurchase
products or services (Barsky & Labagh, 1992; Choi & Chu, 2001;
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 662 915 1359; fax: þ1 662 915 7039.
E-mail addresses: ykim@olemiss.edu (Y.H. Kim), mck1292@cheju.ac.kr (MinCheol
Kim), ben.goh@ttu.edu (B.K. Goh).
1
Tel.: þ82 64 754 3182.
2
Tel.: þ1 806 742 3068; fax: þ1 806 742 3042.
Petrick, 1999; Tam, 2000; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Although there is
substantial amount of research about the influence of perceived
value and satisfaction on intention to revisit, previous research has
been confined within factors of other subjects or environment
settings. In other words, limited attention has been paid to
understanding how those factors affect food tourists’ psychological
state and behavior in the food tourism setting. A few studies have
contributed to the literature on food tourism: Fields (2002)
affirmed that motivators for food and beverage consumption in
a tourist destination can be conceptualized into four categories:
physical, cultural, interpersonal, and status; prestige motivators
provided by McIntosh, Goeldner, and Ritchie (1995); Tourist
experiences of local food at a destination were examined with the
modified theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Ryu & Jang, 2006);
A grounded theory was employed to build a model of local food
consumption (Kim, Eves, et al., 2009); The relationships among
factors for visitors such as food-related personality traits, satisfac-
tion, and loyalty were studied at food events and festivals (Kim,
Suh, & Eves, 2009); Attendees’ satisfaction were examined with
important-performance grid analysis (Smith & Costello, 2009).
This study provides an integrated approach to understanding
the effect of food tourists’ behaviors using perceived value and

0261-5177/$ e see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.10.006
1160 Y.H. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 1159e1165
satisfaction on their intention to revisit with the modified TRA.
A research model is proposed and tested using theoretical and
empirical evidences on the casual relationships among those
factors. The components of TRA were replaced by appropriate
factors through literature review. Finally, the results of this study
may be able to assist stakeholders of destinations in order to
understand and apply the casual relationships among those factors
theoretically and practically.
1.1. The proposed hypothetical model
Based on previous conceptual and empirical works, the current
study presents the proposed model to delineate the relationship
among model variables. A review of literature identified the vari-
ables and their theoretical linkage, which were used in the
proposed model, and these variables were examined to test
hypotheses and accomplish the objectives of this study. The
structural framework of this study is explained in Fig. 1.
1.2. A theoretical overview of the proposed model
The concept of attitude has been regarded as the major role of
consumer behavior in tourism as well as social science. Indeed,
researchers believe that attitudes are the most important factor in
understanding consumer behavior (Walters, 1978; Wilkie, 1994).
Since analysis of consumer attitudes is necessary to summarize
consumers’ evaluation of a certain product, this analysis can offer
important information to marketers on consumers’ attitudes
regarding their products (Mowen & Minor, 1998). An under-
standing and analysis of consumers’ attitudes can help marketers
or managers in many ways (Engel, Kollat, & Blackwell, 1968). Atti-
tudes can be used for segmenting markets, evaluating marketing
actions, and choosing target segments.
According to Loudon and Della Bitta (1988), it is a vital
component in the success of any marketing program to understand
how attitudes are developed and how they influence consumer
behavior because human behavior is often determined by their
reasoning or feeling toward a subject: e.g., their dispositions or
attitudes toward it (Walters, 1978). Attitudes are developed and
formed through periods of time, and are usually consistent over
time. Attitudes are a multi-dimensional concept as opposed to the
uni-dimensional construct which was accepted in an earlier study
(Loudon & Della Bitta, 1988). Wilkie (1994) argued that human
behavior is actually a combination of mental, emotional, and
physical dimensions. Later, these dimensions were clearly divided
into three components: cognitive, affective, and conative. Since
the “three-component” model of attitudes was introduced
(Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960), it has been taken for granted that
attitudes are structured into three interrelated components:
cognition, affection, and conation.
As there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of research
dealing with leisure activities and its benefits (Barnett, 1988; Driver,
Brown, & Peterson, 1992), many researchers have called for the
development of methods to construct a theoretical foundation in
leisure research (Allen, 1992; Ingham, 1986, 1987; Iso-Ahola, 1988;
Levitt, 1992). According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), consumers’
Perceived Intention to
Value Revisit
Satisfaction
Fig. 1. The proposed model for this study.
intentions e behavior e can be depicted by the theory of reasoned
action (TRA). This theory assumes that human beings are naturally
rational and they follow and gather information through systematic
processes which can be explained in the TRA (Ajzen & Fishbein,
1980).
The TRA posits that behavior results from the formation of
intention to behave and attempts to predict intentions to act
instead of predicting behavior itself. It was suggested that the TRA
incorporates cognitive, affective, and conative components
(Schiffman & Kanuk, 1987). Rosenberg and Hovland (1960) repre-
sented the schematic process of those three components: cognitive,
affective, and behavioral or conative (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The
process of the three components views of attitude is illustrated in
Fig. 2.
In this respect, the purpose of this study is to identify and
examine the relationships among three components; perceived
value, satisfaction, and intention to revisit. The approach in this
study is based on the modified TRA which was examined in
previous research in a different setting (Kim, Goh, & Yuan, 2010;
Kim, Kim, Ruetzler, & Taylor, 2010). Three components (stages of
consumer decision behavior) were replaced and justified through
literature review of previous research and findings.
2. Literature review
2.1. Food tourism
As studies on food tourism show a significant contribution to the
market destination and its economy, interest in food tourism and
its development has increased (Bessiere, 1998; Kivela & Crotts,
2006). Not only is its economic aspect noted, but many other
benefits are also provided to the destination. Du Rand, Heath, and
Alberts (2003) stated, “The local food holds much potential to
enhance sustainability in tourism; contribute to the authenticity of
the destination; strengthen the local economy; and provide for the
environmentally friendly infrastructure” (p. 97).
According to Quan and Wang (2004), food tourism and its
activities are considered a primary activity, attraction, and “peak”
experience that can motivate tourists to travel and visit a destina-
tion. Food is becoming one of the most significant attractive factors
for tourists. Although there have been a number of studies for food
tourism; Web marketing (Kim, Yuan, Goh, & Antun, 2009),
comparison of first-timers and repeaters (Kim, Yuan, et al., 2009),
and development of motivation measurement (Kim, Goh, et al.,
2010), there has been a further need to understand food tourists’
behavior both theoretically and practically.
2.2. Perceived value
In market research, perceived value has been recognized as one
of the most critical factors and measures for gaining a competitive
edge for business success (Parasuraman, 1997) and in turn, it is
measured to examine customers’ repurchasing intentions as one of
the most important indicators (Parasuraman & Grewal, 2000).
Perceived value is what consumers get for what they give; however,
value is not an apparent concept that can be described or identified
easily. According to Zeithaml (1988), perceived value is
a customer’s judgment of a product based on his/her perceptions of
what is “given” and what is “received.” Zeithaml identified four
Cognitive Affective Conative
Fig. 2. Three-component views of attitudes (Wilkie, 1994).
 Y.H. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 1159e1165
diverse meanings of value: (1) value is low price, (2) value is
whatever one wants in a product, (3) value is the quality that the
consumer receives for the price paid, and (4) value is what the
consumer gets for what he/she gives. However, the most common
definition of perceived value has focused on the fourth meaning
(Bojanic, 1996; Zeithaml, 1985, 1988). Patterson and Spreng (1997)
described the concept of perceived value as a “cognitive-based
construct which captures any benefit-sacrifice discrepancy in much
the same way disconfirmation does for variations between expec-
tations and perceived performance” (p. 421). As a cognitive
response, perceived value leads to satisfaction which is an affective
(emotional) response (Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000; Tam, 2000)
which in turn is a predictor of behavior intention. Churchill and
Surprenant (1982) also suggested that the evaluation of received
value may lead directly to the formation of feelings of overall
satisfaction. Woodruff (1997) has emphasized that the measure-
ment of consumer satisfaction should be accompanied by the
measurement of perceived value to better understand consumers’
perceptions, and he also stated, “When triggered to make an
evaluation, a customer constructs some notions, learned from past
and present experiences, about what value they desire” (p. 143) and
consequently, this desired value constructs customers’ perception
of how their products have been performed. A number of findings
(Kim et al., 2009; Kim, Kim, et al., 2010; Oh, 1999; Tam, 2000)
showed that that perceived value, which is a cognitive response,
leads to satisfaction. Therefore, the first and second hypotheses are
 H1: Food tourists’ intention to revisit can be predicted by the
perceived value.
 H2: Food tourists’ satisfaction can be predicted by the
perceived value.
2.3. Satisfaction
According to Baker and Crompton (2000), measuring and
monitoring consumer satisfaction is a very important process
because it provides invaluable information on tourism research.
Previous research showed that satisfaction is an excellent predictor
of repurchase intentions (Choi & Chu, 2001; Tam, 2000). In addi-
tion, several studies on the analysis of customer satisfaction have
provided valuable information such as measuring customers’
intention to repurchase products or services (Barsky & Labagh,
1992; Madrigal, 1995; Petrick, 1999). Through conceptual and
empirical study, Oliver (1977) stated that satisfaction decisions are
the outcome of complex information which is generated from
a comparison of customers’ experiences and their expectations.
Barsky and Labagh (1992) stated that the evaluation of customer
satisfaction is one of the most important processes necessary to
achieve business success since it reveals the judgment of product or
service satisfaction through the customer’s response. According to
Rust and Oliver (1994), satisfaction reflects the degree to which one
believes that an experience evokes positive feelings. The concept of
customer satisfaction and its related studies have been widely
researched in the marketing and management fields. In the tourism
industry, an understanding of customer satisfaction is the crucial
key component to predict their repeat-purchasing of products or
revisiting a destination.
 H3: Food tourists’ intentions to revisit the festival can be pre-
dicted by satisfaction.
According to Baker and Crompton (2000), the enhancement of
satisfaction level will result in increased visitation and/or revenues.
It was also suggested that customer retention, repurchase intention,
1161
and revisiting are affected by their degree of satisfaction (Cronin
et al., 2000). These findings revealed that evaluation and analysis
of customer satisfaction is fundamental to an examination of the
customers’ future intentions. Woodruff (1997) has suggested that the
measurement of consumer satisfaction should be accompanied by
the measurement of perceived value to better understand
consumers’ perceptions. Woodruff (1997) also stated, “When trig-
gered to make an evaluation, a customer constructs some notions,
learned from past and present experiences, about what value they
desire” (p. 143), and consequently, this desired value constructs
customers’ perception of how their products have been performed.
According to Churchill and Surprenant (1982), this evaluation of
received value may lead directly to the formation of feelings of
overall satisfaction.
In the context of repurchasing the product in the TRA, the “affect”
may be seen as the satisfaction with the product in consumption in
which “affect” stands for “feeling about the product” (Erickson,
Johansson, & Chao, 1984). In other words, the “attitude toward the
behavior” and “subjective norm” can be measured by satisfaction
and perceived value which is usually antecedent of satisfaction.
Thus, the current study measured “satisfaction” for an “affective”
phase in the context of TRA.
2.4. Future intention to revisit
Schiffman and Kanuk (1987) suggested that the TRA incorpo-
rates cognitive, affective, and conative components. The model they
introduced in their study indicated that the best predictor of
behavior is the intention to act. Thus, measuring the intention to act
should be the goal of any business that desires to predict consumer
behavior. However, other variables should be examined to under-
stand the underlying factors that contribute to intention to act in
a particular situation. In short, the consumer’s attitude toward the
behavior, which was replaced by perceived value and satisfaction in
the current study, should be assessed simultaneously. Fig. 3 explains
how the modified TRA was employed to examine the effects of
perceived value, and satisfaction on tourist’s intention to revisit in
the current study.
In addition, the proposed model and hypothesized relationships
are illustrated in Fig. 4. The model posits that tourists’ perceived
value was examined for a cognitive phase. For an affective phase,
satisfaction was tested with perceived value as antecedents of
satisfaction. Finally, these cognitive and affective variables were
measured to predict food tourists’ intention to revisit in the future.
An analysis was conducted on the full model with all possible
relationships. The following hypotheses were tested and examined
in the current study.
3. Methodology
3.1. Instrument development
Based on previous studies and literature review, a questionnaire
was designed to measure tourists’ perceived value, satisfaction, and
the intention to revisit at an international food event. The first draft
was reviewed by researchers and pretested. The pretest was
administered to fifteen graduate students majoring in hospitality,
Attitude
(Cognitive) (Affective) (Conative)
Perceived Value Satisfaction Intention
Fig. 3. The summary of proposed model.
1162 Y.H. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 1159e1165

Perceived tested through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and then 2) the
H1 Intention to
Value significance of the coefficient was examined.
Revisit
H2 H3
4. Results
Satisfaction
4.1. Descriptive statistics and covariance matrix
Fig. 4. Hypotheses on the proposed model.

According to the organizers, there were approximately 14,000

attendees and an estimated 4e5% of them were tourists in the
business, or engineering, and who attended at least one food event.
previous year, which gave us an estimated 700 tourists for this
Also, the instrument was sent to several event organizers via email
year’s event. Originally, a total of 373 survey questionnaires were
or mail including the organizer of the Lowcountry Oyster Festival in
collected. However, a total of 68 questionnaires were eliminated.
Charleston, South Carolina, which was later used as the pilot test
Nine surveys were eliminated for incompletion, forty-four were
site. Some of their feedback and suggestions were incorporated into
dropped because their primary reason for this visit was other than
the final questionnaire design. All scales obtained reliabilities above
attending the food festival, and another fifteen were disqualified for
0.78. However, the wording of the questionnaire was slightly
giving the same rating on consecutive questions. With the total of
modified: For instance, “How many days did you plan to stay in this
305 usable surveys and the estimated total tourists of 700, the
area?” was changed simply into “What is the length of your stay?”
response rate was approximately 40%.
First, five items were employed to measure the perceived value.
Table 1 shows the socio-demographic profile of the samples.
Based on the scale which was adapted and developed from Petrick’s
Eighty-six percent of respondents received some degree above high
multi-dimensional scale (2002), five items; quality, emotional
school education with an overall high education level. Approxi-
response, momentary price, behavioral price, and reputation were
mately two-third (75%) of the participants responded that they
addressed scaling from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree
have an annual income of more than $45,000. More than 60% of the
(7).” Additionally, two items were employed to measure the satis-
respondents were married and the gender of the participants was
faction based on an “evaluative” set of satisfaction items which
almost evenly distributed.
were measured from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree (7).”
In addition to that, the covariance scores among variables were
The measurement was modified and adapted from Oliver’s (1997)
calculated. Table 2 shows the raw covariance scores for structural
cumulative satisfaction measurement.
equation modeling (SEM) analysis with mean scores and standard
Finally, to measure the intention to revisit this event, “how likely
deviations of each variable. The covariance score is a value repre-
are you going to revisit this event” and “if I choose to attend a food
senting the correlation level between two variables, and all
event next year, I will choose this event” were asked. This
covariance scores were significant (p < 0.01). The covariance matrix
measurement scale is modified from the study by Cronin and Taylor
shows the relations among the sets of random variables.
(1992). Since the literature is for the services marketing literature,
the questionnaire has been simplified and modified moderately for
the current study. The scale ranges from “very unlikely” (1) to “very 4.2. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
likely” (7).
The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to test
3.2. Sample and data collection reliability and validity. Table 3 shows the results of CFA. Cronbach’s

The sample was collected from a food event in the southwestern Table 1
Socio-demographic profile.
part of United States. The sample for this study has been defined as
people who traveled fifty miles away from their primary residence Variables Frequency Percent (%)
(home) or people who stayed for more than one night (at a place Age (n ¼ 297)
other than their residence) regardless of distance traveled 18e27 39 12.8
(Goeldner & Ritchie, 2006). Data collection was conducted over 28e37 64 21.0
38e47 53 17.4
a two-day period. Graduate students majoring in hospitality 48e57 81 26.6
management and business administration were hired as field 58 years and older 60 19.7
workers who were then trained through three seminars by
Education (n ¼ 303)
researchers. Some high school 6 2.0
To increase participation rate, field workers promoted the study High school graduate 36 11.8
by enticing the visitors with various prizes that included wine and Some college 91 29.8
other door prizes. Visitors were encouraged to fill out a question- College graduate 103 33.8
Post graduate 67 22.0
naire that made them eligible for a prize drawing that was held
every hour from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on the first day of the event Marital status (n ¼ 305)
Single or not married 114 37.4
and from 10:00 a.m. to 7 p.m. on the second day of the event. After
Married 191 62.6
the participants had handed over the questionnaires, the admin-
istrators quickly checked to see whether they had completed the Annual household income (n ¼ 289)
Less than $30,000 30 10.4
questionnaire correctly.
$30,001 to $45,000 45 15.6
$45,001 to $60,000 26 9.0
3.3. Data analysis $60,001 to $75,000 25 8.7
$75,001 to $90,000 64 22.1
Over $90,000 99 34.3
The analysis was conducted with SPSS 17.0 and AMOS 4.0. The
structural equation modeling (SEM) was utilized to test the Gender (n ¼ 305)
hypotheses. Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-step approach Male 152 49.8
Female 153 50.2
were adopted for this study: 1) the fit of model construction were
 Y.H. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 1159e1165 1163

Table 2
Covariance matrix and descriptive statistics.

Items PV 1 PV 2 PV 3 PV 4 PV 5 ST 1 ST 2 IN 1 IN 2 Mean Std. Dev.

PV 1 0.97 0.70 0.66 0.64 0.61 0.45 0.47 0.46 0.50 3.915 0.986
PV 2 0.70 0.91 0.68 0.66 0.61 0.45 0.49 0.45 0.52 4.010 0.955
PV 3 0.66 0.68 1.04 0.71 0.60 0.35 0.39 0.40 0.43 3.820 1.018
PV 4 0.64 0.66 0.71 1.02 0.70 0.42 0.44 0.47 0.47 3.984 1.008
PV 5 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.70 0.88 0.44 0.46 0.51 0.48 4.033 0.938
ST 1 0.45 0.45 0.35 0.42 0.44 0.73 0.66 0.60 0.60 4.298 0.854
ST 2 0.47 0.49 0.39 0.44 0.46 0.66 0.75 0.62 0.65 4.282 0.866
IN 1 0.46 0.45 0.40 0.47 0.51 0.60 0.62 1.10 1.01 4.164 1.051
IN 2 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.47 0.48 0.60 0.65 1.01 1.16 4.170 1.078

Note: All variables were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale. The scores ranged from 1 to 7. A higher score indicated a more favorable response. All scores are significant at
p < 0.01 (two-tailed). PV 1: Perceived Value e This food event made me feel good; PV 2: Perceived Value e The quality of the food event was outstanding; PV 3: Perceived
Value e Food was fairly priced in this event; PV 4: Perceived Value e Food at this event was easy to purchase; PV 5; Perceived Value e Food at this event had a good reputation;
ST 1: My choice to attend this event was wise one; ST 2: I think I made the correct decision to attend this event; IN 1: How likely are you going to revisit this event?; IN 2: If I
choose to attend a food event next year, I will choose this event.

Table 3
The results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Scale items Standardized loadings t-Values SMCs CCR AVE

Perceived values (a ¼ 0.92)
This food event made me feel good 0.83 e 0.68 0.92 0.69
The quality of the food event was outstanding 0.87 18.11 0.75
Food was fairly priced in this event 0.79 15.99 0.63
Food at this event was easy to purchase 0.83 17.00 0.69
Food at this event had a good reputation 0.82 16.75 0.67

Satisfaction (a ¼ 0.94)
I think I made the correct decision to attend this event 0.96 e 0.93 0.96 0.92
My choice to attend this event was wise one 0.92 27.17 0.85

Intention (a ¼ 0.94)
How likely are you going to revisit this event? 0.94 e 0.88 0.94 0.88
If I choose to attend a food event next year, I will choose this event 0.95 26.51 0.90

Model fit statistics: c2 ¼ 80.232, df ¼ 24, p-value ¼ 0.000, RMSR ¼ 0.03, GFI ¼ 0.94, AGFI ¼ 0.90, RMSEA ¼ 0.09, CFI ¼ 0.98.

alpha was measured to analyze the internal consistency of the
construct and its reliability. The reliability test was satisfied as the
reliability varied from 0.92 (perceived value) to 0.94 (satisfaction,
intention) wherein the recommended minimum Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient reliability is of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978). The results of
CFA were indicated with an excellent level (c2 ¼ 80.232, df ¼ 24,
p-value ¼ 0.000, GFI ¼ 0.94, CFI ¼ 0.98, AGFI ¼ 0.90, RMSR ¼ 0.03,
and RMSEA ¼ 0.09). For the evidence of convergent validity (Bollen,
1989), the standardized loadings and the squared multiple corre-
lation (SMC) were examined. The SMC was greater than 0.5 that are
exceed over the recommended convergent validity. The results of
Composite Construct Reliability (CCR; 0.92 for perceived value, 0.96
for satisfaction, and 0.94 for behavior intention) and Average
Variance Extracted (AVE; 0.69 for perceived value, 0.92 for satis-
faction, and 0.88 for intention) of all constructs were satisfied with
the required level.
AGFI ¼ 0.89, RMSR ¼ 0.03, and RMSEA ¼ 0.09 by indicating
a strong predictive validity. The standardized path coefficients
with associated t-values for all relationships in the model are
shown in Table 4. The purpose of this study was to examine the
effects of perceived value on intention to revisit (H1) and satis-
faction (H2), and satisfaction on intention to revisit (H3). H1, 2,
and 3 were supported significantly in this study (p < 0.01). The
results of hypotheses are depicted in Table 3. H1 was supported
(b ¼ 0.67) that the perceived value is the antecedent of satisfac-
tion. H2 and 3 suggested that attendees’ intention to revisit is
predicted by the perceived value (b ¼ 0.13) and satisfaction
(b ¼ 0.67) respectively. Fig. 5 describes the constructs of all
structural paths.

4.3. Structural equation model analysis and hypotheses

testing results IN 1
PV 1
0.94
0.82
The model fit for structural equation was good with PV 2
c ¼ 80.232, df ¼ 24, p-value ¼ 0.000, GFI ¼ 0.94, CFI ¼ 0.98,
2 0.87
Perceived Value 0.13 * Intention to Revisit
PV 3 0.79
0.67 ** 0.67 **
0.83
Table 4 PV 4
0.95
0.82 Satisfaction
The results of hypotheses.
IN 2
PV 5 0.92 0.96
Hypothesized paths Coefficient t-values Remarks
H1 Perceived values / Satisfaction 0.67 12.23** Supported ST 1 ST 2
H2 Perceived values / Intention 0.13 2.14* Supported
H3 Satisfaction / Intention 0.67 10.43** Supported
Fig. 5. Structural equation modeling (SEM). Model fit statistics: c2 ¼ 80.232, df ¼ 24,
*Significant at p < 0.05. p-value ¼ 0.000, RMSR ¼ 0.03, GFI ¼ 0.94, AGFI ¼ 0.89, RMSEA ¼ 0.09, CFI ¼ 0.98.
**Significant at p < 0.01. *Significant at p < 0.05. **Significant at p < 0.01.
1164 Y.H. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 1159e1165
5. Conclusions and discussions
The most significant contribution of this study is a theoretical
understanding with empirical results. The present study provided
a model which was constructed based on the theory of previous
studies to explain the food tourists’ behavioral intention to revisit.
Although a number of studies have examined tourists’ behavior
theory-based, they were mostly modifications of a questionnaire for
each research topic. This study has introduced a model which was
developed for this study and each variable was placed through
literature review. For example, for the cognitive stage, perceived
value was placed instead of using behavioral or normative belief itself.
It is reasonable to investigate the model in terms of overall
model fit, paths’ significance, and strengths of explanation. The
objective of this study was to examine and clarify an integrated
approach to better understand food tourists’ behavior and the
relationships between perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral
intention in a food festival setting. Overall, the results of this study
are fairly consistent with previous studies (Baker & Crompton,
2000; Cronin et al., 2000; Petrick, 2004; Tam, 2000).
The findings of descriptive statistics and SEM suggested many
important implications for the tourism industry, especially for food
event and festival organizers. It indicated the lifestyle of these food
tourists was above that of the average person in the U.S. (e.g.,
education and income). It implied that the Destination Marketing
Organizers (DMOs) should develop strategies to appeal to the
target market with more educational components in their food
events and festivals. In addition, the results from a market research
perspective also revealed a distinct pattern in their trip: 1) traveling
from within the state (53.1%), 2) visiting the event as a same day
trip (43.6%), and 3) traveling by driving their own car (77.7%).
Analysis of SEM showed that food tourists’ intention to revisit
could be explained and predicted by the perceived value and
satisfaction in the modified TRA. This finding provided strong
support of the relationship between emotional (affective)
responses and the cognitive evaluation (Bagozzi, 1992; Cronin et al.,
2000; Kim, Goh, et al., 2010; Kim, Kim, et al., 2010). From a mana-
gerial perspective, this result also stresses that we can increase
visitors’ satisfaction by increasing their perceived value through the
marketing communication mix before they actually visit. In short,
the positive and cognitive perception of the festival can increase
on-site satisfaction. In addition, it is strongly recommended that we
should not disregard the importance of perceived value which
impacts the visitors’ decision to revisit.
In terms of satisfaction that was associated with tourists’
behavioral intention to revisit, a significant and positive relation-
ship was found which is consistent with the result of prior research
on tourists’ behavior at the art festival (Kim, Goh, et al., 2010; Kim,
Kim, et al., 2010). This emphasizes that we can increase tourists’
intention to revisit by on-site satisfaction which can be influenced
by any factors at the festival (e.g., overall satisfaction and quality of
festival).
In conclusion, the hypothesized model was well constructed
based on the previous studies and theory which would explain and
predict food tourists’ behavior. Furthermore, the determinant of
food tourists’ future intention to revisit is caused by multiple
factors. In other words, the negative decision can be made at any
point during the tourists’ visit experience. Therefore, the DMOs
should be cautious in organizing festivals and events with
a detailed and thoughtful plan.
6. Limitations and future study
There were a few limitations that may affect the current study.
First, the data is only from one food festival causing the inability to
generalize research findings. Further work and data from other
food festivals would be useful in better understanding food tourists’
behavior. Second, the research did not address all potential vari-
ables, such as past frequency of attending the festival, which could
increase tourists’ intention to revisit the event in the future.
A further consideration of a similar or modified model is needed to
measure consumers’ behavior in detail. Especially significant would
be the measuring of actual behavior (revisiting the festival in the
next year), instead of measuring intention, which could also
increase the validity of the study results which would be a signifi-
cant contribution in tourists’ behavior research.
Appendix. Supplementary information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in
the online version at doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.10.006.
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Allen, L. R. (1992). Benefits of leisure services to community satisfaction. In
B. L. Driver, P. J. Brown, & G. L. Peterson (Eds.), Benefits of leisure (pp. 331e350).
State College, PA: Venture.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice:
a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103,
411e423.
Bagozzi, R. O. (1992). The self regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178e204.
Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions.
Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785e804.
Barsky, J. D., & Labagh, R. (1992). A strategy for customer satisfaction. Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 33(5), 32e40.
Barnett, L. A. (1988). Research about leisure: Past, present, and future. Champaign, IL:
Sagamore.
Bessiere, J. (1998). Local development and heritage: traditional food and cuisine as
tourist attractions in rural areas. Sociologia Ruralis, 38(1), 21e34.
Bojanic, D. C. (1996). Consumer perceptions of price, value and satisfaction in the
hotel industry: an exploratory study. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 4
(1), 5e22.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Choi, T. Y., & Chu, R. (2001). Determinants of hotel guests’ satisfaction and repeat
patronage in the Hong Kong hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 20(3), 277e297.
Churchill, G. A., & Surprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the determinants of
customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(November), 491e504.
Cronin, J. J., Jr., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality,
value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service
environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193e201.
Cronin, J. J., Jr., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a reexamination and
extension. The Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55e68.
Driver, B. L., Brown, P. J., & Peterson, G. L. (1992). Benefits of leisure. State College, PA:
Venture.
Du Rand, G. E., Heath, E., & Alberts, N. (2003). The role of local and regional food in
destination marketing: a South African situation analysis. Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing, 14(3/4), 97e112.
Engel, J. F., Kollat, D. T., & Blackwell, R. (1968). Consumer behavior. Hinsdale, IL:
Dryden Press.
Erickson, G. M., Johansson, J. K., & Chao, P. (1984). Image variables in multi-attribute
product evaluation: country-of-origin effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 11
(2), 694e699.
Fields, K. (2002). Demand for the gastronomy tourism product: motivational
factors. In A. M. Hjalager, & G. Richards (Eds.), Tourism and gastronomy (pp.
37e50). London: Routledge.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Goeldner, C. R., & Ritchie, B. (2006). Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies (9th
ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Ingham, R. (1986). Psychological contributions to the study of leisure e part one.
Leisure Studies, 5, 255e279.
Ingham, R. (1987). Psychological contributions to the study of leisure e part two.
Leisure Studies, 6, 1e14.
Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1988). The social psychology of leisure: past, present, future. In
L. A. Barnett (Ed.), Research about leisure: Past, present, future (pp. 75e93).
Champaign, IL: Sagamore.
Kim, Y. G., Eves, A., & Scarles, C. (2009). Building a model of local food consumption
on trips and holidays: a grounded theory approach. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 28(3), 423e431.
 Y.H. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 1159e1165
Kim, Y. G., Suh, B. W., & Eves, A. (2009). The relationships between food-related
personality traits, satisfaction, and loyalty among visitors attending food events
and festivals. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 22(2), 216e226.
Kim, Y. H., Yuan, J., Goh, B. K., & Antun, J. M. (2009). A web marketing on food
tourism: a content analysis of web sites in West Texas. Journal of Culinary
Science & Technology, 7(1), 52e64.
Kim, Y. H., Goh, B. K., & Yuan, J. (2010). A development of a multi-dimensional scale
for measuring the motivation factors of food tourists at a food event: what does
motivate people to travel? Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and
Tourism, 11(1), 56e71.
Kim, Y. H., Kim, M., Ruetzler, T., & Taylor, J. (2010). An examination of festival
attendee’s behavior using SEM. International Journal of Event and Festival
Management, 1(1), 86e95.
Kivela, J., & Crotts, J. (2006). Tourism and gastronomy: gastronomy’s influence on how
tourists experience a destination. Journal of Hospitality Research, 30(3), 354e377.
Levitt, L. (1992). Recreation for the mentally ill. In B. L. Driver, P. J. Brown, &
G. L. Peterson (Eds.), Benefits of leisure. State College, PA: Venture.
Loudon, D., & Della Bitta, A. J. (1988). Consumer behavior: Concepts and applications.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Madrigal, R. (1995). Cognitive and affective determinants of fan satisfaction with
sporting event attendance. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(3), 205e227.
McIntosh, R., Goeldner, C., & Ritchie, J. (1995). Tourism principles, practices, philos-
ophies (7th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Mowen, J. C., & Minor, M. (1998). Consumer behavior (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oh, H. (1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: a holistic
perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18(1), 67e82.
Oliver, R. L. (1977). Effect of expectation and disconfirmation on post exposure
product evaluation: an alternative interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
62(August), 480e486.
Parasuraman, A. (1997). Reflections on gaining competitive advantage through
customer value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 154e161.
Parasuraman, A., & Grewal, D. (2000). The impact of technology on the quality-
value-loyalty chain: a research agenda. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 28(1), 168e174.
Patterson, P. G., & Spreng, R. A. (1997). Modeling the relationship between perceived
value, satisfaction and repurchase intentions in a business-to-business, services
context: an empirical examination. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 8(5), 414e434.
1165
Petrick, J. F. (1999). An examination of the relationship between golf travelers’ satis-
faction, perceived value and loyalty and their intention to revisit. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Clemson University, South Carolina.
Petrick, J. F. (2002). Development of a multi-dimensional scale for measuring the
perceived value of a service. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(2), 119e134.
Petrick, J. F. (2004). The roles of quality, value, and satisfaction in predicting cruise
passengers’ behavioral intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4), 397e407.
Quan, S., & Wang, N. (2004). Towards a structural model of the tourist experience:
an illustration food experience in tourism. Tourism Management, 25(3),
297e305.
Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral
components of attitudes. In C. I. Hovland, & M. J. Rosenberg (Eds.), Attitude
organization and change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components
(pp. 1e14). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Rust, R. T., & Oliver, R. L. (1994). Service quality: insights and managerial implication
from the frontier. In R. T. Rust, & R. L. Oliver (Eds.), Service quality: New directions
in theory and practice (pp. 1e19). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ryu, K., & Jang, S. (2006). Intention to experience local cuisine in a travel destina-
tion: the modified theory of reasoned action. Journal of Hospitality Tourism, 30
(4), 507e516.
Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (1987). Consumer behavior (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Smith, S., & Costello, C. (2009). Culinary tourism: satisfaction with a culinary event
utilizing importance-performance grid analysis. Journal of Vacation Marketing,
15(2), 99e110.
Tam, J. L. M. (2000). The effects of service quality, perceived value and customer
satisfaction on behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure
Marketing, 6(4), 31e43.
Walters, C. G. (1978). Consumer behavior: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Homewood,
IL: Richard D. Irwin.
Wilkie, W. L. (1994). Consumer behavior (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 25(2), 139e153.
Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and
satisfaction on destination loyalty: a structural model. Tourism Management, 26
(1), 45e56.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1985). The new demographic and market fragmentation. Journal of
Marketing, 49(3), 64e75.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-
end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2e22.