International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing (2021) 18:3–26

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-020-00258-z
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Integrating transactional and relationship marketing:

a new approach to understanding destination loyalty

José Manuel Hernández-Mogollón 1 & Helena Alves 2 &

Ana María Campón-Cerro 1 & Elide Di-Clemente 3

Received: 9 April 2020 / Accepted: 6 August 2020 / Published online: 8 September 2020
# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Studies of factors generating loyalty to tourism destinations have included extensive
research into transactional marketing variables, but researchers have neglected relation-
ship variables and, thus, have developed only a partial understanding of loyalty. This
study proposes a study model of factors generating destination loyalty – applied
specifically to rural tourism –and thereby seeks to enrich the transactional marketing
perspective (image, quality and value) with a focus on relationships (trust, attachment
and satisfaction). The integration of the transactional and relational submodels are
tested as antecedents of overall satisfaction and destination loyalty. The results are
based on an online survey of 464 rural tourists. The data were analysed using the partial
least squares technique, revealing that transactional models need to be enriched with
relationship variables such as trust and attachment. Efforts to improve destinations’
image and their perceived quality are at best a fragmented strategy if relationship
variables are not included, as these are clearly important to destination success.

Keywords Transactional marketing . Relationship marketing . Destination loyalty . Rural

tourism . Partial least squares (PLS) technique

1 Introduction

A wide range of studies have focused on the factors causing tourists to return to the same
destinations (Croes et al. 2010). Nonetheless, this research has essentially been conducted
from a transactional marketing perspective (Morais and Lin 2010). Image, quality, value
and satisfaction have been the most frequently studied antecedents of loyalty to destina-
tions, while relationship variables such as trust and commitment have rarely been
discussed (Campón et al. 2012), resulting in only a partial understanding of loyalty.

* Ana María Campón-Cerro

amcampon@unex.es

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

4 J. M. Hernández-Mogollón et al.

Oh et al.’s (2004) literature review identifies the combination of loyalty, relationship

marketing and customer relationship management strategies as the third most important
focus of loyalty studies. However, topics such as ways to apply concepts to
relationships and loyalty to destinations and tourism organizations remain unexplored
paths. According to Das (2009) the literature already includes many diverse applica-
tions of relationship marketing in multiple sectors, including the tourism industry.
The present study centred on a proposed study model of the factors generating
loyalty to rural tourism destinations, seeking to enrich the transactional marketing
perspective with the relationship approach. The research took place in Spain, a country
where rural tourism has undergone significant development.

2 Integrating transactional and relationship marketing to understand

destination loyalty

2.1 Importance of linking transactional and relationship marketing

Empirical evidence has been found that destinations can benefit from building and
developing relationships (Shirazi and Som 2011), although more research needs to be
published on relationship management in destination marketing (Pike et al. 2011).
Although loyalty has been widely studied in the tourism sector, this concept continues
to be elusive in theory and practice (McKercher et al. 2012).
Chen and Gursoy (2001) define destination loyalty operationally as tourists’ per-
ception that a destination is a place they would recommend. This approach, however,
underscores the inadequacy of studies that only consider repeat visits as indicators of
loyalty. In this context, McKercher et al. (2012) refer to a clear lack of both conceptual
and methodological innovation. Theoretical, methodological and measurement frame-
works, thus, are limited by their ability to examine loyalty holistically, which is why
most researchers propose studying loyalty as it is integrated in tourism systems.
In Morais and Lin’s (2010) opinion, models studying the determinants of intention
to return to destinations have been developed essentially based on a transactional
marketing perspective. The cited authors confirm that two paradigms exist in destina-
tion marketing research, which form a continuum. At one extreme are tourists who
participate in discrete relationships with destinations, exchanging goods and services
for money. At the other end are tourists who participate in relationships with destina-
tions, making tangible and intangible investments and expecting a fair return over time.
Between the two extremes are tourists who, in their selection of destinations, combine
both perspectives: transactional and relationship.
The above-cited authors show that constructs focusing on cognitive evaluations of
image, value and satisfaction could influence tourists’ decisions to return repeatedly to
destinations. However, tourists’ long-term relationships with destinations could be
affected by an accumulation of significant experiences in those places. Destination
image, therefore, can be used as a predictor of intent to return repeatedly to a
destination, from a transactional point of view, while attachment falls within relation-
ship strategies.
In their work, Huang and Chiu (2006) confirm the importance of including the
relationship perspective in models. Chen and Phou (2013), in turn, hold that
Integrating transactional and relationship marketing: a new... 5

relationships with tourism destinations, which the cited authors assimilate into trust and
attachment, is a more adequate approach than using satisfaction alone to explain
loyalty.
These observations show the importance of including a relationship marketing
perspective in study models of determinants of loyalty to tourism destinations, since
these models have essentially been developed from a transactional perspective. Based
on the findings of authors such as McKercher et al. (2012), who point out a lack of
innovation in studies of destination loyalty, the present study sought to develop an
innovative proposal integrating both transactional and relationship marketing
perspectives. Along these lines, Walsh et al. (2004) report that, in recent years, a
growing number of researchers recognise that transactional and relationship marketing
can be used together, despite the literature’s initial suggestion that these approaches are
mutually exclusive.

2.2 An integrated model and research hypotheses

The proposed model first focused on those constructs that are frequently used in models
of tourism destination loyalty and that are considered fundamental to any complete and
integrated model: image, quality, value and satisfaction (Campón et al. 2012). By
including these constructs, the present model minimised the possible effects of speci-
fication errors, namely, the omission of one or more key predictive variables, which
could result in bias when evaluating other variables’ importance (Hair et al. 2000).
In addition, the model was based on the relationship marketing perspective, seeking
to perfect the transactional marketing approach – the perspective from which other
models have frequently been proposed (Morais and Lin 2010). Marketing strategies
seeking to attract more clients were defined as transactional while those intending to
generate more business with existing clients were considered relationship-based
(Dwyer et al. 1987; Grönroos 1994). Purely relationship constructs included in the
model were trust and place attachment.
Even though the literature considers commitment a crucial element in relationship
quality, Lee et al. (2007) offer a theoretical rationale for including attachment rather
than commitment, arguing that the former concept can replace commitment where
places or destinations are concerned. Authors such as Choo and Petrick (2012) and Yen
et al. (2009) prefer to include satisfaction with relationships with tourism services
providers, and Alegre and Cladera (2009) underscore the relevance of hospitality or the
providers’ treatment of guests, attributes that have to do with satisfaction with rela-
tionships established with residents. Therefore, to complete the relationship perspec-
tive, the present study assumed that satisfaction has to include satisfaction with
destination attributes – another standard variable of other models – as well as satisfac-
tion with relationships established with residents and tourism services providers. Thus,
this study conceived of satisfaction as a tri-dimensional construct termed “composite
satisfaction”.
Finally, the proposed model was applied to a tourism context in which little research
has been undertaken – rural tourism. In addition, rural tourism destinations are mainly
composed by small-sized companies, and as López-Jáuregui et al. (2019) assert, little
literature exists on loyalty in the small service businesses. Ultimately, the proposed
model sought to be complete and integrated, as well as applicable in as yet largely
6 J. M. Hernández-Mogollón et al.

unexplored contexts such as rural tourism. As an essentially new approach, this model
fills a significant gap in the literature by blending the relationship perspective with the
transactional approach. Figure 1 shows the theoretical model, and the paragraph below
discusses further the variables, as well as the research hypotheses.

Image Image is a valuable concept to understand tourists’ destination choice (Baloglu and
McCleary 1999), as well as future behavioural intentions (Chi and Qu 2008). Baloglu and
McCleary (1999) assert that researchers agree that image includes both perceptual/
cognitive and affective evaluations. According to Hernández et al. (2006), the first
evaluation has to do with functional attributes, while the second relates to emotions
evoked by destinations. In terms of conceptualisation and measurement, destination image
is an important variable in the creation of loyalty. The first research hypothesis was
proposed, linking image and overall satisfaction, as suggested by previous studies (e.g.
Bigné et al. 2005; Chi and Qu 2008; Hernández et al. 2006; Prayag and Ryan 2012):

H1: Image affects overall satisfaction with rural destinations

Quality Rivera and Croes (2010) emphasise that quality is a fundamental concept in
tourism. Probably the most important work was done by Parasuraman et al. (1988),
who contributed to the understanding of service quality by developing the
SERVQUAL scale. In order to confirm the contribution of this important construct to
the present study’s transactional submodel, the second hypothesis was developed based

THEORETICAL MODEL

RELATIONAL
TRANSACTIONAL APPROACH
APPROACH
Overall Trust
Image satisfaction Attachment
Quality Composite
Value satisfaction

TRANSACTIONAL RELATIONAL
SUBMODEL SUBMODEL

LOYALTY
Fig. 1 Theoretical model
Integrating transactional and relationship marketing: a new... 7

on previous studies (e.g. Bigné et al. 2005; Lee et al. 2007; Rivera and Croes 2010;
Pereira et al. 2016; Chi et al. 2020):

H2: Quality affects overall satisfaction with rural destinations

Value Gallarza and Gil (2006) further assert that the concept of customer value has evolved,
developing in two dimensions: psychological value and economic value connected to
transaction value. Sweeney and Soutar (2001) concede that, despite the importance of value,
empirical research has rarely focused on understanding this concept more deeply. According
to Chi et al. (2020), although traveling to urban destinations is more expensive than visiting
rural places, it does not necessarily mean to have less perceived value. To understand better
the relevance of value in the present study’s transactional submodel, the third hypothesis was
formulated based on previous studies (e.g. Gallarza and Gil 2006; Rivera and Croes 2010;
Williams and Soutar 2009; Chi et al. 2020):

H3: Value affects overall satisfaction with rural destinations

Trust Relationship marketing is built on trust (Berry 2000), which exists when “one
party has confidence in an exchange partner’s reliability and integrity” (Morgan and
Hunt 1994, p. 23). When applied to tourism destinations, this confidence is felt during
experiences while visiting these places (Tsai 2012). Ganesan (1994) lists the compo-
nents of trust as reliability – the belief that the other party has the required experience to
perform tasks effectively and consistently – and benevolence – the belief that the other
party has good intentions towards, and offers good terms to, oneself. According to
Pereira et al. (2016), in rural tourism the generation of positive feelings reduces the
transactional risks perceived by tourists if bonds with the rural accommodation are
strengthened. Despite its importance, trust has seldom been studied as a determinant of
loyalty. The relationship between trust and attachment has been examined by Chen and
Phou (2013), Tsai (2012), and Pereira et al. (2016).

H4: Trust affects attachment to rural destinations

The direct impact of trust on loyalty had to be tested, as the latter is the primary goal of
marketing strategies. Pujiastuti et al. (2017) assert that trust can be used to encourage future
behavior. According to Su and Fan’s (2011) study, the relationship between trust and
loyalty cannot be corroborated. However, while the cited study’s results reveal that trust
neither leads to revisits nor inhibits tourists’ search for variety, trust has important
repercussions for intent to recommend. As a result, the cited study was able to demonstrate,
in part, the important influence of this variable on loyalty. Based on these findings in the
literature reviewed, the fifth hypothesis was developed (e.g. Chen and Phou 2013; Huang
and Chiu 2006; Mechinda et al. 2010; Su et al. 2017; Yen et al. 2009; Pereira et al. 2016;
Pujiastuti et al. 2017).

H5: Trust affects loyalty to rural destinations

Attachment Attachment has been conceptualised as a relationship construct based on

the cognitive and emotional connections that visitors develop with destinations (Morais
8 J. M. Hernández-Mogollón et al.

and Lin 2010). It is understood as “the sense of physically being and feeling in
particular places is considered as a sign that an individual creates emotional tie to a
place” (Kim et al. 2018: 3). Attachment has, however, only recently attracted aca-
demics’ attention as a predictor of loyalty (Prayag and Ryan 2012; Yüksel et al. 2010).
Notably, Prayag and Ryan (2012) and Yüksel et al. (2010) found proof of overall
satisfaction’s mediating effect between attachment and loyalty and/or behavioural
intentions (i.e. intent to revisit and recommend).

H6: Attachment affects overall satisfaction with rural destinations

For Tsai (2012), attachment to tourism destinations is a competitive advantage in

tourism marketing, playing a significant role in creating loyalty. Hypothesis 7 was
proposed to study this relationship based on the literature reviewed (e.g. Chen and Phou
2013; Mechinda et al. 2009; Morais and Lin 2010; Prayag and Ryan 2012; Tsai 2012;
Yülsel et al. 2010; Pereira et al. 2016):

H7: Attachment affects loyalty to rural destinations

Satisfaction Definitions of satisfaction can differ in their specificity (Yi 1990), either
dealing with satisfaction as a whole (Oliver 1980) or through its attributes (Oliver
1993). According to Oliver (1993), satisfaction with destination attributes can be seen
as consumers’ subjective judgements based on their observation of these attributes’
performance, while overall satisfaction can result from consumers’ direct evaluations of
attributes. Satisfaction with attributes thus has a positive and direct impact on overall
satisfaction and captures the majority of this variable’s variation. According to Kim and
Brown (2012), researchers agree on the conceptual difference between satisfaction with
each attribute’s performance and overall satisfaction, while indicating a causal rela-
tionship exists between these concepts. However, the cited authors also assert that
further research is needed to understand better other experiential aspects of tourist
satisfaction.
According to Choo and Petrick (2012), few studies have examined relationships
perceived and experienced by customers with service providers. In addition, Bigné
et al. (2005) assert that the host community is another important element to be
considered in destination competitiveness. Based on these authors’ suggestions, the
present study sought to deal innovatively with the variable of satisfaction. This new
approach included satisfaction with destinations’ attributes and satisfaction with rela-
tionships with service providers and residents as three dimensions of the variable
‘composite satisfaction’ – thereby joining transactional and relationship aspects.
Because of the current research’s innovative perspective on composite satisfaction,
its relationships with other variables had to be examined in terms of its dimensions.
Yen et al. (2009) found proof of a relationship between satisfaction and both trust and
relationships with providers.

H8: Composite satisfaction affects trust in rural destinations

Lee et al. (2012) were able to test the effect that satisfaction with events has on
attachment. Su et al. (2011), in turn, reported that satisfaction with destination attributes
Integrating transactional and relationship marketing: a new... 9

influences attachment, but Chen and Phou (2013) did not succeed in finding a
relationship between these two variables. Given these findings, the ninth hypothesis
was formulated:

H9: Composite satisfaction affects attachment to rural destinations

The relationship between satisfaction with destination attributes and overall satis-
faction has been extensively confirmed in the literature (Alegre and Cladera 2009;
Chi and Qu 2008). However, the present study had to test the direct impact of
satisfaction in its new tri-dimensional version on overall satisfaction. Along these
lines, Choo and Petrick (2012) tested and found proof of the relationship between
overall satisfaction and satisfaction with service providers. Alegre and Cladera
(2009) also confirmed the significant relationship between overall satisfaction and
satisfaction with hospitality.

H10: Composite satisfaction affects overall satisfaction with rural destination

Regarding the link between composite satisfaction and both loyalty and/or behavioural
intentions, evidence only exists for the impact of one of the dimensions of composite
satisfaction: satisfaction with destination attributes is known to affect loyalty (Lee
2009; Su et al. 2011). Su et al. (2011) found evidence for a direct relationship between
satisfaction with destination attributes and behavioural intentions (i.e. intent to revisit
and recommend). However, in the present study, the impact of satisfaction in its tri-
dimensional version on loyalty needed to be tested.

H11: Composite satisfaction affects loyalty to rural destinations

Finally, the important question remained of whether overall satisfaction acts as a mediator
between the proposed model’s transactional and relationship submodels regarding loyalty to
rural tourism destinations. While the relationship between overall satisfaction and loyalty
and/or behavioural intentions has been widely verified in theory (e.g. Bigné et al. 2005; Chi
and Qu 2008; Gallarza and Gil 2006; Hernández et al. 2006; Kim and Brown 2012; Lee
et al. 2007; Mechinda et al. 2009, 2010; Prayag and Ryan 2012; Rivera and Croes 2010;
Wang and Hsu 2010; Williams and Soutar 2009; Yüksel et al. 2010; Chi et al. 2020; Pereira
et al. 2016), this relationship’s role needed to be clarified in the proposed model.

H12: Overall satisfaction affects loyalty to rural destinations

Figure 2 presents the structural model and the hypotheses.

3 Methodology

This research relied on an exploratory study using quantitative methodology. This

study’s setting was Spain, where rural tourism has grown exponentially over the last
decade. The study population was all those people who engage in rural tourism at least
one time every 2 or 3 years. To collect the data, an on-line survey was conducted.
10 J. M. Hernández-Mogollón et al.

Composite H8
satisfaction Trust

Image H11
H4
H1 H10
H9
H5

H2 Overall H12
Quality satisfaction
Loyalty

H3
H6 H7

Value
Attachment

Fig. 2 Structural model and hypotheses

The selection of the sample was done through the first question of the questionnaire
(“frequency with which you engage in rural tourism”). All the members of the sample
were asked to cooperate answering voluntarily the on-line questionnaire. They were
informed that the treatment of the data would be anonymous and only for statistical
purposes.
To measure the variables in the model, the questionnaire relied on validated scales.
For the construct of quality and the dimensions of cognitive image and satisfaction with
destination attributes, specifically, scales were developed (see Table 1). The indicators
were measured on a Likert-style seven-point scale.
The questionnaire pretest was done with academics and professionals. Next, a pilot
study of the questionnaire in a digital format was run with a subsample.
The final questionnaire was distributed via emails, social networks, a blog and a
webpage. Using non-probability convenience sampling, a total of 464 completed
questionnaires were collected, with no missing information, between 22 April and 18
June, 2013.
The sample is composed by 41.2% are men and 58.8% women. The largest group
were those “between 26 and 35 years old” (53.9%). 49.8% of the respondents engage in
rural tourism “once or twice a year”.
The sample size was judged adequate, as Hair et al. (2000) propose a minimum
value for the item-response ratio of between 1:5 and 1:10. The partial least square
(PLS) technique was used to evaluate the structural model, although it is also appro-
priate for relatively small samples (Hair et al. 2011). The data analyses were mostly
done using the PLS statistical tool in order to evaluate the SEM results. Given that the
present study’s model had a complex structure and that several new concepts were
introduced among the second-order constructs, the PLS method was considered appro-
priate based on Hair et al.’s (2011) guidelines. In addition, PLS does not impose
specific requirements on the data distribution (Chin 2010), which is an underlying
assumption of the present analyses. The SmartPLS 2.0 M3 software was used, while
the descriptive analysis of the data, as well as the analysis of collinearity, was done with
the IBM SPSS Statistics Version 21 programme.
Integrating transactional and relationship marketing: a new... 11

Table 1 Scales used

Construct/dimension Authors

Cognitive image New scale, based on Echtner and Ritchie (1991)

Affective image
Quality
Value
Destination attributes satisfaction
Satisfaction with relationships with
tourism services providers
Satisfaction with relationships with
residents
Overall satisfaction
Trust in the destination
Trust in tourism services providers
Destination identity
Destination dependence
Loyalty
Based on the semantic differential used by Morais and Lin (2010),
Wang and Hsu (2010)
New scale, based on Parasuraman et al. (1988)
Mechinda et al. (2009), (2010)
New scale, based on Campón et al. (2010), Chi and Qu (2008)
De Wulf et al. (2001)
Alegre and Cladera (2009), Campo and Garau (2010) and a proposal
of two indicators.
Williams and Soutar (2009), Wang and Hsu (2010), Yüksel et al.
(2010). Proposal of one indicator based on Oliver (1997) and Tse
and Wilton (1988)
Chen and Phou (2013) and Tsai (2012). Proposal of three indicators
based on Ganesan (1994)
Verhoef et al. (2002)
William and Vaske (2003)
Mechinda et al. (2009)

4 Results

4.1 Analyses of proposed model

Since the proposed model is multidimensional, the two-stage approach was selected to
assess the theoretical model proposed, according to the indications of Ciavolino and
Nitti (2013).

First step: Measurement model assessment The present study followed Wright et al.’s
(2012) guidelines for how to apply a two-step approach. The model was first analysed
keeping in mind that the first-order factors will function as the second-order constructs
that the factors represent. All of the second-order constructs found in the proposed
model were considered to be reflective, based on MacKenzie et al.’s (2005) work.
Consequently, the measurement model was evaluated for each item’s reliability,
internal consistency, convergent validity and discriminant validity (Hair et al. 2011).
Regarding individual reliability, the majority of the indicators are above 0.707
(Barclay et al. 1995; Hair et al. 2011), with only the CIM1, DD1, DD6, OVS6,
LOY1 and LOY2 indicators having values slightly below this level. However, various
researchers have suggested that this guideline is flexible, so scores of 0.50 or 0.60 are
acceptable inthose studies in which scales are used in new contexts (Barclay et al.
1995). Therefore, none of these items were eliminated (see Table 2).
Construct reliability was measured through composite reliability. The values obtain-
ed in the present study fall within acceptable parameters, according to Nunnally and
12 J. M. Hernández-Mogollón et al.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and measurement model assessment: reflective indicators (I)

Constructs, dimensions and indicators Mean SD Loadings T-testa Composite AVE

reliability

Cognitive image [CIM] – – – – 0.879 0.5807

[CIM1] The destination’s conditions are good 5.52 1.208 0.6796*** 18.1295 – –
for engaging in rural tourism (e.g. tourism
resources, infrastructures, accommodations
and restaurants)
[CIM2] It offers good rural tourism experiences 5.47 1.147 0.8251*** 49.9744 – –
[CIM3] It reflects an authenticity rural 5.53 1.201 0.7714*** 29.5307 – –
environment
[CIM4] It offers possibilities to find out and 5.15 1.295 0.7938*** 37.3007 – –
learn things about rural environments
[CIM5] It offers unique experiences in a rural 4.98 1.424 0.7739*** 35.1376 – –
environment
Affective image [AIM] – – – – 0.8464 0.5933
[AIM1] It is an arousing place 4.93 1.315 0.6725*** 16.4459 – –
[AIM2] It is a relaxing place 5.97 1.022 0.7942*** 34.626 – –
[AIM3] It is an exciting place 5.06 1.415 0.7526*** 26.462 – –
[AIM4] It is a pleasant place 6.01 0.938 0.8207*** 43.5853 – –
Quality [QUA] – – – – 0.9068 0.7099
[QUA1] It has what I was looking for 5.72 1.100 0.8469*** 46.2286 – –
[QUA2] The visit was worth the effort 6.02 1.015 0.8811*** 66.9129 – –
[QUA3] The destination made me feel good 5.95 1.028 0.8975*** 81.8718 – –
[QUA4] It offers quality experiences 5.40 1.215 0.7353*** 21.5744 – –
Value [VAL] – – – – 0.8736 0.6338
[VAL1] It gives me great value 5.31 1.214 0.7593*** 28.9872 – –
[VAL2] It has good prices 5.22 1.246 0.823*** 40.1709 – –
[VAL3] It offers tourism services above my 4.67 1.279 0.7665*** 24.5923 – –
expectations
[VAL4] It offers good value for my money 5.34 1.150 0.8329*** 45.7595 – –
Trust in the destination [TDE] – – – – 0.9278 0.7199
[TDE1] A sense of trust 5.47 1.153 0.8524*** 53.8831 – –
[TDE2] Confidence and security 5.69 1.068 0.8582*** 53.5698 – –
[TDE3] A sense of security that I will find 5.32 1.127 0.8587*** 44.8544 – –
everything I need in my stay
[TDE4] A sense of security that I will find all 5.12 1.211 0.8096*** 38.0631 – –
the information needed for my trip
[TDE5] A sense of security that I will enjoy a 5.65 1.077 0.8624*** 49.3945 – –
pleasant experience
Trust in tourism services providers [TPR] – – – – 0.9601 0.8574
[TPR1] They keep their promises 5.20 1.220 0.9166*** 100.809 – –
[TPR2] They put the customer’s interests first 5.19 1.230 0.9347*** 89.8614 – –
[TPR3] They keep the promises that they make 5.27 1.237 0.9315*** 111.9621 – –
to me
[TPR4] They provide a good service 5.34 1.169 0.9209*** 83.6021 – –
Integrating transactional and relationship marketing: a new... 13

Table 2 (continued)

Constructs, dimensions and indicators Mean SD Loadings T-testa Composite AVE

reliability

Destination identity [DID] – – – – 0.9473 0.7498

[DID1] I feel it is a part of me 4.54 1.514 0.862*** 49.0515 – –
[DID2] It is very special to me 4.71 1.473 0.8795*** 52.861 – –
[DID3] I strongly identify with it 4.58 1.498 0.8879*** 57.3011 – –
[DID4] I am very attached to it 4.42 1.590 0.8986*** 74.1064 – –
[DID5] Visiting it says a lot about who I am 4.56 1.530 0.8086*** 33.7543 – –
[DID6] It means a lot to me 4.56 1.586 0.856*** 42.3943 – –
Destination dependence [DDE] – – – – 0.8632 0.5133
[DDE1] It is the best place for engaging in rural 5.56 1.223 0.6661*** 26.6944 – –
tourism
[DDE2] No other rural tourism destinations can 4.55 1.478 0.7398*** 26.4839 – –
compare to it
[DDE3] I prefer to visit that destination more 4.56 1.695 0.7561*** 24.9709 – –
than any other
[DDE4] For me it is more important to do rural 4.44 1.781 0.7508*** 23.5155 – –
tourism there, than in any other place
[DDE5] It is an irreplaceable place 4.59 1.836 0.7091*** 19.6322 – –
[DDE6] I don’t have the same enjoyment in a 4.52 1.867 0.6711*** 17.7845 – –
similar place
Destination attributes satisfaction [DAS] – – – – 0.9336 0.7787
[DAS1] I found all the services needed during 5.08 1.238 0.8691*** 49.5545 – –
my stay
[DAS2] I found everything I needed to have a 5.22 1.154 0.9141*** 63.1857 – –
satisfying experience
[DAS3] I can satisfy my motivations as a rural 5.29 1.172 0.8861*** 66.3529 – –
tourist
[DAS4] I receive the services that I expected to 5.22 1.143 0.8596*** 45.4444 – –
receive
Relationship with tourism providers – – – – 0.9102 0.7718
satisfaction [RPS]
[RPS1] I have a high-quality relationship with 4.95 1.313 0.8818*** 51.8558 – –
the tourism enterprises
[RPS2] The tourism enterprises treat regular 4.88 1.323 0.8426*** 41.2275 – –
customers specially
[RPS3] I am satisfied with the relationship I 4.97 1.278 0.9098*** 77.7277 – –
have with tourism enterprises
Relationship with residents satisfaction – – – – 0.9356 0.7842
[RRS]
[RRS1] I receive kind treatment as a customer 5.55 1.130 0.8885*** 63.3816 – –
from residents
[RRS2] I am satisfied with the local people’s 5.61 1.106 0.8984*** 66.0963 – –
hospitality
[RRS3] I am pleased with the residents’ 5.38 1.197 0.8832*** 59.1561 – –
willingness to solve problems, incidents or
setbacks that I could have
14 J. M. Hernández-Mogollón et al.

Table 2 (continued)

Constructs, dimensions and indicators Mean SD Loadings T-testa Composite AVE

reliability

[RRS4] I am satisfied with the residents’ 5.49 1.172 0.872*** 49.758 – –

willingness to offer information
Overall satisfaction [OVS] – – – – 0.9403 0.7266
[OVS1] I had a good experience 5.77 1.051 0.8716*** 60.623 – –
[OVS2] I made a wise choice 5.73 1.105 0.9107*** 88.4094 – –
[OVS3] I found exactly the rural tourism 5.44 1.191 0.8795*** 51.2644 – –
destination that I was looking for
[OVS4] I feel satisfied with my decision to visit 5.74 1.093 0.8999*** 67.2408 – –
it
[OVS5] My expectations were fulfilled at all 5.50 1.146 0.8824*** 52.6237 – –
times
[OVS6] I feel it is a close-to-ideal destination 4.88 1.348 0.639*** 15.6306 – –
Loyalty [LOY] – – – – 0.8584 0.5561
[LOY1] I consider myself a loyal visitor 4.70 1.625 0.5629*** 10.9007 – –
[LOY2] I will visit it on my next rural tourism 4.58 1.736 0.5823*** 12.7402 – –
trip
[LOY3] I will visit the destination again in the 5.43 1.390 0.8084*** 40.6286 – –
futur
[LOY4] I will recommend it to people who ask 5.94 1.159 0.8633*** 58.4185 – –
my advice
[LOY5] I will tell other people positive things 5.99 1.112 0.8519*** 50.7924 – –
about it

a Note: Critical t-values: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; ns not significant (based on t(4999), two-tailed

test); t(0.05;4999) = 1.65; t(0.01;4999) = 1.96; t(0.001;4999) = 2.58

Bernstein (1994). Regarding convergent validity, the average variance extracted (AVE)
is above 0.50, so the first-order constructs all fall within adequate parametres, according
to Hair et al. (2011) (see Table 2). The analysis of discriminant validity was done by
confirming that the correlations between the constructs are lower than the square root of
the AVE (Barclay et al. 1995) (see Table 3).
After the proposed measurement model was assessed in the first step of multidi-
mensional model evaluation, the resulting scores were ready to be used in the second
step in order to model the second-order constructs, creating a new set of data to be used
in the following analyses. The analyses had to take into account that the model had now
been converted into a hybrid combining reflective constructs with the variables of
quality, value, overall satisfaction and loyalty. Those factors treated as second-order
constructs now acted as formative constructs (i.e. image, trust, attachment and com-
posite satisfaction) based on the indicators calculated from the scores of the first-order
dimensions. This effect was understood to exist based on the work done by authors
such as MacKenzie et al. (2005), as well as the literature review showing that
dimensionality is widely accepted for some of the variables included in the present
study.
Table 3 Discriminant validity assessment (I)

CIM AIM QUA VAL TDE TPR DID DDE DAS RPS RRS OVS LOY

CIM 0.7703
AIM 0.7085 0.7620
QUA 0.6936 0.7396 0.8426
VAL 0.6399 0.6438 0.6705 0.7961
TDE 0.6985 0.6771 0.7364 0.6962 0.8485
TPR 0.5279 0.5291 0.5437 0.5458 0.6689 0.9260
Integrating transactional and relationship marketing: a new...

DID 0.4818 0.4614 0.4111 0.4873 0.42 0.3639 0.8659

DDE 0.5303 0.5425 0.5165 0.5366 0.5454 0.4393 0.6276 0.7164
DAS 0.6093 0.5768 0.6674 0.5842 0.734 0.6833 0.4691 0.5377 0.8824
RPS 0.4832 0.4406 0.4863 0.5188 0.5283 0.5628 0.438 0.4707 0.6342 0.8785
RRS 0.5443 0.5023 0.5613 0.5089 0.6109 0.5661 0.4154 0.4923 0.6865 0.5687 0.8856
OVS 0.6456 0.67 0.7306 0.6099 0.7049 0.64 0.5039 0.5777 0.7691 0.5679 0.7398 0.8524
LOY 0.6071 0.6485 0.6194 0.5184 0.6059 0.5151 0.528 0.6319 0.6307 0.4524 0.5605 0.7024 0.7457
15
16 J. M. Hernández-Mogollón et al.

Second step: Measurement model assessment The reflective measurement model thus
was analysed by again following the step described above. The new model assessment
revealed that the model is valid and reliable (see Tables 4 and 5).
Evaluating the formative measurement model required an examination of any possible
multicollinearity between indicators, an assessment of the weight of each indicator and a
review of their significance. Table 6 summarises the results of the collinearity analysis. For
all indicators, the variance inflation factor was below 5 (Hair et al. 2011).
Table 7 shows the value of the weights for each formative indicator. As can be seen from
these values, all the indicators are statistically significant. With the analysis of the reflective and
formative measurement models completed, the analysis of the structural model could proceed.

4.2 Structural model assessment and discussion

According to Table 8, the variable with the greatest explanatory power in the proposed
model turned out to be overall satisfaction (74.2% or substantial-moderate), followed

Table 4 Measurement model assessment: reflective indicators (II)

Constructs and indicators Loadings Composite reliability AVE

Quality [QUA] – 0.9068 0.7099

QUA1 0.8469*** – –
QUA2 0.881*** – –
QUA3 0.8975*** – –
QUA4 0.7353*** – –
Value [VAL] – 0.8736 0.6338
VAL1 0.7593*** – –
VAL2 0.8229*** – –
VAL3 0.7665*** – –
VAL4 0.8329*** – –
OverallSatisfaction [OVS] – 0.9403 0.7265
OVS1 0.8708*** – –
OVS2 0.9103*** – –
OVS3 0.8796*** – –
OVS4 0.8996*** – –
OVS5 0.8827*** – –
OVS6 0.6406*** – –
Loyalty [LOY] – 0.8585 0.5561
LOY1 0.565*** – –
LOY2 0.584*** – –
LOY3 0.8087*** – –
LOY4 0.8619*** – –
LOY5 0.8505*** – –

Notes: Critical t-values: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; ns not significant (based on t(4999), two-tailed
test); t(0.05;4999) = 1.65; t(0.01;4999) = 1.96; t(0.001;4999) = 2.58
Integrating transactional and relationship marketing: a new... 17

Table 5 Discriminant validity assessment (II)

Quality Value Overall satisfaction Loyalty

Quality 0.8426 0 0 0
Value 0.6706 0.7961 0 0
Overall satisfaction 0.7305 0.6103 0.8523 0
Loyalty 0.6187 0.5183 0.7021 0.7457

by trust (63.1% or moderate), loyalty (58.6% or moderate) and, finally, attachment

(38.0% or weak-moderate).
The results presented in Table 9 indicate that all the hypotheses, with the exception
of H3 and H11, are statistically significant.
Figure 3 shows the graphical summary of the model assessment.

5 Discussion of results

In the transactional submodel, the relationship found between image and overall
satisfaction (H1) is consistent with past studies (e.g. Bigné et al. 2005; Chi and Qu,
2008; Hernández et al. 2006; Prayag and Ryan, 2012). Hernández et al. (2006) suggest
that tourism is a leisure activity and that emotional and hedonic aspects thus play a
fundamental role, generating lasting memories for tourists. This could explain the
greater relevance of affective image (0.5993) as compared to cognitive image
(0.4816) in the context of rural tourism destinations. The present study also found
empirical support for the relationship between quality and overall satisfaction (H2), a
result that agrees with theoretical discussions in the literature (e.g. Bigné et al. 2005;
Chi et al. 2020; Lee et al. 2007; Pereira et al. 2016; Rivera and Croes, 2010). In the
transactional submodel, quality is the primary determining factor of overall satisfaction
(16.1%) as compared to image, possibly because rural tourism’s success depends on
satisfying an implicit demand by offering quality and authenticity (Hernández et al.
2012). While the literature emphasises perceived value’s important role as a

Table 6 Collinearity statisticsa

Constructs Indicators (scores) VIF

Image CIM 2.595

AIM 2.430
Trust TDE 2.999
TPR 2.107
Attachment DID 1.794
DDE 2.078
Composite satisfaction RPS 1.818
RRS 1.973

a Note: The dependent variable is DAS

18 J. M. Hernández-Mogollón et al.

Table 7 Weights and signification of formative indicators

Construct Indicators (scores) Weight

Image CIM 0.5993***

AIM 0.4816***
Trust TDE 0.7076***
TPR 0.3771***
Attachment DID 0.3518***
DDE 0.7409***
Composite satisfaction DAS 0.6338***
RPS 0.1321***
RRS 0.3471***

Notes: Critical t-values: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; ns not significant (based on t(4999), two-tailed
test); t(0.05;4999) = 1.65; t(0.01;4999) = 1.96; t(0.001;4999) = 2.58

determinant of satisfaction and behavioural intentions (Lee et al. 2007), this relation-
ship was not verified in the present study. This result could be due to unidimensional

Table 8 Effects on endogenous variables

Hypotheses R2a D i r e c t Correlation E x p l a i n e d

effect variance

Trust 0.6305 – – 63.1%

(moderate--
substantial)
H8: Composite satisfaction→ Trust – 0.7941 0.7941 63.1%
Attachment 0.3804 – – 38.0%
(weak-moderate)
H4: Trust→ Attachment – 0.2285 0.5616 12.8%
H9: Composite satisfaction→ – 0.4194 0.6009 25.2%
Attachment
Overall satisfaction 0.7422 (substantial) – – 74.2%
H1: Image→ Overall satisfaction – 0.1436 0.7125 10.2%
H2: Quality→ Overall satisfaction – 0.2203 0.7305 16.1%
H3: Value→ Overall satisfaction – −0.0142 0.6103 −0.9%
H6: Attachment→ Overall satisfaction – 0.0948 0.6059 5.7%
H10: Composite satisfaction→ Overall – 0.5251 0.8192 43.0%
satisfaction
Loyalty 0.5859 (moderate) – – 58.6%
H7: Attachment→ Loyalty – 0.3302 0.6546 21.6%
H5: Trust→ Loyalty – 0.1171 0.6226 7.3%
H11: Composite satisfaction→ Loyalty – 0.0672 0.6537 4.4%
H12: Overall satisfaction→ Loyalty – 0.3602 0.7021 25.3%

a Notes: R2 value of 0.75, 0.5 or 0.25 for the latent endogenous variables in structural models can be

considered substantial, moderate or weak, respectively (Hair et al. 2011)

Integrating transactional and relationship marketing: a new... 19

Table 9 Structural model results

Hypotheses Path coefficients Supported

H1: Image→ Overall satisfaction 0.1436*** Yes

H2: Quality→ Overall satisfaction 0.2203*** Yes
H3: Value→ Overall satisfaction −0.0142ns No
H4: Trust→ Attachment 0.2285*** Yes
H5: Trust→ Loyalty 0.1171* Yes
H6: Attachment→ Overall satisfaction 0.0948*** Yes
H7: Attachment→ Loyalty 0.3302*** Yes
H8: Composite satisfaction→ Trust 0.7941*** Yes
H9: Composite satisfaction→ Attachment 0.4194*** Yes
H10: Composite satisfaction → Overall satisfaction 0.5251*** Yes
H11: Composite satisfaction → Loyalty 0.0672ns No
H12: Overall satisfaction → Loyalty 0.3602*** Yes

Note: Critical t-values: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; ns not significant (based on t(4999), two-tailed
test); t(0.05;4999) = 1.65; t(0.01;4999) = 1.96; t(0.001;4999) = 2.58

measurement of value or because value acts both as a mediator and as a direct effect, as
found by Gallarza and Gil (2006) and Rivera and Croes (2010). Based on their study’s
results, Gallarza and Gil (2006) underscore the importance of considering the dual
nature of perceived value, which has both cognitive and affective dimensions. Research
by such authors as William and Soutar (2009) also confirms a multidimensional
construct of value, with the latter authors pointing out that value has to include
socio-psychological aspects.
In general, the relationships between image, quality, value, satisfaction and loyalty
and/or behavioural intentions, with some variations, are mentioned frequently in the
literature on tourism destinations (Bigné et al. 2005; Chi et al. 2020; Chi and Qu, 2008;

DAS RPS RRS TDE TPR

0.639 0.132 0.347 0.708 0.377

CIM 0.482
Image Composite 0.794*** Trust
AIM 0.599
satisfaction R2=63,1%

QUA1 0.144***
0.847 0.067ns
QUA2 0.881
0.897 Quality 0.525***
QUA3 0.117* LOY1
0.419*** 0.565
0.735
QUA4 0.220*** 0.229*** LOY2
0.584
Overall 0.360*** Loyalty 0.809
satisfaction LOY3
VAL1 R2=58,6% 0.862
0.759 -0.014ns R2=74,2%
VAL2 0.823 0.330*** LOY4
0.851
Value 0.095***
0.767
VAL3 LOY5
0.833
0.352 DID
VAL4 Attachment
0.871 0.910 0.880 0.900 0.883 0.641 R2=38,0% 0.741 DDE
OVS1 OVS2 OVS3 OVS4 OVS5 OVS6

Fig. 3 Graphical summary of the model assessment. (Notes: Critical t-values: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01;
***p < 0.001; ns not significant (based on t(4999), two-tailed test); t(0.05;4999) = 1.65; t(0.01;4999) = 1.96;
t(0.001;4999) = 2.58)
20 J. M. Hernández-Mogollón et al.

Gallarza and Gil, 2006; Hernández et al. 2006; Pereira et al. 2016). Hernández et al.
(2006), in particular, indicate that these models, which the present research considers
transaction-based, should include not only cognitive or rational aspects but also
experiences and emotions generated during stays. In addition, Sharpley and Jepson
(2011) highlight the importance of emotions and experiences in rural tourism. These
observations are clearly confirmed by the results of the proposed transactional
submodel, which corroborates the greater importance of affective image, while per-
ceived value’s two dimensions – functional and emotional aspects – clearly need to be
included.
With respect to the variables in the relationship submodel, the proposed model can
account for much of the explained variance of the endogenous variables. Trust can be
explained 63.1% of the time by composite satisfaction’s effect alone. Attachment can be
explained 38.0% of the time also by composite satisfaction’s basic impact and, to a lesser
extent, by trust. Attachment has a small impact on overall satisfaction (5.7%), while
composite satisfaction becomes the main antecedent of overall satisfaction, explaining
43.0% of its variation. Regarding the influence of these relationship variables on loyalty,
the one with the smallest impact is trust (7.3%), followed by attachment (21.6%), with
loyalty’s primary antecedent being overall satisfaction (25.3%). Composite satisfaction’s
impact is not statistically significant.The results confirm a relationship between trust and
destination attachment (H4), which is consistent with Chen and Phou (2013), Pereira et al.
(2016) and Tsai’s (2012) findings. However, this relationship’s impact is relatively small
(12.8%), while composite satisfaction has the most important impact on attachment
(25.2%). The present study’s analysis of trust’s influence on loyalty (H5) also resulted
in empirical support for this relationship, as was the case in previous research (e.g. Chen
and Phou, 2013; Huang and Chiu, 2006; Mechinda et al. 2010; Pujiastuti et al. 2017; Yen
et al. 2009), although trust’s effect on the explained variance of loyalty is 7.3%, a value
well below that of overall satisfaction (25.3%) and attachment (21.6%).
While H4 and H5 received empirical support in the present research, showing that
trust is a key variable in relationship strategies, a greater weight was expected. A
possible cause for this may be found in the evaluation of trust’s dimensions. The weight
of destination trust (0.7076) is greater than that of trust in tourism services providers
(0.3771). Notably, rural tourism takes place in locations that are unfamiliar with
tourism, which results in problems with professionalisation (Millán, 1999) – an issue
that may affect clients. However, in recent years, rural tourism has become more
specialised and professionalised, relying on high quality standards.
Attachment’s possible influence on overall satisfaction (H6) receives empirical
support from the present study’s results, as this relationship has in previous studies
(Prayag and Ryan, 2012; Yüksel et al. 2010), although the effect found here is small
(5.7%). The relationship between attachment and loyalty, as expressed in H7, is
statistically significant, in keeping with past research (e.g. Chen and Phou, 2013;
Mechinda et al. 2009; Morais and Lin, 2010; Pereira et al. 2016; Prayag and Ryan,
2012; Tsai, 2012; Yüksel et al. 2010), demonstrating that attachment is a more robust
predictor of loyalty (21.6%). Attachment is the most important causal factor for loyalty,
probably because of the strong relational nature of attachment. The apparent problem of
tourists being inherently disloyal (McKercher et al. 2012) can be offset, as indicated by
Gitelson and Crompton (1984), by encouraging tourists’ emotional attachment to
specific destinations.
Integrating transactional and relationship marketing: a new... 21

Composite satisfaction has a statistically significant impact on trust (H8) according

to the present research’s empirical data, as well as partial support in Yen et al.’s (2009)
findings. These results confirm the importance of satisfaction with relationships with
service providers, explaining 63.1% of trust. With respect to the relationship between
composite satisfaction and attachment (H9), this also is statistically significant, which is
consistent with Lee et al. (2012) and Su et al.’s (2011) findings. The relationship
between composite satisfaction and overall satisfaction (H10) also has empirical sup-
port, as confirmed by Alegre and Cladera (2009), Chi and Qu (2008), and Choo and
Petrick (2012). However, this support is only partial because of these variables’
dimensionality, an approach supported by theoretical discussions in the literature.
The present study’s introduction of composite satisfaction appears to be an impor-
tant contribution to the literature, given that this variable constitutes the most important
antecedent of attachment (25.2%) and overall satisfaction (43.0%). Satisfaction with
destination attributes is the dimension contributing the most to composite satisfaction
(0.6338), followed by satisfaction with relationships with residents (0.3471). Satisfac-
tion with relationships with tourism services providers is the least relevant factor
(0.1321), perhaps because it depends on the previously mentioned reasons why tourists
may not trust rural tourism service providers. While satisfaction with relationships has a
significant weight in the dimensional construction of composite satisfaction, satisfac-
tion with destination attributes has a greater weight, which attests to the latter’s
importance as an antecedent of overall satisfaction (Alegre and Cladera, 2009; Chi
and Qu, 2008).
Although H11, which connects composite satisfaction and loyalty, has partial support
in the literature (Lee, 2009; Su et al. 2011), the present study’s empirical data did not
support this hypothesis. This maybe because of the greater weight of satisfaction with
destination attributes, which is often reflected in its impact on loyalty through the
mediating effect of overall satisfaction. The relationship between overall satisfaction
and loyalty (H12) has empirical support, which is consistent with a wide range of
studies (e.g. Bigné et al. 2005; Chi and Qu, 2008; Chi et al. 2020; Gallarza and Gil,
2006; Hernández et al. 2006; Kim and Brown, 2012; Lee et al. 2007; Mechinda et al.
2009, 2010; Pereira et al. 2016; Prayag and Ryan, 2012; Rivera and Croes, 2010; Wang
and Hsu, 2010; Williams and Soutar, 2009; Yüksel et al. 2010).
In conclusion, the integrated model proposed in the present study measures 74.2% of
the variation of overall satisfaction and 58.6% of loyalty. Based on these results, the
integration of the transactional and relationship submodels through overall satisfaction
appears to be successful.

6 Conclusion

The present study proposed a model that integrates the transactional and relationship
marketing perspectives. Traditional models in studies of loyalty to tourism destinations
focus largely on image, quality, value and satisfaction. Thus, these models are incom-
plete because they fail to incorporate a relationship perspective. The present research in
rural tourism verified that relationship variables have a modest impact on satisfaction
and loyalty. The results, therefore, demonstrate the importance of enhancing studies of
loyalty to tourism destinations with a relationship perspective.
22 J. M. Hernández-Mogollón et al.

This work offers interesting contributions. It was verified that the integration of the
transactional and relationship approach of marketing have a significant impact on
satisfaction and loyalty in rural tourism destinations. The results, therefore, demonstrate
the importance of enhancing studies of loyalty to tourism destinations with a relation-
ship perspective. These findings also agree with Chen and Phou’s (2013) assertions that
destinations and tourists share emotional and relationship bonds. Also composite
satisfaction appears to be an important contribution to the literature, given that this
variable constitutes the most important antecedent of overall satisfaction.
The management of rural tourism destinations needs to include a management
agency that coordinates all essential initiatives and strategies. This will ensure the
formation of a quality tourism destination and project a strong destination image that
provides competitive advantages. Marketing strategies implemented by managers also
must involve all stakeholders that operate in these settings: clients, managers, residents
and business people. As underscored by this research’s results, cognitive, functional or
rational elements in destinations alone are not enough to generate loyalty and overall
satisfaction. Focusing efforts on improving destination image and perceived quality
becomes a fragmented strategy if emotional and rational elements are neglected, since
these are particularly important factors in destinations’ creation of competitive advan-
tages. Strengthening variables such as trust, attachment and composite satisfaction is
clearly fundamental to destinations’ success. In addition, these results could be added to
Pérez-Cabañero et al.’s (2017) findings, that underline that tourists’ length of stay has
to be considered when destination management organisations have to design tourism
policies with the aim of enhancing satisfaction and loyalty, offering activities that
promote feeling important and comfortable.
This study’s limitations can be found in its use of a non-probability sampling
procedure, which could limit the results’ generalisability. Thus, the proposed model
needs to be tested in other tourism contexts and in different destinations or geographical
areas, which would allow more reliable generalisations of this research’s findings.
This study’s limitations can be found in its use of a non-probability sampling
procedure, which could limit the results’ generalisability. Thus, the proposed model
needs to be tested in other tourism contexts and in different destinations or geographical
areas – a research strategy suggested by various authors (Hernández et al. 2006; Lee
et al. 2007; Yen et al. 2009). More specifically, the model analysed in this study of rural
tourism destinations could be applied in other specialised subsectors, such as nature,
cultural and urban tourism, which would allow more reliable generalisations of this
research’s findings.

Acknowledgements The dissemination of this research has the support of the European Regional Devel-
opment Fund and the European Social Fund of the European Union, conceded within the framework of the
programme Support for the Implementation of Research Activities and Technological Development, Dissem-
ination and Transfer of Knowledge by Extremadura Research Groups, which is managed by the Council of
Economy and Infrastructure of the Regional Government of Extremadura, Spain (Reference No. GR15170).
Integrating transactional and relationship marketing: a new... 23

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest/competing interests The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

Alegre, J., & Cladera, M. (2009). Analysing the effect of satisfaction and previous visits on tourist intentions
to return. European Journal of Marketing, 43(5–6), 670–685.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism
Research, 26(4), 868–897.
Barclay, D., et al. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modelling: Personal computer
adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285–309.
Berry, L. (2000). Growing interest, emerging perspectives. In J. N. Sheth & A. Parvatiyar (Eds.), Handbook of
relationship marketing (pp. 149–170). California: Sage Publications.
Bigné, J. E., et al. (2005). Relationships among residents’ image, evaluation of the stay and post-purchase
behavior. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(4), 291–299.
Campo, S., & Garau, J. B. (2010). The generation of tourism destination satisfaction. Tourism Economics,
16(3), 461–475.
Campón, A. M., et al. (2010). Marketing relacional e turismo: A fidelização de clientes no turismo rural,
proposta de um Modelo Para o seu estudo [relationship marketing and tourism: Encouraging loyalty in
rural tourism clients, a proposed study model]. Revista de Turismo and Desenvolvimento/Journal of
Tourism and Development, 13/14(1), 231–241.
Campón, A. M., et al. (2012). Identifying the major determinants of loyalty in tourism. In R. H. Tsiotsou & R.
E. Goldsmith (Eds.), Strategic marketing in tourism services (pp. 163–183). United Kingdom: Emerald.
Chen, C. F., & Phou, S. (2013). A closer look at destination: Image, personality, relationship and loyalty.
Tourism Management, 36, 269–278.
Chen, J. S., & Gursoy, D. (2001). An investigation of tourists’ destination loyalty and preferences.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Managenent, 13(2), 79–85.
Chi, C. G. Q., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction
and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism Management, 29(4), 624–636.
Chi, X., et al. (2020). Tourist-perceived quality and loyalty intentions towards rural tourism in China.
Sustainability, 12(9), 3614.
Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. E. Vinzi (Ed.), Handbook of partial least
squares (pp. 655–690). Berlin: Springer.
Choo, H., & Petrick, J. F. (2012). Comparison between first-timers and repeaters for relationship marketing
implications. International Journal of Tourism Research, 14(3), 298–302.
Ciavolino, E., & Nitti, M. (2013). Using the hybrid two-step estimation approach for the identification of
second-order latent variable models. Journal of Applied Statistics, 40(3), 508–526.
Croes, R., et al. (2010). The value of destination loyalty: Myth or reality? Journal of Hospitality Marketing
and Management, 19(2), 115–136.
Das, K. (2009). Relationship marketing research (1994–2006): An academic literature review and classifica-
tion. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 27(3), 326–363.
De Wulf, K., et al. (2001). Investments in consumer relationships: A cross-country and cross-industry
exploration. The Journal of Marketing, 65(4), 33–50.
Dwyer, F., et al. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 11–27.
Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. B. (1991). The meaning and measurement of destination image. Journal of
Tourism Studies, 2(2), 2–12.
Gallarza, M. G., & Gil, I. (2006). Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: An investigation
of university students’ travel behavior. Tourism Management, 27(3), 437–452.
Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing,
58(2), 1–19.
24 J. M. Hernández-Mogollón et al.

Gitelson, R. J., & Crompton, J. L. (1984). Insights into the repeat vacation phenomenon. Annals of Tourism
Research, 11(2), 199–217.
Grönroos, C. (1994). From marketing mix to relationship marketing: Towards a paradigm shift in marketing.
Management Decision, 32(2), 4–20.
Hair, J. F., et al. (2000). Análisis multivariante [multivariate analysis]. Madrid: Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., et al. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2),
139–151.
Hernández, L., et al. (2006). Tourism destination image, satisfaction and loyalty: A study in Ixtapa-
Zihuatanejo, Mexico. Tourism Geographies, 8(4), 343–358.
Hernández, J. M., et al. (2012). Turismo rural: Concepto, evolución y nuevas tendencias [Rural tourism:
Concept, evolution and new tendencies]. In F. J. Ortega, E. Pérez, & P. Milanés (Eds.), Estudios de
investigación sobre turismo y medio ambiente. Nuevas líneas de trabajo y tendencias actuales (pp. 65–
88). Saarbrücken, Germany: Editorial Académica Española.
Huang, H. H., & Chiu, C. K. (2006). Exploring customer satisfaction, trust and destination loyalty in tourism.
Journal of American Academy of Business, 10(1), 156–159.
Kim, A. K., & Brown, G. (2012). Understanding the relationships between perceived travel experiences,
overall satisfaction, and destination loyalty. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 23(3), 328–347.
Kim, S. S., Choe, J. Y. J., & Petrick, J. F. (2018). The effect of celebrity on brand awareness, perceived
quality, brand image, brand loyalty, and destination attachment to a literary festival. Journal of
Destination Marketing & Management, 9, 320–329.
Lee, J. J., et al. (2012). The mediating effect of place attachment on the relationship between festival
satisfaction and loyalty to the festival hosting destination. Journal of Travel Research, 51(6), 754–767.
Lee, J., et al. (2007). Examining the antecedents of destination loyalty in a forest setting. Leisure Sciences,
29(5), 463–481.
Lee, T. H. (2009). A structural model to examine how destination image, attitude, and motivation affect the
future behavior of tourists. Leisure Sciences, 31(3), 215–236.
López-Jáuregui, Á., et al. (2019). Impact of SMEs strategy on loyalty: The hairdresser case. Spanish Journal
of Marketing-ESIC, 23(2), 273–293.
MacKenzie, S. B., et al. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and
organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 710–
730.
McKercher, B., et al. (2012). Rethinking loyalty. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 708–734.
Mechinda, P., et al. (2009). An examination of tourists’ attitudinal and behavioral loyalty: Comparison
between domestic and international tourists. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 15(2), 129–148.
Mechinda, P., et al. (2010). An examination of tourists’ loyalty towards medical tourism in Pattaya, Thailand.
The International Business and Economic Research Journal, 9(1), 55–70.
Millán, M. (1999). El turismo rural en la planificación económica de la Región de Murcia [rural tourism in
economic planning for the Murcia Region]. Cuadernos de Turismo, 4, 51–72.
Morais, D. B., & Lin, C. H. (2010). Why do first-time and repeat visitors patronize a destination? Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing, 27(2), 193–210.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 54(3), 20–38.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oh, H., et al. (2004). Hospitality and tourism marketing: Recent developments in research and future
directions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23(5), 425–447.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal
of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469.
Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of
Consumer Research, 20(3), 418–430.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction. A behavioral perspective on the consumer. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Parasuraman, A., et al. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of
service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Pereira, C. A. B., et al. (2016). Impact of tacit knowledge on customer loyalty. The Service Industries Journal,
36(15–16), 827–845.
Integrating transactional and relationship marketing: a new... 25

Pérez-Cabañero, C., et al. (2017). Analysis of the impact of length of stay on the quality of service experience,
satisfaction and loyalty. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 14(2), 253–268.
Pike, S., et al. (2011). Visitor relationship orientation of destination marketing organizations. Journal of Travel
Research, 50(4), 443–453.
Prayag, G., & Ryan, C. (2012). Antecedents of tourists’ loyalty to Mauritius: The role and influence of
destination image, place attachment, personal involvement, and satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research,
51(3), 342–356.
Pujiastuti, E. E., et al. (2017). The antecedents of behavioral intention regarding rural tourism destination. Asia
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 22(11), 1169–1181.
Rivera, M. A., & Croes, R. (2010). Ecotourists’ loyalty: Will they tell about the destination or will they return?
Journal of Ecotourism, 9(2), 85–103.
Sharpley, R., & Jepson, D. (2011). Rural tourism: A spiritual experience? Annals of Tourism Research, 38(1),
52–71.
Shirazi, S. F. M., & Som, A. P. M. (2011). Destination management and relationship marketing: Two major
factors to achieve competitive advantage. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 10(2), 76–87.
Su, H. J., et al. (2011). Empirical study of destination loyalty and its antecedent: The perspective of place
attachment. The Service Industries Journal, 31(16), 2721–2739.
L. Su, X. Fan (2011). A study on the relationships between service quality, satisfaction, trust and loyalty
among rural tourism. In 8th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management
(ICSSSM) (pp.1–6).
Su, L., et al. (2017). The effect of tourist relationship perception on destination loyalty at a world heritage site
in China: The mediating role of overall destination satisfaction and trust. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 41(2), 180–210.
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale.
Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203–220.
Tsai, S. P. (2012). Place attachment and tourism marketing: Investigating international tourists in Singapore.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 14(2), 139–152.
Tse, D. K., & Wilton, P. C. (1988). Models of consumer satisfaction formation: An extension. Journal of
Marketing Research, 25(2), 204–212.
Verhoef, P. C., et al. (2002). The effect of relational constructs on customer referrals and number of services
purchased from a multiservice provider: Does age of relationship matter? Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 30(3), 202–216.
Walsh, S., et al. (2004). Managing and implementing simultaneous transaction and relationship marketing.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 22(7), 468–483.
Wang, C. Y., & Hsu, M. K. (2010). The relationships of destination image, satisfaction, and behavioral
intentions: An integrated model. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 27(8), 829–843.
Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of
a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49(6), 830–840.
Williams, P., & Soutar, G. N. (2009). Value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in an adventure tourism
context. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 413–438.
Wright, R. T., et al. (2012). Operationalizing multidimensional constructs in structural equation modeling:
Recommendations for IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 30(23),
367–412.
Yen, T. F., et al. (2009). Managing relationship efforts to influence loyalty: An empirical study on the sun ling
sea forest and recreational park, Taiwan. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 2(2), 179–
194.
Yi, Y. (1990). A critical review of consumer satisfaction. Review of Marketing, 4(1), 68–123.
Yüksel, A., et al. (2010). Destination attachment: Effects on customer satisfaction and cognitive, affective and
conative loyalty. Tourism Management, 31(2), 274–284.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
26 J. M. Hernández-Mogollón et al.

Affiliations

José Manuel Hernández-Mogollón 1 & Helena Alves 2 & Ana María

Campón-Cerro 1 & Elide Di-Clemente 3

José Manuel Hernández-Mogollón

jmherdez@unex.es

Helena Alves
halves@ubi.pt
Elide Di-Clemente
ediclemente@unex.es

1
Department of Business Management and Sociology, University of Extremadura, Avda. de la
Universidad, s/n, 10071 Cáceres, Spain
2
Department of Management and Economics, University of Beira Interior, Estrada do Sineiro, s/n,
6200 Covilhã, Portugal
3
Department of Business Management and Sociology, Research Institutes, LAB 0L3, University of
Extremadura, Avda. De las Ciencias, s/n, Cáceres, Spain
 Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.