An Investigation of Factors Affecting Tourists

An investigation of factors affecting tourists’
revisit intention to Thailand as a culinary tourism

destination
by
Nuttanuch Issariyakulkarn
Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
University of Surrey
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
School of Hospitality and Tourism Management
Supervisors:
Professor Anita Eves
Dr Anna de Jong
©Nuttanuch Issariyakulkarn 2019

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY
This thesis and the work to which it refers are the results of my own efforts. Any
ideas, data, images or text resulting from the work of others (whether published
or unpublished) are fully identified as such within the work and attributed to
their originator in the text, bibliography or in footnotes. This thesis has not been
submitted in whole or in part for any other academic degree or professional
qualification. I agree that the University has the right to submit my work to the
plagiarism detection service TurnitinUK for originality checks. Whether or not
drafts have been so-assessed, the University reserves the right to require an
electronic version of the final document (as submitted) for assessment as above.
May 2019
i
ABSTRACT
While factors affecting tourists’ revisit intention to a destination have been

identified and examined through a proliferation of studies, the research on
antecedents of intention to revisit a destination for culinary tourism reasons are
still limited. The study advances existing studies using the extended combination
of MGB and TPB to measure temporal destination revisit intentions. The short
and long term revisit intention models were developed with an aim to
investigate factors underlying tourists’ revisit intentions to Thailand for culinary
tourism purposes. Belief-based measures of attitude, subjective norm, and
perceived behavioural control borrowed from the TPB model was added to the
original MGB in order to evaluate an influence of local Thai food experiences as a
motivational base of revisiting Thailand. The study also compared differences of
the models based on nationality (Japanese and British) and type of visitor (first-
timers and repeaters). The study employed a mixed method approach using
semi-structured interview to explore motivational factors for local Thai food
consumption and for the intentions to revisit to Thailand. The questionnaire
survey was performed as the second stage of the study to identify three
motivational factors for consuming local Thai food and eight motivational factors
for revisiting Thailand. There were two common motivators between the two
contexts. The relationships between local food experiences and intentions to
return over time were examined. The findings suggested moderating effects of
nationality and type of visitor on the models for short and long term revisit
intention. The findings of this study are considered to contribute to the
theoretical development in tourist behaviour and food consumption research by
increasing the body of literature regarding factors affecting tourists’ destination
revisit intention for gastronomy reasons.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank all participants and respondents for their participation in
the interview and survey and my official sponsor, Bangkok University in
providing me a full scholarship for my PhD studies. I am also grateful to my
supervisors for their patience and support in overcoming various obstacles I
have been facing through my research. I would like to express my gratitude to
my family and friends who always stand beside me and support me mentally
throughout completing this thesis.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY i
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF TABLES xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of the Research 1
1.1.1 Thailand as a Culinary Tourism Destination 1
1.1.2 Local Food Consumption at a Destination 2
1.1.3 Tourist’s Revisit Intention to a Holiday Destination 4
1.2 Purposes and Objectives of the Research 7
1.3 Rationale for Selecting Two Nationalities of Tourists 7
1.4 Definition of Terms 10
1.5 Structure of The Thesis 11
CHAPTER 2: FOOD CHOICE AND FOOD CONSUMPTION IN TOURIST 14
DESTINATIONS
2.1 Introduction 14
2.2 Food Choice and Preference 14
2.2.1 Food Choice Models 15
2.2.1.1 Food acceptance model (Pilgrim, 1957) 16
2.2.1.2 Food preferences model (Khan, 1991) 17
2.2.1.3 Food preference and consumption model 19
(Randall and Sanjur, 1981)
2.2.1.4 Food choice and intake model (Shepherd, 1985) 20
2.2.1.5 Food choice process model (Furst et al., 1996) 22
2.2.2 Food Choice Questionnaire 25
2.2.3 Factors affecting food choice in general contexts 29
2.2.3.1 Factors related to the food 31
2.2.3.2 Factors related to the environment 32
2.2.3.3 Factors related to the individual 33
iv
2.3 Food Consumption in Tourist Destinations 47
2.3.1 Role of Local Food in Tourism 47
2.3.1.1 Culinary tourism 48
2.3.2 Tourist Food Consumption Research 50
2.3.2.1 Factors influencing tourist local food consumption 54
2.4 Chapter Summary 59
CHAPTER 3: TOURISTS’ REVISIT INTENTION 61
3.1 Introduction 61
3.2 Revisit Intention: Concepts, Definitions and Importance 61
3.3 First Timers’ and Repeaters’ Revisit Intention 63
3.3.1 Classifications of Repeaters and Intended Revisit Timing 64
3.3.1.1 Factors affecting intended revisit timing 65
3.4 Measuring Tourists’ Revisit Intention 70
3.4.1 Attitude-Behaviour Theories in Predicting Behavioural Intention and 71
Behaviour
3.4.2 Applications of TRA, TPB and MGB in Tourism and Food Studies 78
3.5 Factors Affecting Tourists’ Revisit Intention 85
3.5.1 Factors Affecting Tourists’ Revisit Intention to a Tourist Destination 85
3.5.1.1 Cultural differences 89
3.5.1.2 Destination attributes 90
3.5.1.3 Perceived attractiveness 90
3.5.1.4 Novelty seeking tendency 91
3.5.1.5 Previous experience and number of past visits 93
3.5.1.6 Perceived quality 94
3.5.1.7 Perceived value 95
3.5.1.8 Motivations 96
3.5.1.9 Destination image 97
3.5.1.10 Satisfaction 99
3.5.2 Factors Affecting Tourists’ Revisit Intention to a Culinary Tourism 104
Destination
3.6 Chapter Summary, Proposed Conceptual Framework, and Hypotheses 106
3.6.1 An extended combination of the MGB with the belief based measures 109
taken from the TPB
v
3.6.2 The relationship among destination image, attitude, overall 110
satisfaction, desire, and destination revisit intention
3.6.3 The relationship among destination food image, attitude, food 112
3.6.4 The relationship between length of stay and destination revisit 114
intention
3.6.5 Effects of respondents’ nationalities 114
3.6.6 Effects of respondents’ types of visitors 115
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 119
4.1 Introduction 119
4.2 Research Philosophy 119
4.2.1 Justification of the Research Philosophy 121
4.3 Research Approach 123
4.3.1 Types of Research Approaches 123
4.3.1.1 Logical approach 124
4.3.1.2 Methodological approach 124
4.3.2 Justification of the research approach 125
4.4 Preliminary Study and Findings 126
4.5 Research Design 131
4.6 Stage 1: Semi-Structured In-Depth Interviews 133
4.6.1 Semi-structured Interview Guide 133
4.6.2 Data Collection for Semi-structured Interviews 134
4.6.2.1 Sampling 134
4.6.2.2 Data collection procedure 135
4.6.3 Data Analysis for Semi-structured Interviews 136
4.6.4 The Quality of Qualitative Research 138
4.7 Stage 2: Questionnaire Survey 140
4.7.1 Questionnaire Development 141
4.7.2 Pre-test of the Draft Questionnaire and Findings 145
4.7.3 Pilot Study 147
4.7.4 Scale Refinement 148
4.7.5 Data Collection for Questionnaires Survey 154
4.7.5.1 Sampling 154
vi
4.7.5.2 Data collection procedure 155
4.7.6 Data Analysis for Questionnaire Survey 156
4.8 Ethical considerations 157
CHAPTER 5: FINDING AND DISCUSSION I: STAGE ONE OF THE STUDY 159
(QUATITATIVE STAGE: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS)
5.2 Demographic Profile of the participants 159
5.3 Findings of thematic analysis 162
5.4 Data Reduction and Quantification 178
5.5 Comparison of Selected Themes with Related Literature 196
CHAPTER 6: FINDING AND DISCUSSION II: STAGE TWO OF THE STUDY 201
(QUANTITATIVE STAGE: QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY)
6.2 Data Cleaning, Screening and Examination 201
6.3 Socio-demographic profile and the respondents 203
6.4 Trip Characteristics of the respondents 207
6.5 Personality Traits 209
6.5.1 Novelty Seeking Tendency (NS) on Travel Destination Choice 209
6.5.2 Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) and Food Neophobia Grouping (FNG) 212
6.5.3 Food Involvement Scale (FIS) and Food Involvement Grouping (FIG) 214
6.6 Overall Destination Image and Overall Satisfaction 216
6.6.1 Overall Destination Image 216
6.6.2 Comparison between Pre-visit and On-site Destination Image 221
6.6.3 Overall Destination Satisfaction 222
6.6.4 Relationships between Pre-visit and On-site Destination Image and 225
Overall Satisfaction
6.7 Overall Food Image and Food Satisfaction 226
6.7.1 Destination Food Image 226
6.7.2 Comparison between Pre-visit and On-site Destination Food Image 229
6.7.3 Food Satisfaction 230
6.7.4 Relationships between Pre-visit and On-site Destination Food Image 232
vii
and Food Satisfaction
6.8 Perceived Importance Of Local Thai Food To Decision To Visit, Overall Trip 233
Experiences And Intention To Visit, And Familiarity With Thai Food Prior To
Current Visit
6.8.1 Importance of Local Thai Food in Decision to Make Current Visit and 234
Familiarity with Thai Food before the Visit
6.8.2 Importance of Local Thai Food to Overall Experiences of Current Visit 238
6.8.3 Importance of Local Thai Food to Future Revisit 240
6.8.4 Comparison between Perceived Importance of Local Thai food to 241
Current Visit and Future Revisit
6.9 Motivational Factors for Local Thai Food Consumption 242
6.9.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) 242
6.9.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) 244
6.9.3 Reliability and Validity 246
6.9.4 Confirmed Motivational Factors and Differences in Motivations by 248
Nationality and Types of Visitors
6.10 Food-related tourism activities 255
6.10.1 Differences by Nationality 256
6.10.2 Differences by Type of Visitor 260
6.11 Temporal Revisit Intention Measurement 263
6.11.1 Differences in Temporal Revisit Intentions by Nationality 264
6.11.2 Differences in Temporal Revisit Intentions by Type of Visitor 266
6.12 Estimation of Variables in the Research Model 268
6.12.1 Estimation of Measurement Models 269
6.12.1.1 Estimation of measurement models using CFA 269
6.12.1.2 Reliability and validity 274
6.12.1.3 Assessment of common method bias (CMB) 277
6.12.1.4 Measurement invariance test (Cross group validity) 278
6.12.2 Confirmed Belief-Based Measures and Differences by Nationality and 282
Type of Visitor
6.12.3 Testing the Structural Models 288
6.12.3.1 Proposed model assessment 288
6.12.3.2 Hypothesis testing results 292
viii
6.12.4 Multi-group Comparisons 299
6.12.4.1 Differences by nationality 299
6.12.4.2 Differences by type of visitor 310
6.13 Personality Traits And Temporal Revisit Intentions 318
6.14 Local Thai Food Motives And Temporal Revisit Intentions 320
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION 325
7.2 Links between Research Objectives and The Findings 325
7.2.1 Research Objective 1 325
7.3 Theoretical Contribution of the Research 335
7.4 Managerial Contribution of the Research 336
7.5 Limitations and Suggestions for Further research 339
REFERENCE 341
APPENDIX 1 PRELIMINARY INTERVIEW GUIDE AND QUESTIONS 406
APPENDIX 2 PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET (ENGLISH VERSION) 415
APPENDIX 3 PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET (JAPANESE VERSION) 417
APPENDIX 4 CONSENT FORM (ENGLISH VERSION) 419
APPENDIX 5 CONSENT FORM (JAPANESE VERSION) 420
APPENDIX 6 INTERVIEW GUIDE AND QUESTIONS (ENGLISH VERSION) 421
APPENDIX 7 INTERVIEW GUIDE AND QUESTIONS (JAPANESE VERSION) 428
APPENDIX 8 INTERVIEW GUIDE AND QUESTIONS (THAI VERSION) 436
APPENDIX 9 INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS 443
APPENDIX 10 PRE-TEST QUESTIONNAIRE 469
APPENDIX 11 PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGISH VERSION) 477
APPENDIX 12 PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE (JAPANESE VERSION) 484
APPENDIX 13 MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGISH VERSION) 491
APPENDIX 14 MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE (JAPANESE VERSION) 498
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Hoftsede’s six cultural dimension scores of Thailand in 9

comparison with UK and Japan
Figure 1.2 Structure of the thesis 11
Figure 2.1 Food acceptance model 16
Figure 2.2 Food preferences model 18
Figure 2.3 Food preferences and consumption model 19
Figure 2.4 Food choice and intake model 21
Figure 2.5 Food choice process model 23
Figure 2.6 The mean and standard deviations of food neophobia scores 47
in different countries (theoretical range 10-70)
Figure 2.7 Factors affecting food consumption in tourism 51
Figure 2.8 Factors influencing tourist food consumption 52
Figure 2.9 The model of local food consumption at a holiday destination 54
Figure 3.1 A model for temporal destination revisit intention (TDRI) 66
Figure 3.2 Short run revisit intention antecedents 67
Figure 3.3 Long run revisit intention antecedents 67
Figure 3.4 A model for short- and long-term revisit intentions with 69
novelty seeking acting as a moderator
Figure 3.5 Antecedents of intended revisit timing 69
Figure 3.6 The theory of reasoned action (TRA) 71
Figure 3.7 The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) 72
Figure 3.8 The model of goal-directed behaviour (MGB) 76
Figure 3.9 Theoretical contexts employed in this study 107
Figure 3.10 The theoritical model of the research 118
Figure 4.1 Overall research process 132
Figure 4.2 Correlation analysis results: Belief-based and direct 153
measures
Figure 6.1 Findings from structural equation model for short-term 290
revisit intention to Thailand for overall group (N = 600)
Figure 6.2 Findings from structural equation model for long-term 291
revisit intention to Thailand for overall group (N = 600)
x
Figure 6.3 Multigroup comparisons between nationalities for short- 303
term revisit intention to Thailand (Factor level)
Figure 6.4 Multigroup comparisons between nationalities for long-term 309
revisit intention to Thailand (Factor level)
Figure 6.5 Multigroup comparisons between types of visitors for short- 315
Figure 6.6 Multigroup comparisons between types of visitors for long- 317
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Items of food choice questionnaire (FCQ) 26

Table 2.2 Summary of key authors and factors affecting food choice in 30
general
Table 2.3 Items of variety seeking scale (VARSEEK) 35
Table 2.4 Items of food neophobia scale (FNS) 37
Table 2.5 Items of food involvement scale (FIS) 42
Table 3.1 Tourism authors and salient factors of tourists’ revisit 87
intention to a tourist destination
Table 3.2 Hypotheses and related literature 115
Table 4.1 Definition of trustworthiness criteria and the strategies 139
used to ensure the trustworthiness in this research
Table 4.2 Items of novelty seeking scale (NS) 142
Table 4.3 Verified items of food neophobia scale (FNS) 143
Table 4.4 Revised items of food involvement scale (FIS) 144
Table 4.5 Summarise of respondents’ feedbacks from the pre-test 145
Table 4.6 Results of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) 150
Table 4.7 Means, standard deviations and construct reliability (MGB) 153
Table 5.1 Socio-demographic profile of the semi-structured interview 160
participants
Table 5.2 Main themes and sub-themes identified from the British 163
participants’ data
Table 5.3 Main themes and sub-themes identified from the Japanese 171
participants’ data
Table 5.4 Comparison of frequency of sub-themes of local Thai food 179
consumption factors between nationalities
Table 5.5 Comparison of frequency of sub-themes of reason to visit 187
Thailand between nationalities
Table 5.6 Comparison of frequency of sub-themes of reason to revisit 189
Thailand between nationalities
Table 5.7 Comparison of frequency of sub-themes of revisit intention 191
factors between nationalities
xii
Table 5.8 Comparison of frequency of sub-themes of revisit intention 193
factors between types of visitors
Table 5.9 Proposed items as factors affecting local Thai food 196
consumption
Table 5.10 Proposed items as factors affecting revisit intention to 199
Thailand
Table 6.1 Socio-demographic profiles of the survey respondents 205
Table 6.2 Travel characteristics of the survey respondents 208
Table 6.3 Comparison of novelty seeking scores between British and 209
Japanese respondents
Table 6.4 Comparison of novelty seeking groups between British and 210
Table 6.5 Comparison of FNS scores between British and Japanese 212
respondents
Table 6.6 Comparison of FNS scores between first-time and repeat 213
visitors
Table 6.7 Food neophobia grouping (FNG) and comparison between 213
British and Japanese respondents
Table 6.8 Food neophobia grouping (FNG) and comparison between 214
first-time and repeat visitors
Table 6.9 Comparison of FIS scores between British and Japanese 215
respondents
Table 6.10 Food involvement grouping (FIG) and comparison 216
between British and Japanese respondents
Table 6.11 Comparison of pre-visit and on-site destination image 218
between first time and repeat visitors
between British/Japanese first time and British/Japanese repeat
visitors
Table 6.14 Comparison between pre-visit and on-site destination 221
image
xiii
Table 6.15 Comparison of overall destination satisfaction between 222
first time and repeat visitors
British/Japanese first time and British/Japanese repeat visitors
Table 6.18 Correlation between pre-visit and on-site destination 225

image and overall satisfaction: Overall (n = 600)
Table 6.19 Comparison of pre-visit and on-site destination food image 227
between British/Japanese first time and British/Japanese repeat
visitors
Table 6.22 Comparison between pre-visit and on-site destination food 229
image
Table 6.23 Comparison of food satisfaction between British and 230
Table 6.24 Comparison of food satisfaction between first time and 231
repeat visitors
Table 6.25 Comparison of food satisfaction between British/Japanese 231
first time and British/Japanese repeat visitors
Table 6.26 Correlation between pre-visit and on-site destination food 233
image and food satisfaction: Overall (n = 600)
Table 6.27 Comparison of importance of local Thai food in decision to 234
visit and familiarity with Thai food between British and Japanese
respondents
Table 6.28 Comparison of importance of local Thai food in decision to 235
visit and familiarity with Thai food between first time and repeat
visitors
Table 6.29 Comparison of importance of local Thai food to decision to 236
xiv
visit and familiarity with Thai food between British/Japanese first time
and British/Japanese repeat visitors
Table 6.30 Comparison of importance of local Thai food to overall trip 238
experiences between British and Japanese respondents
experiences between first time and repeat visitors
experiences between British/Japanese first time and British/Japanese
repeat visitors
Table 6.33 Comparison of importance of local Thai food to future 240
revisit between British and Japanese respondents
Table 6.34 Comparison of importance of local Thai food to future 241
revisit between first time and repeat visitors
Table 6.35 Comparison between importance of local Thai food to 241
current visit and future revisit
Table 6.36 Results of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) 243
Table 6.37 Results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) 244
Table 6.38 Discriminant validity assessment 248
Table 6.39 Comparison of frequency of joining in food-related tourism 256
activities between British and Japanese respondents
Table 6.40 Comparison of frequency of joining in food-related tourism 261
activities between first-time and repeat visitors
Table 6.41 Correlation between short-term and long-term intention to 264
revisit Thailand, personality traits, images and satisfactions: Overall
(n = 600)
Table 6.42 Comparison of short-term intention to revisit Thailand 265
Table 6.43 Comparison of long-term intention to revisit Thailand 266
Table 6.44 Comparison of short-term intention to revisit Thailand 267
between first-time and repeat visitors
Table 6.45 Comparison of long-term intention to revisit Thailand 267
xv
between first-time and repeat visitors
Table 6.46 Results of measurement model for short-termed revisit 270
intention using CFA
Table 6.47 Results of measurement model for long-termed revisit 271
intention using CFA
Table 6.48 Discriminant validity assessment for short-term revisit 275
intention measurement model
Table 6.49 Discriminant validity assessment for long-term revisit 276
intention measurement model
Table 6.50 Results of multi-group SEMs of short-term revisit intention 279
model based on nationality
Table 6.51 Results of multi-group SEMs of long-term revisit intention 279
Table 6.52 Results of multi-group SEMs of short-term revisit intention 280
model based on type of visitor
Table 6.53 Results of multi-group SEMs of long-term revisit intention 280
Table 6.54 Differences in confirmed belief-based measures by 283
nationality
Table 6.55 Differences in confirmed belief-based measures by type of 286
visitor
Table 6.56 Results of hypothesis tests for short-term revisit intention 293
Table 6.57 Results of hypothesis tests for long-term revisit intention 294
Table 6.58 Moderating effects between nationalities for short-term 302

revisit intention
Table 6.59 Moderating effects between nationalities for long-term 308
revisit intention
Table 6.60 Moderating effects between types of visitors for short- 314
term revisit intention
Table 6.61 Moderating effects between types of visitors for long-term 316
revisit intention
Table 6.62 Correlation between desire, perceived behavioural control 318
xvi
on-site destination image and personality traits: Overall (n = 600)
Table 6.63 Summary of stepwise multiple regression analysis results 321
xvii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH

1.1.1 Thailand as a Culinary Tourism Destination
Since food is extensively acknowledged as a key part in interpreting the culture
of a society (Fieldhouse, 1986), and an essential medium for cultural expression
(Hjalager and Corigliano, 2000), food and gastronomic experiences have
progressively been promoted as a vital channel for tourists to learn the local
culture of a destination (Kivela and Crotts, 2006). As the number of people
travelling to seek culinary or gastronomic experiences has risen gradually
(Bessiere, 1998; Hall and Sharples, 2003; Long, 2004), culinary tourism has
become a trend in many Asian countries popular for their foods and cuisines
such as Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore.
Thailand has now officially been trying to become one of the forefronts of
culinary tourism (Tourism Authority of Thailand, 2019). Thailand has much
potential to be a top culinary tourism destination since Thai food is world
renowned for its distinctive and balanced tastes, refinement and usefulness for
consumers’ health obtained from the proper combination of nutritional
ingredients, particularly herbs and spices (Singsomboon, 2015; National
Research Council of Thailand and Kasetsart University, 2007; Tourism Authority
of Thailand, 2019). Despite having the shared factor in the use of spicy, sour,
salty, and sweet flavours to construct vivid and balanced tastes, Thai cuisine is
rich in its diversity based on its four distinct regions: the central plains, the
north, the northeast, and the south. Each regional Thai cuisine reflects the
geography, climate, neighbouring countries, and lifestyle of the region. (Tourism
Authority of Thailand, 2018). For example, the north dishes are mainly mild and
offer a wide range of noodles owing to neighbouring Burmese and Chinese
influence as well as the contributions from an ethnic mix of Yunnanese, Shan and
Burmese. Moreover, due to the cooler mountain climate, a greater variety of
vegetable is used in the north cuisine than in other regional cuisines. On the
1
contrary, the south cuisine is characterised by its spiciness and sharpness,
including its strong flavoured curries with the heat of the chilli and sour
tamarind. Coconut is also used more often in comparison to any other regional
Thai cuisines. This is because the south cuisine shares similarities of flavours
with its neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia. Furthermore, proximity to the
warm seas, the Gulf of Thailand and the Andaman seas, along with a sizeable
Muslim population results in a major role of seafood in the cuisine (Tourism
Authority of Thailand, 2017).
Additionally, the Thai government has heavily emphasised policies to promote

Thailand as “the kitchen of the world” with the main objectives of supporting the
dramatic increase of Thai restaurant businesses abroad and ensuring an
authentic Thai taste and international standards are provided to customers.
“Thai SELECT” and “Thai Food must be Thai SELECT” are additionally supportive
projects aiming to boost the “the kitchen of the world” policy as well as to certify
and promote authentic Thai food flavours offered to customers and tourists both
in the destination and worldwide (Destination Thailand News, 2018, Department
of International Trade Promotion, 2019). The National Identity Board (2000)
also reported that one of the key factors leading the success of tourism in
Thailand is Thai cuisine. This is also strengthened by the study of Nuttavuthisit
(2006), which reported that international tourists have perceived a fine quality
and a remarkable Thai food as an important attribute regarding the positive
image of Thailand. Rittichainuwat et al., (2008) also revealed that Thai food
motivated tourists to revisit Thailand and consequently underlined that Thailand
could be promoted as a culinary tourism destination.
1.1.2 Local Food Consumption at a Destination

Tasting local food, the most common form of culinary tourism, is a vital part of
the tourism experience because it can provide both a cultural activity and
entertainment (Hjalager and Richards, 2002). Moreover, local food on a holiday
is able to play an important role on introducing a tourist to new flavours and
different traditions at a destination (Fields, 2002; Kivela and Crotts, 2006). Due
to the fact that local food is documented as a key basis of cultural identity,
2
applying it as a unique tourism product would advantage a destination in the
matter of a competitive destination branding and marketing strategy (du Rand et
al., 2003).
As local food consumption and experience has become increasingly important in

hospitality and tourism areas (Kivela and Crotts, 2006; Kim et al., 2009c), some
studies have examined various relevant issues in this area. To give an example,
Cohen and Avieli (2004) investigated attractions and impediments to local food
experiences. Gastronomy influences on tourist experience at a destination were
researched by Kivela and Crotts (2006). Quan and Wang (2004), Chang et al.
(2010, 2011), and Mak et al. (2012) studied on tourist dining behaviour and
tourist food consumption at destinations. Furthermore, tourists’ needs and
wants for local food experience on their holidays were investigated by Cohen
and Avieli (2004) and Kim et al. (2009c). Tse and Crotts (2002) studied factors
affecting the scope and range of tourist’s culinary choices. Ryu and Jang (2006)
and Seo et al. (2017) studied intention to consume destination local food.
Specifically, model of local food consumption at a tourist destination, was

developed by Kim et al. (2009c). Kim et al. (2013) further empirically verified
this model utilising the measurement scale for those motivational factors
proposed by Kim and Eves (2012), Ritchey et al. (2003)’s version of the Food
Neophobia Scale and the modified Food Involvement Scale (FIS) of Bell and
Marshall (2003). The authors also studied the relationships among the key
factors found in the model. However, Chang et al. (2011) argued that variety is a
main factor affecting tourists’ evaluation of their food experiences at a
destination. Mak et al. (2012)’s study concluded that food-related personality
traits (food neophobia and variety seeking tendency) were salient factors
affecting tourist food consumption at a holiday destination. This is because
variety-seeking behaviours usually happen in the situation of hedonic
consumption. Tourism and food consumption are generally considered as
hedonic products, hence, the tourist food consumption can be dependent on the
effect of variety seeking behaviours.
3
Although cultural influences on local food consumption are not documented in
the study of Kim et al. (2009c), culture has widely been acknowledged as a
salient factor affecting tourist food consumption. This is because it affects types
of substances that an individual thinks appropriate to eat (Alkins and Bowlers,
2001; Logue, 1991). Because of cultural differences, what food is considered
‘acceptable’ or ‘good’ in a culture group might become ‘unacceptable’, or ‘bad’ in
another group (Marshall 1995; Mäkelä, 2000). Regarding studies of cultural
influences on tourist food consumption, Cohen and Aveli (2004) claimed that
Westerners abroad tends to be more inclined than Asians to experience in the
food of others. Sheldon and Fox (1998) reported that food is perceived as the
most important component of a satisfactory holiday for British and Japanese,
whereas it ranked as third and fifth for Australians and Germans consecutively
and as not important at all for French. On the contrary, another study found that
Japanese, French and Italian tourists was likely to avoid eating local food during
their trip and always preferred consuming food from their own cuisine while
American tourists were observed as slightly preferring to taste local food in a
destination (Pizam and Sussmann, 1995). An individual’s willingness to try new
or different foods on holiday is therefore influenced by culture.
1.1.3 Tourist’s Revisit Intention to a Holiday Destination

Tourists in a destination consist of first timers and repeaters. With reference to
the 2017 statistical report of total international tourist arrivals to Thailand,
repeaters accounted for 63.2% of the total and 36.8% for first timers (TAT
Intelligence Center, 2019a). Because retaining repeat visitors is more
economical than attracting new tourists, various destinations appear to rely
seriously on the former (Lau and Mckercher, 2004, Weaver and Lawton, 2002;
Um et al., 2006). Moreover, repeat visitors can be considered as loyal customers
of the destination, who are able to become information channels that unofficially
create networks of friends, families and other prospective travellers to a
destination (Reid and Reid, 1993). This means repeat tourists also benefit a
destination in the matter of producing more sales revenue (Hennig-Thurau and
Hansen, 2000) and decreasing marketing costs (Kozak, 2001; Lau and
McKercher, 2004; Oppermann, 2000). Loyalty visitors also benefit the
4
destination in terms of the long-term performance and destination quality
(Keane, 1997; Reichheld and Saae, 1990). Hence, understanding the
relationships between revisit intention and its salient factors is essential for the
tourism authorities, as they would then have better knowledge of how to
promote an attractive image and develop effective marketing and management
strategies to make the best use of destination resources (Chen and Tsai, 2007;
Lau and Mackercher, 2004; Petrick, 2004b).
Concerning differences in determinants influencing revisit proneness between

both groups, first-timers’ revisit intention tends to be largely affected by
destination performance in general. On the other hand, repeaters’ revisit
intention tends to be mainly affected by marketing promotional strategies
aiming to evoke positive memories and by communicated information on new
attractions in the destination (Um et al., 2006). Moreover, Oppermann (2000)
stated that repeaters tend to express more diversified and detailed demands for
information and level of destination awareness than the first timers. Although
repeat visitors seem to be less satisfied with their visits compared with first-time
visitors (Anwar and Sohail, 2004; McKercher and Wong, 2004), they possess
stronger intention to revisit in the future than first timers (Juaneda, 1996;
Petrick and Backman, 2002; Sonmez and Graefe, 1998). These arguments
postulate a reasonably simple basis for segmenting tourists into first timers and
repeaters in order to conduct efficient marketing and effective management
strategies so as to retain them as repeaters (Lau and McKercher, 2004;
Oppermann, 1997; Petrick, 2004b).
Although the tourists’ revisit intention phenomenon has been widely scrutinised
in tourism studies, the impacts of the timing matter and repeat visitor types have
only been acknowledged in the last decade (Huang et. al, 2014; Oppermann,
2000). To better understand repeat visitations over time, tourist typologies,
which divided repeat tourists according to the frequency and/or recency of their
revisits, have been utilised in several studies (e.g. Oppermann, 1999;
Oppermann, 2000; Feng and Jang, 2004; Huang et al., 2014). These suggest that
tourists’ intention to revisit differ conditional on time and the intention could be
5
divided from a temporal perspective. Moreover, the relative importance of the
first timers and the different types of repeaters assign to factors affecting their
revisit intention with temporal dimensions is different (Huang et al., 2014).
Therefore, observing tourists’ revisit intention from a time perspective is crucial
as the intention regularly changes over time (Feng and Jang, 2004).
Understanding the time-based dimensions of revisit intention also enables a
destination to improve their management of the visitors flow and to design
applicable marketing strategies (Darnell and Johnson, 2001). Opperman (2000)
also pointed out that revisit intention have been criticised in its inadequacy to
define the destination loyalty evidently, whereas measuring actual revisit
behaviour is problematic in real practices. Thus, a better understanding of the
intended revisit timing is valuable as it ties the gap between the intention to
revisit and the actual revisit behaviour.
Even though factors affecting tourists’ revisit intention to a destination have

been identified and examined through a large number of studies (e.g. Yuksel,
2001; Li and Carr 2004; Um et al., 2006; Chen and Tsai, 2007; Chi and Qu, 2008;
Quintal and Polczynski, 2010; Som et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2015), the research on
antecedents of intention to revisit a destination for culinary tourism reasons are
still limited. Specifically, Kivela and Crott (2006) suggested that if tourists’ food
experiences are satisfied by a unique and memorable culinary identity, they
seem to repeatedly visit to the same destination in the future to savour its
gastronomy. Moreover, a few studies have revealed destination food image and
food satisfaction as two main aspects that boosting tourists’ intention to revisit a
destination (Chi et al., 2013; Choe and Kim, 2018; Karim et al., 2010;
Lertputtarak, 2012; Ling et al., 2010). However, most of these studies have
focused on measuring the attributes of destination food image and its direct
and/or indirect effect via food satisfaction or overall satisfaction on the return
intention only but have not considered other potential factors that could
influence the revisit intention. Only the study of Choe and Kim (2018) that
evaluate the indirect effects local food values on destination food image and
intention to return to Hong Kong for food tourism through attitude towards local
food. For the reason that culinary tourism is such a competitive market,
6
understanding how to retain tourists is considered to be essential for a
destination targeting to brand itself as a vanguard of this market.
1.2 PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH

Thus, this study aimed to identify tourists’ motivations for consuming local Thai
food in Thailand and how the local Thai food experience influences the temporal
revisit intentions. The study also aimed to investigate the salient factors affect
the temporal revisit intentions to Thailand for gastronomy purposes, and to
examine the relationships between these factors and their relative importance
on the tourists’ intention to revisit on the time based dimensions.
To achieve the research purposes, this study is carried out to meet the following
research objectives:
1. To identify motivations for tourists’ local Thai food consumption and evaluate
cultural differences and differences among first-timers and different types of
repeaters on these motivations
2. To explore the connection between the motivations for local Thai food
consumption and those for revisiting Thailand over time
3. To investigate the relationship between local Thai food experiences and the
intention to revisit Thailand over time.
4. To identify salient factors affecting tourists’ intention to revisit Thailand over
time for gastronomy purposes.
5. To critically investigate the relationships between the factors identified and
their relative importance on the intentions to revisit over time
6. To evaluate cultural differences and differences among first-timers and types
of repeaters on the relationships between the factors identified and their relative
importance on the intentions to revisit over time
1.3 RATIONALE FOR SELECTING TWO NATIONALITIES OF TOURISTS

The sample of this study is limited to British and Japanese tourists who have
eaten a considerable amount of local food during their trip in Thailand because it
allows the researchers to compare cultural differences on motivations for
consuming local Thai food and on the relationships between the temporal revisit
7
intention factors. As per the mentioned reasons, these culturally different groups
are selected.
Hofstede’s national cultural rankings have been used to investigate cultural

differences in tourist behaviour in several studies (Reisinger, 2009).
Individualism dimension was reported to significantly affect perceptions of
service quality (Furrer, Liu and Sudharshan, 2000) and information search
(Chen, 2000). Uncertainty avoidance index dimension was evidenced to affect a
number and diversity of tourists’ culinary explorations on holiday (Tse and
Crotts, 2005), travel characteristics and patterns (Money and Crotts, 2003; Litvin
et al., 2004), complimenting and complaining behaviours (Liu and McClure,
2001) as well as information search (Litvin et al., 2004). Masculinity dimension
was revealed to affect tourists’ loyalty and travel satisfaction (Crotts and
Erdmann, 2000). Referring to Figure 1.1 representing Hoftsede’s six cultural
dimension scores between Thailand, UK and Japan (The Hoftsede Centre, 2016).
By summing the absolute ranked differences between a tourist’s home culture
and a destination’s culture of each of Hofstede’s six cultural value dimensions
(i.e. power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance and
indulgence) (Jackson, 2001), cultural distance the British shared between
Thailand (202) is greater than the distance the Japanese shared with Thailand
(184). Hence, the British are considered to be more culturally distant to Thailand
than the Japanese. This enables the evaluation of how culturally proximate and
distant tourists varies in their local food consumption motivations and the
intentions to revisit.
8
Figure 1.1 Hoftsede’s six cultural dimension scores of Thailand in
comparison with UK and Japan
Furthermore, British and Japanese tourists have maintained a position in the top
ten of Thailand’s total tourist arrivals from 2010 to 2017 (TAT Intelligence
Center, 2019a). In addition, visitors from UK are considered as one of the largest
spenders with significant length of stay around 18.25 days per trip (TAT
Intelligence Center, 2019b). With reference to the executive summary of repeat
visitors to Thailand (Tourism Authority of Thailand, 2013), around one-third of
Japanese repeat visitors and two-fifth of British repeat tourists perceived notable
Thai food as the most important attribute towards the positive image of
Thailand. Additionally, 85.5% of UK visitors and 79% of Japanese tourists
claimed that they were willing to return to Thailand within the next three years
(Tourism Authority of Thailand, 2008a; Tourism Authority of Thailand, 2008c).
As a consequence, UK and Japanese visitors seem to be potential groups for
Thailand’s culinary tourism market. For all above reasons, these two
nationalities appear to be appropriate samples for this current study.
9
1.4 DEFINITION OF TERMS
Local food is food and beverages that are locally produced or grown or sold as
local specialties. Local food can be produced with raw materials from other areas
but needs to be locally processed and has a local identity (Kim et al., 2009c).
Culinary tourism is defined as “any tourism experience in which one learns

about, appreciates or consumes local culinary resources and which encompasses
both travel motivated for culinary reasons and those in which the culinary
experience is not the main reason for the visit” (Smith and Xiao, 2008, cited in
Sanchez-Canizares and Lopez-Guzman, 2012, p.232).
Culinary tourism activities comprise various forms of tourists’ food-related

activities: sampling and tasting variety of local cuisines by your own, purchasing
local food products as souvenirs or for your own use, experiencing the
characteristics of a unique food-producing region, participating in a food-eating
or shopping tour, attending a local cookery course, and visiting a local food
festival or event.
10
1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS
The thesis will consist of seven chapters. Figure 1.2 shows the structure of the
thesis.
Figure 1.2 Structure of the thesis
11
Chapter 1 introduces the background of the research, the research purposes and
objectives, and the structure of the thesis.
Chapter 2 reviews food choice literature and discusses factors affecting food
choice in general contexts. The role of local food in tourism and the definition of
culinary tourism are explained. Tourist food consumption research and factors
affecting local food consumption in a tourist destinations are discussed in order
to initially draw a picture of how these factors can connect with tourists’ revisit
intention to a culinary tourism destination.
Chapter 3 reviews tourists’ revisit intention literature and highlights differences

of first time visitors and repeat visitors in the context of revisit intention.
Classification of repeat visitors and its linkage to intended revisit timing are
explained. Measurement of destination revisit intention using attitude models is
elaborated to justify the theoretical framework for examining the relationships
between factors affecting tourist’s revisit intention to a culinary tourism
destination and their relative importance on the revisit intention. Salient factors
affecting destination revisit intention are discussed. Factors affecting the
intention to revisit a culinary tourism destination are identified from the linkage
between relevant literature on tourist local food consumption and tourist’s
revisit intention studies.
Chapter 4 discusses research methodology including research philosophy,

research approach, research design, and the methods used for this research.
Ethical considerations of the research are explained.
Chapter 5 presents and discusses the findings of the stage 1: semi-structured in-
depth interviews.
Chapter 6 illustrates and discusses the findings of the stage 2: a questionnaire

survey.
12
Chapter 7 summarises and discusses the main findings of the whole research.
Conclusions for the whole research are provided. Theoretical and managerial
implications of the findings are discussed. Recommendations for future studies
and limitations of the research are specified.
13
CHAPTER 2
FOOD CHOICE AND FOOD CONSUMPTION
IN TOURIST DESTINATIONS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter aim to provide a critical review of factors affecting food choice in
general context as well as factors influencing tourist food consumption, and local
food consumption at a holiday destination so as to provide an initial
understanding of how the factors underlying tourists’ consumption of local food
could connect to the tourists’ intention to return to the same destination with an
aim to experience its culinary tourism offerings. The chapter comprises two
main sections. First, several complex food choice models and food choice
questionnaire widely used as a measuring instrument of food choice
determinants are discussed in order to provide an understanding of several
features on food consumption from an extensive view and to define the main
food choice factors. In the second part, food consumption in tourist destinations
are explained, which include the role of local food in tourism, culinary tourism
and its definition, and finally factors affecting local food consumption at a tourist
destination are identified from the literature.
2.2 FOOD CHOICE AND PREFERENCE

In common with other complex behaviours, food choice and preference are
influenced by various factors (Shepherd and Sparks, 1994; Furst et al., 1996).
These factors include the sensory characteristics of food, such as taste, odour
and texture, and non-food factors such as cognitive information, physical
environment and social factors (Bell and Meiselmann, 1995; Eertmans et al.,
2001).
Even though food choice and preference are often used interchangeably, their
definitions are slightly different. Food preference is a liking for a specific food;
whereas food choice is connected with purchase intention and unexpected
situations e.g. changes in product availability and out of stock conditions (Van
14
Trijp and Meulenberg, 1996). Food choice attempts to understand “the selection
and consumption of food and beverages’’ as well as indicate “what, how, when,
where, and with whom people eat’’ and other features of food consumption
behaviours (Sobal et al., 2006, p. 1). Although a consumer prefers one product
rather than another, at the point of consumption he or she may purchase the
other one if it is more readily accessible in terms of both location and other
factors such as cost.
2.2.1 Food Choice Models

Several models seeking to delineate the possible influences on food choice have
been presented in the literature (e.g. Pilgrim, 1957; Khan, 1981; Randall and
Sanjur, 1981; Shepherd, 1985; Furst et al., 1996). There are similarities between
many of the food choice models, although there are some differences between
them. Some models, such as Pilgrim (1957)’s, Khan (1981)’s and Randall and
Sanjur (1981)’s, integrate salient factors and incorporate them into a structure of
food preferences or acceptance. Particularly, these models postulate that food
preferences or acceptability are determined by factors related to the food, to the
individual and to the environment in which choices are made. Like Randall and
Sanjur, whose model moves from preference to consumption, Shepherd (1985)
categorised salient factors affecting food choice as those related to the food, the
individual and the external environment.
Concerning differences between models, Pilgrim (1957) considered the

phenomenon as being dynamic, such that food acceptance could change over
time. For example, the individual characteristic of hunger is able to change over
time. While Khan’s model hypothesises that salient factors affecting food
preference are interrelated, Randall and Sanjur’s model presents no interaction
between them. Dissimilar to other models, Furst et al. (1996)’s model regards
the food choice process as reflective, automatic and as consisting of three key
components: life course, influences, and personal system. Despite the fact that
many food choice models do not aim to clarify how the different factors may
interact or explain the possible mechanisms of action and quantify the relative
importance of these factors, such models can be utilised to define the variables
15
that should be measured in food consumption studies (Shepherd, 1989;
Shepherd and Sparks, 1994).
In the current study, the models that will be reviewed and critically discussed
have been selected because they display the complexity of food consumption.
Additionally, they describe salient variables affecting food choice, allowing for an
understanding of various features such as biological, cultural, social and
psychological influences on food consumption from a general point of view.
2.2.1.1. Food acceptance model (Pilgrim, 1957)

Pilgrim (1957) defined food acceptance as “consumption with pleasure”. He
proposed a model to explain the factors underlying food acceptance, which
shows that food acceptance is reliant on perception. Food perception is affected
by three components: 1) physiology, 2) sensations, and 3) attitudes towards the
food (see Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1 Food acceptance model

Source: Pilgrim (1957)
The first component, ‘physiology’, involves the hunger, appetite, and internal
mileu (such as endocrine balance and metabolic changes) of an individual. The
sensation component consists of the sensations derived from the food as well as
16
the reaction of sensory receptors. The environment forms the attitude towards
the food, learning and past experience of a person, and can be recently obtained,
or long established and entrenched.
Pilgrim (1957) pointed out that all three components play a role in perception
and, latterly, food acceptance. However, there are also mutual interactions
between the components. Above all, his study highlighted that human past
experiences and attitudes are sometimes more important than the physiological
state of the individual and the sensations stimulated by the food. The result
emphasises the significance of past experience and attitude in the study of food
consumption behaviour.
2.2.1.2 Food preferences model (Khan, 1981)

Rather than delineating consumption of food via food acceptance, Khan (1981)
described influences on food choice through preferences for food. In his model,
food preferences are seen as a multifaceted phenomenon, having numerous
determinants. He categorised factors underlying food preferences into seven
groups: 1) personal factors, 2) socio-economic factors, 3) educational factors, 4)
cultural, religious and regional factors, 5) biological, physiological and
psychological factors, 6) intrinsic factors, and 7) extrinsic factors (see Figure
2.2).
17
Figure 2.2 Food preferences model
Source: Khan (1981)
The personal factors involve individuality and personal aspects, which comprise
expectation, familiarity, priority, influences of other persons, personality,
appetites, moods and emotions, and meanings attached to foods. Socio-economic
factors consist of household income, cost of food, symbolic meanings, social
status, society, and security. Educational influences include educational level and
nutritional concerns. Moreover, food preferences can be affected by cultural,
religious and regional factors encompassing influences from cultural origins,
regional, religious, and racial background as well as beliefs and traditions.
Beliefs, sometimes averse to change even in migrants, can be seen as a
manifestation of cultural values connected with country of origin (Khan, 1981).
Biological, physiological and psychological factors refer to sex, age, physiological
changes, psychological determinants and biological attributes. Intrinsic factors
are food-related factors that include the sensory characteristics of food (e.g.
appearance, odour, temperature, flavour and texture) and how the food is
prepared and presented. Extrinsic factors refer to external determinants directly
affecting consumer food preferences such as environment, situation,
advertisement and seasonal variations.
18
Khan's model illustrates interactions between groups of factors, in addition to
their effects on food preference and postulates that they are likely to vary among
individuals. However, Sijtsema et al. (2004) claimed that since this model
consists of many variables, it is difficult to examine them all together in a single
study. The model, at least, introduces the important effects of cultural, religious
and regional factors as well as psychological factors, socio-economic factors and
extrinsic factors on people’s food preference.
2.2.1.3 Food preference and consumption model (Randall and Sanjur, 1981)
Similar to Khan (1981), Randall and Sanjur (1981) developed a model explaining
food preference, but moved on from preference to consumption. The proposed
model divides factors into three categories: 1) characteristics of the individual,
2) characteristics of the food, and 3) characteristics of the environment (see
Figure 2.3).
Figure 2.3 Food preferences and consumption model

Source: Randall and Sanjur (1981)
The characteristics of the individual refer to a person’s age, sex, income,

education level, nutrition knowledge cooking skills and creativity as well as
19
attitudes to health and the role of food in it. The characteristics of the food
include the sensory characteristics of food (taste, appearance, and texture), food
cost and type, the manner in which food is prepared and presented, seasoning,
and food combinations. Lastly, the characteristics of the environment comprise
season, employment, mobility, degree of urbanisation, household size and family
stage.
Unlike Khan’s model, this model only pinpoints three salient independent factors
affecting food preference and consumption: ‘the individual’, ‘the food’, and ‘the
environment’, and expresses no interaction between them. However, Macbeth
(1997) pointed out that Randall and Sanjur (1981)’s model was deficient in
omitting cultural attitudes to a foodstuff, as this was not specifically included
within the ‘environment’; a limitation of the model. Macbeth (1997) also argued
that Khan’s model provides a more realistic picture of food preference and
choice since the model incorporates cultural and religious together with
psychological, socio-economic and extrinsic factors among others.
2.2.1.4 Food choice and intake model (Shepherd, 1985)

Much the same as Randall and Sanjur (1981), Shepherd (1985) proposed a
model that groups important factors in elucidating food consumption behaviour
as those related to the food, the person and the external economic and social
environment (see Figure 2.4).
20
Figure 2.4 Food choice and intake model
Source: Shepherd (1985)
The physical and chemical composition of food may have nutritional effects or be
perceived as sensory attributes (e.g. aroma, taste and texture). Some chemical
elements in the foods (e.g. the amount of protein and carbohydrate) will have
influences on the person, for instance, decreasing hunger (Shepherd and Sparks,
1994). Hence, levels of satiety or hunger may affect people’s choices (Booth et al.,
1982). Sensory attributes are not given as direct determinants of a person’s food
choice, but are channeled into an individual’s attitudes and beliefs with regards
to the sensory properties of the food. Social factors, such as culture, also play an
important role in a person’s sensory preferences. Within a specific culture there
is a great degree of agreement on the suitability of specific sensory
characteristics for specific foods, but there are also very considerable differences
between people in their preferences, which may result in different food choices
and diets (Shepherd and Sparks, 1994).
Psychological differences between individuals, such as personality, can also

influence choice of food (Shepherd and Farleigh, 1986). Moreover, post-
ingestional consequences on psychological conditions, such as mood and
sleepiness, may affect future food choices through associative learning (Rogers
21
et al, 1994). Furthermore, other factors related to the person (e.g. age, gender,
and experience), associated with factors external to the food and person (e.g.
price, brand and cultural aspects), can influence the person’s beliefs and
attitudes about health effects, nutritional quality, and price and value of food, as
well as sensory preferences. These may collectively contribute to a person’s food
choice and thus intake.
In summary, it can be seen from Shepherd (1985)’s model that many of the
influences on food choice seem to be mediated by an individual’s beliefs and
attitudes. Hence, understanding beliefs and attitudes held by an individual as
well as their relationship to the choices made, provides a means for attempting
to extend knowledge of the roles of various factors in food choice (Shepherd and
Raats, 1996).
2.2.1.5 Food choice process model (Furst et al., 1996)

With an attempt to fully understand the complexity of the food choice process,
Furst et al. (1996) employed a constructionist approach, conducting in-depth
interviews to investigate how adults made their food choice decisions and what
affected their choices, and thus inductively developed a food choice process
model. The model shows the types of influencing factors, the core parts of the
process a person uses in selecting foods, and the relationships between them.
Factors associated with food choice were categorised into three main
components operating together when individuals construct the process of
choosing foods: 1) life course, 2) influences, and 3) personal systems (see Figure
2.5).
22
Figure 2.5 Food choice process model
Source: Furst et al. (1996)
Furst et al. (1996) defined the life course as “the personal roles and the social,
cultural and physical environments to which a person has been and is exposed”
(p. 250). Unlike previous food choice models, the food process model states life
23
course as the underpinning for people’s food choice, as it is the underlying
source of many factors shaping food choice, indicating that present eating
choices tend to derive from past experiences. An individual’s life course
generates five major groups of influences: ideals, personal factors, resources,
social framework and food context. These influences shape one another, as well
as serving to reinforce, interact and compete with one another. They
consequently inform and shape people’s personal food systems; the mental
processes by which people translate the influences on their food choices into
what and how they eat in a specific circumstance.
The personal food systems consist of two major components: 1) conscious value
negotiations and 2) unconsciously operationalised strategies involving choice
patterns derived from formerly resolved considerations that have become
habitual. The value negotiations concern the weighing and accommodating of
values important to an individual in a specific food choice event. The results of
Furst et. al (1996)’s study showed that the most important values were: sensory
perceptions, monetary considerations, convenience, health or nutrition,
managing relationships and quality. The results suggested that any value can be
the deciding factor in a particular situation, but values are occasionally in
harmony. However, once conflicts between values occur, one value commonly
appears as the dominant value.
The model explains the broad nature of the food choice process. As underlined
by Furst et. al (1996), when conceptualising food choice, the role of life course
must be clearly considered as over the life course various experiences, including
those connected with the aging process, play a part in an individual’s choice.
Furthermore, specific influences and values might be more salient than others
for particular people in particular food choice events. Most importantly, this
conceptual model contributes to food choice theory explicitly as it is grounded in
individuals’ experience. The model presents a comprehensive and integrated
viewpoint on the food choice process allowing for future research to examine
which influences and values are more dominant in particular participants under
particular circumstances.
24
Although the models discussed shows the likely factors affecting individuals’
food choice and preference, they are not quantitative in general and do not aim
to neither elucidate the possible mechanisms of action of various factors, nor to
measure their relative importance or how they interact with each other
(Shepherd and Sparks, 1994).
2.2.2 Food Choice Questionnaire

As the food choice models do not allow the quantitative measurement of the
factors at individual level, Steptoe et al. (1995) introduced the food choice
questionnaire (FCQ) to measure the relative importance of nine distinct factors
underlying food choice: health, mood, convenience, sensory appeal, natural
content, price, weight control, familiarity and ethical concern. The FCQ was
developed through the factor analysis of results from a sample of 358 UK adults
and finally contain 36 items related to the nine motivational dimensions (See
Table 2.1).
25
Table 2.1 Items of food choice questionnaire (FCQ)
Dimensions Items
It is important to me that the food I eat on a typical day:
Health - Contains a lot of vitamins and minerals

- Keeps me healthy
- Is nutritious
- Is high in protein
- Is good for my skin/teeth/hair/nails etc
- Is high in fibre and roughage
Mood - Helps me cope with stress
- Helps me to cope with life
- Helps me relax
- Keeps me awake/alert
- Cheers me up
- Makes me feel good
Convenience - Is easy to prepare
- Can be cooked very simply
- Takes no time to prepare
- Can be bought in shops close to where I live or work
- Is easily available in shops and supermarkets
Sensory Appeal - Smells nice
- Looks nice
- Has a pleasant texture
- Tastes good
Natural Content - Contains no additives
- Contains natural ingredients
- Contains no artificial ingredients
Price - Is not expensive

- Is cheap
- Is good value for money
Weight Control - Is low in calories
- Helps me control my weight
- Is low in fat
Familiarity - Is what I usually eat

- Is familiar
- Is like the food I ate when I was a child
Ethical Concern - Comes from countries I approve of politically

- Has the country of origin clearly marked
- Is packaged in an environmentally friendly way
Source: Steptoe et al. (1995)
26
The respondents rated health, sensory appeal, convenience and price as the most
important food choice motives, whereas the other five were generally endorsed
less strongly. Differences in factors affecting food choice were reported in
relation to respondents’ demographics: sex, age and income. More specifically,
females rated the importance of health and weight control in their food choice
decision significantly higher than males did. Age was positively correlated with
health in females, while mood and weight control were positively correlated with
age in males. There were significant differences on ratings for sensory appeal,
price and familiarity among the income groups. Sensory appeal had more
emphasis from the moderate- and high-income groups, while price and
familiarity were rated as more important among lower income individuals.
Steptoe et al. (1995)’s research was, however, conducted with a sample from a
single nationality, which can result in cultural limitations in its relevance to food
choice more globally. It is possible that the importance of different factors might
differ in other cultures.
The FCQ instrument has been used widely in food choice studies that aim to
assess multidimensional motives related to food choice, especially in food and
health studies. For example, Pollard et al. (1998) applied the FCQ to measure the
importance of the nine factors underlying individuals’ healthy eating and explain
differences in their dietary intakes. The findings reported that differences in the
importance individuals attributed to FCQ determinants mediated differences
between men and women in the frequency of consumption of various foods. In
particular, women assigned greater importance to weight control, natural
content and ethical concerns than men did. This seemed to provide a rationale
for the generally healthier diet in women in comparison to men. Furthermore,
Lindeman and Väänänen (2000) translated the FCQ into Finnish in order to
assess factors underlying food choice in a Finnish sample. Relative importance
and gender differences similar to Steptoe et al. (1995)’s results were reported.
Prescott et al. (2002) conducted a cross-cultural comparison study for food

choice motives by administering the FCQ to female consumers in Japan, Taiwan,
Malaysia and New Zealand. Differences in the most important food choice
27
motives were found among the sampled countries: price for Japanese, health for
Taiwanese and Chinese Malaysian, and sensory appeal for New Zealanders. All
countries ranked familiarity as least important for food choice. However,
Eertmans et al. (2006) claimed that the cross-cultural validity of the FCQ has not
been tested so far. The authors also pointed out some problems with Prescott et
al. (2002)’s study. In their research, different data collection methods and
different age groups were used in the selected countries, which may result in
sample and administration bias. The results of Eertmans et al. (2006) did not
validate the generalisability of FCQ’s factor structure, and its items, as well as the
underlying constructs, seem to have different connotations in different western
cultures. The authors therefore concluded that cross cultural differences
regarding food choice motives found and reported in previous studies should not
be accepted without verification.
More recently, Januszewska et al. (2011) implemented the FCQ across four
countries: Belgium, Hungary, Romania and the Philippines with two main
objectives: to investigate the invariance of the FCQ’s factor structure across
different populations and to examine food choice motives in different countries.
In contradiction with Eertmans et al. (2006) ‘s results, the recent study reported
that the factorial structure of the FCQ is invariant regarding factor configuration,
factor loadings and item intercepts. Like Steptoe et al. (1995)’s research
conducted with a British population, Januszewska et al. (2011) found sensory
appeal as the most important food choice motive among the Europeans. This
report was also in an agreement with the findings on New Zealand consumers
with European origin in Prescott et al. (2002)’s study. In addition, Januszewska
et al. (2011)’s study highlighted differences on factors affecting food choice
between Asians and Europeans. Compared to Europeans, Filipinos ranked mood
as more important, while sensory appeal was assigned less importance. This
corresponds with the results of Prescott et al. (2002) that Asians pay less
attention to sensory appeal.
28
2.2.3 Factors affecting food choice in general contexts
With reference to the review of food choice models and the FCQ, food choice and
preference are based on several complex factors. Even though the models differ
in detail and focus, they share similarities on factors proposed. As a consequence,
factors affecting food choice in general could be grouped into three broad
categories found as a general agreement in previous literature: 1) factors related
to the food, 2) factors related to the environment, and 3) factors related to the
individual. Table 2.2 presents a summary of the factors identified in the
reviewed model and the FCQ.
29
Table 2.2 Summary of key authors and factors affecting food choice in
general
Factors Pilgrim, Khan, Randall & Shepherd, Furst Steptoe
1957 1981 Sanjur, 1985 et al., et al.,
1981 1996 1995
Factors Related to the Food
Sensory properties
(e.g. taste, aroma, texture, ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
appearance)
Other food-related
factors (e.g. combinations,
presentations, nutrient
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
contents, methods of
preparation, food quality
and price)
Factors Related to the Environment
Environmental factors
(e.g. food availability,
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
seasonal variation, food
advertising and marketing)
Factors Related to the Individual
Physiological factors
✓ ✓ ✓
(e.g. hunger, appetite)
Psychological factors
(e.g. personality, mood,
attitude, past experience,
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
beliefs, past experience,
familiarity, value,
expectation)
Socio-demographic &
economic factors (e.g.
age, gender, social class, ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
income, educational
status)
Cultural religious &
regional factors (e.g.
✓ ✓ ✓
cultural origins, religious
background)
30
2.2.3.1 Factors related to the food
Factors related to the food itself include sensory attributes (e.g. taste, aroma,
texture, appearance), and other food-related factors such as food contents,
methods of preparation, food quality and price. The first factor that affects food
choice behaviour seems to be the sensory aspects of the food. Due to biological
and related factors, sensory stimuli and perception are highly individualistic
amongst people. In consequence, it is noteworthy that no any dish can satisfy
everyone (Mckee and Harden, 1990). Sensory perception of foods plays an
important role on whether they are selected for consumption (Cabanac, 1979;
Fantino, 1984). All senses are incorporated, although some play a large part
more than others (Shepherd and Farleigh, 1989). An individual’s initial reaction
to foods is affected by senses such as smell, sight and touch. However, taste is the
final checkpoint in a food product. Liking food taste can enhance the repurchase
of that food. Conversely, if individuals dislike the taste, they will never taste the
food again (Mckee and Harden, 1990). Each person possesses different
fundamental taste preferences due to biological factors explaining innate
preferences for sweet tastes and dislike of bitter tastes. Apart from biological
constructs, the environmental and cultural influences are also vital in a person’s
taste preferences. A consumer’s past experiences with a food product is
employed to expect its specific taste. If the food tastes different from what is
expected, it may discourage consumers from purchasing that food because of
dissatisfaction (Mckee and Harden, 1990).
Other sensory and physical attributes that influence food preferences and choice
are texture, aroma, appearance, portion size and temperature of food (Asp, 1999;
Furst et al., 1996; Bellisle, 2005). However, Clark and Wood (1999) claimed that
food quality is the most important determinant consumers considered when
selecting food as well as choosing a restaurant to dine in regardless of the
occasions or restaurant types. People commonly assess the quality of a food
product based on several components associating with the food product, which
can be divided into intrinsic and extrinsic facet. The intrinsic aspect comprise
sensory and physical features of the food product such as portion size, flavour,
texture, colour, freshness, content, and methods of preparation. Extrinsic aspects
31
are the external parts of the product, which include packaging or presentation,
price, and product image (Kerin et al, 1992; Schiffman and Kanuk, 1997; Dulen,
1999).
Besides, psychological and physiological perceptions of the sensory aspects of

food are associated with human food preferences (Lyman, 1989; Charley and
Weaver, 1998). Food preferences have a dominant influence in food choice
because they indicate the total of satisfaction expected by an individual when
consuming a food. Preferences involve the level of liking a food. People normally
like foods that are familiar, considered pleasant, and usually eaten. Hence, food
preferences can predict consumption. Some foods are more likely to be disliked,
since they are regarded as unpleasant or unfamiliar (Asp, 1999).
2.2.3.2 Factors related to the environment

Examples of factors related to the environment are food availability and seasonal
variation, as well as food advertising and marketing. Mela (1999) stated that
food availability is another key determinant affecting food choice. Which foods
are available to an individual seem to differ across the world and the availability
can also be affected by seasonal variations that leads to instabilities in food
supply; hence; these result in varying food preferences (Jaeger et al., 1998; Mela,
1999). This explains why the society or culture individuals brought up are very
important for understanding consumer food preferences (Vabo and Hansen,
2014). Nevertheless, concerning western people, the food they desired is
generally available to them. Availability can, thus, be interpreted in different
ways in different individuals (Vabo and Hansen; 2014). Nestle et al. (1998)
separated food availability into overall availability and immediate availability.
While overall availability involves the variety of food options that are reachable,
acceptable, and affordable by an individual, immediate availability is defined as
whether a food product is ready and convenience for a consumer. This includes
the product’s shelf life, time needed for preparation, and whether the product
can be eaten everywhere (Nestle et al., 1998). Food advertisement and
marketing influence both adolescents’ and children’s food choice. Neumark-
Sztainer et al. (1999) reported that US advertising focuses on non-healthy foods
32
and drinks (such as soft drinks in a meal deal, not juice or milk), both within the
media and within fast-food restaurants and this can affect what they order for a
meal. Children aging above eight can understand what is advertised, usually via
television. Hence, heavy marketing of high fat and high sugar foods can diminish
their healthy eating behaviour (Story and French, 2004).
2.2.3.3 Factors related to the individual

In comparison with the previous two categories, factors related to the individual
are commonly acknowledged to be highly important in elucidating the
differences in food consumption (Rozin, 2006). The individual category
encompasses various factors such as familiarity, health and nutrition concern,
personality traits, demographic factors (e.g. age, gender, social class), and
cultural and religious influences. All factors will be briefly discussed their effects
on food choice. However, to focus the literature review on the research
objectives, the roles of personality traits and cultural influences pertaining to
food choice in general will be elaborated. However, these two factors in the
context of tourist local food consumption will be discussed more in detail in
Section 2.3.2.1.
Familiarity
Familiarity and unfamiliarity can influence the like and dislike of certain foods. It
is notably that novel foods are often rejected at first (Birch and Marlin, 1982;
Pliner and Pelchat, 1991). The increase of exposure that results in familiarity can
enhance liking for novel foods (Pliner, 1982). Furthermore, McCorkindale (1992)
claimed that familiar foods eaten in childhood appear to be really important in
shaping future taste. Thus, it may be supposed that food familiarity is another
important factor affecting food choice (Prescott et al., 2002; Pliner, 1982).
Health and nutrition concern

The health and nutrition value includes factors regarding disease avoidance or
control (e.g. heart disease and cancer), weight control that can be enthused by
health or aesthetics, and bodily well-being (Furst et al. 1996; Cockerham et al.,
1988). People often refer to health in terms of avoiding certain foods.
33
Nevertheless, nutrition tends to be mentioned in more positive term in relation
to in terms of value. Exemplified by, a man try to learn to eat spinach because he
believes it has a lot of food value.
Personality traits
Food-related personality traits refer to the individual characteristics that affect
various food-related behaviours (Mak et al., 2012). Several academics (e.g. Bell
and Marshall, 2003; Brown, 2006; Pliner and Hobden, 1992) have highlighted
that these personality traits tend to be a key factor affecting food choice when
undertaking studies on food habits and food intakes. Specifically, 1) variety-
seeking tendency, 2) food neophobia and 3) food involvement, the main traits that
can be pinpointed from the food consumption literature, will be discussed.
1) Variety seeking tendency

Lin and Mattila (2006) defined variety seeking as the propensity of consumers to
seek diversity in purchase alternatives. Similarly, Solomon (2013) stated that
variety seeking is able to drive consumers to select new choices over more
familiar ones. More than that, it can even influence consumers to switch from
their favourite products or brands to ones they prefer less. This situation can be
found even before they are fully satisfied or feel bored with their favourite
products. Like the concept of sensation seeking, variety seeking tends to occur
when people are in a good mood or when they are in relatively low stimulus
environment (Kahn and Isen, 1993; Menon and Kahn, 1995).
The theory of Optimum Stimulation Level (OSL) has been extensively used to
explain variety-seeking behaviour (e.g. Raju, 1980; Howard and Sheth 1969;
Venkatesan, 1973). Resembling the OLA concept but derived from a different
school of thought, the OSL proposes that individuals have different levels of
stimulation that are optimal for them and the OSL scores reflect an individual’s
preferred level of lifestyle stimulation (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1985; Raju,
1980; Steenkamp, Hofstede and Wedel, 1999). High optimum stimulation levels
(OSLs) are related to higher willingness to try new products, take risks and to be
innovative than low OSLs. Therefore, the relationship between people’s lifestyle
34
and their OSLs determines their product and service choices. Theoretically,
variety seeking acts as a tool for balancing the certain level of stimulation in
order to achieve the most desired level (Raju, 1980).
Regarding to food consumption behaviour, variety-seeking tendency or a

consumer's intrinsic desire for variety is an important motive affecting food
choices (Van Trijp and Steenkamp, 1992). In this subject area, the meaning of
variety seeking was modified to the tendency to seek various cuisine choices and
associated experiences (Beldona, Moreo and Mundhra, 2010). Variety seeking is
perceived as a specific feature of OSL, but unlike OSL, which is a generalised
personality trait, the variety seeking is considered as a domain-specific concept
(McAlister and Pessemier, 1982). A high variety seeker in the context of food
choices would not only intend to, but would enthusiastically search for novel
different food and related-experiences (Beldona, Moreo and Mundhra, 2010).
However, he or she may not be a variety seeker in the matter of vacations or
other tourism products.
Since various consumer motivations may underlie observed variation in

behaviour, the ability to measure the consumers' variety seeking tendency
directly is important. Hence, the Variety Seeking Scale (VARSEEK) was
developed and validated to measure consumers’ variety seeking tendency in the
domain of food choice (Van Trijp and Steenkamp, 1992). Table 2.3 illustrates
eight items constituting the VARSEEK scale.
Table 2.3 Items of variety seeking scale (VARSEEK)

Items of the VARSEEK-scale
1. When I eat out, I like to try the most unusual items, even if I am not sure I
would like them.
2. While preparing foods or snacks, I like to try out new recipes.
3. I think it is fun to try out food items one is not familiar with.
4. I am eager to know what kind of foods people from other countries eat.
5. I like to eat exotic foods.
35
6. Items on the menu that I am unfamiliar with make me curious.
7. I prefer to eat food products I am used to.
8. I am curious about food products I am not familiar with.
Source: Van Trijp and Steenkamp (1992)
Note: The items are rated on a five-point Likert scale with all categories labelled,
ranging from completely disagree (= 1) to completely agree (=5).
In relation to the work of McAlister and Pessemier (1982), an interdisciplinary

review of variety seeking behaviour by Van Trijp and Steenkamp (1992) strongly
supported that VARSEEK is linked with, but significantly differs from OSL.
VARSEEK was better than OSL in predicting variation in eating behaviour and
possessed higher predictive power. The scale also offered generally high
reliability coefficients and many studies (e.g. Van Trijp and Steenkamp, 1992 and
Van Trijp, Lähteenmäki and Tuorila, 1992) have proved the scale validity.
An alternative explanation for variety seeking in the case of food and beverages
is a phenomenon called Sensory-Specific Satiety (SSS) (Solomon, 2013). In other
words, it means the enjoyableness of a lately eaten food declines, whereas the
enjoyableness of unconsumed food items remains constant. Lähteenmaki and
Van Trijp (1995) found that high variety seekers appear to reach SSS more
quickly than low variety seekers. As a consequence, those high in the trait are
more likely to seek variety in the characteristics of their chosen foods.
2) Food Neophobia
Individuals differ greatly in their willingness to taste novel foods. While some
people are very keen to consume new foods, others present strong aversions to
eating them (Ritchey et.al, 2003). A personality trait that has been particularly
associated with food choice is food neophobia, which Pliner and Hobden (1992)
explained as the extent to which people are disinclined to taste novel foods
including food products, dishes and cuisines. This behaviour is assumed to have
adaptive value serving a protective function in potentially adverse food
environment. On the contrary, so as to capitalise the advantages of omnivory,
human must also be willing to try new foods (Pliner and Hobden, 1992). These
36
opposite behaviours are called omnivore’s dilemma (Rozin, 1990). Beyond the
issue of safety, food neophobia is related to the fear of bad taste. Many previous
studies suggested that unfamiliar foods are avoided to eat since they are pre-
supposed to taste bad (Pliner and Hobden, 1992; Arvola et al., 1999; Raudenbush
and Frank, 1999; Tuorila et al., 1994).
To measure this individual trait, Pliner and Hobden, (1992) developed and
validated a 10-item Food Neophobia Scale (FNS), where respondents to rate each
statement on a seven-point Likert scale (from disagree to agree) (see Table 2.4).
Table 2.4 Items of food neophobia scale (FNS)

Items of the FNS
1. I am constantly sampling new and different food
2. I don’t trust new foods
3. If I don’t know what a food is, I won’t try it
4. I like foods from different culture
5. Ethnic food looks to weird to eat
6. At dinner parties, I will try new foods
7. I am afraid to eat things I have never had before
8. I am very particular about the foods I eat
9. I will eat almost anything
10. I like to try new ethnic restaurants
Source: Pliner and Hobden (1992)
*Note: Each item has a seven-point Likert response set: disagree strongly,
disagree moderately, disagree slightly, neither disagree nor agree, agree slightly,
agree moderately, and agree strongly.
Pliner and Hobden (1992)’s food neophobia scale has been utilised in many
subsequent studies such as Raudenbush and Frank (1999), Tuorila et al. (2001),
Ritchey et al. (2003) and Choe and Cho (2011). These studies have
demonstrated that the food neophobia scale can be employed as an effective
instrument to characterise consumer’s responses and predict consumers’
37
tendency towards consumption of novel and unfamiliar foods conducted in
different subgroups and populations.
For instance, Raudenbush and Frank (1999) assessed the role of food familiarity
on food sampling and evaluation in neophobic and neophilic people. The adult
volunteers were asked to sample and evaluate well-known and unknown foods.
Their levels of food neophobia were measured using the food neophobia scale.
The findings showed that neophobics’ negative attitude toward unknown foods
affected their acceptance and their willingness to try these foods. Tuorila et al.
(2001) used a Finnish-version of the food neophobia scale to assess Finnish
people’s willingness to taste unfamiliar and familiar food items. They found a
decrease in food neophobia score when education and urbanisation levels
increased. Although there was no gender effect found in previous studies (e.g.
Pliner and Hobden, 1992; Pelchat and Pliner, 1995; Meiselman et al., 1999),
Tuorila et al. (2001) discovered gender and age differences in levels of food
neophobia. Men showed higher food neophobia scores than women and the
degree of food neophobia increased with respondents’ age. As the gender
differences were observed in all age groups and no significant interaction
between gender and age was found, Tuorila et al. (2001) recommended that
these differences might be rationalised by cultural effects. They explained that
women have higher exposure to a variety of foods and several food-related
matters than men, and exposure to unknown foods is thought to lessen
neophobic tendency (Pliner, Pelchat and Grabski, 1993). The result moreover
presented that low neophobics tended to taste and eat both unfamiliar and
familiar foods more often than high neophobics. Tuorila et al. (2001) also used
factor analysis to assess the validity of FNS and explain the factor structure. The
results of factor analysis illustrated items of the FNS loaded on two factors: ‘the
interest in new foods’; and ‘general concerns about trying unknown foods’. They
concluded that the FNS was likely to be a valid tool for the measurement of
consumers’ attitudes towards novel foods.
Another study concentrating on validation of the FNS and cross-national

comparison of the scale was conducted by Ritchey et al. (2003). Data were
38
collected in the U.S., Sweden and Finland and were analysed using confirmatory
factor analysis. As a consequence, the researchers recommended that using only
six statements rather than using the original 10 statements of the FNS can
improve validity of the scale. To be more specific, they suggested item 5 (Ethnic
food looks to weird to eat) and 9 (I will eat almost anything) should be removed
from the scale. This is because item 5 refers to food appearance and does not
directly relate to food familiarity or inclination to try a food. Item 9 is also
problematic, particularly for a vegetarian who is very enthusiastic to try new
foods, but does not consume meat. Ritchey et al. (2003) claimed that additionally
discarding item 2 and 8 resulted in six items that formed a unidimensional scale
that is sufficiently constant to enable comparison of the food neophobia trait
across the three countries. The authors further reported that the six-items of FNS
accurately predicted responses to novel foods across various national samples.
More recently, Choe and Cho (2011) studied consumers’ willingness to try non-
traditional ethnic Korean foods using the food neophobia scale, also taking
account of experiences people have had with non-traditional foods in Korea. The
relationship between non-traditional food experiences and food neophobia were
also examined, as well as the factor structure of the FNS as the authors claimed
that it has not been tested in Asia. It was found that respondents with high food
neophobia had a lower tendency to taste non-traditional foods than those low in
the trait. The findings moreover revealed that the neophobic level decreased
significantly when respondents’ expense levels increased, and the number of
foreign countries the respondents had visited increased. This is likely to be
because being exposed to new and foreign foods and more openness to other
cultures could minimise neophobia (Pliner and Salvy, 2006). Nonetheless, the
study did not evidence a significant effect of gender, age and household income
on food neophobia. Concerning the scale validity in an Asian population, the
results of factor analysis showed the FNS items loaded on two factors that were
similar to Tuorila et al. (2001)’s. Although Ritchey et al. (2003) recommended
the use of six-items FNS in place of using the original 10 items to improve the
scale validity, Choe and Cho (2011) utilised the original FNS version in their
study. They rationalised that the study was the first FNS validation test
39
conducted amongst Asians and food neophobia had been examined in many
previous studies using the original FNS. However, the researchers suggested
that Ritchey et al. (2003)’s verified scale could be used successfully on Asians as
well as on Europeans and US respondents. All in all, the results demonstrated
the FNS to significantly predict preferences for familiarity and willingness to try
a range of non-traditional ethnic foods.
In relation to the stability of the FNS and the VARSEEK-scale, Melseiman et al.
(1999) measured food neophobia and VARSEEK scores in young students who
had just begun their undergraduate studies. The scores were gathered three
times, with the first and last time seven months apart. The results demonstrated
that in the group data both food neophobia and variety seeking tendency
remained at the same level. Accordingly, they concluded that food neophobia and
variety seeking in food choices appear to be comparatively stable over time,
strengthening the idea that they are closely associated with personality traits.
3) Food Involvement
Food involvement is another trait claimed as a vital influence on food choice
(Bell and Marshall, 2003). Bell and Marshall (2003) clearly defined food
involvement as the importance level of food in an individual’s life. Earlier studies
have measured food involvement using various approaches and integrating
different variables in relation to attitudes about food (e.g. Kapferer and Laurent,
1993; Juhl and Poulsen, 2000; Olsen, 2001).
Kapferer and Laurant (1993) referring to their previous studies (Kapferer and
Laurent, 1985a, 1985b; Laurent and Kapferer, 1985) on product involvement,
stated that involvement should not be measured or considered as a
unidimensional construct because it is not limited to a single dimension. It,
therefore, should rather be measured via a Consumer Involvement Profile (CIP),
a profile of the several dimensions consisting of perceived importance (personal
interest), perceived pleasure value, perceived sign value, and perceived risk
(subdivided into risk importance and risk probability). These five antecedents of
involvement each contain subscales aiming to measure a different antecedent of
40
involvement. The authors further highlighted that the full profile must be
assessed since different dimensions possessed different effects on selected
features of consumer behaviour. The factor structure of the CIP and its reliability
were tested using French consumer surveys towards various food product
categories including bread, chocolate bars, champagne and chocolate (Christmas
gift box). The data were statistically analysed using factor analysis. The results
proved that the CIP subscales for sign, risk importance and risk probability can be
confidently used to measure those three antecedents. Nevertheless, pleasure and
interest seemed to be two problematic subscales as they are often, but not
always, correlated together and generate one single factor. Pleasure and interest
can occur together for several reasons. For instance, interest might lead to
pleasure for a hobby or pleasure might cause interest for a food or beverage
product (e.g. wine). However, Kapferer and Laurant (1993) refused to
conceptually and empirically merge these two in a single subscale because they
are not identical and in many cases each of them can independently occur
without the other. The authors therefore suggested using all five subscales to
measure the consumer involvement.
Juhl and Poulsen (2000) examined the importance of several antecedents

derived from a causal model of product involvement (Mittal and Lee, 1989) on a
consumer’s involvement in fish as a product group and investigated whether
product involvement in fish had expected consequences on consumer behaviour.
Although four antecedents (i.e. sign value, hedonic value, product utility and
brand risk) were indicated in the original model, only sign value and product
utility were used as two possible antecedents for involvement with fish. The
authors rationalised that hedonic value does not seem to be a possible
antecedent when considering fish as the product. Brand risk was also excluded
because brands were not valid for this product group. Even though there are
different fish species sold in market, the risk involved in selecting between
species is judged to be low. The findings showed that sign value (purchasing a
product might have a symbolic value for the buyer) and product utility
(including perceived benefits resulted from product usage) had positive effects
on the levels of product involvement with fish. Thus, consumer involvement is a
41
significant construct for ensuring that sign value and utility can be successfully
connected to effects (e.g. greater shopping enjoyment and higher frequency of
product usage).
Olsen (2001) proposed a theoretical model of involvement to consume derived

from expectancy-value theory, especially the theory of reasoned action (TRA) of
Ajzen and Fishbein (1980). New variables such as negative feelings, social norms
and moral obligations were added into the original TRA model. They also
assessed the importance of attitudes and norms to give an explanation of seafood
involvement and behaviour. Negative feelings towards fish or seafood (mainly
stemmed from unpleasant smell of fish and fish bones) and perceived moral
obligation for their family’s health were found as the most significant predictors
of involvement. While negative feelings decreased the level of seafood
involvement, moral obligation was positively connected with seafood
involvement. Furthermore, the results showed that seafood involvement acted
as a mediator between food attitudes towards eating seafood and frequent
seafood consumption behaviour.
Bell and Marshall (2003) developed and validated a Food Involvement Scale
(FIS) containing 12 items to assess the extent to which people appreciate talking
about eating, enjoy thinking about food each day, and participate in all five
phases of Goody (1982)’s food provisioning process (acquisition, preparation,
cooking, eating and disposal) (see Table 2.5).
Table 2.5 Items of food involvement scale (FIS)

Items of the FIS
1. I don’t think much about food each day
2. Cooking or barbequing is not much fun
3. Talking about what I ate or am going to eat is something I like to do
4. Compared with other daily decisions, my food choices are not very important
5. When I travel, one of things I anticipate most is eating the food there
6. I do most or all of the clean up after eating
42
7. I enjoy cooking for others and myself
8. When I eat out, I don’t think or talk much about how the food tastes
9. I do not like to mix or chop food
10. I do most or all of my own food shopping
11. I do not wash dishes or clean the table
12. I care whether or not a table is nicely set
Source: Bell and Marshall (2003)
*Note: 7-point scale with labelled endpoints, from disagree strongly to agree
strongly.
The researchers concluded that food involvement could be considered as a stable

characteristic. Moreover, people having higher levels of food involvement
possessed finer ability to discriminate between food samples concerning both
taste evaluations and hedonic ratings. Marshall and Bell (2004) continued their
research testing the relationship of the FIS with other constructs potentially
mediating sensory discrimination and food choice. They found a significant but a
low negative correlation (r = -0.27, p <0.001) between food neophobia and food
involvement. Variety seeking showed a medium positive correlation with food
involvement (r = 0.460, p <0.001) and quite a strong negative relationship with
food neophobia (r = - 0.591, p <0.001). Likewise, Meiselman et al. (1999) also
found negative inter-correlation between variety seeking and food neophobia
tendency. Kim et al. (2013) modified the twelve original items of Bell and
Marshall (2003)’s food involvement scale to six revised items in order to fit their
study context. The authors rationalised that the six items that were not related to
the tourism context were removed: the items related to cooking (item 2 & 7),
disposal (item 6 & 11), and preparation (item 9 & 12). Thus, only items
concerning eating and acquisition (item 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10) was employed in
their study and the scale was successfully used and validated.
The connection between food-related personality traits (Food Involvement and

Food Neophobia), food choice motives and food intake were explored by
Eertmans et al. (2005). It is commonly assumed that food motives mediate the
influence of personality traits on food intake, and may vary with level of trait.
43
However, the results of this quantitative survey only support the mediator
hypothesis to a limited extent. For instance, sensory appeal and health and
natural contents mediated the influence of food involvement only for the
consumption of specific food categories, not in general. Moreover, the study did
find that the relation between food choice motives and eating behaviours
seemed to differ depending on food neophobia and food involvement level.
Demographic factors
Age
Steptoe et al. (1995) found that familiarity was related to age difference. It has
shown that older people are less risky in their choices of food. This is also
supported by the research of Prescott et al. (2002) which older groups rated
familiarity as an important motive for food choice higher than younger
respondents. Age difference also has an influence on health and nutrition
concern as well as healthy eating habits. Younger people are commonly less
concerned about their general health than older ones (Dindyal and Dindyal,
2004). The reason is that some young people do not completely understand the
effect of different food on their health. Nonetheless, in the number of cases most
young people recognise these unpleasant effects but decide to not follow any
advice given about avoiding consuming foods that harm their health. Thus, they
will often consume more oily fast foods e.g. chips and burgers (Dindyal and
Dindyal, 2004).
Regarding age effect on food neophobia, a number of studies reported that

younger subjects were more neophobic than older ones. For instance, Otis
(1984), cited in Pliner and Hobden (1992) conducted the test with students
aging 17-50 years old and informed that the older students were willing to try
more number of unfamiliar foods than younger ones. Three studies also explored
that older subjects reacted more positively to new foods than did younger ones
(Pelchat and Pliner, 1995; Mcfarlane and Pliner 1997; Koivisto-Hursti and
Sjödén, 1997). In contrast, Tuorila et al. (2001) found that food neophobia
increased with ages among the sample of Finnish respondents. This tendency is
the same with Prescott et al. (2002)’s study.
44
Gender
With reference to a food attitude survey in four different countries (Japan,
France, Belgium and the USA), it is founded that women in all four cultures are
more concerned about a food-health link and more interested in nutrition than
men (Rozin et al, 1996). More healthy dietary concern and habits in women are
also reported in many studies (Wardle and Steptoe, 1991; Steptoe et al., 1995;
Wardle et al., 2004; Pollard et al., 1998).
Some studies with young students have found no effect of gender difference in
FNS scores (Pliner and Hobden, 1992; Pelchat and Pliner, 1995, Meiselman et al.,
1999), while Tuorila et al. (2001) and Koivisto-Hursti & Sjödén (1997) reported
that men tend to more neophobic than women. Tuorila et al. (2001) discovered,
however, gender difference in whole age groups and recommended that cultural
rather than age aspects would give the explanation of gender difference.
Social Class
Many sociologists such as Bordieus, Habitus and Barthes argued that all human
consumption behaviour, including taste preference and food choice is an
expression of social class (Seymour, 2004; Warde and Martens, 2000; Caplan;
1997; Wood, 1995). Different social classes can be classified by the way in which
the food people eat. Individuals sharing class position is likely to make similar
choices of food and share similar judgements of tastes.
Cultural Influences
Several globally documented culinary likes and dislikes imply that cultural
aspects govern taste far more than does flavour, or even safety (Fiddes, 1995;
McCorkindale, 1992). Rozin (1989) also stated that culture and ethnic group is
the best predictor of human food preference. An illustration of this would be the
study of Rozin (1982), which found that cultural influences on individual’s food
acceptance in terms of an innate preference or aversion, such as like or dislike of
coffee and chilli. This affects consumer choices as a consequence. In fact, Eastern
and far eastern people eat foods that contain a variety of herbs and spices, while
45
foods consumed by western groups are much dryer and plainer than other
ethnic groups and also high meat content in the foods (Dindyal and Dindyal,
2004). Rozin (1996), moreover, supported this statement that traditions
powerfully affect on what we eat, what we prefer and that we like. Levi-Strauss
(1965, 1968, 1970, cited in Caplan, 1997) clearly reported that ‘taste’ is
culturally shaped. Harris and Ross (1987) and Fiddes (1995) have also agreed
for the importance of culture as a determinant of taste. Furthermore, Shepherd
and Sparks (1992) stated that the intrinsic factors of food, food appearance;
odour; temperature; flavour; texture; quality; quantity; preparation; methods
and presentation, are influenced by the culture, religions, and regions of the
consumers. In addition, a cultural aspect defines that which may be eaten, by
whom, how and when (Falk, 1994; Caplan, 1997).
Douglas (1975), cited in Fiddes (1995) said that preference of familiar food is not
just a biological developed. It is constructed by cultures as well. It seems to be
substantiated by Prescott et al. (2002)’s results of a cross-cultural study
concerning motives for food choice in four different countries (Japan, Taiwan,
Malaysia and New Zealand). Consumers in all four countries revealed statistically
significant differences in rating the importance of familiarity for food choice.
Crossley and Nazir (2002) also discovered ethnic differences regarding the role
of familiarity in food choice. The findings showed that Pakistan and Indian
samples rated familiarity as more important in making their choices of food
compared with the White British respondents.
Cultural differences on the degree of food neophobia were also evidenced.

Ritchey et al. (2003) revealed the impact of nationality on food neophobia score.
They found that Swedish people were generally more willing to try novel food
than the Finn and American. Prescott et al. (2002) also found a main influence of
country in neophobia ratings with New Zealand, Taiwan and Japan all significant
different to one another. Moreover, many food neophobia studies administered
in several countries reveal different FNS-scores (See Figure 2.6).
46
Figure 2.6 The mean and standard deviations of food neophobia scores in
different countries (theoretical range 10-70)
Source: Adapted from Lähteenmäki and Arvola, (2001)
2.3 FOOD CONSUMPTION IN TOURIST DESTINATIONS

2.3.1 Role Of Local Food In Tourism
As food is well known recognised as a principal element in interpreting the
culture of a society (Fieldhouse, 1995), a predominant cornerstone of cultural
identity (Delamont, 1994). and an essential medium for cultural expression
(Hjalager and Corigliano, 2000), hence; food and gastronomic experiences has
progressively been promoted as a vital channel for tourists to learn the local
culture of a destination (Kivela and Crotts, 2006).
As a consequence, tasting local food becomes a vital part of tourism experience

because it can provide both a cultural activity and entertainment (Hjalager and
Richards, 2002). Moreover, local food on a holiday is able to play an important
role on introducing a tourist to new flavours and different traditions at a
destination (Fields 2002; Kivela and Crotts, 2006). Long (2004) also highlighted
that tasting the food of others is another means that people can truly experience
and accept diverse cultures without reluctance. Kim et al. (2009c) termed local
food in tourism destinations as food and beverages that are locally produced or
47
grown or sold as local specialties. Local food can be produced with raw materials
from other areas but needs to be locally processed and has a local identity.
Not only benefits to tourists, local food is also of advantages to a tourist

destination. du Rand et al. (2003; p. 97) stated that “local food holds much
potential to enhance sustainability in tourism; contribute to authenticity of the
destination; strengthen the local economy; and provide for the environmentally
friendly infrastructure.” Having said that local food is documented as a key basis
of cultural identity, applying it as a unique tourism product would advantage a
destination in the matter of a competitive destination branding and marketing
strategy (du Rand et al., 2003). Thus, local cuisines are regarded as an important
part of the brand by several destination management organisations (Okumus et
al., 2013).
2.3.1.1 Culinary tourism

As a matter of fact that every tourist must eat, culinary tourism has called an
interest from DMOs, marketers as well as scholars (Henderson, 2009). Since
culinary tourism is a subsection of cultural tourism and focuses on food as a
cultural expression, local food is judged as a vital part of this special interest
tourism (Green and Dougherty, 2008). However, Hall and Sharples (2003)
contended that when terming food tourism there must be a separation between
tourists consuming food as a part of travel experience and those selecting a
destination specially influenced by their interests of gastronomy.
Definition of culinary tourism

In line with the growing number of people travelling to seek culinary or
gastronomic experiences (Bessiere, 1998; Hall and Sharples, 2003; Long, 2004),
numerous definitions of tourism based on food have been proposed. Until now
there is still no consensus on defining a standard term for this kind of tourism.
Several words have been used in various studies with similar general
interpretations but different in detail such as food, culinary, gourmet,
gastronomic, gastronomy, and tasting tourism (Boniface, 2003; Hall et al., 2003;
Henderson, 2009; Hjalager and Richards, 2002; Okumus et al., 2007; Wolf, 2002)
48
but these types of tourism also include local beverage consumptions and
appreciations.
The introduction of the term “culinary tourism” was conducted by a folklorist,

Lucy Long in 1998 (Long, 2004) and later refined culinary tourism as “the
intentional exploratory participation in the food ways of an other; participation
including the consumption, preparation, and presentation of a food item, cuisine,
meal system, or eating style considered to a culinary system not one’s own”
(Long, 2004; p.21). However, tourism academics and authorities has continued
proposing other terms for this phenomenon. For example, Hall and Mitchell
(2001; p. 308) defined the term of food tourism as “visitation to primary and
secondary food producers, food festivals, restaurants and specific locations for
which food and tasting and/or experiencing the attributes of a specialist food
production region are the primary motivating factors for travel” Wolf (2002)
termed culinary tourism as a travel for the purpose of seeking prepared food and
beverages and a unforgettable gastronomic experience but it is indicated that
dining in a restaurant is not regarded as food tourism. The choice of tourist
destination must be formed by a particular interest in culinary, gastronomy or
cuisine.
Ignatov and Smith (2006) contended that the word “culinary tourism” is more
applicable than other terms because ‘culinary’ is an adjective indicating food
styles as well as the social context wherein the food is prepared. It, therefore,
infers knowledge transmission concerning the people, culture, traditions and
identity of the place or area visited. It also transfers thing that is native, local, and
possibly unique to a certain destination. Smith and Xiao (2008), cited in Sanchez-
Canizares and Lopez-Guzman (2012, p.232) defined culinary tourism in more
integrated term. It is defined as “any tourism experience in which one learns
about, appreciates or consumes local culinary resources and which encompasses
both travel motivated for culinary reasons and those in which the culinary
experience is not the main reason for the visit”. Because of multi-faceted
interpretations of culinary tourism, the present study adopted the integrated
definition of Smith and Xiao (2008) as the operating definition. Therefore,
49
culinary tourism activities in this study refer to various forms of tourists’ food-
related activities such as sampling and tasting variety of local cuisines,
purchasing local food products as souvenirs or for own use, experiencing the
characteristics of a unique food-producing region, participating in a food tour,
attending a local cookery course, and visiting a local food festival or event.
2.3.2 Tourist Food Consumption Research

As local food consumption and experience has become increasingly important in
hospitality and tourism areas (Kim et al., 2009c; Kivela and Crotts, 2006),
tourism scholars have examined various issues related to this area. For instance,
Kivela and Crotts (2006) researched the existence of a gastronomy tourism
market segment in Hong Kong, which is a destination offering unique and
various gastronomy. The findings evidenced that motivation to travel for
gastronomy purposes is a useable concept for segmenting this kind of tourism
market. The author also revealed that gastronomy played a large part in tourist
experience towards the destination and suggested that some tourists would
revisit the same destination to appreciate its unique gastronomy offerings.
Chang et al. (2011) aimed to identify the attributes that may influence Chinese
tourists when evaluating their travel dining experiences. Mainland Chinese,
Taiwanese and Hong Kong travellers who were on holiday in Australia were
employed as participants for focus group interviews. After analysis the collected
data, the authors identified 15 attributes and classified into six categories,
including tourists' own food culture, the contextual factor of the dining
experience, variety and diversity of food, perception of the destination, service
encounter, and tour guide's performance.
50
Mak et al. (2012) identified factors affecting food consumption in tourism by
modifying Randall and Sanjur’s (1981) food preference and consumption model
and divided the factors into three main categories: 1) the tourists, 2) the food in
destination (e.g. sensory attributes, food content, food availability.), and 3) the
destination environment’ (e.g. gastronomic image or identity, marketing,
contextual influences) (see Figure 2.7). The authors focused on the factors
related to the tourist and classify the tourist food consumption factors into five
sub-groups: ‘cultural and religious factors’, ‘socio-demographic factors’,
‘motivational factors’, ‘food-related personality traits’, and ‘past experience or
exposure influence’ (see Figure 2.8).
Figure 2.7 Factors affecting food consumption in tourism

Source: Mak et al. (2012)
51
Figure 2.8 Factors influencing tourist food consumption
Source: Mak et al. (2012)
Local food as impediment for tourists was highlighted in Cohen and Avieli
(2004)’s study in various aspects including health and hygiene standards,
communication gaps and the tourists’ inadequate knowledge regarding the local
cuisine. Even though ethnic food restaurants at home are able to assist in
providing knowledge and familiarity towards local cuisine abroad, actual local
culinary situation in the destination are not exactly the same as what they are
superficially acquainted. This paper, moreover, suggested the benefits of
tourism-oriented culinary establishments in destinations in terms of facilitating
the local food more directly reachable to tourists. The authors also argued that
although many facets of local cuisine in the mentioned establishments are
transformed or adapted to be more accessible for tourists, the authenticity of
food seems not to be impaired in tourists’ eyes.
Besides, Ryu and Jang (2006) developed a modified Theory of Reasoned Action
(TRA) to investigate tourists’ intention of experiencing local cuisine in which
past behaviour was added to the original model. After examining its predictive
52
ability, the results showed that the modified model could predict tourists’
intention of experiencing local cuisine; additionally, attitude and past behaviour
also influenced the tourists’ behavioural intention. With reference to the survey
of Tse and Crotts (2005) being conducted with international tourists in Hong
Kong, there are four factors influencing tourists’ culinary experimentation:
national culture, length of stay, age and repeat visitation. These factors are
ranked in order of importance. The findings moreover revealed that the variety
of culinary exploration was positively correlated with the repeat visit and the
length of stay. On the contrary, the range and scope of culinary exploration were
negatively correlated with first-time visit and age.
To be more specific, a model of local food consumption at a tourist destination

was developed (Figure 2.9). It consisted of three categories: ‘motivational
factors’ (i.e. exciting experience, escape from routine, health concerns, learning
knowledge, authentic experience, togetherness, prestige, sensory appeal, and
physical environment), ‘demographic factors’ (i.e. gender, age and education),
and ‘physiological factors’ (i.e. food neophilia and food neophobia) (Kim et al.,
2009c). In the research of Kim et al. (2013), this model was then empirically
verified by utilising the measurement scale for those motivational factors
proposed by Kim and Eves (2012), the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) of Ritchey et
al. (2003) and the modified Food Involvement Scale (FIS) of Bell and Marshall
(2003) and the relationships among the key factors found in the model were also
studied.
53
Figure 2.9 The model of local food consumption at a holiday destination
Source: Kim et al. (2009c)
2.3.2.1 Factors influencing tourist local food consumption

Based on the existing literature, there is a wide range of factors affecting local
food consumption in a holiday destination that should be taken into account in
understanding tourist local food consumption behaviours, which can be
categorised into three groups: 1) Socio-demographic factors, 2) Motivational
factors, and 3) Personality and past experience
1) Socio-demographic factors
Socio-demographic factors such as gender, age, education, and nationality are
commonly regarded as key determinants of tourist food consumption (Kim et al.,
2009c; Mak et al., 2012). For example, Kivela and Crotts (2005) revealed that
men were more interested and involved in local food consumption in
54
comparison women, whereas Kim et al. (2009c) reported that females were
particularly interested in consuming local delicacies and this activity is exciting
for them. Concerning age differences, mature aged tourists more generally
concerned on health issues and showed more desires in understanding and
experiencing local food cultures (Kim et al., 2009c). Conversely, Tse and Crotts
(2005) reported a negative relationship between age and the number and range
of tourists’ local food consumption. Tourists with higher education more
frequently reported local food consumption as a way to learn and understand
local culture. They also more expressed their health concerns via eating local
dishes. Existing studies has also supported that high educational level
significantly affected individuals’ cultural interest during their holiday (Kim et
al., 2003, Zeppel and Hall 1991).
Although cultural influences on local food consumption are not documented in

the model of Kim et al. (2009c), culture has long been acknowledged of its major
role-playing in shaping general food choice (Refer to culture in Section 2.3.3.3)
and food choice in tourism destination (Mak et al., 2012). Kivela and Crotts
(2005) advocated that travellers from different parts of the world differ on their
approaches to food experiences. Cohen and Aveli (2004) and Sheldon and Fox,
1988 also revealed cultural influences on tourist food consumption. The former
study claimed that Westerners abroad are likely to be more inclined than Asians
to experience in the food of others. Sheldon and Fox (1998) reported that food is
perceived as the most important part of a satisfactory holiday for British and
Japanese, while it ranked as third and fifth for Australians and Germans
sequentially and as not important at all for French. On the other hands, another
study found that Japanese, French and Italian tourists was likely to avoid eating
local food during their trip and always preferred consuming food from their own
cuisine while American tourists were observed as slightly preferring to taste
local food in a destination (Pizam and Sussmann, 1995). Fieldhouse (1995)
mentioned that culture, rather than biological aspects and taste, has a dominant
impact on what ones view as food and whether appropriate or not. Apart from
this, some cultures will be easier to accept new culinary experiences than others.
An individual’s willingness to try new or different foods is therefore influenced
55
by culture. Tse and Crotts (2005) stated that tourists having different
nationalities visit a destination with dissimilar thresholds of tastes and
uncertainty avoidance thresholds. They should, therefore, be treated in different
ways. While tourists from high uncertainty avoidance index (UAI) countries on
short-term visits tend to prefer a more limited choice of culinary offers, those
from low UAI countries who are on longer visits and have been to the destination
before seems to be more adventurous on culinary experimentation and prefer
larger choices of culinary dishes and experiences.
2) Motivational factors
Tourism studies have evidenced the effect of motivational factors on tourist food
consumption (e.g. Fields, 2002; Kim, et al, 2009c; Mak et al., 2012). Field (2002)
identified four food-related motivational factors underlying gastronomic
consumption of tourists: physical, cultural, interpersonal, statue, and prestige
motivators. Kim et al. (2009c) proposed nine dimensions of motivations that
affect tourist local food consumption: exciting experience, escape from routine,
health concern, learning knowledge, authentic experience, togetherness,
prestige, sensory appeal, and physical environment (see Figure 2.9). Mak et al,
(2012) categorised motivational factors into five key constructs, including
symbolic (e.g exploring culture, learning, prestige), obligatory (e.g. health
concern and the physical need for nutrition), contrast (e.g. exploring new food,
exciting experience), extension (e.g. core eating behaviour, familiar flavour) and
pleasure (e.g. sensory appeal, togetherness) in their tourist food consumption
model (see Figure 2.8). Kivela and Crotts (2006) similarly mentioned that tasting
local food is a pleasurable and exciting experience. Kim et al. (2009c) revealed
taste, aroma, flavour and visual images of food as physical motives reflecting
sensory appeal. Similarly Field (2002) viewed sensory perceptions: sight, taste,
appearance, and scent of the food as well as the setting of the meal as physical
motivators. He indicated that these determinants are associated with some sort
of need that cannot be attained in everyday life such as climate change and an
occasion to sample novel or unfamiliar foods.
56
3) Destination food image
Destination food image was found to be another significant motivational factor of
tourists’ preference for unique destination food and their intention to eat the
food (Seo et al. 2017). The authors rationalised that since gastronomic tourism
has expanded considerably, the destination food becomes an important
motivator for tourists. Both tangible appearance and affective qualities of the
destination food can motivate tourists because they assist in fulfilling a tourist’s
psychological needs. Mak et al. (2012) additionally defined perceived food image
of destination as a factor underlying food consumption tourism. However, they
categorised it under the destination environment dimension rather than the
tourists’ motivations. Promsivapallop and Kannaovakun (2019) also confirmed
the influences of specific dimensions of destination food image on tourists’ food
preference and consumption and the effects were subject to the nationality of
tourists. Moreover, several tourism scholars have attempted to identify the
dimensionality of destination food image (e.g. Lertputtarak, 2012; Karim et al.,
2010; Peštek and Činjarević, 2014; Seo and Yun, 2015; Promsivapallop and
Kannaovakun, 2019) and some studies have evidenced the relationships of
destination food image on destination food satisfaction (Chi et al., 2013; Karim et
al., 2010; Ling et al., 2010; Peštek and Činjarević, 2014) and intention to return
to the same destination (Peštek and Činjarević, 2014; Choe and Kim, 2018).
4) Personality and past experiences

In existing hospitality and tourism literature, some studies have highlighted
effects of food-related personality traits, including food neophobia, variety
seeking tendency and food involvement, on unfamiliar tourist food consumption
at destinations. Cohen and Avieli (2004) suggested that rather than being an
attraction, local food offered in a destination could be an impediment
confronting tourists in a strange destination. Even though tourists might
naturally be in quest of novel or unfamiliar experiences, eating in a destination
means actually consuming unfamiliar foods and dishes, and therefore, food
neophobia tends to become the dominant touristic propensity. Cohen and Avieli
(2004) raised an extreme example that even some Western adventurous
backpackers travelling in remote destinations are often fastidious and insecure
57
concerning local foods and unwilling to eat them. Correspondingly, Torres
(2002) mentioned that several studies advocate that tourists usually reject
trying local cuisines and opt for foods they are familiar with. Kim et al. (2009c)
also pointed out that food neophobia can decrease tourists’ willingness to try
local dishes on their holiday and those having a neophobic tendency seemed to
be unwilling to consume exotic foods. They proposed that partaking in local food
on holiday appears to be driven by food-related personality traits, including food
neophobia.
As advocated by Quan and Wang (2004), variety-seeking behaviours can

considerably influence food consumption in tourism in two different ways
depending on its specific relationship to the daily experience. They proposed
that variety-seeking behaviours are not always opposite to daily routines. On the
one hand, when tourists’ food consumption acts as a supporting consumer
experience, it is considered as the extension of daily experience in which routine
variety-seeking behaviour can have an effect. In this case, tourists may
sometimes change their peripheral food ingredients but they still adhere to the
core ingredients that help maintain a sense of “ontological comfort of home”. On
the other hand, when tourists’ food experience is beyond the limits of the routine
and familiarity, it can occasionally and within particular circumstances, become
part of peak touristic experiences. This can be exemplified by emerging forms of
tourism such as food or wine tourism in which food and beverage can be a main
attraction in a destination. Then, tourists tend to seek for new food experiences
that differ from their routines or what they are familiar with. This can be called
novelty-seeking behavior. In addition, Chang et al. (2011) indicated that variety
is a main factor affecting tourists’ evaluation of their food experiences at a
destination. Mak et al. (2012)’s study concluded that food-related personality
traits (food neophobia and variety seeking tendency) were salient factors
affecting tourist food consumption. They rationalised that variety-seeking
behaviours usually happen in the situation of hedonic consumption. Tourism and
food consumption are generally considered as hedonic products, hence, they can
be dependent on the effect of variety seeking behaviours.
58
However, Kim et al. (2010; 2013) argued that food personality traits that should
be considered when investigating unfamiliar and foreign food consumption in a
tourism destination are food neophobia and food involvement, as both traits can
predict the possibility of future food intake. To elaborate, Kim et al. (2010)
reported that food neophobia could affect the satisfaction of food event visitors.
Hence, it can be used as a predictor for visitors’ inclination to try unfamiliar,
foreign and exotic food and to visit food events. Moreover, the authors suggested
that high-food involvement visitors had a higher tendency to retain loyalty
towards food events. The influence of food involvement was also emphasized in
Kim et al. (2013)’s study. It revealed that more than half of tourists, who had
partaken in local food experiences during their trip, possessed high FIS scores,
meaning that they are highly involved in food.
Past experiences and exposure effect, moreover, also influence tourists’ food
choice at a destination. Their previous experiences about food can affect their
return visits to the destinations and the experienced visitors tends to have a
higher intention to savour diversity of cuisine offers, and/or local food in
comparison to first timers (Tse and Crotts, 2005; Mak et al., 2012; Ryu and Jang,
2006; Ryu and Han, 2010). Rather than past experiences acquired from previous
visits, travellers may have previous exposure to foreign cuisines as a result of a
rising availability of ethnic restaurants in their home countries as well as
information sources regarding foreign cuisines. These enable them to develop
familiarity with various foreign cuisines before visiting the countries of origin of
those cuisines (Mak et al., 2012).
2.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY

Various food choice models displaying the complexity of food consumption and
the Food Choice Questionnaire containing the motivational dimensions
underlying an individual’s food choice were critically reviewed. These provide an
understanding of several features on food consumption from a broad perspective
and enable identifying salient factors affecting food choice in general context. As
a consequence, the food choice determinants were classified into three
categories: 1) food-related factors (e.g sensory attributes, food contents,
59
methods of preparation, food quality and price), 2) environmental factors (e.g.
food availability and seasonal variation, food advertising, and food marketing),
and 3) personal factors (e.g. familiarity, health and nutrition concern, personality
traits, demographic factors, and cultural and religious influences).
The operating definition of culinary tourism were termed as “any tourism

experience in which one learns about, appreciates or consumes local culinary
resources and which encompasses both travel motivated for culinary reasons
and those in which the culinary experience is not the main reason for the visit”
(Smith and Xiao, 2008, cited in Sanchez-Canizares and Lopez-Guzman, 2012,
p.232). Consequently, culinary tourism activities in this study encompass various
forms of tourists’ food-related activities such as sampling and tasting variety of
local cuisines, purchasing local food products as souvenirs or for own use,
experiencing the characteristics of a unique food-producing region, participating
in a food tour, attending a local cookery course, and visiting a local food festival
or event.
Finally, factors affecting tourists’ local food consumption were determined.

These factors are divided into three categories: 1) socio-demographic factors (i.e.
age, gender, education, and natural culture), 2) motivational factors such as
escape from daily life, exciting experience, health concern, learning knowledge,
sensory appeals and destination food image, and 3) personality and past
experiences (i.e. food variety seeking tendency, food neophobia, food
involvement). The modified food involvement scale of Bell and Marshall (2003)
by Kim et al. (2013) and the shorten version of food neophobia scale adapted by
Ritchey et al. (2003) will be employed to measure food-related personality traits
in the stage two: questionnaire survey. The former scale was chosen since it has
been suggested to examine unfamiliar food experiences in holiday destinations
(e.g. Kim et al., 2010; 2013). The latter was chosen, since it has been widely
adopted to measure an individuals’ avoidance of novel cuisine in both food
choice and tourist food consumption contexts (e.g. Chang et al., 2011; Choe and
Cho, 2011; Kim et al., 2009b; Ritchey et al. 2003; Tuorila et al., 2001).
60
CHAPTER 3
TOURISTS’ REVISIT INTENTION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The previous chapter discussed food choice and its salient factors in general
context and on holiday and narrowed to factors affecting tourists’ local food
consumption at a destination. These provides information of tourists’ local food
choice determinants in order to allow the researcher to preliminarily draw a
picture of how these variables can connect with tourists’ revisit intention to a
destination for culinary tourism purposes. In the chapter 3, the focus is on
tourists’ revisit intention. The general concepts, definitions and importance of
tourists’ intention to revisit are described. Following by the differences of first-
time visitors and repeaters concerning their revisit intention behaviour.
Typology of repeat visitors and intended revisit timing are discussed. Next,
measuring the revisit intention using attitude models are elaborated in line with
their applications in tourism and food literature. Finally, salient factors affecting
tourists’ revisit intention to a destination are explained.
3.2 REVISIT INTENTION: CONCEPTS, DEFINITIONS AND IMPORTANCE

Concerning the tourist visitation process, tourist behavior can be classified into
three travel stages: pre-, during- and post- visitation (Kozak and Decrop, 2009).
To be more specific, tourist behaviour is a comprehensive term, comprising pre-
visit decision-making, Post-visit experience, experience evaluations, post-visit
behavioral intentions and post-visit behaviours (Ryan, 2002; William and
Buswell, 2003). The experience evaluations can be happened during and post-
visit and just before post-visit behaviour and tourists can formulate different
evaluation factors subject to either criteria or timing of evaluations. The
evaluative factors include travel experience or perceived trip quality during a
visit, perceived value and satisfaction (Chen and Tsai, 2007; Um, et al., 2006).
These feed into post-visit behavioural intentions, which can be called tourists’
behavioural intentions or future behavioural intentions, consisting of the
intention to revisit and willingness to recommend (Chen and Tsai, 2007;
61
Oppermann, 2000). The post-visit behavioural intentions are beneficial in
predicting whether tourists are likely to be long-term customers or repeaters
and thus create ongoing profits to the tourism business (Chen and Chen, 2005).
Given the focus of the current research is revisit intention to a culinary
destination, principal concepts, definitions and importance of tourists’ revisit
intention will be critically discussed.
Emphasised as an important research topic in the competitive market of tourism

destinations, tourists’ revisit intention is defined as willingness to visit a
destination again (Baker and Crompton, 2000). This behaviour is also regarded
as an indication of customer loyalty, comparable to the willingness to repurchase
a particular product (Gronholdt et al., 2000). Conversely, Kozak (2001)
considered that the revisit intention is an actual action in response to particular
behaviours that commonly alludes to tourists’ willingness to visit a particular
destination or other destinations in the same country. Um et al. (2006) reported
that revisit intention is an outcome of tourist satisfaction, rather than being an
originator of the revisit-decision making process. It is also described as a
possibility to revisit resulting from positive attitudes and perceptions towards a
service provider (Han et al., 2009). Hence, the operating definition of tourists’
revisit intention for the current study is the tourists’ willingness to return to the
same destination in the future to consume its tourism products and services.
Many holiday destinations depend heavily on repeat visitations (Darnell and

Johnson, 2001; Jayaraman et al., 2010), which is more economical than acquiring
new visitors (Shoemaker and Lewis, 1999). Weaver and Lawton (2002) and Lau
and Mckercher (2004) found that the advertising costs of attracting repeaters
are less than first timers. Repeat visitors also generate more revenue to tourism
destinations since they tend to stay longer (Mckercher and Wong, 2004;
Oppermann, 1998) and spend more in the tourism businesses (Alegre and
Juaneda, 2006; Croes et al., 2010) compared to first-time visitors. Maintaining
loyal tourists is a key contributor to the profitability of destinations (Hsu et al.,
2008), as such tourists also tends to recommend the destination through
favorable word-of-mouth (Baker and Crompton, 2000; Petrick, 2004a; Um et al.,
62
2006). Hence, understanding the relationships between revisit intention and its
salient factors is essential for the tourism authorities, as they would then have
better knowledge of how to promote an attractive image and develop effective
marketing and management strategies to make the best use of destination
resources (Chen and Tsai, 2007; Lau and Mackercher, 2004; Petrick, 2004b).
3.3 FIRST TIMERS’ AND REPEATERS’ REVISIT INTENTION

Tourists in a destination comprise first timers and repeaters, with the ratio of
the two symbolising the age of the destination (Oppermann 1998). The ratio of
the repeaters in matured destinations is relatively higher than in newer
destinations (Leung and McKercher 2001; Wall and Nuryanti, 1997). With
reference to the 2017 statistical report of total international tourist arrivals to
Thailand, repeaters accounted for 63.2% of the total and 36.8% for first timers
(TAT Intelligence Center, 2019a).
Existing tourism studies have found that the number of past visits to a particular
destination significantly increases tourists’ future intention to revisit the
destination (Lam and Hsu; 2004; Lam and Hsu, 2006; Mazursky, 1989; Sonmez
and Graefe, 1998). Likewise, Kim et al. (2009b) researched the differences
between first timers and repeaters at a food event in the USA and suggested past
experience as a strong predictor of food tourists’ intention to revisit the food
event in the future. They also suggested that food tourists seem to revisit a food
event where they had previously been. Hence, culinary tourism marketers
should not pay attention only to new visitors, at the expense of repeaters.
Concerning differences in determinants influencing revisit proneness between

both groups, first-timers’ revisit intention tends to be largely affected by
destination performance in general. On the other hand, repeaters’ revisit
intention tends to be mainly affected by marketing promotional strategies
aiming to evoke positive memories and by communicated information on new
attractions in the destination (Um et al., 2006). Moreover, Oppermann (2000)
stated that repeaters tend to express more diversified and detailed demands for
information and level of destination awareness than the first timers. Examining
63
differences between first-timers’ and repeaters’ perceived values using cruise
passengers as a sample, Petrick (2004b) found that the best predictor of first-
timers’ repurchase intention was quality, whereas repeaters’ repurchase
intention was predicted largely by perceived value. Although repeat visitors
seem to be less satisfied with their visits compared with first-time visitors
(Anwar and Sohail, 2004; McKercher and Wong, 2004), they possess stronger
intention to revisit in the future than first timers (Juaneda, 1996; Petrick and
Backman, 2002; Sonmez and Graefe, 1998). Similarly, Chi (2012) reported that
satisfaction played a bigger part in generating loyalty for first timers than for
repeaters, but the latter showed higher levels of revisit intention. These
arguments postulate a reasonably simple basis for segmenting tourists into first
timers and repeaters in order to conduct efficient marketing so as to retain them
as repeaters. More details of differences between first-timers and repeaters
concerning factors affecting revisit intention will be discussed in Section 3.5.
3.3.1 Classifications of Repeaters and Intended Revisit Timing

Unlike the group of first-timers, which is homogeneous in respect of zero level of
prior destination experience, there are many differences in what can account for
repeaters. On the one hand, it can be tourists returning to the same destination
year after year, or perhaps many times per year. On the other hand, it can be
tourists who had previously visited only one time many years ago (Oppermann,
1999).
Even though the tourists’ revisit intention phenomenon has been widely
scrutinised in tourism studies, the impacts of the timing issue and repeat visitor
types have only been acknowledged in the last decade (Huang et. al, 2014;
Oppermann, 2000). In consumer behaviour research, the average time interval
between the current purchase and the next purchase has been found to be a
powerful indicator to evaluate patterns of frequent purchase behaviour among
repeat customers (Bennett, 2007). Likewise, in tourism studies, intended revisit
timing demonstrates visitors’ planned time interval between their present visit
and their next visit (Huang et. al, 2014). As a consequence, deciphering the time-
based dimension of revisit intention facilitates a destination to improve their
64
management of the visitor flow and to design applicable marketing strategies
(Darnell and Johnson, 2001).
To better understand repeat visitations over time, tourist typologies have been
utilised in several studies. An initial classification of repeat visitors was
established by Gitelson and Crompton (1984). Repeaters were divided into three
subcategories: infrequent, frequent, and very frequent. However, the frequency
of visits for each subgroup was not specified. Oppermann (1999) proposed a
conceptual typology of tourists in relation to multiple visits. Three types of
repeat visitors were identified: somewhat loyal (infrequent), loyal (regular or at
least every third year), and very loyal (annual or biannual). Oppermann (2000)
subsequently broadened his typology in order to cover the whole population by
presenting other visitor types, such as non-purchasers who are unaware of the
destination, unstable purchasers who often switch destination, and disloyal
purchasers who never come back.
Expanding previous studies in this field, Feng and Jang (2004) developed a
trichotomous tourist segmentation focused on tourists’ temporal destination
revisit intention (TDRI): intention to revisit in the short, middle and long term.
The segmentation consists of continuous repeaters (possessing consistently high
revisit intention over time), deferred repeaters (possessing low revisit intention
in the short term, but high revisit intention in the mid and long term), and
continuous switchers (possessing constantly low revisit intention over time).
The time frames were defined: short term (within 1 year), mid term (1-3 years),
and long term (3-5 years). Among the three repeater groups, the deferred
repeaters seem to strengthen their visit intentions. Consequently, based on
deferred repeaters, this suggests that tourists’ intention to revisit differ
conditional on time and the intention could be divided from a temporal
perspective.
3.3.1.1 Factors affecting intended revisit timing

Jang and Feng (2007) extended their research by exploring the influences of
tourists’ novelty seeking and satisfaction on destination revisit intention with
65
three-time intervals (short-term, mid-term and long-term). They rationalised
from their previous research that observing tourists’ revisit intention from a
time perspective is crucial as the intention regularly changes over time. The
results showed that tourists’ revisit intention in the three time intervals were
interrelated. While satisfaction significantly affected only short-term revisit
intention, novelty seeking directly and positively affected mid-term revisit
intention (see Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1 A model for temporal destination revisit intention (TDRI)

(Note: ------> = Non-significant relationships)
Source: Adapted from a hypothetical model for TDRI of Jang and Feng (2007)
These findings suggested that the direct influence of satisfaction might not be
crucial in developing long-term customer retention if satisfaction cannot be
constantly given. Although in general novelty appears to be a determinant in
consumers’ switching behaviour, Jang and Feng (2007)’s study highlights
another role of novelty in strengthening and retrieving tourists’ revisit intention.
Bigne et al. (2009) investigated the effects of satisfaction, variety seeking

tendency, perceived value, destination image, past switching behaviour and
switching costs as antecedents on destination revisit intention. The intention
was measured in the short term (specified as the next holiday visit) and long
term (distant future). They reported contrasting findings (see Figure 3.2 and 3.3)
to Jang and Feng (2007)’s. While satisfaction was a significant antecedent of long
66
term revisit intention, variety-seeking tendency was a strong factor negatively
affecting both short term and long term revisit intention. The results also
indicated a positive effect of destination perceived value on tourist’s’ intention to
revisit the same destination for their next holiday, but not for the distant future.
Moreover, there were no effects of destination image on both short and long
term revisit intention. Past switching behavior and low switching costs could
shorten time intervals for the intended next holiday visit.
Figure 3.2 Short run revisit intention antecedents

Source: Bigne, et al. (2009)
Figure 3.3 Long run revisit intention antecedents

Source: Bigne, et al. (2009)
However, the time frames used in Jang and Feng (2007)’s study and in Bigne et
al. (2009)’s study are different. While Jang and Feng (2007) defined the short
term as an annual period, Bigne et al. (2009) refered to the next holiday.
67
Furthermore, Jang and Feng (2007) limited the long term to a five-year period
but Bigne et al. (2009) did not define a specific range of years. Additionally, Jang
and Feng (2007)’s study concentrated on novelty seeking, whereas Bigne et al.
(2009) examined variety seeking, which is a broader concept. Thus, Bigne et al.
(2009) claimed that the earlier mentioned differences as well as the scarcity of
research on the influence of the temporal dimension on tourists’ revisit intention
to a destination are indications of the requirement to advance this emergent
research line.
Assaker et. al. (2011) criticised the works of Jang and Feng (2007) and Bigne et
al. (2009). Even though their findings provide some understanding of the factors
affecting tourists’ revisit intention at several time intervals, there are some
limitations to their proposed models. This is because the models are static and
do not include changes as a measurable factor. Including changes, specifically
revisits over time, could be beneficial to researchers for understanding the
suitable time intervals for future-revisit behaviours.
Hence, Assaker et. al. (2011) examined the influences of novelty seeking,
satisfaction, and destination image on tourists’ revisit patterns over four time
periods: one year, three years, five years, and ten years in a two factor, non-
linear latent growth model. The results revealed that both novelty seeking and
low satisfaction decreased immediate revisit intention. Nonetheless, a positive
destination image increased both immediate and future revisit intention.
Assaker and Hallak (2013) further examined the moderating effect of tourist
novelty-seeking tendency on the relationships between destination image,
satisfaction, and short and long term revisit intention. The findings showed a
moderating effect of the novelty-seeking tendency on the relationships between
destination image, satisfaction, and temporal revisit intentions (see Figure 3.4).
For instance, the influence of destination image on tourist satisfaction and
satisfaction on revisit intention in short term is significantly lower for high
novelty seekers in comparison to those who are low in the trait. Thus, although
destination satisfaction strongly predicts intention to revisit for medium and low
novelty seekers, it is a weak predictor for high novelty seekers. This is because
68
this type of visitors tends to seek variety and fancy to travel to new destinations
for their next trip.
Figure 3.4 A model for short- and long-term revisit intentions with novelty
seeking acting as a moderator
Source: Adapted from a hypothetical model of Assaker and Hallak (2013)
Proposing a model of antecedents of intended revisit timing that generally differs

from previous studies, Huang et al. (2014) empirically investigated the model
across first timers, frequent visitors (two to five visits) and loyal visitors (more
than five visits). The model includes three potential antecedents identified from
the literature: travel distance, length of stay and attitudes towards the
destination (see Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.5 Antecedents of intended revisit timing

Source: Huang et al. (2014)
The findings showed a positive relationship between visitors’ travel distance and
their intended revisit timing, indicating that visitors living farer from the
69
destination plan to have a later return than those living closer. The authors also
highlighted that the effects of length of stay on revisiting a destination have been
examined in several studies (Barros and Machado, 2010; Ledesma et al, 2005) in
terms of increasing the likelihood to return and lessening the intended revisit
timing. However, in their study, length of stay in the destination in the present
trip affected the intended revisit timing of only frequent and loyal visitors with
return intention. To be more specific, more nights they stay in the destination in
the current visit, the longer time break they intend for the next visit. This
research additionally suggested that attitudes towards a destination were only
an important determinant for loyal visitors with intention to revisit. Specifically,
positive attitudes to the destination drive a sooner return to the destination.
3.4 MEASURING TOURISTS’ REVISIT INTENTION

As mentioned earlier, tourists’ revisit intention is a favorable post-visit
behavioural intention that can turn into an actual future behaviour, a repeat
visitation. Thus, understanding the relationships between revisit intention and
its salient antecedents, how the intention becomes function, and how to measure
them are crucial. Among the theories attempting to predict and explain human
behavioural intentions and/or target behaviour, those that are functional and
most widely used by researchers in a variety of study areas are Theory of
Reasoned Action (TRA) and Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Manstead and
Parker, 1995; Zint, 2002). Both theories are based on the assumption that
behaviour can be predicted from an individual’s intention to perform that
behaviour. In the tourism literature, the TPB has been employed to explain
tourist behaviour two and a half decades, while a few studies have utilised a
modified TRA or modified TPB (e.g. the Model of Goal-directed Behaviour (MGB))
to understand consumer behaviour in tourism. Hence, this section will discuss
the concepts of the TRA, TPB and MGB and their applications in tourism and food
research, with focusing on their usage to predict tourists’ behavioural intentions.
70
3.4.1 Attitude-Behaviour Theories in Predicting Behavioural Intention and
Behaviour
Developed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)
postulates that behavioural intentions, the direct antecedents of behaviour, are a
function of important information or beliefs about the probability that
performing a specific behaviour will cause a particular consequence (Ajzen and
Fishbein, 1980). The beliefs that are the antecedents of behavioural intentions
are categorised into two conceptually different groups: behavioural and
normative beliefs. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) posited behavioural beliefs to be
the factor influencing a person’s attitude towards engaging in a behaviour while
normative beliefs affect the person’s subjective norm towards performing a
behaviour. Therefore, important information or beliefs influence behavioural
intentions and the subsequent behaviour through attitudes towards the
behaviour and/or subjective norms (see Figure 3.6). The attitudes towards the
behaviour are defined as the extent to which an individual has a favourable or
unfavourable evaluation of the behaviour to be enacted and the subjective norms
refer to the perceived social pressure to engage or not to engage in the behavior.
Figure 3.6 The theory of reasoned action (TRA)

Source: Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)
The authors also indicated that factors that are not specified in the model are
presumed to affect the intentions only to the degree that they influence either
attitudes or subjective norms. However, it is important to note that TRA was
71
developed and tested based on the assumption that the behaviours investigated
were under complete volitional control. This raises question over the predictive
power of the TRA for situations in which people have incomplete volitional
control (Ajzen, 1991; Madden et al., 1992).
Consequently, the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) was developed by Ajzen

(1985) as an extension of TRA with the aim to expand the limited condition of
full volitional control. This was achieved by adding another construct named
perceived behavioural control that is defined as an individual’s perceived ease or
difficulty of performing a specific behaviour (Ajzen, 1991; Madden et al., 1992).
Perceived behavioral control plays a salient part in the TPB by having both an
indirect influence on behaviour via behavioural intentions and a direct influence
on behaviour (see Figure 3.7). In the first circumstance, it relies on the
assumption that perceived behavioural control possesses motivational effects
having an indirect influence on behaviour via intentions. On the contrary, in the
second circumstance, perceived behavioural control is assumed to reflect actual
control and has a direct path to behaviour without the mediation of intentions.
Figure 3.7 The theory of planned behaviour (TPB)

Source: Ajzen (1991)
72
Control beliefs, the beliefs concerning the possession of necessary resources and
opportunities to perform a particular behaviour, provide the basis for
perceptions of behavioural control. Since the control beliefs may be constructed
from past experience with the behaviour, perceived behavioural control is
presumed to reflect past experience together with foreseen impediments and
obstacles. The more resources and opportunities an individual believes he
possesses, and the fewer impediments or obstacles he foresee, the better should
be his perceived behavioural control over the given behaviour. As a
consequence, perceived behavioral control can differ across actions and
situations. (Ajzen, 1991). In the prediction of intention, the relative importance
of attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control is assumed to
differ across behaviors, situations and populations. As a result, it may be
reported in some cases that only attitudes play an important role on intentions
or in some applications attitudes and perceived behavioral control are sufficient
to explain intentions. It may also be found that all of three determinants affect
the intentions independently (Ajzen and Driver, 1992).
The TRA and the TPB have been extensively applied to predict several social
behaviours, such as weight loss (Schifter and Ajzen, 1985), drinking problems
(Schlegal et al., 1992), exercise (Smith and Biddle, 1999), dishonest actions (Beck
and Ajzen, 1991), inclination to contribute to a scholarship fund (Ajzen et al.,
2004), tourists’ behavioural intentions (Akkus and Erdem, 2013; Lam and Hsu,
2004; Kim et al., 2011a), and food choice (Brinberg et al., 2000; Chen, 2007;
Arvola et al., 2008). Ajzen and Driver (1991) assessed whether the TPB provided
a comprehensive framework to understand leisure participation, using 146
undergraduate students. The students completed a questionnaire measuring
important behavioural, normative, and control beliefs regarding five leisure
activities: spending time at the beach, jogging or running, mountain climbing,
boating, and biking. The findings supported the applicability of the TPB for
better understanding of leisure activities.
Many studies have compared the accuracy of TRA and TPB in terms of predicting
behavioural intentions and a target behaviour. For instance, Ajzen and Madden
73
(1986) tested the TPB in two distinct experiments: undergraduate students’
class attendance and getting an A grade in an undergraduate course as a
behavioural goal. The findings revealed that the TPB allowed more accurate
prediction of both intentions and goal achievement than did the TRA. The results
of both experiments also showed that perceived behavioural control significantly
increased the prediction of intentions. In the experiment 2, when the
respondents’ perception of behavioural control was quite accurate, perceived
behavioural control presented significant contribution to the prediction of
behaviour. Madden et al. (1992) compared the TPB with the TRA for 10 daily or
regular behaviours that students planned to do during the following 2-week
period. The behaviours were selected to represent a variety regarding
respondents’ perception of control over performing the behaviour. The findings
showed that including perceived behavioural control increases precision in the
prediction of intentions and target behaviour. When the respondents perceived a
high degree of control over behaviours, the relationship between perceived
behavioural control and a given behaviour was not significant. In contrast, when
the respondents perceived low control toward performing behaviours, the direct
link between perceived behavioural control and the given behaviour became
significant without the mediation of intentions. Thus, perceived behavioural
control can offer useful information to predict given behaviour when perceptions
of control over the behaviour are accurate and the behaviour presents some
aspect not under volitional control. Madden et al. (1992) concluded that the TPB
proved to be better than the TRA for the prediction of a given behaviour when
the behaviour is not under full volitional control. Han et al. (2010) examined the
applicability of the TPB in elucidating the formation of hotel customers’
intentions to stay at a green hotel study, using a sample of general U.S. lodging
customers. The study reported that the TPB possessed better predictive power
for intentions than the TRA. These all above mentioned studies have supported
the TPB as a more appropriate model for understanding complex human
behaviours in comparison with the TRA.
However, a number of studies have highlighted the TPB limitations in different

aspects. To begin with, it is noteworthy to mention that the TPB have been
74
developed as a decision behaviour model for tangible products, as opposed to
intangible services such as tourism (March and Woodside, 2005). Unlike tangible
products for which the decision process involving rational and problem solving
situations, tourism involves an intangible, diverse purchase of an experiential
product with emotional undertones (Gilbert, 1991). These cause tourism
decision-making process is vastly different from the one used for tangible
products. Subsequently, the TPB overlooks important realities of tourist
behaviour. Moreover, some researchers (Bagozzi, 1992; Calder and Ross; 1973;
Fazio, 1995) have called attention to the failure of TPB to reflect how intentions
become activated. Although attitudes, subjective norm and perceived
behavioural intention give explanations for acting, they do not integrate explicit
motivational component required to activate an intention to act. Another
shortcoming of the TPB is the exclusion of past behaviour in the model. Ajzen
(1991) argued that the addition of perceived behavioural control in the TPB
should exclude the requirement for past behaviour because perceived
behavioural control should mediate any remaining influences of past behaviour.
Nevertheless, there are a number of further studies (e.g. Ajzen and Driver, 1992;
Bagozzi and Kimmel, 1995; Leone et al, 1999; Norman and Conner, 1996)
reporting the significant effects of past behaviour on the prediction of intentions
and/or the target behaviour in the TPB tests. The effects of past behaviour on
intentions and future behaviours were also supported by a meta-analysis of 64
independent studies conducted by Ouellette and Wood (1998).
As the effect of motivational and affective constructs and past behavior of human
behaviour are not considered in the TPB, the Model of Goal-directed Behaviour
(MGB) was developed by Perugini and Bagozzi (2001) in order to address the
TPB’s limitations. Broadening and deepening the TPB, the MGB integrates
motivational, affective, and habitual processes apart from the original
antecedents proposed in the TPB (attitudes, subjective norms and perceived
behavioural control) so as to gain a better explanation of human behaviour in
quest of a personal goal (Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001; Perugini and Connor, 2000;
Richetin, et al. 2008). In connection with the motivational process, desires can
be crucial determinants in explaining an individual’s decision formation
75
(Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001). With regard to the affective process, anticipated
emotions to a particular behaviour appear to be critical variables affecting an
individual’s decision making (Conner and Armitage, 1998). In respect of the
habitual process, past behavior or habit is considered as an imperative factor to
elucidate the habitual features of human behaviour and should be taken into
account as an important factor in the human decision-making processes (Bentler
and Speckart, 1981; Ouellete and Wood, 1998). Hence, with the purpose of better
comprehending a particular human behaviour, Perugini and Bagozzi (2001)
incorporated desires, anticipated emotions (positive and negative), and the
concept of past behaviour (frequency and recency of past behaviour) together
with the original determinants of the TPB into the MGB model (see Figure 3.8).
Figure 3.8 The model of goal-directed behaviour (MGB)

Source: Perugini and Bagozzi (2001)
The MGB focuses principally on the pre-volitional stages of decision-making

involving several new constructs. The MGB postulates that desires directly drive
intentions and convert the motivational components that are embedded in
attitudes towards the behaviour, anticipated emotions, subjective norms, and
perceived behavioural control to perform an action. Desires are defined as “the
motivational state of mind wherein appraisals and reasons to act are
transformed into a motivation to do so” (Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001: p 84). The
76
desires are assumed as the most proximal antecedent of the intentions in the
model. Anticipated emotions are hypothesised as co-predictors in addition to
attitudes subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control. Anticipated
emotions are defined as affective outcomes of goal achievement and goal failure
before deciding to perform or not in goal-directed situations (Perugini and
Bagozzi, 2001). Hence, positive anticipated emotions are referred to success in
attaining a personal goal, where as negative anticipated emotions are referred to
failures. Frequency of past behaviour is additionally posited to predict desires,
intentions and behaviour, while recency of past behaviour is a predictor of
behaviour only. The model divides the influences of past behaviour into
frequency and recency effects with an idea that they are conceptually different
and thus may convey independent information (Bagozzi and Warshaw, 1990).
An individual may possess a long history of performing a target behaviour but
did not perform it recently, while another one may have recently done an activity
without prior experience with it (Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001).
Thus, Perugini and Bagozzi (2001) stated that introducing anticipated emotions
broadens the TPB because new decision-making criteria regarding an
individual’s goals are included. Incorporating desires deepens the TPB since the
functions of existing antecedents in the theory are reinterpreted. Integrating
frequency and recency of past behaviour permits the researchers to include
information regarding automatic features of goal-directed behaviours, which are
not reflected in the factors of the TPB.
Perugini and Bagozzi (2001) tested the MGB in two studies with two different
goals: weight control and studying effort. Both studies were conducted with
university students. While in the study 1 dieting and exercising was investigated
for each respondent, respondents in the study 2 were asked to free select an
instrumental behaviour that they considered individually relevant to achieve
their goals. As expected, the results supported the assumption that desires
completely mediated the influences of attitudes toward behaviour, anticipated
emotion, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control on intentions.
Importantly, the MGB explains significantly larger number of variance in both
77
intentions and behaviour when compared to the TPB in both studies.
The roles of desires as the most proximal and strong antecedent of intentions
and a significant mediator for the effects of attitudes, subjective norms,
perceived behavioural control, and other individual reasons for acting on
intentions have also been confirmed in emerging studies such as Bagozzi and
Edwards (1998), Bagozzi and Kimmel (1995), and Leone et al. (1999).
Furthermore, empirical evidences that suggest the importance of desires both
for actions and for goals in explaining individuals’ decision making and that
support superior predictive ability and explanatory power of the MGB over the
TPB have been provided in many recent studies with varied goals and
behaviours such as body weight regulation (Perugini and Conner, 2000),
learning SPSS (Leone et al., 2004), helping charity (Perugini and Bagozzi, 2004),
and drinking fizzy soft drinks (Richetin et al., 2008). As a consequence, the MGB
has been employed to understand various human behaviours, including brand-
related (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006), drinking alcohol (Prestwich et al., 2008),
digital piracy (Taylor, 2007), information search (Taylor et al., 2009),
responsible drinking (Fry et al., 2014), and overseas travel behaviour (Kim et al.,
2012). The use of MGB and its extended versions in tourism field will be
elaborated more in the next section.
3.4.2. Applications of TRA, TPB and MGB in Tourism and Food Studies
There are very limited studies applying the TRA in tourism and food studies.
Two studies (Ryu and Jang, 2006; Ryu and Han, 2010) applied the TRA to predict
tourists’ intentions to consume local food on holiday. Ryu and Jang (2006)
proposed a modified TRA to examine tourists’ intention of experiencing local
cuisine in which past behaviour was added to the original theory. After
examining its predictive ability using university students as a sample, the results
showed that the modified TRA model could predict tourists’ intention of
experiencing local cuisine. Additionally, attitude and past behaviour significantly
influenced the tourists’ behavioural intention, while subjective norm had no
effect on the intention. Ryu and Han (2010) further tested the utility of the
78
modified TRA in predicting international tourists’ intentions to experience local
cuisine in New Orleans and achieved similar results.
Kim et al. (2011a) utilised a modified TRA to investigate food tourists’ intention
to revisit by replacing attitude toward behaviour and subjective norm in the
model with satisfaction and perceived value. The researchers rationalised that in
the situation of repurchasing a product, “affect”, an individual’s feeling about the
product, can be considered as attitude toward behaviour. Hence, it may be
referred as the satisfaction with the consumed product. By way of explanation,
the attitude and subjective norm can be measured by satisfaction and perceived
value, a cognitive response that often leads to satisfaction. The questionnaire
survey was conducted with visitors attending a food event in U.S. The results
indicated that perceived value significantly affected satisfaction and visitors’
revisit intention was predicted by the perceived value and satisfaction.
Rather than applying the modified TRA to examine the behavioural intention like
Kim et al. (2011a), Akkus and Erdem (2013) investigated food tourists’
intentions to participate in food related travel using the TPB. 137 usable survey
questionnaires were collected from members of a Facebook group of gourmets
in Turkey. The findings revealed attitude toward behaviour and subjective norm
were significant predictors for the food tourists’ intentions, whereas perceived
behavioural control did not show any influence on the intentions. Large
proportion of respondents explained that their decision to engage in food related
travel depended totally on themselves. The authors suggested that this
circumstance can be the underlying cause of insignificant PBC effect on the
intentions. They finally converted their research model to the TRA.
In comparison to the TRA and the MGB, the TPB have been received more
attention from tourism researchers as a means to explain tourist’s behavioural
intention to visit and revisit a specific holiday destination but very limited
studies employed the theories to understand actual behaviour. Majority of
studies were conducted with Far East populations. For example, Lam and Hsu
(2004) verified the applicability of the TPB in predicting potential Mainland
79
Chinese tourists’ intention to visit Hong Kong. The TPB model was additionally
tested with potential Taiwanese tourists to Hong Kong by Lam and Hsu (2006).
In both studies, past behaviour was added as an independent construct directly
affecting the intention. They reported that the modified model well explained the
intentions to visit. In their first study, subjective norm showed no effect on the
intentions, whereas it was a significant antecedent in the second study. The
researchers rationalised this difference may be because going abroad was very
novel for Mainland Chinese.
Instead of employing the TPB model directly as the research framework, Huang
and Hsu (2009) modified the model to examine Mainland Chinese tourists’
revisit intention to Hong Kong. The motivational factors were incorporated to
the TPB to evaluate the effects of different travel motivation factors on attitude
toward revisiting the destination. Past experience and perceived constraint were
also included into the model but the subjective norm was omitted. The findings
indicated that while shopping as a travel motivation factor positively influenced
tourists’ intention to revisit, disinterest as a perceived constraint negatively
affected the revisit intention. A positive relationship between past experience
and the revisit intention was also significant. However, the authors pointed out a
limitation of their sample frame consisting of only Beijing populations. This may
result in the lack of generalisibity of the findings to the whole Mainland Chinese
travellers. Hsu and Huang (2012) also extended TPB model to study potential
Chinese tourists’ intention to visit Hong Kong using a two-wave data collection,
which allowed an empirical test of the extended model. In stage 1, the data was
collected from 1,524 residents living in Beijing, Shanghai and Guanghou.
Particularly, various motivation factors for visiting a destination were added to
the model and actual behaviour was evaluated by conducting the stage 2
questionnaire survey with 311 respondents from the same cohort to follow up
their frequency of actual visit to Hong Kong in next 6 months after the first
survey. To sum up, the extended TPB model with the addition of travel
motivations better explained intention than the original TPB but not for
explaining actual behaviour.
80
Not only in the country scale, the TPB were also employed to predict visit/revisit
intention to various tourism destinations and sites such as a wine region (Spark,
2007), world cultural heritage sites (Shen et al., 2009) and a green hotel (Han et
al., 2010; Han and Kim, 2010) Sparks (2007) modified the TPB model to research
potential wine tourists’ intentions to engage in a wine based vacation. The
questionnaire survey was undertaken in Australia. Attitude toward past wine
holiday and involvement with wine activities were added to the original model.
The authors identified three core tourism attitudinal dimensions (i.e. core wine
experience, destination experience and personal development) that used to
measure attitude towards intention to perform a wine vacation within next 12
months. The attitude towards the intention was considered as emotional attitude
in the model suggesting that wine tourism is a hedonic consumption experience.
The authors summarised that the modified model showed moderately good
predictive validity. Shen et al. (2009) extended the TPB by adding past
experience and cultural tour involvement to examine Chinese travellers’ visit
intention to world cultural heritage sites in China in 12 months timeframe. The
findings suggested that the extended TPB is able to predict tourism demand in
that a positive past experience enhances the visit intention to the world heritage
sites. Han et al. (2010) utilised the TRA and TPB to investigate hotel customers’
intentions to visit a green hotel. The TPB better explained the behavioural
intention than the TRA. They also further evaluated the influence of
environmentally friendly activities (EFAs) on the connections between
antecedents of intention and intention. However, the strengths of the paths
between these antecedents and the intention were not statistically different
among high and low EFA groups. Han and Kim (2010) extended the TPB model
to explain customers’ intention to revisit a green hotel by incorporating critical
factors that include service quality, customer satisfaction, overall image, and
frequency of past behaviour into the original model. The analysed results
evidenced that the extended TPB model offers better prediction of green hotel
customers’ revisit intention when compared to the TRA and TPB.
Unlike both the TRA and TPB that have been widely employed to explain various
human behaviours in tourism, the application of the MGB in tourism research
81
seems to be in its infancy stage. In recent years, a few studies have employed this
model to understand tourists’ intention and behaviour in different tourism
contexts such as overseas travel behaviour (Kim et al., 2012), international
travelers’ behaviour in the period of influenza epidemic (Lee et al., 2012),
tourists’ revisit intention to a mud festival (Song et al., 2012a), tourists’ revisit
intention to an oriental medicine festival (Song et al., 2014), casino visitors’
intention to gamble (Song et al., 2012b), wine tourists’ behavioural intention
(Lee et al., 2015), and bike travelers’ decisions making (Meng and Han, 2016).
Regarding studies on international travel behaviour, Kim et al. (2012) applied

the MGB model to understand Korean overseas travel behavior and the
moderating effect of gender. The researchers concluded that the model is a value
framework in predicting overseas travel behaviour and gender have a significant
influence in the decision-making process. Lee et al. (2012) developed an
extended MGB to explain potential international tourists’ behavioral intention
under the situation of the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, using Korean tourists.
Non-pharmaceutical intervention for influenza (NPI) and the perception of 2009
H1NI were added the original MGB model. The findings revealed that desire,
perceived behavioural control, frequency of past behaviour and NPI affected
intention, whereas perception of 2009 H1NI is not an significant direct
antecedent of desire and intention. On the contrary, it affected tourists’ intention
indirectly via personal NPI. The authors rationalised that the tourists had some
adaptive behaviour (personal NPI) in mind that could lessen the infection threat
to their acceptable levels. Hence, personal NPI helped to reinforce the desire
enhancing their international travel intentions. However, both studies were
conducted in a single tourism market that is South Korea. The limitation
regarding the sampling frame may lessen the external validity of the results.
In respect of domestic tourists’ revisit intention to festivals, Song et al. (2012a)

extended the MGB to understand visitors’ behavioural intention to revisit a
nature based festival. Data were collected through an onsite intercept survey
with Korean visitors attending the Boryeong Mud Festival in South Korea. Three
main environmentally related factors (i.e. environmental concerns, perceive
82
customer effectiveness and environmentally friendly tourism behaviours) were
incorporated to the original MGB model. The findings showed that the attendees’
intention was well predicted by the extended MGB and also evidenced that
volitional, non-volitional and emotional elements are imperative in
understanding the nature-based festival visitors’ perceptions and behaviours.
Besides, another extended MGB was reported as an appropriate framework in
explaining oriental medicine festival tourists’ intention to revisit (Song et al.,
2014). The authors added two oriental medicine festival-related constructs (i.e.
oriental medicine image of festival site and perception of oriental medicine) to
the MGB. The data collection was conducted as a means of questionnaire survey
with 423 attendees of the San cheong Herbal Festival, South Korea. The results
revealed that the two additional constructs positively influenced attitude toward
attending the festival. Interestingly, both studies (Song et al., 2012a and 2014)
reported a significant relationship between frequency of past behaviour and
desire but not for revisit intention to a festival. They rationalised that previous
behaviour or experience with similar kinds of experiential festival activities can
enhance attendees’ desire to look for a similar experience but not necessary to
visit the same festival again.
Concerning the prediction of behavioural intentions to participate in tourism

activities, Song et al. (2012b) proposed an EMGB that integrates the perception
of a responsible gambling strategy (PRGS) to predict casino visitors’ behavioural
intention. They reported that desire showed the strongest effect on casino
visitors’ intentions to gamble. The PRGS significantly predicted both desire and
the intention resulting from visitors’ positive perceptions toward casino that
employed responsible gambling strategies. Lee et al. (2015) examined Korean
wine tourists’ intention to engage in a wine tour by using an extended MGB that
incorporate experience of a wine tour and wine tourism involvement. The new
model highly predicted wine tourists’ behavioural intention and provided more
predictive power than the original MGB. The findings also showed that the two
new constructs had a significant positive relationship with attitude towards
attending a wine tour. Bike travelers’ decision to participate in bike activities
was also researched using an extended MGB that includes two crucial constructs
83
in bicycle tourism (i.e. environmental connectedness and environmental
behavior) (Meng and Han, 2016). After analysing data collected from an onsite
survey with 394 bicycle tourists in bicycle clubs in China, the resulted evidenced
that the extended MGB better predicted bike tourists’ intentions than the original
model. The two environmental related factors were significant determinants of
bike travelers’ decision formation.
It can be seen that most of tourism studies using the MGB have extended the
original MGB model by adding new constructs with an attempt to broaden and
deepen the model to achieve better predictive power of tourist intention or
behaviour in particular tourism settings. These seems to be a significant
response to the callings from many researchers (Ajzen, 1991; Conner and
Abraham, 2001; Oh and Hsu, 2001; Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001) that highlighted
a need for a revision of socio-psychological theories to incorporate new variables
that are important in particular contexts or amend existing paths among latent
factors.
However, to the best of the researcher’s knowledge there is no any single study
researching on tourists’ revisit intention to an overseas destination as well as in
culinary tourism context using the MGB, in spite of its high predictive
applicability and practicality. The model could be employed as a useful new
theoretical framework for explaining international tourists’ revisit intention to a
culinary destination. This is because the MGB is comprehensive and plausible to
enhance prediction of tourist behaviour by encompassing cognitive,
motivational, affective, habitual processes. Moreover, the revisit intention to an
overseas culinary tourism destination involves highly volitional and goal-
directed and previous visits that can be account for past behaviour. All in all, it is
likely that the MGB in comparison to the TPB is a more applicable theory to
understand the revisit intention. Also, the MGB could be employed to assist
researchers in better understanding factors affecting tourists’ intention to revisit
a culinary tourism destination.
84
3.5 FACTORS AFFECTING TOURISTS’ REVISIT INTENTION
Revisiting is recognised as a crucial phenomenon in tourism that assist a
destination to maintain its competitiveness and drive its economy in terms of
generating more tourism revenue and substantially saving long-term marketing
costs (Darnell and Johnson, 2001; Luo and Hsieh, 2013). To understand why
tourists prefer to revisit a specific destination, a number of studies have focused
on identifying factors that affect tourists’ revisit intention.
3.5.1 Factors Affecting Tourists’ Revisit Intention to a Tourist Destination

Since this study focuses on the revisit intention to a tourist destination, clear
definition of the term “tourist destination” should be identified to avoid
confusion. Referring to UNWTO (1999, 2007), a tourist destination is defined as
a main place for tourists to visit representing the fundamental unit of analysis in
tourism. It can be identified based on three perspectives. First, the geographical
perspective involves a clearly identifiable area with geographic or administrative
boundaries, which tourists visit and stay in during their holiday. Second, the
economic perspective involves an area where tourists stay longest and spend a
related amount of money. In other words, where tourism revenue is notable, or
potentially notable to its economy. Third, the psychographical perspective: an
area establishing the main reason for a trip. Additionally, a tourist destination
can be serviced by a private and/or public sector or can be serviced by a whole
country (e.g. France), a region (e.g. Andalucía), an island (e.g. Sicily), a village,
town or city (Manente, 2008).
Concerning factors influencing tourists’ intention to revisit a tourist destination,

several salient factors can be identified from tourism studies including cultural
difference, destination attributes, perceived attractiveness, novelty seeking
tendency, previous experience and number of past visits, perceived quality,
perceive value, motivations, destination image, and satisfaction (See Table 3.1).
It can be seen from the table that in a single study, several salient factors were
usually reported as direct or indirect antecedents of the revisit intention. Each
factor will be critically discussed in terms of its definition and importance, as
85
well as its relationships with related factors and destination revisit intention in
connection with relevant studies.
86
Table 3.1 Tourism authors and salient factors of tourists’ revisit intention to a tourist destination
87
(Continued)
88
3.5.1.1 Cultural differences
Cultural differences based on nationality has been recognised as an important
factor influencing tourist behaviour (Pizam and Sussmann, 1995; Yuan and
McDonald, 1990). Reisinger (2009) also supported that international tourist’
expectations and needs are affected by their national cultures, which is
acknowledged as the most influential force shaping individuals’ behaviour.
National cultures also influence tourists’ thoughts, communication styles,
understanding, evaluations of travel services, and intention to repeat purchase
(Crotts and Erdmann, 2000; Reisinger; 2009).
Regarding studies on tourists’ revisit intention to a destination, Canneen (2004)

reported the effect of national cultures on international tourists’ intention to
revisit Hawaii. A comparison between US, Japanese, and Chinese tourists
revealed significant differences in their decision-making criteria in relation to
the repeat visitation. Japanese tourists rated a high intention to revisit a
destination that are fun and relaxing, whereas US tourists rationalised their
intention to revisit on their desires to learn more on different culture and people.
Chinese tourists presented higher resemblance to US tourists than to Japanese
ones. Xu et al. (2009) studied tourist behaviour and attitudes of two different
nationalities, using undergraduate students from UK and China as the
populations. The findings showed that British tourists are likely to return to the
same destination than do Chinese.
Even though there is limited number of tourism studies reporting the influence
of natural cultures on destination revisit intention, some studies revealed culture
differences on tourist motivations (Jang and Cai, 2002; Kozak, 2002a) and
tourists’ perception of destination image (Lee and Lee, 2009; Litvin et al., 2004).
These two factors can be considered as dominant antecedents of revisit
intention, which will be discussed in Section 3.5.1.8 and 3.5.1.9. Thus, cultural
differences can also act as an indirect factor influencing revisit intention.
89
3.5.1.2 Destination attributes
Destination attributes are set of features defining an area or a place as a tourist
destination (Heung and Quf, 2000). Echtner and Ritchie (1993) stated that every
tourist destination has a mixture of functional (tangible) attributes and
psychological (abstract) attributes. The former can be directly observed or
measured such as tourist sites, nature, landscape, climates, cost and tourist
activities, whereas the latter cannot be directly measured such as service quality,
safety, friendliness, and atmosphere. Destination attributes play a crucial part in
tourists' evaluation of the destination attractiveness, image, and satisfaction
(Meng et al. 2008). Therefore, destination performance can be measured via
tourists’ perception of destination attributes so as to assist market segmentation
and promotion (Ragavan et al., 2014).
In destination revisit intention literature, even though destination attributes are

not reported as a direct antecedent of the intention to revisit, they are found as a
significant evaluative factor influencing tourists’ overall satisfaction towards a
destination, which in turn influencing the return intention (Li and Carr, 2004; Chi
and Qu, 2008). Many existing tourism studies (e.g. Baker and Crompton, 2000;
Kozak, 2002b; Yoon and Uysal, 2005) also evidenced that the tourists’ overall
satisfaction is shaped by how they evaluate particular attributes connected with
the destination. The more satisfaction with destination attributes tourists
acquire, the more overall satisfaction they tend to develop. The satisfaction with
the attribute level can be called attribute satisfaction, which will be elaborated
more in Section 3.5.1.10.
3.5.1.3 Perceived attractiveness

Perceived attractiveness or destination attractiveness is defined as “the relative
importance of individual benefits and the perceived ability of the destination to
deliver these individual benefits.” (Mayo and Jarvis 1981, cited in Becker, 1981,
p. 201) Several destination attributes have been reported as determinants of the
attractiveness of tourist destinations (Vengesayi, 2008). However, Zhou (2005)
suggested that only some attributes are crucial for attracting tourists to a
particular destination. Perceived attractiveness reflects individuals’ feelings,
beliefs, images, and opinions regarding the perceived ability of a destination to
90
provide satisfaction (Hu and Ritchie, 1993; Vengesayi, 2008). Perceived
attractiveness studies are required to comprehend the attributes encouraging
individuals to visit a destination (Formica, 2002). A destination that can meet
tourists’ needs tends to be perceived as being attractive and is likely to be
selected in place of competing destinations (Vengesayi, 2008). Subsequently,
“perceived attractiveness has been regarded as one of the evaluation constructs
of destination performance as well as one of the determinants that affect
pleasure destination choice.” (Um et al. 2006; p. 1146)
Researching on antecedents of destination revisit intention of Hong Kong

inbound tourists, Um et al. (2006) advocated that overall satisfaction and revisit
intention seem to be affected more by the perceived attractiveness than by both
perceived quality of tourism services and perceived value for money. Moreover,
the attractiveness, which is termed, as destination performance in their study,
was the most significant revisit intention antecedent rather than the satisfaction.
On the other hand, Quintal and Polczynski (2010) reported that the
attractiveness was not a direct determinant of revisit intention but evidenced the
significant relationship between perceived attractiveness and overall satisfaction
and the satisfaction consecutively influenced the return intention.
3.5.1.4 Novelty seeking tendency

Variety and novelty seeking trait are based on the same conceptual theory of
optimal level of stimulation, describing an individual seek a particular level of
stimulation in a range of behavior that is optimum for him (Bello and Etzel,
1985; Hebb and Thompson, 1954). This can explain why customers switch
products or brands even though they are satisfied with the products. The general
definition of novelty is the level of dissimilarity between present experience and
past experience, causing it the contrary of familiarity (Pearson, 1970).
Variety seeking has been substituted with novelty seeking in tourism setting (e.g.
Assaker et al., 2011; Assaker and Hallak, 2013; Feng and Jang, 2004; Jang and
Feng, 2007; Scott, 1996) because novelty-seeking concept offers a stronger
theoretical basis to explain destination choice behavior (Babu and Bibin, 2004;
91
Bello and Etzel, 1985). More than that, seeking novelty is an innate characteristic
in particular travelers (Cohen, 1979; Lee and Crompton, 1992), thus; it plays a
large part in tourists’ decision-making process (Petrick, 2002). Novel travel is
defined as a visit distinguished by new and unfamiliar experiences differing from
previous life experiences (Faison, 1977).
McIntosh et al. (1995) developed a nine-item scale to measure novelty-seeking

tendency in tourists (See also Table 4.1), which was primarily modified from
Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1992)’s measurement scale of consumers’
tendency to seek variety in a general purchasing circumstance. McIntosh et al.
(1995) customized the scale to fit the tourist destination context so as to capture
different features of tourists’ tendency for novelty seeking in the certain context
of holiday destinations. This scale has been successfully employed and validated
in tourism literature (e.g. Assaker et al., 2011; Assaker and Hallak, 2013; Jang
and Feng, 2017) and the scale benefits in capturing a broad range of novelty
seeking from discovering novel places to acquiring prestige and attention from
others
The direct effect of novelty seeking tendency on destination revisit intention

from a temporal perspective was reported in following studies. (Bigne et al
(2009)’s results indicated that novelty seeking had higher significant influence
on the revisit intention than satisfaction but they measured it using specific
variety seeking tendency which is a broader concept. The authors postulated the
strong negative effect of novelty seeking in both short and long run revisit
intention. Assaker et. al. (2011) also posited the negative relationship between
novelty seeking tendency and immediate revisit intention but they further
pointed out the negative effect of immediate revisit intention on future revisit. In
other words, lower immediate intention to revisit leaded to a higher likelihood to
return in the future. Therefore, an increase in novelty seeking amongst tourists
resulted in a decrease in immediate intention to revisit but an increase in future
intention to return. Similarly, Jang and Feng (2007) found that novelty seeking
positively influenced mid-term revisit intention in a direct path and affected
long-term revisit intention indirectly through the mid-term revisit intention.
92
Hence, Assaker et al (2011) and Jang and Feng (2007) both pointed out an
alternative function of novelty in strengthening and retrieving tourists’ revisit
intention to a destination.
A role of novelty seeking as a moderating variable was reported in Assaker and

Hallak (2013)’s study and George and George (2004)’s study. The former work
evidenced the moderating effect of novelty seeking on the relationships among
destination image, overall satisfaction and temporal revisit intention. The latter
study, however, revealed another moderating role of novelty seeking on the
relationships among past visitation, place attachment and revisit intention.
3.5.1.5 Previous experience and number of past visits

Research in tourism contexts has established that previous travel experiences to
a particular destination enhance the intention to return to the destination
(Juaneda, 1996; Kozak, 2001; Sonmez and Graefe 1998). This can be resulted
from many aspects occurred when a destination is visited. For example, tourists
have direct experiences that they can employ to make decisions or evaluating
their holiday by comparing with other personal experiences and information
gained from acquaintances as well as media (Kozak, 2001). Moreover, the
experienced tourists seem to perceive the destination as less risky and probably
feel safer to select that destination in the future (Sonmez and Graefe 1998).
Previous travel experiences with a destination and the number of past visits to a
destination have been found to positively and directly affect tourists’ intention to
revisit a destination (e.g. Chi, 2012; George and George, 2004; Huang and Hsu,
2009; Kozak, 2001; Lam and Hsu, 2004; Lam and Hsu, 2006; Petrick, et al.;
2001). While George and George (2004) measured tourists’ past visitations in
terms of both frequency and intensity of their previous visits, Huang and Hsu
(2009) evaluated past travel experience with two constructs: overall satisfaction
based on all past visits and number of past visits to the destination. On the
contrary, many studies (e.g. Petrick et al., 2001; Kozak, 2001; Lam and Hsu,
2004; Lam and Hsu, 2006) employed only the number of past visits, which is
account for the frequency of past behaviour in this case, to measure tourists’
93
previous experience and also found a direct impact on the destination revisit
intention. Unlike Petrick et al. (2001) and Kozak (2001), Lam and Hsu (2004)
and Lam and Hsu (2006) proposed a modified TPB model to predict potential
Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese tourists’ intention to visit Hong Kong by
adding past behaviour, which is measured with the number of past visits, as a
new independent construct into the original model. The model well explained
the return intention and a positive direct relationship between past behaviour
and the intention was reported.
A moderating effect of the number of past visits on the relationships between

factors affecting temporal destination revisit intentions and the revisit intentions
was revealed by Huang et al. (2014). They examined those revisit intention
antecedents across first timers and different loyalty groups of visitors counted
by the number of past visits. The significant differences among different types of
visitors on perceived importance of the identified factors in relation to the return
intention were found. Chi (2012) and Yuksel (2001) revealed a moderating
function of the previous experiences (between first timers and repeaters) on the
linkage between satisfaction and repeat visit intention to a destination.
3.5.1.6 Perceived quality

In tourism context, perceived quality is defined as a tourist’s perception of “a
destination’s offerings, such as easy access, overall cleanliness, diversity of
attractions, quality of the accommodation, friendliness of local people, and
opportunities for rest.” (Zabkar et al., 2010, p. 541) Perceived quality can be
counted as a consequence of service evaluation process wherein tourists weigh
their expectations with perceived service offered (Brady and Robertson, 2001).
Subsequently, tourism academics view perceived quality as a positive distinctive
feature that can enable an understanding of how services meet tourists’
standards (Murphy et al., 2000). As a result, perceived quality of tourists towards
a holiday destination is determined by whether service delivery process in
connection with the trip experience meets their standards (Chen and Tsai,
2007).
94
In destination revisit intention literature, Bigne et al., 2001 and ZabKar et al.
(2010) reported a direct positive effect of perceived quality on the revisit
intention. Perceived quality was found to be an outcome of destination image on
the former study, whereas the quality was significantly predicted by destination
attributes in the latter research. Perceived quality was, moreover, revealed to
have a positive relationship with perceived value and the value had a positive
effect on tourist satisfaction and the intention to return, sequentially (Chen and
Tsai, 2007). Furthermore, perceived quality was evidenced as a direct
antecedent of overall satisfaction, which in order affected the return intention
(Kim et al, 2015; Quintal and Polczynski, 2010; Zabkar et al., 2010).
3.5.1.7 Perceived value

In tourism research, perceived value is defined as tourist’s overall appraisal of
the net value of the trip based on their evaluation on what is received in return
for both monetary and nonmonetary efforts (Chen and Tsai, 2007; Murphy et al.,
2000; Um et al., 2006) Many studies employed price as a representative for
tourists’ perceived value of a holiday destination (Murphy et al., 2000). Dodds et
al. (1991) stated that consumers perceive higher value, when the price is
increased. As a result, perceived value of a holiday destination is considered as a
cognitive evaluation of time and/or money spent for a whole trip compared to
holiday experiences they received (Murphy et al., 2000). Tourism scholars
acknowledge that tourist behaviour is better explained when observed via
tourists’ perception of value (Gallarza and Saura, 2006).
Um et al (2006) found a significant direct relationship between perceived value

for money spent and tourists’ revisit intention to a destination even though it
was not a powerful predictor as the destination attractiveness. The results of
Kim et al. (2015)’s and Petrick et al. (2001)’s study also supported a role of
perceived value as a direct precursor of the revisit intention. Perceived value
was also discovered to have a direct impact on satisfaction (Chen and Tsai, 2007;
Quintal and Polczynski, 2010). Conversely, Kim et al. (2015) pointed out
perceived value as an outcome of satisfaction. This is supported by Petrick et al.
(2001)’s work but the authors additionally revealed that perceived value was
95
also significant predicted by the number of past visits. On the other hand, Chen
and Tsai (2007) viewed perceived value as a consequence of perceived quality.
3.5.1.8 Motivations
Iso-Ahola (1982) defined tourist motivation as a socio-psychological force
inclining a person to choose and engage in a touristic activity. Travel motivation
seems to be the most important factor in explaining tourist behavior. Travel
motivation also tends to have an influence on tourists’ intention to return to a
destination (Li et al., 2010). The push–pull theory of motivation is the most
extensively used concept adapted to classify tourist motivations in existing
literature. According to the theory, tourism motives are classified into two
groups: push motives (internal) and pull motives (external) (Crompton, 1979;
Dann, 1977; Uysal and Hagan, 1993). As said by Uysal and Hagan (1993), these
forces explain how tourists are pushed by motivation factors in making a
decision to visit a destination and how they are pulled or attracted by attributes
of the destination.
Push factors are internal drives motivating individuals to travel (e.g. the need for
novelty, escape, self-esteem). Internal motives are connected with tourists’
desires and encompass the wish for escape, rest and relaxation, family
togetherness, social interaction, prestige, health, excitement, and adventure
(Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1977). On the contrary, pull factors refer to perceived
attractiveness of a destination motivating people to travel after the decision has
been finalised. The external motives are connected with the destination
attractiveness. These drives involve tangible facilities, including leisure and
entertainment resources, historical, and cultural attractions, natural and culinary
heritage (McGehee et al., 1996;Uysal and Juroswski, 1994).
The direct influence of motivations on the destination revisit intention was

showed in many studies (e.g. Huang and Hsu, 2009; Som et al., 2012; Yoon and
Uysal, 2005). Huang and Hsu, 2009 indicated that shopping significantly
motivated Chinese tourists’ intention to return to Hong Kong, whereas relaxation
and recreation was revealed by Som et al., 2012 as the most important travel
96
motive influencing the repeat intention of international tourists to Sabah,
Malaysia. Kim et al. (2005) also found motivations as antecedents of satisfaction
and the satisfaction influenced the revisit intention, which was mediated by
perceive value. Unlike the three mentioned studies, Yoon and Uysal (2005)
clearly divided motivations into push and pull factors. Push factors had a direct
effect on destination revisit intention but pull motives affected destination
loyalty via the mediating effect of satisfaction. Dissimilar to Yoon and Uysal
(2005), Li et al. (2010) seperated travel motivations into three dimensions:
intellectual, escape, and belonging). The findings showed the causal relationship
between all motivation dimensions, destination image and the revisit intention.
As the study focuses on the connection between motivations and destination
image, it will be discussed in detail under the next section.
3.5.1.9 Destination image

Destination image is defined as “the expression of all knowledge, impressions,
prejudices, and emotional thoughts an individual or group has of a particular
object or place.” (Lawson and Baud-Bovy, 1977, cited in, Kim et al. 2015)
Destination image can be shaped by many aspects, including information
sources, tourists’ previous experiences, and tourists’ characteristics consisting of
personality and demographic characteristics (Baloglu and McCleary, 1999). The
function of tourism destination image can be regarded as a tourist’s overall
impression resulting from their perception of attributes that connect with a
tourism destination (Beerli and Martin, 2004). Existing tourism literature
evidences that destination image can affect tourist satisfaction and tourist
behaviours (e.g. destination choice, post-purchase evaluations, and future
behavioural intentions )(Loureiro and Gonzalez, 2008). Hence, destination image
can be adopted as a powerful tool for marketing activities such as promotions
and advertising.
Destination image is considered as a multi-dimensional variable that comprises

tourists’ rational and emotional interpretations (Martin and Bosque, 2008). A
cognitive or perceptual component is “beliefs and knowledge about the
perceived attributes of the destination” (Alcaniz et al. 2009, p. 716). In almost all
97
empirical studies in tourism context, the cognitive components have been paid
attention through a multi-attribute approach (Govers et al., 2007). Those
attributes are destination features that are attractive to tourists, including
tourism attractions, environment such as weather and general hygiene, and
experiences latent in the cognitive structure of destination image. In contrast,
“an affective or evaluative component is the individual’ s feelings towards the
destination” (Alcaniz et al. 2009, p. 716).
In respect of destination revisit intention studies, destination image was found to

be a direct antecedent of the revisit intention in many studies. For example, Som
et al. (2012) reported destination image and motivations independently
influenced destination revisit intention. Chen and Tsai (2007) examined the
complex relationship among destination image, evaluative factors (i.e. perceived
quality, perceived value), satisfaction and revisit intentions. The results showed
that destination image and satisfaction were two significant factors that affected
tourists’ revisit intention. It can be concluded that destination image had both
direct and indirect impact on the revisit intention. Similar findings were
informed by Bigne ́ et al. (2001) whose study revealed that destination image
was a direct determinant of perceived quality, satisfaction, return intention, and
positive word of mouth. Based on the studies of Bigne et al (2001) and Chen and
Tsai (2007), destination image was additionally a direct precursor of perceived
quality. Concerning destination revisit intention with temporal dimensions,
Assaker et al. (2011) indicated that positive destination image enhanced both
immediate and future revisit intention.
Kim et al. (2015) and Chi and Qu (2008) evidenced destination image as
antecedent of satisfaction, which finally affected destination revisit intention.
Assaker and Hallak (2013) also reported the causal relationship between
destination image and satisfaction and the satisfaction affected temporal
destination revisit intention. Conversely, general country image and tourism
destination image were showed as the mediators between satisfaction and post-
visit behavioural intentions (revisit and recommend intention) in the study of De
Nisco et al (2015).
98
Dissimilar to other studies, Li et al. (2010) pointed out the relationship among
three motivation dimensions (Intellectual, belonging and escape), two
components of destination image (cognitive and affective), and destination
revisit intention. All of the motivational dimensions significantly influenced the
cognitive destination image, while only escape construct had a significant effect
on the affective image. The cognitive image was also a direct determinant of the
affective image. A causal relationship between the affective construct of image
and tourists’ revisit intention to a destination was determined.
3.5.1.10 Satisfaction
Tourist satisfaction is defined as an outcome of the interface between tourists’
experience at a destination and tourists’ expectation towards the destination
(Noe et al., 2010). Kozak and Baloglu (2011) highlighted the importance of
tourist satisfaction for effective destination marketing since it affects destination
choice, product and service consumption as well as the intention to return to the
destination. Understanding visitors’ satisfaction is required because satisfaction
is a basic post purchase measure of the destination performance as well as its
products and services (Kozak, 2001; Noe and Uysal, 1997; Schofield, 2000).
Majority of existing studies on factors influencing revisit intention have regarded

tourists’ satisfaction as a backbone of their conceptual models (Som and
Badarneh, 2011). Many destination revisit intention studies have reported that
overall satisfaction is a direct antecedent of the return intention (e.g. Chen and
Tsai, 2007; Chi, 2012; Chi and Qu, 2008; De Nisco et al, 2015; Huang and Hsu
2009; Kozak, 2001; Li and Carr 2004; Petrick et al. 2001; Quintal and Polczynski,
2010; Yoon and Uysal, 2005; Yuksel, 2001; Zabkar et al., 2010). Temporal
destination revisit intentions are also directly influenced by the satisfaction
(Assaker et. al. 2011; Assaker and Hallak 2013; Bigne et al., 2009; Jang and Feng ,
2007). Scholars have reported many salient factors interrelating with
satisfaction in relation to the destination revisit intention. Hence, the
relationships between satisfaction and those variables are critically discussed as
follows:
99
Satisfaction and destination attributes
Satisfaction studies in tourism area have stated that tourists’ satisfaction with
particular attributes of a destination results in their overall satisfaction with the
destination (e.g. Hsu, 2003; Kozak and Rimmington, 2000; Mayer et al., 1998).
Overall satisfaction with tourism experience is an outcome of satisfactions with
specific elements of all the products and/or services forming the experience (e.g.
hotels, food services, recreational activities, and weather) (Pizam and Ellis,
1999). Seaton and Benett (1996) emphasized that in tourism, it is essential to
separate overall satisfaction from attribute satisfaction since the specific
attributes of tourism significantly affect tourist satisfaction. In other words,
consumer satisfaction or dissatisfaction with one of the attributes may generate
satisfaction or dissatisfaction with an overall destination (Kozak and
Rimmington, 2000).
Regarding destination revisit intention studies, Li and Carr (2004) analysed the
satisfaction of Chinese tourists visiting the Gold Coast, constructed from the
perceived importance of satisfaction in boosting word of mouth
recommendations and repeat visitation. The results reported that in general,
Chinese tourists are satisfied with their holiday experience at the Gold Coast. The
moderately high degree of overall satisfaction is correlated the high degree of
satisfaction with greater part of the specific destination attributes researched.
The authors therefore suggested that satisfaction with destination attributes
could shape overall satisfaction and satisfied tourist tends to recommend the
destination to others and/or return to the destination. Similarly, Chi and Qu
(2008) examined the causal relationships between destination image, attribute
satisfaction, overall satisfaction, and destination loyalty (revisit and recommend
intention), using visitors to the Eureka Springs in Arkansas. The findings showed
that destination image and attribute satisfaction directly affected the overall
satisfaction. The attribute satisfaction was directly determined by destination
image and destination loyalty was sequentially affected by overall satisfaction. In
addition, attribute satisfaction had a direct influence on destination loyalty.
Unlike the two previous studies, (Zabkar et al, 2010) investigated the complex
100
relationship among key constructs and tourists’ intention to revisit, using a
sample of 1056 tourists visiting four tourist destinations in Slovenia. Their
empirically validated model showed that destination attributes affected the
perceived quality of tourist offerings that positively influences overall
satisfaction and tourists’ intention to revisit a destination.
Satisfaction and perceived attractiveness

Quintal and Polczynski (2010) studied how overall satisfaction of Australian
university students with perceived attractiveness, quality and value as well as
low risk influence on their intention to revisit a tourism destination. The results
revealed that their satisfaction with perceived attractiveness, quality and value
offered by a destination positively affected revisit intention but perceived risk
was not a significant predictor of satisfaction and revisit intention. Um et al.
(2006)’s study also supported that the attractiveness of a destination could be an
influential indicator of destination satisfaction.
Satisfaction and its relationship with novelty seeking tendency

Assaker and Hallak (2013)’s findings revealed the role of novelty-seeking
tendency as a moderator on the relationships between destination image, overall
satisfaction, and temporal destination revisit intentions (see also Figure 3.4).
The impact of destination image on satisfaction and satisfaction on short-term
revisit intention is notably weaker for tourists high in novelty-seeking trait when
compared to those low in the trait.
Satisfaction and its relationship with previous experience

Chi (2012) employed a destination loyalty model developed by Chi and Qu
(2008) to test a moderating effect of tourists’ previous experiences on the model
using first timers and repeaters visiting the Eureka springs in Arkansas. The
findings evidenced that previous experience significantly moderated the
relationship between visitors’ satisfaction (both attribute satisfaction and overall
satisfaction) and destination loyalty (revisit and recommend intention). In other
words, satisfaction had a more dominant effect in accelerating destination
loyalty for the first-time visitors than for the repeat visitors. Conversely, Yuksel
101
(2001)’s results showed that first timers and repeaters developed revisit
intention and satisfaction contingent on somewhat different attributes of a
holiday destination. The repeaters were highly satisfied with their holiday and
willing to return to the destination than the first timers.
Satisfaction and its relationship with perceived quality

Perceived quality had a direct positive effect (Kim et al, 2015; Quintal and
Polczynski, 2010; Zabkar et al., 2010) and indirect positive influence on
satisfaction (Chen and Tsai, 2007) by having perceived value as a mediator.
Satisfaction and its relationship with perceived value

Chen and Tsai (2007) and Quintal and Polczynski (2010) evidenced the positive
causal relationship between perceived value and satisfaction. Contrariwise, Kim
et al (2015) found that perceived value resulted from destination image,
motivation, perceived quality through satisfaction and perceived value
significantly affected the revisit intention. On the other hand, Petrick et al.
(2001) reported perceived value as a result of the number of past visits and
satisfaction. Their conceptual model also pointed out that these three variables
were direct predictors of revisit intention.
Satisfaction and its relationship with motivations

Yoon and Uysal (2005) examined how motivations and satisfaction influences
destination loyalty. In the conceptual model, motivations are separated into push
factors and pull factors. Both influenced the loyalty but in different ways. While
push motives directly and positively affected the loyalty, pull motives negatively
affected satisfaction, which in order influenced the loyalty. Kim et al. (2005) also
evidenced motivations as a precursor of satisfaction and the satisfaction affected
the revisit intention through perceive value.
Satisfaction and its relationship with destination image

According to Chi and Qu (2008)’s research, destination image directly affected
both attribute satisfaction and overall satisfaction and these two constructs, in
order, directly influenced destination loyalty. Consequently, their findings
102
suggested destination image as an antecedent of satisfaction. Kim et al. (2015)
reported the sequential relationship between destination image, satisfaction,
perceived value and destination revisit intention, while Chen and Tsai (2007)’s
findings showed that destination image indirectly influenced satisfaction via a
mediating effect of perceived quality and perceived value consecutively and
satisfaction in turn affected the revisit intention. Assaker and Hallak (2013) also
revealed that destination image had an indirect impact on the temporal intention
to revisit a destination via the satisfaction.
De Nisco et al (2015) tested the relationship among overall satisfaction, cognitive

and affective country image, tourism destination image, and post-visit
behavioural intentions. The results showed that satisfaction had both direct and
indirect impact on the revisit intention and willingness to recommend.
Concerning the indirect effect, satisfaction influenced the intentions via cognitive
and affective country image consecutively in the first path, via only the affective
image in the second path, and via the image of destination in the final path. This
suggests that the capacity of a country to offer high-quality tourism experience
may cause a significant advancement of tourists’ perceived country image that, in
order, can influence the positive post-visit intentions.
Moreover, how the destination is perceived is significant in shaping tourist

satisfaction, as explained by expectation-disconfirmation theory (EDT). A
comparison of expectation (pre-visit image) and experience (post-visit image)
could result in either positive disconfirmation (the experience is better than the
expectation) or negative disconfirmation (the expectation is better than the
experience). These result in satisfaction and dissatisfaction, accordingly (Oliver,
1997). Hence, how pre- and post-visit image is measured is matter to how
satisfaction is evaluated. Using the same respondent to measure changes in
destination image has been acknowledged to be more powerful than tracing it
with different respondents/sample, which presents an incomplete image
development process and can only be assumed as a proxy of the image
development (Gallarza et al., 2002; Aloudat and Rawashdeh, 2013, Kim et al.,
2009a; Jani and Nguni, 2016). Using the same respondents in measuring the
103
image development can be conducted in two approaches: the retrospective pre-
test design and the traditional pre-test/post-test design. The traditional pre-
test/post-test design has been preferred in some research (e.g. Pizam and
Milman, 1993; O’Leary and Deegan, 2005; Aloudat and Rawashdeh, 2013) as
they stated that tourists’ expectation should be collected before the visit and the
trip perception should be collected after the visit to obtain more accurate
answers. However, this traditional method requires tracking the same
respondents upon their arrival and then upon their departure, which is difficult,
costly and time-consuming (Wang and Davidson, 2010). Furthermore, this
method is susceptible to response shift bias, which could cause distorted results
(Howard, 1980; Rohs, 1999, Yüksel and Yüksel, 2001). Another approach is the
retrospective pre-test approach, in which the expectation and perception of
tourists towards the trip are measured at the end of the trip. This approach has
been supported and applied in many studies (Howard, 1980; Wang and
Davidson, 2010; Jani and Nguni, 2016) because it is easy to conduct, and cost and
time saving. However, to decrease memory decay as the time goes by, pre- and
post-visit image should be carried out as soon as the trip is ended. The use of
clearly defined time periods in the questionnaire is also needed to assist
respondents in recalling their memories, and to reduce response bias (Dickson
and Hall, 2006; Wang and Davidson, 2010).
3.5.2 Factors Affecting Tourists’ Revisit Intention to a Culinary Tourism

Destination
Until now tourism scholars have paid somewhat little attention on examining in
details why tourists return to a destination with culinary tourism reasons. In
particular, Kivela and Crott (2006)’s study suggested that if visitors’ food
experiences are satisfied by a unique and memorable culinary identity, they are
likely to undertake a repeat visit to the same destination to experience its cuisine
offerings. Karim et al. (2010) evidenced that destination food image and food
satisfaction are key antecedents of tourists’ overall satisfaction and the
satisfaction in turn significantly influence tourists’ revisit intention to Malaysia.
A few studies have also revealed destination food image and food satisfaction as
104
two main aspects that boosting tourists’ intention to revisit a destination (Chi et
al., 2013; Choe and Kim, 2018; Karim et al., 2010; Lertputtarak, 2012; Ling et al.,
2010). However, most of these studies have focused on measuring the
dimensions of destination food image and its direct and/or indirect effect on the
return intention via food satisfaction or overall satisfaction only but have not
considered the influences of other potential factors on the revisit intention. Only
the study of Choe and Kim (2018) that evaluate the indirect effects of local food
values on destination food image and intention to return to Hong Kong for food
tourism through attitude towards local food.
Furthermore, revisit intention literature in food tourism context have been

widely conducted at the event or festival level. Due to scarcity of this research
area in the destination level, applicable revisit intention factors of food event and
food festival visitors will be critically reviewed with an aim to initially identify
relevant factors for the present study. Jung et al. (2015) investigated the effect of
Slow Food festival attributes on visitors’ overall experience, their satisfaction
level and intention to revisit the festival. The findings reported that all the
festival attributes (food and amenities, festival programmes, and entertainment)
significantly influenced on perceived quality of the visitors’ overall experiences,
overall satisfaction and revisit intentions to the festival. The positive direct
relationship between overall satisfaction and revisit intention was also
supported in the studies of Kim et al. (2011b) and Smith et al. (2010). The latter
research also found that the pull motivation factors of an international culinary
event had a direct effect on visitors’ overall event satisfaction and the
satisfaction had a significant relationship with return intention and word-of-
mouth behaviour. Kim et al. (2009b) reported difference in degree of revisit
intention to a food event between first timers and repeaters. The repeaters are
more likely to return to the event than the first timers. The authors concluded
that previous experiences enhanced tourists’ confidence to revisit the event and
also stated that food tourists tends to return to where they had visited before.
Kim et al. (2011a) employed a modified TRA to examine food tourists’ intention
to revisit a food event in order to understand the influence of food tourists’
105
behaviour based on perceived value and satisfaction in relation to their revisit
intention. The results indicated that perceived value was a significant direct
antecedent of satisfaction as well as both direct and in direct predictor of revisit
intention. Satisfaction significantly affected revisit intention. Kim et al. (2010)
investigated relationships between food personality traits, satisfaction and
tourist’ loyalty (i.e. revisit and recommend intention) using local food festival
visitors as the sample. The authors revealed that food neophobia showed a
negative influence on satisfaction and loyalty, whereas food involvement
demonstrated a positive effect on loyalty. Satisfaction had a positive relationship
with loyalty. The results also reported that visitors having higher degree of food
involvement tended to hold positive loyalty to food events. The researchers
finally recommended that food related personality traits should be considered
for establishing food-related events or festivals.
In conclusion, factors that are likely to affect the intention to revisit a culinary
tourism destination can be identified from the culinary tourism literature
discussed. These factors include destination food image, food satisfaction, food
identity, destination attributes, motivations, overall satisfaction, perceived
quality, perceived value, previous experience, and food personality traits.
3.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY, CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES

With reference to the chapter 2, factors affecting local food consumption on
holiday were determined. In this chapter, factors affecting tourists’ revisit
intention to a tourism destination and possible factors influencing tourists’
revisit intention to a destination for culinary tourism reasons were identified.
There are some factors that are apparently overlapped between the motivations
for consuming local food on holiday and revisiting a holiday destination.
However, as the scarcity of literature on this research topic, other relevant
factors from the two literature areas need to be further examined in line with the
in-depth semi-structured interviews aiming to explore other underlying
determinants that may emerge from the qualitative approach. Figure 3.9
provides the theoretical contexts employed in this study.
106
Local Food Revisiting
Consumption
Motivations
? Motivations
Motivations to revisit for culinary tourism purposes
Figure 3.9 Theoretical contexts employed in this study
An extended combination of the MGB with the belief based measures taken from
the TPB (Figure 3.10) was proposed as the theoretical framework of this study in
order to allow the statistical investigation of the factors identified, and
evaluation of their relative importance for the revisit intention as well as
comparison of any differences based on nationality and type of visitor. The
original model of MGB was selected because of its superior predictive ability and
explanatory power over the TPB. Moreover, the MGB has been successfully used
by tourism scholars to predict various tourists’ behavioural intention and
behaviour, which include visitors’ intention to revisit festivals. The MGB can be
judged as the most appropriate model for this research topic, since it
additionally encompasses motivational and emotional process as well as past
behaviour. Emotional dimensions involve destination revisit intention factors
such as destination image and push motivational factors. Past behaviour is also
related to this research because previous experience is an important
determinant of tourist local food consumption and can enhance the intentions to
revisit.
The original MGB was modified and extended by: 1) Adding the belief-based
measures: behavioural, normative and control beliefs, which is theorised as the
107
corresponding antecedent of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived
behavioural control, respectively in the TPB (Ajzen, 1991). Because the belief-
based measures emphasise on the assumed antecedents from which the concept
can be derived, adding these measures allows the study to evaluate an influence
of local Thai food experiences in Thailand as a motivational base of revisiting
Thailand. 2) Using the temporal destination revisit intentions (TDRI) as
behavioural intentions in order to allow an investigation of any differences
between British and Japanese and amongst first timers and different groups of
repeaters on their revisit intentions with its time-based dimensions as well as
their differences on the factor identified in relation to the revisit intentions. 3)
Pre- and post-visit destination image, overall satisfaction, pre- and post-visit
destination food image, food satisfaction, and length of stay were also added to
the original models because the literature widely suggested their relationships
with the revisit intentions, particularly temporal revisit intentions. Furthermore,
the direct effect of personal traits (i.e. food neophobia, food involvement, and
novelty seeking tendency) on the revisit intentions is assumed from the previous
literature.
The theoretical framework of this study (Figure 3.10) was developed based on
reviewed literature discussed in Chapter 2 and 3 and is used to underpin the
research hypotheses shown in this section. The hypotheses are presented in the
next subsections according to the following themes:
• An extended combination of the MGB with the belief based measures

taken from the TPB
• The relationship among destination image, attitude, overall satisfaction,
desire, and destination revisit intention
• The relationship among destination food image, attitude, food
• The relationship between length of stay and destination revisit intention
• Effects of respondents’ nationalities
• Effects of respondents’ types of visitors
108
3.6.1 An extended combination of the MGB with the belief based measures
taken from the TPB
As mentioned earlier that an extended combination of the MGB with the belief
based measures taken from the TPB was used as the theoretical framework of
this study to facilitate the statistical investigation of the factors identified, and
evaluation of their relative importance for the revisit intentions. To elaborate,
this study deepened the original MGB by integrating the belief-based measures:
behavioural, normative and control beliefs, which are theorised as the
corresponding antecedent of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived
behavioural control, respectively in the TPB model (Ajzen, 1991) (see also
Section 3.4.1). Hence, the following three hypotheses are proposed:
H1: Behavioural belief has a positive influence on attitude towards revisiting

Thailand.
H2: Normative belief has a positive influence on subjective norm.
H3: Control belief has a negative influence on perceived behavioural control.
Broadening and deepening the TPB, the MGB incorporates desires, anticipated
emotions (positive and negative), and the concept of past behaviour (frequency
of past behaviour) apart from the original antecedents proposed in the TPB
(attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control) so as to gain a
better explanation of human behaviour in quest of a personal goal (Perugini and
Bagozzi, 2001; Perugini and Connor, 2000; Richetin, et al. 2008). The MGB
postulates desires as the proximal causes of behavioural intentions, and the
traditional antecedents in the TPB (attitudes, subjective norm, and perceived
behavioural control), and also the new constructs (positive and negative
anticipated emotions, and frequency of past behaviour) all function through the
desires. Frequency of past behaviour is furthermore posited to predict desires,
and intentions (see also Section 3.4.1). Moreover, MGB studies have proved that
perceived behavioural control does not only directly affect desires but also
directly influence behavioural intentions (e.g. Kim and Preis, 2016; Perugini and
109
Bagozzi, 2001; Prestwich et al., 2008). Thus, this study proposes the following
hypotheses:
H4: Attitude towards revisiting Thailand has a positive influence on desire

towards revisiting Thailand.
H5: Subjective norm has a positive influence on desire towards revisiting

Thailand.
H6: Perceived behavioural control has a positive influence on desire towards

revisiting Thailand.
H7: Perceived behavioural control has a positive influence on short and long
term revisit intention.
H8: Positive anticipated emotion has a positive influence on desire towards

H9: Negative anticipated emotion has a positive influence on desire towards

H10: Frequency of past behaviour has a positive influence on desire towards

H11: Frequency of past behaviour has a positive influence on short and long
term revisit intention to Thailand.
H12: Desire has a positive influence on short and long term revisit intention to
Thailand.
3.6.2 The relationship among destination image, attitude, overall

Several previous studies (e.g. Al-Majali, 2012; Assaker et al., 2011; Assaker and
Hallak, 2013; Bigne et al., 2009; Bui and Le, 2016; Chi and Qu, 2008; Kim, 2015;
Lee et al., 2005; Puh, 2015) have reported overall destination image as an
antecedent of destination satisfaction. Specifically, a few number of literature
have obviously reported the direct effects of pre-visit and post-visit destination
110
image on overall destination satisfaction (e.g. Al-Majali, 2012; Bui and Le, 2016;
Puh, 2015). Hence, the present study postulates that:
H13: Pre-visit destination image has a positive influence on overall satisfaction
H14: Post-visit destination image has a positive influence on overall satisfaction
The direct effect of destination image on intention to revisit a destination has

been well acknowledged in existing studies (Assaker et al., 2011; Bigne, 2001;
Chen and Tsai, 2007; De Nisco et al., 2015; Kastenholz et al., 2013; Li et al., 2010).
However, a limited number of studies (i.e. Assaker et al., 2011; Assaker and
Hallak, 2013; Bigne et al., 2009) have tested the direct effect of destination image
on temporal destination revisit intentions. Whereas the direct effect of
destination image on both short and long run revisit intention was found
insignificance in the studies of Assaker and Hallak (2013) and Bigne et al. (2009),
destination image was found to directly influence future intention to revisit a
destination in three, five and ten years in Assaker et al. (2011)’s study. In this
respect, this study assumes that post-visit destination image has either a direct
effect or an indirect effect on desire towards revisiting Thailand and intention to
revisit Thailand in short and long term as the following hypotheses suggest:
H15: Post-visit destination image has a positive influence on desire
H16: Post-visit destination image has a positive influence on short and long term
revisit intention.
Many destination revisit intention studies have reported that overall destination
satisfaction is a direct antecedent of the return intention (e.g. Chen and Tsai
2007; Chi, 2012;Chi and Qu, 2008; De Nisco et al, 2015; Huang and Hsu, 2009;
Kozak, 2001; Li and Carr, 2004; Petrick et al., 2001; Quintal and Polczynski,
2010; Yoon and Uysal, 2005; Yuksel, 2001; Zabkar et al., 2010) Temporal
destination revisit intentions are also directly affected by the overall satisfaction
(Assaker et. al. 2011; Assaker and Hallak 2013; Bigne et al., 2009; Jang and Feng ,
2007) Accordingly, the present study postulates that overall destination
111
satisfaction has a direct effect or an indirect effect on desire towards revisiting
Thailand and intention to revisit Thailand in short and long term as follows:
H18: Overall destination satisfaction has a positive influence on desire towards

revisiting Thailand
H19: Overall destination satisfaction has a positive influence on short and long
The influences of destination image and satisfaction on attitude towards

revisiting a destination have been evidenced in previous tourism literature (e.g.
Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Huang and Hsu, 2009; Kozak and Ramington, 2000;
Milman and Pizam, 1995; Song et al., 2014; Yoon and Uysal, 2005). These suggest
that if the destination encompasses a sufficient level of positive attributes and
adequately satisfies the tourists, a positive attitude towards revisiting should be
developed. Consequently, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H17: Post-visit destination image has a positive influence on attitude towards

revisiting Thailand
H20: Overall destination satisfaction has a positive influence on attitude towards

revisiting Thailand
3.6.3 The relationship among destination food image, attitude, food

Existing literature has evidenced a significant positive effect of destination food

image on destination food satisfaction (Chi et al., 2013; Karim et al., 2010; Ling et
al., 2010; Peštek and Činjarević, 2014). Furthermore, destination food image and
shares a similar concept to destination image and as previously discussed that a
few studies have documented the direct effects of pre-visit and post-visit
destination image on overall destination satisfaction (e.g. Al-Majali, 2012; Bui
and Le, 2016; Puh, 2015). Therefore, the following hypotheses are assumed:
H21: Pre-visit destination food image has a positive influence on food

satisfaction
112
H22: Post-visit destination food image has a positive influence on food
satisfaction
A few studies (Chi et al., 2013; Choe and Kim, 2018; Karim et al., 2010;
Lertputtarak, 2012; Ling et al., 2010) have documented destination food image
and food satisfaction as two main aspects that boosting tourists’ intention to
revisit a destination. A direct and/or indirect effect of those factors on the return
intention have been reported; thus, this study proposes that destination food
image and food satisfaction has a direct effect or an indirect effect on desire
towards revisiting Thailand and intention to revisit Thailand in short and long
term as follows:
H23: Post-visit destination food image has a positive influence on desire towards
revisiting Thailand
H24: Post-visit destination food image has a positive influence on short and long
H26: Food satisfaction has a positive influence on desire towards revisiting

Thailand
H27: Food satisfaction has a positive influence on short and long term revisit
intention to Thailand.
Destination food image and destination food satisfaction were revealed as

significant motivational factors of tourists’ preference for unique destination
food, their intention to eat the food, and can reinforce intention to return to the
same destination (e.g. Chi et al., 2013; Choe and Kim, 2018; Karim et al., 2010;
Lertputtarak, 2012; Ling et al., 2010; Peštek and Činjarević, 2014; Seo et al.
2017) This may signify that visitors who are satisfied with destination food and
possess a positive image of the food hold positive attitude towards revisiting the
destination to resample its cuisine offerings. Moreover, destination food image
and destination food satisfaction shares similar concepts to destination image
and overall destination satisfaction and as formerly mentioned that previous
tourism literature (e.g. Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Huang and Hsu, 2009; Kozak
113
and Ramington, 2000; Milman and Pizam, 1995; Song et al., 2014; Yoon and
Uysal, 2005) have reported the influences of destination image and satisfaction
on attitude towards revisiting a destination. Consequently, direct effects of
destination food image and food satisfaction on attitude towards revisiting a
destination are proposed in this study.
H25: Post-visit destination food image has a positive influence on attitude

towards revisiting Thailand
H28: Food satisfaction has a positive influence on attitude towards revisiting

Thailand.
3.6.4 The relationship between length of stay and destination revisit

intention
The effects of length of stay on revisiting a destination have been examined in

previous studies in terms of increasing the likelihood to return and decreasing
the intended revisit timing (e.g. Barros and Machado, 2010; Huang et al., 2014,
Ledesma et al, 2005). In other words, more nights the tourists stay in the
destination in the current visit, the longer time break they intend for the next
visit. Accordingly, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
H29: Length of stay significantly influences desire towards revisiting Thailand.
H30: Length of stay significantly influences short and long term revisit intention
to Thailand.
3.6.5 Effects of respondents’ nationalities
As discussed in Section 3.5.1.1, cultural differences based on nationality has been

acknowledged as a salient factor affecting tourist behaviour (e.g. Caneen, 2004;
Lee and Lee, 2009; Pizam and Jeong, 1996; Pizam and Sussmann, 1995;
Ramkissoon et al., 2011; Reisinger and Turner, 1998; Xu et al., 2009). Therefore,
this study assumes that the moderating role of nationalities exists in revisit
behaviour. Also, it is hypothesised that nationalities plays an important role in
explaining revisit intentions with its time-based dimensions.
114
H31: Short and long term revisit intention model differs between nationalities
3.6.6 Effects of respondents’ types of visitors
Existing tourism studies (e.g. Chi, 2012; Gitelson and Crompton, 1984; Kim et al.,
2019b; Lau and Mckecher, 2004; Li et al., 2008; Oppermann, 1997, 1999; Petrick,
2004b; Yolal et al., 2007) have evidenced differences between first-time and
repeat visitors in tourist behaviour and behavioural intentions. Moreover, the
studies of Feng and Jang (2004) and Huang et al. (2014) have documented
differences amongst first-time visitors and different types of repeaters in their
temporal destination revisit intentions. Thus, this study posits the moderating
effects of types of visitors in revisit behaviour and also assuming that there are
differences amongst first-timers and different groups of repeaters on revisit
intentions with its time-based dimensions.
H32: Short and long term revisit intention model differs between types of
visitors
Table 3.2 summarises the relevant literature used to set the hypotheses.
Table 3.2 Hypotheses and related literature

Hypothesis** Relevant Literature
H1* Behavioural belief -> Attitude Ajzen, 1985, 1991
H2* Normative belief -> Subjective norm Ajzen, 1985, 1991
H3* Control belief -> Perceived behavioural control Ajzen, 1985, 1991
H4* Attitude -> Desire Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001
H5* Subjective norm -> Desire Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001
H6* Perceived behavioural control -> Desire Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001
Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001; Kim and Preis,

H7* Perceived behavioural control -> TDRI
2016; Prestwich et al., 2008
H8* Positive anticipated emotion -> Desire Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001
H9* Negative anticipated emotion -> Desire Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001
H10* Frequency of past behaviour -> Desire Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001
H11* Frequency of past behaviour -> TDRI Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001
H12* Desire -> TDRI Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001
H13 Pre-visit destination image -> Overall satisfaction Al-Majali, 2012; Bui and Le, 2016; Puh, 2015
H14 Post-visit destination image -> Overall satisfaction Al-Majali, 2012; Bui and Le, 2016 ;Puh, 2015
115
Assaker et al., 2011; Bigne, 2001; Chen and
H15 Post-visit destination image -> Desire Tsai, 2007; De Nisco et al., 2015; Kastenholz
et al., 2013; Li et al., 2010
Assaker et al., 2011; Bigne, 2001; Chen and
H16 Post-visit destination image -> TDRI Tsai, 2007; De Nisco et al., 2015; Kastenholz
et al., 2013; Li et al., 2010
Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Milman and
H17 Post-visit destination image -> Attitude
Pizam, 1995; Song et al., 2014
Chen and Tsai 2007; Chi, 2012;Chi and Qu,
2008; De Nisco et al, 2015; Huang and Hsu,
2009; Kozak, 2001; Li and Carr, 2004;
Petrick et al., 2001; Quintal and Polczynski,
H18 Overall satisfaction -> Desire
2010; Yoon and Uysal, 2005; Yuksel, 2001;
Zabkar et al. , 2010; Assaker et. al., 2011;
Assaker and Hallak, 2013; Bigne et al., 2009;
Jang and Feng, 2007
Chen and Tsai, 2007; Chi, 2012; Chi and Qu,
2008; De Nisco et al, 2015; Huang and Hsu,
2009; Kozak, 2001; Li and Carr, 2004;
Petrick et al., 2001; Quintal and Polczynski,
H19 Overall satisfaction -> TDRI
2010; Yoon and Uysal, 2005; Yuksel, 2001;
Zabkar et al., 2010; Assaker et. al., 2011;
Assaker and Hallak, 2013; Bigne et al., 2009;
Jang and Feng, 2007
Huang and Hsu, 2009; Kozak and Ramington,
H20 Overall satisfaction -> Attitude
2000; Yoon and Uysal, 2005
Chi et al., 2013; Karim et al., 2010; Ling et al.,
H21 Pre-visit destination food image -> Food satisfaction 2010; Peštek and Činjarević, 2014; Al-Majali,
2012; Bui and Le, 2016; Puh, 2015
Chi et al., 2013; Karim et al., 2010; Ling et al.,
H22 Post-visit destination food image -> Food satisfaction 2010; Peštek and Činjarević, 2014; Al-Majali,
2012; Bui and Le, 2016; Puh, 2015
H23 Post-visit destination food image -> Desire Lertputtarak, 2012; Choe & Kim, 2018
H24 Post-visit destination food image -> TDRI Lertputtarak, 2012; Choe and Kim, 2018
Chi et al., 2013; Choe and Kim, 2018; Karim
et al., 2010; Lertputtarak, 2012; Ling et al.,
H25 Post-visit destination food image -> Attitude 2010; Peštek and Činjarević, 2014; Seo et al.
2017; Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Milman
and Pizam, 1995; Song et al., 2014
Chi et al., 2013; Ling et al. ,2010, Karim et al.,
H26 Food satisfaction -> Desire
2010
Chi et al., 2013; Ling et al. ,2010, Karim et al.,
H27 Food satisfaction -> TDRI
2010
116
Chi et al., 2013; Choe and Kim, 2018; Karim
et al., 2010; Lertputtarak, 2012; Ling et al.,
H28 Food satisfaction ->Attitude 2010; Peštek and Činjarević, 2014; Seo et al.
2017; Huang and Hsu, 2009; Kozak and
Ramington, 2000; Yoon and Uysal, 2005
Huang et al, 2014; Barros and Machado,
H29 Length of stay -> Desire
2010; Ledesma et al, 2005
Huang et al, 2014; Barros and Machado
H30 Length of stay -> TDRI
2010; Ledesma et al, 2005
Caneen, 2004; Lee and Lee, 2009; Pizam and
Jeong, 1996; Pizam and Sussmann, 1995;
H31 Temporal revisit intention models differ between nationalities
Ramkissoon et al., 2011; Reisinger and
Turner, 1998; Xu et al., 2009
Chi, 2012; Feng and Jang, 2004; Gitelson and
Crompton, 1984; Huang, et al., 2014; Kim et
Temporal revisit intention models differ between first-timers
H32 al., 2019b; Lau and Mckecher, 2004; Li et al.,
and types of repeaters
2008; Oppermann, 1997, 1999; Petrick,
2004b; Yolal et al., 2007
Note: *The hypotheses were constructed based on the original MGB and TPB theory.
**TDRI = Temporal destination revisit intentions: intention to revisit Thailand in the short and long term;
Attitude = Attitude towards revisiting Thailand; Desire = Desire towards revisiting Thailand
117
Figure 3.10 The theoritical model of the research
(*Post-visit means the data will be collected from departing tourists)
118
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter aims to discuss and rationalise the research methodology chosen
for this research. Firstly, overviews of research philosophy and the justification
of philosophy stance underpinning this research are provided. It is followed by
the discussion of chosen research approach and purposes of research. The
preliminary study and its findings informing the main study are summarised.
The research design of this study involving a double phase mixed method design
that includes semi-structured interviews for stage 1 and a questionnaire survey
for stage 2 is described. The research instrument development, data collection
and data analysis of both stages are also elaborated.
4.2 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY

Research philosophy is essential in providing a guide for researchers to develop
knowledge in a certain area (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012). In particular,
it helps researchers to shape research design and link the alternatives of
methods back to the research question. Hence, researchers can refine and
identify which research methods are appropriate or inappropriate to be used in
an early stage (Blaikie, 2000; Easterby-Smith et al. 2008). As research
philosophies encompass important assumptions on how researchers view the
world and develop knowledge (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012), it is
necessary to consider ontology and epistemology in order to understand their
philosophical viewpoints.
Ontology is the philosophical assumption regarding the nature of reality. Thus,

ontological assumption questions researchers about how they think the world
functions and commit to specific views (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012).
The authors highlighted two basic facets of ontology: objectivism and
subjectivism. Objectivism describes that the existence of social entities in reality
is external to and not dependent of social actors. In contrast, subjectivism claims
that social phenomena are shaped from the perceptions and following actions of
119
social actors (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012). Epistemology refers to what
should be concerned as reasonable knowledge and allows the researchers to
answer questions such as ‘How can we know?, and ‘What can we know?’
(Bryman, 2004; Coyle, 2007). There are two opposed forms establishing basic
perspectives of epistemology: positivism and interpretivism.
Positivism offers basis for the way the research was undertaken in the natural
science and the scientific methods remain widely employed in social science
studies nowadays. It is based on the belief that social world is externally from
researchers and is capable of being observed and/or measured directly (Collis
and Hussey, 2009) and knowledge is only of sense if it is constructed from
observations of this external reality (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). Positivist
researchers usually develop hypotheses from previous theories and
consequently conduct data collection to test and confirm them. The researchers
also try to maintain themselves as independent from or having least influence on
what is being researched (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012). As per the
assumptions that social phenomena are measurable, positivism is connected
with deductive approach, quantitative methods and analysis (Collis and Hussey,
2009). Thus, it would be valuable for a study involving wide ranges of a situation
because the study could be undertaken with large samples that reduce the
consumption of time and cost (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). However, the
appropriateness of using traditional scientific methods to understand social
phenomena has been criticised by many theorists for many decades (Collis and
Hussey, 2009). Veal (2006) claimed that drawing conclusions about causes and
motivations of human behaviour based on such evidences used in the natural
science is inappropriate. As people can make choices and are not basically ruled
by invariable laws, their behaviour cannot be solely explained with simple causal
variables (Clark et al., 1998; Holden, 2005).
Emerging in response to condemnations of positivism, interpretivism believes

that social reality is not objective; nonetheless, it is highly subjective and socially
constructed. This is because it is formed by individuals’ perceptions (Collis and
Hussey, 2009). Therefore, it is crucial to comprehend differences between
120
humans playing their roles as social actors (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill,
2012). As opposed to positivists who emphasise on elucidating causal
relationships by using statistical data and analysis from surveys or experiments,
interpretivists focus on exploring the complexity of social reality by using a
personal interpretative process (Gummesson, 2000; Saratokos, 1998). Collis and
Hussey (2009) pointed out that instead of employing quantitative methods like
positivists, interpretivists use a variety of methods seeking to describe, translate
and otherwise aiming to reach the richness and quality of meaning. The research
adopting this paradigm requires an inductive approach intending to achieve
interpretative understanding of social phenomena within a specific setting.
Brotherton (2008) highlighted a significant strength of interpretive research as it
pinpoints on a circumstance that takes place in a natural context. This provides
the researchers an understanding of what is occurring in real life situations.
However, the predominant weakness of interpretivism is commonly the
inseparability of the researchers from what is being researched. Hence, they
cannot ensure that right and valid interpretation is provided to the meaning of
what they experience throughout the research (Clark et al., 1998).
Unlike positivism and interpretivism, pragmatism is a philosophical paradigm

that is not consigned to only one system of philosophy and reality. It occurs as a
result of actions, situations and outcomes as opposed to antecedent
circumstances. It is concerned about which applications and solutions do work
for a problem (Patton, 1990). Rather than paying attention to methods,
pragmatists focus on the research question and employ all approaches existing
to answer the question. Even though there are many ways to explain this
philosophy, pragmatism has been claimed as the best paradigm to explain the
use of mixed methods research (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). This allows the
researchers to employ multiple methods, different worldviews and assumptions,
together with various forms of data collection and analysis (Creswell, 2014).
4.2.1 Justification of the Research Philosophy

In respect of the investigation of the mostly undeclared epistemology of tourism
studies, although interpretivism have been gradually called in the field (Veal,
121
2006), the substantial influence of positivism, scientific and mathematic methods
via the use of questionnaire instrument has been evidenced in tourism and
hospitality research (Botterill, 2000; Botterill, 2001). However, it is criticised
that the normalisation of positivism in both research areas and also the
application of mono-method as the methodological choice have unreasonably
limited the development of these fields as social science. (Botterill, 2001;
Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005).
On the contrary, from the interpretation of pragmatists, Powell (2001, p. 884)

stated that, “The pragmatist epistemology stands in contrast to prevailing
positivist and anti-positivist views of scientific discovery. Whereas positivism
emphasizes the objective, lawlike properties of a brute reality independent of
observation (Donaldson, 1992; Wicks and Freeman, 1998), anti-positivism
emphasizes the creative role of active, subjective participants, none of whom
owns a privileged claim on truth (Burrell and Morgan, 1979; Astley, 1985;
Martin, 1990). Pragmatism, on the other hand, rejects positivism, on grounds
that no theory can satisfy its demands (objectivity, falsify-ability, the crucial
experiment, etc.); and rejects anti-positivism, because virtually any theory would
satisfy them. As such, the pragmatist proposes to reorient the assessment of
theories around a third criterion: the theory’s capacity to solve human problems
(Rorty, 1989; Stich, 1990).” Pansiri (2005) also proposed pragmatism as an
additional paradigm that would enable the researchers to generate superior
research outcome without difficulty by using mixed methods. The mixture of
quantitative and qualitative research methods has been adopted as a way to
enhance an understanding of a very complex social world confronting tourism
scholars (Pansiri, 2007). Moreover, mixed method studies can benefit from the
triangulation of quantitative and qualitative research that would assist in a
better understanding of the tourism industry by researching phenomena in their
natural settings and with regards to the meanings individuals attach to them.
This would elicit a ‘truer analysis’ of tourism behaviour and therefore a more
determined examination of tour operators, travel agents, hotels and tourism
business as a whole (Davies, 2003).
122
Thus, considering the ontological position of this research, it can be defined as
subjectivist since it aims to examine social actors whom are tourists by exploring
their behavior, attitude and perception in terms of their intention to revisit.
Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, (2012) stated that if the most important decision
of researcher’s position on each of continua is the research question, one
position might be more appropriate than another for answering a specific
question. In this case, pragmatist’s view seems to be perfectly possible to work
with different philosophical positions. Having said that there is scarcity of
literature on tourists’ intention to return to a culinary tourism destination, the
sequential mixed methods appear to be appropriate to enable answering the
research questions of this study. As a consequence, the epistemology question
here is that ‘’How can I know factors affecting tourist’s intention to revisit
Thailand as a culinary tourism destination?” Since the researcher focus on
answering the research questions by utilising the sequential mixed methods in
data collection to provide better and more fruitful research outcome rather than
using only one particular method, this reflects pragmatists’ view on
epistemology.
4.3 RESEARCH APPROACH

Research approaches refers to plans or procedures to handle the research
question. Selecting a research approach also involves the nature of the research
problem or issues being coped with. The approach should be rigorously chosen
so as to allow researchers to draw appropriate research design and methods
(Creswell, 2014). Some research approaches are generally connected with
specific research philosophies. In fact, qualitative approaches are usually
attached with interpretivism, whereas quantitative approaches are commonly
linked with positivism (Altinay and Paraskevas, 2008; Saunders, Lewis and
Thornhill, 2012).
4.3.1 Types of Research Approaches

According to the perspective of the research question, different types of research
approaches can be grouped into two basic categories:
123
4.3.1.1 Logical approach
This kind of approach is based on the logic the researchers adopt to answer the
research question whether the reasoning develop from the general to the
particular or conversely (Collis and Hussey, 2009; Saunders, Lewis and
Thornhill, 2012). There are two main types of approach: inductive and
deductive. Inductive reasoning refers to a study developing a theory from the
observation of empirical reality. Therefore, general conclusions are induced from
specific instances. As this approach moves from individual observation to
reports of overall patterns or laws, it is regarded as moving from the particular
to the general. (Collis and Hussey, 2009). On the contrary, deductive logic is
usually judged as appropriate for scientific research, wherein the development of
a theory is subject to be tested by empirical observations. Hence, specific
instances are deduced from general conclusions. Consequently, it is considered
as moving from the general to particular (Collis and Hussey, 2009; Saunders,
Lewis and Thornhill, 2012). However, inductive and deductive approach can be
used in combination within the same study. Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill
(2012) pointed out that it is often beneficial to employ the mixture of both
approaches in a single study even though one approach is usually predominant
than another. This depends on the focus of research and the nature of research
topic.
4.3.1.2 Methodological approach

Methodological approach concerns how data are collected and analyse.
Qualitative approaches aim to explore and comprehend the meaning people
assign to a social or human problem, which can described as words (Creswell,
2014; Silverman, 1993). Data collection techniques for these approaches are
generally flexible and unstructured or semi-structured (e.g. in-depth interviews
and observations). Data analysis involves building from specifics to broad
themes and the meaning of data is interpreted by the researchers. On the other
hand, quantitative approaches focus on evaluating objective theories with the
means to investigate the relationships between variables (Creswell, 2014).
Structured techniques are commonly used to collect data (e.g. experiments or
questionnaires)(Silverman, 2000). Statistical analysis is therefore required to
124
test hypotheses or draw conclusions, which is commonly based on numerical
confirmation (Veal, 2006). However, “qualitative and quantitative approach
should not be viewed as rigid, distinct categories, polar opposites or
dichotomies. Instead, they represent different ends on a continuum (Newman
and Benz, 1998, cited in Creswell, 2014, p. 3).”
As each single research method contains weaknesses, mixed methods

approaches integrating elements of both qualitative and quantitative approaches
are commonly employed, particularly in data collection and analysis in order to
compensate its weaknesses by the strengths of another method and provide a
better insight of the issue researched (Creswell, 2014). The author identified that
mixed methods can be employed in three basic strategies:
1) Sequential mixed methods consist of more than single phase of data

collection and analysis. The use of one method will be followed by
another with a purpose of expanding or elaborating on the primary set of
findings.
2) Concurrent mixed methods refers to using both quantitative and
qualitative methods in only one phase of data collection and analysis.
3) Embedded mixed methods allow one methodology embedded in the other
in order to support through a method to collect data (e.g. including some
quantitative questions in an interview)
4.3.2 Justification of the Research Approach

Regarding the logical approach, this research employs both inductive and
deductive approach with more emphasis on the latter. Although food choice and
tourists’ revisit intention literature can be considered abundance in general,
there is far less specific information in the culinary tourism context in which the
research being focused. Using the mixture of two approaches can thus allow the
researcher to modify an existing theory in a context to explain a phenomenon
being researched (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012).
Concerning the methodological approach, as this research adopts a pragmatism

paradigm, it enables the researcher to employ both qualitative and quantitative
125
approach in the same study by using mixed method approach with a view to
undertake a broader and complimentary view of the research problem (Collis
and Hussey, 2009). Due to the lack of literature in the area of tourists’ intention
to revisit a same destination for culinary purposes, this main research mainly
aims to explore factors affecting that revisit intention, and then to examine the
linkage between the tourists’ intention to revisit and factors influencing local
food consumption as well as the relationships between the factors identified.
Subsequently, the research is divided into two sequential stages.
In the first stage, qualitative approach would provide analysis in depth during
the preliminary exploration of the influences on tourists’ intention to revisit a
destination for culinary tourism purposes. It also allows the development of a
deeper theoretical perspective than existing ones in the literature (Saunders,
Lewis and Thornhill, 2012). In contrast, quantitative approach assists to examine
relationships between variables (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012), so it
would be more appropriate for the second stage that aims to further examine the
linkages between the tourists’ intention to revisit and factors influencing local
food consumption at a holiday destination and also the relationships between
the factors identified. Accordingly, it would be most suitable for this study to
employ the sequential mixed methods in order to enable the appropriate
combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to answer the research
questions and meet the research objectives.
4.4 PRELIMINARY STUDY AND FINDINGS

A preliminary study was conducted by the means of semi-structured in-depth
interviews with three different nationalities: British, Japanese and Chinese
tourists who had experienced local Thai food during their last holiday in
Thailand from 2013 to 2015.
The purposes of the preliminary interviews were:

1) To initially explore key issues and concepts regarding how participants
choose to eat local Thai food on holiday, how local Thai food consumption could
126
connect to a context of revisit intention to a destination in general and revisit
intention to a destination for culinary tourism purposes.
2) To initially investigate their knowledge and experience on food tourism
activities in Thailand
2) To check whether the chosen nationalities are appropriate for this study and
find out which an Asian nationality should be included in the main interview
study since both of them can be considered as a prospective sample for this
study.
The relevant reviewed literature in tourist food consumption and revisit

intention context was used to develop the interview guide, question topics, and
overarching questions. The detail on the questions asked can be seen from the
preliminary interview guide attached in Appendix 1. Firstly, the researcher
intended to recruit at least six participants of each nationality with balancing
number of males and females and covering all age groups (18-24, 25-34, 35-44,
45-54, and 55 and above) to allow the data analysis when dividing into
subgroups according to the demographics. The researcher mainly approached
Japanese and Chinese who speak English fluently in order to minimise language
barrier. Hence, the sampling criteria comprise:
1. Being British, Japanese or Chinese tourists who had a trip in Thailand
(between 2013-2015) and consumed Thai food during the trip
2. Be able to communicate in English (for Japanese and Chinese)
The details of participant recruitment including the sampling criteria were

posted on the researcher’s Facebook and communicated verbally to the
researcher’s acquaintances. Therefore, purposive samplings were used to select
the research participants in order to gain individual participants who tended to
be information rich cases (Patton, 1990). Prospective participants were then
contacted verbally as well as via email and online chatting applications in order
to reassure that they met the selection criteria, briefly understood the interview
requirement, and voluntarily agreed to take part in the research. To address
ethical concerns, the participant information sheet and consent form were sent
to them via email. After gaining the informed consent, four British, four Japanese
127
and five Chinese were finally recruited as the research participants. The
interviews had been conducted from September to October 2015 and taken for
one to two hours per informant. Eight interviews were carried out face-to-face in
study rooms at the university library, cafés and a researcher’s accommodation
according to participants’ convenience. Five interviews were conducted online
via video calls. Two Chinese participants requested a translator because of
having non-fluent English. Therefore, a Thai friend who is fluent in both Chinese
and English was asked to assist as the translator. Before starting every interview,
the participants were emphasised that all conversation would be digitally
recorded and they can stop the interview at any point if they feel distressed or
they could opt for not answering any questions making them felt uncomfortable,
particularly the questions seeking their personal information (Saunders, Lewis
and Thornhill, 2012). However, considering genders and ages, only one female of
each British and Japanese were gained and only two participants aging above 40
were obtained. Hence, analysing data in subgroups seemed not appropriate.
Thematic analysis was operationalised to find key themes as it just to inform the
main study the relevant main issues and concepts.
Main findings and suggestions for the main studies were as follows:
- Chinese seemed not to be much cautious on the food safety and hygiene of
Thailand street food, whereas this was likely to be an important
impediment for Japanese to try local street food.
- The number of participants in each nationality seemed not to be enough
to enable in-depth data analysis within a single nationality because some
participants possessed conditions that tended to limit their local food
consumption or participating in food related activities. For instance, a
Chinese female travelled in Thailand with a complimentary holiday
package tour from her company she was working for. She claimed that
almost all of her meals were already pre-selected by the tour, and
therefore, had very few experiences with local delicacies she selected by
her own. Another example was a British male having Thai wife as he
stated that they did not need to attend a food tour or a cooking class
because of having his own Thai food expert. A Japanese male travelling
128
with their children reported that their food choice decision on holiday
depended somewhat on their kids. He tended to avoid street food and/or
unfamiliar food in terms of food safety and hygiene for his children. Thus,
this informed that sampling criteria of main studies should exclude:
tourists coming in packaged tours, having a Thai spouse, and travelling
with children.
- Only three participants had an experience with food-related activities
(attending a cooking class or visiting a food festival) but most of the rest
have never heard about culinary tourism activities in Thailand. This
suggests that the main studies should not target only culinary tourists as
the samples because it would lead to a difficulty to reach sufficient
samples. Hence, tourists who have had a considerable number of local
Thai food experiences would be recruited and potential food tourists
would be part of them.
- Examples of culinary tourism activities given to interviewees seemed not
covering all food-related activities that involve this kind of tourism.
During the interviews, only four activities (i.e. eating tours, food-shopping
tours, food events/festivals, and cooking classes) were exemplified to the
participants but some participants reported their attendances with some
other relevant activities. For example, a Chinese male travelled to
Thailand with the primary aim to taste various local Thai dishes by his
own without participating in the mentioned food-related activities. A
Chinese female bought a plenty of Thai food ingredients back home to
cook her own Thai dishes. Therefore, the definition of culinary tourism
activities should be extended.
- Some participants were not sure what should be considered as local Thai
food. Hence, a clear definition of local Thai food should be identified.
- Some participants could not remember what local Thai food they ate, so
food photos may be added to recall their memories and provide a clearer
picture of what should be counted as local Thai food.
To summarise, the data collected so far do not allow the researcher to make an
informed decision about which an Asian nationality (between Japanese and
129
Chinese) should be included in the main study as the most appropriate choice.
Moreover, the point of data saturation seems not to be reached. There are some
different groups of participants that have not been recruited yet such as more
participants aging above 45 and more of those having food-related activities.
However, the preliminary study contributed useful information to the main
study of both qualitative and quantitative stage. It facilitated in informing the
sampling criteria and target populations for the main study, pointing out some
cultural differences on local Thai food consumption based on nationality, and
suggesting some interesting issues for interview guide and questionnaire design.
To finalise which Asian nationality should be selected for the main study, the
researcher revisited the Hofstede’s dimension scores and used Jackson’s (2001)
method to calculate cultural distance between Thailand and Japan between
Thailand and China, and between Thailand and the UK. Although the results
suggested that cultural distance Japan shared between Thailand (184) is more
similar to the distance the UK shared between Thailand (202) than that of China
(158), Chinese masculinity dimension score is equal to British (= 66). Moreover,
their uncertainty avoidance index scores (UK = 35, CH = 30) are very close. These
dimensions are specifically relevant to the context of this study. This is because
MAS dimension was found to affect tourists’ loyalty and satisfaction, while UAI
dimension was revealed to affect number and diversity of culinary explorations
on holiday (Crotts and Erdmann, 2000; Tse and Crotts, 2005). Thus, these appear
to preclude Chinese as the target population for the main study as the
comparison of both dimensions between China and the UK is inappropriate.
Furthermore, 2011-2017 TAT statistic reports have constantly shown bigger
proportions of independent travellers in Japanese arrivals in Thailand (74-86%)
than those in Chinese arrivals in Thailand (53-61%). With all above reasons,
Japanese was selected as the most appropriate choice amongst Asian
nationalities to allow the assessment of how culturally proximate and distant
tourists varies in their local food consumption motivations and the intentions to
revisit as well as in relevant factors.
130
4.5 RESEARCH DESIGN
Research design is the overall plan informing how you will perform to answer
your research question (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012). It includes the
methodology and procedures of the research being conducted in which an
appropriate framework for data collection and analysis are provided. The
research design of the present study is a double-phase mixed method design.
More specifically, it is conducted by a strategy called exploratory sequential
mixed methods in which a qualitative data and analysis is firstly conducted with
an aim of exploration and the findings are then used to develop a second
quantitative phase (Creswell, 2014; Saunder et al., 2012). This strategy is used
with a purpose to develop a better measurement with particular samples of
populations and to test whether the data obtained from a few people can be
generalised to a large sample of a population. Creswell (2014) also suggested a
good procedure to conduct this strategy by drawing samples for both phases
from the same population but ensuring that the individuals chosen for both
phases are not the same. This is because this incident would initiate confounding
factors into the research.
In this study, the stage 1 is semi-structured in-depth interviews and the stage 2
is questionnaire survey. The overall research process of this study is shown in
Figure 4.1.
131
Research Process
Literature review
Preliminary Semi-
structured Interviews
Findings of Preliminary
Interviews & Literature
Review
Stage 1 Stage 2
Semi-structured Questionnaire survey
interviews
Set up interview Questionnaire

questions development
Conduct interviews Pilot testing
Data analysis Questionnaire refinement
Findings of Stage 1 & Conduct survey

literature review
Data analysis
Figure 4.1 Overall research process

Findings & Implications
132
4.6 STAGE 1: SEMI-STRUCTURED IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS
Due to the scarcity of direct research conducted to examine factors affecting
tourists’ intention to revisit a destination for culinary tourism purposes,
qualitative field research by means of semi-structured in-depth interviews were
employed with following purposes:
1) To identify motivational factors to revisit Thailand for holiday purposes
2) To explore motivations influencing local Thai food consumption and other
underlying factors that might not cover in the literature.
3) To find common motivational factors for consuming local Thai food and
revisiting Thailand
4) To initially explore whether local Thai food experiences had any impact on the
intention to return to Thailand.
The use of semi-structured in-depth interviews provides the researcher to

identify main issues and offers qualitative insights into the issues before
conducting a questionnaire survey (Collis and Hussey, 2009). Semi-structured
interviews are a mixture of unstructured and structured interviews wherein
particular topics are encompassed but probing questions are commonly
employed in order to obtain clarification (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Unlike
structured interviews that tend to constrain the discussion of participants’
experience by predetermined and standardised question set, the semi-structured
interviews offer them more freedom to express their views on topic catching
their interests (Bryman and Bell, 2007; Finn et al., 2000). As this method
predetermines themes or issues being raised in the interview, it can decrease the
risk of unstructured interviews regarding the failure in acquiring appropriate
data to meet the research objectives (Sekaran, 2003). Altinaty and Paraskevas
(2008) also pinpointed the advantageous uses of semi-structured interviews in
searching for what is happening, seeking new understandings, identifying broad
patterns, and comprehending the connections between variables.
4.6.1 Semi-structured Interview Guide

The findings of the preliminary interviews and literature review were used to
develop the interview guide, question topics, and overarching questions. After
133
finalising the final interview guide, it was translated into Japanese language by a
bilingual translator who is fluent in both Japanese and English. After that,
another fluent bilingual translator was employed to conduct the back translation.
The process is the English version was translated into the Japanese version and
another translator then translated it back to English. This allowed finding out
linguistic problems in the translation by comparing the original version with the
back-translated version (Brislin, 1970; Sobal, 1998). Then, the differences found
was highlighted and discussed with the first translator for editing to obtain the
final version. The researcher also produced the Thai version to ease the
communication with the translator in the interviews, as she is a Thai. Final
English, Japanese, and Thai versions of interview guide were attached in
Appendix 6 and 7, and 8, respectively.
4.6.2 Data Collection for Semi-structured Interviews

4.6.2.1 Sampling
Considering that this stage aimed to explore the factors affecting revisit intention
to a destination for culinary tourism motives, purposive samplings were utilised
to select the research participants. Purposive samplings allow the researcher to
choose individual participants who seemed to be information rich cases (Patton,
1990). These participants would benefit the study in terms of contributing
appropriate data, both in respect of relevance and depth to best enable the
researcher to answer the research question and to achieve the research
objectives (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012). Even though purposive
samplings are unable to be statistically representative of the whole population, it
is regarded as being suitable in the exploratory phases of research (Patton, 2002;
Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012). So as to ensure achieving in-depth
information from participants, the sampling criteria include:
1) Being either British or Japanese tourists travelling in Thailand

2) Visiting Thailand for pleasure purposes, not business purposes
3) Having at least six local Thai food consumption experiences during a trip in
Thailand (Adapted from Mak et al., 2012)
4) Aging 18 years old or above. (Kim et al., 2009; Mak et al., 2012)
134
5) Being a non-packaged traveller. In other words, he or she does not travel in a
package tour group.
6) Not travelling with children.
7) Not having a Thai spouse
The reasons for the fifth, sixth, and seventh criterion were that tourists’ food
choice tended to be controlled by tour programs set by tour agencies, might be
influenced by their children (Kang and Hsu, 2005; Nickerson and Jurowski,
2001) or tended to be leaded by their Thai spouses. Moreover, as the preliminary
interview results suggested that an interest to taking part in food-related
tourism activities such as food tours or cooking classes might be reduced in
tourists having Thai spouses as their partners had expertise in Thai cuisine. The
findings from the preliminary interviews also reported that the fifth and sixth
criterion should be excluded. Around 25 to 30 interviews were planned to
conduct until data saturation is achieved (Creswell, 2007).
4.6.2.2 Data collection procedure

Data were collected on different days of the week at several tourist attractions,
touristic areas, and department stores in Bangkok, Thailand. Prospective
participants were approached while they are relaxing, wandering around,
sightseeing or just finish dining in these areas because they seemed to have a
plenty of free time and their tendency to participate in the interviews tended to
be increased.
With regards to data gathering procedure in the main fieldwork, two pilot
interviews with British and Japanese participants were conducted in order to
allow the researchers to know how to approach the participants appropriately,
to estimate the time spent per interview, get used to with the interview guide
and questions, and to practice working with the Japanese translator for
interviewing with Japanese participants. The researcher started by introducing
herself to the prospective participants and presented them a research topic and
estimated time used for the interview. The participants were verbally asked with
the filter questions in order to screen whether they met the study criteria. In
case of the criteria were met, they were briefly elaborated the research
135
objectives and offered the participant information sheet (see Appendix 2 and 3).
After gaining verbal agreement to take part, they were asked to sign the consent
form (see Appendix 4 and 5). The participants were informed that the interview
would be digitally recorded and they could stop the interview at any point if they
felt distressed. Moreover, the interviewer ensured that participants felt
comfortable with all questions, in particular the questions seeking their personal
information (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012). A Japanese translator was
employed in interviewing with Japanese participants in order to minimise
language barriers. The researcher used the interview guide in Thai version to
communicate with the translator, while the translator communicated with the
interviewees in Japanese and directly translate back to Thai. Thus, all interview
records comprise both Thai and Japanese parts. During the interviews, probing
questions were employed when appropriate to gain deeper information and to
check whether the interviewer’s understanding is correct (Saunders, Lewis and
Thornhill, 2012). After completing the interviews, participants were requested
to provide their socio-demographic information and were thanked for their
support after the interviews.
4.6.3 Data Analysis for Semi-structured Interviews

13 interviews with 20 Japanese participants and 15 interviews with 22 British
participants had been conducted from October to December 2016 and from
February to April 2017 in Bangkok, Thailand. All interview records were
transcribed verbatim (See the examples of transcripts in Appendix 9). However,
the researcher only transcribed the Thai parts for the Japanese participants’
interview records. A Japanese native speaker who was also fluent in English was
employed to transcribe the interview parts in Japanese to English, and then all
transcripts were compared to those transcribed by the researcher. Any
differences were discussed and corrected. Thematic analysis was used to find
themes and categories from the data. Thematic analysis is a technique used to
identify, analyse and report themes found in the data (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
This kind of method appears to be useful for producing qualitative analyses as it
enables the researcher to interpret both manifest and latent content of data
(Joffe and Yardley, 2004). One of the main benefits of thematic analysis is its
136
theoretical flexibility. Therefore, it can be used within various frameworks and to
answer different kinds of research question such as questions relating to
individuals’ experiences, perspectives and perceptions (The University of
Auckland, 2014). On top of that, this kind of data analysis enables both
psychological and social interpretations of data (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
According to these advantages, this study will utilise thematic analysis to
evaluate the interview data.
This study conducted thematic analysis in line with Braun and Clarke (2006)’s
six phases of analysis: 1) Familiarising yourself with your data; 2) Generating
initial codes; 3) Searching for themes; 4) Reviewing themes; 5) Defining and
naming themes; 6) Producing the report. The researcher started the analysis
process by verbatim transcribing data from the interview records, reading and
re-reading the data, and then recording the initial ideas. The initial codes were
generated by coding features of the researcher’s interest based on the theoretical
framework across the whole data set, and then looking for similarity of each
code. After that, codes were collated into potential themes. The themes were
then reviewed by assessing the relationships between the themes and the coded
extracts. Next, the structure for the themes was generated. This was followed by
refining the themes, and checking what the overall story informs. Then, The
clear definitions and names of each themes were identified. Finally, extract
examples were chosen in relation to research questions and previous literature
so as to writing the report of the analysis.
Both inductive and deductive approach was utilised to analyse the data. The
inductive coding technique enables themes and categories emerging from the
data without restraints enforced by a theory (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill,
2012). The deductive coding technique, on the contrary, employs a theory to
extract the themes (Crabtree and Miller, 1999). The attached transcript no. 05 in
Appendix 9 provides examples of how categories, main themes, sub-themes were
identified (page and page ). The findings of the semi-structured interview were
used to guide the questionnaire development accompanied by literature review.
Motivational factors for local Thai food consumption and those for revisiting
137
Thailand identified from the thematic analysis results were utilised in scale
development for constructing a quantitative survey in the next stage.
4.6.4 The Quality of Qualitative Research

Unlike quantitative research that can be assessed its quality via specific criteria
such as internal validity, reliability, and gereralisability, the rigour of qualitative
research stands on the trustworthiness of the data, which basically asking the
question: “Can the findings be trusted?” (Franklin et al, 2010; Guba, 1981;
Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The most recognised four criteria of trustworthiness
are: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability, which are
generally in parallel to quality criteria of quantitative research: internal validity,
external validity, reliability, and objectivity (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Definition
of trustworthiness criteria based on Korstjens and Moser (2018) and Lincoln and
Guba (1985) and the strategies used to ensure the trustworthiness of the
findings of the semi-structured interview are presented in Table 4.1.
138
Table 4.1 Definition of trustworthiness criteria and the strategies used to
ensure the trustworthiness in this research
To meet credibility criterion, the two following strategies were operated.

Prolonged engagement. The researcher invested sufficient time engaging in the
research field and long interviews to develop familiarity with the research
setting and contexts, to build trust with the participants, to check for any
misunderstanding of data, and to ensure getting rich data (Anney, 2015;
Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2007). Various different questions were asked
concerning topics about travel experiences in Thailand, local Thai food
experiences, Thailand image and revisit intention. The researcher encouraged
participants to give examples to support their answers. The follow-up and
probing questions were also asked to clarify the participants’ statement.
Member check. It involves feeding the researcher’ interpretations back to the
research participants to strengthen creditability of the data since the researcher
and participants examine the data with different eyes (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).
139
The relevant questions were asked during the interview to evaluate whether the
precise interpretation of participant’s meanings is reached.
To achieve transferability, which involves the aspect of applicability, thick

description of the participants and the research process was specified to allow a
potential user to judge whether the study’s findings are transferable to his/her
own setting/contexts (Anney, 2015; Lincoln and Guba, 1985). In this study, the
researcher provided a detailed account of descriptive data (e.g. the context in
which the study was conducted, research setting, sample size, strategy and
sampling criteria, methods employed as well as participants’ socio-demographic,
interview process and topics, the interview guide and questions).
Audit trail was utilised to address dependability and confirmability of the study.
Audit trail concerns the transparent and systematic record of the research path
from the beginning stage to development, and reporting of the results (Lincoln
and Guba, 1985). In the study, all research steps and procedures are evidently
recorded throughout the study and presented clearly in this thesis.
4.7 STAGE 2: QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

Stage two of this study is a quantitative phase allowing to statistically test the
relationships between salient variables and then to form a generalisation (Gray,
2009). A personally distributed questionnaire survey was used because it allows
the researcher to introduce the research topic and to stimulate the respondents
to reply with a genuine answer, it suits for administering to a large group of
individuals at the same time (Sekaran, 2003).
Thus, this stage is carried out to meet the following specific objectives:
1. To validate motivational dimensions for tourists’ local Thai food consumption
identified in the qualitative phase (stage 1)
2. To evaluate cultural differences and differences among first-timers and
different types of repeaters on these motivations
140
3. To explore the connection between the motivations for local Thai food
consumption and those for revisiting Thailand over time found in the qualitative
phase (stage 1)
4. To investigate the relationship between local Thai food experiences and the
intention to revisit Thailand over time.
5. To identify salient factors affecting tourists’ intention to revisit Thailand over
time for gastronomy purposes.
6. To critically investigate the relationships between the factors identified and
their relative importance on the intentions to revisit over time
7. To evaluate cultural differences and differences among first-timers and types
of repeaters on the relationships between the factors identified and their relative
importance on the intentions to revisit over time
An extended combination of the MGB and the TPB model was employed as the
theoretical framework for this study so as to enable an investigation of the
relationships among the factors identified and an evaluation of their relative
importance to tourists’ intention to revisit Thailand as a culinary tourism
destination. However, due to the nature of the MGB model, the past behaviour
(measured using the frequency of past behaviour) and the future behaviour
measured should be the same (Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001). Thus, the temporal
revisit intentions measured by the research model were the intentions to revisit
Thailand in general, as the data was collected from general tourists even though
they were screened by the sampling criterion: already having at least six local
Thai meals at the time of recruitment. However, in the research model, the
potential factors affecting the revisit intention for food purposes were added to
meet the research objectives.
4.7.1 Questionnaire Development

The findings of the semi-structured interview were used to guide the
development of the questionnaire along with literature review. 13 motivational
factors for local Thai food consumption and 10 motivational items for revisiting
Thailand were identified from the thematic analysis results and also cross
141
checked with the literature and then the draft questionnaire was developed. The
draft questionnaire (See Appendix 10) consisted of ten sections.
The questionnaire firstly started with ‘greeting’ section that includes information
concerning brief introduction about the researchers and the research topic, the
purpose of the research to ensure the respondents that their data would be
treated as confidential and used for academic purposes only. The greeting part of
the survey could convince the prospective respondents to take part in the survey
by reducing their suspicion of providing their personal data (Alreck and Settle,
1995). The second section comprised the screening questions to filter the
respondents based on the sampling criteria, which were the same as the main
interviews. The third section encompassed a set of nine questions measuring
novelty-seeking tendency (NS) on travel destination choice developed by
Mcintosh et al. (1995). This NS scale was selected because it was customised the
to fit the tourist destination context in order to capture different facets of
tourists’ tendency for novelty seeking in the certain context of holiday
destinations. This scale has also been successfully employed and validated in
several tourism literature (e.g. Assaker et al., 2011; Assaker and Hallak, 2013;
Jang and Feng, 2007). Table 4.2 presents the nine items in the novelty seeking
scale.
Table 4.2 Items of novelty seeking scale (NS)
142
This was followed by the fourth section containing the questions asked about
travel characteristics, including number of past visits, frequency of past visits in
the last three and ten years, and the number of night spent in Thailand. The
timeframes (last three years and last ten years) used in the questions asked for
frequency of past visits were adapted from the studies of Assaker et al. (2011),
Feng and Jang (2004), and Kim et al. (2012). Next, the overall destination image,
familiarity with Thai food prior to the present visit and the importance of Thai
food on the decision to make the present visit to Thailand were asked. These
questions were adapted from relevant studies (i.e. Assaker et al., 2001; Assaker
and Hallak , 2013; Mak, 2011).
The fifth section contained the six items of food neophobia scale (FNS), which
was the shorten version of Ritchey et al. (2003) (Table 4.3). The shorten version
of FNS was successfully used and validated in previous studies (e.g. Ritchey et al.,
2003; Kim et al., 2013). Hence, the verified scale was utilised in this study in
place of the original one in order to maintain a manageable length of the
questionnaire.
Table 4.3 Verified items of food neophobia scale (FNS)

Items of the FNS
1. I am constantly sampling new and different food
2. If I don’t know what a food is, I won’t try it
3. I like foods from different culture
4. At dinner parties, I will try new foods
5. I am afraid to eat things I have never had before
6. I like to try new ethnic restaurants
Source: Ritchey et al. (2003)
*Note: Each item has a seven-point Likert response set: disagree strongly,
disagree moderately, disagree slightly, neither disagree nor agree, agree slightly,
agree moderately, and agree strongly.
This was followed by the six items of food involvement scale, the shorten version
of Bell and Marshall (2003)’s original scale modified by Kim et al. (2013) (Table
143
4.4). This is because the context of this study is similar to Kim et al. (2013) and the
scale was also successfully used and validated in their study.
Table 4.4 Revised items of food involvement scale (FIS)

Items of the FIS
1. I don’t think much about food each day
2. Talking about what I ate or am going to eat is something I like to do
3. Compared with other daily decisions, my food choices are not very important
4. When I travel, one of things I anticipate most is eating the food there
5. When I eat out, I don’t think or talk much about how the food tastes
6. I do most or all of my own food shopping
Source: Kim et al. (2013)
*Note: 7-point scale with labelled endpoints, from disagree strongly to agree
strongly.
The next large section contained 29 items of local food motives generated from
the interview data and compared with the relevant literature (see also Table 5.9
in Chapter 5). The definition of local Thai food adapted from (Kim et al., 2009c).
was also given to ensure the correct understanding of respondents towards what
is counted as local Thai food. The following section included food related tourism
activities in order to measure the frequency of participation in each activity. The
food-related tourism activity lists were adapted from previous food tourism
studies (Karim and Chi, 2010; Chen, 2013; Ignatov and Smith, 2008; Mack et al.,
2009; Shenoy, 2005) and tailored to suit with what are available in Thailand. It
was followed by the section encompassing the questions that elicits overall
satisfaction, the importance of local Thai food experience to the overall trip, and
food satisfaction. These questions were adapted from existing studies (i.e.
Assaker et al., 2001; Assaker and Hallak , 2013; Kim, 2010).
The following large section included the TPB items of belief-based measures and
their corresponding direct measures, and the global measures of the MGB items.
All Belief-based measures about revisiting Thailand were constructed using the
questionnaire structure that guided by Ajzen (2006). The 11 motivational items
144
for revisiting Thailand generated from the interview data and compared with
relevant literature (See Table 5.10 in Chapter 5) were employed as behavioural
belief measures of revisiting Thailand. The direct measures of MGB items were
adopted from the previous MGB studies in the tourism context (e.g. Kim et al.,
2012; Lee et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2015; Meng and Choi, 2016; Song et al., 2012a;
Song et al., 2014). The timeframes used to elucidate answers concerning short-
term revisit intention (within next three years) and long-term revisit intention
(within next ten years) were adapted from the studies of Assaker et al. (2011)
and Feng and Jang (2004). The last section encompassed the questions about
socio-demographics of the respondents.
4.7.2 Pre-test of the Draft Questionnaire and Findings

The proposed questionnaire was pretested with 10 Japanese and 9 British living
and studying in the UK. This stage aims to test the understanding of respondents
on questions and instructions provided, to gain suggestion on the whole design
of the questionnaire and to estimate time needed to complete the questionnaire
(Saunder et al, 2012). Table 4.1 summarises the feedbacks of the pre-test and the
actions the researchers took in response of these feedbacks.
Table 4.5 Summarise of respondents’ feedbacks from the pre-test

ISSUE DESCRIPTION PARTICIPANT ACTION
9-15 min British Pilot questionnaire
would be provided in
Time used 12-18 min
Japanese both English and
(Pre-test questionnaire was in English) Japanese
Length of - Length of
A bit too lengthy, not for people in rush. J6/B1/B2/B5 questionnaire was
Questionnaire
shorten by removing
To shorten the questionnaire, filtering
some unnecessary
questions should be removed as you can B8
items
verbally ask.
- Filtering questions
Not too lengthy, it’s OK for me. J2/J7/J8/B9 were removed and
verbally asked instead
The structure was
Should separate into clear sections and
adjusted by grouping
add titles/introductions to inform
questions into sections
Structure structure (questions asking about B3
with titles and giving
present trip/general food/local
introductions/instructi
food/future trip)
ons as suggested
Number of items in a Only one item was
question removed because EFA
Q8: Should reduce to 20 items J4
would be performed to
reduced no. of items
145
after the pilot study
3 items were removed
based on the
Q17 & Q18: Should reduce items. J3/J4
quantifying results of
the interview data
Q8: Some items are similar but they are
Clarification J10 _
very clear to me.
Q8-16: What’s strange local Thai food? J1 (e.g. insects) was added
Q7: Should state that it asks about The instruction was
J4/B8
general food. added.
Q22-1: “I am capable of….” The meaning
B3/B7/B8 This item was removed.
is not clear/weird word?
Q3-1&2: Should change from asking for Number of visits in
frequency of visit in 3Y/10Y by using 3Y/10Y was asked
Scale/Item problem the scale (never to very many times) to J1/J5/J8/J9/B6 instead and the space
number of visits instead, as it’s easier to was given for filling in
answer and clearer. the number.
Q1/Q11/Q18 scale: Very unimportant No change as it is
should be changed to Not at all B7 normal word used in
important. scaling
Q18: Items about street food don’t apply

J6
to me, as I’ve never had Thai street food.
Suggested to add N/A to Q18 street food

items & Thai food in my home country B8 N/A option was added
items
Q18: Items about Thai food in my home
country don’t apply to me, as I’ve never J9
had Thai food in Japan.
These items are the
measures of negative
Q26 seems unnecessary to ask. B3/B8 anticipated emotions,
so they were not
removed.
Demo Q5: Should add “Prefer not to say”
J4/B8 This option was added.
option
As they are belief-based
Many questions seem very
and direct measures of
similar/repeated with different
Repetition/Similarity B1/B4/B9 corresponding
wordy/Redundancy in questions &
variables, the similarity
answers
is normal.
Q13-1 to 3 are kind of the same They are measures of
meaning. Do I need to answer to all J1/J3/B5 desire, so the wordings
items? (want/hope/my wish…) are similar. The Q13-3
was removed only
Q13-1 & 2: repetition & Q13-3: worded because of being
B3/B6
weirdly weirdly worded.
They are measures of
revisit intentions, so
Q14-1 to 4 (in Q15 as well) are quite the wordings are
similar/repetition. (will/intend/willing J2/J5/B6 similar. Item Q14-3
to) &15-3 were removed
due to repetition of
Q14-1&15-1
146
Q16-4: necessary? J5/B6 This item was removed.
Because Q17 items are
measures of beliefs
about likely outcomes
Q17 & 18 look so similar. J2/J4/J7/J8/B2 of revisiting Thailand
and Q18 are
evaluations of those
outcomes
Q25-1 to 4: Very similar/same meaning positive anticipated
J3/B3/B6/B9
(excited/glad/satisfied/happy) emotions, so the
wordings are similar.
negaitive anticipated
Q26-1 to 4: Very similar/same meaning
B3/B6 emotions, so the
(angry/disappointed/worried/sad)
wordings are similar.
‘Angry’ was removed.
4.7.3 Pilot Study

After pre-testing, some questions were removed to reduce redundant and
shorten the length of the questionnaire, and the structure of the questionnaire
was adjusted. As the main survey targeted British and Japanese tourists, A fluent
bilingual translator who was a Japanese student studying in the UK was
employed to translate the proposed questionnaire into Japanese to reduce
language barrier and enhance the respondents’ understanding. Another fluent
bilingual translator was hired to conduct the back-translation method. After that,
both the English and Japanese versions were tested in the pilot study (see
Appendix 11 and 12).
A pilot study was conducted to examine the questions’ clarity and validity as well
as the probable reliability of the data that was obtained (Saunders, Lewis and
Thornhill, 2012; Veal, 2006). Conducting a pilot study also enables identifying
and correcting any potential problems in the proposed questionnaire (Gill and
Johnson, 2002). Thus, pilot respondents were asked to complete the pilot
questionnaire and persuaded to give a comment they may have regarding
wording, content, and the length of the questionnaire. Gill and Johnson (2002)
suggested that pilot respondents should be a subsample of respondents having
similar characteristics to those selected for the main survey. Hence, the sample
criteria of the pilot respondents are the same as the main interview participants.
147
Convenience samplings with on-site survey were used. Therefore, the
respondents were approached from various tourist attractions in Bangkok. The
number of target sample for the pilot study was calculated from the number of
scale items used in the questionnaire to enable factor analysis for scale
refinement purpose (Field, 2013). As per a general rule of thumb, a sample size
at least 5 times of the number of scale items should be recruited (Field, 2013;
Hair et al., 2014). As the study employed 28 motivational items for local Thai
food consumption, 140 respondents (28 x 5) should be acquired for the pilot
study.
4.7.4 Scale Refinement

However, due to difficulties in recruiting respondents and also time constraints,
in total 70 British and 56 Japanese respondents were recruited from December
2017 to January 2018 for the pilot study. However, due to the pilot questionnaire
contained N/A options, nine responses were found to contain a reasonable
number of missing values as they selected the N/A options. Hence, they were
excluded from the analysis. Exploratory Factor analysis (EFA) was performed on
the 28 local Thai food motivational items using a principal component extraction
with a varimax rotation. The EFA results suggested to remove 8 following items:
‘It is important to me that local Thai food I eat looks nice’, ‘I don’t eat things that
are not eaten in my culture.’, ‘Local Thai food is food that differ to what I eat
everyday.’, ‘Tasting local Thai food is an experience that I can’t have in my home
country.’, ‘It is important to me to eat local Thai food in where locals eat, not
tourists.’, ‘I eat strange local Thai food (e.g. insects) as I can say that I have done
it.’, ‘I have local Thai food in places that are tourist-friendly.’, and ‘I think that a
busy local eating-place provides nice local Thai food.’ The EFA was repeated with
the remaining 20 items.
Finally, a total of seven factors were identified: 1) Authentic & Cultural

Experience, 2) Sensory Appeal & Value, 3) Assurance & Prestige, 4) Variety &
Novelty, 5) Health Concern, 6) Convenience & Safety, and 7) Food Hygiene
Concern. The seven factors explained 72.42% of the total variance. Even though
Cronbach’s alpha values of some factors were lower than 0.70, the general
148
recommended value, they were retained as the results were from the pilot data
and the number of respondents were quite lower than previously expected (Hair
et al., 2014). The EFA results also suggested that N/A options should be excluded
from the main questionnaire as it may cause difficulties with handling missing
value issues. Table 4.2 summarises the EFA results.
149
Table 4.6 Results of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
Factors & Items Factor Loading Mean S.D. Eigen-Value Cronbach's α % of Variance
Factor 1 - Authentic & Cultural Experience 2.58 0.890 12.883
11. Tasting local Thai food gives me an opportunity to increase my knowledge about Thai
culture. 0.845 5.56 1.27
12. Tasting local Thai food enables me to see how Thai people live. 0.926 5.50 1.39
13. Eating local Thai food gives me an opportunity to experience

authentic/traditional/real Thai food. 0.808 5.82 1.20
Factor 2 - Sensory Appeal & Value 2.47 0.760 12.342
1. Local Thai food is tastier than Thai food in my home country. 0.665 5.62 1.48
2. Local Thai food has more aroma than Thai food in my home country. 0.640 5.68 1.45
5. Local Thai food is better value for money than Thai food in my home country. 0.792 6.36 1.27
6. In Thailand, street food is better value for money than restaurant food. 0.684 6.20 1.24
Factor 3 - Assurance & Prestige 2.23 0.659 11.137
17. I often have local Thai food in places recommended by media. 0.642 3.89 1.96
18. I like to take pictures of local Thai food to show friends. 0.689 3.99 2.09
21. I have local Thai food in places recommended to me by my friends/family. 0.737 4.11 1.85
22. I have local Thai food in places recommended to me as nice by locals. 0.685 4.57 1.81
Factor 4 - Variety & Novelty 1.93 0.750 9.646
7. Local Thai food has more variety of dishes than Thai food in my home country. 0.547 6.29 1.16
8. Eating local Thai food is part of my travel/holiday experiences. 0.763 6.39 1.03
9. Eating local Thai food is an opportunity to try new and different food. 0.822 6.27 0.90
150
Factor 5 - Health Concern 1.92 0.594 9.59
19. Local Thai food is healthy and natural produce. 0.703 4.94 1.50
20. Local Thai food contains more fresh ingredients and natural contents than Thai food
in my home country. 0.793 4.51 1.62
Factor 6 - Convenience & Safety 1.69 0.619 8.449
26.I don’t eat street food in Thailand because it is not safe to eat. -0.737 2.71 1.91
27. I often have local Thai food on the street when I want a quick stop or am short of time. 0.828 4.40 1.92
Factor 7 - Food Hygiene Concern 1.67 0.704 8.372
24. I am willing to try any local Thai food as long as it’s hygienic. 0.831 5.93 1.34
25. When I eat on the street in Thailand, I insist on eating in places that are fairly clean. 0.825 5.42 1.67
Total variance explained (%) 72.419
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy: 0.719
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square: 865.824 (df = 190, Sig = 0.000)
151
The MGB measurement items used in the research model were also assessed the
Cronbach’s alpha values and all values were over 0.70, suggesting a good level of
internal consistency of the items in the scale (Hair et. al, 2014) (Table 4.3). Based
on the TPB model, the measures of salient beliefs (i.e. behavioural, normative
and control beliefs) are assumed to correlate with their relevant direct measures
(i.e. attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control) (Ajzen, 1991
Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Hence, Pearson correlation analysis was performed to
test these assumptions and the results confirmed that all belief-based measures
were significantly correlated with their corresponding direct measures (Table
4.4). Novelty seeking, Food neophobia, and food involvement scale were also
assessed the scale reliability using Cronbach’s alpha and the alpha values of the
three scales were 0.748, 0.808, 0.728, respectively. All values exceeded 0.70,
suggesting a reliability of the scales (Hair et al., 2014).
Apart from this, many pilot respondents were in doubt about how exactly they
should count the number of past visits for the frequency of past visit questions.
Thus, the wording “including this time” was added in these questions to make
the clear meaning for all respondents in terms of the same counting. However,
when analysing the results, a visit would be deducted as the study aimed to
measure past visits, not the present visit.
152
Table 4.7 Means, standard deviations and construct reliability (MGB)
Factors Mean S.D. Cronbach's α No. of Items
Attitude 5.55 0.834 0.878 Direct: 3
Belief based: 16
Subjective Norm 5.37 0.970 0.845 Direct: 4
Belief based: 6
Perceived Behavioural 4.29 0.715 0.530 Direct: 3

Control Belief based: 8
Positive Anticipated
6.18 0.936 0.961 Direct: 4
Emotion
Negative Anticipated
4.40 1.788 0.881 Direct: 3
Emotion
Frequency of Past
2.10 1.879 0.908 Direct: 2
Behaviour
Desire 6.23 1.221 0.958 Direct: 2
Short-term Revisit
5.14 1.897 0.938 Direct: 3
Intention
Long-term Revisit
5.99 1.271 0.925 Direct: 3
Intention
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
Figure 4.2 Correlation analysis results: Belief-based and direct measures
153
4.7.5 Data Collection for Questionnaires Survey
4.7.5.1 Sampling
After completing the pilot study, the revised English and Japanese versions of
questionnaire (See Appendix 13 and 14) were administered to the target
population. As the population of this study were British and Japanese tourists
who had taken a first or repeated trip or holiday in Thailand and experienced
local food in the destination, the sampling frame is not available and specific
population data is absent. Thus, non-probability convenience sampling is
sensible to be used (Bauer, 2002). Furthermore, this kind of sampling is readily
available and convenient, so it results in time and cost effectiveness (Sekaran,
2003; de Vaus, 1996). Convenience sampling is also employed when the
researcher aims to explore the concept of the study from the sample (Cooper and
Schindler, 2006). In addition, using convenience sampling with reasonable care
in research aiming to examine the relationship among factors is widely accepted.
This is because it doesn’t seem that this type of sampling would result in serious
bias into the relationship (Kerlinger, 1986).
The sampling criteria of this stage were set so as to allow the researcher to select
the intended respondents who can give desirable information. The criteria of
selection for respondents were the same as the main interviews but added two
criteria: 1) Had Thai food experiences in home country and 2) Had street food
experiences in the present trip in Thailand. This is because the N/A option was
excluded from the questionnaire as the pilot study results informed it as
problematic. Regarding the sample size, Hensley (1999) suggested that at least
150 respondents tended to be required to allow factor analysis for scale
development. As Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) would be used for testing
the causal relationships of revisit intention factors in the research model, the
sample size concerning the SEM analysis were considered. Kline (2011) stated
that in general a typical sample size of 200 cases was required in a study using
SEM. However, the author underlined that using SEM to analyse a complex model
normally needed a bigger sample size than that of a simpler model as a more
complex model contained more parameters than a simpler model. Thus, the
sample size of 200 cases might be too few for analysing a complex model.
154
Furthermore, Jackson (2003) recommended calculating sample size from the
number of parameters in the model. At least 10 cases per parameter were
suggested. This study’s research model had 30 parameters and the researcher
intended to conduct a cross-national comparison between two nationalities.
Hence, the adequate sample size of this study was judged to be at least 300
British and 300 Japanese tourists who have experienced local food during their
holiday in Thailand.
4.7.5.2 Data collection procedure

The survey was aimed to conduct at the Bangkok international airport and the
gaining access to conduct the survey was formally granted by Airport of
Thailand. However, due to the prohibited access to the departure lounge, where
is the restricted area after the security checkpoint, very few respondents were
gained from waiting areas in the departure terminal. Hence, the majority of
respondents were recruited from other tourist attractions in Bangkok and a
portion of them in Chiang Mai. As the current study employed convenience
sampling, respondents were recruited at various sites as stated.
In connection with data collection process in the main study, to comply with an
ethical manner the researcher introduced herself, the research topic and inform
estimated time spent for the questionnaire survey to the prospective
respondents. Even though the questionnaire was produced in both English and
Japanese versions, a Japanese speaking acquaintance assisted to verbally
communicate in Japanese in a case of Japanese tourists who cannot understand
English. Before filling out a questionnaire, they were verbally asked some
questions in order to screen whether they meet the sampling criteria. They were
also be enquired whether they were willing to participate in this survey. They
were then obtained more information about the research from the questionnaire
coversheet including brief information of the researcher and research objectives.
This document also informed the respondents that their data would be treated as
strictly confidential and would be employed only for academic purposes. After
completing the survey, the respondents were thanked for their contribution.
155
4.7.6 Data Analysis for Questionnaire Survey
To facilitate data analysis, IBM SPSS and IBM SPSS AMOS software package
version 24 were used to assess primary data obtained from the completed
questionnaire. Regarding to the statistical tests,
- Frequency test employed to examine the characteristics of the

respondents and to summarise some data of overall respondents such as
mean scores.
- An Independent t-test was utilised to compare whether there are
significant differences between mean scores of two independent variables
(e.g. nationality and types of visitors) on one dependent continuous
variable (e.g. Food Neophobia Scores, and Food Involvement Scores)
(McQueen and Knussen, 2002).
- Correlation analysis was utilised to examine the relationship between
variables and the degree of relationship between variables (Field, 2013)
such as the relationship between food-related personality traits (Food
Neophobia and Food Involvement) the intention to revisit.
- Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was applied to understand the structure
of a set of variables and decrease a data set to a more practicable size
meanwhile maintaining the original information as much as possible
(Field, 2013).
- Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was employed to examine the
appropriateness of the factor structure (Field, 2013).
- Reliability test was employed to measure the reliability of scales and
measurements used in this study (Pallant, 2001).
- Multiple regressions was utilised to consider influence of more than one
predictor on the dependent variable (Field, 2013) such as the influence of
personality traits and local food motives identified on the intentions to
revisit over time.
- Structural Equation Modelling (SEM): “Multivariate technique combining
aspects of factor analysis and multiple regression that enables the
researcher to simultaneously examine a series of interrelated dependence
relationships among the measured variables and latent constructs
(variates) as well as between several latent constructs” (Hair et al., 2014:
156
p. 546). The SEM was used to test the structural models of the short and
long term intention to revisit and conduct multiple group analysis
between nationalities and types of visitors.
4.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Researchers are required to anticipate ethical matters that may occur through
research process as research relates to collect data from individuals or about
individuals (Berg, 2001; Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2011; Punch, 2005). A variety of
ethical aspects should be considered in social science research involving human
subjects (Bryman and Bell, 2011; Creswell, 2014). The most typical ones are the
issues relating to informed consent, confidentiality and anonymity of
participants and researcher honesty, which are the emphasis of this study.
Throughout every process of data collection, these ethical considerations were
addressed as given detail in data collection of preliminary study and qualitative
and quantitative stage (See Section 4.4, 4.6.2.2 and 4.7.5.2). The gaining access to
respondents and participants in all phases of the study were discussed. Before
starting the interviews, the information sheet (Appendix 2) was handed to the
participants to provide them more details of the study. After obtaining their
verbal consents, the consent form (Appendix 3) was given to them to gain their
written consents.
The purposes of handing participants the consent form was:
- To inform them that their participation was absolutely voluntary
- To notify them that no financial or incentives would be given to them in
order to invite them to take part in this study
- To reassure them that confidentiality and anonymity of their personal
data would be treated in conformity with the Data Protection Act 1998
- To inform them about their rights to withdraw from the study at any time
without the requirement of giving any reason.
After gaining their written consent, they were also informed that the interview
would be digitally recorded and they could stop the interview at any point if they
felt distressed. Moreover, the interviewer ensured that participants felt
comfortable with all questions, in particular the questions seeking their personal
157
information (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012). The participants were also
thanked for their support after the interviews.
4.9 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter encompasses the research methodology of the present study. The
research philosophy of this study was judged as subjectivism for the ontological
assumption and pragmatism for epistemological assumption. Concerning the
research approach, in terms of research logic this study employed both inductive
and deductive approach with more emphasis on the latter. Methodical approach
was considered as a sequential mixed method approach allowing the
combination of both qualitative and quantitative approach in a single study. This
is because qualitative approach would provide in-depth analysis through the
preliminary exploration of factors underlying tourists’ intention to revisit a
destination for culinary tourism purposes. Quantitative approach would assist to
examine the connections between the contexts of local food consumption at a
holiday destination and revisiting a holiday destination, and also the
relationships between the factors identified. Preliminary study procedure, the
main findings, and suggestions for the main studies were provided. The research
design is double phase mixed methods consisting of phase 1: semi-structured in-
depth interviews and phase 2: questionnaire survey. The construct of research
instruments for both phases (interview guide and questionnaire) was described
along with data collection and analysis of both stages. Ethical considerations of
the research were also discussed.
158
CHAPTER 5
FINDING AND DISCUSSION I: STAGE ONE OF THE STUDY
(QUATITATIVE STAGE: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS)
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the findings of the stage one of the study, the qualitative
stage. Semi-structured interviews were employed to identify tourists’
motivations to revisit Thailand, motivations underlying local Thai food
consumption and other underlying factors that might not cover in the literature.
This stage also aims to find common motivational factors for consuming local
Thai food and revisiting Thailand and to primarily examine whether local Thai
food experiences had any impact on the intention to return to Thailand. The
findings with themes identified are shown. This chapter also shows the
quantification of themes emerged in order to aid the selection of salient themes
for guiding the questionnaire development. The final section illustrates the
comparison of themes identified with those in previous studies.
5.2 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-eight semi-structured interviews with forty-two participants were
conducted from October to December 2016 and from February to April 2017 in
Bangkok, Thailand. Table 5.1 presents the socio-demographic profile of the
interview participants with local Thai food and beverage consumed during their
trip in Thailand. The 28 interviews were undertaken with 14 single interviewees,
9 couples and 5 pairs of friends or relatives having the same genders. Among the
42 participants, 22 of them were British, and 20 were Japanese. 25 were female
and 17 were male. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to over 55 years
old. 22 of them lived alone, 14 lived with a partner without children, 5 lived with
a partner with children and 1 lived alone with children. 23 of the participants
held an undergraduate degree or higher, 11 finished a high school and 8 had a
college qualification. 17 interviewees were repeat visitors and 25 were first-time
visitors. The participants had experienced a variety of local Thai food and
beverages.
159
Table 5.1 Socio-demographic profile of the semi-structured interview participants
160
(Continued)
Note: Couple means the interview was undertaken with a couple; Pair means the interview was conducted with a pair of the same gender interviewees such as relatives or
friends
161
5.3. FINDINGS OF THEMETIC ANALYSIS
All interview records were transcribed verbatim into text (see Appendix 4).
Thematic analysis, an exploration for themes emerging from the textual data as
being significant to the explanation of the occurrence (Fereday and Muir-
Cochrane, 2014; Dennis, 2013), was performed to find themes and categories
from the interview data. The results showed the four main categories identified
from the data: 1) local Thai food factors, 2) reasons to visit Thailand (used only
the first-timers’ data to analyse), 3) reasons to revisit Thailand (used only the
repeaters’ data to analyse), and 4) revisit intention factors. Table 5.2 and 5.3
presents the main themes and sub-themes in each nationality along with
transcript and page number that each theme emerged from.
162
Table 5.2 Main themes and sub-themes identified from the British participants’ data
TRANSCRIPT & PAGE
CATEGORY MAIN THEME SUB-THEME
NO.
Local Thai food consumption Have familiarity with Thai food from Thai restaurants
Exposure/past experience T3P3-4
factors in UK
Eat a lot of Asian food in UK/expose to a lot of ethnic
T25P9 & T1P12
food from around the world in UK
On-site experience of tasty local dishes given for free by
T4P5&7-8 volunteers at the Mourning for the King Event at Royal
Palace
Real waste for tourists if come to Thailand but not eat
Destination food image T2P6
local Thai food
T25P9 Street food seems a big thing here.
Very striking in Bangkok everywhere people are eating
T3P4
or cooking.
No animal parts (e.g. feet/gut), raw meats as not eat or
Cultural influence T18P9, T21P5-6&8
not eat much in UK culture
T20P6 No whole fish with its head & tail “It puts me off”
Food allergy and dietary
T4P12, T5P13 Food allergies (Prawn/Eczema)
restrictions
Used to be a vegetarian and now prefer fish/seafood
T28P2
over other meats
Too weird/bizarre/disgusting for strange food such as
Negative emotion T20P5, T21P8, T28P2-3
animal parts/insects/chicken embryo in its shell
Street food here is so clean much more than ones in Sri
Food safety & hygiene concerns T5P9
Lanka
T1P13 Prefer to try local food as long as it’s safe/hygienic
T18P7 No experience of food poisoning from street food so far
T5P13 May try insects if it comes in more hygienic
Had food from street food vendors which looked clean
T28P7
enough
Emphasize on cleanliness of food, especially on street.
T21P5-6&10 Eat more in food stalls as every friend who had been
here had food poisoning from street food.
T5P6 That sausage looked raw, so I was afraid to try at first.
163
TRANSCRIPT & PAGE
NO.
Insects on that cart were out of heat for hours and not
T28P3
covered. It might make you sick
Food personality traits Food Neophobia T18P9 Need to know exactly what the food is before eating
Unfamiliar food safety concerns (Fear of stomach upset
T19P5
when being in Thailand in first few days)
Avoid having other meats when travelling abroad as
T28P2 fear of it might not be what is said to be (said chicken
but it’s dog meat)
Variety Seeking Tendency T21P8, T25P6 Try strange food for new experience
T1P5, T2P5&7, T5P13,
T6P8, T8P12, T21P10, Prefer to try new food
T27P18
We love eating, like to eat out often when in UK &
Food Involvement T1P7
always think about what to eat
T5P10 I am a chef at home. Food is huge for me then.
T1P5&6, T4P8, T6P9, Tastier/More flavour/More aroma than Thai food in
Motivational Factors Sensory Appeal – Taste/Aroma
T19P3, T20P6 UK
T6P7 Tastier than UK food which is very bland
T2P6, T4P9, T5P10,
Spicy food preference
T19P3, T20P5
T6P7 Tastier fruits than ones in UK
Flavours I haven’t experienced before, which I now
T28P5
love.
T2P5, T19P4, T20P5,
T4P8 Street food tastes better than restaurant food.
T21P7 Restaurant food is tastier than street food.
T4P9 Dislike spicy food
T2P5 Dislike smell of some dishes that obviously not used to
Sensory Appeal – Appearance T6P7 Colourful decoration (use of flowers to decorate)
T18P5, T19P5 Can eat any food if in good looking
T18P9, T25P6 No animal parts/guts as not good looking food/doesn’t

appeal to me
T6P8 If I close my eyes, I can try strange food
164
TRANSCRIPT & PAGE
NO.
Sensory Appeal – Cooking Cook in front of you – street food (Like the whole
T2P5, T4P8, T19P4 experience like sushi in sushi bars/See it freshly
Presentation
cooked, look tasty & nice)
Price & Value T20P6, T25P6 Local Thai food is a lot cheaper than Thai food in UK.
T1P6 Local Thai food is cheaper and in bigger portion than

Thai food in UK
T3P4, T21P9, T1P6 Local Thai food is fresher than Thai food in UK.
T6P9, T19P3 More natural/fresh ingredients used in local Thai food
T1P5, T20P5 Street food is a lot cheaper than restaurant food.
T4P8, T19P4 Street food tastes lot better but in cheaper prices
T18P7 Same excellent quality of street food as in restaurants

but in cheaper prices
Street food is lot fresher than restaurant food/very
T4P8, T6P5-6
fresh food/freshly cooked food
Variety & Novelty T4P8, T5P9 Here are more variety of dishes/So many different
types to try
Here it’s things you would never get at home /different
T4P9, T5P9
types of dishes to Thai food in UK
Less fish related items on menu in Thai restaurants in
T28P4
UK
Escape from routine T1P5, T2P5 Want to try new/different food
T3P5, T4P8, T6P8,
T18P10, T19P5, T20P7, Part of holiday experience
T28P8
P21P8 Can’t get this opportunity everyday
Learn/Explore culture T3P4, T5P11 Big part of Thai identity
T5P11, T6P8, T20P7,
Big part of/fundamental aspect of culture
T25P7, T27P14
T1P13 Become part of the country
T4P10, T5P8 Could tell you about local life/Get an idea of local life
T1P5 To know differences between local Thai food and Thai

food in UK
165
TRANSCRIPT & PAGE
NO.
Opportunity to eat/know authentic/real/traditional
Authentic/Unique experience T1P13, T4P1
Thai food
T25P9 Opportunity to eat Thai food in where it originated in.
T21P8, T28P8 Experience we can’t have at home
T1P5, T2P9-10, T4P9,
More authentic (taste) than Thai food in UK
T21P9, T28P4
T5P8 Want authentic experience
T21P10 Eat new local food if see locals eat/introduce it to me
T1P5, T4P10, T5P8,
Eat in where locals eat, not tourists
T18P8, T21P8, T28P7
Street food is more authentic/more real/more
T1P5, T2P5, T20P5
authentic taste/local flavour than restaurant food.
Exciting experience T2P2 Something I’m quite excited about
Good for people having eczema concerning food
Health concern T5P10 allergies as containing less allergic ingredients than UK
food and less processed
T6P7 Like healthy food/natural produce
T3P4 Like the use of fresh herbs/seasonal in local Thai food
Prestige T4P12 Try strange food as you can say you have done it/Tick
it off your list
T21P8 Try strange food just for photos
T4P7&16 Eat Pad Thai as being told to eat from online
T27 (on many pages) Always take pictures of food
Assurance T2P8, T4P3, T19P4 Eat food as recommended by friends who had been
T18P5 Go to where locals recommend that does good food
T4P12 Always eat in where English is available/Go towards

English signs as you know what you’re getting
T3P4 Eat less street food as we don’t speak Thai
T21P67, T25P4&5, Street food for having it when walking about, so suit for
Convenience
T28P7 having snack/a quick stop when having a short time
166
TRANSCRIPT & PAGE
NO.
T21P67, T25P4&5, Eating in restaurant is nice to be able to sit down for a

T28P7 while and have drink, like for dinner/it’s more like a
meal
Contextual pleasure T4P8, T18P7 Eat street food as like people watch/have everybody
around you
T4P7, T21P5 Prefer to dine in busy/crowded eating places
WOM from friends & family T1P13, T2P18, T4P3, Great Thai food (Amazing/Must try local food, esp.
Reasons to visit
(Destination image from WOM) T21P2 street food)
T2P8 Variety of things to do and see

T1P13, T28P1 Great culture
T2P8, T5P1, T21P2 Lovely & friendly people
T1P13, T21P2 Cheap
T4P3, T28P1 Great for drinking & night out
T21P2 Hot weather
T28P1 Great beaches
T3P1 A very good country
Destination image from Media T1P13 Film location (Maya Bay from the Beach film)
T28P1 Friends’ photos on Facebook
T28P1 Information online (search on Google)
Previously had Thai food in UK, so want to taste real
Thai food T4P2
Thai food/local Thai food
T2P1 Something I need to try
T5P1 The food
Desire to travel to exotic
T27P19 Look differing to Europe & USA
destinations
Wanted to do Asia & Thailand is a must to visit country
T20P1
in Asia
T4P2 Very different culture to UK
Visiting friends/family T4P2 A friend working at an orphanage in Sangkhlaburi
Nature/Natural attractions T20P2 Beautiful beaches
167
TRANSCRIPT & PAGE
NO.
T1P13 Wanted to visit Maya Bay seen from the Beach film
Weather/Climate T20P2 Warm weather
T27P19 Look tropical differing from Europe & USA
Convenience of destination T4P3-4, T19P1, T3P1 Flight hub of South East Asia
Various interesting things to do
T19P1
and see Variety of places
T20P2, T3P1 Interesting country
T2P1 Places to go are really nice
Culture & History T4P2 Interesting culture & history
T19P1 Good culture
T4P2 Very different to UK
T20P2 Culture
T2P1 More cultural than Australia
Experiencing new & different Go to different parts of the country/different places/Do
Reasons to revisit T1P2, T6P2, T27P2&3
places/parts/things different things
Thai food T6P2 Different food/cooking/cuisine from UK
T27P3 To experience more Thai food
T25P2 Like/Enjoy Thai food
T1P2, T18P2 The food
Variety Seeking Tendency
T6P2
(VARSEEK) Like to try different/new food
Nice people T6P2, T18P3, T25P2 Friendly/courteous people
Attractive deals and packages T1P3 Value for money & favorable currency exchange rates
Culture & History T1P3 Completely different to UK
T6P2 Unique culture (Other countries don’t have)
T6P2 Unspoiled by Western influences
T27P3 Experience more Thai culture
Easy & convenience to stay for accommodation/Eating
Convenience of destination T1P3, T18P2
places/Transportation (Easy to get around)
Weather/Climate T6P2 Like climate
168
TRANSCRIPT & PAGE
NO.
Nature/Natural attractions T6P2 Like foliage & flowers
T25P2 Beautiful islands
T27P3 Wanted to visit James Bond Islands
T18P2-3, T25P2 Variety of places, a lot to see and sightseeing
and see
T1P15, T2P10, T4P16,
T5P14, T6P11, T18P14,
Revisit intention factors T19P7, T20P11,
T21P11, T25P11,
T27P22, T28P6
Experiencing the same T2P11, T3P8, T21P11, Stay away from touristy/Go more local/More of
places/parts/things T27P22 countryside
Past experience/Previous
T2P11, T28P6 Revisit the places/Do the same things
exposure
T2P10 Become more confidence to try things & get more

involved
Thai food T19P7, T28P5 Nice & Tasty local Thai food
T5P14, T19P7, T20P11,
Explore more local food/Try new local dishes
T21P11
T27P23 Experience street food in Bangkok
T6P11 Different from Western countries
T5P14, T27P23 Attend a Thai cooking class
Culture & History T19P7 Good culture
T6P11 Different from Western countries
T3P8, T4P16, T19P8,
Explore local culture
T21P11
T2P11 Learn Thai language
T5P14, T6P11, T18P15,
People Friendly/great people
T21P11, T28P5
Nature/Natural attractions T28P5 Beautiful beaches/Amazing corals for snorkeling
Weather/Climate T1P15 Good weather
Nice trip experience /So many happy memories/Like
Satisfaction T4P16, T5P14, T28P5
Thailand
169
TRANSCRIPT & PAGE
NO.
Convenience of destination T1P15 No need Visa
T1P15 Flight hub of South East Asia
Attractive deals & packages T1P15 Cheap living expense/Cheap prices
T4P15 Cheap flight tickets
and see T4P15, T18P15, T19P7 Variety of places/A lot different areas to see
Positive emotion T6P11 Feeling rejuvenated for mind & body
T28P5 Feeling free
Want to revisit with family
Want to take boyfriend to experience Thailand as he
members/relatives/friends T28P6 has never been here
170
Table 5.3 Main themes and sub-themes identified from the Japanese participants’ data
TRANSCRIPT & PAGE
CATEGORY MAIN THEME SUBTHEME
NO.
Local Thai food consumption
Exposure/past experience T8P2, T11P2 Familiarity with Thai food from Thai restaurants
factors
T7P5 /Thai festival in Japan
(e.g. Having many chances to have coriander with Thai
T9P2 food when in Japan, so become to be able to eat
coriander more)
Destination food image T8P5 It’s pity if you come here but don’t try local Thai food.
T7P5 Must to do thing when visiting Thailand
When thinking about Thailand, Thai food is 50% of my
T11P6
thought as it is unique and tasty.
Cultural influence T8P4, T11P5 No insects as we don’t eat in Japanese culture
Too bizarre/Too scary/Disgusting for strange food
T7P4, T11P5, T13P8,
Negative emotion such as insects, chicken embryo in its shell and alive
T14P7, T16P7, T24P3
food
Food safety & hygiene
T10P3 Street food looks clean enough
concerns
T13P9 Can eat new local food depending on food hygiene
T9P8 Can try strange food if it looks safe to eat
Had a bad food poisoning experience from street food
T22P4
in Vietnam before
Eat more in street restaurants but less ay street food
T7P4
carts/stalls as look less hygienic
T7P3 Fear of having crushed ice on street
Ate insects in a bar in Japan as it’s safe to eat but not in
T23P3&8
a dodgy place like the ones sold on a cart in Khao San
Usually eat in where recommended on guidebook to
T13P5
ensure the food is safe to eat, especially on street
Street food is not so clean but I can trust if go only for
T9P4
freshly cooked food
Visited Klong Teoy Market but didn’t have food there as
T22P3
it looks dirty/smelly/unhygienic
171
TRANSCRIPT & PAGE
NO.
Wanted to try food from rice and curry shop but afraid
T23P5-6 of food poisoning as it’s not freshly cooked and files on
them
No street food should be eaten as my teacher told me it
T24P3
is not good for my stomach.
Food personality traits Food Neophobia T22P7&9 Don’t eat local food that I don’t know what’s made from
Only go for Thai dishes I used to eat in Japan as don’t
T16P4, T24P4 know what the food is made from & don’t know how
the new food should taste
Variety Seeking Tendency T8P8, T12P6 Try strange food for adventurous experience
T9P8, T12P6, T8P8,
T13P8, T14P9, T15P4, Prefer to try new food
T16P6, T17P6
T9P7 Like to try snack from other countries
Food Involvement T7P2&7 I like eating and cooking. I was a cook before.
Sensory Appeal –
Motivational Factors T8P6, T17P4-5 Tastier than Thai food in Japan
Taste/Aroma
T7P4, T10P4 Spicy food preference
T16P3, T17P4, T14P5, Street/food court food tastes better than restaurant
T22P3, T12P4 food.
Local Thai food sold in specialty street food shops is
T14P4
very tasty such as Khao Mun Gai/Noodle shops
T15P3 Avoid having food in big restaurants/food courts as not

tasty
T13P4 Dislike spicy food
T8P4, T9P5, T11P5, Dislike sweet taste food (Very sweet drinks/sweet
T22P5 sauces served with food/Afraid to try Thai dessert as
may be too sweet for me)
T10P4, T11P5, T12P4, Don’t like smell of herbs/spices used in some dishes –
T13P5, T24P3 coriander/lemongrass/kaffir lime leaves
T7P5, T9P5, T17P6, Go for nice/tasty looking dishes even don’t know what
Sensory Appeal – Appearance
T23P8 the food is
172
TRANSCRIPT & PAGE
NO.
T9P5 Grilled fish covered with lots of salt looks ugly, I’m
afraid to try
T13P8, T14P6, T17P6 No strange food such as insects as look not edible/not
appetizing
Sensory Appeal – Cooking Cook in front of you – street food (Can experience all
T8P6
Presentation processes/See it freshly cooked, look tasty & nice)
Local Thai food is cheaper and tastier than Thai food in
Price & Value T22P4
Japan
T16P3 Street food is cheaper than restaurant food.
T12P4, T14P4, T22P3 Street food/food court is cheap and tasty.
Escape from routine T7P6 Food that I don’t have in everyday life
Chance to meet new things (new
T14P9
ingredients/taste/appearance)
T8P6, T12P4 Don’t have street food in Japan, excepting in festivals
Learn/Explore culture T9P6 First step allowing you to learn Thai culture
T8P6, T15P3 Could tell you about local life/local culture/history
T10P4 To understand differences between local Thai food and

Thai food in Japan
T8P2, T10P4, T11P2,
Authentic/Unique experience T12P5, T13P6, T14P7, Opportunity to eat authentic/real Thai food
T17P5, T23P6, T24P4
T26P3 Opportunity to eat Thai food in where it originated in

T7P6, T11P6, T17P5,
Experience that you can’t have at home
T22P5-6, T26P3
T16P5 Feeling actually being in Thailand
T8P5 Taste of Thai food that you can’t have in Japan
T16P6 Eat in where locals eat, not tourists

Avoid having food in restaurants full of tourists as not
T10P3
real Thai taste
173
TRANSCRIPT & PAGE
NO.
Street food/food court is more authentic than
T10P3, T11P5, T12P4, restaurant food (Feel like really being in Thailand/Feel
T16P3, T26P5 like being local/Feel real local atmosphere/Real local
Thai food/More local)
Prestige T9P8 Can eat insects if challenging among friends
Often eat in where recommended by media
T17P3
(guidebook/online)
Eat in restaurants/shops that are famous in the kind of
T9P4, T17P5, T22P6,
dishes I want to have as recommended by
T24P4, T11P6
guidebook/internet
T9P4 Focus on eating famous Thai dishes
Always ask Thai friends to choose where to eat for
Assurance T7P3-4, T26P3 me/Eat in where my friends recommends or confirms
the food is nice
Often eat in where local recommends as the food is
T10P3
tasty
T9P5, T17P3, T22P9 Prefer to eat in where having meal photos/English

menu as it’s ease ordering and understanding
Street food is more difficult to order as English/meal
T17P4, T22P9 photos is usually not available, especially in small
premises like food carts/stalls
When I want to have more choices of dishes to choose, I
T14P5 often go to restaurants, as it’s easier to order than in A
la carte street food shop, which English is not available.
Like to dine on street as no need to order many dishes
Convenience T8P3
like in restaurants
Contextual pleasure T22P3-4 Prefer to eat in busy/crowded eating places
WOM from friends & family
Followed Thai friend’s recommendation to visit
Reasons to visit (Destination image from T16P2
Thailand
WOM)
Online recommendation (Recommended & Famous
Destination image from Media T11P2
country for Japanese)
T10P2 Guidebook (Famous for sightseeing)
174
TRANSCRIPT & PAGE
NO.
TV programme: eating & travelling around in Thailand
T12P2, T24P1
with Japanese celebrities/About Pattaya beach
T11P2, T23P2, T24P1 Tasty Thai food & Variety of Thai dishes
T23P2, T24P1 Variety of things to do and see
Previously had Thai food in Thai restaurants and/or
Thai food T8P2, T11P2
Thai festival in Japan, so want to taste real Thai food
T8P2 Very popular in Japanese
Attractive deals and packages T24P1 Low price air tickets from Japan
T12P2, T16P1, T23P2 Cheap prices/Cheap living expenses
Safe to visit T8P2 Safer than other S-E Asian countries
Visiting friends/family T10P1 Daughter studying at Chiangmai Uni
Friend’s invitation to join the
T13P2 A friend asked to join this Thailand trip
trip
Well known for backpackers T16P1 A famous country among backpackers
Various interesting things to
T8P2 More interesting than other S-E Asia countries
do and see
T12P2 Continuingly developed country
T23P2, T24P1 Many interesting sightseeing places
Culture & History T24P1 Interesting culture & history
T8P2 To learn Thai culture
Reasons to revisit
Thai food T7P2, T14P1 Really love/Enjoy Thai food
T9, P2 Like spicy local Thai food from past visits
T15P1, T17P2, T22P2 Tasty local Thai food
T26P1 Want to try local Thai dished I missed trying in last trip
Safe to visit T7P2 Safe for tourists
Feeling relaxed/Feeling free here unlike stressful life in
Positive emotion T7P2, T14P10-11
Japan
Attractive deals and packages T9P2, T17P2, T22P2 Cheap/Cheap living expenses
175
TRANSCRIPT & PAGE
NO.
Easy & convenience to stay for accommodation/Eating
Convenience of destination T7P2
places/Transportation (Easy to get around)
T13P2 Flight hub of South East Asia
T7P2 Easy to visit: Many flights from home country
Visiting friends/family T7P2, T14P1 Thai friends living in Bangkok
T9P2 Boyfriend studying at Thammasat Uni, Bangkok
Culture & History T13P2 Want to visit the historical world heritage sites
T15P1 Enjoy attractive culture
Weather/Climate T14P2 Like hot weather
T15P1 Enjoy variety of seasons
Nice people T15P1, T17P2, T22P2 Lovely/Kind people
Satisfaction T26P1, T17P2 Enjoy last visit/Enjoy every of my stays here
Want to revisit with family T17P2
members Want to take my daughter travelling around Bangkok
T7P8, T8P9, T10P6,
Experiencing new & different T11P9, T12P7, T13P11, Go to different parts of the country/different places/Do
Revisit intention factors
places/parts/things T11P9, T23P9, T24P6, different things
T26P6
Experiencing the same T9P9, T10P6, T12P7,
Revisit the places/Do the same things
places/parts/things T15P6, T26P6
Length of stay T8P9 Too short stay this trip, so want to do longer stay next
trip
T10P6, T12P7, T14P12,
Thai food T17P8, T22P8, T24P6, Nice & Tasty local Thai food
T26P6
T14P2, T22P9, T24P6 Explore more local food/Try new local dishes
T9P10 Eat what locals normally eat in where locals dine in
T12P7 Be able to have more tasty Thai food than in Japan
T10P7 Attend a Thai dessert class
Culture & History T13P11, T24P6 Interesting culture & history
T8P9 Want to do more things as locals normally do
176
TRANSCRIPT & PAGE
NO.
People T22P8 Friendly people
Nature/Natural attractions T13P11 Want to visit a natural world heritage site
T15P6 Enjoy nature in cooler seasons
T13P11, T14P12 Beautiful nature
Weather/Climate T14P12 Hot weather
Satisfaction T10P6, T12P7, T13P11, Nice trip experience /Really enjoy the trip/Like
T22P8, T24P6 Thailand
Time and money for holiday T12P7, T13P11, T17P8, Revisit Thailand when budget & holiday is ready
T26P6
T16P8 Short flight time from Japan/Not lot of time differences

Convenience of destination to Japan
T10P6 Easy & convenience to stay for: transportation
T12P7, T16P8, T17P8,
Attractive deals & packages T22P8 Cheap living expense/Cheap prices
Various interesting things to T10P6 Many interesting things
do and see
Positive emotion T7P8 Feeling relaxed when being in Thailand unlike stressful
life in Japan
Want to revisit with family T23P9
members/relatives/friends Want to revisit with friends as travelling alone this trip
Visiting friends/family T17P8 Husband regularly coming to Thailand for his inter bus
T22P8 Husband working in Thailand
T14P12, T26P6 Thai friends living in Bangkok
177
5.4 DATA REDUCTION AND QUANTIFICATION
Since this study has followed the pragmatic paradigm, the main focus was on the
research question and employing all approaches and techniques that existed to
answer the question (Creswell, 2014; Patton, 1990). Dennis (2013) advocated
that only a limited number of themes are required to sufficiently explain what is
happening in the textual data. Various themes were identified from the data but
only the salient themes were needed to use in guiding the questionnaire
development and construction in the next stage. Hence, a blended approach of
thematic analysis with a quantification technique of content analysis was
performed to aid the data reduction in this stage. Guest et al. (2012) also pointed
out that an applied thematic analysis could include a comparison of theme
frequencies and an identification of theme co-occurrence. In addition, a
successive practice of a hybrid of content and thematic analysis was evidenced in
the work of Brough et al. (2009). In the present study, the frequency of each
theme was quantified by counting the number of transcripts that each theme
appeared in each nationality. After that, the frequency of all themes was
compared between the two nationalities for each of four main categories (local
food consumption factors, reasons to visit and revisit, and revisit intention
factors). A comparison of the frequency of the sub-themes of the revisit intention
factors between the first-time and repeaters was additionally conducted as the
literature indicated the differences between the groups due to the effect of past
experience and previous exposure with the destination (e.g. Chi, 2012; Gitelson
and Crompton, 1984; Kim et al., 2009b; Lau and Mckecher, 2004; Li et al., 2008;
Oppermann, 1997, 1999; Petrick, 2004b; Yolal et al., 2007),). The quantification
results were displayed in Table 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8, respectively.
178
Table 5.4 Comparison of frequency of sub-themes of local Thai food consumption factors between nationalities
BRITISH (n = 13) JAPANESE (n = 15)
CATEGORY
MAIN THEME SUB-THEME FREQ MAIN THEME SUB-THEME FREQ
Local Thai food Exposure/past Have familiarity with Thai food 1 Exposure/past Familiarity with Thai food from 2
consumption from Thai restaurants in UK Thai restaurants
experience experience
factors /Thai festival in Japan
(4) (4) (e.g. Having many chances to
have coriander with Thai food
when in Japan, so become to be
able to eat coriander more)
Eat a lot of Asian food in 2 Experience of tasty Pad Kaprao 1
UK/expose to a lot of ethnic in first visit encourages me to
food from around the world in taste more local Thai dishes
UK (Only had one Thai food
experience in Japan before first
visit - Not tasty Tom Yum
Goong)
On-site experience of tasty local 1 Get more familiar with spicy 1
dishes given for free by local dishes from past visits and
volunteers at the Mourning for become fancy to try spicy dishes
the King Event at Royal Palace
Cultural influence No animal parts (e.g. feet/gut), 2 Cultural influence No insects as we don’t eat in 2
(3) raw meats as not eat or not eat (2) Japanese culture
much in UK culture
No whole fish with its head & 1
tail “It puts me off”
Food allergies or Food allergies (Prawn/Eczema) 2
dietary restrictions (3)
Used to be a vegetarian and 1
now prefer fish/seafood over
other meats
Negative emotion (3) Too weird/bizarre/disgusting 3 Negative emotion Too bizarre/Too 6
for strange food such as animal (6) scary/Disgusting for strange
parts/insects/chicken embryo food such as insects, chicken
in its shell embryo in its shell and alive
food
179
CATEGORY
Food safety & hygiene Street food here is so clean 1 Food safety & hygiene Street food looks clean enough 1
concerns much more than ones in Sri concerns
(5) Lanka (7)
Prefer to try local food as long 1 Can eat new local food 1
as it’s safe/hygienic depending on food hygiene
May try insects if it comes in 1 Can try strange food if it looks 1
more hygienic safe to eat
Had food from street food 1 Eat street food is where that is 1
vendors which looked clean fairly clean
enough
No experience of food poisoning 1 Had a bad food poisoning 1
from street food so far experience from street food in
Vietnam before
Emphasize on cleanliness of 1 Eat more in street restaurants 1
food, especially on street. Eat but less ay street food
more in food stalls as every carts/stalls as look less hygienic
friend who had been here had
food poisoning from street food.
That sausage looked raw, so I 1 Fear of having crushed ice on 1
was afraid to try at first. street
Insects on that cart were out of 1 Ate insects in a bar in Japan as 1
heat for hours and not covered. it’s safe to eat but not in a dodgy
It might make you sick place like the ones sold on a cart
in Khao San
Usually eat in where 1
recommended on guidebook to
ensure the food is safe to eat,
especially on street
Street food is not so clean but I 1
can trust if go only for freshly
cooked food
Visited Klong Teoy Market but 1
didn’t have food there as it
looks dirty/smelly/unhygienic
180
CATEGORY
Wanted to try food from rice 1

and curry shop but afraid of
food poisoning as it’s not
freshly cooked and files on them
No street food should be eaten 1
as my teacher told me it is not
good for my stomach.
Food Neophobia (3) Need to know exactly what the 1 Food Neophobia (3) Don’t eat local food that I don’t 2
food is before eating know what’s made from
Unfamiliar food safety concerns 1 Only go for Thai dishes I used to 1

(Fear of stomach upset when eat in Japan as don’t know what
being there in first few days) the food is made from & don’t
know how the new food should
taste
Avoid having other meats when 1
travelling abroad as fear of it
might not be what is said to be
(said chicken but it’s dog meat)
Variety Seeking Try strange food new 2 Variety Seeking Try strange food for 2
Tendency (8) experience Tendency (9) adventurous experience
Prefer to try new food 7 Prefer to try new food 8
Like to try snack from other 1

countries
Food Involvement We love eating, like to eat out 1 Food Involvement (1) I like eating and cooking. I was a 1
(2) often when in UK & always cook before.
think about what to eat
I am a chef at home. Food is 1
huge for me then.
Sensory Appeal – Tastier/More flavour/More 5 Sensory Appeal – Tastier than Thai food in Japan 2
Taste/Aroma (9) aroma than Thai food in UK Taste/Aroma (13)
Tastier than UK food which is 1 Dislike sweet taste food (Very 4
very bland sweet drinks/sweet sauces
served with food/Afraid to try
181
CATEGORY
Thai dessert as may be too

sweet for me)
Spicy food preference 5 Spicy food preference 2
Tastier fruits than ones in UK 1 Local Thai food sold in specialty 1

street food shops is very tasty
such as Khao Mun Gai/Noodle
shops
Restaurant food is tastier than 1 Avoid having food in big 1
street food. restaurants/food courts as not
tasty
Street food tastes better than 4 Street/food court food tastes 5
restaurant food. better than restaurant food.
Flavours I haven’t experienced 1
before, which I now love.
Dislike spicy food 1 Dislike spicy food 1
Dislike smell of some dishes 1 Don’t like smell of herbs/spices 5

that obviously not used to used in some dishes –
coriander/lemongrass/kaffir
lime leaves
Sensory Appeal – Colourful decoration (use of 1 Sensory Appeal – Grilled fish covered with lots of 1
Appearance (4) flowers to decorate) Appearance (6) salt looks ugly, I’m afraid to try
Can eat any food if in good 2 Go for nice/tasty looking dishes 4
looking even don’t know what the food
is
No animal parts/guts as not 2 No strange food such as insects 3
good looking food/doesn’t as look not edible/not
appeal to me appetizing
If I close my eyes, I can try 1
strange food
Sensory Appeal – Cook in front of you – street 3 Sensory Appeal – Cook in front of you – street 1
Cooking Presentation food (Like the whole experience Cooking Presentation food (Can experience all
(3) like sushi in sushi bars/See it (1) processes/See it freshly cooked,
freshly cooked, look tasty & look tasty & nice)
182
CATEGORY
nice)
Price & Value (9) Local Thai food is a lot cheaper 2 Price & Value (4) Local Thai food is cheaper and 1
than Thai food in UK. tastier than Thai food in Japan.
Local Thai food is cheaper and 1
in bigger portion than Thai food
in UK
Local Thai food is fresher than 2
Thai food in UK.
More natural/fresh ingredients 2
used in local Thai food
Street food is a lot cheaper than 2 Street food is cheaper than 1
restaurant food. restaurant food.
Street food tastes lot better but 2 Street food/food court is cheap 3
in cheaper prices and tasty.
Same excellent quality of street 1
food as in restaurants but in
cheaper prices
Street food is lot fresher than 2
restaurant food/very fresh
food/freshly cooked food
Variety & Novelty (3) Here are more variety of 2
dishes/So many different types
to try
Here it’s things you would 2
never get at home /different
types of dishes to Thai food in
UK
Less fish related items on menu 1
in Thai restaurants in UK
Escape from routine Want to try new/different food 2 Escape from routine Food that I don’t have in 1
(10) (4) everyday life
Part of holiday experience 7 Chance to meet new things 1
(new
ingredients/taste/appearance)
183
CATEGORY
Can’t get this opportunity 1 Don’t have street food in Japan, 2

everyday excepting in festivals
Learn/Explore culture Big part of Thai identity 2 Learn/Explore culture First step allowing you to learn 1
(8) (4) Thai culture
Big part of/fundamental aspect 5
of culture
Become part of the country 1
Could tell you about local 2 Could tell you about local 2
life/Get an idea of local life life/local culture/history
To know differences between 1 To understand differences 1
local Thai food and Thai food in between local Thai food and
UK Thai food in Japan
Authentic/Unique Opportunity to eat/know 2 Authentic/Unique Opportunity to eat 9
experience (9) authentic/real/traditional Thai experience (13) authentic/real Thai food
food
Opportunity to eat Thai food in 1 Opportunity to eat Thai food in 1
where it originated in. where it originated in.
Experience we can’t have at 2 Experience that you can’t have 5
home at home
More authentic (taste) than 5 Feeling actually being in 1
Thai food in UK Thailand
Want authentic experience 1 Taste of Thai food that you can’t 1
have in Japan
Eat in where locals eat, not 6 Eat in where locals eat, not 1
tourists tourists
Eat new local food if see locals 2 Avoid having food in 1
eat/introduce it to me restaurants full of tourists as
not real Thai taste
Street food is more 3 Street food/food court is more 5
authentic/more real/more authentic than restaurant food
authentic taste/local flavour (Feel like really being in
than restaurant food. Thailand/Feel like being
local/Feel real local
atmosphere/Real local Thai
184
CATEGORY
food/More local)
Prestige (3) Try strange food as you can say 1 Prestige (5) Can eat insects if challenging 1
you have done it/Tick it off your among friends
list
Try strange food just for photos 1 Often eat in where 1
recommended by media
(guidebook/online)
Eat Pad Thai as being told to eat 1 Eat in restaurants/shops that 5
from online are famous in the kind of dishes
I want to have as recommended
by guidebook/internet
Always take pictures of food 1 Focus on eating famous Thai 1
dishes
Exciting experience (1) Something I’m quite excited 1
about
Health concern (3) Good for people having eczema 1
concerning food allergies as
containing less allergic
ingredients than UK food and
less processed
Like healthy food/natural 1
produce
Like the use of fresh 1
herbs/seasonal in local Thai
food
Assurance (5) Eat food as recommended by 3 Assurance (7) Always ask Thai friends to 2
friends who had been choose where to eat for me/Eat
in where my friends
recommends or confirms the
food is nice
Go to where locals recommend 1 Often eat in where local 1
that does good food recommends as the food is tasty
Always eat in where English is 1 Prefer to eat in where having 3
available/Go towards English meal photos/English menu as
185
CATEGORY
signs as you know what you’re it’s ease ordering and

getting understanding
Eat less street food as we don’t 1 Street food is more difficult to 2
speak Thai order as English/meal photos is
usually not available, especially
in small premises like food
carts/stalls
When I want to have more 1
choices of dishes to choose, I
often go to restaurants, as it’s
easier to order than in A la carte
street food shop, which English
is not available.
Convenience (3) Street food for having it when 3 Convenience (1) Like to dine on street as no need 1
walking about, so suit for to order many dishes like in
having snack/a quick stop when restaurants
having a short time
Eating in restaurant is nice to be 3
able to sit down for a while and
have drink, like for dinner/it’s
more like a meal
Contextual pleasure Prefer to eat in busy/crowded 2 Contextual pleasure Prefer to eat in busy/crowded 1
(3) eating places (1) eating places
Eat street food as like people 2
watch/have everybody around
you
Destination food image Real waste for tourists if come 1 Destination food image It’s pity if you come here but 1
(3) to Thailand but not eat local (3) don’t try local Thai food.
Thai food
Street food seems a big thing 1 Must to do thing when visiting 1
here. Thailand
Very striking in Bangkok 1 When thinking about Thailand, 1
everywhere people are eating Thai food is 50% of my thought
or cooking. as it is unique and tasty.
Note: Red font denotes the sum frequency of main themes
186
Table 5.5 Comparison of frequency of sub-themes of reason to visit Thailand between nationalities
CATEGORY
Reasons to visit WOM from friends & Great Thai food (Amazing/Must 4 WOM from friends & Followed Thai friend’s 1
(Behaviour) family try local food, esp. street food) family (1) recommendation to visit
(Destination image Thailand
from WOM) (7)
Variety of things to do and see 1
Great culture 2
Lovely & friendly people 3
Cheap 2
Great for drinking & night out 2
Hot weather 1
Great beaches 1
A very good country 1
Destination image Film location (Maya Bay from 1 Destination image from Online recommendation 1
from Media (2) the Beach film) Media (4) (Recommended & Famous
country for Japanese)
Friends’ photos on Facebook 1 Guidebook 1
(Famous for sightseeing)
Information online (search on 1 TV programme: eating & 2
Google) travelling around in Thailand
with Japanese celebrities/About
Pattaya beach
Destination image from Tasty Thai food & Variety of 3
Thai festival in Tokyo Thai dishes
(3)
Variety of things to do and see 2
187
CATEGORY
Thai food (3) Previously had Thai food in UK, 1 Thai food (2) Previously had Thai food in 2
so want to taste real Thai Thai restaurants and/or Thai
food/local Thai food festival in Japan, so want to
taste real Thai food
Something I need to try 1 Very popular in Japanese 1
The food 1
Desire to travel to Look differing to Europe & USA 1 Attractive deals and Low price air tickets from Japan 1
exotic destinations (3) packages (4)
Wanted to do Asia & Thailand is 1 Cheap prices/Cheap living 3
a must to visit country in Asia expenses
Very different culture to UK 1
Convenience of Flight hub of South East Asia 3 Safe to visit (1) Safer than other S-E Asian 1
destination (3) countries
Visiting friends/family A friend working at an 1 Visiting friends/family Daughter studying at Chiangmai 1
(1) orphanage in Sangkhlaburi (1) Uni
Nature/Natural Beautiful beaches 1 Friend’s invitation to A friend asked to join this 1
attractions (2) join the trip (1) Thailand trip
Maya Bay from the Beach Film 1
Weather/Climate (2) Warm weather 1 Well known for A famous country among 1
backpackers (1) backpackers
Look tropical differing from 1
Europe & USA
Various interesting Variety of places 1 Various interesting More interesting than other S-E 1
things to do and see things to do and see (4) Asia countries
(4)
Interesting country 2 Continuingly developed country 1
Places to go are really nice 1 Many interesting sightseeing 2

places
Culture & History (4) Interesting culture & history 1 Culture & History (2) Interesting culture & history 1
188
CATEGORY
Good culture 1 To learn Thai culture 1
Very different to UK 1
Culture 1
More cultural than Australia 1
Table 5.6 Comparison of frequency of sub-themes of reason to revisit Thailand between nationalities
CATAGORY
Reasons to revisit Experiencing new & Go to different parts of the 3 Experiencing new & Go to different parts of the 2
(Behaviour) different country/different places/Do different country/different places/Do
places/parts/things (3) different things places/parts/things (2) different things
Thai food (5) Like/Enjoy Thai food 1 Thai food (7) Really love/Enjoy Thai food 2
Different 1 Like spicy local Thai food from 1

food/cooking/cuisine from UK past visits
To experience more Thai food 1 Tasty local Thai food 3
The food 2 Want to try local Thai dished I 1

missed trying in last trip
Variety Seeking Like to try different/new food 1 Safe to visit (1) Safe for tourists 1
Tendency (VARSEEK)
(1)
Various interesting Variety of places/A lot to 3 Positive emotion (2) Feeling relaxed/Feeling free 2
things to do and see (3) see/Sightseeing here unlike stressful life in
Japan
Attractive deals & Value for money & Favorable 1 Attractive deals & Cheap/Cheap living expenses 3
packages (1) currency exchange rates packages (3)
189
CATAGORY
Convenience of Easy & convenience to stay for 2 Convenience of Easy & convenience to stay for 1
destination (3) Accommodation/Eating destination (2) Accommodation/Eating
places/Transportation places/Transportation
Flight hub of South East Asia 3 Flight hub of South East Asia 1
Easy to visit: Many flights 1

from home country
Nature/Natural Like foliage & flowers 1 Visiting friends/family Thai friends living in Bangkok 2
attractions (3) (3)
Beautiful islands 1 Boyfriend studying at 1
Thammasat Uni, Bangkok
Wanted to visit James Bond 1
Islands
Culture & History (3) Completely different to UK 1 Culture & History (2) Want to visit the historical 1
world heritage sites
Unique culture (Other 1 Enjoy attractive culture 1
countries don’t have)
Unspoiled by Western 1
influences
Experience more Thai culture 1
Weather/Climate (1) Like climate 1 Weather/Climate (2) Like hot weather 1
Enjoy variety of seasons 1
Nice people (3) Friendly/courteous people Nice people (3) Lovely/Kind people 3
Satisfaction (2) Enjoy last visit/Enjoy every of 2

my stays here
Want to revisit with Want to take my daughter 1
family members travelling around Bangkok
/relatives/friends (1)
190
Table 5.7 Comparison of frequency of sub-themes of revisit intention factors between nationalities

CATEGORY
Revisit intention Experiencing new & Go to different parts of the 12 Experiencing new & Go to different parts of the 11
factors different country/different places/Do different country/different places/Do
places/parts/things different things places/parts/things different things
(13) (11)
Stay away from touristy 4
/Go more local/More of
countryside
Experiencing the same Revisit the places/Do the 2 Experiencing the same Revisit the places/Do the 5
places/parts same things places/parts same things
/things /things
(2) (5)
Past experience/ Become more confidence to 1 Length of stay (1) Too short stay this trip, so 1
Previous exposure try things & get more want to do longer stay next
(1) involved trip
Thai food (7) Nice & Tasty local Thai food 2 Thai food (8) Nice & Tasty local Thai food 7
Explore more local food/Try 4 Explore more local food/Try 3

new local dishes new local dishes
Experience street food in 1 Eat what locals normally eat 1
Bangkok in where locals dine in
Different from Western 1 Be able to have more tasty 1
countries Thai food than in Japan
Attend a Thai cooking class 2 Attend a Thai dessert class 1
Culture & History Good culture 1 Culture & History Interesting culture & history 2
(6) (3)
Different from Western 1 Want to do more things as 1
countries locals normally do
Explore local culture 4
Learn Thai language 1
People (5) Friendly/great people 5 People (1) Friendly people 1
191
CATEGORY
Nature/Natural Beautiful beaches/Amazing 1 Nature/Natural Want to visit a natural world 1
attractions corals for snorkeling attractions heritage site
(1) (3)
Enjoy nature in cooler seasons 1
Beautiful nature 2
Weather/Climate Good weather 1 Weather/Climate (1) Hot weather 1

(1)
Satisfaction (3) Nice trip experience /So 3 Satisfaction (5) Nice trip experience/Really 5
many happy memories/Like enjoyed the trip/Like
Thailand Thailand
Time & money for Revisit Thailand when budget 4
holiday (4) & holiday is ready
Convenience of No need Visa 1 Convenience of Short flight time from 1
destination (1) destination (2) Japan/Not lot of time
differences to Japan
Flight hub of South East Asia 1 Easy & convenience to stay 1
for: transportation
/accommodation/eating
places
Attractive deals & Cheap living expense/Cheap 1 Attractive deals & Cheap living expense/Cheap 4
packages (2) prices packages (4) prices
Cheap flight tickets 1
Various interesting Variety of places/A lot 3 Various interesting Many interesting things 1
things to do and see (3) different areas to see things to do and see (1)
Positive emotion (2) Feeling rejuvenated for mind 1 Positive emotion (1) Feeling relaxed when being in 1
& body Thailand unlike stressful life
in Japan
Feeling free 1
Want to revisit with Want to take boyfriend to 1 Want to revisit with Want to revisit with friends as 1
family members experience Thailand as he family members travelling alone this trip
/relatives/friends (1) has never been here /relatives/friends (1)
192
Visiting friends/family Husband regularly coming to 1
(4) Thailand for his inter bus
Husband working in Thailand 1
Thai friends living in Bangkok 2
Table 5.8 Comparison of frequency of sub-themes of revisit intention factors between types of visitors
FIRST TIMERS (8 BRIT+8 JAP) REPEATERS (5 BRIT+8 JAP)
CATEGORY
Revisit intention Experiencing new & Go to different parts of the 13 Experiencing new & Go to different parts of the 10
factors different country/different places/Do different country/different places/Do
places/parts/things (15) different things places/parts/things (10) different things
Stay away from touristy 3 Stay away from touristy 1

/Go more local/More of /Go more local/More of
countryside countryside
Experiencing old Revisit old places/Do old 4 Experiencing old Revisit old places/Do old 4
places/parts/things things places/parts/things things
(4) (3)
Thai food (8) Nice & Tasty local Thai food 6 Thai food (7) Nice & Tasty local Thai food 4
Explore more local food/Try 4 Explore more local food/Try 3

new local dishes new local dishes
Be able to have more tasty 1 Eat what locals normally eat 1
Thai food than in Japan in where locals dine in
Attend a Thai cooking class 1 Experience street food in 1
Bangkok
Attend a Thai dessert class 1 Different from Western 1
countries
Attend a Thai cooking class 1
193
CATEGORY
People (3) 3 People (3) 3
Culture & History (7) Good culture 2 Culture & History (2) Different from Western 1
countries
Interesting culture & history 1 Interesting culture & history 1
Learn Thai language 1
Explore local culture 4
Want to do more things as 1

locals normally do
Nature/Natural Beautiful beaches/Amazing 1 Nature/Natural Want to visit a natural world 1
attractions corals for snorkeling attractions heritage site
(1) (3)
Enjoy nature in cooler seasons 1
Beautiful nature 2
Satisfaction (7) Nice trip experience/Really 7 Satisfaction (1) Nice trip experience/Really 1
enjoyed the trip/Like enjoyed the trip/Like
Thailand Thailand
Attractive deals & Cheap living expense/Cheap 2 Attractive deals & Cheap living expense/Cheap 3
packages (3) prices packages (3) prices
Cheap flight tickets 1
Convenience of Short flight time from 1 Convenience of No need visa 1

destination (2) Japan/Not lot of time destination (1)
differences to Japan
Easy & convenience to stay 1 Flight hub of South East Asia 1
for: transportation
/accommodation/eating
places
Time & money for holiday Revisit Thailand when 2 Time & money for Revisit Thailand when budget 2
(2) budget & holiday is ready holiday (2) & holiday is ready
194
CATEGORY
Various interesting things Variety of places 1 Various interesting A lot different areas to see 1
to do and see (3) things to do and see (1)
Many interesting things 1
Want to revisit with Want to take boyfriend to 1 Visiting friends/family Husband regularly coming to 1
family members experience Thailand as he (4) Thailand for his inter bus
/relatives/friends has never been here
(2)
Want to revisit with friends 1 Husband working in Thailand 1
as travelling alone this trip
Thai friends living in Bangkok 2
Positive emotions (1) Feeling free 1 Positive emotions (2) Feeling rejuvenated for mind 1
& body
Feeling relaxed when being in 1
Thailand unlike stressful life
in Japan
Length of stay (1) Too short stay this trip, so 1 Weather (2) Good weather 1
want to do longer stay next
trip
Hot weather 1
Past experience/ Become more confidence to 1

Previous exposure try things & get more
(1) involved
195
After that, the themes were selected based on their frequency and their co-
occurrences between the nationalities and also between the types of visitors (for
the factors affecting revisit intention). The reliability of primary themes
identified was assessed using the inter-coder reliability percent agreement
technique. Two PhD SHTM students were asked to be the coders and were given
a few examples of the data extracts per theme to check the accuracy of coding.
Their feedback and results were checked and found over 90 percent agreements,
the recommended threshold, among the coders and the researcher. Thus, the
reliability of the coding was supported (Neuendorf, 2002; Roaché, 2017). Next,
the selected themes based on the frequency for the categories: ‘reasons to visit
and revisit, and revisit intention factors were merged to provide more concise
list of themes, which seem to be important in terms of tourists’ destination
choice.
5.5 COMPARISON OF SELECTED THEMES WITH RELATED LITERATURE

The selected themes from the mentioned approach were compared with existing
studies in relevant areas. Table 5.9 and 5.10 summarise the final themes selected
for local Thai food consumption factors and for revisit intention factors with
comparison with the relevant literature.
Table 5.9 Proposed items as factors affecting local Thai food consumption
Local Thai food consumption Factors
Factors Items References*
Familiarity with Thai food as
previously experienced it in
Previous exposure/past home country SSI, Mak et al. (2012), Chang et al.
experience Familiarity with local Thai food (2010), Pliner (1982), Asp (1999)
from past visits/present trip to
Thailand
Perceived food image of the
Eating local Thai food is a must
destination
to do thing when visiting
Thailand.
It is a real waste if you come to SSI, Promsivapallop and
Thailand but don’t try local Kannaovakun (2019), Seo et al., 2017,
Thai food.
When thinking of Thailand,
Thai food is one of first things
that pop into my head.
Food personality traits
Don’t try local food that I don’t SSI, Kim (2010), Mak et al. (2012), Ji
Food Neophobia
know what’s made from et al. (2016), Choe and Cho (2011);
196
Avoid trying local Thai dishes Lähteenmäki & Arvola (2001); Pliner
that is new to me as don’t know & Hobden (1992).
how the new dish should taste
Try strange food for
Variety Seeking Tendency SSI, Mak et al. (2012), Beldona et al.
adventurous and new
(VARSEEK) (2010), Lähteenmäki & Arvola
experiences
(2001), Van Trijp & Steenkamp
Prefer to try new food, food
(1992).
from others’ culture
Food is important to me, as I
Food Involvement (FIS)
am a chef at home.
I like cooking and eating. I was SSI, Kim et al. (2009c); Beldona et al.
a cook before. (2010), Bell & Marshall (2003),
We love eating, like to eat out Marshall & Bell (2004)
often when in UK and always
think about what to eat.
Motivational factors
SSI, Steptoe et al. (1995), Chang et al.
Sensory Appeal -Taste/Aroma Local Thai food is tastier than
(2010), Kim et al. (2009c), Mak et al.
Thai food in my home country.
(2012)
Local Thai food is more aroma
than Thai food in my home
(2010), Kim et al. (2009c)
country.
I prefer to eat any local Thai
Sensory Appeal -Appearance (2010), Kim et al. (2009c), Mak et al.
food that looks nice.
(2012)
Local Thai food is better value
SSI, Steptoe et al., (1995), Mak et al.
Price & Value for money than Thai food in my
(2012)
home country.
In Thailand, street food is
SSI, Steptoe et al., (1995), Mak et al.
better value for money than
(2012)
restaurant food.
Local Thai food has more SSI, Fields (2002), Chang et al.,
Variety & Novelty
variety of dishes than Thai food (2010), Mak et al. (2012), Kim et al.
in my home country. (2009c)
Escape from routine Eating local Thai food is part of
travel/holiday experience.
Eating local Thai food is an SSI, Fields (2002), Chang et al.,
opportunity to try new and (2010), Mak et al. (2012), Kim et al.
different food. (2009c)
Local Thai food is food that
differ to what I eat everyday.
Tasting local Thai food gives
SSI, Fields (2002), Chang et al.,
me an opportunity to increase
Learn and explore culture (2010), Mak et al. (2012), Kim et al.
my knowledge about Thai
(2009c), Jang & Cai (2002);
culture.
SSI, Fields (2002), Chang et al., Kim
Tasting local Thai food enables
(2010), Mak (2011); Kim et al.
me to see how Thai people live.
(2009c), Jang & Cai (2002);
Eating local Thai food gives me
SSI, Fields (2002), Chang et al.,
an opportunity to experience
Authentic Experience (2010), Mak et al. (2012), Kim et al.
authentic/traditional/real Thai
(2009c)
food.
Tasting local Thai food is an
experience that I can’t have in SSI, Kim et al. (2009c)
my home country.
It is important to me to eat SSI, Fields (2002)
197
local Thai food in where locals
eat, not tourists.
Prestige I eat strange local food as I can
SSI, Kim et al. (2009c)
say that I have done it.
I often have local Thai food in
where recommended by media SSI, Fields (2002), Chang et al.
(e.g. travel guidebook, (2010), Mak et al. (2012),
Internet, TV)
I like to take pictures of local
SSI, Kim et al. (2009c)
Thai food to show friends.
Local Thai food is healthy food
Health concern (2010), Kim et al. (2009c), Mak et al.
and natural produce.
(2012),
Local Thai food contains more SSI, Steptoe et al. (1995), Chang et al.
fresh ingredients than Thai (2010), Kim et al. (2009c), Mak et al.
food in my home country. (2012),
Local Thai food contains more SSI, Steptoe et al. (1995), Chang et al.
natural contents than Thai food (2010), Kim et al. (2009c), Mak et al.
in my home country. (2012),
I have local Thai food in where
SSI, Chang et al. (2010), Mak et al.
Assurance are recommended by my
(2012),
friends/family.
are recommended by locals SSI, Chang et al. (2010)
that the food is nice.
is tourist-friendly. (e.g. with
SSI, Chang et al. (2010), Mak et al.
English menu/meal
(2012),
pictures/English speaking
staff)
I am willing to try any local
Food safety & hygiene SSI, Cohen & Avieli (2004), Kim et al.
Thai food as long as it’s
concerns (2009c), Mak et al. (2012),
hygienic.
When I eat on street in
SSI, Steptoe et al. (1995), Cohen &
Thailand, I emphasise on eating
Avieli (2004), Mak et al. (2012),
in where that is fairly clean.
I don’t eat street food in
SSI, Steptoe et al. (1995), , Cohen &
Thailand because it is not safe
Avieli (2004), Mak et al. (2012),
to eat.
I often have local Thai food on
Convenience SSI, Steptoe et al., (1995), Mak et al.
street when I want a quick stop
(2012),
or have a short time.
I think that a busy local eating-
SSI, Bell & Marshall (2003), Kim et al.
Contextual pleasure place provides nice local Thai
(2009c)
food.
Dindyal, S. and Dindyal, S. (2004),
Fieldhouse, P. (1995), Cohen and
I don’t eat things that are not Avieli, 2004, March, 1997, Sheldon
Cultural influence
eaten/inedible in my culture and Fox, 1988, Marshall 1995;
Mäkelä, 2000, Alkins and Bowlers,
2001, Logue, 1991
*Note: SSI = semi-structured interview
198
Table 5.10 Proposed items as factors affecting revisit intention to Thailand
Revisit Intention Factors
Satisfaction I had a nice trip experience. SSI, Chen and Tsai (2007),
I had so many happy memories Chi, (2012), Chi and Qu,
during my trip in Thailand. (2008), De Nisco et al,
I like Thailand. (2015), Huang and Hsu
I enjoyed my trip in Thailand. (2009), Kozak, (2001), Li
and Carr (2004), Petrick et
al. (2001), Quintal and
Polczynski (2010) Yoon and
Uysal (2005), Yuksel,
(2001) Zabkar et al. (2010),
Assaker et. al. (2011),
Assaker and Hallak (2013),
Bigne et al. (2009), Jang and
Feng (2007)
Destination image Great/tasty and variety of Thai SSI, Chen and Tsai (2007),
(from WOM, media food, great culture, nice people Chi, (2012), Chi and Qu,
(guidebook, Internet, TV, Cheap, great for party, night out, (2008), De Nisco et al,
film), Thai festival in home (2015), Huang and Hsu
country) (2009), Kim et al. (2015), Li
et al. (2010), Som et al.
(2012), Assaker et. al.
(2011), Assaker and Hallak
(2013), Bigne et al. (2009),
Jang and Feng (2007)
Time & money concern for I will revisit Thailand when my SSI, Han et al, 2010, Huang
holiday budget and holiday is ready. & Hsu, 2009
Motivational factors
Have new and different I want to experience different SSI, Rittichainuwat et al.
experiences places, parts of Thailand. (2008)
I want to do different things.
Various interesting things to Variety of places and activities SSI, Rittichainuwat et al.
do and see Various interesting things to do (2008), Hoang (2013)
and see
Thai food I enjoy/like having Thai food. SSI, Rittichainuwat et al.
I want to experience more local (2008), Lertputtarak, S.
Thai food/try more local dishes (2012), Thiumsak and
Local Thai food is tasty Ruangkanjanases (2016),
I want to do a Thai cooking class. McDowall (2010), Hoang
(2013)
Culture and history I want to experience more local SSI, Rittichainuwat et al.
Thai culture. (2008), Hoang (2013)
Thai culture is look
differing/very different to my
culture.
Thai culture is interesting and
unique
Nice and friendly people Thai people are SSI, Rittichainuwat et al.
friendly/kind/courteous. (2008), Thiumsak and
Ruangkanjanases (2016),
Hoang (2013)
Nature/Natural attractions Natural attractions in Thailand SSI, Rittichainuwat et al.
(e.g. beaches/corals/mountains) (2008)
are beautiful.
199
Revisit Intention Factors
Nature in Thailand is beautiful.
Attractive deals & packages Living expenses in Thailand are SSI, Rittichainuwat et al.
cheap. (2008), Hoang (2013)
I can travel with cheap prices in
Thailand.
Thailand trip is value for money.
Convenience of destination A gateway/international flight SSI, Hoang (2013)
hub to South East Asia
Easy to travel to Thailand as
many flights from my country
Really easy and convenience to
find places to stay and eat
Easy to use and convenience
transportation
Visiting friends & family Visiting friends, relatives, family SSI, Rittichainuwat et al.
living in Thailand (2008)
*Note: SSI = semi-structured interview
5.6 Chapter Summary

This chapter reported the results of semi-structured interviews. The themes
emerged were quantified and the salient themes were selected based on its
frequency in the data and co-occurrence between the nationalities and types of
visitors. The reliability of coding was assessed using the inter-coder reliability
with percentage agreement technique. The selected themes for factors affecting
local Thai food consumptions and revisit intention factors were compared with
relevant literature to further guide the questionnaire development. Most of
factors identified were well supported with previous studies. The motivational
factors for revisit intention will be employed as the measurement items of
behavioural beliefs, indirect measures of attitude towards the behaviour based
on the TPB model, in the questionnaire. The findings suggested some common
motivational factors between the two contexts: variety and novelty, cultural
experience, price and value, and convenience. The findings also signified that
local Thai food experiences could reinforce the tourists’ intention to return to
Thailand to resample its cuisine as many participants stated nice and tasty Thai
food they had experienced in Thailand as a reason of their revisit (in the
repeaters) and as a motivator driving their intentions to return to explore more
local Thai food, try more local dishes or attend a Thai cookery class.
200
CHAPTER 6
FINDING AND DISCUSSION II: STAGE TWO OF THE STUDY
(QUANTITATIVE STAGE: QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY)
6.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the findings of stage two of the study, the quantitative
stage. The development and construction of the questionnaire employed in this
stage were directed by the results of the qualitative stage, the first stage of the
study. It starts with a summary of data screening, cleaning and examination
process. Then, socio-demographic profile and trip characteristics of the
respondents are presented. After that, the respondents’ personality traits (i.e.
novelty seeking tendency, food neophobia and food involvement) are shown. The
respondents’ pre-visit and on-site destination and food image as well as overall
and food satisfaction are also described. Next, the importance of local Thai food
towards the respondents’ decision to visit Thailand, overall experience of the
trip, and future intention to revisit Thailand are presented. In addition, this
chapter evaluates the reliability and validity of the local Thai food motive
measurement and identifies the motivational factors. Frequency of the
respondents’ participation in food-related tourism activities in Thailand is
described. This is followed by the assessment of the research models used to
measure short- and long-term revisit intention for the reliability and validity of
its measurements. Next, the SEM results of the structural models for the
temporal revisit intentions are presented and discussed. The chapter also
displays the results of multi-group analysis of the structural models based on
nationality and type of visitor. Finally, this chapter presents the results of
multiple regression analysis employed to test for the relationships between the
personality traits, the local Thai food motivational factors and temporal revisit
intentions.
6.2 DATA CLEANING, SCREENING, AND EXAMINATION

British and Japanese tourists were recruited in Thailand to participate in the self-
administered questionnaire survey between January 2018 and March 2018. A
201
total of 660 self-administered questionnaires were collected. Data collection
procedures were described in Chapter 4, Section 4.5.2.3
After entering all data into IBM SPSS software version 24, the data set was
checked for errors such as wrong and missed typing as it can completely ruin
further analyses (Pallant, 2016). After achieving the clean data, data screening
and examination were then performed. Data screening and examination is an
initial necessary step in any analysis that should not be disregarded (Hair et al,
2014; Pallant, 2016). The data were screened for missing values, normality of
distribution, and outliers (on continuous variable) in order to ensure that
assumptions of multivariate data analysis are met (Hair et al, 2014). Field (2013)
stated that missing data could commonly found in a long questionnaire as
respondents may unintentionally miss out questions. 60 questionnaires with
missing values were detected and excluded. Missing values found seemed to be
random without systematic patterns (Pallant, 2016). The data were further
examined for normality and outliers. Normality is an extent to which the
distribution of the data resembles a normal distribution (Hair et al, 2014).
Normality can be evaluated to some degree by observing skewness and kurtosis
values. A highly skewed or kurtotic data is a marker of non-normality. The non-
normality may result from the existence of outliers in the data set (Hall and
Wang, 2005; Pallant, 2016). “An outlier is a case with such an extreme value on
one variable (a univariate outlier) or such a strange combination of scores on
two or more variables (multivariate outlier) that they distort statistics”
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013; p. 66). As a consequence, the skewness and
kurtosis values of all measurement items were detected to identify the data
distribution. The values of skewness and kurtosis between -3 and 3 are
considered satisfactory (Kline, 2011). However, Brown (2006b) argued that
absolute skewness value that is less than 3 and the kurtosis value that is less
than 10 could also result in normality. In this study, absolute skewness values of
measurement items (except number of past visits, frequency of past visits in the
last three, and ten years, and number of nights spent) were from 0.01 to 2.51,
and the absolute kurtosis values ranged from 0.01 to 6.65 meeting the criteria of
normality. The absolute values of kurtosis of the four items: number of past
202
visits, frequency of past visits in the last three, and ten years, and number of
nights spent were extremely exceeded the recommended threshold of 10. As
many scholars suggested to identify outliers from inspecting the shape of
distribution rather than using only skewness and kurtosis values to judge them
in case of a considerately large sample (200 or more), histogram, normal Q-Q
plot and boxplot were also used to additionally evaluated the data distribution
and outliers (Field, 2013; Pallant, 2016; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013). As
expected, the presence of outliers and the extremely kurtotic nature of the data
of the four measurement items were evidenced. However, these findings are
considered not problematic because it is a nature of trip characteristics of the
sample population, who are British and Japanese tourists travelling in Thailand
consisting of more first-time visitors than repeaters due to mainly recruited in
Bangkok, the must-visit city of the new visitors. As a result, the researcher
decided to not delete these outliers or transform these data but retain all
observations instead. This is because deleting many observations can increases
the risk to limit generalisability of the data, and data transformation can make
the interpretation more difficult (Gao et al, 2008; Hair et al, 2014). However, as
they may mislead the results, both frequencies of past visits in last three and ten
years were excluded from the research model. Number of past visits were not
used to catagorise types of repeaters and number of nights spent was also
excluded from the hypothesis testing. Finally, 600 (90.9%) usable responses
were obtained, comprising 300 (50%) British and 300 (50%) Japanese
respondents.
6.3 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS

The socio-demographic characteristics of the 600 respondents are shown in
Table 6.1. The sample consisted of more males (60%) than females (40%)
respectively. These percentages were different from the market profiles of the
international tourist arrivals in Thailand in 2017, which comprised slightly fewer
males (47.9%) than females (52.1%)(TAT Intelligence Center, 2019a). The
difference might result from the populations of the study, which consist of only
British and Japanese tourists. The majority of the respondents were aged
between 18 and 24 years (40.8%) and 30% of them were aged 25-34 years.
203
There was a fairly equal distribution of respondents in the age groups 35-44
(9.5%), 45-54 (11.2%) and 55 or above (8.3%). This result differed from TATIC
report, where the top three age groups of international visitors were 25-34
(27.8%), 55 and over (19.6%), and 35-44 (19.1%), respectively (TAT Intelligence
Center, 2019a). This difference might be a result of the study’s sampling criteria,
which excludes tourists travelling with children.
Over half of the sample (53.3%) had been educated to undergraduate level, and
35.5% of the sample lived alone, presenting as the largest living arrangement
category. This was followed by 26.8%, who lived with a partner without
children. About a quarter of the respondents (25.8%) preferred not to give
details of their monthly household income. Of those that did, 18.7% of the
sample earned a monthly household income of £2,500 - £5000, and 15.7%
earned more than £5000 a month. The vast majority of the respondents (62.0%)
were employees. This was very similar to TATIC statistics, which showed that
62.2% of the international tourists in Thailand in 2017 were in full-time
employment (TAT Intelligence Center, 2019a).
204
Table 6.1 Socio-demographic profiles of the survey respondents
Total
Socio-demographic
Frequency Percentage British Japanese χ2
Characteristics
(n= 600) (n=300) (n=300) (Sig.)
Gender
Male 360 60.0% 163 (54.3%) 197 (65.7%) χ2 = 8.03
Female 240 40.0% 137 (45.7%) 103 (34.3%) (p=0.005*)
Age
18-24 245 40.8% 100 (33.3%) 145 (48.3%)
25-34 181 30.2% 107 (35.7%) 74 (24.7%) χ2 = 26.63
35-44 57 9.5% 20 (6.7%) 37 (12.3%) (p=0.000*)
45-54 67 11.2% 41 (13.7%) 26 (8.7%)
55 or above 50 8.3% 32 (10.7%) 18 (6.0%)
Educational Level
Secondary or equivalent 86 14.3% 45 (15.0%) 41 (13.7%)
Post-secondary/College/ 106 17.7% 68 (22.7%) 38 (12.7%)
χ2 = 66.05
Vocational or equivalent
(p=0.000*)
Undergraduate degree 320 53.3% 116 (38.7%) 204 (68.0%)
Postgraduate degree 76 12.7% 61 (20.3%) 15 (5.0%)
Others 12 2.0% 10 (3.3%) 2 (0.7%)
Living Arrangement
Living alone 213 35.5% 73 (24.3%) 140 (46.7%)
Living alone with children 5 0.8% 2 (0.7%) 3 (1.0%)
Living with partner without 161 26.8% 119 (39.7%) 42 (14.0%)
children χ2 = 73.49
Living with partner with 69 11.5% 30 (10.0%) 39 (13.0%) (p=0.000*)
children
Living with parents/family 139 23.2% 63 (21.0%) 76 (25.3%)
Living with friends/in shared 13 2.2% 13 (4.3%) 0 (0.0%)
accommodation
Monthly Household Income a
£1000 or less 85 14.2% 10 (3.3%) 75 (25.0%)
£1001 - £1,500 71 11.8& 30(10.0%) 41 (13.7%)
χ2 = 80.94
£1,501 - £2,500 83 13.8% 41 (13.7%) 42 (14.0%)
(p=0.000*)
£2,501 - £5,000 112 18.7% 81 (27.0%) 31 (10.3%)
£5001 or above 94 15.7% 60 (20.0%) 34 (11.3%)
Prefer not to say 155 25.8% 78 (26.0%) 77 (25.7%)
Occupation
Employee 372 62.0% 213 (71%) 159 (53.0%)
Self-employed/Business 22 3.7% 10 (3.3%) 12 (4.0%)
owner χ2 = 87.98
Housewife 12 2.0% 1 (0.3%) 11 (3.7%) (p=0.000*)
Student 129 21.5% 25 (8.3%) 104 (34.7%)
Retired 24 4.0% 18 (6.0%) 6 (2.0%)
Unemployed 41 6.8% 33 (11.0%) 8 (2.7%)
aMonthly household personal income groups were slightly adjusted in the Japanese version
questionnaire to reflect the average monthly household income in Japanese population. The
groups were: (1) ¥220,000 or less, (2) ¥220,001 - ¥300,000, (3) ¥300,001 - ¥450,000, (4)
¥450,001 - ¥750,000, (5) ¥750,001 or above (£1 ≅ ¥145)
205
The sample was divided into two groups by nationality, British and Japanese in
order to examine, cultural influences, an objective of the study. The chi-square
results presented significant differences between the British and Japanese
respondents regarding their socio-demographic characteristics. As can be seen
from Table 6.1, the proportion of males in the Japanese sample (65.7%) was
higher than those in the British sample (54.3%). This was similar to TATIC
statistics in 2017 showing the higher percentage of males amongst Japanese
tourists visiting to Thailand (66.4%) compared with the British (58.4%) (TAT
Intelligence Center, 2019b; TAT Intelligence Center, 2019c).
Almost half of the Japanese sample was in the youngest age group (18-24 years:
48.3%) resulting in more respondents who were full-time students (34.7%) in
comparison to the British sample (8.3%). The discrepancy in age groups
between the two nationalities also seems to link to the significant difference
regarding the respondents’ educational level. While the Japanese sample had a
greater number of respondents holding undergraduate qualifications (68.0%),
there were more respondents with postgraduate degrees in the British sample
(20.3%).
More respondents earned a monthly household income of £1000 or less in the

Japanese sample (25.0%), while the British sample had more respondents
belonging to the higher household income range (£2501 - £5000 and £5000 and
above). This result seems to be caused by the different size of the respondents’
household between the two nationalities. In particular, the majority of Japanese
respondents lived alone (46.7%), whereas the largest proportion of British
respondents lived with partner without children (39.7%). This appears to be
rationalised by the rapid increase of people living alone in Japan, with the lone
dwellers accounting for nearly half of all household in the main cities in 2015
(Ronald et al., 2018). Also, the higher proportion of full-time students in the
Japanese sample may also explain its lower monthly household income.
206
6.4 TRIP CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS
As the results of the frequency test on number of previous visits shown very few
loyal repeaters (over five visitations) (Huang, et al., 2014), dividing the repeaters
into sub-groups as previously planned seemed not statistically appropriate.
Thus, first-timers and repeaters remained two valid types of visitors used for
comparisons of statistical differences between the groups. Table 6.2 presents the
respondents’ trip characteristics; 62.7% of the respondents were the first-time
visitors, much higher than the proportion of first timers in Thailand in 2017
(36.8%) as reported by TATIC (TAT Intelligence Center, 2019a). This might
result from the fieldwork areas in which the data collection was conducted. Most
were touristic places in Bangkok, the capital city of Thailand, a must-to-visit city
amongst the first-time visitors.
Regarding the frequency of past visits in both time frames (3 and 10 years), the
data was actually recorded as a continuous variable with an aim to use it as an
independent variable in the research model. However, the descriptive statistics
showed very few respondents with high frequency of past visits. The data were
then grouped to form three categories; “never”, “1 time”, and “more than 1 time”.
The largest proportion of them (75.8%) had never visited Thailand in the past 3
years and 66.0% in the past 10 years, respectively. The 224 repeat visitors had
4.11 previous visits (SD = 5.11) on average.
The average length of stay was 13.03 nights (SD = 13.52), which was higher than
the figure (9.52 days) documented by TATIC for all international visitors in
Thailand in 2017 (TAT Intelligence Center, 2019a). This could be an influence of
the research’s sampling criteria of a minimum consumption of 6 local Thai dishes
(around 3 nights’ stay) at the time of the recruitment in order to ensure the
respondents had sufficient local Thai food experiences. The dissimilarity might
also result from the populations of the study, which consist of only British and
Japanese tourists, while TAT data were collected from overall international
arrivals.
207
Table 6.2 Travel characteristics of the survey respondents
Total British Japanese

Trip Characteristics Frequency Frequency Frequency χ2
(n = 600) (n = 300) (n = 300) (Sig.)
First time/repeat visit
First time visitor 376 (62.7%) 189 (63.0%) 187 (62.3%) χ2 = 0.028
Repeat visitor 224 (37.3%) 111 (37.0%) 113 (37.7%) (p = 0.866)
Frequency of past visits
in the last 3 years
Never 455 (75.8%) 235 (78.3%) 220 (73.3%) χ2 = 6.09
One time 78 (13.0%) 41 (13.7%) 37 (12.3%) (p = 0.048*)
More than one time 67 (11.2%) 24 (8.0%) 43 (14.3%)
Frequency of past visits
in the last 10 years
Never 396 (66.0%) 201 (67.0%) 195 (65.0%) χ2 = 0.55
One time 95 (15.8%) 48 (16.0%) 47 (15.7%) (p = 0.759)
More than one time 109 (18.2%) 51 (17.0%) 58 (19.3%)
t-value
Trip Characteristics Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.)
(n = 600) (n = 300) (n = 300) (2-tailed sig.)
No. of nights spent in t = 14.87
13.03 (13.52) 20.05 (14.58) 6.02 (7.40)
Thailand b (p = 0.000*)
t-value
Repeat Visitors Repeat Visitors Repeat Visitors
Trip Characteristics
Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) (2-tailed sig.)
(n = 224) (n = 111) (n = 113)
t = -2.94
No. of previous visits b 4.11 (5.11) 3.12 (3.14) 5.08 (6.36)
(p = 0.004*)
b Even though no. of nights and no. of previous visits are non-normally distributed data, an
independent sample t-test was used to test mean differences between the two nationalities
rather than a non-parametric alternative because in the large samples (N>30), the t-test is valid
for any distribution concerning the Central Limit Theorem (Pallant. 2016).
The chi-square results showed that there was a significantly higher percentage
of respondents who visited Thailand more than once in the past 3 years in the
Japanese sample (14.3%) in comparison to the British sample (8.0%). T-test
results indicated the British on average stayed longer in Thailand (20.05 nights)
than the Japanese (6.02 nights). These were in line with TATIC statistics in 2017
presenting 18.25 days for British tourists’ average length of stay in Thailand,
while Japanese tourists spent a shorter stay, approximately 7.81 days (TAT
208
Intelligence Center, 2019b; TAT Intelligence Center, 2019c). The Japanese repeat
visitors had a higher number of previous visits on average (5.08 times) as
compared with the British ones (3.12 times). These results may reflect the closer
proximity of Thailand to Japan, compared to the UK such that UK visitors visit
less frequently but for longer as is on long-haul trip.
6.5 PERSONALITY TRAITS

6.5.1 Novelty Seeking Tendency (NS) on Travel Destination Choice
Respondents’ novelty seeking tendency on their choices of tourism destination
was verified using the summed scores of the nine-item novelty seeking scale
developed by McIntosh et al. (1995) and measured on a seven-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 = very unimportant to 7 = very important. The scores
theoretically range from a minimum of 9 to a maximum of 63. As a result, the
higher the score, the higher the novelty seeking tendency of the respondents.
The reliability of the novelty seeking measurement items was assessed using
Cronbach’s alpha. The alpha value was 0.803, indicating a good level of internal
consistency of the items in the scale (Hair et. al, 2014). The scale was
successfully utilised in previous tourism studies (e.g. Assaker et al., 2011;
Assaker and Hallak, 2013; Jang and Feng 2007) but only Jang and Feng (2007)’s
research reported a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.88, which was similar to the
alpha value of the current study.
Table 6.3 Comparison of novelty seeking scores between British and

t-value
Min Max Mean S.D. (2-tailed sig.)
Total (n = 600) 9 63 49.86 7.82
t = 11.32
British (n = 300) 9 63 53.14 7.35
(p = 0.000*)
Japanese (n =300) 27 63 46.57 6.85
As shown in Table 6.3, the mean score of respondents’ novelty seeking tendency
was 49.86, ranging from 9 to 63 (SD = 7.82). An independent sample t-test was
implemented to find any differences between British and Japanese. The findings
suggested that British participants had a significantly higher level of novelty
209
seeking tendency than the Japanese counterparts (mean difference = 6.57, p =
0.000), therefore, might be more inclined to seek greater level of novelty in the
attributes of a destination.
T-test was additionally performed to test for differences between first-time

visitors and repeat visitors. No statistically significant difference was observed
between the two groups regarding their novelty seeking scores in the current
study. This finding was contrary to previous studies (Gitelson and Crompton,
1984; Milman and Pizam, 1995), which have suggested that the first timers were
more likely to seek variety and new cultural experiences than the repeaters. A
possible explanation for this might be that both studies drew their sample from
only one cultural context (US residents), whereas the current research is a cross-
cultural study in which its sample consists of British and Japanese tourists, who
tend to prefer different levels of novelty-seeking as shown in the result above.
The respondents were grouped into three groups by using the 33rd and 66th
percentile novelty seeking points, 47 and 54 consecutively, as cut-off points.
Consequently, respondents scored from 9 to 47 were classified as “low” novelty
seekers, those from 48 to 53 as “medium’’ novelty seekers, and those from 54 to
63 as “high” novelty seekers. Table 6.4 below illustrates the frequency and
percentage of respondents in each group. To additionally compare differences
between the British and Japanese concerning the novelty seeking groups, the chi-
square test was operated.
Table 6.4 Comparison of novelty seeking groups between British and

Total British Japanese χ2
Novelty Seeking Group (n= 600) (n = 300) (n = 300) (sig.)
Low (score 9-47) 211 (35.2%) 47 (15.7%) 164 (54.7%)
χ2 = 125.18
Medium (score 48-53) 184 (30.7%) 95 (31.7%) 89 (29.7%)
(p = 0.000*)
High (score 54-63) 205 (34.2%) 158 (52.7%) 47 (15.7%)
The results, as shown in Table 6.4, indicated a significant difference (χ2 = 125.18,
p = 0.000) between the two nationalities in terms of the novelty seeking
210
categories. Interestingly, the largest proportion of British respondents (n = 158,
52.7%) belonged to the high novelty-seeking group, whereas the greatest
proportion of Japanese respondents (n = 164, 54.7%) was classified as low
novelty seekers. This suggests that the British tends to be driven more by
novelty than the Japanese are in their destination choice and, thus, are more
prone to travel to novel destinations where they would be met unfamiliar and
new travel experiences. This result may be connected with the work of other
studies regarding British international tourist motivations and destination
choice that novelty was found as one of the most important factors that pushed
the British to travel for a holiday abroad (Yuan and McDonald, 1990). Jang and
Cai (2002) also reported that the British tend to visit Asian countries to seek a
novel experience.
By summing the absolute ranked differences between a tourist’s home culture

and a destination’s culture of each of Hofstede’s (2015) six cultural value
dimensions (i.e. power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty
avoidance and indulgence) (Jackson, 2001), cultural distance the British shared
between Thailand (202) is greater than the distance the Japanese shared with
Thailand (184). Hence, the British are considered to be more culturally distant to
Thailand than the Japanese. Crouch (1994) stated that cultural similarity or
differences are important criteria in selecting a holiday destination. “Some prefer
destinations that are culturally similar to their home country, while others who
are interested in cultural knowledge and seeking novelty might be interested in
culturally distant destinations.” (Liu, 2014: p. 13). Consequently, this may have
contributed to a higher novelty-seeking tendency in the British sample.
Moreover, Lepp and Gibson (2003) claimed that differences in the degree of
novelty tourists seek in a destination might be interpreted into differences in the
level of risks they are willing to engage in. Thus, major differences in Hofstede’s
uncertainty avoidance index (UAI), between the two nationalities may be
another way to explain the differences in the level of novelty the two
nationalities seek. According to Hofstede’s scores, British are low in UAI (35),
while Japan are categorised as high UAI culture (92) (Hofstede, 2015). As a
211
result, the Japanese are less likely to seek novelty and more risk-averse in
comparison to the British. Considerable differences in novelty preferences and
novelty-seeking behaviours have also been revealed in many cross-cultural
comparison studies (e.g. among American, Korean and Japanese in Pizam and
Jeong (1996); among French, British, German, and Indian in Ramkissoon et al.
(2011)).
6.5.2 Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) and Food Neophobia Grouping (FNG)
This study implemented the six-item food neophobia scale (FNS) of Ritchey et al.
(2003), measured on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very
unimportant to 7 = very important, to assess respondents’ food neophobia level.
The summed scores theoretically range from a minimum of 6 to a maximum of
42. Negatively worded items were recoded; thereby, the higher the score, the
higher the level of the food neophobia of the respondents. The reliability of the
food neophobia measurement items was examined using Cronbach’s alpha. The
alpha value was 0.808, presenting a good level of internal consistency of the
items in the scale (Hair et. al, 2014).
The overall mean score of respondents’ food neophobia was 16.76, ranging from
6 to 40 (SD = 6.83). A t-test was carried out to examine any differences between
the British and Japanese respondents. As Table 6.5 showed, there was a
significant difference between the two nationalities in their level of food
neophobia. Japanese subjects reported a significantly higher level of food
neophobia (mean difference = 5.25, p = 0.000), which indicates that the Japanese
were comparably less willing to try novel foods than British.
Table 6.5 Comparison of FNS scores between British and Japanese

respondents
t-value
Min Max Mean S.D.
(2-tailed sig.)
Total (n = 600) 6 40 16.76 6.83
t = -10.18
British (n = 300) 6 32 14.14 5.61
(p = 0.000*)
Japanese (n =300) 6 40 19.39 6.95
212
A t-test was furthermore used to test for differences between first-time visitors
and repeat visitors. Table 6.6 presents a summary of the mean scores and the t-
test results. Statistical differences were revealed between the two groups for the
FNS scores (p = 0.010). In general, first-time visitors had slightly higher
neophobic tendency than repeat visitors (mean difference = 1.49).
Table 6.6 Comparison of FNS scores between first-time and repeat visitors
t-value
Min Max Mean S.D.
(2-tailed sig.)
Total (n = 600) 6 40 16.76 6.83
t = 2.60
First-time Visitors (n = 376) 6 40 17.32 7.07
(p = 0.010*)
Repeat Visitors (n =224) 6 39 15.83 6.33
The respondents were divided into three food neophobia groups (FNG) using the
33rd and 66th percentile FNS points, 13 and 19 respectively, as cut-off points.
Subsequently, respondents scored from 6 to 13 were classified as “low” FNS
group, those from 14 to 18 as “medium’’ FNS group, and those from 19 to 40 as
“high” FNS group.
A chi-square test was then performed to compare differences between the

British and Japanese regarding the FNGs (i.e. the low, medium and high FNG) and
a significant difference (χ2 = 92.30, p = 0.000) between the two nationalities was
found (Table 6.7).
Table 6.7 Food neophobia grouping (FNG) and comparison between British
and Japanese respondents
FNS Category
(n= 600) (n = 300) (n = 300) (sig.)
Low (score 6-13) 215 (35.8%) 152 (50.7%) 63 (21.0%)
χ2 = 92.30
Medium (score 14-18) 155 (25.8%) 88 (29.3%) 67 (22.3%)
(p = 0.000*)
High (score 19-40) 230 (38.3%) 60 (20.0%) 170 (56.7%)
It is apparent from these data that approximately half of the British respondents
(n = 152, 50.7%) were in the low FNG, while the largest proportion of the
Japanese belonged to the high FNG (n = 170, 56.7%). This suggests that the
British seem to be more neophilic in their food choices and, hence, are more
213
willing to try novel and unfamiliar food/cuisine, including local food of the
destination they are travelling to (Kim et al., 2009b). Although there is no
previous study comparing FNS scores the between British and Japanese,
previous studies conducting cross-national comparisons on FNS (e.g. Taiwanese
and British in Mak (2011); New Zealand, Taiwanese, and Japanese in Prescott et
al. (2002); Swedish, Americans and Finnish in Ritchey et al. (2003)) also
evidenced nationality differences in the degree of neophobia. Furthermore,
surveys conducted in different countries have reported different food neophobia
scores (Choe and Cho, 2011; Koivisto and Sjödén, 1996; Meiselman et al., 1999;
Pliner and Hobden, 1992; Tuorila et al., 2001). Moreover, national and cultural
influences on willingness to try local food at tourism destinations (Cohen and
Avieli, 2004; March, 1997; Sheldon and Fox, 1988), and quantity and diversity of
cuisines consumed on holiday (Tse and Crotts, 2005) have also been evidenced.
Chi-square analysis was also used to investigate any differences in FNGs between
first-timers and repeaters. Chi-square values (χ2 = 3.36, p = 0.186) revealed that
there was no significant difference between the proportion of first-time and
repeat visitors (See Table 6.8) when classifying them into the food neophobia
categories.
Table 6.8 Food neophobia grouping (FNG) and comparison between first-
time and repeat visitors
Total First-time Visitors Repeat Visitors χ2
FNS Category
(n= 600) (n = 376) (n = 224) (sig.)
Low (score 6-13) 215 (35.8%) 126 (33.5%) 89 (39.7%)
χ2 = 3.36
Medium (score 14-18) 155 (25.8%) 96 (25.5%) 59 (26.3%)
(p = 0.186)
High (score 19-40) 230 (38.3%) 154 (41.0%) 76 (33.9%)
6.5.3 Food Involvement Scale (FIS) and Food Involvement Grouping (FIG)
Six-items from the original food involvement scale (FIS) of Bell and Marshall
(2003) was used to assess respondents’ food involvement level to determine if
this linked to tourist food consumption at a destination. This modified scale has
also been successfully adopted in tourist local food consumption research (Kim,
2010; Kim et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2013). All items were measured on a seven-
214
point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very unimportant to 7 = very important. The
summed scores theoretically range from a minimum of 6 to a maximum of 42.
Negatively worded items were recoded; hence, the higher the score, the higher
the level of the food involvement of the respondents. The reliability of the food
involvement measurement items was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. The
alpha value was 0.702, indicating an acceptable level of internal consistency
(Hair et. al, 2014).
The overall mean score of respondents’ food involvement was 32.15, ranging
from 14 to 42 (SD = 6.01). A t-test was performed to investigate any differences
between British and Japanese respondents. As reported in Table 6.9, there was a
significant difference between the two nationalities in their level of food
involvement (p = 0.047). British respondents had slightly higher level of food
involvement compared with their Japanese counterparts (mean difference =
0.97).
Table 6.9 Comparison of FIS scores between British and Japanese

respondents
t-value
Min Max Mean S.D.
(2-tailed sig.)
Total (n = 600) 14 42 32.15 6.01
t = 1.99
British (n = 300) 14 42 32.64 5.82
(p = 0.047*)
Japanese (n =300) 15 42 31.67 6.16
T-test was also used to test for differences between first-time visitors and repeat
visitors. No statistically significant difference between the two groups was
evident concerning their food involvement scores in this study.
The respondents were classfied into three food involvement groups (FIG) using
the 33rd and 66th percentile FIS points, 29 and 36 respectively, as cut-off points.
Consequently, respondents who scored from 14 to 29 were classified as the
“low” FIS group, those who scored from 30 to 35 as the “medium’’ FIS group, and
those who scored from 36 to 42 as the “high” FIS group.
215
A chi-square analysis was used to compare differences between the British and
Japanese regarding the FIGs (i.e. the low, medium and high FIG). The test results
(χ2 = 3.36, p = 0.186), as shown in Table 6.10, indicated that there was no
statistically significant difference between the proportion of British and Japanese
respondents when dividing them into the food involvement categories.
Table 6.10 Food involvement grouping (FIG) and comparison between

FIS Category
(n= 600) (n = 300) (n = 300) (sig.)
Low (score 14-29) 200 (33.3%) 90 (30.0%) 110 (36.7%)
Medium (score 30-35) 185 (30.8%) 95 (31.7%) 90 (30.0%) χ2 = 3.18
(p = 0.204)
High (score 36-42) 215 (35.8%) 115 (38.3%) 100 (33.3%)
6.6 OVERALL DESTINATION IMAGE AND OVERALL SATISFACTION

6.6.1 Overall Destination Image
Using the same respondent to measure changes in destination image has been
acknowledged to be more powerful than tracing it with different
respondents/sample, which presents an incomplete image development process
and can only be assumed as a proxy of the image development (Gallarza et al.,
2002; Aloudat and Rawashdeh, 2013, Kim et al., 2009a; Jani and Nguni, 2016).
This study, thus, decided to follow this suggestion by using the same respondents
and, in detail, operated the retrospective pre-test design to ascertain the image
changes, rather than the traditional pre-test/post-test design as preferred in
some research (e.g. Pizam and Milman, 1993; O’Leary and Deegan, 2005; Aloudat
and Rawashdeh, 2013). Although these tourism scholars stated that tourists’
expectation should be collected before the visit and the trip perception should be
collected after the visit to obtain more accurate answers, this traditional method
requires tracking the same respondents upon their arrival and then upon their
departure, which is difficult, costly and time-consuming (Wang and Davidson,
2010), especially with international, independent tourists such as in the current
study. Furthermore, this method is susceptible to response shift bias, which
could cause distorted results (Howard, 1980; Rohs, 1999, Yüksel and Yüksel,
2001). As per all above reasons, this study opted for the retrospective pre-test
216
approach instead, in which the expectation and perception of tourists towards
the trip are measured at the end of the trip. This approach has been supported
and utilised in many studies (Howard, 1980; Wang and Davidson, 2010; Jani and
Nguni, 2016) as it is easy to conduct, and cost and time saving. However, to
decrease memory decay as the time goes by, pre- and post-visit image should be
carried out as soon as the trip is ended. The use of clearly defined time periods in
the questionnaire is also needed to assist respondents in recalling their
memories, and to reduce response bias (Dickson and Hall, 2006; Wang and
Davidson, 2010).
However, it should be noted that in this study on-site destination image was
employed to trace a development of destination image rather than using post-
visit destination image as in previous research (e.g. Lim et al., 2013; Wang and
Davidson, 2010; Yilmaz et al., 2009). This is because of difficulties in approaching
and gaining the departing tourists as prospective respondents at Bangkok
(Suvarnabhumi) airport. Since the researcher was allowed to conduct the survey
only in the non-restricted area (which is the departure hall before the security
checkpoint) due to the constraints of airport security regulations, very few
respondents were obtained from this venue, contrary to expectations.
Consequently, the fieldwork was additionally conducted in other touristic
attractions/areas in order to gain sufficient respondents. As the majority of
respondents were recruited during their trip, the perceived destination image
can be considered as on-site, rather than post-visit. Thus, the on-site destination
image in this study can be regarded as the consequential image formed by the
respondents after having experiences with Thailand, as compared to the pre-visit
image they had prior to their visit to the destination. This is because the
respondents had already experienced the destination for at least two days at the
time of recruitment. Therefore, the way on-site image is developed in this study
entails it to be viewed as a modified/changed image.
As the study aimed to investigate an overall evaluation of destination image,

rather than considering individual attributes of the destination image construct,
overall pre-visit and on-site destination image were ascertained using the same
217
pair of statements asking the same respondents in sequential sections of the
questionnaire, in relation to travel stages (before the first visit and during the
present visit). This also helped the respondents to recollect their memory of pre-
visit image and reduced response bias. The respondents were asked to report
their overall image of Thailand before their first visit and the image they had
from the current visit on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = highly
unfavourable to 7 = highly favourable. This pair of questions aimed to investigate
whether the overall image of Thailand was positively improved after
experiencing the destination and to find any differences between the
nationalities and types of visitors.
The overall mean score of pre-visit destination image was 5.43 (SD = 1.18),
suggesting that the respondents have a moderately favourable image of Thailand
before the actual visit to Thailand. As the image prior to the actual visit to a
destination can be accumulated solely from secondary information sources, both
commercial and non-commercial such as media, guidebooks, travel agencies,
news and words of mouth [Aloudat and Rawashdeh, 2013; McKercher and Wong,
2004; Reid and Reid, 1993; Rittichainuwat et al., 2001), this signifies that the
Thailand tourism authorities seem to be succeedings in marketing and
promoting a positive destination image to prospective visitors and also the
country itself performed well in the post-trip evaluation of tourists. The overall
mean score for on-site destination image was 5.96 (SD = 1.10), indicating that
having experienced Thailand, the respondents perceived a more positive image
of the destination than they formerly expected.
Table 6.11 Comparison of pre-visit and on-site destination image between

t-value
Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.)
(2-tailed sig.)
(n = 600) (n = 300) (n = 300)
t = 4.07
Pre-visit destination image 5.43 (1.18) 5.62 (1.09) 5.24 (1.23)
(p = 0.000*)
t = 5.08
On-site destination image 5.96 (1.10) 6.18 (0.88) 5.74 (1.24)
(p = 0.000*)
218
An independent samples t-test was carried out to determine significant
differences existed between British and Japanese respondents regarding their
pre-trip and on-site destination image. Table 6.11 shows a significant difference
(p = 0.000) between the two nationalities in their perceived image of Thailand
before their actual visit and during the visit. British subjects (pre-visit: mean
5.62, SD 1.09; on-site: 6.18, SD 0.88) reported a more favourable image of
Thailand before their first visit and on-site compared with the Japanese
respondents (pre-visit: mean 5.24, SD 1.68; on-site: 5.74, SD 1.24).

First Time Repeat
Total
Visitors Visitors t-value
Mean (S.D.)
Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) (2-tailed sig.)
(n = 600)
(n = 376) (n = 224)
t = -3.15
Pre-visit destination image 5.43 (1.18) 5.31 (1.16) 5.63 (1.18)
(p = 0.002*)
t = -2.47
On-site destination image 5.96 (1.10) 5.88 (1.13) 6.10 (1.04)
(p = 0.014*)
The t-test was also performed to test for differences between first-time and
repeat visitors. The findings in Table 6.12 showed that the repeat visitors (pre-
visit: mean 5.63, SD 1.18; on-site: mean 6.10, SD 1.04) had a significantly more
positive destination image prior to their first visit and during the visit, in
comparison to the first-time visitors (pre-visit: mean 5.31, SD 1.16; on-site: mean
5.88, SD 1.13). The significant difference in the pre-visit destination image found
between the two types of visitors may result from the influence of prior visits on
the pre-visit image amongst repeaters. In fact, the image of Thailand prior to the
first visit perceived by the repeaters is at risk of memory decay, which increases
as time passes (Li et al., 2008). Also, the pre-trip image can easily be
contaminated with the image they had from previous visits to the destination,
unlike the first-time visitors, whose pre-visit image purely relies on the
secondary sources of information they had about the destination (Gartner and
Hunt, 1987).
With reference to the significant differences between the two types of travelers
in terms of the on-site destination image, the finding was in agreement with a
219
great deal of previous work (e.g. Ahmed, 1991; Baloglu, 2001; Baloglu and
Mangaloglu, 2001; Echtner and Ritchie, 1993; Giraldi and Cesareo, 2014; Hu and
Ritchie, 1993; Rittichainuwat et al., 2001), in which return visitors perceived a
more positive destination image compared with first-time visitors, and, thus, the
greater the number of visits to the destination, the more positive the image they
tend to perceive. Similarly, Milman and Pizam (1995) and Hong et al. (2009),
both highlighted the role of destination familiarity amongst repeaters in affecting
a positive image of a destination that they visited previously. In other words, a
greater familiarity with a destination leads to a more favourable image of the
destination (Baloglu, 2001; Beerli and Martín, 2004).
Considering the significant differences found between British and Japanese

respondents and between first timers and repeaters regarding pre-visit and on-
site destination image, further independent samples t-tests were carried out
between: 1) British first timers and Japanese first timers and 2) British repeaters
and Japanese repeaters. The mean scores and t-test statistics are presented in
Table 6.13.

First Time Visitors Repeat Visitors
Total
Mean (S.D.) British Japanese British Japanese
(n = 600) t-value t-value
Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.)
(2-tailed sig.) (2-tailed sig.)
(n = 189) (n = 187) (n = 111) (n = 113)
Pre-visit t = 3.02 t = 2.84

5.43 (1.18) 5.49 (1.09) 5.13 (1.21) 5.85 (1.06) 5.41 (1.25)
destination image (p = 0.003*) (p = 0.005*)
On-site t = 4.17 t = 2.96

5.96 (1.10) 6.11 (0.85) 5.64 (1.31) 6.31 (0.91) 5.90 (1.12)
destination image (p = 0.000*) (p = 0.003*)
It can be clearly seen from the table above that both British first timers and
repeaters reported a significantly more favourable image of Thailand prior to
their first visit and also during their current visit, compared with the Japanese
counterparts. MacKay and Fesenmaier (2000) also reported empirical evidence
that the way tourists perceive the image of a destination is different based on
their cultural backgrounds. As cultural backgrounds govern individuals’ values,
220
ideals, norms, and beliefs, it seems reasonable to assume that these will have an
influence on individuals’ perceptions of a destination as a consequence (Govers
and Go, 2009). Similarly, various tourism studies have evidenced cultural
differences in perceived destination images, such as among Asians, Europeans,
Americans, Oceanians and travelers from other regions visiting Thailand
(Rittichainuwat et al., 2001), between Japanese and Koreans visiting Guam (Lee
and Lee, 2009), and between British and Swedish visiting Jordan (Harahsheh,
2009). However, it should be cautiously noted that the main focus of these cross-
cultural studies was mostly on destination image, therefore, the overall
destination image was measured with various dimensions of the image
construct, unlike the current study, in which a single-item measure was used to
assess the overall evaluation of destination image.
6.6.2 Comparison between Pre-visit and On-site Destination Image

A paired t-test was performed to evaluate whether the respondents’ perceived
image of Thailand was improved after their holiday experience at the
destination. Thus, the mean difference between pre-visit and on-site destination
image was compared. The mean scores and paired t-test results are shown in
Table 6.14
Table 6.14 Comparison between pre-visit and on-site destination image
Destination Mean (S.D.) Mean t-value

Status
Image difference (2-tailed sig.)
Total Pre-Visit 5.43 (1.18) t = -11.03

-0.53 Improved
(n = 600) On-site 5.96 (1.10) (p = 0.000*)
British Pre-Visit 5.62 (1.09) t = -9.10
-0.56 Improved
(n = 300) On-site 6.18 (0.88) (p = 0.000*)
Japanese Pre-Visit 5.24 (1.23) t = -6.77
-0.50 Improved
(n = 300) On-site 5.74 (1.24) (p = 0.000*)
First Time Visitors Pre-Visit 5.31 (1.16) t = -9.15
-0.57 Improved
(n = 376) On-site 5.88 (1.13) (p = 0.000*)
Repeat Visitors Pre-Visit 5.63 (1.18) t = -6.19
-0.47 Improved
(n = 224) On-site 6.10 (1.04) (p = 0.000*)
The results demonstrated that on-site destination image was rated higher than
the pre-trip destination image among overall respondents and in all sub-groups,
221
when categorised by nationalitiy or type of visitor. It can be summarised that the
respondents experienced the performance of Thailand as higher than expected
before their actual visit: the real experience exceeded the expectation. How the
destination is perceived is crucial in shaping tourist satisfaction, as explained by
expectation-disconfirmation theory (EDT). A comparison of expectation (pre-
visit image) and experience (post-visit image) leads to either positive
disconfirmation (the experience is better than the expectation) or negative
disconfirmation (the expectation is better than the experience). These result in
satisfaction and dissatisfaction, accordingly (Oliver, 1997).
6.6.3 Overall Destination Satisfaction

This study focused on examining an overall evaluation of destination satisfaction
rather than investigating individual attributes of the satisfaction construct; thus,
a single, global measure was used. Respondents were asked to rate their overall
satisfaction with their present stay in Thailand on a seven-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 = very unsatisfactory to 7 = very satisfactory. The overall mean
score of satisfaction was 6.03 (SD = 0.96), which indicates that the respondents
were very satisfied with their overall trip quality.
Table 6.15 Comparison of overall destination satisfaction between British

and Japanese respondents
t-value
(2-tailed sig.)
(n = 600) (n = 300) (n = 300)
Overall destination t = 5.22
6.03 (0.96) 6.23 (0.80) 5.83 (1.06)
satisfaction (p = 0.000*)
An independent samples t-test was conducted to test for any differences

between British and Japanese respondents in terms of their perceived overall
satisfaction. The results, as displayed in Table 6.15, suggested that the British
respondents (mean 6.23, SD 0.80) had a significantly higher level of overall
satisfaction (p = 0.000) than the Japanese equivalents (mean 5.83, SD 1.06).
222
Table 6.16 Comparison of overall destination satisfaction between first
time and repeat visitors
Total First Time Visitors Repeat Visitors
t-value
(2-tailed sig.)
(n = 600) (n = 376) (n = 224)
Overall destination t = -3.42
6.03 (0.96) 5.93 (0.99) 6.21 (0.87)
satisfaction (p = 0.001*)
A t-test was also used to test for differences between first-time visitors and
repeat visitors. Table 6.16 illustrates a significant difference (p = 0.001) between
the two types of visitors in overall destination satisfaction with the repeaters
were more satisfied than the first-timers. This finding was consistent with those
of Juaneda (1996), Li et al. (2008), Oppermann, M. (2000), Mohr et al. (1993),
Rittichainuwat et al. (2002) and Yuksel (2001), who also found that repeat
visitors reported a significantly higher level of overall destination satisfaction
than their first-time counterparts. This result may also be explained by the fact
that repeaters, because of their own previous experiences with the destination,
seem to have more realistic expectations compared to first timers (Fluker and
Turner, 2000). On the other hand, first timers might be misguided by illusions
generated by destination promotions/advertisings, as their pre-visit
expectations are formed through the external information (Assael, 2004).
Taking account of significant differences found between the British and Japanese,
and between the first-time and repeat travelers regarding their level of the
overall destination satisfaction, independent sample t-tests were further carried
out between: 1) British first timers and Japanese first timers and 2) British
repeaters and Japanese repeaters. The mean scores and t-test results are
summarised in Table 6.17.
223
Table 6.17 Comparison of overall destination satisfaction between

Total
Mean (S.D.)
British Japanese British Japanese
(n = 189) (n = 187) (n = 111) (n = 113)
Overall
t = 4.47 t = 2.83
destination 6.03 (0.96) 6.15 (0.84) 5.71 (1.08) 6.37 (0.71) 6.04 (0.99)
(p = 0.000*) (p = 0.005*)
satisfaction
Both British first-time and repeat travelers scored a significantly higher level of
the overall destination satisfaction (mean 6.15, SD 0.84 and mean 6.37, SD 0.71,
respectively) in comparison to their Japanese equivalents (mean 5.71, SD 1.08
and mean 6.04, SD 0.99, respectively). This could be explained by the fact that
tourists from different cultures and countries may differ in how they perceive
travel attributes of a destination (Chen and Kerstetter, 1999; Bowen and Clarke,
2002; Crotts and Erdmann, 2000; Rittichainuwat et al., 2002). Long (2004) and
Weiermair (2000), both also concluded that the culture in which tourists live
regulates their perception, problem solving and recognition, thus, resulting in
differences in their levels of satisfaction. A number of tourism scholars (e.g.
Baker and Crompton, 2000; Kozak, 2002b; Yoon and Uysal, 2005), moreover,
advocated that tourists’ overall satisfaction is governed by a tourist’s evaluation
of the destination attributes. Higher satisfaction in the British compared to the
Japanese could additionally be rationalised by their differences in Hofstede’s
masculinity dimension (MAS) in which the Japanese score (95) is relatively
higher than British (66) (Hofstede, 2015): “The degree to which consumers from
a specific culture are willing to provide assertive and critical evaluative
responses to consumer satisfaction surveys is a visible sign of this cultural
dimension.” (Crotts and Erdmann, 2000: p. 410) The authors also pointed out
that tourists from a lower MAS culture seem to be more inclined to express their
sympathy and kindness to others and commonly overlook perceived faults in
comparison to those from a higher MAS society.
Furthermore, the finding of this study broadly supports the work of other studies
in this field reporting cultural differences in tourists’ destination satisfaction
224
such as among Canadians, Americans and other overseas tourists (Joppe et al.,
2001), between British and German tourists (Kozak, 2001a), among Asians,
Europeans, Americans, Oceanians and tourists from other regions
(Rittichainuwat et al., 2002), among Europeans, Americans, Japanese and
tourists from other Asia Pacific Countries (Yu and Goulden, 2006), and among
travelers from Europe, Asia, Oceania and North America (Hui et al., 2007).
However, a note of caution is due here because the cultural differences in overall
satisfaction levels reported in the above studies were determined with a series of
destination attributes, unlike the current study that used a single measure to
evaluate the overall destination satisfaction.
6.6.4 Relationships between Pre-visit and On-site Destination Image and

Overall Satisfaction
As stated under the section of overall destination image, EDT paradigm suggests
a linkage between pre-, and post-trip perception of destination image and tourist
satisfaction. This study performed a Pearson correlation analysis to examine the
relationships between pre-visit and on-site destination image and overall
satisfaction. Table 6.18, displays the correlation matrix of the three factors.
Table 6.18 Correlation between pre-visit and on-site destination image and
overall satisfaction: Overall (n = 600)
Pre-visit On-site Overall
Destination Image Destination Image Satisfaction
Pre-visit 1
Destination Image
On-site 0.467** 1
Destination Image
Overall 0.380** 0.685** 1
Satisfaction
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Pre-visit destination image was found to have a medium, positive relationship

with overall satisfaction (r = 0.380, p<0.000), whereas on-site destination image
had a strong, positive relationship with overall satisfaction (r = 0.685, p<0.000).
The findings were consistent with former research revealing that pre-visit and
225
on-site destination image positively affect tourist satisfaction (e.g. Al-Majali,
2012; Bui and Le, 2016 ;Puh, 2015). Furthermore, pre-visit destination image
was found to have a medium positive correlation with on-site destination image
(r = 0.467, p<0.000). This suggests that the pre-visit image can be further
developed during the visit and have an effect on overall trip satisfaction (Puh,
2015; Bigne et al., 2008).
6.7 OVERALL DESTINATION FOOD IMAGE AND FOOD SATISFACTION

6.7.1 Overall Destination Food Image
Like the concept of the overall destination image, the development of overall
destination food image in this study was traced from the same respondents using
a retrospective pre-test approach; and, also, on-site destination food image was
utilised in place of post-visit destination food image due to restricted access to
departing tourists. Overall pre-visit and on-site destination food image were
measured using a pair of identical measurement items with clearly identified
time words: ‘before your first visit’ and ‘from your holiday experiences this time’
to help the respondents recall from memory and reduce response bias. The
respondents were asked to rate their overall food image of Thailand prior to
their first trip and the food image they had from the present trip on a seven-
point Likert scale ranging from 1 = highly unfavourable to 7 = highly favourable.
This pair of questions intended to examine whether the overall Thailand food
image was positively improved after experiencing local Thai food on the trip and
to establish any differences between the nationalities and types of visitors.
In general, the respondents’ pre-visit image of Thai food was rated 5.55 (SD =
1.35), indicating that the respondents had a moderately favourable image of Thai
food prior their actual visit to Thailand. Unlike pre-visit destination image, which
can only be developed based on exposure to the secondary sources of
information Aloudat and Rawashdeh, 2013; Rittichainuwat et al., 2001), image of
Thai food prior to the actual visit can be built up via tourists’ direct experiences
with Thai food in their own countries. This suggests that the Thailand tourism
authorities have not only succeeded in promoting and marketing a positive
image of Thai food via secondary information, but also via the quality Thai food
226
products and services sold and operated in UK and Japan. The overall mean score
for on-site destination food image was 5.82 (SD = 1.25), which indicates that
after having Thai food experiences in Thailand, the respondents perceived a
more favourable image of the destination food than they previously expected.
Table 6.19 Comparison of pre-visit and on-site destination food image

t-value
(2-tailed sig.)
(n = 600) (n = 300) (n = 300)
Pre-visit destination t = 6.60
5.55 (1.35) 5.90 (1.11) 5.19 (1.48)
food image (p = 0.000*)
On-site destination t = 6.91
5.82 (1.25) 6.16 (0.94) 5.48 (1.42)
To determine a significant difference between British and Japanese subjects in

terms of their pre-trip and on-site destination food image, an independent
sample t-test was performed. Table 6.19 shows a significant difference (p =
0.000) between the two nationalities in their perceived image of Thai food both
prior to their actual visit and during their visit. British respondents (pre-visit:
mean 5.90, SD 1.11; on-site: 6.16, SD 0.94) had more favourable image of Thai
food before their first visit and on-site, compared with their Japanese
counterparts (pre-visit: mean 5.19, SD 1.48; on-site: 5.48, SD 1.42).

First Time Repeat
Total
Mean (S.D.)
(n = 600)
(n = 376) (n = 224)
Pre-visit destination t = -3.83
5.55 (1.35) 5.39 (1.39) 5.81 (1.24)
On-site destination t = -4.29
5.82 (1.25) 5.66 (1.28) 6.09 (1.14)
T-test results presented in Table 6.20 revealed significant differences between

first timers and repeaters concerning these two variables. The repeaters
perceived a significantly more positive image of Thai food before their actual
visit (mean 5.81, SD 1.24) and also on-site (mean 6.09, SD, 1.14) than the first
227
timers did (pre-visit: mean 5.39, SD 1.39; on-site: 5.66, SD 1.28). A possible
explanation is that repeaters tend to perceive more value from consumption of
experiences, including local food and cuisine than the first timers did (Fakeye
and Crompton, 1991; Giraldi and Cesareo, 2014; Lau and Mckercher, 2004). In
addition, repeaters have been found be more willing to savor the diversity of
cuisine offered and local food alternatives, compared to the first timers (Mak et
al., 2012; Ryu and Jang, 2006; Ryu and Han, 2010; Tse and Crotts, 2005). Since
impressive local food experiences can improve the image of destination food
(Kivela and Crotts, 2006; Rittichainuwat, et al. 2003; Ryu and Jang, 2006), this
seems to explain why repeaters, who are more likely to partake of local food
experiences, had a more positive image of Thai food in this study.
According to the significant differences evidenced between British and Japanese

respondents and between first timers and repeaters regarding pre-visit and on-
site destination food image, independent sample t-tests were further conducted
and Japanese repeaters. The mean scores and t-test statistics are presented in
Table 6.21.


Total
Mean (S.D.)
(n = 189) (n = 187) (n = 111) (n = 113)
Pre-visit
t = 5.94 t = 3.22
destination food 5.55 (1.35) 5.79 (1.12) 4.98 (1.51) 6.07 (1.08) 5.55 (1.34)
(p = 0.000*) (p = 0.001*)
image
On-site
t = 6.15 t = 3.50
destination food 5.82 (1.25) 6.04 (0.90) 5.27 (1.47) 6.35 (0.97) 5.83 (1.24)
(p = 0.000*) (p = 0.001*)
image
As can be seen from Table 6.21, both British first-time and repeat visitors
reported a significantly more favourable image of Thai food, both before their
actual visit and also during their current visit, compared with their Japanese
equivalents. The effect of national backgrounds on overall Thai food image was
228
also evidenced in the study of Promsivapallop and Kannaovakun (2019), in
which Chinese tourists had a lower level of destination food image than
Australian visitors. Seo and Yun (2015), moreover, reported that Americans,
Japanese and Chinese presented significant differences in their perceptions of
Korean food image. Choe and Kim (2018) reported a similar result regarding
different levels of perceived value in local Hong Kong food among tourists from
different cultures. Apart from this, many studies of tourist food consumption and
preferences have highlighted national and cultural influences on food perception
and consumption, such as differences in level of local food consumption (Torres,
2002), willingness to try local food at destinations (Cohen and Avieli, 2004;
March, 1997; Sheldon and Fox, 1988), and quantity and diversity of cuisines
consumed on holiday (Tse and Crotts, 2005).
6.7.2 Comparison between Pre-visit and On-site Destination Food Image

A paired t-test was performed to investigate whether the respondents’ perceived
image of Thai food was improved after increased exposure to local Thai food at
the destination. Thus, the mean difference between pre-visit and on-site
destination food image was compared. Table 6.22 summarises mean scores and
paired t-test results.
Table 6.22 Comparison between pre-visit and on-site destination food

image
Destination Mean (S.D.) Mean t-value

Status
Food Image difference (2-tailed sig.)
Total Pre-Visit 5.55 (1.35) t = -5.55

-0.27 Improved
(n = 600) On-site 5.82 (1.25) (p = 0.000*)
British Pre-Visit 5.90 (1.11) t = -9.10
-0.26 Improved
(n = 300) On-site 6.16 (0.94) (p = 0.000*)
Japanese Pre-Visit 5.19 (1.48) t = -3.69
-0.29 Improved
(n = 300) On-site 5.48 (1.42) (p = 0.000*)
First Time Visitors Pre-Visit 5.39 (1.39) t = -4.40
-0.27 Improved
(n = 376) On-site 5.66 (1.28) (p = 0.000*)
Repeat Visitors Pre-Visit 5.81 (1.24) t = -3.38
-0.28 Improved
(n = 224) On-site 6.09 (1.14) (p = 0.001*)
229
As shown in Table 6.16, the positive image of Thai food, taking results for
respondents’ present visit to Thailand (mean 5.82, SD 1.25), showed a more
positive result than pre-visit (mean 5.55, SD 1.35). Also, when dividing the
sample into sub-groups, based on their nationalities or types of visitors, the
significant improvement between the pre-trip and on-site food image was
demonstrated in all sub-groups. Consequently, it can be concluded that the
performance of local Thai food was better than expectations. Using expectation-
disconfirmation theory of customer satisfaction (Oliver, 1997), as the actual
experience exceeded expectations, this could lead to positive disconfirmation,
and thus, resulting food satisfaction.
6.7.3 Food Satisfaction

As this study aimed to examine an overall evaluation of food satisfaction rather
than identifying dimensionality of the food satisfaction, a single, global
measurement item was utilised. The respondents were asked to score their
overall satisfaction with their local Thai food experiences in Thailand on a seven-
point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very unsatisfactory to 7 = very satisfactory.
The overall mean score of food satisfaction was 5.83 (SD = 1.19), suggesting that
the respondents felt satisfied with the overall quality of local Thai food.
Table 6.23 Comparison of food satisfaction between British and Japanese

respondents
t-value
(2-tailed sig.)
(n = 600) (n = 300) (n = 300)
t = 5.90
Food satisfaction 5.83 (1.19) 6.11 (0.90) 5.55 (1.38)
(p = 0.000*)
Independent samples t-test results (Table 6.23) indicated that British tourists
(mean 6.11, SD 0.90) had a significantly higher level of food satisfaction (p =
0.000) than the Japanese tourists (mean 5.55, SD 1.38).
230
Table 6.24 Comparison of food satisfaction between first time and repeat
visitors
t-value
(2-tailed sig.)
(n = 600) (n = 376) (n = 224)
t = -4.73
Food satisfaction 5.83 (1.19) 5.67 (1.26) 6.11 (1.01)
(p = 0.001*)
T-test was also performed to test for differences between first-time visitors and
repeat visitors. Table 6.24 shows a significant difference (p = 0.001) between the
two types of visitors in their food satisfaction. Likewise, Rittichainuwat et al.
(2002) examined some attributes of food satisfaction among international
tourists holidaying in Thailand and found that repeaters were more satisfied
with the variety, quality and price of Thai food. As remarkable experiences with
local food in a holiday destination can produce food satisfaction in tourists
(Kivela and Crotts, 2006; Rittichainuwat, et al. 2003; Ryu and Jang, 2006), this
seems to be a possible answer of why repeaters, who are more inclined to
participate in local food experiences, reported a higher level of Thai food
satisfaction.
Considering the significant differences found between the British and Japanese
tourists, and between the first-time and repeat travelers in terms of their level of
the food satisfaction, independent sample t-tests were additionally conducted
and Japanese repeaters. The mean scores and t-test results are displayed in
Table 6.25.
Table 6.25 Comparison of food satisfaction between British/Japanese first

time and British/Japanese repeat visitors

Total
Mean (S.D.)
(n = 189) (n = 187) (n = 111) (n = 113)
t = 5.39 t = 2.77
Food satisfaction 5.83 (1.19) 6.01 (0.96) 5.33 (1.43) 6.30 (0.75) 5.93 (1.19)
(p = 0.000*) (p = 0.006*)
231
It is apparent that both British first timers and repeaters rated a significantly
more favourable image of Thai food both before their first visit and also during
the present visit, when compared with their Japanese counterparts. Many
tourism scholars have also evidenced the effect of cultural background on food
satisfaction. For example, Nield et al. (2000) reported significant differences on
tourists’ satisfaction with food between Western and Eastern Europeans.
Likewise, Rittichainuwat et al. (2002) revealed that tourists from different
regions (i.e. Asia, Europe, Oceania, North America and other) had different levels
of satisfaction on quality, value and service of Thai food on holiday in Thailand,
with Asians showing the lowest level of food satisfaction. This could be because
customers from different cultures and nationalities differ in expectation
regarding products and perceptions of the actual product delivered (Verma et al,
1999). Products considered being important by Asians might be completely
different from those demanded by Europeans (Pizam and Ellis, 1999). As culture
affects how we expect, and perceive, it can in turn lead to different satisfaction
levels. (Long, 2004; Weiermair, 2000). Apart from this, the higher food
satisfaction in the British subjects may probably be explained by their lower
masculinity value (MAS) (Hofstede, 2015). This is because Crotts and Erdmann
(2000) pointed out that tourists from a lower MAS society were less likely to give
assertive and critical evaluative responses on a satisfaction survey but more
likely to express their sympathy and kindness to others and usually overlook
perceived faults, as compared with those from a higher MAS culture. Since Kim et
al. (2010) reported that food neophobia had a significantly negative effect on
food festival visitors’ satisfaction, the lower portion of food neophobics in the
British sample (n=152, 50.7%) compared to the Japanese sample (n=63, 21.0%)
may have contributed to their higher level of food satisfaction.
6.7.4 Relationships between Pre-visit and On-site Destination Food Image

and Food Satisfaction
A Pearson correlation analysis was utlised to investigate the relationships
between pre-visit and on-site destination food image and food satisfaction. Table
6.26, shows the correlation matrix of the three factors.
232
Table 6.26 Correlation between pre-visit and on-site destination food
image and food satisfaction: Overall (n = 600)
Pre-visit Destination On-site Destination
Food Satisfaction
Food Image Food Image
Pre-visit Destination
1
Food Image
On-site Destination
0.571** 1
Food Image
Food Satisfaction 0.580** 0.728** 1
Pre-visit and on-site destination food image were both found to have a strong
positive relationship with food satisfaction (r = 0.580, p<0.000 and r = 0.728,
p<0.000, respectively). The findings were in line with that of other studies
reporting that destination food image had significant positive effect on
destination food satisfaction (Chi et al., 2013; Karim et al., 2010; Ling et al., 2010;
Peštek and Činjarević, 2014). Additionally, pre-visit destination food image was
found to have a strong positive correlation with on-site destination food image (r
= 0.571, p<0.000). This signifies that the pre-visit destination food image may be
further developed based on exposure to local food at the destination and affect
the food satisfaction.
6.8 PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL THAI FOOD TO DECISION TO VISIT,

OVERALL TRIP EXPERIENCES AND INTENTION TO VISIT, AND FAMILIARITY
WITH THAI FOOD PRIOR TO CURRENT VISIT
Three questions regarding perceived importance of local Thai food were
included in sequential sections of the questionnaire in relation to travel stages.
The respondents were firstly asked to rate the importance of local Thai food
experiences in affecting their decision to visit Thailand, then, the importance to
their overall trip experiences, and finally the importance to their intention to
revisit in the future. However, the respondents’ level of familiarity with Thai food
was assessed only prior to their current trip in order to check their previous
exposure to Thai food. These questions aimed to assess whether the
233
respondents’ perceived importance of local Thai food increased after
experiencing local Thai food in the destination and to investigate any differences
between the nationalities and types of visitors.
6.8.1 Importance of Local Thai Food in Decision to Make Current Visit and
Familiarity with Thai Food before the Visit
As illustrated in Table 6.27 in general, the mean importance of local Thai food
opportunities in Thailand in the respondents’ decision to visit the destination
was 5.04 (SD = 1.62), which was measured on a seven-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 = very unimportant to 7 = very important. This suggests that local Thai
food experiences had moderate importance in affecting the respondents’
decision to visit Thailand. The mean score of respondents’ familiarity with Thai
food before their present visit was 4.48 (SD = 1.85), which was measured on a
seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very unfamiliar to 7 = very familiar,
showing that the respondents had more than an average familiarity level with
Thai food prior to their visit this time.
Table 6.27 Comparison of importance of local Thai food in decision to visit

and familiarity with Thai food between British and Japanese respondents
t-value
(2-tailed sig.)
(n = 600) (n = 300) (n = 300)
Importance of local Thai food t = 9.53
5.04 (1.62) 5.62 (1.32) 4.45 (1.68)
in decision to visit (p = 0.000*)
t = 7.99
Familiarity with Thai food 4.48 (1.85) 5.05 (1.57) 3.91 (1.92)
(p = 0.000*)
An independent sample t-test was used to establish if there were significant

differences between British and Japanese respondents regarding these two
variables. Table 6.27 shows a significant difference between the two nationalities
in the perceived importance of local Thai food in influencing their visit to
Thailand. Overall, British respondents (mean 5.62, SD 1.32) rated the importance
of local Thai food higher compared with the Japanese respondents (mean 4.45,
SD 1.68). The British respondents (mean 5.05, SD 1.57) also reported a higher
234
level of familiarity with Thai food than the Japanese respondents (mean 3.91, SD
1.92).
T-test results shown in Table 6.28 indicated statistically significant differences

between first timers and repeaters concerning these two variables. The
repeaters reported a higher importance of local Thai food in their decision to
visit (mean 5.23, SD 1.61) and a higher level of familiarity with Thai food (mean
5.26, SD, 1.68) than the first timers did (mean 4.92, SD 1.62 and mean 4.02, SD
1.79, consecutively).
Table 6.28 Comparison of importance of local Thai food in decision to visit

and familiarity with Thai food between first time and repeat visitors
First Time
Total Repeat Visitors
Visitors t-value
Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.)
Mean (S.D.) (2-tailed sig.)
(n = 600) (n = 224)
(n = 376)
Importance of local Thai t = -2.31
5.04 (1.62) 4.92 (1.62) 5.23 (1.61)
food in decision to visit (p = 0.021*)
Familiarity with Thai t = -8.43
4.48 (1.85) 4.02 (1.79) 5.26 (1.68)
food (p = 0.000*)
Giving attention to the significant differences found between the two

nationalities and between the two types of visitors as regards their importance
of local Thai food in determining their visit to Thailand and their level of
familiarity with Thai food, additional independent sample t-tests were carried
out between: 1) British first timers and Japanese first timers and 2) British
repeaters and Japanese repeaters. The mean scores and t-test results are
summarised in Table 6.29.
235
Table 6.29 Comparison of importance of local Thai food to decision to visit
and familiarity with Thai food between British/Japanese first time and
British/Japanese repeat visitors

Total
Mean (S.D.)
(n = 189) (n = 187) (n = 111) (n = 113)
Importance of
t = 8.76 t = 4.43
local Thai food in 5.04 (1.62) 5.58 (1.26) 4.25 (1.67) 5.69 (1.43) 4.78 (1.66)
(p = 0.000*) (p = 0.000*)
decision to visit
Familiarity with t = 6.90 t = 5.07

4.48 (1.85) 4.61 (1.52) 3.41 (1.84) 5.80 (1.38) 4.73 (1.78)
Thai food (p = 0.000*) (p = 0.000*)
Both British first timers and repeaters rated a significantly greater importance of
local Thai food in their decision to visit Thailand (mean 5.58, SD 1.26 and mean
5.69, SD 1.43, respectively), in comparison to their Japanese equivalents (mean
4.25, SD 1.67 and mean 4.78, SD 1.66, respectively). This finding might be linked
to the study of Jang and Cai (2002) reporting that the British visiting Asian
countries for overseas holidays were significantly motivated by their desire to
seek novel experiences, of which one was tasting new food/local cuisine.
Another possible explanation for this might be the increasing popularity of Thai
food among the British. Thai has been ranked as the third-most popular ethnic
cuisine that British have either eaten-in or ordered to take-away in the three
months to November 2018 (Mintel Group, Ltd., 2019a). Furthermore, Thai
cuisine was rated as the nation’s fourth favourite to eat at home from September
to November 2018 (Mintel Group, Ltd., 2019b). Thus, Thai food might be one of
the main motives pushing the British to visit Thailand.
A significantly higher level of familiarity with Thai food was also found in both
types of British visitors (first time: mean 4.61, SD 1.52 and repeat: (mean 5.80,
SD 1.38) when compared to their Japanese counterparts (first time: mean 3.41,
SD 1.84 and repeat: mean 4.73, SD 1.78). This could be a result of a large number
of Thai restaurants in UK (over 2,000 restaurants recorded in 2017)
(Department of International Trade Promotion, 2018), giving the British an
opportunity to savour Thai cuisine before their trip to Thailand.
236
As Chang et al. (2010) and Mak et al. (2012), both highlighted that the increased
exposure to a foreign cuisine could at least provide familiarity with that cuisine
and would influence the consumption of that cuisine when travelling, the
prevalence of Thai restaurants in Japan also needs to be considered. There are
around 1,200 Thai food restaurants across the country as documented in 2017
(Department of International Trade Promotion, 2018), which does not seem
much different from the UK’s figure. However, when considering the number of
Thai restaurants per 100,000 of population in both countries by diving the
number of Thai restaurants (UK: 2,000, Japan: 1,200) by the estimated number
of the population (UK: 66,040,200, Japan: 126,706,000 in 2017) (Office for
National Statistics, 2018; Statistics Bureau, 2018), the UK has a considerably
higher ratio than Japan (UK = 3; Japan = 1). Thus, it appears that the British tend
to have a higher opportunity to access Thai food than the Japanese do. This might
be another reason supporting a significant difference found in familiarity with
Thai food between the British and Japanese respondents in this study.
Nevertheless, Cohen and Aveli (2004) argued that the proliferation of ethnic
restaurants does not necessarily confirm that a significant percentage of the
general population frequently visits such venues. Therefore, in further research,
the frequency of past visits to Thai restaurants should be additionally asked in
order to allow a clearer evaluation of the exposure effect on familiarity with Thai
food prior to the first visit to Thailand in both nationalities.
Apart from this, Thai cuisine is fundamentally a marriage of hundreds of years of

Eastern and Western influences, harmoniously blended into a cuisine that is
uniquely Thai. One key component of the identity of Thai food is various fresh
herbs and spices mingled as the main flavour principles. The use of herbs and
spices in Thai cuisine was partially influenced from Indian cuisine, which is
notable in its use of intense spices (Tourism Authority of Thailand, 2017). Indian
cuisine has been part of British food culture for around 200 years and the British
obsession with Indian cuisine and culture was evidenced over the 19th century
(Jahangir, 2009; Mennell et al., 1994). Thus, it would be reasonable for the
British to be more familiar with the use of herbs and spices in comparison to the
237
Japanese. Additionally, some of the Japanese interviewees reported not being
fond of Thai herbs in the qualitative stage of this study. They reported their
dislike and unfamiliarity with some of the herbs used in Thai food, especially
coriander, lemongrass and kaffir lime leaves. They described those herbs as “too
strong” for them as compared to their everyday Japanese food, which is often
quite bland.
6.8.2 Importance of Local Thai Food to Overall Experiences of Current Visit

The respondents rated the mean importance of local Thai food experiences in
their overall trip experiences in Thailand as 5.60 (SD = 1.29). This indicates that
the respondents considered experiencing local Thai food as an important
experience during their holiday in Thailand (Table 6.30).
Table 6.30 Comparison of importance of local Thai food to overall trip

experiences between British and Japanese respondents
t-value
(2-tailed sig.)
(n = 600) (n = 300) (n = 300)
5.60 (1.29) 5.80 (1.32) 5.40 (1.68)
to overall trip experiences (p = 0.000*)
British visitors had a significantly higher mean score for perceived importance of
local Thai food to their overall experiences (mean 5.8, SD = 1.32) as compared
with Japanese visitors (mean 5.4, SD = 1.68). As shown in Table 6.31, the
repeaters reported a significantly higher importance of local Thai food in their
overall travel experiences (mean 5.75, SD 1.22) than the first timers did (mean
5.51, SD 1.32).

experiences between first time and repeat visitors
t-value
(2-tailed sig.)
(n = 600) (n = 376) (n = 224)
Importance of local
t = -2.30
Thai food to overall 5.60 (1.29) 5.51 (1.32) 5.75 (1.22)
(p = 0.022*)
trip experiences
238
Considering the significant differences found between British and Japanese
respondents and between first timers and repeaters in the importance of local
Thai food in their overall travel experiences, further independent sample t-tests
were carried out between: 1) British first timers and Japanese first timers and 2)
British repeaters and Japanese repeaters. The mean scores and t-test results are
shown in Table 6.32.

experiences between British/Japanese first time and British/Japanese
repeat visitors

Total
Mean (S.D.)
(n = 189) (n = 187) (n = 111) (n = 113)
Importance of
local Thai food to t = 3.68 t = 1.46
5.60 (1.29) 5.75 (1.14) 5.26 (1.44) 5.87 (1.05) 5.64 (1.36)
overall trip (p = 0.000*) (p = 0.146)
experiences
British first-time visitors rated a significantly greater importance of local Thai

food to their overall trip experiences (mean 5.75, SD 1.14) in comparison to the
Japanese first-time visitors (mean 5.26, SD 1.44). No significant difference
between the British and Japanese repeat visitors was evidenced. These findings
suggest that though both were first timers, the British sample reported a higher
level of perceived importance of local Thai food in their overall travel
experiences as compared to their Japanese equivalents. This result may be
explained by the findings of the current study in the pre-visit stage (See Section
6.8.1), suggesting that the British perceived a considerably higher importance of
local Thai food in choosing to visit Thailand than the Japanese did. These findings
reflect those of Cohen and Aveli (2004), who also found that westerners abroad
tend to be more willing than Asians to savour the food of others. Hence, local
food seems to play a major role in their holiday experiences. Additionally, the
lower perceived importance of local Thai food in the Japanese compared with the
British could be explained on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, more particularly
on uncertainty avoidance (UAI) and individualism (IDV). According to Hofstede’s
scores (Hofstede, 2015), Japanese were high in UAI (92) and low in IDV (46),
239
whereas British had low UAI (35) and high IDV (89). As consuming unfamiliar
cuisine at a destination can be counted as either a risk or an adventurous
experience, tourists who are from a high UAI and low IDV culture as such
Japanese are more likely to experience anxiety, insecurity, and frustration or
have less desire to try (Pizam and Sussmann, 1995).
6.8.3 Importance of Local Thai Food to Future Revisit

The respondents were asked to state the extent to which experiencing local Thai
food is important as an outcome evaluation of their future revisit. The overall
mean value for this statement was 5.52 (SD = 1.49), suggesting that the
respondents believed exploring local Thai food as an important part of revisiting
Thailand. An independent sample t-test was used to assess any differences
between British and Japanese participants regarding this variable.
Table 6.33 Comparison of importance of local Thai food to future revisit

t-value
(2-tailed sig.)
(n = 600) (n = 300) (n = 300)
5.52 (1.49) 5.64 (1.29) 5.41 (1.66)
to future visit (p = 0.063)
T-test results, as shown in Table 6.33, revealed that there was no significant
difference between British and Japanese respondents concerning the perceived
importance of local Thai food towards their intention to revisit the destination.
The t-test was further performed to test for differences between first-time and
repeat visitors. The findings showed that repeat visitors (mean 5.71, SD 1.41)
reported a higher importance of local Thai food as a reason to revisit Thailand, as
compared to the first-time visitors (mean 5.41, SD 1.49) (See Table 6.34). A
possible explanation for this might be that repeaters tend to have a higher
intention to taste a diversity of cuisine offers and local food alternatives as
compared to first timers (Mak et al., 2012; Ryu and Jang, 2006; Ryu and Han,
2010; Tse and Crotts, 2005).
240
Table 6.34 Comparison of importance of local Thai food to future revisit
t-value
(2-tailed sig.)
(n = 600) (n = 376) (n = 224)
Importance of local t = -2.32
5.52 (1.49) 5.41 (1.53) 5.71 (1.41)
Thai food to future visit (p = 0.021*)
6.8.4 Comparison between Perceived Importance of Local Thai food to

Current Visit and Future Revisit
A paired t-test was conducted to establish whether the perceived importance of
local Thai food in relation to their visits was improved after increased exposure
to local Thai food at the destination. Hence, a mean difference between perceived
importance of local Thai food in the decision for the current visit and perceived
importance of local Thai food in determining a future revisit was compared.
Table 6.35 summarises mean scores and paired t-test results
Table 6.35 Comparison between importance of local Thai food to current

visit and future revisit
Importance of Mean (S.D.) Mean t-value

Status
Local Thai food difference (2-tailed sig.)
Total Current Visit 5.04 (1.62) t = -7.26

-0.48 Improved
(n = 600) Future Revisit 5.52 (1.49) (p = 0.000*)
British Current Visit 5.62 (1.32) t = -0.16
-0.02 No change
(n = 300) Future Revisit 5.64 (1.29) (p = 0.875)
Japanese Current Visit 4.45 (1.68) t = -9.94
-0.96 Improved
First Time Visitors Current Visit 4.92 (1.62) t = -5.98
-0.49 Improved
Repeat Visitors Current Visit 5.23 (1.61) t = -4.15
-0.48 Improved
In general, the respondents perceived the importance of local Thai food to their
intention to revisit (mean 5.52, SD 1.49) significantly higher than their decision
for the current visit (mean 5.04, SD 1.62). This indicates that when tourists were
more exposed to local food in the destination; the perceived importance of the
destination food to their visit decision rose.
241
It can be seen from Table 6.35 that when dividing the sample into sub-groups
according to nationality or type of visitor, the significant increase between the
perceived importance of local Thai food to current and future visits was clearly
evidenced in all sub-groups except in the British group. From these data, it is
apparent that the lowest increase in the perceived importance of local Thai food
was reported in the British (mean difference = - 0.02). This may be because the
British already considered the importance of local Thai food experiences in their
decision making for their current trip (mean = 5.62, SD = 1.32). Thus, their
exposure to the local food at the destination seems not to greatly enhance the
perceived importance of the local food towards their future revisit (mean = 5.64,
SD = 1.29). Conversely, the Japanese perceived the importance of local Thai food
in relation to their present trip at about average (mean = 4.45, SD = 1.68). After
they experienced the local food on holiday, the perceived importance of the local
food increased significantly (mean difference = - 0.96, p = 0.000)
6.9 MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS FOR LOCAL THAI FOOD CONSUMPTION

A 20-item scale was developed to elicit the motivational factors underlying
respondents’ local food choice in Thailand. The findings of the qualitative stage
(Stage 1) of the study were used to guide the scale development and also the
results of the pilot study. Responses to each item were on a seven-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. All items obtained
a mean score over 4 indicating that all items had more than average influence on
the respondents’ local Thai food consumption (See Table 6.36).
6.9.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal component analysis with
varimax rotation was performed on the 20 motivational items to identify the
structure that underlies these items (Pallant, 2016). Following Kaisers’ criterion,
only factors with an eigenvalue of 1.0 or more were retained (Pallant, 2016). To
gain meaningful constructs, items with factor loadings lower than 0.4 and also
items cross loading on more than one factor were excluded (Stevens, 2002, Hair
et al., 2014). A summary of the final EFA results is displayed in Table 6.36.
242
Table 6.36 Results of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
Factors & Items Factor Mean S.D. Grand Eigen- Cronbach’s Variance
Loading Mean Value α Explained
Factor 1 – Sensory & Variety Pleasure 5.54 4.67 0.769 38.95%
1. Local Thai food is tastier than Thai 0.820 5.25 1.64
food in my home country.
2. Local Thai food has more aroma than 0.842 5.37 1.56
5. Local Thai food has more variety of 0.648 5.99 1.37
dishes than Thai food in my home
country.
Factor 2 – Cultural Experience 5.90 1.65 0.856 13.73%
6. Eating local Thai food is part of my 0.733 6.21 1.15
travel/holiday experiences
7. Eating local Thai food is an 0.831 6.15 1.17
opportunity to try new and different
food.
8. Tasting local Thai food gives me an 0.847 5.83 1.29
opportunity to increase my knowledge
about Thai culture.
9. Tasting local Thai food enables me to 0.768 5.48 1.30
see how Thai people live.
10. Eating local Thai food gives me an 0.608 5.84 1.20
opportunity to experience
authentic/traditional/real Thai food
Factor 3 – Health & Assurance 4.52 1.29 0.705 10.78%
13. Local Thai food is healthy and 0.556 4.91 1.41
natural produce.
14. Local Thai food contains more fresh 0.586 4.57 1.69
ingredients and natural contents than
15. I have local Thai food in places 0.798 4.10 1.94
recommended to me by my
friends/family.
16. I have local Thai food in places 0.797 4.51 1.82
recommended to me as nice by locals
Total variance explained 63.46%
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.826
Barlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-square 3003.51 (df = 66, Sig = 0.000)
To evaluate the suitability of the data for EFA, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure
of sampling adequacy and Barlett’s test of sphericity were performed (Field,
2013; Pallant, 2016). The KMO value of the data was 0.83 exceeding the
243
recommended value, 0.60. Barlett’s Test of Sphericity was shown to be
significant (p = 0.000). These statistics indicate that the factorability of the data
is accepted and the factors are significantly correlated (Field, 2013; Hair et al.,
2014; Pallant, 2016).
To improve scale performance (based on a factor analysis), item 3 (‘Local Thai

food is better value for money than Thai food in my home country.’), item 4 (‘In
Thailand, street food is better value for money than restaurant food.’), item 19 (‘I
don’t eat street food in Thailand because it is not safe to eat.’) and item 20 (‘I
often have local Thai food on the street when I want a quick stop or am short of
time.’) were dropped due to low loadings or cross loadings on more than one
factor. EFA was re-run on the remaining 16 items. Five factors were identified
and named: (1) Sensory and Variety Pleasure, (2) Cultural Experience, (3) Health
Concern and Assurance, (4) Prestige, (5) Food Hygiene Concern.
Cronbach’s alpha of the three factors was assessed to examine the internal
consistency of the scale. In general, the minimum acceptable value for
Cronbach’s alpha is 0.7 to ensure a satisfactory level of internal consistency of
the items in the scale (Hair et al., 2014). However, Cronbach’s alpha of the fourth
and fifth factor, “Prestige” and “Food Hygiene Concern”, were lower than the cut-
off value of 0.7 (α = 0.526 and 0.362, respectively). Consequently, both factors
were eliminated and EFA was re-conducted. Finally, three factors were
generated as displayed in Table 6.36. The Cronbach’s alpha values of the three
factors range from 0.705 to 0.856, which supports the scale reliability. These
three factors explain 63.46% of the cumulative variance.
6.9.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To examine the internal and external consistency of the scale items found in EFA
and the suitability of scale definitions, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using
IBM SPSS AMOS software package version 24 was consequently performed
(Byrne, 2010, Hair et al., 2014, Schumacker and Lomax, 2004).
244
Table 6.37 Results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
Factors & Items Std. Critical AVE* Composite
Factor Ratio Reliability
Loading (CR)
Factor 1 – Sensory & Variety Pleasure 0.57 0.789
1. Local Thai food is tastier than Thai food in my 0.850 Fixed
home country.
2. Local Thai food has more aroma than Thai food 0.869 19.586
in my home country.
5. Local Thai food has more variety of dishes than 0.479 11.435
Factor 2 – Cultural Experience 0.50 0.831
6. Eating local Thai food is part of my 0.651 Fixed
travel/holiday experiences
7. Eating local Thai food is an opportunity to try 0.726 19.125
new and different food.
8. Tasting local Thai food gives me an opportunity 0.771 12.675
to increase my knowledge about Thai culture.
9. Tasting local Thai food enables me to see how 0.579 11.434
Thai people live.
10. Eating local Thai food gives me an opportunity 0.781 13.500
to experience authentic/traditional/real Thai food
Factor 3 – Health Concern & Assurance 0.42 0.681
13. Local Thai food is healthy and natural produce. 0.694 Fixed
14. I have local Thai food in places recommended to 0.732 12.589
me as nice by locals
16. Local Thai food contains more fresh ingredients 0.497 9.867
and natural contents than Thai food in my home
country.
Goodness-of-fit indexes:
Model χ2(df) = 105.10 (37); χ2/df = 2.84; p-value = 0.000; GFI = 0.97; AGFI = 0.95; NFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.98;
RMSEA = 0.06
*AVE = Average Variance Extracted
As shown in Table 6.37, the final CFA results revealed an acceptable level of fit
for the fit indexes: χ2(df) = 105.10 (37), χ2/df = 2.84, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) =
0.97, adjusted goodness-of-fit (AGFI) = 0.95, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.96,
comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.98, and root mean square error of approximation
245
(RMSEA) = 0.06. Average variance extract (AVE) was additionally calculated to
assess the convergent validity of all factors. The AVEs of Factor 1 and Factor 2
were greater or equal the general recommended value of 0.50, suggesting a good
level of convergent validity (Hair et al., 2014). Although the AVE value of Factor 3
(AVE = 0.42, CR = 0.681) was lower than 0.50, the value of 0.40 can be accepted if
its composite reliability (CR) is higher than 0.60. This is because the convergent
validity of the factor is still sufficient (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Furthermore,
composite reliability (CR) (also called construct reliability) was computed by
using error variances and standardised factor loadings. The CRs of Factor 1 and
2 were higher than 0.70, which is the suggested value, indicating a good level of
composite reliability (Hair et al., 2014). However, CR for the Factor 3 is less than
0.70 but higher than 0.60, which is acceptable in exploratory studies (Nunnally
and Bernstein, 1994).
Although it is commonly recommended that standardised factor loadings on a

latent construct should be larger than 0.50, (Bryne, 2010; Hair et al., 2014), this
study employs a cut-off of 0.40 instead. This is because Stevens (2002) suggested
that a cut-off of 0.40 could be accepted, regardless of sample size, for
interpretative purposes. Moreover, Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) advocated a
cut off of 0.45 as fair and 0.32 as poor when the items have different frequency
distributions. However, in Factor 3, the modification indices indicated very high
covariance between item 15 and item 16, suggesting that the error terms of
these two items are allowed to covary in order to improve model fits (Gaskin,
2011). After doing so, the factor loading of item 15 was 0.37, lower than the cut-
off point (0.40). Hence, item 15 was removed from Factor 3. Other constructs
(Factor 1 and 2) comprised the same items as identified by EFA. The CFA results
confirmed the same three motivational factors previously found by EFA.
6.9.3 Reliability and Validity

To evaluate the degree of measurement error in a measure, reliability and
validity of the measure must be assessed. Reliability is the extent to which the
items forming the scale are all measuring the same underlying dimension (Hair,
2014; Pallant, 2016). The most widely used statistic to measure the internal
246
consistency of the scale is Cronbach’s alpha, specifying an indication of the
average correlation among all individual items that form the scale (Field, 2013;
Hair, 2014; Pallant, 2016). Table 6.36 (EFA results) provides the alpha values of
the three motivational items. The alpha values of Factor 1 and Factor 2 exceeded
the general recommended value of 0.7 (Hair, 2014, Pallant, 2016): Factor 1
Sensory and Variety Pleasure (0.769), and Factor 2 Cultural Experience (0.856). As
one item was eliminated from Factor 3 Health Concern and Assurance, the alpha
value of Factor 3 was recalculated (0.656). Since the alpha values of 0.60 to 0.70
are acceptable in exploratory research, the internal consistency of Factor 3 is
considered adequate (Hinton et al., 2004; Hair, 2014). Moreover, composite
reliability (CR) (also called construct reliability), an alternative of reliability
estimator available from CFA, is also assessed in this study (See Table 6.37). The
CRs of Factor 1 (0.789) and 2 (0.831) were higher than the universal
recommended value of 0.70, which indicates a good level of composite reliability
(Hair et al., 2014). The CR for the Factor 3 (0.681) was between 0.60 and 0.70,
which is deemed acceptable in exploratory studies (Nunnally and Bernstein,
1994). Hence, the reliability of the scale was confirmed.
The validity of a scale involves how well the scale correctly measures what it is
purported to measure (Hair, 2014; Pallant, 2016). Construct validity can be
defined as the degree to which the data shows an indication of convergent
validity and discriminant validity (DeVellis, 2003; Pallant, 2016).
Kline (2011) suggested that a set of items that supposedly measure the same
construct exhibits convergent validity if their inter-correlations are high.
Convergent validity is established when all items have standardised factor
loadings at least exceeding 0.40 (Stevens, 2002; Tabachnick and Fidell 2013).
Convergent validity can also be assessed using average variance extracted (AVE).
Fornell and Larcker (1981) pointed out that the convergent validity of a
construct is adequate when AVE exceeds the cut-off value of 0.40 and its
composite reliability (CR) is higher than 0.60. As seen from the CFA results, the
standardised factor loadings were higher than 0.40 on all latent constructs. Also,
AVE and CR of all constructs (See Table 6.37) exceeded the recommended value
247
of 0.40 and 0.60, respectively. These indicated a satisfactory level of convergent
validity.
On the other hand, discriminant validity refers to the degree to which a construct
is absolutely distinct from other constructs regarding how much it correlates
with other constructs and also how clearly its respective indicators represent
only this construct (Kline, 2011; Hair, 2014). Regarding Fornell-Larcker testing
system, discriminant validity can be evaluated by comparing the quantity of
variance explained by the latent construct (AVE) to the shared variance with
other latent constructs. Therefore, discriminant validity is achieved when the
square root of the AVE value of each latent construct is greater than any inter-
construct correlations. Additionally, AVE values should be larger than maximum
shared variance (MSV) and average shared variance (ASV) for all the latent
constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2014; Zait and Bertea, 2011).
Table 6.38 below showed that both evaluation criteria were met; therefore,
discriminant validity was supported.
Table 6.38 Discriminant validity assessment

AVE MSV ASV F1 F2 F3
F1: Sensory & Variety Pleasure 0.569 0.361 0.332 0.754
F2: Cultural Experience 0.498 0.371 0.337 0.551 0.706
F3: Health Concern & Assurance 0.421 0.371 0.366 0.601 0.609 0.649
Note: Italic figures denote inter-construct correlations. Bold figures denote squared root of AVE.
6.9.4 Confirmed Motivational Factors and Differences in Motivations by

Nationality and Types of Visitors
Three motivational factors were verified via EFA and CFA, and named as: 1)
Sensory & Variety Pleasure, 2) Cultural Experience, and 3) Health Concern &
Assurance. Independent sample t-tests were performed to investigate any
significant differences by nationality and type of visitor in motivations to
consume local Thai food in Thailand.
Factor 1 Sensory and Variety Pleasure consisted of three items: “Local Thai food is
tastier than Thai food in my home country.”, “Local Thai food has more aroma
248
than Thai food in my home country.”, and “Local Thai food has more variety of
dishes than Thai food in my home country.” The factor served as the desire to
seek sensory and variety pleasure in consuming local Thai food on holiday in
Thailand. This factor had a grand mean of 5.54, the second highest among the
three factors. This corroborated the findings of existing studies in the field of
tourist food consumption (Boniface, 2003; Fields, 2002; Kim, 2010; Kivela and
Crott, 2006; Mak, 2011) that highlighted the importance of sensory pleasure.
Moreover, previous research (e.g. Boniface, 2003; Classen et al., 1994; Furst et
al., 1996) suggested that the desire to seek novelty and variety experiences in
tourists seemed to be connected with sensation seeking or sensory pleasure via
senses such as taste, smell, sight and touch. Kivela and Crott (2006) additionally
noted that tasting local food on holiday could be regarded as a pleasurable
sensory experience. Kim (2010) particularly reported sensory pleasure as a main
motive driving tourists to consume local food in a holiday destination. Thus, the
present study further substantiated the importance of sensory and variety
pleasure in the context of tourist local Thai food consumption in Thailand.
T-test statistics indicated that British respondents were more motivated by

Sensory and Variety Pleasure than the Japanese (mean difference = 0.58, p =
0.000). This corresponds with the results of Prescott et al. (2002) and
Januszewska et al. (2011), in which Asians paid less attention to sensory appeal
in underlying their food choice when comparing with the Europeans. It has been
globally documented and acknowledged that food and sensory preferences are
influenced by the culture an individual brought up (Fiddes, 1995; Harris and
Ross, 1987; Khan, 1981; Levi-Strauss, 1965, 1968, 1970, cited in Caplan, 1997;
Rozin, 1982, 1989; Shepherd and Sparks, 1992; Vabo and Hansen, 2014, Wright
et al., 2001). Culture also affects what an individual thinks appropriate to eat, by
whom, how and when (Alkins and Bowlers, 2001; Caplan, 1997; Falk, 1994;
Logue, 1991; Mäkelä, 2000; Marshall, 1995;), and in turn undoubtedly governs
food choice and diet (Shepherd and Sparks, 1994). Hence, what British consider
tastier and better aroma when comparing local Thai food with Thai food they
had in UK might be totally differ in the case of Japanese. This seems to be
supported with the findings in the qualitative stage of the present study. While
249
some British stated their like with stronger flavours and aroma of local Thai food
resulting from more uses of herbs compared to Thai food sold in UK, some
Japanese reflected their dislike towards those plenty uses of herbs in local Thai
food, especially Kaffir lime leaves and lemongrass. With regard to the higher
attention on seeking variety of local Thai dishes in British, it may be rationalised
by a significantly higher percentage of respondents being classified as food
neophilics (low neophobics) in comparison to the Japanese (as formerly
discussed in Section 6.5.2).
Regarding types of visitors, t-test results suggested that repeaters paid more
attention on Sensory and Variety Pleasure than the first-timers (mean difference
= 0.52, p = 0.000). Since familiarity and unfamiliarity can influence the like and
dislike of particular foods, an increase of exposure resulting in familiarity can
promote liking for novel/unfamiliar food (Asp, 1999; Pliner, 1982). As local food
in a holiday destination can be viewed as novel/unfamiliar food to international
tourists, past experiences with the local food can increase familiarity and, thus,
sensory preference towards the food. Hence, the dissimilarity found might be
explained by the increased exposure to local Thai food accumulated from past
visits amongst the repeaters as compared to the first-timers, who have no direct
experience with local Thai food. Although the first-timers had some previous
experiences of Thai food available in their home country (as limited by sampling
criteria of the study), the food they have ever tried at home may be reasonably
different in appearance, ingredients as well as taste and aroma from what is
offered locally (Cohen and Avieli, 2004). Hence, this study added empirical
evidence in supporting the role of past experiences in enhancing sensory
preference to local food at a tourist destination. Even though the present study
did not find the significant differences between the two types of visitors in terms
of food neophobia groupings (FNG), a slightly significant lower degree of food
neophobia (FNS) was revealed in the repeaters, which signifies a higher
tendency of neophilia. Thus, the lower level of food neophobia in the repeaters
might also contribute to a higher rate on this factor concerning variety pleasure.
250
Factor 2 Cultural Experience includes five items: “Eating local Thai food is part of
my travel/holiday experiences.”, “Eating local Thai food is an opportunity to try
new and different food.”, “Tasting local Thai food gives me an opportunity to
increase my knowledge about Thai culture.”, “Tasting local Thai food enables me
to see how Thai people live.”, and “Eating local Thai food gives me an
opportunity to experience authentic/traditional/real Thai food.” Considering the
grand mean score of 5.90 for this factor, it was the highest among the identified
three motivational factors. This suggested cultural experience as the most salient
motive underlying tourist local Thai food consumption. This factor indicated that
cultural experience could encompass “gaining knowledge” and “seeking
authentic experience”, which was similar to the findings of previous studies, such
as McIntosh et al. (1995), Chhabra et al. (2003) and Poria et al. (2004). They
pointed out that cultural experience at a holiday destination could comprise
items concerning “gaining cultural knowledge” (e.g. learning history and
understanding different countries) and items regarding “seeking authentic
experience” (e.g. exploring authentic culture and experiencing unique culture).
Since local cuisines can be seen as a part of local culture and a principal
manifestation of a destination’s intangible heritage, consumption of local food at
a holiday destination can be regarded as a truly authentic experience of a
different culture (Kim, 2010; Getz, 2000; Hjalager and Corigliano, 2000, Okumus
et al., 2007; Tsai, 2016).
T-test results revealed that British respondents were more interested in Cultural
Experience through their local Thai food experience than the Japanese (mean
difference = 0.39, p = 0.000). Mckercher and Chow (2001) revealed that tourists
from greater culturally distant origins tended to show more interested in
engaging with a different culture compared with those from culturally proximate
origins. Additionally, Samovar and Porter (1991) noted that the greatest cultural
differences amongst cultural groups are between Asian and Western cultures.
Using Jackson (2001)’s cultural distance measure, by summing the absolute
ranked differences between a tourist’s home culture and a destination’s culture
of each of Hofstede’s (2015) six cultural value dimensions (i.e. power distance,
individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance and indulgence), cultural
251
distance the British shared between Thailand (202) is greater than the distance
the Japanese shared with Thailand (184). Hence, the British can be considered to
be more culturally distant to Thailand than the Japanese. As a consequence, a
higher interest in cultural experience via tasting local Thai food in the British
may be result from a greater cultural distance they shared between Thailand,
particularly in terms of cuisine and food culture, in comparison to the Japanese.
Another possible explanation for the dissimilarity found might be cultural
differences in the quest for authentic experiences. Muñoz et al. (2006) found that
Americans and Australians placed more importance on perceived authenticity of
Irish pubs than did the Irish. Similarly, Pizam and Susmann (1995) reported that
whereas US, French, and Italian tourists appeared to be interested in
authentic/real tourist experiences, the Japanese counterparts appeared to be
completely satisfied with staged attractions or events. With respect to the types
of visitors, no significant difference was found between first-time and repeat
visitors concerning this factor.
Factor 3 Health Concern and Assurance includes three items: “Local Thai food is
healthy and natural produce.”, “I have local Thai food in places recommended to
me as nice by locals.”, and “Local Thai food contains more fresh ingredients and
natural contents than Thai food in my home country.” Although the factor had
lowest grand mean of 4.66, it had more than average importance on the
respondents’ local Thai food consumption. This factor represented the
motivation to seek health benefits and a sense of assurance (concerning food
taste and quality) in tasting local Thai food. Even though health concern has been
extensively evidenced as a fundamental food choice motive and an important
factor affecting food acceptance in food research (e.g. Cowan and Devine, 2008;
Lindeman and Väänänen, 2000; Mooney and Walbourn, 2001; Pollard et al.
1998; Steptoe et al., 1995), a few tourism scholars have acknowledged this factor
as an important motive in tourist food consumption (Field, 2002, Kim, 2010,
Mak, 2011, Seo et al., 2017). Swenson (2009) evidenced that tasting local food is
a way to maintain a good health as local food contains a plenty of fresh locally
produced ingredients, and consequently are more nutritious than other food
types. Field (2002) further advocated that modern, well-fed tourists tend to be
252
motivated by an opportunity for a reduced intake of calories or artificial
ingredients, and dietary change. Several tourism venues as well as some
destinations focus on promoting their gastronomies and food products that
offering health benefits such as health farm visits and, healthy cooking classes.
Tourism destinations such as Greece, Italy and Portugal highlight the health
benefits of their Mediterranean or Atlantic cuisine, with an aim to attract
Western tourists troubled by overweight, high cholesterol and other health
matters. Hence, the present finding supported an importance of health concern
and food quality assurance motivations in tasting local food and further
suggested that the two facets may be closely related.
T-test statistics indicated that British subjects placed more emphasis on Health
Concern and Assurance than Japanese equivalents (mean difference = 0.88, p
=0.000). This may also result from the greater cultural distance, specifically in
terms of cuisine and food culture, the British shared between Thailand as
compared with the Japanese. Because Japanese religions and philosophy have
asserted on the advantages of naturalness and simplicity all through their
history, these doctrines have also spread into the realm of Japanese food
regarding the freshness of ingredients, light and delicate flavours as well as
simple cooking preparations. Furthermore, Japanese believes that good eating
means small servings of harmonious and balanced compositions of food, rather
than large portions of the same food as in Western cultures. Japanese attitude
towards fat is also reasonably negative (Ashkenazi and Jacob, 2003). These
clearly denote that Japanese food can be considered as a healthy diet. In contrast,
like other Western food cultures, not only being oversized in portions, British
food itself is also high in cholesterol and fat, and low in fibre and complex
carbohydrates. These seem to lead to the problems of excessive calories intake in
British people (Kittler and Sucher, 2008). A latest UK national diet and nutrition
survey for year 2016/17 further reported exceeded sugar, saturated fat, and red
and processed meat intakes, as well as low in total vegetable and fruit, dietary
fibre and oily fish consumption in overall British populations as compared with
the recommended levels (Public Health England and Food Standards Agency,
2019). Besides, the latest UK obesity statistics showed that over 60% of British
253
adult population is either overweight or obese (Baker, 2018). These alarming
factors have called the need of dietary changes towards a healthy, balanced diet
in the British (nhs.uk, 2019). Beyond the unique appearance and flavours, Thai
food is also renowned for its health benefits from both properties of the
ingredients used and its cooking methods, especially the balanced combination
of herbs and spices (Singsomboon, 2015; The National Research Council of
Thailand and Kasetsart University, 2007; Tourism Authority of Thailand, 2019).
The results of the qualitative stage in the present study also reported British
participants’ preference towards health benefits of local Thai food including a
plenty use of fresh herbs and spices, natural produces, and less processed and
allergic ingredients as compared with British diets, whereas none of the
Japanese participants referred to this matter. All things considered, these seem
to reasonably explain the higher emphasis of health concern through consuming
local Thai food on holiday in the British subjects. On the contrary, Japanese food
is considered healthy in its nature, which may result in the less interest in this
factor by the Japanese. Referring back to the greater attention placed on sensory
appeals of local Thai food by British, it might lead to their higher emphasis on
listening to locals’ dining guidance in order to assure the quality of food they
would gain.
The results of t-test showed that repeat tourists were more driven by Health
Concern and Assurance when comparing with the first-time tourists (mean
difference = 0.38, p =0.000). Since the repeaters appear to be more familiar and
knowledgeable with the destination and its attributes including local culture,
food, and people than the first-timers (Kim et al., 2009b; Lau and Mckercher,
2004; Yolal et al., 2017), their familiarity tends to increase their awareness and
appreciation of destination’s hidden qualities and attractions as well as social
opportunities such as friendly local people and a variety of locally produced food
that may not be directly recognisable to the first-timers (Fakeye and Crompton,
1991; Hahm, and Severt 2017; Rittichainuwat et al., 2001). Consequently, the
repeaters are more likely to communicate/interact with local residents and may
place more emphasis on locals’ recommendation for where they should dine in
254
to ensure the quality of food/meals they would obtain. They may also be more
appreciated in the health values of the local food.
6.10 FOOD-RELATED TOURISM ACTIVITIES

The respondents were asked to rate the frequency of their participation in seven
food-related tourism activities during their holiday in Thailand on a response
scale of 1 = “never” to 5 = “more than three times”. The food-related tourism
activity lists were adapted from previous food tourism studies (Karim and Chi,
2010; Chen, 2013; Ignatov and Smith, 2008; Mack et al., 2009; Shenoy, 2005) and
tailored to suit with what are available in Thailand.
Around 80% of overall respondents took part in tasting local Thai food activities
in a particular food market/area or a famous food restaurant/outlet. However,
almost half of the respondents have never visited a local Thai food festival/event
or purchasing food souvenirs, ingredients or products back home. Moreover,
over 60% of the respondents reported that they have never experienced a local
food or beverage-producing place, a local food tour or a Thai cooking class. These
findings further supported the qualitative results of this study. The majority of
the interviewees reported that except tasting local food in food areas, markets,
restaurants, or outlets, they have never heard about the availabilities of other
food related activities in Thailand, particularly local food festivals and events,
eating tours, and local food producing places. This suggested that other food-
related tourism activities in Thailand except tasting local Thai food were likely
not to be well promoted to foreign tourists. The results of the present study
matched those found in Karim and Chi (2010)’s study, which revealed some
shortcomings of Thailand in promoting its culinary tourism, as proven by a
reasonably low perception of Thailand’s food-related tourism activities in their
overall respondents in comparison to France and Italy.
To investigate any differences in the frequency of engaging in each type of the

food activities between British and Japanese subjects, and also between first-
time and repeat tourists, chi-square tests were performed.
255
6.10.1 Differences by Nationality
As shown in Table 6.39, Chi-square values indicated that the effect of nationality
on the frequency of taking part in food-related tourism activities in Thailand was
significant for Activity 1 Tasting various local Thai foods in a particular food
market/area (χ2 = 17.14, p = 0.002), Activity 2 Eating famous local Thai dishes in
a specific restaurant/outlets (χ2 = 25.94, p = 0.000), Activity 4 Purchasing local
Thai food products/ingredients/souvenirs back home (χ2 = 31.06, p = 0.000), and
Activity 5 Attending a Thai cooking class (χ2 = 70.13, p = 0.000).
Table 6.39 Comparison of frequency of joining in food-related tourism

activities between British and Japanese respondents
Food-related Tourism Activities Frequency Frequency Frequency χ2
(n = 600) (n = 300) (n = 300) (Sig.)
1. Going to a particular area/market for
tasting a variety of local Thai foods on my
own
Never 118 (19.7%) 55 (18.3%) 63 (21.0%) χ2 = 17.14
One time 145 (24.2%) 54 (18.0%) 91 (30.3%) (p = 0.002*)
Twice times 117 (19.5%) 61 (20.3%) 56 (18.7%)
Three times 54 (9.0%) 32 (10.7%) 22 (7.3%)
More than three times 166 (27.7%) 98 (32.7%) 68 (22.7%)
2. Visiting a specific food stall, food cart,
café, or restaurant to eat its own famous
local Thai dishes on my own
Never 131 (21.8%) 87 (29.0%) 44 (14.7%) χ2 = 25.94
One time 149 (24.8%) 59 (19.7%) 90 (30.0%) (p = 0.000*)
Twice times 123 (20.5%) 58 (19.3%) 65 (21.7%)
Three times 69 (11.5%) 41 (13.7%) 28 (9.3%)
3. Visiting a local food festival/event and
own
Never 288 (48.0%) 136 (45.3%) 152 (50.7%) χ2 = 4.31
One time 132 (22.0%) 72 (24.0%) 60 (20.0%) (p = 0.365)
Twice times 88 (14.7%) 50 (16.7%) 38 (12.7%)
Three times 44 (7.3%) 20 (6.7%) 24 (8.0%)
4. Purchasing local food products/
ingredients back home as a souvenir for
friends/family or for own use
Never 244 (40.7%) 155 (51.7%) 89 (29.7%) χ2 = 31.06
256
One time 144 (24.0%) 57 (19.0%) 87 (29.0%) (p = 0.000*)
Twice times 96 (16.0%) 43 (14.3%) 53 (17.7%)
Three times 51 (8.5%) 19 (6.3%) 32 (10.7%)
5. Experiencing a local Thai food/beverage-
producing place
Never 376 (62.7%) 189 (63.0%) 187 (62.3%) χ2 = 4.66
One time 106 (17.7%) 46 (15.3%) 60 (20.0%) (p = 0.324)
Twice times 57 (9.5%) 28 (9.3%) 29 (9.7%)
Three times 26 (4.3%) 16 (5.3%) 10 (3.3%)
6. Participating in a street food tour/local
food tour
Never 437 (72.8%) 207 (69.0%) 230 (76.7%) χ2 = 9.35
One time 86 (14.3%) 53 (17.7%) 33 (11.0%) (p = 0.053)
Twice times 40 (6.7%) 17 (5.7%) 23 (7.7%)
Three times 21 (3.5%) 14 (4.7%) 7 (2.3%)
7. Attending a Thai cookery course
Never 435 (72.5%) 175 (58.3%) 260 (86.7%) χ2 = 70.13
One time 119 (19.8%) 98 (32.7%) 21 (7.0%) (p = 0.000*)
Twice times 27 (4.5%) 16 (5.3%) 11 (3.7%)
Three times 11 (1.8%) 8 (2.7%) 3 (1.0%)
Whereas, almost one-third of British respondents (32.7%) visited a food

market/area to savour a variety of local Thai dishes more than three times, a
comparable proportion of the Japanese respondents (30.3%) did this activity
only once. This signifies that this activity tended to be more popular in the
British than the Japanese. Crespi-Vallbona and Dimitrovski, (2016) pointed out
that a food market acts as the commercial and social-centre of local communities
and exemplify as a setting where locals perform their typical daily activities. A
food market is also a unique area packed with history, culture of a destination,
locals’ lifestyle, traditions, tastes and eating habits. Therefore, the market
becomes an exceptional and attractive resource for tourists who want to
discover and appreciate the local cultures during their holiday (Hjalager and
Richards, 2002). Thus, the higher interest in Cultural Experience through tasting
local Thai food in the British might lead to their higher frequent visit to the food
markets.
257
Conversely, 30% of Japanese respondents dined in a famous local restaurant,
café or vendor one time, while 29% of the British equivalents had never done
that. Even though there is an increase in number of independent travellers in the
Japanese overseas tourism (Schumann, 2006), Japanese tourists are still
generally perceived as risk avoiders due to their high uncertainty avoidance
index (UAI = 92) (Cho, 1991; Hofstede, 1980; Ritter, 1987; You et al., 2000).
However, their uncertainty and also foreign language barriers have been
lessened by the abundance of guidebooks written in the Japanese language
(Funck and Cooper, 2013). Hence, Japanese tourists, especially who are first-
timers at a destination, tend to follow what are recommended on their
guidebooks for where to go and to dine in, and what to eat so as to minimise
risks. Graburn (1983) and Ohnuki-Tierne (1990), both advocated that Japanese
typically opt for visiting famous “culture approved” attractions because of their
low cultural-confidence compared to Westerners. The findings of the qualitative
stage of the present study further evidenced that Japanese interviewees reported
their decision of where to eat or where are deemed ‘famous’ and worth to dine in
based on the recommendations of their Japanese guidebooks. Thus, their
dependence on their guidebook seems to probably explain their higher tendency
to visit a famous restaurants or food outlets. Apart from this, dining in a famous
restaurant or eating well-known and unique food in a holiday destination could
be considered as a fulfillment of prestige and status (Fields, 2002). A higher
score of power distance index, a cultural dimension linked with a degree of
demand for prestige and social status (Hofstede, 1980), in Japanese (54) as
compared to the British (35) could be another possible explanation for this
dissimilarity (Hofstede, 2015).
Concerning the local food shopping activity, approximately half of British

respondents (51.7%) had never purchased either local food souvenirs or
products/ingredients back home for their own cooking, and about one-fifth of
them (19%) did it once. On the contrary, there was an absence of the food
shopping activity in less than one third of Japanese sample (29.7%), and a
similar percentage of them (29.0%) performed this activity one time. These
suggested a higher emphasis on this activity in the Japanese visitors compared
258
with the British visitors. As being from a collectivistic culture, accentuating
“conformity, belonging, empathy, and dependence” (Ishii- Kuntz, 1989 as cited in
You et al, 2000: p. 6), Japanese tourists’ souvenir purchasing behaviour could be
explained by this Hofstede’s cultural dimension (Hofstede, 2015). Visitors from a
collectivistic culture as such Japanese and Koreans tended to purchase more
gifts, souvenirs and budget higher for gifts, whereas those from a individualistic
culture as such British and Americans were likely to be less pressure to
reciprocate gifts and were more flexible in gift budgeting (Park 1998; Reisinger,
2009; Reisinger and Turner, 1999). Ahmed and Krohn (1992) and You et al.
(2000), both have particularly highlighted the gift-giving tradition (senbetsu-
omiyage) in Japanese tourists as the manifestation of the importance of the
group that shows the relationships between the tourists and their family, friends,
neighbors and colleagues at home. Omiyage is defined as souvenir gifts, often
being some famous local delicacy, purchased by a tourist for those who have
stayed at home (Ashkenazi and Jacob, 2003; Park, 2000). Every Japanese tourist
are expected to bring back omiyage to those who left at home as an expression of
love and thanks, and in particular, feel physically obligated to reciprocate
omiyage to the person giving them senbetsu, the money for travel before their
departure (Ahmed and Krohn, 1992; Ashkenazi and Jacob, 2003; Park, 2000).
Concerning a higher purchase of food products/ingredients back home for own
use, a possibly explanation might be a shorter travel distance between Japan and
Thailand, in comparison to the UK. Consequently, Japanese travellers tend to
spend a shorter holiday and usually travel solely to Thailand, whereas British
travellers are likely to have a longer stay/trip and tend to include their Thailand
trip with other Southeast Asian countries. The qualitative finding of this study
also supported this matter as British interviewees reported a main reason of
their visit/revisit to Thailand (Bangkok) as being a flight hub of Southeast Asian,
which facilitate them to continue their trip in other Southeast countries. As
having a long trip resulting in an inconvenience to carry a lot of stuff, the British
tourists might be less inclined to purchase foodstuff back home as much as their
Japanese counterparts do.
259
Approximately third-fifth of British sample (58.3%) had never attended a Thai
cookery course during their holiday in Thailand, while a considerable higher
percentage of Japanese sample (86.7%) reported their absence of this activity.
Moreover, around one-third of British respondents (32.7%) revealed their one-
time participation in a Thai cooking class, only 7% of Japanese respondents did
this activity once. The higher interest in a Thai cookery course in the British
sample might result from their higher emphasis on cultural experience through
consumption of local Thai food (as previously discussed in Section 6.9.4).
Learning how to cook food of other cultures, an indirect food-related activity, can
be seen as closer interaction, involvement and richer experience with other
cultures by learning and gaining cultural knowledge through process of cooking,
which is beyond tasting food (Du Rand and Heath, 2006; Getz et al., 2014;
Shenoy, 2005). In addition, Lertputtarak (2012) advocated that Thai cooking
could be considered as an important aspect of the nation's cultural heritage,
which is passed from generation to generation. Hence, a desire to learn Thai
cookery can be seen as a quest for increasing the knowledge of Thai culture. Less
communication gap/language barrier between cooking class teachers/chefs and
learners in British visitors (as being English native speakers) may have also
contributed to their higher frequency of attendance compared with the Japanese
visitors.
6.10.2 Differences by Type of Visitor

It can be seen from the chi-square results in Table 6.40 that there was a
significant difference between first-time and repeat visitors regarding the
frequency of taking part in food-related tourism activities in Thailand for Activity
1 Tasting various local Thai foods in a particular food market/area (χ2 = 9.80, p =
0.044), Activity 2 Eating famous local Thai dishes in a specific restaurant/outlets
(χ2 = 26.86, p = 0.000), Activity 3 Attending a local food festival/event (χ2 = 11.74,
p = 0.019), and Activity 4 Purchasing local Thai food products/ingredients/
souvenirs back home (χ2 = 20.62, p = 0.000).
260
Table 6.40 Comparison of frequency of joining in food-related tourism
activities between first-time and repeat visitors
Total First Time Repeat
Frequency Visitors Visitors χ2
Food-related Tourism Activities
Frequency Frequency
(n = 600) (n = 376) (n = 224) (Sig.)
1. Going to a particular area/market for
own
Never 118 (19.7%) 82 (21.8%) 36 (16.1%) χ2 = 9.80
One time 145 (24.2%) 91 (24.2%) 54 (24.1%) (p = 0.044*)
Twice times 117 (19.5%) 76 (20.2%) 41 (18.3%)
Three times 54 (9.0%) 38 (10.1%) 16 (7.1%)
2. Visiting a specific food stall, food cart,
café, or restaurant to eat its own famous
local Thai dishes on my own
Never 131 (21.8%) 102 (27.1%) 29 (12.9%) χ2 = 26.86
One time 149 (24.8%) 100 (26.6%) 49 (21.9%) (p = 0.000*)
Twice times 123 (20.5%) 71 (18.9%) 52 (23.2%)
Three times 69 (11.5%) 41 (10.9%) 28 (12.5%)
3. Visiting a local food festival/event and
own
Never 288 (48.0%) 193 (51.3%) 95 (42.4%) χ2 = 11.74
One time 132 (22.0%) 86 (22.9%) 46 (20.5%) (p = 0.019*)
Twice times 88 (14.7%) 52 (13.8%) 36 (16.1%)
Three times 44 (7.3%) 24 (6.4%) 20 (8.9%)
4. Purchasing local food products/
ingredients back home as a souvenir for
friends/family or for own use
Never 244 (40.7%) 175 (46.5%) 69 (30.8%) χ2 = 20.62
One time 144 (24.0%) 90 (23.9%) 54 (24.1%) (p = 0.000*)
Twice times 96 (16.0%) 53 (14.1%) 43 (19.2%)
Three times 51 (8.5%) 29 (7.7%) 22 (9.8%)
5. Experiencing a local Thai food/beverage-
producing place
Never 376 (62.7%) 231 (61.4%) 145 (64.7%) χ2 = 2.03
One time 106 (17.7%) 71 (18.9%) 35 (15.6%) (p = 0.731)
Twice times 57 (9.5%) 36 (9.6%) 21 (9.4%)
Three times 26 (4.3%) 18 (4.8%) 8 (3.6%)
261
6. Participating in a street food tour/local
food tour
Never 437 (72.8%) 278 (73.9%) 159 (71.0%) χ2 = 4.04
One time 86 (14.3%) 52 (13.8%) 34 (15.2%) (p = 0.401)
Twice times 40 (6.7%) 21 (5.6%) 19 (8.5%)
Three times 21 (3.5%) 16 (4.3%) 5 (2.2%)
7. Attending a Thai cookery course
Never 435 (72.5%) 275 (73.1%) 160 (71.4%) χ2 = 3.74
One time 119 (19.8%) 72 (19.1%) 47 (21.0%) (p = 0.443)
Twice times 27 (4.5%) 20 (5.3%) 7 (3.1%)
Three times 11 (1.8%) 5 (1.3%) 6 (2.7%)
There were significant differences between proportions of first-time and repeat

visitors, who had never visited food markets/areas for tasting various local
dishes (first-time 21.8%, repeat 16.1%), dined in a particular restaurant, café or
vendor for tasting its own famous local Thai dishes (first-time 27.1%, repeat
12.9%), attended a local Thai food festival or event (first-time 51.3%, repeat
42.4%), and purchased food souvenirs, food products or ingredients back home
for own use (first-time 46.5%, repeat 30.8%). Moreover, the statistically
significant differences were also revealed between percentages of first-timers
and repeaters who performed these four activities more than three times
(Activity 1: first-time 23.7%, repeat 33.4%; Activity 2: first-time 16.5%, repeat
29.5%; Activity 3: first-time 5.6%, repeat 12.1%; Activity 4: first-time 7.7%,
repeat 16.1%). These results suggested the higher interest of repeaters in
participating in food-related activities (i.e. tasting various local dishes in food
markets, areas, famous restaurants, cafés or vendors, attending local food
festivals or events, and shopping local food souvenirs, products or ingredients
back home), as compared to the first-timers.
As a result of past experience and increased exposure effect, the repeaters seem
to be more familiar and knowledgeable with the destination and its attributes
including local food, cuisine, culture and people than the first-timers. Their
familiarity tends to enhance their awareness and appreciation of destination’s
hidden qualities and attractions as well as perceive more value from
consumption of experiences, social opportunities and local life-related activities
262
such as tasting, experiencing local cuisine and a variety of locally produced food,
shopping in districts and markets, purchasing local delicacies, and interacting
with friendly local residents (Fakeye and Crompton, 1991; Giraldi and Cesareo,
2014; Hahm, and Severt 2017; Kim et al., 2009b; Lau and Mckercher, 2004;
McKercher and Wang, 2004; Rittichainuwat et al., 2001; Wang, 2004; Yolal et al.,
2017). Furthermore, existing literature have reported that repeaters were more
willing to savor the diversity of cuisine offered and local food alternatives,
compared to the first timers (Mak et al., 2012; Ryu and Jang, 2006; Ryu and Han,
2010; Tse and Crotts, 2005). The present study also found a higher emphasis in
sensory and variety pleasure through consumption of local Thai food in the
repeaters than the first-timers (as previously discussed in Section 6.9.4). All in
all, these seem to rationalise the higher participation of the repeaters in those
food-related activities.
6.11 TEMPORAL REVISIT INTENTION MEASUREMENT

Respondents’ temporal intentions to revisit Thailand, in the short (next three
years) and long term (next ten years), were measured using the same three
items on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 =
strongly agree. The overall mean score of respondents’ short-term revisit
intention was 5.04 (SD = 1.82), suggesting that the respondents had a moderate
intention to revisit Thailand in the short term. The overall mean value of the
respondents’ long-term revisit intention was 5.90 (SD = 1.37), indicating a
greater intention to revisit Thailand in the long term in comparison to the short-
term. As an overseas holiday trip involves both a considerable travel budget and
time spent (both on a flight and the holiday itself), this could reasonably explain
the respondents’ higher intention to repeat a visit in the long-term rather than
the short-term, especially to a distant destination as such Thailand, which
requires at least an 11 hour-flight for British tourists travelling from London and
a 6 hour-flight for Japanese tourists travelling from Tokyo (Heathrow Airport
Limited, 2019; Narita International Airport Corporation, 2019).
A Pearson correlation analysis was performed to explore the relationships

between the respondents’ intention to revisit Thailand in the short and long
263
term, personality traits, destination and food image, and destination and food
satisfaction. As displayed in Table 6.41, significant relationships were evidenced
between the short and long term revisit intention, all personality traits, images
and satisfactions. These indicated that the respondents who were less food
neophobic and more food involved, perceived a more favorable image of
Thailand and Thai food during the present trip, and had a higher satisfaction
with overall trip quality and local Thai food experiences tended to have a higher
intention to revisit Thailand in both the short and long term.
Table 6.41 Correlation between short-term and long-term intention to

revisit Thailand, personality traits, images and satisfactions: Overall
(n = 600)
On-site On-site
Overall Food
NS FNS FIS Destination Destination
Satisfaction Satisfaction
Image Food Image
Short-term
0.150** -0.133** 0.088* 0.292** 0.308** 0.316** 0.317**
revisit intention
Long-term revisit
0.159** -0.265** 0.131** 0.430** 0.432** 0.422** 0.443**
intention
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
6.11.1 Differences in Temporal Revisit Intentions by Nationality

An independent samples t-test was utilised to compare differences between
British and Japanese respondents in terms of their intention to revisit Thailand
in the short and long term. There was no significant difference (p = 0.606)
between the British and Japanese respondents concerning their overall short-
term revisit intention. Table 6.42 presents the mean values and t-test results,
which compare the two nationalities on the three measurement items that
contribute short-term revisit intention.
264
Table 6.42 Comparison of short-term intention to revisit Thailand between
t-value
(2-tailed sig.)
(n = 600) (n = 300) (n = 300)
Short-term revisit intention t = -0.52
5.04 (1.82) 5.01 (1.72) 5.08 (1.91)
(Overall) (p = 0.606)
Short-term revisit intention 1 t = 3.18
5.37 (1.88) 5.61 (1.72) 5.13 (1.99)
(willingness) (p = 0.002*)
Short-term revisit intention 2 t = -2.64
4.93 (2.01) 4.71 (2.02) 5.14 (1.97)
(plan) (p = 0.009*)
4.84 (1.95) 4.69 (1.95) 4.98 (1.95)
(make an effort) (p = 0.076)
While British respondents reported a significantly higher level of willingness to

revisit Thailand in the short-term, they had a significantly lower tendency to plan
a return trip to the destination in this timeframe. No significant difference
between British and Japanese sample was found on their likelihood to make an
effort to return to Thailand in the short-term, even though the Japanese sample
expressed a slightly higher mean score for this item. The higher score on the
willingness to revisit in the British sample might partly result from their more
favourable image of Thailand (See Section 6.6.1). However, it might become
unclear when reaching a solid plan or actual intention to revisit in a short period
of time. These findings may reflect an effect of travel distance on tourism
demand. Travel distance has been found to have a positive effect on intended
revisit timing to the destination (Gitelson and Crompton, 1984; Huang et al.,
2014; Li et al., 2008). In other words, “the time interval between current and
next visits would be longer for long-haul travelers than that for short-distance
travelers.” (Huang et al., 2014: p. 819). Although Japan is geographically more
proximate to Thailand than the UK, the overall intention to return to Thailand in
the short-run amongst the Japanese respondents was not found to be
significantly higher than that of their British equivalents in the present study.
This unexpected finding may be due to the conflicting mean scores for
‘willingness’ and ‘plan’ to revisit in both nationalities as previously mentioned.
The mean scores of overall long-term revisit intention for the British and
Japanese respondents were 6.03 and 5.76, respectively. The mean scores and t-
265
test statistics comparing the two nationalities on the different measures of long-
term revisit intention are shown in Table 6.43.
Table 6.43 Comparison of long-term intention to revisit Thailand between

t-value
(2-tailed sig.)
(n = 600) (n = 300) (n = 300)
Long-term revisit intention t = 2.46
5.90 (1.37) 6.03 (1.18) 5.76 (1.52)
(Overall) (p = 0.014*)
Long -term revisit intention 1 t = 4.69
6.00 (1.43) 6.28 (1.14) 5.74 (1.62)
5.87 (1.47) 5.90 (1.40) 5.83 (1.52)
(plan) (p = 0.522)
5.82 (1.43) 5.93 (1.31) 5.72 (1.54)
(make an effort) (p = 0.077)
The British respondents revealed a significantly higher level of overall intention

to revisit Thailand in the long run than the Japanese respondents. Like the result
for short-term, a significant higher level of willingness to revisit in the long term
was also evident in the British respondents. Although there was no statistically
significant difference between the two nationalities in terms of planning and
making an effort to revisit Thailand in the long run, the mean scores of the
British respondents concerning these two items were all higher than those of the
Japanese respondents. Although there is no cross-cultural comparison study on
temporal destination revisit intentions, the nationality differences on destination
revisit intention found in this study broadly support the findings of several
tourism studies on future revisit intention in general such as among Americans,
Japanese and Chinese visiting Hawaii (Canneen, 2004), among French, British,
Germans and Indians visiting Mauritius (Ramkissoon et al., 2001), and between
British and Chinese undergraduate students on likelihood to return to a
previously visited holiday destination (Xu et al., 2009).
6.11.2 Differences in Temporal Revisit Intentions by Type of Visitor

A t-test was additionally performed to test for differences between first-time and
repeat visitors concerning their intention
266
to revisit Thailand in the short and long term. T-test results shown in Table 6.44
and 6.45 indicated statistically significant differences between the two groups in
both short and long term revisit intention, regarding all intention measurement
items.
Table 6.44 Comparison of short-term intention to revisit Thailand between

First Time Repeat
Total
Mean (S.D.)
(n = 600)
(n = 376) (n = 224)
Short-term revisit intention t = -6.93
5.04 (1.82) 4.67 (1.80) 5.67 (1.66)
(Overall) (p = 0.000*)
5.37 (1.88) 5.02 (1.93) 5.95 (1.63)
4.93 (2.01) 4.55 (2.00) 5.56 (1.85)
(plan) (p = 0.000*)
5.04 (1.82) 4.43 (1.93) 5.52 (1.80)
(make an effort) (p = 0.000*)
Table 6.45 Comparison of long-term intention to revisit Thailand between

First Time Repeat
Total
Mean (S.D.)
(n = 600)
(n = 376) (n = 224)
Long-term revisit intention t = -5.20
5.90 (1.37) 5.69 (1.41) 6.25 (1.22)
(Overall) (p = 0.000*)
Long -term revisit intention 1 t = -5.29
6.00 (1.43) 5.79 (1.52) 6.38 (1.17)
Long -term revisit intention 2 t = -4.31
5.87 (1.47) 5.67 (1.49) 6.19 (1.37)
(plan) (p = 0.000*)
Long -term revisit intention 3 t = - 5.30
5.82 (1.43) 5.60 (1.48) 6.20 (1.26)
(make an effort) (p = 0.000*)
The repeaters (short: mean 5.67, SD 1.66; long: mean 6.25, SD 1.22) had a higher
level of overall short and long term revisit intention than the first-timers (short:
mean 4.67, SD 1.80; long: mean 5.69, SD 1.41). The results clearly suggested that
the repeaters seemed to have a higher level of intention and willingness to plan a
trip and make an effort to revisit Thailand in both the short and long run. Since
international tourism concerns a large expenditure as well as a high level of risk
and uncertainty, previous experience, knowledge and familiarity with the
destination can help tourists in decreasing their doubts and increasing their
267
confidence for subsequent visits, leading to higher intention to revisit the same
destination (Chi, 2012; Gitelson and Crompton, 1984; Sonmez and Graefe, 1998).
A higher intention to make a repeat visit to the same holiday destination in
repeat visitors compared to the first-time visitors has been widely revealed in
various tourism studies (e.g. Chi, 2012; Gitelson and Crompton, 1984; Huang and
Hsu, 2009; Juaneda, 1996; Kozak, 2001b; 2004; Lau and McKercher, 2004; Li, et
al., 2008: Petrick, 2001; 2004a; Yuksel, 2001).
6.12 ESTIMATION OF VARIABLES IN THE RESEARCH MODEL

As previously stated in Chapter 3 (Section 3.6), this study employed the
extended combination of the theory of planned behaviour model (TPB) and the
model of goal direct behaviour (MGB) as the research model to examine salient
factors underlying tourists’ intention to revisit Thailand. However, frequency of
past behaviour (in the last 3 and 10 years) and length of stay (number of nights)
were excluded from the proposed research model due to the non-normality of
the data as well as containing extreme outliers, which may distort the results (as
previously discussed in Section 6.2).
Since the MGB was developed based on the TPB (Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001),
this study extended the MGB by adding in belief-based measures of attitude,
subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control (as in the TPB) with an aim
to evaluate an influence of local Thai food experiences as a motivational base of
revisiting Thailand. Also, this is to allow an investigation of common
motivational factors between local food consumption and revisiting behaviour
contexts. According to the TPB model, behavioural intention is leaded by three
kinds of beliefs: 1) behavioural beliefs, 2) normative beliefs, and 3) control
beliefs. Beliefs about revisiting Thailand were measured using the questionnaire
structure that guided by Ajzen (2006) and the interview results of the qualitative
stage of this study. Based on Ajzen (1991), the overall levels of belief-based
measures were calculated using the expectancy-value approaches as expressed
in Equation 1 to 3 below. In other words, for each belief based measure, the
strength of each belief is multiplied by it evaluative component. The resulting
products are summed over all the beliefs to produce the overall score.
268
AB α Σbiei (1)
bi = behavioural belief strength
ei = outcome evaluation
SN α Σnimi (2)
ni = normative belief strength
mi = motivation to comply
PBC α Σcipi (3)
ci = control belief strength
pi = control belief power
Following Gaskin (2016a), data analysis of this study were carried out in three
stages using IBM SPSS AMOS software package version 24: 1) Assessing
measurement models using CFA, common method bias, and measurement
invariance techniques, 2) Testing causal relationships using Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM), and 3) Verifying differences in short and long term revisit
intention models between British and Japanese sample, and between first-time
and repeat visitors. Hair et al. (2014) suggested that if the researcher has
predetermined concept on the actual structure of the data, based on theoretical
support or former research, the use of CFA is more appropriate than the EFA in
this situation. As this conceptual model is an extended combination of the MGB
and TPB model and its measures was constructed based on both the theories,
which were empirically validated in tourism literature (e.g. Han and Kim, 2010;
Jang, 2014; Lam and Hsu, 2004; 2006; Lee et al., 2015;Meng and Choi, 2016; Song
et al., 2014), the EFA was not performed prior to the CFA.
6.12.1 Estimation of Measurement Models

6.12.1.1 Estimation of measurement models using CFA
All latent variables: the three belief-based measures and direct measures of
attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control, and the global
measures of positive anticipated emotion, negative anticipated emotion, desire,
short and long term revisit intention were examined the internal and external
269
consistency and the suitability of scale definitions using a confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) (Byrne, 2010, Hair et al., 2014, Schumacker and Lomax, 2004).
To response the research question regarding differences between the influences

of salient factors affecting short and long term revisit intention, two models for
short-term and long-term revisit intention will be separately tested for causal
relationships between the factors using SEM. Thus, in this stage, the two
measurement models (for short and long term revisit intention) were assessed
independently using CFA and the final results were summarised in Table 6.46
and 6.47, respectively.
Table 6.46 Results of measurement model for short-termed revisit

intention using CFA
Loading (CR)
Factor 1 – Behavioural Beliefs 0.45 0.840
BB1. Local food experiences 0.466 8.300
BB2. Food-related tourism activities 0.479 8.425
BB3. New and different experiences 0.924 10.727
BB4. Different/interesting culture 0.868 10.700
BB5. Friendly people 0.711 9.844
BB7. Nature/natural attraction 0.628 10.778
BB8. Cheap travel prices/budget 0.423 Fixed
Factor 2 – Normative Beliefs 0.69 0.869
NB1. Family 0.739 19.351
NB2. Friends 0.963 22.510
NB3. Colleagues 0.777 Fixed
Factor 3 – Control Beliefs 0.55 0.707
CB1. Travel cost 0.726 4.213
CB2. Distance to Thailand 0.752 Fixed
Factor 4 – Attitude
I think that revisiting Thailand for holiday is
AT1. Positive 0.903 Fixed 0.73 0.888
AT2. Beneficial 0.847 25.841
AT3. Valuable 0.804 23.624
Factor 5 – Subjective Norm
Most people who are important to me
SN1. Support my decision to revisit Thailand 0.853 Fixed 0.67 0.889
270
SN2. Understand the significance of revisit Thailand 0.853 23.772
SN3. Agree I should revisit Thailand 0.805 21.798
SN4. Recommend revisiting Thailand 0.755 20.539
Factor 6 – Perceived Behavioural Control
PC1. I am confident that if I want, I can revisit Thailand 0.916 Fixed 0.46 0.706
PC2. I have resources (money) to revisit Thailand 0.557 10.600
PC3. I have enough time to revisit Thailand 0.493 9.698
Factor 7 – Positive Anticipated Emotion
If I succeed in achieving my goal of revisiting Thailand, I will be
PE1. Excited 0.907 28.551 0.80 0.940
PE2. Glad 0.881 29.225
PE3. Satisfied 0.918 31.349
PE4. Happy 0.866 Fixed
Factor 8 – Negative Anticipated Emotion 0.59 0.802
If I fail in achieving my goal of revisiting Thailand, I will be
NE1. Disappointed 0.931 17.047
NE2. Worried 0.496 14.004
NE3. Sad 0.809 Fixed
Factor 9 – Desire 0.93 0.963
DS1. I want to revisit Thailand 0.972 48.421
DS2. I hope to revisit Thailand 0.955 Fixed
Factor 10 – Short-term Revisit Intention 0.82 0.931
RI1. I will make an effort to revisit Thailand within next three 0.947 Fixed
year
RI2. I intend to revisit Thailand within next three year 0.958 45.802
RI3. I am willing to revisit Thailand within next three year 0.800 28.630
Model χ2(df) = 1203.49 (472); χ2/df = 2.55; p-value = 0.000; GFI = 0.89; AGFI = 0.86; NFI = 0.92; CFI = 0.95; RMSEA =
0.05
Note: All standardised factor loadings are significant at p < 0.001
Table 6.47 Results of measurement model for long-termed revisit intention

using CFA
Loading (CR)
Factor 1 – Behavioural Beliefs 0.45 0.840
BB1. Local food experiences 0.466 8.299
BB2. Food-related tourism activities 0.479 8.425
BB3. New and different experiences 0.925 10.725
BB4. Different/interesting culture 0.868 10.697
271
BB5. Friendly people 0.711 9.841
BB7. Nature/natural attraction 0.628 10.776
BB8. Cheap travel prices/budget 0.423 Fixed
Factor 2 – Normative Beliefs 0.69 0.870
NB1. Family 0.741 19.386
NB2. Friends 0.961 22.481
NB3. Colleagues 0.778 Fixed
Factor 3 – Control Beliefs 0.57 0.723
CB1. Travel cost 0.634 4.040
CB2. Distance to Thailand 0.861 Fixed
Factor 4 – Attitude
I think that revisiting Thailand for holiday is
AT1. Positive 0.911 Fixed 0.72 0.886
AT2. Beneficial 0.839 25.992
AT3. Valuable 0.797 23.711
Factor 5 – Subjective Norm
Most people who are important to me
SN1. Support my decision to revisit Thailand 0.858 Fixed 0.67 0.888
SN2. Understand the significance of revisit Thailand 0.848 23.753
SN3. Agree I should revisit Thailand 0.802 21.815
SN4. Recommend revisiting Thailand 0.753 20.564
Factor 6 – Perceived Behavioural Control
PC1. I am confident that if I want, I can revisit Thailand 0.911 Fixed 0.46 0.706
PC2. I have resources (money) to revisit Thailand 0.559 10.829
PC3. I have enough time to revisit Thailand 0.497 9.906
Factor 7 – Positive Anticipated Emotion
If I succeed in achieving my goal of revisiting Thailand, I will be
PE1. Excited 0.907 28.538 0.80 0.940
PE2. Glad 0.881 29.224
PE3. Satisfied 0.918 31.342
PE4. Happy 0.866 Fixed
Factor 8 – Negative Anticipated Emotion 0.59 0.801
If I fail in achieving my goal of revisiting Thailand, I will be
NE1. Disappointed 0.920 16.318
NE2. Worried 0.497 13.870
NE3. Sad 0.818 Fixed
Factor 9 – Desire 0.93 0.963
DS1. I want to revisit Thailand 0.972 49.719
DS2. I hope to revisit Thailand 0.956 Fixed
Factor 10 – Long-term Revisit Intention 0.86 0.947
RI1. I will make an effort to revisit Thailand within next ten year 0.944 35.436
RI2. I intend to revisit Thailand within next ten year 0.959 36.564
RI3. I am willing to revisit Thailand within next ten year 0.870 Fixed
272
Model χ2(df) = 1150.48 (472); χ2/df = 2.44; p-value = 0.000; GFI = 0.90; AGFI = 0.87; NFI = 0.93; CFI = 0.96; RMSEA =
0.05
Note: All standardised factor loadings are significant at p < 0.001
As displayed in Table 6.46 and 6.47, the final CFA results for both the short and
long term revisit intention measurement models revealed an acceptable level of
fit for the fit indexes. Short-term: χ2(df) = 1203.49 (472), χ2/df = 2.55, goodness-
of-fit index (GFI) = 0.89, adjusted goodness-of-fit (AGFI) = 0.86, normed fit index
(NFI) = 0.92, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.95, and root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) = 0.05. Long-term: χ2(df) = 1150.48 (472), χ2/df = 2.44,
goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.90, adjusted goodness-of-fit (AGFI) = 0.87,
normed fit index (NFI) = 0.93, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.96, and root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.05. Average variance extract (AVE)
was additionally calculated to assess the convergent validity of all factors. The
AVEs of all factors, except Factor 1 and Factor 6, were higher the general
recommended value of 0.50, indicating a good level of convergent validity (Hair
et al., 2014). Considering the AVE value of Factor 1 (AVE = 0.45, CR = 0.840) and
Factor 6 (AVE = 0.46, CR = 0.706) were lower than 0.50. However, the value of
0.40 can be accepted if its composite reliability (CR) is higher than 0.60 as the
convergent validity of the factor is still satisfactory (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Composite reliability (CR) values (also called constuct reliability) of all factors
were higher than 0.70, suggesting a good level of composite reliability (Hair et
al., 2014).
As previously discussed in Section 6.9.2, this study used a cut-off of 0.40 as an

acceptable value for standardised factor loadings on a latent construct (Stevens,
2002; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013). Thus, item BB6 “visiting friends and
relatives” was removed from Factor 1 Behavioural Beliefs, and item CB4
“information about Thailand” was dropped from Factor 3 Control Beliefs because
their factor loadings were lower than 0.40. Furthermore, the modification
indices indicated that item CB3 “enough time to travel” was duplicated with item
273
PC3 “I have enough time to revisit Thailand” and should be removed from Factor
3 in order to improve model fits (Gaskin, 2011).
6.12.1.2 Reliability and validity

The scale reliability of all latent variables was also assessed using Cronbach’s
alpha. The alpha values of all final eleven latent factors were higher than 0.70,
the suggested threshold (Hair, 2014, Pallant, 2016): Factor 1 Behavioural Beliefs
(0.832), Factor 2 Normative Beliefs (0.857), Factor 3 Control Beliefs (0.707),
Factor 4 Attitude (0.910), Factor 5 Subjective Norm (0.906), Factor 6 Perceived
Behavioural Control (0.760), Factor 7 Positive Anticipated Emotion (0.932),
Factor 8 Negative Anticipated Emotion (0.816), Factor 9 Desire (0.963), Factor
10a Short-term Revisit Intention (0.927), and Factor 10b Long-term Revisit
Intention (0.946). As presented in Table 6.46 and 6.47 (CFA results), the CRs of
all factors exceeded the recommended 0.70 level, establishing the reliability of
the scale (Hair et al., 2014).
As can be seen from the CFA results (Table 6.46 and 6.47), the standardised
factor loadings were higher than the acceptable threshold of 0.40 on all latent
factors. AVE and CR of all factors also exceeded the recommended value of 0.40
and 0.60, respectively. These suggested a satisfactory level of convergent
validity. Regarding Fornell-Larcker testing system, discriminant validity is
established when the square root of the AVE value of each latent construct is
higher than the corresponding inter-construct correlations. Furthermore, AVE
values should exceed maximum-shared variance (MSV) and average shared
variance (ASV) for all the latent constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al.,
2014; Zait and Bertea, 2011). Table 6.48 and 6.49 below revealed that both
evaluation criteria were met; thus, discriminant validity was achieved.
274
Table 6.48 Discriminant validity assessment for short-term revisit intention measurement model
AVE MSV ASV F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10
F1: Behavioural Beliefs 0.448 0.323 0.165 0.669
F2: Normative Beliefs 0.692 0.190 0.085 0.281 0.832
F3: Control Beliefs 0.546 0.031 0.013 0.019 0.006 0.739
F4: Attitude 0.726 0.526 0.290 0.471 0.307 -0.130 0.852
F5: Subjective Norm 0.668 0.438 0.229 0.466 0.436 -0.124 0.662 0.818
F6: Perceived Behavioural Control 0.464 0.325 0.184 0.525 0.261 -0.168 0.570 0.507 0.681
F7: Positive Anticipated Emotion 0.798 0.500 0.297 0.568 0.358 0.062 0.707 0.579 0.557 0.893
F8: Negative Anticipated Emotion 0.589 0.225 0.144 0.323 0.326 0.108 0.437 0.369 0.317 0.465 0.768
F9: Desire 0.928 0.526 0.255 0.430 0.280 0.075 0.725 0.543 0.444 0.653 0.474 0.964
F10: Short-term Revisit Intention 0.818 0.356 0.161 0.286 0.134 0.177 0.549 0.424 0.309 0.426 0.453 0.597 0.905
Note: 1. Italic figures denote correlations among latent constructs obtained from AMOS; 2. Bold figures denote squared root of AVE; 3. Pre-visit & on-site
destination image, pre-visit & on-site destination food image, and overall & food satisfaction were not included in the measurement model because they are a single
indicator.
275
Table 6.49 Discriminant validity assessment for long-term revisit intention measurement model
AVE MSV ASV F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10
F1: Behavioural Beliefs 0.448 0.323 0.172 0.669
F2: Normative Beliefs 0.693 0.193 0.091 0.282 0.832
F3: Control Beliefs 0.572 0.032 0.013 0.012 0.018 0.756
F4: Attitude 0.723 0.524 0.308 0.469 0.307 -0.126 0.850
F5: Subjective Norm 0.666 0.437 0.237 0.466 0.439 -0.129 0.661 0.816
F6: Perceived Behavioural Control 0.463 0.328 0.201 0.527 0.263 -0.171 0.573 0.512 0.681
F7: Positive Anticipated Emotion 0.798 0.496 0.309 0.568 0.359 0.069 0.704 0.580 0.560 0.893
F8: Negative Anticipated Emotion 0.588 0.226 0.142 0.326 0.330 0.112 0.439 0.374 0.319 0.468 0.766
F9: Desire 0.929 0.524 0.272 0.430 0.281 0.089 0.724 0.544 0.446 0.653 0.475 0.964
F10: Long-term Revisit Intention 0.856 0.503 0.236 0.370 0.257 0.179 0.680 0.482 0.473 0.539 0.417 0.709 0.925
Note: 1. Italic figures denote correlations among latent constructs obtained from AMOS; 2. Bold figures denote squared root of AVE; 3. Pre-visit & on-site
destination image, pre-visit & on-site destination food image, and overall & food satisfaction were not included in the measurement model because they are a single
indicator.
276
6.12.1.3 Assessment of common method bias (CMB)
CMB is considered as a form of measurement error threatening the validity of the
estimates about the relationships between latent constructs as it could apply a
confounding effect on the observed correlation between the latent constructs.
(Bagozzi and Yi, 1991; Luo et al., 2010; Spector, 1987). Common method bias
(CMB) occurs when variations in responses results from the measurement
method rather than the actual tendencies of the respondents that the
measurement tries to reveal (Podsakoff, et al., 2003). The authors also pointed
out that CMB seems to be more prominent in research using the same
respondents and the same research instruments to gather the data for both
exogenous and endogenous variables.
This study assessed the potential of CMB in the data using three methods:
correlation observation, Harman’s single factor test, and common latent factor
technique. First, as per the assumption that the presence of CMB leads to
exceptionally high correlations, the correlations between all latent constructs
(Table 6.48 and 6.49) were observed. All correlation coefficients were less than
0.90, suggesting no extremely high values (Park and Tussyadiah, 2016). Second,
Harman’s single factor test was conducted to check whether the high portion of
variance could be explained by a single factor. CMB is concerned if all
measurement items are constrained to load in only one factor with unrotated
factor solution in the EFA, and then the variance explained accounted for a single
factor is over 50% (Eichhorn, 2014; Harman, 1976; Podsakoff et al., 2003). This
study performed this test twice: the first test for all measures in the short-term
revisit intention measurement model, and the second test for all measures in the
long-term revisit intention measurement model. Both the test results revealed
that a single factor accounted for 35% and 36% variance, respectively. These
suggested probable absence of CMB. Third, a common latent factor (CLF) was
employed to catch the common variance among all observed items in the CFA
measurement models. The process is that a new latent factor is added to the CFA
models, and connected to all observed variables. Then, all those paths are forced
to be equal and the variance of the latent factor is forced to be 1. After that, the
standardised regression weights resulted from this model is compared to the
277
standardised regression weights of a model without the CLF and the differences
should not be greater than 0.20. The test results for both the short and long term
revisit intention CFA model revealed that all the regression weight differences
were lower than 0.20, suggesting that CMB was not significant in the dataset
(Eichhorn, 2014, Gaskin, 2016b, Podsakoff et al., 2003).
6.12.1.4 Measurement invariance test (Cross group validity)

Measurement invariance or equivalence generally refers to “the comparability of
measured attributes across different populations” (Davidov et al., 2014: p. 58). In
other words, it is a statistical property of a measurement indicating that the
same attributes are measured across subgroups of respondents (Bialosiewicz et
al., 2013; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998; Vandenberg and Lance 2000).
Prior to compare theoretical constructs cross-culturally or across different
groups, the measurement model invariance test needs to be performed in order
to confirm that the measurements present satisfactory cross-national or cross-
group equivalence (Cheung and Rensvold 1999; Chi, 2012, Davidov et al., 2014;
Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998; Vandenberg and Lance, 2000). Steenkamp
and Baumgartner (1998: p. 78) further advocated, “If evidence supporting a
measure’s invariance is lacking, conclusions based on that scale are at best
ambiguous and at worst erroneous.”
Since this study aimed to compare the structural models for short and long term
revisit intention between British and Japanese respondents and between first-
timers and repeaters, the measurement invariance test was a reasonable
prerequisite to validate the comparability of the measurements across groups.
Even though there are various approaches available to evaluate measurement
invariance, the multi-group confirmatory factor analysis model (MGCFA) has
been widely acknowledged as the most powerful and multifaceted technique to
test for cross-national measurement invariance (Steenkamp and Baumgartner,
1998; Davidov et al., 2014). The most necessary three tests of measurement
invariance using the MGCFA are: configural, metric, and scalar invariance tests
(Davidov, 2008; Vandenberg and Lance, 2000). In this study, these three tests
were performed with short and long term revisit intention CFA model to assess
278
measurement invariance across the two nationalities and across the two types of
visitors. The test results were summarised in four tables: 1) Table 6.50 for short-
term revisit intention model based on nationality, 2) Table 6.51 for long-term
revisit intention model based on nationality, 3) Table 6.52 for short-term revisit
intention model based on type of visitor, and 4) Table 6.51 for long-term revisit
intention model based on type of visitor.
Table 6.50 Results of multi-group SEMs of short-term revisit intention

Model N χ2 df χ2/df CFI TLI RMSEA
Single group CFA
British 300 871.572 472 1.847 0.937 0.925 0.053
Japanese 300 927.995 472 1.966 0.948 0.938 0.057
Multi-group CFA
Base line (No constraints) 600 1799.400 944 1.906 0.943 0.933 0.039
(Configural Invariance)
Metric Invariance 600 1955.750 968 2.020 0.935 0.924 0.041
Partial Scalar Invariance 600 2261.666 994 2.275 0.916 0.905 0.046
Table 6.51 Results of multi-group SEMs of long-term revisit intention

Single group CFA
British 300 838.978 472 1.777 0.943 0.932 0.051
Japanese 300 894.555 472 1.895 0.952 0.943 0.055
Multi-group CFA
Partial Scalar Invariance 600 2183.370 994 2.197 0.922 0.912 0.045
279
Table 6.52 Results of multi-group SEMs of short-term revisit intention
Single group CFA
First-time visitors 376 1032.448 472 2.187 0.939 0.928 0.056
Repeat visitors 224 833.027 472 1.765 0.936 0.923 0.059
Multi-group CFA
Scalar Invariance 600 2059.750 1002 2.056 0.929 0.920 0.042
Table 6.53 Results of multi-group SEMs of long-term revisit intention

Single group CFA
First-time visitors 376 977.973 472 2.072 0.946 0.936 0.053
Repeat visitors 224 806.932 472 1.710 0.941 0.930 0.056
Multi-group CFA
Scalar Invariance 600 1974.798 1002 1.971 0.936 0.928 0.040
First, configural invariance refers to equivalence of model form and is viewed as

the baseline model. This is to test whether the items comprising the construct
present the same configuration of factor loadings across groups (Horn and
McArdle, 1992; Comşa, 2010). To meet the assumption of configural invariance,
adequate goodness of fits of both the baseline model (when analysing freely
estimated across groups) and measurement models (single group CFA for each
group) need to be achieved (Bialosiewicz et al., 2013; Gaskinwiki, 2016a). The
test results shown in Table 6.50 to 6.53 indicated that all the baseline models
and all the measurement models (single group CFA) for both the British and
Japanese respondents, and for both the first-time and repeat visitors had
adequate model fit. Hence, the configural invariance was established.
280
Second, metric invariance denotes equivalence of the item loadings on the latent
factors. It needs that in addition to configural invariance condition, each item
plays a part in the latent factor to a similar extent across different groups
(Bialosiewicz et al., 2013; Davidov, 2008; Putnick and Bornstein, 2016). To test
for this, the item loadings were constrained to be equivalent across groups, and
then comparing the fit of this model (also called metric invariance model) to the
configural invariance model (the baseline model) (Bialosiewicz et al., 2013;
Putnick and Bornstein, 2016; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998). To compare
invariance models, this study employed the goodness-of-fit index difference
(ΔGOF) rather than chi-square difference test (Δχ2). Since the χ2 value is
extremely sensitive to sample size, the changes in incremental fit indices (CFI
and TFI), and absolute fit measure (RMSEA) were observed instead (Bialosiewicz
et al., 2013; Chen, 2007; Rutkowski et al, 2014). Based on the recommended
thresholds (Chen, 2007; Comşa, 2010), ΔCFI and ΔTFI less than 0.02 and
ΔRMSEA less than 0.01 suggest no significant difference in the model fits. In this
study, referring to Table 6.50 to 6.53, all ΔGOFs between the metric and
configural model were lower than the cut-off values; and thus, obviously
providing metric invariance.
Finally, built upon the metric invariance, scalar invariance requires equivalence
of the item intercepts across groups. Scalar invariance indicates that “mean
differences in the latent construct capture all mean differences in the shared
variance of the items” (Putnick and Bornstein, 2016: p 5). To evaluate the scalar
invariance, the item intercepts were constrained to be the same across groups
and the fit of this model (scalar model) is compared to that of the metric model
(Bialosiewicz et al., 2013; Putnick and Bornstein, 2016; Steenkamp and
Baumgartner, 1998). In this study, the test results (Table 6.52 and 6.53) revealed
that all ΔGOFs between the metric and scalar model were below the cut-off
points for both the short and long term revisit intention models based on type of
visitor. Therefore, full scalar invariance was supported across the first-timer and
repeater groups. However, for both the short and long term revisit intention
model based on nationality, the results from scalar invariance test were poor as
281
the ΔGOFs exceeded the critical values. This indicated that the full scalar
invariance could not be achieved. In order to establish partial measurement
invariance, some item intercepts were sequentially released constraints based
on the examination of highest value of modification indices (Elosua and Muñiz,
2010; Yoon and Kim, 2014). Following this process, three item intercepts for
behavioural beliefs and one item intercept for control beliefs were freed. The
final results (as in Table 6.50 and 6.51) revealed that after these behavioural
belief and control belief parameters were unconstrained, nationality differences
were absent in the latent constructs. However, comparisons of latent means
across nationalities are allowed if at least two items on a latent factor provide
the metric and scalar invariance (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998; Byrne et
al., 1989) Hence, comparing the latent means of control beliefs between the two
nationalities are not allowed. Thus, in a future study, an increase in
questionnaire items measuring for relevant control beliefs cross-culturally
should be considered (Lugtig, et al., 2011).
6.12.2 Confirmed Belief-Based Measures and Differences by Nationality

and Type of Visitor
After confirming the final measurement models via the CFA, CMB and MGCFA, an
independent samples t-test was conducted with the final belief measurement
items to compare differences between British and Japanese respondents, and
between first-time and repeat visitors. The mean scores and the t-test results are
displayed in Table 6.54 and Table 6.55, respectively.
282
Table 6.54 Differences in confirmed belief-based measures by nationality
t-value
Components Questions Items Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.)
(2-tailed sig.)
(n = 600) (n = 300) (n = 300)
Local Thai food experiences 5.72 (1.38) 5.97 (1.14) 5.46 (1.55) 4.556 (.000*)
Beliefs about the
Food-related tourism activities 4.80 (1.79) 5.15 (1.68) 4.44 (1.83) 4.959 (.000*)
likely outcomes of
revisiting Thailand New and different experiences 5.98 (1.22) 6.14 (1.15) 5.83 (1.26) 3.143 (.002*)
Different/interesting culture 5.88 (1.26) 6.04 (1.16) 5.71 (1.34) 3.221 (.001*)
1= Extremely
Unlikely Friendly people 5.84 (1.29) 6.17 (1.01) 5.51 (1.44) 6.531 (.000*)
7 = Extremely Nature/natural attractions 5.83 (1.36) 6.04 (1.18) 5.63 (1.50) 3.750 (.000*)
Likely
Behavioural Cheap travel prices/budget 5.62 (1.47) 5.77 (1.41) 5.46 (1.51) 2.622 (.009*)
Beliefs
Local Thai food experiences 5.52 (1.49) 5.64 (1.29) 5.41 (1.66) 1.864 (.063)
Evaluations of the
Food-related tourism activities 4.60 (1.77) 4.65 (1.70) 4.54 (1.84) 0.738 (.461)
outcomes of
New and different experiences 6.02 (1.15) 6.15 (1.04) 5.89 (1.25) 2.737 (.006*)
revisiting Thailand
1 = Very
5.70
Unimportant Friendly people 5.89 (1.24) 5.50 (1.54) 3.417 (.001*)
(1.41)th
7 = Very
Nature/natural attractions 5.85 (1.28) 6.02 (1.14) 5.69 (1.38) 3.221 (.001*)
Important
Cheap travel prices/budget 5.68 (1.45) 5.70 (1.42) 5.67 (1.49) 0.253 (.801)
Beliefs about others’

Family 5.32 (1.58) 5.61 (1.57) 5.03 (1.54) 4.532 (.000*)
expectations
1= Strongly
Friends 5.85 (1.31) 5.97 (1.36) 5.74 (1.25) 2.183 (.029*)
Disapprove
7= Strongly
Colleagues 5.46 (1.42) 5.56 (1.50) 5.35 (1.33) 1.846 (.065)
Normative Approve
Beliefs Motivation to
Family 4.56 (1.81) 4.53 (1.91) 4.58 (1.71) -0.293 (.770)
comply
1=Extremely
Friends 4.71 (1.75) 4.61 (1.88) 4.81 (1.62) -1.422 (.156)
likely
7= Extremely
Colleagues 4.32 (1.76) 4.16 (1.89) 4.48 (1.60) -2.237(.026*)
Unlikely
Control belief
Travel cost 3.09 (1.77) 3.55 (1.83) 2.63 (1.58) 6.593 (.000*)
strength
1= Strongly Agree
Distance to Thailand 3.60 (1.95) 4.20 (1.98) 2.99 (1.73) 7.942 (.000*)
Control 7= Strongly Disagree
Beliefs Control belief
Travel cost 4.95 (1.79) 5.36 (1.66) 4.53 (1.82) 5.830 (.000*)
power
1= Strongly Agree
Distance to Thailand 4.19 (1.79) 4.27 (1.85) 4.11 (1.73) 1.072 (.284)
7= Strongly Disagree
283
As can be seen from Table 6.54, overall respondents had positive behavioural
beliefs about revisiting Thailand. They believed that revisiting Thailand would
allow them to experience more local Thai food, food-related tourism activities,
different/interesting culture, nature/natural attractions, to have new/different
experiences, to meet friendly people, and to travel with cheap prices/budget.
They perceived these outcomes of a revisit, except attending the food-related
activities, as more than somewhat important. The likelihood to engage in the
food-related activities during their future trip in Thailand was only above
average and they also considered the importance of these activities as about
average for their future visit. These findings seemed to support those regarding
measured frequency of joining in the food-related activities, in which the
majority of respondents tended to perceive a lack of information relating to
these activities, suggesting some failure of Thailand tourism authorities in
promoting and marketing these activities amongst foreign tourists (See also
Section 6.10). In general, the respondents believed that their family, friends and
colleagues would have positive opinions for their revisiting to Thailand, even
though their motivation to comply with their referents’ opinions were only
above average. Regarding control beliefs, they somewhat disagreed that the cost
of travel and the travel distance to Thailand would impede their revisit, although
they perceived that the travel cost would somewhat influence their decision to
revisit.
Concerning differences by nationality (Table 6.54), significant differences were

found between British and Japanese respondents in all of their outcome beliefs
of revisiting Thailand (p < 0.05). British respondents perceived a higher level of
outcome beliefs about revisiting Thailand in terms of experiencing more local
Thai food (mean = 5.97), participating in food-related tourism activities (mean =
5.15), having new and different experiences (mean = 6.14), experiencing
different and interesting culture (mean = 6.04), meeting friendly people (mean –
6.17), visiting nature/natural attractions (mean = 6.04), and travelling with
cheap prices and budget (mean = 5.77). However, statistically significant
differences were revealed between the two nationalities in evaluations of the
outcomes of revisiting Thailand only for new and different experiences (p =
284
0.006), having different and interesting culture (p = 0.000), meeting friendly
people (p = 0.001), and visiting nature/natural attractions (p = 0.001). The
British sample evaluated that revisiting Thailand for these outcomes were more
important than the Japanese sample. A higher level of novelty seeking tendency
in the British sample as well as a greater cultural distance they shared between
Thailand may possibly explain this dissimilarities. With regard to normative
beliefs, the British subjects believed that their family and friends would have
more favourable opinions towards their revisiting Thailand compared with the
Japanese subjects. On the contrary, their levels of motivation to comply with
their referents’ opinions were generally lower than their Japanese counterparts,
particular with the views of their colleagues. The generally higher motivation to
comply with the normative referents’ expectations in the Japanese subjects may
reflect the characteristics of the collectivist Japanese society, which emphasise
compliance to group decisions and general agreement (Reisinger and Turner,
1999). Concerning control beliefs, the British subjects were more likely than the
Japanese subjects to believe that travel cost and distance to Thailand was
barriers of their revisit to Thailand. The travel cost would also influence their
decision to revisit Thailand more than their Japanese equivalents. As Japan is
much more geographically proximate to Thailand than the UK and the Japanese
sample tended to have a shorter trip (as previously reported in Table 6.2), the
travel cost required for their return trip to Thailand tended to be less than the
British sample.
285
Table 6.55 Differences in confirmed belief-based measures by type of
visitor
Total 1st Timers Repeaters
t-value
Components Questions Items Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.)
(2-tailed sig.)
(n = 600) (n = 376) (n = 224)
Local Thai food experiences 5.72 (1.38) 5.64 (1.43) 5.85 (1.30) -1.800 (.072)
Beliefs about the
Food-related tourism activities 4.80 (1.79) 4.93 (1.68) 4.57 (1.93) 2.327 (.002*)
likely outcomes of
revisiting Thailand New and different experiences 5.98 (1.22) 6.07 (1.08) 5.84 (1.41) 2.080 (.038*)
1= Extremely
Unlikely Friendly people 5.84 (1.29) 5.82 (1.28) 5.87 (1.31) -0.473 (.636)
7 = Extremely Nature/natural attractions 5.83 (1.36) 5.90 (1.28) 5.72 (1.49) 1.469 (.142)
Likely
Behavioural
Cheap travel prices/budget 5.62 (1.47) 5.73 (1.39) 5.42 (1.59) 2.403 (.017*)
Beliefs
Local Thai food experiences 5.52 (1.49) 5.41 (1.53) 5.71 (1.41) -2.315(.021*)
Evaluations of the
Food-related tourism activities 4.60 (1.77) 4.66 (1.71) 4.49 (1.86) 1.129 (.259)
outcomes of
revisiting Thailand New and different experiences 6.02 (1.15) 6.04 (1.12) 5.99 (1.22) 0.519 (.604)
Different/interesting culture 6.00 (1.18) 6.05 (1.13) 5.92 (1.25) 1.360 (.174)
1 = Very
Unimportant Friendly people 5.70 (1.41) 5.64 (1.46) 5.78 (1.32) -1.157 (.248)
7 = Very Nature/natural attractions 5.85 (1.28) 5.92 (1.18) 5.75 (1.42) 1.525 (.128)
Important
Cheap travel prices/budget 5.68 (1.45) 5.85 (1.30) 5.40 (1.64) 3.475 (.001*)
Beliefs about others’

Family 5.32 (1.58) 5.16 (1.61) 5.58 (1.51) -3.151(.002*)
expectations
1= Strongly
Friends 5.85 (1.31) 5.80 (1.34) 5.94 (1.27) -1.277 (.202)
Disapprove
7= Strongly
Colleagues 5.46 (1.42) 5.39 (1.42) 5.56 (1.42) -1.412 (.158)
Normative Approve
Beliefs Motivation to
Family 4.56 (1.81) 4.61 (177) 4.46 (1.87) 0.993 (.321)
comply
1=Extremely
Friends 4.71 (1.75) 4.83 (1.69) 4.52 (1.84) 2.096 (.037*)
Likely
7= Extremely
Colleagues 4.32 (1.76) 4.38 (1.72) 4.22 (1.81) 1.089 (.276)
Unlikely
Control belief
Travel cost 3.09 (1.77) 3.21 (1.79) 2.88 (1.72) 2.222 (.027*)
strength
1= Strongly Agree
Control 7= Strongly Disagree
Beliefs Control belief
Travel cost 4.95 (1.79) 5.08 (1.76) 4.72 (1.83) 2.386 (.017*)
power
1= Strongly Agree
7= Strongly Disagree
286
Regarding comparison between the two types of visitors (Table 6.55), first-time
visitors tended to have a significantly higher level of outcome beliefs of revisiting
Thailand than repeaters in terms of experiencing food-related tourism activities
(mean difference = 0.36, p = 0.002), new and different things (mean difference =
0.23, p = 0.038), different and interesting culture (mean difference = 0.27, p =
0.018), and traveling with cheap prices/budget (mean difference = 0.31, p =
0.017). However, their evaluations of these outcomes were not significantly
different from the repeaters, except for traveling with cheap prices/budget
(mean difference = 0.45, p = 0.001). In contrast, the repeaters evaluated that
revisiting Thailand to experience more local Thai food was significantly more
important than the first-timers (mean difference = -0.30, p = 0.021). As
previously discussed in Section 6.8.1 and 6.8.2, the repeaters also reported the
higher importance of local Thai food in their decision of present visit to Thailand
and in their overall travel experiences of the present trip. A probable reason is
that the repeaters seem to perceive more importance from consumption of
experiences, and local life related activities such as tasting and experiencing local
food and cuisine than the first timers did (Fakeye and Crompton, 1991; Giraldi
and Cesareo, 2014; Lau and Mckercher, 2004). They also tended to be more
willing to enjoy the diversity of cuisine offered and local food alternatives (Mak
et al., 2012; Ryu and Jang, 2006; Ryu and Han, 2010; Tse and Crotts, 2005). With
regard to normative beliefs, while the repeaters generally believed that their
referents would have more favourable opinions for their revisit to Thailand than
the first-timers, they were less likely to comply with those opinions of their
referents. Because of past experience and increased exposure effect, the
repeaters appear to be more knowledgeable and familiar with the destination
than the first-timers (Kim et al., 2009b; Lau and Mckercher, 2004; Yolal et al.,
2017). Thus, they seem to be more confidence for their next visit (Kozak, 2001b;
Kozak, 2004; Mazursky, 1989; Sonmez and Graefe, 1998), and may be less likely
to listen to what others say or expect about their next trip. Finally, regarding
control beliefs, the first-time visitors were more likely than the repeat visitors in
believing that travel cost and distance to Thailand impeded their revisit to
Thailand. The first-timers also perceived a higher level of influence of both
factors on their decision to revisit Thailand in the future.
287
6.12.3 Testing the Structural Models
6.12.3.1 Proposed model assessment
To ensure the validity of the structural models, multivariate assumptions
concerning outliers and multicollinearity issue need to be established (Bryne,
2010; Gaskin, 2016a). With reference to Section 6.1, data screening results
provided that the outlier assumption was not violated in the dataset used for
constructing the structural models. Multicollinearity is “the extent to which a
variable can be explained by the other variables in the analysis” (Hair et al.,
2014: p. 91). Multicollinearity problem appears when two or more independent
variables are very highly correlated (Bryne, 2010; Pallant, 2016). High degree of
multicollinearity decreases both the ability to predict the dependent variable
and to determine the related roles of each independent variable (Hair et al.,
2014). To test whether the assumption of multicollinearity is violated, the
correlation matrix for the independent variables is examined. If inter-construct
correlations is higher than 0.90, it suggests significant collinearity (Field, 2013;
Hair et al., 2014; Pallant, 2016). Referring back to Table 6.48 and 6.49, all
correlation coefficients between the independent variables were lower than the
cut-off threshold level of 0.90. Furthermore, the two most universal measures
used for multicollinearity evaluation: tolerance value (TOI) and the variance
inflation factor (VIF) need to be assessed (Field, 2013; Hair et al., 2014; Pallant,
2016). In this study, both the collinearity statistics were observed via multiple
regression analysis in SPSS and in all analyses the TOI was higher than 0.10 and
the VIF was lower than 10, the universal cut-off points (Field, 2013; Hair et al.,
2014; Pallant, 2016). These suggested that the multicollinearity was not
presence.
Before testing the hypothesised paths, the structural models for short and long
term revisit intention were independently evaluated for their explanatory power
in terms of adequacy of model fit and variance explained (R-squared) using
structural equation modeling (SEM) with a maximum likelihood estimate
(Gaskin, 2016c). Both the structural models for short and long term revisit
intention showed a satisfactory model fit (Short-term: χ2 = 2410.856, df = 674,
χ2/df = 3.577, p<0.001, RMSEA = 0.066, CFI = 0.900, NFI = 0.867; Long term: χ2 =
288
2347.789, df = 674, χ2/df = 3.483, p<0.001; RMSEA = 0.064; CFI = 0.905, NFI =
0.872). All paths adopted from the TPB model and the MGB were positively
significant (p < 0.01). As can be seen from Figure 6.1 and 6.2, the proposed
models for short and long term revisit intention well accounted for the total
variance in desire (R2 = .585 and .587, respectively). Desire and perceived
behavioural control jointly explained about 35.3% of the total variance in short-
term revisit and 50.7% of that in the long-term revisit intention. Both models
accounted for 47.9% of the total variance in attitude, 22.3% of the total variance
in subjective norm and 13.0-14.0% of the total variance in perceived behavioural
control. Pre-visit and on-site destination image explained for around 47.4 % of
the total variance in overall satisfaction in both the models. Pre-visit and on-site
destination food image explained for around 57.0% of the total variance in food
satisfaction in both the models. In general, these findings of model assessment
suggested that the proposed models well predicted revisit intention to Thailand
in both the short and long run.
289
Goodness-of-fit statistics: χ2 = 2410.856 (df = 674, χ2/df = 3.577, p<0.001); RMSEA = 0.066; CFI = 0.900; NFI = 0.867
Note: *p< 0.05 **p<0.01 ***p< 0.001 ----> = not significant # Value fixed at 1.0; Please refer to Table 6.46 for the list of abbreviations
Figure 6.1 Findings from structural equation model for short-term revisit intention to Thailand for overall group (N = 600)
290
Goodness-of-fit statistics: χ2 = 2347.789 (df = 674, χ2/df = 3.483, p<0.001); RMSEA = 0.064; CFI = 0.905; NFI = 0.872
Note: *p< 0.05 **p<0.01 ***p< 0.001 ----> = not significant # Value fixed at 1.0; Please refer to Table 6.47 for the list of abbreviations
Figure 6.2 Findings from structural equation model for long-term revisit intention to Thailand for overall group (N = 600)
291
6.12.3.2 Hypothesis testing results
Hypothesised relationships among factors in the proposed structural models for
short and long term revisit intention were separately tested. As formerly
mentioned, ‘frequency of past behaviour (FPB)’, which is an antecedent of desire
and behavioural intentions based on the original MGB and ‘length of stay’ were
omitted from the proposed research model due to their non-normality and
containing extreme outliers. Consequently, the relationships of FPB with desire
and temporal revisit intentions (H10 and H11) and the relationships of length of
stay with desire and temporal revisit intentions were not tested in SEM (H29 and
H30). and, thus, 26 hypotheses remained for an examination of path significance.
The main results for the short and long-term revisit intention model are
summarised separately in Table 6.56 and 6.57, respectively. Also, Figure 6.1 and
6.2 above display graphical representation of the test results so as to ease
comparison.
According to the TPB model, measures of salient beliefs (i.e. behavioural,

normative and control beliefs) are assumed to correlate with their relevant
direct measures (i.e. attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural
control) (Ajzen, 1991 Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). In both the short and long term
revisit intention models, the results showed that the relationships between
behavioural beliefs and attitude, between normative beliefs and subjective norm,
and between control beliefs and perceived behavioural control were significant
(p<0.001); thus, H1, H2, and H3 were supported, providing that the assumptions
of the TPB were not violated. These findings were in line with several tourism
studies (e.g. Han et al., 2010; Han and Kim, 2010; Lam and Hsu, 2004, 2006).
292
Table 6.56 Results of hypothesis tests for short-term revisit intention
Hypothesis Standardised t-value Results
Estimates
H1 Behavioural belief -> Attitude 0.587 7.086*** Supported
H2 Normative belief -> Subjective norm 0.472 10.797*** Supported
H3 Control belief -> Perceived behavioural control -0.306 -5.282*** Supported
H4 Attitude -> Desire 0.327 8.328*** Supported
H5 Subjective norm -> Desire 0.063 2.123* Supported
H6 Perceived behavioural control -> Desire 0.111 3.539*** Supported
H7 Perceived behavioural control -> Revisit intention 0.157 3.983*** Supported
H8 Positive anticipated emotion -> Desire 0.244 5.910*** Supported
H9 Negative anticipated emotion -> Desire 0.099 2.916** Supported
H12 Desire -> Revisit intention 0.652 12.911*** Supported
H13 Pre-visit destination image -> Overall satisfaction 0.077 2.286* Supported
H14 On-site destination image -> Overall satisfaction 0.650 19.391*** Supported
H15 On-site destination image -> Desire 0.192 3.937*** Supported
H16 On-site destination image -> Revisit intention 0.171 2.829** Supported
H17 On-site destination image -> Attitude 0.154 2.664** Supported
H18 Overall satisfaction -> Desire 0.079 2.052* Supported
H19 Overall satisfaction -> Revisit intention 0.017 0.358 Not Supported
H20 Overall satisfaction -> Attitude 0.123 2.682** Supported
H21 Pre-visit destination food image -> Food satisfaction 0.244 7.461*** Supported
H22 On-site destination food image -> Food satisfaction 0.589 18.031*** Supported
H23 On-site destination food image -> Desire 0.062 1.274 Not Supported
H24 On-site destination food image -> Revisit intention 0.090 1.501 Not Supported
H25 On-site destination food image -> Attitude 0.235 3.681*** Supported
H26 Food satisfaction -> Desire 0.110 2.664** Supported
H27 Food satisfaction -> Revisit intention 0.023 0.448 Not Supported
H28 Food satisfaction ->Attitude 0.166 3.401*** Supported
R2
Attitude = 47.9%
Subjective norm = 22.3%
Perceived behavioural control = 13.0%
Overall satisfaction = 47.4%
Food satisfaction = 57.0%
Desire = 58.5%
Short-term revisit intention = 35.3%
Note: *p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001; R2 = variance explained; On-site destination image was substituted
for post-visit destination image for H14-H17; On-site destination food image was substituted for post-visit
destination food image for H22-H25 due to alterations in respondent recruitment procedures (as previously
discussed in Section 6.6.1 and 6.7.1)
293
Table 6.57 Results of hypothesis tests for long-term revisit intention
Standardised
Hypothesis t-value Results
Estimates
H1 Behavioural belief -> Attitude 0.588 7.086*** Supported
H2 Normative belief -> Subjective norm 0.472 10.799*** Supported
H3 Control belief -> Perceived behavioural control -0.304 -5.207*** Supported
H4 Attitude -> Desire 0.331 8.441*** Supported
H5 Subjective norm -> Desire 0.061 2.039* Supported
H6 Perceived behavioural control -> Desire 0.112 3.564*** Supported
H7 Perceived behavioural control -> Revisit intention 0.167 4.720*** Supported
H8 Positive anticipated emotion -> Desire 0.246 5.989*** Supported
H9 Negative anticipated emotion -> Desire 0.095 2.796** Supported
H12 Desire -> Revisit intention 0.678 15.365*** Supported
H13 Pre-visit destination image -> Overall satisfaction 0.077 2.286* Supported
H14 On-site destination image -> Overall satisfaction 0.650 19.391*** Supported
H15 On-site destination image -> Desire 0.191 3.919*** Supported
H16 On-site destination image -> Revisit intention 0.062 1.171 Not Supported
H17 On-site destination image -> Attitude 0.154 2.664** Supported
H18 Overall satisfaction -> Desire 0.079 2.033* Supported
H19 Overall satisfaction -> Revisit intention 0.033 0.767 Not Supported
H20 Overall satisfaction -> Attitude 0.123 2.683** Supported
H21 Pre-visit destination food image -> Food satisfaction 0.244 7.461*** Supported
H22 On-site destination food image -> Food satisfaction 0.589 18.031*** Supported
H23 On-site destination food image -> Desire 0.061 1.262 Not Supported
H24 On-site destination food image -> Revisit intention 0.096 1.806 Not Supported
H25 On-site destination food image -> Attitude 0.235 3.679*** Supported
H26 Food satisfaction -> Desire 0.110 2.663** Supported
H27 Food satisfaction -> Revisit intention 0.063 1.381 Not Supported
H28 Food satisfaction ->Attitude 0.166 3.402*** Supported
R2
Attitude = 47.9%
Subjective norm = 22.3%
Perceived behavioural control = 14.0%
Overall satisfaction = 47.4%
Food satisfaction = 57.0%
Desire = 58.7%
Long-term revisit intention = 50.7%
Note: *p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001; R2 = variance explained; On-site destination image was substituted
for post-visit destination image for H14-H17; On-site destination food image was substituted for post-visit
destination food image for H22-H25 due to alterations in respondent recruitment procedures (as previously
discussed in Section 6.6.1 and 6.7.1)
294
The findings of H4-H6, H8 and H9 in both models indicated that desire for
revisiting Thailand was positively and significantly influenced by attitude,
subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control, positive and negative
anticipated emotion. Hence, H4-H6, H8 and H9 were supported. That is, the
respondents’ desire towards revisiting Thailand was associated with their
evaluations of the outcomes of revisiting Thailand, perceived social pressure
from their significant referents, perceived control over the difficulties for
revisiting Thailand, and anticipated affective consequences of success and failure
in revisiting Thailand. These results were in accord with those of previous
tourism research utilising the MGB (Lee et al., 2015; Meng and Choi, 2016).
Amongst the five antecedents of desire, attitude (Short-term: β = 0.327; t = 8.328,
p<0.001; Long-term: β = 0.331; t = 8.441, p<0.001) was found as a most powerful
determinant, and followed by positive anticipated emotion (Short-term: β =
0.244; t = 5.910, p<0.001; Long-term: β = 0.246; t = 5.989, p<0.001). These
suggest that an increase in strong positive outcome beliefs of revisiting Thailand
and perceived positive affective consequences of attainment in the revisit could
boost the tourists’ desire towards revisiting Thailand.
The results of H7 and H12 revealed that the intention to revisit Thailand in both
the short and long run were positively and significantly affected by perceive
behavioural control and desire. Considering both the results of H6 and H7, it
indicated that perceive behavioural control could strengthen the temporal revisit
intentions both directly and indirectly (through desire). These findings were
consistent with those of Kim and Preis (2016), Perugini and Bagozzi (2001) and
Prestwich et al. (2008) suggesting the two significant relationships. The strongly
significant relationship between desire and revisit intention (H12) in both the
short (β = 0.652; t = 12.911, p<0.001) and long run (β = 0.678; t = 15.365,
p<0.001) clearly supported the assumption of the MGB that desire was the most
proximal determinant and the most important antecedent of behavioural
intentions in the MGB (Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001). These findings were in
agreement with numerous work of tourism scholars using the extended MGB
(e.g. Han and Yoon, 2015; Han et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2012; Kim and Preis, 2016;
Lee et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2015; Meng and Choi, 2016; Meng and Han, 2016; Song
295
et al., 2012a, 2012b; Song et al., 2014), evidencing desire as a strong predictor of
behavioral intentions in the tourism context.
In both the short and long run revisit intention model, the findings of H13 and
H14 evidenced that pre-visit and on-site destination image positively and
significantly predicted overall satisfaction; thus, both hypotheses were
supported. These findings were broadly in line with those of numerous previous
studies (e.g. Al-Majali, 2012; Assaker et al., 2011; Assaker and Hallak, 2013;
Bigne et al., 2009; Bui and Le, 2016; Chi and Qu, 2008; Kim, 2015; Lee et al.,
2005; Puh, 2015), evidencing overall destination image as an antecedent of
destination satisfaction. However, as image is a dynamic concept and subject to
change, it can be measured in different travel stages: before, during, and after the
trip (Lee et al., 2014). Thus, where (at a particular destination/site, online
survey) and when (before visit, on-site, after visit) the data were collected, as
well as the target population and sampling criteria (arrival, departing,
experienced tourists), and also the wording used in the questions measuring the
image all could affect the concept of image held by tourists. Nonetheless, this
dynamism of destination image has often been overlooked in the majority of
tourism studies since the stage of image used to observe its effect on satisfaction
or revisit intention has been omitted labeling and only marked as overall
destination image in several research. Thus, justifying which stage of destination
image measured in some previous studies seems to be rather difficult or
ambiguous. However, a few literature have clearly reported that pre-visit and on-
site destination affect destination satisfaction (e.g. Al-Majali, 2012; Bui and Le,
2016; Puh, 2015); thus, the findings of the present study reinforced this idea. To
be more specific, the relationship of overall satisfaction with pre-visit destination
image was weak (β = 0.077; t = 2.286, p<0.05 compared with that with on-site
destination image (β = 0.650; t = 19.391, p<0.001). As compared to the pre-visit
image, the image the respondents had prior to their actual visit to the
destination, on-site destination image in this study can be considered as a
modified or changed image shaped by the actual visiting experience at the
destination; thus, becoming more realistic than the prior image (Echtner and
Ritchie, 1991; Tasci and Gartner, 2007). Hence, the stronger impact of on-site
296
destination image on overall satisfaction in this study suggested that the better
the destination performs, the more satisfied the tourist tends to be.
As can be seen from Table 6.56, the result of H15 and H16 showed that on-site
destination image significantly affected both desire (β = 0.192; t = 3.937,
p<0.001) and the short run revisit intention (β = 0.171; t = 2.829 p<0.01). It is
noteworthy that on-site destination image was only found to be a significant
determinant of desire (β = 0.191; t = 3.919, p<0.001) but not for the long run
revisit intention (β = 0.062; t = 1.171, p>0.05) (See Table 6.57). The direct effect
of destination image on destination revisit intention has been well documented
in existing studies (Assaker et al., 2011; Bigne, 2001; Chen and Tsai, 2007; De
Nisco et al., 2015; Kastenholz et al., 2013; Li et al., 2010). However, very few
studies (i.e. Assaker et al., 2011; Assaker and Hallak, 2013; Bigne et al., 2009)
have tested the direct effect of destination image on temporal destination revisit
intentions. While the direct effect of destination image on both short and long
run revisit intention was found insignificance in the studies of Assaker and
Hallak (2013) and Bigne et al. (2009), destination image was found to directly
influence future intention to revisit a destination in three, five and ten years in
Assaker et al. (2011)’s research. The present findings present divergence with
those of Assaker and Hallak (2013) and Bigne et al. (2009) but partly similar to
that of Assaker et al. (2011), in which the direct effect of destination image was
found on revisit intention in the short run timeframe (3 years). The significant
relationship between on-site destination image and desire and the insignificant
linkage between destination image and long-term revisit intention signified that
the respondents seemed to consider a favourable destination image at the stage
of building a desire but not for the stage of directly performing the revisit in the
long run (10 years). On the contrary, in the short-run, destination image
functioned in both ways.
In both the short and long term revisit intention models, the impact of on-site
destination image on attitude (p<0.01), and overall satisfaction on attitude
(p<0.01) were significant. Hence, H17 and H20 were supported. These results
strengthened the tourism literature, in which the influences of destination image
297
and satisfaction on attitude towards revisiting a destination were evidenced (e.g.
Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Huang and Hsu, 2009; Song et al., 2014). These
propose that if the destination encompasses a sufficient level of positive
attributes and adequately satisfies the tourists, a positive attitude towards
revisiting should be developed. In addition, overall satisfaction exerted a
significant direct effect on desire (p<0.05) but not on the revisit intentions in
both timeframes. Therefore, H18 was supported but H19 was rejected. Similarly,
food satisfaction was found to be a significant direct predictor of desire (p<0.01)
but not for the temporal revisit intentions; hence, supporting H26 but rejecting
H27. These results showed that destination and food satisfaction did not directly
drive the intention to revisit in both short and long run but, instead, affected
revisit intentions indirectly through desire. These mean that the satisfactions
regarding local Thai food experiences and overall trip quality in Thailand could
provide the visitors reasons to commit their return and, in turn, lead to their
desires to revisit. Once the desires are aware of, these would motivate them in
developing an intention to revisit.
Furthermore, the results of H21 and H22 showed that food satisfaction was
significantly affected by both the pre-visit and on-site destination food image
(p<0.001). Consequently, H21 and H22 were supported. The findings broadly
substantiated those of other studies revealing a significant positive effect of
destination food image on destination food satisfaction (Chi et al., 2013; Karim et
al., 2010; Ling et al., 2010; Peštek and Činjarević, 2014). Unlike on-site
destination image, on-site destination food image was not evidenced to
significantly (directly) predict both desire and temporal revisit intentions;
therefore, H23 and H24 were rejected. However, the destination food image
affected the intentions indirectly via food satisfaction and desire (See Fig. 6.1 and
6.2). Therefore, this present results expanded the causal relationship between
food image, food satisfaction, and destination revisit intention (Chi et al., 2013;
Ling et al., 2010; Karim et al., 2010) by further proposing the mediation of desire
between food satisfaction and temporal destination revisit intentions.
Comparable to the concept of on-site destination image and overall satisfaction,
both on-site destination food image and food satisfaction were found to be
298
significant determinants of attitude, thereby, supporting H25 and H28. Hence, it
is apparent that the on-site destination and food image as well as overall and
food satisfaction were evidenced as salient antecedents of attitude, the strongest
determinant of desire.
As this study found that attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control,
positive and negative anticipated emotions destination image, overall and food
satisfaction all functioned through desire in affecting the temporal revisit
intentions, this added to the body of the MGB literature providing further
support for the important role of desire as a direct catalyst for the intentions to
revisit a destination over time by transforming the motivational element
entrenched in those variables to act (Perugini and Bagozzi (2001).
6.12.4 Multi-group Comparisons

As the final stage of the SEM analysis, the study performed multi-group
comparisons to determine if the relationships hypothesised in the structural
models for the short and long run revisit intention would differ based on
nationality and type of visitor.
6.12.4.1 Differences by nationality

To test whether the nationalities’ structural models for the short and long term
revisit intention were different, Chi-square tests between the unconstrained
models and constrained structural weight models were performed and the
results were significant (p<0.001) at the whole model level. These represents
that both the structural models for the short and long term revisit intention are
different at the model level, indicating a moderating effect of nationality.
Therefore, the nationalities’ differing models supported H31.
The Chi-square values were calculated to examine differences in each of the 26

path coefficients in order to evaluate the moderating effect of nationality in the
path coefficient. Gaskin (2016c) stated that the chi-square difference test is the
most widely accepted technique for testing multi-group moderation and is
considered to be superior to the critical ratios approach, which may suffer from
299
family wise error that can affect a model when testing multiple hypotheses
simultaneously.
In the short-term revisit intention model, significant differences occurred in two

paths: the path of desire -> short-term revisit intention (ϒ10, Δχ2 = 11.311,
p<0.001) and the path of on-site destination food image -> food satisfaction (ϒ20,
Δχ2 = 4.306, p<0.05). To be more specific, the influence of desire on short-term
revisit intention and on-site destination food image on food satisfaction were
stronger in the Japanese group, as compared with the British group. The results
were shown in Table 6.58.
As can be seen from Figure 6.3, the findings showed, in both British and Japanese
groups, a significant effect of behavoural beliefs on attitude (ϒ1), normative
beliefs on subjective norm (ϒ2), and control beliefs on perceived behavioural
control (ϒ3). Furthermore, attitude had a significant influence on desire (ϒ4).
However, the relationship between subjective norm and desire was insignificant
(ϒ5). Perceived behavioral control was a significant determinant of short-term
revisit intention (ϒ7). Desire, the strongest antecedent of temporal revisit
intentions, was significantly affected by positive anticipated emotion (ϒ8). On-
site destination image was a significant antecedent of overall satisfaction and
also desire (ϒ12 and ϒ13). Overall satisfaction did not have a significant
influence on short-term revisit intention but had a significant effect on attitude
(ϒ17 and ϒ18). In addition, pre-visit destination food image was a significant
determinant of food satisfaction (ϒ19). On-site destination food image did not
exert a significant influence on desire and short-term revisit intention (ϒ21 and
ϒ22) but significantly affected attitude (ϒ23). Food satisfaction did not show a
significant influence on short-term revisit intention (ϒ25).
Differences were found in each nationality concerning the influence of perceived

bahavioural control on desire. The significant influence occurred in the British
respondents (ϒ6). Moreover, negative anticipated emotion had a significant
effect on desire only in the British subjects (ϒ9). The influence of pre-visit
destination image on overall satisfaction was significant only in the Japanese
300
group (ϒ11). Only in the Japanese respondents, short-term revisit intention was
significantly affected by on-site destination image (ϒ14), while it exerted a
significant influence on attitude only in the British respondents (ϒ15). Only in
the Japanese subjects, overall and food satisfaction significantly affected desire
(ϒ16 and ϒ24) and food satisfaction also served as a significant predictor of
attitude (ϒ26).
301
Table 6.58 Moderating effects between nationalities for short-term revisit intention
Standardised Estimates t-value
Path Hypothesis Δχ2
ϒ1 Behavioural belief -> Attitude 0.607 0.596 5.615*** 4.348*** 3.151
ϒ2 Normative belief -> Subjective norm 0.466 0.495 7.497*** 8.089*** 1.207
ϒ3 Control belief -> Perceived behavioural control -0.610 -0.451 -5.567*** -5.177*** 0.650
ϒ4 Attitude -> Desire 0.203 0.424 3.406*** 7.813*** 1.703
ϒ5 Subjective norm -> Desire 0.092 0.047 1.952 1.261 0.212
ϒ6 Perceived behavioural control -> Desire 0.114 0.069 2.204* 1.793 0.515
ϒ7 Perceived behavioural control -> Revisit intention 0.154 0.204 2.534* 3.991*** 1.177
ϒ8 Positive anticipated emotion -> Desire 0.273 0.188 4.332*** 3.517*** 0.903
ϒ9 Negative anticipated emotion -> Desire 0.116 0.078 2.204* 1.740 0.110
ϒ10 Desire -> Revisit intention 0.538 0.681 7.532*** 10.021*** 11.311***
ϒ11 Pre-visit destination image -> Overall satisfaction 0.001 0.122 0.012 2.622** 3.692
ϒ12 On-site destination image -> Overall satisfaction 0.628 0.638 12.607*** 13.74*** 0.217
ϒ13 On-site destination image -> Desire 0.259 0.149 3.614*** 2.398* 2.512
ϒ14 On-site destination image -> Revisit intention 0.108 0.206 1.297 2.613** 1.130
ϒ15 On-site destination image -> Attitude 0.163 0.134 2.016* 1.793 0.010
ϒ16 Overall satisfaction -> Desire 0.087 0.099 1.506 1.980* 0.000
ϒ17 Overall satisfaction -> Revisit intention 0.072 0.054 1.090 0.840 1.550
ϒ18 Overall satisfaction -> Attitude 0.165 0.142 2.556* 2.422* 0.005
ϒ19 Pre-visit destination food image -> Food satisfaction 0.481 0.616 3.337*** 6.588*** 3.670
ϒ20 On-site destination food image -> Food satisfaction 0.178 0.275 8.997*** 14.750*** 4.306*
ϒ21 On-site destination food image -> Desire 0.084 0.057 1.259 0.883 0.217
ϒ22 On-site destination food image -> Revisit intention 0.035 0.155 0.463 1.889 1.207
ϒ23 On-site destination food image -> Attitude 0.265 0.183 3.255** 2.055* 0.149
ϒ24 Food satisfaction -> Desire 0.070 0.143 1.292 2.510* 0.275
ϒ25 Food satisfaction -> Revisit intention 0.078 0.006 1.253 0.087 0.633
ϒ26 Food satisfaction ->Attitude 0.075 0.189 1.237 2.821** 1.443
Note: *p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001
Bold presented as significant p-value.
302
Note: *p< 0.05 **p<0.01 ***p< 0.001 ----> = not significant # Value fixed at 1.0
Blue coefficients denote British and black coefficients denote Japanese. Two lines mean one of relationships between construct is insignificant
Figure 6.3 Multigroup comparisons between nationalities for short-term revisit intention to Thailand (Factor level)
303
Regarding the long-term revisit intention model, a moderating effect of
nationality was shown for two parameters (ϒ7 and ϒ20). These findings revealed
the significant effect of perceived behavioural control on long run revisit
intention (Δχ2 = 11.311, p<0.001) only in the Japanese respondents (ϒ = 0.213, t =
4.495, p<0.001) but not in the British respondents (ϒ = 0.067, t = 1.316, p>0.05).
These results also suggested that the influence of on-site destination food image
on food satisfaction (Δχ2 = 4.306, p<0.05) was significantly higher for the
Japanese respondents than the British respondents. Table 6.59 presents the
findings.
With reference to the results shown in Figure 6.4, in both British and Japanese
subjects, the direct paths from behavioural, normative, and control beliefs to
attitude (ϒ1), subjective norm (ϒ2), and perceived behavioural control (ϒ3) were
significant. Additionally, attitude showed a significant impact on desire (ϒ4).
However, subjective norm did not have significant influence on desire (ϒ5).
Positive anticipated emotion was also a significant precursor of desire (ϒ8).
Desire served as the strongest determinant of long-term revisit intention (ϒ10).
On-site destination image significantly affected overall satisfaction and also
desire (ϒ12 and ϒ13). Overall satisfaction was not a significant antecedent of
long-term revisit intention but had a significant impact on attitude (ϒ17 and
ϒ18). Furthermore, pre-visit destination food image exerted a significant effect
on food satisfaction (ϒ19). On-site destination food image did not significantly
predict desire and long-term revisit intention (ϒ21 and ϒ22) but significantly
influenced attitude (ϒ23). Food satisfaction was not a significant determinant of
long-term revisit intention (ϒ25).
Differences were revealed in each nationality in terms of the effect of perceived

bahavioural control on desire. The significant effect was evidenced in the British
respondents (ϒ6). Negative anticipated emotion was a significant determinant of
desire only for the British group (ϒ9). Pre-visit destination image did not predict
overall satisfaction in the British group (ϒ11). Only in the British respondents,
on-site destination image was a significant antecedent of long-term revisit
intention and attitude (ϒ14 and ϒ15). Only in the Japanese group, overall and
304
food satisfaction significantly impacted desire (ϒ16 and ϒ24) and food
satisfaction also significantly predicted attitude (ϒ26).
According to the multigroup analysis results, it is obvious that in both

nationalities subjective norm did not affect desire to revisit Thailand in either
short or long term, which differed from the results of the structural models for
overall respondents (See Table 6.56 and 6.57). However, in the overall structural
models for both short and long term revisit intentions, the regression coefficients
and p-values for this path were low (Short-term: β = 0.063, p<0.05; Long-term: β
= 0.061, p<0.05). Thus, when dividing into sub-group the relationship could
become insignificant. Even though the present results contradicted the findings
of many existing studies using the MGB that reporting a significant effect of
subjective norm on behavioural desire (e.g. Lee at al., 2015; Meng and Choi,
2016; Song et al., 2014, 2012a), the insignificant relationship in the present
study was in line with those of Ji (2017), Kim and Pries (2016) and Song et al.
(2012b). These researchers explained that the dissimilarity of the findings
seemed to result from the different characteristics of the study sample in each
research context. The results from the present study, thus, indicated that the
British and Japanese respondents’ desire to revisit Thailand in both timeframes
was not influenced by perceived social pressure from their salient referents.
The results of the structural models in each nationality for both short and long
term revisit intentions were different. Based on nationality difference, the
findings of this study were in accord with those of former tourism research (e.g.
Caneen, 2004; Lee and Lee, 2009; Pizam and Jeong, 1996; Pizam and Sussmann,
1995; Ramkissoon et al., 2011; Reisinger and Turner, 1998; Xu et al., 2009),
reporting the cultural differences in tourist behaviour and behavioural
intentions.
In the Japanese group, perceived behavioural control did not show a direct effect
on desire but directly and strongly affected the intentions to revisit Thailand in
both short and long-term. Several MGB research have also evidenced the same
results (Ji, 2017; Kim et al., 2012; Lee, et al., 2012; Song et al., 2012a, 2012b,
305
2014). The present results implies that Japanese tourists tend to consider
perceived control over the barriers for revisiting Thailand at the stage of forming
the intentions to revisit, not at the stage of developing the desire to revisit. As
Japan is much more graphically proximate to Thailand than the UK, travel
distance and travel cost concerns in Japanese visitors tend to be less than those
in British visitors. The t-test results regarding control belief items between the
two nationalities (See Table 6.54) also indicated a higher level of both perceived
presence of barriers for revisiting Thailand and perceived power of these
barriers in affecting their decision to revisit in the British group. Thus, the
Japanese may believe in their higher ability to control over those barriers for the
revisit and this may enhance their intentions to return as a consequence. The
effect of negative anticipated emotion on desire was insignificant in the Japanese
respondents for both timeframes. This means that emotional outcomes for
failure in revisiting Thailand had little effect on Japanese tourists’ desire
formation. On the contrary, anticipated positive emotion seemed to be a
powerful determinant of desire in both the Japanese and British groups for both
timeframes. The strong effect of anticipated positive emotion has also widely
been documented in various former MGB tourism studies (Kim and Preis, 2016;
Lee, et al., 2012; Meng and Han, 2016; Song et al., 2012b, 2014). This means that
both nationalities are likely to revisit Thailand not only because of cognitive
factors but also due to the emotional factors. This result would not have been
detected if the study used the original TPB. The findings in the Japanese group
also showed that on-site destination image did not significantly influence
attitude towards revisiting Thailand and did not directly affect the intention to
return in the long term but the image highly affected overall satisfaction and
desire to revisit. This suggests that in order to enhance Japanese’ intention to
return in the long run, a favourable image of Thailand during the visit has to
function via either overall satisfaction or desire. Furthermore, the results
showed that destination food images could directly and indirectly affect attitude
and food satisfaction could directly affect attitude and desire in the Japanese
group. Thus, to promote food tourism in Japanese market, a positive image of
local Thai food as well as overall quality of local Thai food experiences should be
ensured in order to heighten favourable attitude and desire towards revisiting
306
for food purposes. Strong beliefs that revisiting Thailand could provide them
more experiences with local Thai food should also be communicated through
various media to increase the positive attitude.
In the British group, pre-visit destination image did not affect overall satisfaction
in both short and long term revisit intention models. This suggested that the pre-
visit destination image had little influence on overall satisfaction of the British
subjects as compared to the image from the actual visit. It means that rather
focusing on projecting a positively desirable image, Thailand should pay more
attention on the image the British tourists perceive from their actual visit in
order to achieve their satisfaction. Interestingly, both overall and food
satisfaction did not affect either desire or intention to revisit in short and long
term in the British respondents. Food satisfaction was also not a determinant of
attitude for both timeframes. These results suggest that even though overall trip
quality and local food experiences in Thailand could satisfy British visitors, they
may not enhance their intentions to return to the destination either in short or
long run. The results, moreover, revealed that in the British subjects, on-site
destination food image and behavioural beliefs were strong antecedents of
attitude towards revisiting Thailand, a powerful determinant of desire to revisit.
Hence, in order to promote food tourism in Thailand amongst British visitors, the
image of local Thai food the visitors perceived from their actual visit and strong
beliefs that they can experience more quality local Thai food in the future visit
should be focused and promoted to enhance a favourable attitude towards the
revisit for food.
307
Table 6.59 Moderating effects between nationalities for long-term revisit intention
ϒ3 Control belief -> Perceived behavioural control -0.603 -0.458 -5.530*** -5.240*** 0.523
ϒ6 Perceived behavioural control -> Desire 0.113 0.072 2.187* 1.871 0.462
ϒ7 Perceived behavioural control -> Revisit intention 0.067 0.213 1.316 4.495*** 6.438*
ϒ10 Desire -> Revisit intention 0.725 0.611 10.754*** 9.850*** 3.732
ϒ11 Pre-visit destination image -> Overall satisfaction 0.001 0.122 0.012 2.622** 3.692
ϒ13 On-site destination image -> Desire 0.252 0.148 3.515*** 2.398* 2.308
ϒ14 On-site destination image -> Revisit intention 0.198 0.015 2.712** 0.203 3.513
ϒ15 On-site destination image -> Attitude 0.163 0.134 2.016* 1.790 0.010
ϒ16 Overall satisfaction -> Desire 0.087 0.098 1.498 1.969* 0.378
ϒ18 Overall satisfaction -> Attitude 0.165 0.142 2.557* 2.420* 0.004
ϒ20 On-site destination food image -> Food satisfaction 0.481 0.616 8.997*** 14.750*** 4.306*
ϒ23 On-site destination food image -> Attitude 0.265 0.183 3.254** 2.061* 0.143
ϒ24 Food satisfaction -> Desire 0.064 0.143 1.190 2.530* 0.355
ϒ26 Food satisfaction ->Attitude 0.075 0.189 1.238 2.818** 1.433
Note: *p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001
308
Blue coefficients denote British and black coefficients denote Japanese. Two lines mean one of relationships between construct is insignificant.
Figure 6.4 Multigroup comparisons between nationalities for long-term revisit intention to Thailand (Factor level)
309
6.12.4.2 Differences by type of visitor
Regarding to the results of multigroup analysis of the structural models for the
short and long term revisit intention based on type of visitors, the Chi-square
difference tests between the unconstrained models and constrained structural
weight models were significant at the whole model level (p<0.001), representing
differences at the model level. Thus, both structural models for the short and
long term revisit intention were different between first-time and repeat visitors,
supporting H32.
In both the short and long-term revisit intention models, the results revealed a
significant moderating effect of type of visitor on the relationship between on-
site destination image and desire (Short-term: ϒ13, Δχ2 = 4.150, p<0.05; Long-
term: ϒ13, Δχ2 = 4.150, p<0.05). The influence of on-site destination image on
desire was significant only in the first-timers but not in the repeaters (Short-
term: ϒ first-timer = 0.270, t = 4.941, p<0.001; ϒ repeater = 0.049, t = 0.524,
p>0.05) (Long-term: ϒ first-timer = 0.267, t = 4.913, p<0.001; ϒ repeater = 0.040,
t = 0.422, p>0.05). The results were shown in Table 6.60 and 6.61.
As shown in Figure 6.5 and 6.6, in both the first time and repeat visitors, the
influences of behavioural, normative, and control beliefs on attitude (ϒ1),
subjective norm (ϒ2), and perceived behavioural control (ϒ3) were significant.
Moreover, attitude, perceived behavioural control and positive anticipated
emotion significantly predicted desire (ϒ4, ϒ6, and ϒ8). However, subjective
norm did not have significant effect on desire (ϒ5). Desire acted as a most
powerful determinant of temporal revisit intentions (ϒ10). On-site destination
image significantly affected overall satisfaction and attitude (ϒ12 and ϒ15) but
did not influence temporal revisit intentions (ϒ14). Overall satisfaction was not a
significant determinant of either desire or temporal revisit intentions (ϒ16 and
ϒ17). Additionally, both pre-visit and on-site destination food image had a
significant impact on food satisfaction (ϒ19 and ϒ20). However, on-site
destination food image did not significantly affect either desire or temporal
revisit intentions (ϒ21 and ϒ22) but significantly affected attitude (ϒ23). Food
satisfaction was not a significant antecedent of temporal revisit intentions (ϒ25).
310
Regarding differences between types of visitors, only in the first timers, temporal
revisit intentions were significantly predicted by perceived behavioural control
(ϒ7) and negative anticipated emotion was a significant antecedent of desire
(ϒ9). Pre-visit destination image significantly predicted overall satisfaction
(ϒ11) and overall satisfaction had a significant effect on attitude (ϒ18) only for
the first-time tourists. Food satisfaction did not influence either desire or
attitude only in the repeat visitors (ϒ24 and ϒ26).
The results of the structural models for short and long-term revisit intentions
were different between the types of visitors. However, within each type of
visitor, there was no difference between the short and long term revisit intention
models. In other words, the short-term revisit intention model of the first-timers
was not different from their long-term revisit intention model. Also, the same
went for the repeaters. These signified that the time-based dimension of the
revisit intention seemed not function in both the first-timers and repeaters.
Based on differences between first-time and repeat visitors, the findings of this
study were consistent with those of past tourism studies (e.g. Chi, 2012; Gitelson
and Crompton, 1984; Kim et al., 2019b; Lau and Mckecher, 2004; Li et al., 2008;
Oppermann, 1997, 1999; Petrick, 2004b; Yolal et al., 2007), evidencing the
differences between these two groups in tourist behaviour and behavioural
intentions. As the path analysis results showed an insignificant effect of
subjective norm on desire in both types of visitors, this suggested that the first-
time and repeat visitors’ desire towards revisiting Thailand in both short and
long-term was not influenced by perceived social pressure from their main
referents. In the first timers, both desire and intention to revisit Thailand over
time were influenced by perceive behavioural control, whereas it affected only
desire in the repeaters. This signifies that perceived ability to control over
barriers of revisiting Thailand influences first-time travellers’ desire formation
and both indirectly and directly affects their intentions to revisit over time. On
the contrary, the repeaters seem to consider their ability to control these
difficulties only in the stage of forming desire to revisit Thailand, not for the
stage of shaping the temporal revisit intentions. The insignificant effect of
311
negative anticipated emotion on desire in the repeaters for both timeframes
denoted that emotional consequences for failure in revisiting Thailand had little
influence on shaping their desire. In contrast, anticipated positive emotion
tended to be a powerful determinant of desire in both the first-time and repeat
visitors for both timeframes, suggesting the role of the emotional factors on the
destination revisit intention. It is apparent that both types of on-site destination
and food image as well as overall and food satisfaction played a significant role
on the intention to revisit in the first-timers. This signifies the importance of
destination performance in the first-timers. Um et al. (2006) also advocated that
first-time visitors tended to be largely affected by how the destination performs.
The findings in the repeaters revealed that overall satisfaction was influenced
only by on-site destination image but not by pre-visit destination image. Thus, in
order to make the repeaters satisfied, Thailand tourism authorities should focus
on providing them a favourable image shaped by destination experiences, rather
than emphasising on promoting a positive image of the destination. However,
both overall and food satisfaction did not affect desire, intention to revisit, and
attitude in both short and long term for the repeater group. These denote that
although the repeaters are satisfied with overall quality of their stay and local
food experiences, they may not intend to return to Thailand either in short or
long term. In addition, in the repeaters, on-site destination food image and
behavioural beliefs had a strong relationship with attitude towards revisiting
Thailand, the most powerful determinant of desire towards revisit. Therefore,
regarding the promotion of food tourism in Thailand amongst the repeat visitors,
the image of local Thai food the repeaters experienced during the visit and
strong beliefs that they can experience more quality local Thai food in the return
visit should be communicated and promoted via media in order to increase a
favourable attitude towards revisiting Thailand for food purposes. Lastly, the
findings revealed that destination food images could directly and indirectly affect
attitude towards revisiting and food satisfaction could directly influence attitude
and desire in the first-timers. Consequently, to promote food tourism amongst
the first-timers, a positive image of local Thai food and overall quality of local
Thai food experiences should be sufficiently delivered so as to reinforce a
312
favourable attitude and desire to revisit Thailand for food. Strong beliefs that
revisiting Thailand could give them an opportunity to experience more local Thai
food should also be well communicated through various media to boost a
positive attitude.
313
Table 6.60 Moderating effects between types of visitors for short-term revisit intention
First-timers Repeaters First-timers Repeaters
ϒ3 Control belief -> Perceived behavioural control -0.299 -0.187 -3.993*** -2.038* 1.281
ϒ6 Perceived behavioural control -> Desire 0.142 0.119 3.963*** 1.991* 0.232
ϒ7 Perceived behavioural control -> Revisit intention 0.167 0.052 3.150** 0.903 2.054
ϒ11 Pre-visit destination image -> Overall satisfaction 0.092 0.031 2.224* 0.546 1.017
ϒ13 On-site destination image -> Desire 0.270 0.049 4.941*** 0.524 4.150*
ϒ14 On-site destination image -> Revisit intention 0.136 0.145 1.660 1.643 0.011
ϒ15 On-site destination image -> Attitude 0.145 0.234 2.064* 2.289* 0.047
ϒ16 Overall satisfaction -> Desire 0.084 0.059 1.888 0.843 0.060
ϒ18 Overall satisfaction -> Attitude 0.136 0.053 2.378* 0.712 1.182
ϒ20 On-site destination food image -> Food satisfaction 0.595 0.564 14.245*** 10.448*** 1.931
ϒ23 On-site destination food image -> Attitude 0.167 0.417 2.145* 3.762*** 1.315
ϒ24 Food satisfaction -> Desire 0.116 0.033 2.431* 0.464 0.589
ϒ26 Food satisfaction ->Attitude 0.163 0.106 2.645** 1.382 0.621
Note: *p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001
314
Blue coefficients denote first time visitors and black coefficients denote repeat visitors. Two lines mean one of relationships between construct is insignificant.
Figure 6.5 Multigroup comparisons between types of visitors for short-term revisit intention to Thailand (Factor level)
315
Table 6.61 Moderating effects between types of visitors for long-term revisit intention
First-timers Repeaters First-timers Repeaters
ϒ3 Control belief -> Perceived behavioural control 0.301 0.181 -3.996*** -1.967* 1.391
ϒ6 Perceived behavioural control -> Desire 0.144 0.121 4.014*** 2.013* 0.274
ϒ7 Perceived behavioural control -> Revisit intention 0.184 0.084 4.006*** 1.493 2.848
ϒ11 Pre-visit destination image -> Overall satisfaction 0.092 0.031 2.224* 0.546 1.017
ϒ13 On-site destination image -> Desire 0.267 0.040 4.913*** 0.422 4.483*
ϒ14 On-site destination image -> Revisit intention 0.057 0.040 0.819 0.465 0.049
ϒ15 On-site destination image -> Attitude 0.145 0.234 2.065* 2.289* 0.046
ϒ16 Overall satisfaction -> Desire 0.083 0.067 1.888 0.959 0.026
ϒ18 Overall satisfaction -> Attitude 0.136 0.054 2.377* 0.713 1.182
ϒ20 On-site destination food image -> Food satisfaction 0.595 0.564 14.245*** 10.448*** 0.165
ϒ23 On-site destination food image -> Attitude 0.167 0.416 2.144* 3.760*** 1.309
ϒ24 Food satisfaction -> Desire 0.115 0.028 2.420* 0.398 0.671
ϒ26 Food satisfaction ->Attitude 0.163 0.106 2.646** 1.383 0.623
Note: *p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001
316
Blue coefficients denote first time visitors and black coefficients denote repeat visitors. Two lines mean one of relationships between construct is insignificant.
Figure 6.6 Multigroup comparisons between types of visitors for long-term revisit intention to Thailand (Factor level)
317
6.13 PERSONALITY TRAITS AND TEMPORAL REVISIT INTENTIONS
This study employed standard multiple regression analysis to examine the effect
of personality traits (novelty seeking tendency, food neophobia, and food
involvement) on temporal revisit intentions. Standard multiple regression
analysis was selected because it is suggested an appropriate method for theory
testing and investigating the causal relationships between factors evidenced in
past research (Field, 2013; Hair, 2014). Before performing the regression
analysis, the multicollinearity amongst the independent variables needs to be
assessed. The correlation matrix for all the independent variables was
investigated. Significant predictors of temporal intentions validated from the
SEM analysis results were observed their inter-construct correlations with the
personality trait variables using a Pearson correlation analysis. Table 6.62
showed that all correlations between the independent variables were less than
the cut-off value of 0.90. The tolerance value (TOI) and the variance inflation
factor (VIF) were also evaluated. In all analyses, the TOI was higher than 0.10
and the VIF was lower than 10, suggesting no concerns of multicollinearity
(Field, 2013; Hair et al., 2014; Pallant, 2016).
Table 6.62 Correlation between desire, perceived behavioural control on-

site destination image and personality traits: Overall (n = 600)
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
F1: Desire 1
F2: Perceived Behavioural Control 0.311*** 1
F3: Novelty Seeking Tendency 0.219*** 0.282*** 1
F4: On-site Destination Image 0.546*** 0.389*** 0.379*** 1
F5: Food Neophobia -0.197** -0.275*** -0.300*** -0.305*** 1
F6: Food Involvement 0.131* 0.134*** 0.187*** 0.187*** -0.393*** 1
As desire, perceived behavioural control, on-site destination image were three

significant determinant of temporal revisit intentions suggested by the SEM
results of the structural models, these variables were input as independent
variables along with novelty seeking tendency, food neophobia, and food
318
involvement. Each of short and long term revisit intention were entered as
dependent variables.
The results for the overall respondents indicated that there was no significant
effect of any personality traits on the short-term revisit intention. On the
contrary, a significantly positive influence of novelty seeking trait (β = 0.064, p =
0.048) and negative effect of food neophobia (β = -0.113, p = 0.001) were
evidenced on the long-term revisit intention. Differences based on nationality
were also revealed. While novelty seeking was found as a positive determinant of
the long-term revisit intention only in the British group (β = 0.094, p = 0.037),
food neophobia served as a negative antecedent of the long-term revisit
intention only in the Japanese group (β = -0.120, p = 0.009). No effect of
personality traits was shown on the short-term revisit intention for both
nationalities. Moreover, the results revealed no effect of the traits on the short
run revisit intention in both the first-time and repeat tourists. However, the food
neophobia showed a significant negative impact on the long run intention in both
types of visitors (First-timer: β = -0.113, p = 0.010; Repeater: β = 0.123, p =
0.026).
The positive effect of novelty seeking on long-term revisit intention was partly
consistent with that of Jang and Feng (2007). The authors reported novelty
seeking as a significantly and positively determinant of mid-term revisit
intention, which was connected to long-term revisit intention. Thus, novelty
seeking could establish and boost intention to return as well as establish long-
term commitment. In addition, the present findings partially supported the work
of Assaker et al. (2011), suggesting novelty seeking as an indirect positive
antecedent of long term intention to return but negatively affect immediate
return. However, this study’s findings contradict those of Bigne et al. (2009), in
which specific variety seeking negatively affected both intentions to revisit for
next trip and for distant future. The discrepancy may result from the different
time periods used to measure the revisit intentions and also the use of specific
variety seeking in place of novelty seeking in their study. The negative influence
of food neophobia found in the present study broadly supported the work of Kim
319
et al. (2010), indicating food neophobia as an impediment of return intentions to
a food festival in South Korea. Similarly, Jang (2014) also reported the negative
effect of food neophobia on intention to visit South Korea in British respondents
who had visited to Korean restaurants.
The study’s results suggested that Thailand tourism authorities should promote
new and different attributes of destination including novel and different
experiences with its unique local cuisine in order to persuade British tourists in
revisit for food in the long run. The results of food neophobia scores (See Section
6.5.2) also suggest that the British tends to be food neophilics, who prefer to
partake in unfamiliar and novel food experiences. On the other hand, the
negative relationship between food neophobia and long-term revisit intention
suggested that more information as well as positive benefits of local Thai
food/cuisine should be communicated to Japanese tourists, first-timers and
repeaters in order to reduce uncertainty they may have towards the unfamiliar
local food, and thus, may help in enhancing the intention to revisit for food
purposes in the long run.
6.14 LOCAL THAI FOOD MOTIVES AND TEMPORAL REVISIT INTENTIONS

Multiple regression analysis using a stepwise regression technique was
additionally operated to explore the relationships between local Thai food
motives and temporal revisit intentions and determine the best combination of
factors that influence and best explain the temporal intentions to revisit
Thailand. The three local Thai food motivational factors were assigned as
independent variables. Each of short and long term revisit intention were
allocated as dependent variables. To evaluate multicollinearity amongst the
independent variables, first, the correlation matrix for the independent variables
was investigated. Referring back to Table 6.38, all correlations between the
independent variables were lower than the cut-off value of 0.90. Second,
tolerance value (TOI) and the variance inflation factor (VIF) were assessed. The
TOI was higher than 0.10 and the VIF was lower than 10 in all analyses. These
indicated that no significant signs of multicollinearity (Field, 2013; Hair et al.,
320
2014; Pallant, 2016). The results from the regression analysis are summarised in
Table 6.63.
Table 6.63 Summary of stepwise multiple regression analysis results
Variables β Sig. Variables β Sig.
Total Sensory & Variety Pleasure 0.220 0.000 Sensory & Variety Pleasure 0.206 0.000
(n=600) Health & Assurance 0.140 0.001 Health & Assurance 0.137 0.002
Cultural Experience 0.100 0.027
R2 = 0.095, Adjusted R2 = 0.092 R2 = 0.126, Adjusted R2 = 0.122
F = 31.326 , p = 0.000 F = 28.715, p=0.000
British Sensory & Variety Pleasure 0.163 0.005 Sensory & Variety Pleasure 0.144 0.016
(n=300) Health & Assurance 0.131 0.027
F = 8.159, p = 0.005 F = 7.649, p = 0.001
Japanese Sensory & Variety Pleasure 0.293 0.000 Sensory & Variety Pleasure 0.250 0.000
Cultural Experience 0.135 0.026
F = 34.594, p = 0.000 F = 20.887, p = 0.000
First-timers Sensory & Variety Pleasure 0.236 0.000 Cultural Experience 0.167 0.004
Sensory & Variety Pleasure 0.159 0.006
F =24.145, p = 0.000 F = 22.359, p = 0.000
Repeaters Sensory & Variety Pleasure 0.187 0.005 Sensory & Variety Pleasure 0.202 0.002
(n=224) R2 = 0.035, Adjusted R2 = 0.031 R2 = 0.041, Adjusted R2 = 0.037
F = 8.030, p = 0.005 F = 9.452, p = 0.002
The results suggested local food motivations that best explained the short and
long-term revisit intention in the overall respondents were different. Sensory
and variety pleasure (β = 0.220, p = 0.001) and health and assurance (β = 0.140, p
= 0.001) best explained total variance in prediction of the short-term revisit
intention and accounted for 9.2% of total variance in the short-term revisit
intention. However, all three motivational factors: sensory and variety pleasure
(β = 0.206, p = 0.000), health and assurance (β = 0.137, p = 0.002), and cultural
experience (β = 0.100, p = 0.027), were shown to best explain the long-term
321
revisit intention. These three factors jointly explained 12.2% of total variance in
the long-term revisit intention.
The regression analyses with the stepwise technique were further run separately
in each nationality and in each type of visitor group. Regarding to the results of
the British group, the short-term revisit intention was best explained by only one
factor: sensory and variety pleasure (β = 0.163, p = 0.005). This factor accounted
for 2.3% of total variance in the intention to revisit in the short-run. However,
sensory and variety pleasure (β = 0.144, p = 0.016) and health assurance (β =
0.163, p = 0.027) were suggested as the best combination of local food motives
that best explained 4.3% of total variance in the intention to revisit in the long
run. Concerning the results of the Japanese group, the short-term revisit
intention was best explained by sensory and variety pleasure (β = 0.293, p =
0.000) and health and assurance factors (β = 0.214, p = 0.000). These two factors
explained for 18.3% of total variance in the short-term revisit intention.
However, the long-term revisit intention was best explained by sensory and
variety pleasure (β = 0.250, p = 0.000), health and assurance (β = 0.137, p =
0.026), and cultural experience (β = 0.135, p = 0.026), jointly accounting for
16.6% of total variance in the long-term revisit intention.
With regard to the results for the first-timers, health and assurance (β = 0.236, p
= 0.000) and cultural experience (β = 0.156, p = 0.005) were suggested as best
combination of factors that best explained 11.0% of total variance in the short-
term revisit intention. Nevertheless, the long-term revisit intention was best
explained by all three factors: cultural experience (β = 0.167, p = 0.004), health
and assurance (β = 0.158, p = 0.005), and sensory and variety pleasure (β =
0.159, p = 0.006). These three factors together explained 14.6% of total variance
in the long-term revisit intention. Referring the result of the repeaters, both
short and long run revisit intentions were best explained by only one
motivational factor: sensory and variety pleasure (Short-term: β = 0.187, p =
0.005; Long-term: β = 0.202, p = 0.002). It explained about 3.5% of total variance
in the short-term revisit intention and 3.7% of total variance in the long-term
revisit intention.
322
These findings suggested that, in general, Sensory & Variety Pleasure seemed to
be the most salient local Thai food motivational factor influencing tourists’
intention to revisit Thailand to resample its cuisine. The interview results of this
study also suggested that ‘nice and tasty’ local Thai food might reinforce the
respondents’ intention to revisit Thailand. This substantiated the findings of the
previous studies. For example, Choe and Kim (2018) found taste and quality of
local food as an important local food consumption value that could enhance
tourists’ intention to return to Hong Kong for food tourism. Similarly, Seo et al.
(2014) suggested that sensory properties as a sub-dimension of cognitive images
of destination food could directly and indirectly affect intention to re-consume
destination food in the near future. Furthermore, Boniface (2003) and Kivela and
Crott (2005), both additionally advocated that local food consumption at a
destination could be considered as a pull factor for the destination as it provides
tourists a pleasurable sensory experience.
The results also indicated that Cultural Experience through the consumption of
local Thai food could partially reinforce the long run revisit intention in overall
respondents, the Japanese and first-timer groups. Similarly, other studies have
evidenced local food consumption as a significant motivator driving visitors’
intention to revisit the same destination to experience and learn the unique food
culture (Chi et al., 2013; Ling et al., 2010). Both the qualitative and quantitative
results of the present study regarding the revisit intention motives indicated that
cultural motivation, desire for new and different experiences and a quest for
experience ‘more’ local food were the main factors driving the intention to revisit
Thailand. These are comparable to sensory and variety pleasure and cultural
experience motivations in local food choice. Therefore, these proposes initial
evidence that the two contexts may be partially correlated and motivations to
consume local Thai food could affect the intention to revisit Thailand in both
short and long run.
6.15 CHAPTER SUMMARY

In this chapter, the findings of questionnaire survey were provided. The t-test
and chi-square results on personality traits (NS, FNS, FIS), destination and
destination food image, overall and food satisfaction, familiarity with Thai food
323
and perceived importance of food towards different and travel stages showed
differences based on nationality and type of visitor. Chi-square results
concerning the frequency of participating in food-related tourism activities in
Thailand also revealed differences between nationalities and types of visitors.
Based on the EFA and CFA results, three local Thai food motivational factors
were identified: 1) Sensory and Variety Pleasure, 2) Cultural Experience, and 3)
Health and Assurance. The scale reliability and validity were confirmed. The t-
test results revealed differences between nationalities and types of visitors
concerning the three local food motivations. The results of the stepwise multiple
regressions suggested the relationships between local Thai food motives and
temporal revisit intentions and also postulated primary indication that local food
consumption and revisit intention context may be partially correlated. The
standard multiple regression results suggested novelty seeking and food
neophobia as personality traits that could exert positive and negative impact on
long-term revisit intentions, respectively.
The t-test results of intention measurements evidenced differences between

British and Japanese subjects and between first-time and repeat visitors.
Measurement models for temporal revisit intentions were confirmed reliability
and validity via CFA, common method bias, and measurement invariance tests.
The structural models for both short and long term revisit intention were
assessed using SEM. The SEM results provided evidence that local Thai food
experiences could influence tourists’ intention to return to Thailand via: 1)
behavioural beliefs that worked through the path of attitude-desire-revisit
intentions, 2) destination food image and food satisfaction, which could directly
and/or indirectly affect the revisit intentions via the desire towards revisiting.
Multi-group analysis results confirmed the moderating effect of nationality and
type of visitor on the relationships between salient factor in the short and long
term revisit intention models. The implications of these results and their
association with the findings of qualitative stage will be discussed in the next
chapter.
324
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The chapter provides an overall discussion based on the results of the entire
study. Firstly, the research objectives are revisited to review how the findings
answer the research questions. Also, theoretical contributions and managerial
implications of the study results are discussed. Lastly, the limitations of the study
and recommendations for future research are specified.
7.2 LINKS BETWEEN RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND THE FINDINGS
7.2.1 Research Objective 1: To identify motivations for tourists’ local Thai

food consumption and evaluate cultural differences and differences among
first-timers and different types of repeaters on these motivations
Since the results of the frequency test on number of previous visits shown very
few loyal repeaters (over five visitations) (Huang, et al., 2014), dividing the
repeaters into sub-groups as previously aimed seemed not statistically
appropriate. Thus, first-timers and repeaters remained two valid types of
visitors used for comparisons of statistical differences between the groups. The
study identified a reliable and valid 11-item scale for motivational factors
underlying local Thai food consumption with three dimensions: 1) Sensory &
Variety Pleasure, 2) Cultural Influence, and Health Concern & Assurance. The
motivational scale was constructed and developed via the two stages of the
study: semi-structured interviews and questionnaire survey, which also based
on the literature review in tourists’ food consumption as well as general food
choice.
In the qualitative stage, 13 motivational factors were generated from thematic

analysis using the semi-structured interview data: Sensory Appeal, Price & Value,
Variety & Novelty, Escape from routine, Learn and Explore Culture, Authentic
Experience, Prestige, Health Concern, Assurance, Food Safety & Hygiene Concerns,
Convenience, Contextual Pleasure, and Cultural Influence. These motivational
325
factors identified guided the development of the motivational scale employed in
the questionnaire survey, the quantitative of the study. The motivational factors
from the interview stage were refined via the pilot study and the main study
using the exploratory factor analyses. After that, three motivational factors were
confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis as shown above. The discussion of
each motivational factor along with the differences based on nationality and type
of visitor are discussed as follows:
1) Sensory & Variety Pleasure The findings of quantitative stage confirmed the
significance of sensory and variety pleasure motive in local Thai food
consumption. This factor acted as the desire to seek sensory and variety pleasure
in tasting local Thai food on holiday in Thailand. The importance of sensory
pleasure has been acknowledged as a salient factor in tourist food consumption
(Boniface, 2003; Fields, 2002; Kim, 2010; Kivela and Crott, 2006; Mak, 2011).
Furthermore, the desire to seek novelty and variety experiences in tourists
appears to be connected with sensation seeking or sensory pleasure via senses
such as taste, smell, sight and touch (e.g. Boniface, 2003; Classen et al., 1994;
Furst et al., 1996). Kivela and Crott (2006) also pointed out that tasting local food
on holiday could be viewed as a pleasurable sensory experience. Sensory
pleasure was particularly evidenced as a main factor motivating tourists to
consume local food in a tourism destination (Kim et al, 2010). The present study
further substantiated the significance of sensory and variety pleasure in the
context of tourist local Thai food consumption in Thailand.
Concerning nationality differences, the quantitative findings suggested that

British respondents were more motivated by Sensory and Variety Pleasure than
the Japanese respondents. This finding broadly supported those of Prescott et al.
(2002) and Januszewska et al. (2011), evidencing Asians paid less attention to
sensory appeal in underlying their food choice compared to the Europeans. Food
and sensory preferences has widely been documented as being influenced by the
culture an individual brought up (Fiddes, 1995; Harris and Ross, 1987; Khan,
1981; Levi-Strauss, 1965, 1968, 1970, cited in Caplan, 1997; Rozin, 1982, 1989;
Shepherd and Sparks, 1992; Vabo and Hansen, 2014, Wright et al., 2001). As a
326
result, what British consider tastier and better aroma when comparing local Thai
food with Thai food sold in UK might be totally differ in the case of Japanese. The
findings in the qualitative stage also supported this notion. While preference for
stronger flavours and aroma of local Thai food resulting from more uses of herbs
compared to Thai food sold in UK was shown in the British respondents, many
Japanese respondents expressed their dislike towards those plenty uses of herbs
in local Thai food, particularly Kaffir lime leaves and lemongrass. Apart from this,
a higher focus on seeking variety in local Thai dishes in British may be explained
by a the tendency of being food neophilics as shown by the results of food
neophobia.
Regarding differences based on type of visitor, the quantitative findings revealed

that the repeaters focused more on Sensory and Variety Pleasure than the first-
timers. As local food in a holiday destination can be regarded as novel/unfamiliar
food to international tourists, past experiences with the local food can increase
familiarity and, thus, sensory preference towards the food (Asp, 1999; Pliner,
1982). Consequently, the dissimilarity found could be described by the increased
exposure to local Thai food added from past visits in the repeaters as compared
to the first-timers, who have no direct experience with local Thai food. Even
though the first-timers had some previous experiences of Thai food available in
their home country (as limited by sampling criteria of the study), the food they
have ever tried at home may be reasonably different in ingredients used aside
from appearance, taste and aroma from what is offered locally (Cohen and Avieli,
2004). Therefore, this study added empirical evidence in supporting the role of
past experiences in enhancing sensory preference to local food at a tourist
destination. The slightly lower level of food neophobia reported in the repeaters
might also contribute to a higher rate on this factor concerning the variety
pleasure.
2) Cultural Experience Results from the survey suggested this factor as the most
salient motivation underlying tourist local Thai food consumption. This factor
indicated that cultural experience could include “gaining knowledge” and
“seeking authentic experience”. This finding was similar to those of previous
327
studies (e.g. McIntosh et al., 1995; Chhabra et al., 2003; Poria et al., 2004),
pointing out that cultural experience at a tourism destination could encompass
items regarding “gaining cultural knowledge” (e.g. learning history and
understanding different countries) and items about “seeking authentic
experience” (e.g. exploring authentic culture and experiencing unique culture).
Because local cuisines can be regarded as a part of local culture and a principal
manifestation of a destination’s intangible heritage, local food consumption at a
holiday destination can be viewed as a truly authentic experience of a different
culture (Kim, 2010; Getz, 2000; Hjalager and Corigliano, 2000, Okumus et al.,
2007; Tsai, 2016).
The survey findings indicated that British respondents were more interested in
Cultural Experience through their consuming local Thai food than their Japanese
counterparts. As tourists from greater culturally distant countries tended to
express more interested in engaging in a different culture compared with those
from culturally proximate origins (Mckercher and Chow, 2001), a greater
interest in cultural experience via tasting local Thai food in the British may result
from a greater cultural distance they shared between Thailand, particularly in
terms of the cuisine and food culture compared to the Japanese. Another possible
explanation for the dissimilarity found might be cultural differences in the quest
for authentic experiences evidenced in previous studies (Muñoz et al., 2006;
Pizam and Susmann, 1995). However, difference between the first-time and
repeat tourists was found insignificant concerning this factor.
3) Health Concern and Assurance This motive symbolised the motivation to

seek health benefits and a sense of assurance in terms of food taste and quality in
savouring local Thai food. Whereas majority of tourism scholars has overlooked
this factor as a significant motive in tourist food consumption, this study
suggested that health concern and assurance could be one of salient motivations
for tasting local Thai food. Tasting local food can be considered as a way to
maintain a good health becasue local food contains a plenty of fresh locally
produced ingredients, and thus, is more nutritious than other food types
(Swenson, 2009). Tourism destinations such as Greece, Italy and Portugal
emphasise the health benefits of their Mediterranean or Atlantic cuisine,
328
focusing on attracting Western tourists troubled by overweight, high cholesterol
and other health matters. Therefore, the present finding supported an
importance of health concern and food quality assurance motivations in tasting
local food and further suggested that the two facets may be closely related.
The results indicated that British subjects placed more emphasis on Health
Concern and Assurance than their Japanese equivalents. The greater cultural
distance, specifically in terms of cuisine and food culture, the British shared
between Thailand as compared with the Japanese may contribute to this
discrepancy. While Japanese food can be considered as a healthy diet due to its
naturalness and simplicity in both preparations and ingredients, majority of
British food is perceived as high in cholesterol and fat, and low in fibre and
complex carbohydrates. These tend to lead to the problems of excessive calories
intake in British people and may cause overweight, obesity as well as other
diseases (Kittler and Sucher, 2008). These alarming factors have called the need
of dietary changes towards a healthy, balanced diet in the British (nhs.uk, 2019).
Hence, the health benefits of local Thai food, particularly the well-balanced
combination of herbs and spices may reasonably attract the British group more
than the Japanese group. The results of the qualitative stage also reported British
participants’ preference towards health benefits of local Thai food including
various fresh herbs and spices used as well as natural produces, less processed
and less allergic ingredients compared with British diets. On the contrary, none
of the Japanese participants referred to this issue. Revisiting the greater
attention placed on sensory appeals of local Thai food by the British subjects, it
might lead to their higher emphasis on listening to locals’ dining guidance in
order to assure the quality of food they would gain.
Considering difference based on type of visitors, the results showed that repeat
tourists were more driven by Health Concern and Assurance when comparing
with the first-time tourists. As the repeaters seems to be more familiar and
knowledgeable with the destination and its attributes including local culture,
food, and people than the first-timers (Kim et al., 2009b; Lau and Mckercher,
2004; Yolal et al., 2017), their familiarity could increase their awareness and
appreciation of destination’s hidden qualities and attractions as well as social
329
opportunities such as friendly local people and a variety of locally produced food
that may not be directly detectable to the first-timers (Fakeye and Crompton,
1991; Hahm, and Severt 2017; Rittichainuwat et al., 2001). Subsequently, the
repeaters are more possible to interact with local residents and may place more
emphasis on locals’ recommendations for where they should dine in to ensure
the quality of food or meals they would have. They may also be more appreciated
in the health values of the local food.
7.2.2 Research Objective 2: To explore the connection between the

motivations for local Thai food consumption and those for revisiting
Thailand over time
In the qualitative stage, the common motivational factors between local food
consumption and revisit intention context were discovered: Variety and Novelty,
Cultural Experience, Price and Value, and Convenience. However, the results of
pre-test questionnaire suggested that the revisit intention motivations should be
reduced as making the lengthy questionnaire that could diminish the
concentration of the respondents on giving accurate responses. Thus, the
quantification results of the salient themes were revisited and the motivational
items related to Convenience of Destination and Various Things to Do and See
were removed from the questionnaire. As previously explained in Section 7.1.1,
the EFA results of the main survey for local Thai food motives suggested to drop
the motivational items related to Price and Value because of low loadings. Thus,
only Novelty and Cultural experience remained as common motivations between
the two contexts. However, the Novelty motive could be considered comparable
to Variety motive in the local food consumption context, as they are similar
concepts. The quantitative results further revealed these common motivational
factors were important in both contexts. All in all, this may signify that tourists
consume local Thai food with similar motives for revisiting Thailand. Thus, these
motivations could be further developed for revisiting Thailand to resample its
cuisine. The finding of the interviews with the repeaters also showed Thai food
as an important motivator driving their return to savour ‘more’ variety of local
Thai dishes leading to research objective 3.
330
7.2.3 Research Objective 3: To investigate the relationship between local
Thai food experiences and the intention to revisit Thailand over time
The three motives for local Thai food consumption were further explored their
relationships with the short and long term revisit intention using stepwise
multiple regressions. The results suggested the relationships between local Thai
food motives and the temporal revisit intentions. Sensory & Variety Pleasure
seemed to be the most salient local Thai food motivational factor influencing
tourists’ intention to revisit Thailand to resample its cuisine. The interview
results also suggested that nice and tasty local Thai food might reinforce the
respondents’ intention to revisit Thailand. This substantiated the findings of the
previous studies. For example, Choe and Kim (2018) also found taste and quality
of local food as an important local food consumption value that could enhance
tourists’ intention to return to Hong Kong for food tourism. Boniface (2003) and
Kivela and Crott (2005), both additionally advocated that local food consumption
at a destination could be considered as a pull factor for the destination as it
provides tourists a pleasurable sensory experience.
The paired t-test results showed that the perceived importance of local Thai food
in determining a future visit was significantly higher than the perceived
importance of local Thai food in the decision for the current visit. This indicated
that when tourists were more exposed to local food in the destination; the
perceived importance of the destination food to their visit decision increased.
The comparison between pre-visit and on-site destination food image also
showed the improvement of destination food image after the respondents had
experienced local Thai food at the destination. The overall mean scores of food
satisfaction also suggested that the respondents were strongly satisfied with
their overall quality of local Thai food experiences at the destination. The
importance of local Thai food to the future visit was a behavioural belief
measurement item, which was an antecedent of attitude towards revisiting
Thailand and the attitude, destination food image and food satisfaction were all
found to indirectly affect the temporal revisit intentions via desire, as shown by
the SEM results. Thus, the relationships of these three variables with temporal
revisit intentions denoted that local Thai food experience could reinforce the
331
visitors’ intentions to return to Thailand in short and long-term. In other words,
the perception of local Thai food could influence their return intentions.
7.2.4 Research Objective 4: To identify salient factors affecting tourists’

intention to revisit Thailand over time for food purposes
As this study employed the extended combination of the MGB and TPB model to
predict the temporal revisit intentions, the revisit intentions predicted by the
model were the intentions to revisit Thailand in general, not a pure intention to
revisit for gastronomy purposes. The study extended the MGB by adding in
belief-based measures of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural
control (as theorised in the TPB) with an aim to evaluate an influence of local
Thai food experiences as a motivational base of revisiting Thailand. Through the
CFA and the SEM analysis, the results revealed that revisiting Thailand to
experience ‘more’ local Thai food and to participate in food-related tourism
activities were significant behavioral beliefs that could function through attitude
towards the revisit and via the desire to enhance the temporal revisit intentions.
Hence, a belief to revisit Thailand for consuming more local Thai food and for
joining the food related activities could be considered as salient factors
underlying the intentions to revisit for food reasons. Destination food image,
food satisfaction, food neophobia and novelty seeking were also confirmed by
the survey results that they significantly predicted the revisit intentions. As
discussed in Section 7.1.2, destination food image and food satisfaction
influenced the temporal revisit intentions indirectly via desire and they also
could function through attitude towards the revisit. However, the significant
negative effect of food neophobia and positive effect of novelty seeking were
found on the long-term revisit intention only. All in all, salient factors affecting
the temporal revisit intention to Thailand as a culinary tourism destination are:
1) beliefs that revisit Thailand would provide an opportunities to savour more
local Thai food or offer a chance to join food-related tourism activities, 2)
destination food image, 3) destination food satisfaction, 4) food neophobia, and
5) novelty seeking tendency, and 6) the three local Thai food motivations.
332
7.2.5 Research Objective 5: To critically investigate the relationships
between the factors identified and their relative importance on the
intentions to revisit over time
The short and long term intention models were developed to allow the
investigation of the relationships between the factors identified and their
relative importance on the intentions to revisit over time. However, novelty
seeking, food neophobia and local food motives were additionally tested their
relationships with the temporal revisit intentions using multiple regression
analyses. The SEM results for the short and long term intention presents the
relationship between the behavioural beliefs (BB1 & BB2), destination food
image, and destination food satisfaction with other related general factors and
the temporal intentions (See Figure 6.1 and 6.2). The detailed discussion of the
whole relationships of all factors in the models was presented in Chapter 6,
Section 6.12.6. The brief discussion of the results for the revisit intention factors
for food purposes are given as follows:
The SEM results suggested that attitude was a most powerful determinant for
both the short and long-term revisit intentions. These suggest that an increase in
strong positive outcome beliefs of revisiting Thailand for food purposes could
boost the tourists’ desire towards revisiting Thailand to resample its cuisine.
Furthermore, food satisfaction was found significantly affected by both the pre-
visit and on-site destination food image. The findings broadly substantiated
those of other studies revealing a significant positive effect of destination food
image on destination food satisfaction (Chi et al., 2013; Karim et al., 2010; Ling et
al., 2010; Peštek and Činjarević, 2014). Unlike on-site destination image, on-site
destination food image was not evidenced to significantly (directly) predict both
desire and temporal revisit intentions. However, the destination food image
affected the intentions indirectly via food satisfaction and desire. Therefore, this
present results expanded the causal relationship between food image, food
satisfaction, and destination revisit intention (Chi et al., 2013; Ling et al., 2010;
Karim et al., 2010) by further proposing the mediation of desire between food
satisfaction and temporal destination revisit intentions. Comparable to the
concept of on-site destination image and overall satisfaction, both on-site
333
destination food image and food satisfaction were found to be significant
determinants of attitude. Hence, it is apparent that the on-site destination and
food image as well as overall and food satisfaction were evidenced as salient
antecedents of attitude, the strongest determinant of desire and, thus could
reinforce the short and long-term revisit intention.
7.2.6 Research Objective 6: To evaluate cultural differences and differences

among first-timers and types of repeaters on the relationships between the
factors identified and their relative importance on the intentions to revisit
over time
The multi-group analyses showed that the short and long term revisit intention
models differed between the British and the Japanese group and between the
first-timers and the repeaters (See Figure 6.3 and 6.4). The detailed discussion of
the whole relationships of all factors in the SEM models based on nationality and
type of visitor were provided in Chapter 6, Section 6.12.7. The brief discussion of
the results for the revisit intention factors for food purposes are given as follows:
The results of the structural models in each nationality for both short and long
term revisit intentions were different. Based on nationality difference, the
findings of this study were in accord with those of former tourism research (e.g.
Caneen, 2004; Lee and Lee, 2009; Pizam and Jeong, 1996; Pizam and Sussmann,
1995; Ramkissoon et al., 2011; Reisinger and Turner, 1998; Xu et al., 2009),
reporting the cultural differences in tourist behaviour and behavioural
intentions. The results showed that destination food images could directly and
indirectly affect attitude and food satisfaction could directly affect attitude and
desire in the Japanese group. Thus, to promote food tourism in Japanese market,
a positive image of local Thai food as well as overall quality of local Thai food
experiences should be ensured in order to heighten favourable attitude and
desire towards revisiting for food purposes. Strong beliefs that revisiting
Thailand could provide them more experiences with local Thai food should also
be communicated through various media to increase the positive attitude.
Interestingly, food satisfaction did not affect either desire or intention to revisit
in short and long term in the British respondents. Food satisfaction was also not
334
a determinant of attitude for both timeframes. These results suggest that even
though local food experiences in Thailand could satisfy British visitors, they may
not enhance their intentions to return to the destination either in short or long
run. The results, moreover, revealed that in the British subjects, on-site
destination food image and behavioural beliefs were strong antecedents of
attitude towards revisiting Thailand, a powerful determinant of desire to revisit.
Hence, in order to promote food tourism in Thailand amongst British visitors, the
image of local Thai food the visitors perceived from their actual visit and strong
beliefs that they can experience more quality local Thai food in the future visit
should be focused and promoted to enhance a favourable attitude towards the
revisit for food.
7.3 THEORITICAL CONTRIBUTION OF THE RESEARCH

Although many existing studies examined antecedents of destination revisit
intention, a limited number have investigated what affects tourists to return the
same destination for gastronomy purposes. Thus, the findings of this study are
considered to contribute to the theoretical development in tourist behaviour and
food consumption research by increasing the body of literature regarding factors
affecting tourists’ destination revisit intention for gastronomy reasons. This
study drew the linkage between local food experiences in the holiday destination
and tourists’ destination revisit intention by not only determining the shared
motives between the two research contexts but also evaluated how the local food
experience at a holiday destination could affect tourists’ intention to revisit that
destination for culinary tourism reasons. Additionally, this study offers insights
into local Thai food motive dimensions and their possible effects on the temporal
revisit intention to Thailand for gastronomy purposes.
This research also advanced the application of the TPB model and the MGB by
employing a hybrid of those models in predicting tourists’ revisit intention from
time-based perspectives. Adding in the belief-based measures of attitude,
subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control (as theorised in the TPB) in
to the original MGB model allows evaluating an influence of local Thai food
experiences as a motivational base of revisiting Thailand and facilitates an
335
examination of any common motivational factors between local food choice
motivations and revisit motivations. As this study found that attitude, subjective
norm, perceived behavioural control, positive and negative anticipated emotions,
destination image, overall satisfaction and food satisfaction all functioned
through desire in affecting the temporal revisit intentions, this adds to the body
of the MGB literature providing a further support for the important role of desire
as a direct catalyst for the intentions to revisit a destination over time by
transforming the motivational elements entrenched in those variables to act.
In spite of numerous studies on revisit intention, a small number of tourism

scholars researched on the timing issue of revisit intention. This research
extends the literature on destination revisit intention to its temporal based
dimensions and examines its possible determinants between the two
nationalities and between first-timers and repeaters. To the best of the
researchers’ knowledge, there is not any single study on temporal destination
intention examine the moderating effect of nationality. The results of this study
concerning differences based on nationality are also considered expanding the
cross-cultural research. Opperman (2000) pointed out that revisit intention have
been criticised in its inadequacy to define the destination loyalty evidently,
whereas measuring actual revisit behaviour is difficult in real practices. Thus, a
better understanding of the intended revisit timing is valuable as this study ties
the gap between the intention to revisit and the actual revisit behaviour.
7.4 MANEGERIAL CONTRIBUTION OF THE RESEARCH

With regards to the managerial contribution, the research is believed to generate
valuable information for Thailand’s culinary tourism marketing practices. Since
the research offers a better insight of what influences tourists’ intention to
undertake a repeat visit to Thailand for appreciating its cuisine, the results of the
research would be beneficial for Tourism Authority of Thailand in developing
unique local Thai food as a tourist attraction. The authorities would also know
better how to promote the local Thai food and improve effective marketing
strategies to target potential culinary tourists.
336
Even though the findings of the quantitative phase shows small size effects of
food-related factors (destination food image and food satisfaction) on the
intentions to return to Thailand over time, it does not mean that those factors
are not important. These small size effects seem to be resulted from: 1) the
populations of this study were not pure food tourists but food tourists are a part
of them, and 2) the temporal revisit intentions measured in the research models
were not solely the intentions to return to Thailand for food purposes. These
may signify that culinary tourism is a kind of niche tourism in Thailand.
However, returning to Thailand to resample its cuisine offerings does exist and
the role of local Thai food experience could at least reinforce the return
intentions to Thailand. Therefore, to conduct future market research, DMOs may
invest more to recruit pure food tourists as research respondents in order to
achieve a deeper insight into behaviours of the tourists who are especially
interested in this kind of niche tourism. This may be achieved by asking for
cooperation from the private sector operating food tourism-based tour offerings.
Since this study segments tourists into British and Japanese, and first-time
visitors and repeaters, the research findings would also allow the authorities to
advance effective marketing in order to retain them as loyalty repeaters. The
differences between the models for short and long term revisit intention also
offer a better understanding of factors that could boost the return in different
intended revisit timing. This assists the DMOs in improving their management of
the visitors flow and to design applicable marketing strategies.
The results of this study also provides a valuable suggestion for Thailand tourism
authorities that in order to promote culinary tourism in the Japanese market, a
positive image of local Thai food as well as overall quality of local Thai food
experiences should be certified in order to heighten favourable attitude and
desire towards revisiting for food purposes. Strong beliefs that revisiting
Thailand could provide them more experiences with local Thai food should also
be communicated through various media to increase the positive attitude. Apart
from this, the negative relationship between food neophobia and long-term
revisit intention suggested that more information and positive benefits of local
337
Thai food/cuisine should be communicated to Japanese tourists as well as
promoting new local Thai dishes in Thai food festivals or events in Japan in order
to reduce uncertainty they may have towards the unfamiliar local Thai food, and
thus, may assist in heightening their intentions to revisit in the long run. The
results of food neophobia scores also supported that Japanese are likely to be
food neophobics. Therefore, it should be noted that food neophobia can be an
impediment of revisiting Thailand in Japanese tourists.
However, in the British group, food satisfaction seems not to play a great role, to
promote culinary tourism in Thailand amongst British visitors, the image of local
Thai food the visitors perceived from their actual visits and strong beliefs that
they can experience more quality local Thai food in the future visits should be
emphasised and promoted to enhance a favourable attitude towards the revisit
for food. Furthermore, novel and different experiences with unique local Thai
cuisine should be promoted in order to persuade British tourists in revisit for
food in the long run. The results of food neophobia scores also supported that
the British tends to be food neophilics, who prefer to partake in unfamiliar and
novel food experiences.
The results concerning frequency of participating in food-related tourism

activities also provided advantageous information to the DMOs regarding the
weakness in communicating the availability of food-related activities in Thailand
to foreign tourists. This is because both of the qualitative and quantitative
informed that except tasting local food activities, the respondents had never
heard about the availabilities of other food related activities in Thailand,
particularly local food festivals and events, eating tours, and local food producing
places. The differences based on nationality also suggests that British tourist
tends to be interest in Thai cooking classes and tasting variety of food in a
market or specific area, while Japanese tourists seems to fancy tasting local food
in a famous restaurant or food outlet and also shopping food products or
ingredients to bring back home. Therefore, this information may benefit the
DMOs in terms of developing an effective marketing to suit different demands of
each nationality.
338
Lastly, the findings of local Thai food motivations revealed three salient
motivational factors: Sensory & Variety Pleasure, Cultural Experience, and Health
& Assurance Concern. These results suggest that the approaches that Thailand
DMOs have been using to promote the health benefits of local Thai food as well
as launching “Thai food must be Thai SELECT” project to assure the quality and
authentic taste of Thai food seem to be the applicable strategies in enhancing
tourists to sample its local food offerings.
7.5 LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Even though the study has tried to conduct rigorous research, many limitations
can be recognised in this study. First, the research was conducted with British
and Japanese tourists travelling in Thailand only. This limits its generalisability
of the results to other population groups. Next, in the qualitative stage of the
study, some semi-structured interviews were undertaken with couples, instead
of individual interviewees. Hence, an issue of gender roles and norms in different
nationalities (British and Japanese) may have an effect on the couples’ data. To
prevent this, a future study should opt for purely individual interviewees. Due to
the non-normality of data, frequency of past behaviour and length of stay were
omitted from the final research model and their effect on the temporal revisit
intentions were not tested. Number of visits also was not used in categorising the
respondents into different types of repeaters as firstly planned. In future
research, quota sampling could be considered in obtaining more loyal repeaters,
who visits the destination more than 5 times (Huang et al., 2014) in order to
facilitate the analyses. Concerning the proportion of age groups in the Japanese
sample, almost half of them aged between 18-24 years old. Hence, the future
studies should increase the number of respondents in other age groups. Due to
the restricted access to the passenger lounge of the Bangkok airports, very few
departing tourists were recruited and the researcher had to collect data from
mainly on-site tourists in other tourist’s attractions. Hence, on-site destination
and food image were used in place of the post-visit ones to measure the image
development and the effect on the temporal revisit intention. To advance more
accurate results, the future study should recruit departing tourists instead.
Because of the measurement of destination image and destination food image
339
attributes as well as overall destination satisfaction and food satisfaction
attributes is not a main focus of this study, single-measurement items were
employed. The relationships between those food-related factors and those
overall tourism factors were also not tested in this study. In the future research,
if possible, measuring the dimensions of these factors could contribute to offer a
better insight of the development of images and also allow identifying which
attributes of image or satisfaction need an improvement. Also, this would
therefore allow an additional evaluation of food as an attribute of overall
destination image and satisfaction. Referring the partial scalar invariance of the
structural models based on nationality, it limits the comparison of latent mean
scores between nationalities. If the focus is on comparing the latent mean, more
measurement items for control beliefs should be added. Further studies should
test indirect effects of factors in the models using bootstrapping to confirm the
mediation effects and should also perform post hoc power analyses on
unsupported hypothesised direct effects.
340
REFERENCE
Ahmed, Z. U. (1991). Marketing your community: Correcting a negative image.

Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Admistration Quaterly, 31(4), pp. 24-27.
Ahmed, Z. U., and Krohn, F. B. (1992). Understanding the unique consumer

behavior of Japanese tourists. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 1(3), pp. 73-
86.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. B. J.

Kuhl (ed.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. New York, NY: Springer. pp.
11-39.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 50, pp. 179-211.
Ajzen, I. (2006). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological

considerations. Available at
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.601.956&rep=rep1&ty
pe=pdf
[Accessed 15 May 2017].
Ajzen, I. and Driver, B. L. (1991). Prediction of leisure participation from

behavioral, normative, and control beliefs: An application of the theory of planned
behavior. Leisure Sciences, 13(3), pp. 185-204
Ajzen, I. and Driver, B. L. (1992). Application of the theory of planned behavior to

leisure choice. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(3), pp. 207-224.
Ajzen, I., Brown, T. C. and Carvajal, F. (2004). Explaining the discrepancy between
intentions and actions: the case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, pp. 1180-1121.
341
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I., and Madden, T. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: attitude,

intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 22(5), pp. 453-474.
Akkusa, G. and Erdem, O. (2013). Food tourists’ intentions within the TPB
framework. Journal of Tourism and Gastronomy Studies, 1/3, pp. 3-9.
Alcaniz E. B. (2009). The functional-psychological continuum in the cognitive image
of a destination: A confirmatory analysis. Tourism Management, 30, pp. 715-723.
Alegre, J., and Juaneda, C. (2006). Destination loyalty: Consumers’ economic

behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(3), pp. 684–706.
Al-Majali, M.M. (2012). International tourists’ satisfaction: Case of Jordan.

International Business Reseach, 5 (9), pp. 210–216.
Alreck, P. and Settle, R. (1995). The survey research handbooks. New York: Irwin
Press.
Aloudat , A. S. and Rawashdeh, A. (2013). Tracking Jordan destination image using

the same sample. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 5(2), pp. 59- 65.
Altinay, L. and Paraskevas, A. (2008). Planning research in hospitality and tourism.

Oxford: Elsevier.
Alwin, D. (1997). Feeling thermometers versus 7-point scales: Which are better?.
Sociological Methods & Research, 25(3), pp. 318-340.
Anney, V. N. (2015). Ensuring the quality of the findings of qualitative research:

Looking at trustworthiness criteria. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational
Research and Policy Studies, 5(2), pp. 272–281.
342
Anwar, S. A., and Sohail, M. S. (2004). Festival tourism in the United Arab Emirates:
First- time versus repeat visitor perceptions. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2),
pp. 161- 170.
Arvola, A., Lähteenmäki, L. and Tuorila, H. (1999). Predicting the intent to purchase
unfamiliar and familiar cheeses: the effects of attitudes, expected liking and food
neophobia, Appetite, 32, pp. 113-126.
Arvola, A., Vassallo, M., Dean, M., Lampila, P., Saba, A., Lähteenmäki, L. and
Shepherd, R. (2008). Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: The role of
affective and moral attitudes in the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Appetite, 50(2-3),
pp. 443-454.
Ashkenazi, M. and Jacob, J. (2003). Food culture in Japan. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press.
Asp, E. H. (1999). Factors affecting food decisions made by individual consumers,

Food Policy, 24, pp. 287-294.
Assael, H. (2004). Consumer behavior: A strategic approach. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.
Assaker, G. and Hallak, R. (2013). Moderating Effects of Tourists' Novelty-Seeking

Tendencies on Destination Image, Visitor Satisfaction, and Short- and Long-Term
Revisit Intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 52(5), pp. 600-613.
Assaker, G., Vinzi, V. E. and O’Connor, P. (2011). Examining the effect of novelty
seeking, satisfaction, and destination image on tourists’ return pattern: A two
factor, non-linear latent growth model. Tourism Management, 32, pp. 890–901.
Atkins, P. and Bowler, I. (2001). Food in society. London: Arnold.
343
Babu, P., and Bibin, P. (2004). Past visits and the intention to revisit a destination:
place attachment as the mediator and novelty seeking as the moderator. Journal of
Tourism Studies, 15(2), pp. 51-66.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behaviour.

Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, pp. 178-204.
Bagozzi, R. P. and Dholakia, U. M. (2006). Antecedents and purchase consequences

of customer participation in small group brand communities. International Journal
of Research in Marketing, 23(1), pp.45-61.
Bagozzi, R. P., and Edwards, E. A. (1998). Goal setting and goal pursuit in the
regulation of body weight. Psychology and Health, 13, 593–621.
Bagozzi, R. P. and Kimmel, S. K. (1995). A comparison of leading theories for the

prediction of goal-directed behaviours. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, pp.
437-461.
Bagozzi, R. P. and Warshaw, P. R. (1990). Trying to consume. Journal of Consumer

Research, 17, pp. 127-140.
Bagozzi, R. P., and Yi, Y. (1991). Multitrait-multimethod matrices in consumer

research. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, pp. 426-439.
Baker, C. (2018). Obesity statistics. House of Commons Library Briefing Paper no.
3336. [Online]. London: House of Commons Library. Available at
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03336/SN03336.pdf
[Accessed 27 April 2019].
Baker, D. A., and Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral

intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27, pp. 785-804.
344
Baloglu, S (2001). Image variations of Turkey by familiarity index: informational
and experiential dimensions. Tourism Management, 22(2), pp. 127-133.
Baloglu, S., and Mangaloglu, M. (2001). Tourism destination images of Turkey,

Egypt, Greece, and Italy as perceived by US-based tour operators and travel agents.
Tourism Management, 22, pp. 1-9.
Baloglu, S., and McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation.

Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), pp. 868-897.
Barros, C. P., and Machado, L. P. (2010). The length of stay in tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 37(3), pp. 692–706.
Bauer, I. L. (2002). Travel health: A survey of life jacket designs currently in use on
commercial aircraft. Journal of Travel Medicine, 9(3), pp. 132-136.
Beck, L. and Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of
planned behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 25(3), pp. 285-301.
Becker, R. H. (1981). Displacement and recreational users between the lower St.
Croix and Upper Mississippi rivers. Journal of Environmental Management, 13, pp.
259-267.
Beerli and Martin (2004) Tourists’ characteristics and the perceived image of
tourist destinations: A quantitative analysis - A case study of Lanzarote, Spain,
Bell, R. and Marshall, D. (2003). The construct of food involvement in behavioral

research: Scale development and validation. Appetite, 40(3), pp. 235–244.
Bell, R., and Meiselman, H. (1995). The role of eating environments in determining
food choice. In D. W. Marshall (ed.) Food choice and the consumer. London:
Chapman and Hall. pp. 292–310.
345
Beldona, S., Moreo, A. and Mundhra, G. (2010). The role of involvement and variety-
seeking in eating out behaviors. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 22(3), pp. 433-444.
Bellisle, F. (2005) The Determinant of Food Choice, EUFIC Review, 17, pp. 1-8.
Bello, D. C., and Etzel, M. J. (1985). The role of novelty in the pleasure travel
experience. Journal of Travel Research, 24, pp. 20-26.
Bennett, D. (2007). Factors that affect repeat buying loyalty. In M. Thyne, K. R.

Deans and J. Gnoth (eds.) ANZMAC 2007 Conference Proceedings, Dunedin: New
Zealand, December 2007, ISBN 978-1-877156-29-9 (CD publication), pp. 669-676.
Bentler, P., and Speckart, G. (1981). Attitudes “cause” behaviors: a structural

equation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), pp. 226-238.
Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. (4th edn).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bessiere, J. (1998) Local development and heritage: Traditional food and cuisine as
tourist attraction in rural areas. Sociologia Ruralist, 38(1), pp. 21–34.
Bigné, J.E., Mattila, A.S., Andreu, L. (2008). The impact of experiential consumption
cognitions and emotions on behavioral intentions. Journal of Service Marketing,
22(4), pp. 303–315.
Bigné, J. E., Sanchez, M. I. and Andreu, L. (2009). The role of variety seeking in short
and long run revisit intentions in holiday destinations. International Journal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(2), pp. 103–115.
Bigne, J. E., Sanchez, M. I., and Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation
variables and after purchase behaviour: inter-relationship. Tourism Management,
22, pp. 607-616.
346
Bialosiewicz, S., Murphy, K., and Berry, T. (2013). An introduction to measurement
invariance testing: Resource packet for participants. Available at
http://comm.eval.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?Docume
ntFileKey=63758fed-a490-43f2-8862-2de0217a08b8
[Accessed 28 October 2018].
Birch, L. L. and Marlin, D. W. (1982) ‘I don’t like it; I never tried it’: effects of
exposure on two-year-old children’s food preferences, Appetite, 3, pp 353-360.
Blaikie, N. (2000). Designing social research. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Boniface, P. (2003). Tasting tourism: Traveling for food and drink. Burlington:
Ashgate Publishing.
Booth, D. A., Mather, P. and Fuller, J. (1982). Starch content of ordinary foods
associatively conditions human appetite and satiation, indexed by intake and eating
pleasantness of starch-paired flavours. Appetite, 3, pp. 163-184.
Bottlerill, D. (2000). Social scientific ways of knowing hospitality. In C. Lashley and

A. Morrison (eds) In search of hospitality: Theoretical perspectives and debates.
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. pp. 177-97.
Bottlerill, D. (2001). The epistemology of a set of tourism studies. Leisure Studies,

20, pp. 199–214.
Bowen, D., & Clarke, J. (2002). Reflection on tourism satisfaction research: Past,
present and future. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8(4), pp. 297–308.
Brady, M. and Robertson, C. (2001). Searching for a consensus on the antecedent

role of service quality and satisfaction: an exploratory cross-national study. Journal
of Business Research, 51(1), pp. 53-60.
347
Braun, V. and Clake, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77-101.
Brinberg, D., Axelson, M. and Price, S. (2000). Changing food knowledge, food
choice, and dietary fiber consumption by using tailored messages. Appetite, 35(1),
pp. 35-43.
Brislin, R.W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 1(3), pp. 185-216.
Brotherton, B. (2008). Researching hospitality and tourism: A student guide. London:

Sage.
Brough, P., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Biggs, A. (2009). Parental leave and work-family
balance among employed parents following childbirth: An exploratory
investigation in Australia and New Zealand. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social
Sciences Online, 4(1), pp. 71–87.
Brown J. L. (2006a). Intra-family influences on food choice at mid-life. In R.

Shepherd and M. Raats (eds) The psychology of food choice. Oxfordshire: CAB
International. pp. 236-288.
Brown, T. A. (2006b). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York:
Guilford Press.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods. (2nd edn). New York: Oxford University
Press Inc.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011). Business research methods. (3rd edn). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bryne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. (2nd edn). New York:
Routledge.
348
Byrne, B.M., Shavelson, R.J., and Muthén, B.O. (1989). Testing for equivalence of
factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement
invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, pp. 456-466.
Bui, H.T. and Le, T.-A. (2016). Tourist satisfaction and destination image of
Vietnam’s Ha Long Bay. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 21(7), pp. 795–
810.
Cabanac, M. (1979). Sensory pleasure, Quarterly Review of Biology, 54, pp. 1-29.
Calder, B. J., and Ross, M. (1973). Attitudes and behavior. Morristown, NJ: General
Learning Press.
Caneen, J. M. (2004). Cultural determinants of tourist intention to return. Tourism

Analysis, 8, pp. 237–242.
Caplan, P. (1997). Approaches to the study of food, health and identity. In P. Caplan
(ed) Food Health and Identity. London: Routledge. pp. 1-31.
Charley, H. and Weaver, C. (1998). Foods, a Scientific Approach (3rd edn). New
Jersey: Merrill.
Chang, R., Kivela, J. and Mak, A. (2010). Food preferences of Chinese tourists. Annals
of Tourism Research, 37(4), pp. 989 –1011.
Chang, R., Kivela, J. and Mak, A. (2011). Attributes that influence the evaluation of
travel dining experience: When east meets west. Tourism Management, 32(2), pp.
307–316.
Chen. C.F. and Chen, W.Y. (2005). A study on the relationship between image,
perceived value, satisfaction and post-purchase behavioral intention of study tour
for university students. Journal of Outdoor Recreation Study, 18(1), pp. 23-46.
349
Chen, C. F. and Tsai, D. (2007) How destination image and evaluative factors affect
behavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28(4), pp. 1115-1122.
Chen, F.F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indices to lack of measurement

invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), pp.
464–504.
Chen J. S. (2000). Cross-cultural differences in travel information acquisition among

tourists from three Pacific-Rim countries. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, 24, pp. 239-251.
Chen, M. (2007). Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic

foods in Taiwan: Moderating effects of food-related personality traits. Food Quality
and Preference, 18(7), pp. 1008-1021.
Chen, P. J., and Kerstetter, D. L. (1999). International student’s image of rural

Pennsylvania as a travel destination. Journal of Travel Research, 37(3), pp. 256-266.
Chen, Y. Y. (2013). The Role of Food in Tourists’ Experiences: A Case Study of Taiwan.
PhD Thesis, the University of Waterloo.
Cheung, G. W. and R. B. Rensvold (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups:

a reconceptualisation and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25(1), pp.
1-27.
Chhabra, D., Healy, R. and Sills, E. (2003). Staged authenticity and heritage tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3), pp. 702-719.
Chi, C. G. (2012). An examination of destination loyalty: Differences between first

time and repeat visitors. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research (SSCI), 36 (1),
pp. 3-24.
350
Chi. C. G. Q., Chua B. L., Othman, M. and Karim, A. S. (2013). Investigating the
structural relationships between food Image, food satisfaction, culinary quality, and
behavioral intentions: The case of Malaysia. International Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Administration, 14(2), pp. 99-120.
Chi, C. G. Q., and Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of

destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated
approach. Tourism Management, 29(4), pp. 624-636.
Cho Sun-Young (1991). The ugly Koreans are coming? Business Korean, 9(2), pp.
25-31.
Choe, J. and Cho, M. (2011). Food neophobia and willingness to try non-traditional
foods for Koreans. Food Quality and Preference, 22(7), pp. 671-677.
Choe, J. Y. J., and Kim, S. S. (2018). Effects of tourists' local food consumption value
on attitude, food destination image, and behavioural intention. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 71, pp. 1–10.
Churchill, G., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(Feb), pp. 64-73.
Clark, M., Riley, M., Wilkie, E. and Wood, R. (1998). Researching and writing
dissertations in hospitality and tourism. London: Thomson.
Clark, M.A. and Wood, R.C. (1998). Consumer loyalty in the restaurant industry: a
preliminary exploration of the issues. British Food Journal, 10(4), pp. 317-332.
Classen, C., Howes, D. and Synott, A. (1994). Aroma: the cultural history of smell.
London: Routledge.
351
Cockerham, W.C., Kunz, G. and Lueschen, G. (1988) On concern with appearance,
health beliefs, and eating habits: a reappraisal comparing Americans and West
Germans. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 29, pp. 265-270.
Cohen, E. (1979). Rethinking the sociology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,

6(1), pp. 18-35.
Cohen, E. and Avieli, N. (2004). Food in tourism: Attraction and impediment. Annals
of Tourism Research, 31(4), pp. 755–778.
Collis, J. and Hussey, R. (2009). Business research: A practical guide for

undergraduate & postgraduate students. (3rd edn). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Comşa, M. (2010). How to compare means of latent variables across countries and
waves: testing for invariance measurement. An application using Eastern European
Societies. Sociológia, 42(6), pp. 639-669.
Conner, M., and Abraham, C. (2001). Conscientiousness and the theory of planned
behavior: towards a more complete model of the antecedents of intentions and
behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(11), pp. 1547-1561.
Conner, M., and Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: a
review of the literature and avenues for future research. Journal of Applied and
Social Psychology, 28(15), pp. 1429-1464.
Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S. (2005). Business research methods. (9th edn). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Cowan, J. and Devine, C. (2008). Food, eating and weight concerns of mean in
recovery from substance addiction. Appetite, 50, pp. 33-42.
352
Coyle, A. (2007). Introduction to qualitative psychological research. In E. Lyons and
A. Coyle (eds) Analysing qualitative data in psychology. London: Sage Publications
Ltd. pp. 9-29.
Crabtree, B. F. and Miller, W. L. (1999). Doing qualitative research. London: SAGE

Publications.
Crespi-Vallbona, M. and Dimitrovski, D. (2016). Food markets visitors: a typology

proposal. British Food Journal, 118(4), pp. 840-857.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks: CA:Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Croes, R., Shani, A., and Wall, A. (2010). The value of destination loyalty: Myth or
reality? Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 19(2), pp. 115–136.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations of pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism

Research, 6, pp. 408–424.
Crossley M. L. and Nazir, M. (2002). Motives underlying food choice: an

investigation of dental students. Brazil Journal of Oral Science, 1(1), pp. 27-33.
Crotts, J. and Erdmann, R. (2000). Does national culture influence consumers’

evaluation of travel services? A test of Hofstede’s model of cross-cultural
differences. Managing Service Quality, 10(6), pp. 410-422.
Crouch, G. I. (1994). The study of international tourism demand: A review of

findings. Journal of Travel Research, 33(1), pp. 12-23.
Dann, G. M. S. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism
353
Research, 4, pp. 184-194.
Darnell, A. C., and Johnson, P. S. (2001). Repeat visits to attractions: a preliminary

economic analysis. Tourism management, 22(2), pp. 119-126.
Davies, B. (2003). The role of quantitative and qualitative research in industrial

studies of tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 5, pp. 97-111.
Davidov, E. (2008). A cross-country and cross-time comparison of the human

values measurements with the second round of the European Social Survey. Survey
Research Methods, 2(1), pp. 33–46.
Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Cieciuch, J., Schmidt, P., and Billiet, J. (2014).
Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. The Annual Review of
Sociology, 40, pp. 55-75.
Delamont, S. (1994). Appetites and identities: Introduction to the social anthropology

of Western Europe. London: Routledge.
De Nisco, A., Mainolfi, G., Marino, V. and Napolitano, M. R. (2015). Tourism

satisfaction effect on general country image, destination image, and post-visit
intentions. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 21(4), pp. 305–317.
Dennis, H. (2013). Introduction to qualitative methods in psychology. (2nd edn).

Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Department of Tourism of Thailand (2011). Tourism Receipts from International

Tourist Arrivals January – June 2015. Available at
http://tourism.go.th/farms/uploaded/00Statistic/2015/Expenditure/Inter
Arrivals/1.Tourism Receipts fr Inter Arrivals 2015 Q1Q2.pdf
[Accessed 11 February 2016].
Department of International Trade Promotion (2019). Thai SELECT. Available at
354
http://www.thaiselect.com/en
[Accessed 11 January 2019)
Department of International Trade Promotion (2018). Thai restaurants around the

world. NonThaburi: Department of International Trade Promotion, Ministry of
Commerce, Thailand.
Destination Thailand News (2018). MOC to Push Thai Restaurants to the World
“Thai SELECT” Project Launched in Thailand to boost “Thai Kitchen to the World”
Policy Invites Tourists to Taste Authentic Flavors of Thai Food right here in Thailand.
3 August. Destination Thailand News. Available at
http://destinationthailandnews.com/news/headline-news/moc-to-push-thai-
restaurants-to-the-world-thai-select-project-launched-in-thailand-to-boost-thai-
kitchen-to-the-world-policy-invites-tourists-to-taste-authentic-fla.html
[Accessed 20 March 2019]
de Vaus, D. A. (1996). Surveys in social research. London: UCL Press.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. London: Sage

Publications.
Devine, C. M., Sobal, J., Bisogni, C. A. and Connors, M. (1999). Food choice in three
ethnic groups: Interactions of ideals, identities, and roles. Journal Nutrition
Education, 31(2), pp. 86-93.
Dickson, S., and Hall, T. E. (2006). An Examination of Whitewater Boaters’

Expectations: Are Pre-trip and Post-trip Measures Consistent?. Leisure Sciences
28(1), pp. 1-16
Dindyal, S. and Dindyal, S. (2004). How personal factors, including culture and
ethnicity, affect the choices and selection of food we make. The Internet Journal of
Third World Medicine, 1(2), pp. 1-6.
355
Dodds, W., Monroe, K. and Grewal, D. (1991), Effects of price, brand and store
information on buyer’s product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3),
pp. 307-319.
Dulen, J. (1999). Quality. Restaurants and Institutions, February 15, pp. 38-52.
Du Rand, G.E. and Heath, E.T. (2006). Towards a framework for food tourism as an
element of destination marketing. Current Issues in Tourism, 9, pp. 206-234.
Du Rand, G. E., Health, E. and Alberts, N. (2003). The role of local and regional food
in destination marketing: A South African situation analysis. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing. 14(3), pp. 97-112.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P. R. (2008). Management research. (3rd

edn). London: Sage.
Echtner, C., and Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). The measurement of destination image: an

empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 31(4), pp. 3-13.
Eertmans, A., Baeyens, F., and Van den Bergh, O. (2001). Food likes and their
relative importance in human eating behavior: Review and preliminary suggestions
for health promotion. Health Education Research, 16, pp. 443–456.
Eertmans, A., Victoir, A., Notelaers, G., Vansant, G., and Van den Bergh, O. (2006).
The food choice questionnaire. Factorial invariant over western urban
populations?. Food Quality and Preference, 17(5), pp. 344–352.
Eertmans, A., Victoir, A., Vansant, G. and Van den Bergh, O. (2005). Food-related
personality traits, food choice motives and food intake: Mediator and moderator
relationships. Food Quality and Preference, 16(8), pp.714-726.
356
Eichhorn, B. R. (2014). Common Method Variance Techniques. Cleveland State
University, Department of Operations & Supply Chain Management: SAS Institute
Inc., Cleveland, OH.
Elosua, P., and Muñiz, J. (2010). Exploring the factorial structure of the Self-
Concept: A sequential approach using CFA, MIMIC and MACS models across gender
and two languages. European Psychologist, 15, pp. 58-67.
Faison, E. (1977). The neglected variety drive: a useful concept for consumer
behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, pp. 172-175.
Fakeye, P. and Crompton, J. (1991). Image differences between prospective, first-

time, and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research,
30(2), pp. 10-16.
Falk, P. (1994). The Consuming Body. London: Sage.
Fantino, M. (1984). Role of sensory input in the control of food intake. Journal of the
Autonomic Nervous System, 10, pp. 347-348.
Fazio, R.H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants,

consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R.E. Petty and J.A.
Krosknik (eds) Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum. pp. 247-282.
Feng, R., and Jang, S. (2004). Temporal destination loyalty: a structural initiation.
Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research, 9, pp. 207-221.
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic

analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme
development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), pp. 80–92.
357
Fiddes, N. (1995). The omnivore’s paradox. In D.W. Marshall (ed) Food choice and
the consumer. London: Blackie Academic & Professional. pp. 131-151.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. (4th edn). London:
Sage.
Fields, K. (2002). Demand for the gastronomy tourism product: Motivational

factors. In A.M. Hjalager, and G. Richards (eds) Tourism and gastronomy. London:
Routledge. pp. 37-50.
Fieldhouse, P. (1995). Food and nutrition. Customs and culture. (2nd edn). London:
Chapman Hall.
Finn, M., Elliott-White, M. and Walton, M. (2000). Tourism and leisure research
methods: data collection, analysis and interpretation. Essex: Longman.
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fluker, M. R.and Turner, L. W. (2000). Needs, motivations, and expectations of a

commercial whitewater rafting experience. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4), pp.
380–389.
Formica, S. (2002). Measuring Destination Attractiveness: A proposed Framework.

Journal of American Academy of Business, 1(2), pp. 350-355.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with

observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
pp. 39-50.
Franklin, C. S., Cody, P. A., and Ballan, M. (2010). Reliability and validity in
qualitative research. In B. Thyer (ed.) The handbook of social work research methods
(2nd edn). London: Sage Publications. pp. 355-374.
358
Fry, M., Drennan, J., Previte, J., White, A. and Tjondronegoro, D. (2014). The role of
desire in understanding intentions to drink responsibly: an application of the
Model of Goal-Directed Behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(5-6), pp.
551-570.
Funck, C. and Cooper, M. (2013). Japanese tourism : spaces, places and structures.
New York : Berghahn Books, Incorporated.
Furrer, O., Liu, B. and Sudharshan, D. (2000). The relationship between culture and
service quality perceptions: Basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and
resource allocation. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), pp. 355-371.
Furst, T., Connors, M., Bisogni, C. A., Sobal, J. and Falk, L. W. (1996). Food choice: A
conceptual model of the process. Appetite, 26, pp. 247–265.
Gallarza, M. and Saura, I. (2006). Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction

and loyalty: an investigation of university students’ travel behaviour. Tourism
Management, 27(3), pp. 437-452.
Gallarza, M. G., Saura, I. G., and Garcia, H. C. (2002). Destination image: towards a
conceptual Framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), pp. 56-78.
Gao, S., Mokhtarian, P. L., and Johnston, R. A. (2008). Nonnormality of data in struc-
tural equation models. Transportation research record. Journal of the Trans-
portation Research Board, 2082, pp. 116-124.
Gartner, W. C. and Hunt, J. D. (1987). An Analysis of state image change over a
twelve-year period (1971–1983). Journal of Travel Research, 25(2), pp. 15–19.
Gaskin, J. (2011). Model fit during a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in AMOS.
YouTube. Available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkZGWUUjdLg
359
Gaskin, J., (2016a), Guidelines: Order of operations for testing your model,
Gaskination's StatWiki. Available at
http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com/
Gaskin, J., (2016b), Confirmatory factor analysis, Gaskination's StatWiki. Available

at
http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com/
George, B. P., and B. P. George. (2004). Past visits and the intention to revisit a
destination: Place attachment as the mediator and novelty seeking as the
moderator. Journal of Tourism Studies, 15 (2), pp. 51-66.
Getz, D. (2000). Explore wine tourism: Management, development & destinations.

New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation.
Getz, D., Robinson, R. N.S., Andersson, T. D., and Sanja Vujicic (2014). Foodies and
food tourism. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers Limited.
Gilbert, D. (1991). An Examination of the consumer behaviour process related to

tourism. In C. Cooper (ed) Progress in Tourism, recreation and hospitality
management. London: Belhaven Press. pp. 78–105.
Gill, J. and Johnson, P. (2002). Research methods for managers. (3rd edn). London:
Sage Publications.
Gitelson, R. J. and Crompton, J. L. (1984). Insights into the repeat vacation

phenomenon, Annals of Tourism Research, 11(2), pp. 199–217.
Giraldi, A. and Cesareo, L. (2014). Destination image differences between first-time

and return visitors: An exploratory study on the city of Rome. Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 14(4), pp. 197–205
360
Goody, J. (1982). Cooking, cuisine, and class: A study in comparative sociology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Govers, R. and Go, F. M. (2009). Tourism destination image formation. In M. Kozak

and A. Decrop (eds). Handbook of tourist behaviour: Theory & Practice. New York:
Govers, R., Go, F. M., and Kumar, K. (2007). Promoting tourism destination image.
Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), pp. 15-23.
Graburn, N.H.H. (1983). The anthropology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research

10, pp. 9-34.
Gronholdt, L., Martensen, A. and Kristensen, K. (2000). The relationship between

customer satisfaction and loyalty: Cross-industry differences. Total Quality
Management, 11, pp. 509-514.
Gummerson E (2000). Qualitative methods in management research. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage
Gray, D.E. (2009). Doing research in the real word. London: Sage Publications.
Green, G. P. and Dougherty, M. L. (2008). Localizing linkages for food and tourism:
Culinary tourism as a community development strategy. Journal of the Community
Development Society, 39(3), pp. 148-158.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic

inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, pp. 75-92.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., and Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic research.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
361
Hahm, J. and Severt, K. (2018). Importance of destination marketing on image and
familiarity. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 1(1), pp. 37-53.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2014). Multivariate data analysis.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hall, C. M., and Mitchell, R. (2001). Wine and food tourism. In N. Douglas, Douglas,
N., Derrett, R. (eds) Special interest tourism. Brisbane: John Wiley and Sons. pp. 307-
329.
Hall, C. M., and Sharples, L. (2003). The consumption of experiences or the

experiences of consumption? An introduction to the tourism of taste. In C. M. Hall,
E. Sharples, R. Mitchell, N. Macionis, and B., Cambourne (eds) Food tourism around
the world: Development, management and markets. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann. pp. 1-24.
Hall, C.M., Sharples, L., Mitchell, R., Macionis, N., and Cambourne, B. (2003). Food
tourism around the world: Development, management and market. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hall, D.B. and Wang, L. (2005). Two-Component Mixtures of Generalized Linear

Mixed Effects Models for Cluster Correlated Data, Statistical Modelling, 5(1), pp. 21-
37.
Han, H., Back, K. J. and Barrett, B. (2009). Influencing factors on restaurant

customers’ revisit intention: The roles of emotions and switching barriers,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), pp. 563–572
Han, H., Jae, M., and Hwang, J. (2016). Cruise travelers’ environmentally responsible
decision-making: An integrative framework of goal-directed behavior and norm
activation process. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 53, pp. 94-105.
362
Han, H., Hsu, L., and Sheu, C. (2010). Application of the theory of planned behavior
to green hotel choice: testing the effect of environmental friendly activities.
Tourism Management, 31(3), pp. 325-334.
Han, H., and Kim, Y. (2010). An investigation of green hotel customers’ decision
formation: Developing an extended model of the Theory of Planned Behavior.
International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 29, pp. 659-668.
Han, H. and Yoon, H. J. (2015). Hotel customers’ environmentally responsible

behavioral intention: Impact of key constructs on decision in green consumerism.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 45, pp. 22-33.
Harahsheh, S. (2009). An Evaluation of the Image of Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in

the British and Swedish Markets and the Implications for Marketing the Country as a
Tourism Destination. (Doctoral Dissertation). Bournemouth University.
Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. (3rd edn). Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.
Harris, M. and Ross, E. B. (1987). Food and evolution: Toward a theory of human
food habits. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Heathrow Airport Limited (2019). Heathrow departures – live flight information.

Available at
https://www.heathrow.com/departures
[Accessed 11 May 2019].
Hebb, D. O., and Thompson, W. R. (1954). Handbook of social psychology. Reading,

Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Henderson, J.C. (2009). Food tourism reviewed. British Food Journal, 111(4), pp.
317–326.
363
Hennig-Thurau, T. and Hansen, U. (2000). Relationship marketing–some reflections
on the state-of-the-art of the relational concept. In T. Hennig-Thurau, and U.
Hansen (eds) Relationship marketing: Gaining competitive advantage through
customer satisfaction and customer retention. Berlin: Springer Verlag. pp. 3-27.
Hensley, R. L. (1999). A review of operations management studies using sclale

development techniques. Journal of Operations Management, 17, pp. 343-358.
Hesse-Biber, S.,N. and Leavy, P. (2011). The practice of qualitative research. (2nd
edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heung, V. C. S., and Quf, H. (2000). Hong Kong as a travel destination: An analysis of
Japanese tourists’ satisfaction levels, and the likelihood of them recommending
Hong Kong to others. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 9(1-2), pp. 57-80.
Hinton, P. R., Brownlow, C., McMurray, I. and Cozens, B. (2004). SPSS Explained.
East Sussex: Routledge.
Hirschman, E. and Holbrook, M. (1985). Advances in consumer research. Provo, UT:

The Association.
Hjalager, A. M., Corigliano, M. A. (2000). Food for tourists: Determinants of an

image. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2(4), pp. 281-293.
Hjalager, A and Richards, G. (2002). Tourism and gastronomy. London: Routledge.
Hoang, V. (2013). Swedish tourists’ perceptions, satisfactions and behavioral

intentions toward Thailand Destination. Master Thesis, Mälardalen University.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture Consequences: International Differences in Work-

related Values. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Hofstede (2015). Dimension data matrix. Available at
364
https://geerthofstede.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/6-dimensions-for-
website-2015-12-08-0-100.xls
Holden, A. (2005). Tourism studies and the social science. Oxon: Routledge.
Hong, S., Lee, S., Lee, S., and Jang, H. (2009). Selecting revisited destinations. Annals
of Tourism Research, 36, pp. 268-294.
Horn, J. L., and McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to

measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, pp.
117–144.
Howard, J. A. and Sheth, J. N. (1969). The Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York:
Wiley.
Howard, G. (1980). Response-shift Bias: A Problem in Evaluating Interventions

with Pre/post Self-reports. Evaluation Review, 4(1), pp. 93-106.
Hsu, C., Killion, L., Brown, G., Gross, M., and Huang, S. (2008). Tourism marketing: An
Asian-Pacific perspective. Milton, Australia: John Wiley & Sons.
Hsu, C. H. C., and Huang, S. (2012). An extension of the Theory of Planned

Behaviour model for tourists. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 36(3),
pp. 390- 417.
Hsu, T. K., Tsai, Y. F., Wu, H. H. (2009) The preference analysis for tourist choice of
destination: A case study of Taiwan, Tourism Management, 30, pp. 288–297
Hu, Y., and Ritchie, B. J. R. (1993). Measuring destination attractiveness: A

contextual approach. Journal of Travel Research, 3, pp. 25-34.
365
Huang, S., and Hsu, C. H. C. (2009). Effects of travel motivation, past experience,
perceived constraint, and attitude on revisit intention. Journal of Travel Research,
48 (1), pp. 29-44.
Huang, Z., Cai, L. A., Yu, X. and Li, M. (2014). A further investigation of revisit
intention: A multigroup analysis. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management,
23(8), pp. 815–832.
Hui, T. K., Wan, D., and Ho, A. (2007). Tourists' satisfaction, recommendation and
revisiting Singapore. Tourism Management, 28, pp. 975 – 975.
Ignatov, E., and Smith, S. (2006). Segmenting Canadian culinary tourists. Current
Issues in Tourism, 8, pp. 235–255.
Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1982). Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation:

A rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(2), pp. 256-262.
Jackson, D. L. (2003). Revisiting sample size and number of parameter estimates:
Some support for the N:q hypothesis. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, pp. 128-
141.
Jackson, M. (2001). Cultural influences on tourist destination choices of 21 pacific rim

nations. Paper presented at the CAUTHE national research conference, pp. 166–
176.
Jaeger, S. R., Andani, Z., Wakeling, I. N., and MacFie, H. J. H. (1998). Consumer
preferences for fresh and aged apples: a cross-cultural comparison. Food Quality
and Preference, 9(5), pp. 355-366.
Jahangir, R. (2009). How Britain got the hots for curry. BBC News. 26 November.
Available at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8370054.stm
366
Jang, S. Y. (2014). Exploring people's motivations for choosing ethnic restaurants, and
its influence on intention to visit the origin country. PhD Thesis, University of Surrey.
Jang, SC. and Cai, L. A. (2002). Travel motivations and destination choice: A study of
British outbound market. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 13(3), pp. 111-
133.
Jang, S. and Feng, R. (2007). Temporal destination revisit intention: the effects of
novelty seeking and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 28, pp. 580-590.
Jani, D. and Nguni, W. (2016). Pre-trip vs. post-trip destination image variations: A
case of inbound tourists to Tanzania. Tourism Orginal Scientific Paper, 6(1), pp. 27-
44.
Januszewska, R., Pieniak, Z. and Verbeke, W. (2011). Food choice questionnaire

revisited in four countries. Does it still measure the same?. Appetite, 57(1), pp.94-
98.
Jayarman, K., Lin, S. K., Guat, C. L., and Ong, W. L. (2010). Does Malaysian Tourism
Attract Singaporeans to Revisit Malaysia? Journal of Business and Policy Research,
5(2), pp. 159-179
Ji, C. (2017). Using the model of goal directed behaviour to assess mainland Chinese
tourists’ gambling behaviour. In J. Vopava, V. Douda, R. Kratochvil, and M. Konecki
(eds.) Proceedings of AC 2017, Prague: Czech Republic, August 2017, ISBN 978-80-
88085-15-7, pp. 675 – 682.
Ji, M., Wong I. A., Eves, A., and Scarles, C. (2016). Food-related personality traits and
the moderating role of novelty-seeking in food satisfaction and travel outcomes.
Tourism Management, 57, pp. 387.396.
367
Joffe, H. and Yardley, L. (2004). Content and thematic analysis. In D. F Marks and L.
Yardley (eds) Research methods for clinical and health psychology. London: Sage
Publications. pp. 56-68.
Joppe, M., Martin, D. W., and Waalen, J. (2001). Toronto's Image as a destination: A
comparative importance-satisfaction analysis by origin of visitor. Journal of Travel
Research, 39(3), pp. 252-260.
Juaneda, C. (1996). Estimating the probability of return visits using a survey of

tourist expenditure in the Balearic Islands. . Tourism Economics, 2(4), pp. 339-352.
Juhl, H. J., and Poulsen, C. S. (2000). Antecedents and effects of consumer

involvement in fish as a product group. Appetite, 34(3), pp. 261–267.
Jung, T. Ineson, E. M., Kim. M. and Yap, M. HT (2015). Influence of festival attribute
qualities on slow food tourists’ experience, satisfaction level and revisit intention:
The case of the mold food and drink festival. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 21(3),
pp. 277-288.
Kahn, B. E. and Isen, A. M. (1993). The influence of positive effect in variety seeking
among safe, enjoyable products. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, pp. 257-270.
Kang, S. and Hsu, C. (2005). Dyadic consensus on family vacation destination

selection. Tourism Management, 26, pp. 571-582.
Kapferer, J. N., and Laurent, G. (1985a). Consumer's involvement profile: New

empirical results. In E. Hirschman and M. Holbrook (eds) Advances in consumer
research (Vol. 12). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. pp. 290-295.
Kapferer, J. N., and Laurent, G. (1985b). Consumer involvement profiles: A new

practical approach to consumer involvement. Journal of Advertising Research, 6, pp.
48-56.
368
Kapferer, J. N., and Laurent, G. (1993). Further evidence on the consumer
involvement profile: five antecedents of involvement. Psychology and Marketing,
10(4), pp. 347-355.
Karim, A. S., and Chi, C. G.-Q. (2010). Culinary tourism as a destination attraction:
An empirical examination of destinations’ food image. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 19(6), pp. 531 – 555.
Karim, A. S., Chua, B. L., and Salleh, H. (2010). Malaysia as a culinary tourism
destination: International tourist's perspective. Journal of Tourism Hospitality &
Culinary Art, 1(3), pp. 63-78.
Keane, M. J. (1997). Quality and Pricing in Tourism Destinations. Annals of Tourism

Kerin, RA, Jain, A and Howard, DJ. (1992). Store shopping experience and consumer
price-quality-value perceptions. Journal of Retailing, 68(4), pp. 376-397.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioural research. (3rd edn). New York:

Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Khan, M.A. (1981). Evaluation of food selection patterns and preferences. CRC
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 15, pp. 129-153.
Kim, M., Lee, M., Lee, C. and Song, H. (2012). Does Gender Affect Korean Tourists'
Overseas Travel? Applying the Model of Goal-Directed Behavior. Asia Pacific Journal
of Tourism Research, 17(5), pp. 509-533.
Kim, M. J., Jung, T., Kim, W. G. and Fountoulaki, P. (2015). Factors affecting British
revisit intention to Crete, Greece: High vs. low spending tourists. Tourism
Geographies, 17(5), pp. 815-841.
369
Kim, M. J. and Preis, M. W. (2016). Why seniors use mobile devices: Applying an
extended model of goal direct behaviour. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,
33(3), pp. 404-423.
Kim, S., Lee, C., Klenosky, B. (2003). The influence of push and pull factors at Korean
national parks. Tourism Management, 24, pp. 169-180.
Kim, S. S., Mckercher, B., and Lee, H. (2009a). Tracking tourism destination image
perception. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(4), pp. 715-718.
Kim Y., Kim M. , Goh, B. and Antun, J. (2009b). A Comparison Between First-Timers
and Repeaters at a Food Event. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology, 7(4), pp.
239-249
Kim, Y.G. (2010). An evaluation of the influences on consumption of local food in

tourist destinations. PhD Thesis, University of Surrey.
Kim, Y.G., Eves, A. and Scarles, C. (2009c). Building a model of local food
consumption on trips and holidays: A grounded theory approach. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(3), pp. 423–431.
Kim, Y.G. and Eves, A. (2012). Construction and validation of a scale to measure
tourist motivation to consume local food. Tourism Management, 33(6), pp. 1458–
1467.
Kim, Y.G., Eves, A. and Scarles, C. (2013). Empirical verification of a conceptual

model of local food consumption at a tourist destination. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 33, pp. 484-489.
Kim, Y.G., Suh, B. and Eves, A. (2010). The relationships between food-related
personality traits, satisfaction, and loyalty among visitors attending food events
and festivals. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(2), pp. 216-226.
370
Kim, Y. H., Kim, M.C., Goh, B. K. (2011a). An examination of food tourist’s behavior:
Using the modified theory of reasoned action. Tourism Management, 32, pp. 1159-
1165.
Kim, Y. H., Kim, M.C., Goh, B. K. and Antun, J. M. (2011b). The role of money: The
impact on food tourists' satisfaction and intention to revisit food events. Journal of
Culinary Science & Technology, 9(2), pp. 85-98.
Kittler, P., and Sucher, K. (2008). Food and culture. (5th edn). Belmont, CA: Thomson
Wadsworth.
Kivela, J., and Crotts, J. C. (2005). Gastronomy tourism: A meaningful travel market
segment. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology, 4 (2/3), pp. 39-55.
Kivela, J. and Crotts, J. (2006). Tourism and gastronomy: Gastronomy’s influence on

how tourists experience a destination. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research,
30(3), pp. 354–377.
Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (3rd edn).
NY: Guilford Press.
Koivisto-Hursti, U-K. and Sjödén, P-O. (1997). Food and general neophobia and
their relationship with self-reported food choice: Familial resemblance in Swedish
families with children of ages 7-17 years. Appetite, 29, pp. 89-103.
Korstjens, I. and Moser, A. (2018). Series: practical guidance to qualitative research.

Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice,
24(1), pp. 120-124.
Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing management: analysis, planning, implementation, and

control. (9th edn). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
371
Kozak, M. (2001a). Comparative assessment of tourist satisfaction with
destinations across two nationalities. Tourism Management, 22(4), pp. 391-401.
Kozak, M. (2001b). Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct destinations. Annals of

Tourism Research, 28(3), pp. 784-807.
Kozak, M. (2002a). Comparative assessment of tourist motivations by nationality

and destinations. Tourism Management, 23, pp. 221-232.
Kozak, M. (2002b). Destination benchmarking. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2),

pp. 497-519.
Kozak, M. and Baloglu, S. (2011). Managing and marketing tourist destinations:

Strategies to gain a competitive edge. New York: Routledge.
Kozak, M., Bigne, E., and Andreu, L. (2004). Satisfaction and destination loyalty: A
comparison between non-repeat and repeat visitors. Journal of Quality Assurance in
Hospitality & Tourism, 5(1), pp. 43-59.
Kozak, M. and Decrop, A. (2009) Handbook of Tourist Behavior: Theory and Practice.
New York: Routledge.
Kozak, M., and Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as
an off-season holiday destination. Journal of Travel Research, 38(1), pp. 260-269.
Lähteenmäki, L. and Arvola, A. (2001). Food neophobia and variety seeking-

consumer fear or demand for new food products. In L. Frewer, E. Risvik, H.
Schifferstein (eds) Food, people, and society: a European perspective of consumers’
food choices. New York: Springer. pp. 161-175.
Lähteenmäki, L. and Van Trijp, H. C.M. (1995). Hedonic responses, variety seeking
tendency and expressed variety in sandwich choices. Appetite, 24, pp. 139-152.
372
Lam, T., and Hsu, C. H. C. (2004). Theory of Planned Behavior: Potential travelers
from China. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 28(4), pp. 463–482.
Lam, T., and Hsu, C. H. C. (2006). Predicting behavioural intention of choosing a

travel destination. Tourism Management, 27, pp. 589-599.
Lau, A. L. S., and McKercher, B. (2004). Exploration versus acquisition: A

comparison of first-time and repeat visitors. Journal of Travel Research, 42(3), pp.
279-285.
Laurent, G., and Kapferer, J. N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles.

Journal of Marketing Research, 22, pp. 41-53.
Ledesma, F. J., Navarro, M., and Pérez-Rodríguez, J. V. (2005). Return to tourist

destination. Is it reputation, after all? Applied Economics, 37(18), pp. 2055–2065.
Lee, B., Lee, C.-K., and Lee, J. (2014). Dynamic nature of destination image and
influence of tourist overall satisfaction on image modification. Journal of Travel
Research, 53, pp. 239–251.
Lee, C., Lee, Y., and Lee, B. (2005). Korea’s destination image formed by the 2002
world cup. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), pp. 839-858.
Lee, C. K., Song, H. J., Bendle, L. J., Kim, M. J., and Han, H. S. (2012). The impact of
non- pharmaceutical interventions for 2009 H1N1 influenza on travel intentions: a
model of goal-directed behavior. Tourism Management, 33(1), pp. 89-99.
Lee, S., Bruwer, J. and Song, H. J. (2015). Experiential and involvement effects on the
Korean wine tourist's decision-making process. Current Issues in Tourism. Available
at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.1050362
[Accessed 21 March 2016].
373
Lee, T.-H., and Crompton, J. (1992). Measuring novelty seeking in tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 19, pp. 732-751.
Lee, G. and Lee, C. K. (2009). Cross-cultural comparison of the image of Guam

perceived by Korean and Japanese leisure travelers: Importance–performance
analysis. Tourism Management, 30, pp. 922–931.
Leone, L., Perugini, M., and Ercolani, A. P. (1999). A comparison of three models of
attitude-behaviour relationships in studying behaviour domain. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 29, pp. 161-189.
Leone, L., Perugini, M., and Ercolani, A. P. (2004). Studying, practicing, and
mastering: A test of the model of goal-directed behavior (MGB) in the software
learning domain. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(9), pp. 1945–1973.
Lepp, A. and Gibson, H. (2003). Tourist roles, perceived risk and international
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3), pp. 606-624.
Lertputtarak, S. (2012). The relationship between destination image, food image,

and revisiting Pattaya, Thailand. International Journal of Business and Management,
7(5), pp. 111-122.
Leung, E., and McKercher, B. (2001). Operational Issues in Marketing Research: An

Example of the Omnibus Tourism Survey. Pacific Tourism Review, 5(1), pp. 5–13.
Li, J. W. J., and Carr, N. (2004). Visitor Satisfaction. International Journal of

Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 5(3), pp. 31-48.
Li, M., Cai, L. A., Lehto, X. Y. and Huang, J. Z. (2010). A missing link in understanding
revisit intention-The role of motivation and image. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 27(4), pp. 335-348.
374
Li, X., Cheng C.-K., Kim, H. and Petrick, J. F. (2008). A systematic comparison of first-
time and repeat visitors via a two-phase online survey. Tourism Management, 29,
pp. 278–293.
Lim, C., Chew, S. L., Lim, Z. Y. and Liu, W. (2013). Pre- and post-visit perceptions of
youth tourists to China. Journal of China Tourism Research, 10(2), pp. 236-255.
Lin, I. and Mattila, A. (2006). Understanding restaurant switching behavior from a

cultural perspective. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 30(1), pp.3-15.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Lindeman, M., and Väänänen, M. (2000). Measurement of ethical food choice

motives. Appetite, 34, pp. 55–59.
Ling, L., Karim, M., & Othman, M. (2010). Relationships between Malaysian food
image, tourist satisfaction and behavioural intention. World Applied Sciences
Journal, 10, pp. 164–171.
Litvin, S., Crotts, J. and hefner, F. (2004). Cross-cultural tourist behaviour: A

relocation and extension involving Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance dimension.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 6, pp. 29-37.
Litvin, S. and Goh, W. (2004) Individualism/collectivism as a moderating factor to

the self-image congruity concept. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(1), pp. 23-32.
Liu, H. (2014). Understanding destination choice from a cultural distance

perspective. Master’s Degree Thesis, University of South Carolina.
Liu, R. and McClure, P. (2001). Recognising cross-cultural differences in consumer

complaints behavior and intentions: An empirical examination. The Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 18(1), pp. 54-75.
375
Logue, A. W. (1991). The psychology of eating and drinking: an introduction. (2nd
edn). New York: WH Freeman.
Long, L. (2004). Culinary tourism. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky.
Loureiro, S. M. C. and Gonzalez, F. J. M. (2008). The importance of quality,

satisfaction, trust, and image in relation to rural post-purchase behavioral
intention. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 25(2), pp. 117-136.
Lugtig, P., Boeije, H. R., and Lensvelt-Mulders, G. J. L. M. (2012). Change? What

change? An exploration of the use of mixed-methods research to understand
longitudinal measurement variance. Methodology: European Journal of Research
Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 8(3), 115-123.
Luo, S. and Hsieh, L. (2013). Reconstructing Revisit Intention Scale in Tourism.

Journal of Applied Sciences, 13(18), pp. 3638-3648.
Luo, X., Li, H., Zhang, J. and Shim, J. P. (2010). Examining multi-dimensional trust
and multi-faceted risk in initial acceptance of emerging technologies: An empirical
study of mobile banking services. Decision Support Systems, 49(2), pp. 222–234.
Lyman, B. (1989). A psychology of food. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Macbeth, H. (1997). Food preferences and taste. Providence, RI: Berghahn Books.
Mack, R., Blose, J. and MacLaurin, T. (2009). Segmenting the Culinary Tourism
Market: An American and Australian Comparison. 2009 Oxford Business &
Economics Conference. Oxford University, 24-26 June 2009. OBEC. Available at
http://gcbe.us/2009_OBEC/data/Rhonda%20Mack,%20Julia%20Blose,%20Tanya
%20MacLaurin.doc
[Accessed 11 August 2016].
376
MacKay, K. J. and Fesenmaier, D. R. (2000). An exploration of cross-cultural
destination image assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4), pp. 417–23.
Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S. and Ajzen, I. (1992). A comparison of the theory of planned
behaviour and the theory of reasoned action. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18(1), pp. 3-9.
Mak, A.H.N. (2011). An investigation of factors affecting tourist food consumption.

PhD Thesis, University of Surrey.
Mak, A.H.N., Lumbers, M., Eves, A. and Chang, R.C.Y. (2012). Factors influencing
tourist food consumption. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3),
pp. 928–936.
Mäkelä, J. (2000). Cultural definitions of the meal. In. H.L. Meiselman (ed).
Dimensions of the Meal: The science, culture, business, and arts of eating.
Gaithersburg, M. L.: Aspen Publication. pp. 7-18.
Manente, M. (2008). Destination management and economic background: Defining

and monitoring local tourist destinations. Unpublished paper presented at ‘the
International Conference of Tourism: Knowledge as value advantage of tourism
destinations Measurement and Economic Analysis of Regional Tourism’.
Malaga, 29-31 October 2008.
Manstead, A. S. R. and Parker, D. (1995). Evaluating and extending the Theory of

Planned Behaviour. European Review of Social Psychology, 6(1), pp. 69-95.
March, R. (1997). Diversity in Asian outbound travel industries: A comparison

between Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 16(2), pp. 231-238.
March, R. and Woodside, A. (2005). Tourism behaviour: Travelers' decisions and

actions. Wallingford, UK: CABI Pub.
377
Marshall, D. and Bell, R. (2004). Relating the food involvement scale to
demographic variables, food choice and other constructs. Food Quality and
Preference, 15(7-8), pp. 871-879.
Marshall, D. W. (1995). Introduction: Food choice, the food consumer and the food
provisioning. In D. W. Marshall. Food choice and the consumer. London: Blackie
Academic & Professional. pp. 1-17.
Martin H. S. and Bosque, I. R. (2008). Exploring the cognitive-affective nature of

destination image and the role of psychological factors in its formation. Tourism
Management, 29(2), pp. 263-277.
Mayer, K. J., Johnson, L., Hu, C., and Chen, S. (1998). Gaming customer satisfaction:
An exploratory study. Journal of Travel Research, 37(2), pp. 178–183.
Mazursky, D. (1989). Past Experience and Future Tourism Decisions. Annals of

Tourism Research, 16(3), pp. 333–344.
McAlister, L. and Pessemier, E.A. (1982). Variety seeking behavior: An

interdisciplinary review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, pp. 311-322.
McCorkindale, L. M. (1992). What is taste?. Nutrition & Food Science,

6(November/December), pp. 8-12.
Mcdowall, S. (2010). International Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty:
Bangkok, Thailand. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 15(1), pp. 21-42.
Mcfarlane, T. and Pliner, P. (1997). Increasing willingness to taste novel foods:

effects of nutrition and taste information. Appetite, 28, pp. 227-238.
McGehee, N. G., Loker-Murphy, L., and Uysal, M. (1996). The Australian

international pleasure travel market: Motivations from a gendered perspective. The
Journal of Tourism Studies, 7(1), pp. 45–57.
378
McIntosh, R. W., Goeldner, C. R., and Ritchie, J. R. B. (1995). Tourism: Principles,
practices, philosophies. New York: Wiley.
Mckee, LM and Harden, ML. (1990). Genetic and environmental origins of food
patterns. Nutrition Today (Sept/Oct), pp. 26-31.
McKercher, B., and Chow, S. M. B. (2001). Cultural distance and participation in

cultural tourism. Pacific Tourism Review, 5(1), pp. 23-32.
McKercher, B., and Wang, D. Y. Y. (2004). Understanding tourism behavior:

Examining the combined effects of prior visitation history and destination status.
Journal of Travel Research, 43, pp. 171–179.
McQueen, R. A. and Knussen, C. (2002). Research methods for social science: a

practical introduction. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Meiselman, H. L., Mastroianni, G., Buller, M., and Edwards, J. (1999). Longitudinal
measurement of three eating behavior scales during a period of change. Food
Quality and Preference, 10, pp. 1-8.
Mela, D. (1999). Food choice and intake: The human factor. Proceedings of the
Nutrition Society, 58, pp. 513-521.
Meng, B. and Choi, K. (2016). The role of authenticity in forming slow tourists'
intentions: Developing an extended model of goal-directed behavior. Tourism
Meng, B. and Han, H. (2016). Effect of environmental perceptions on bicycle

travelers’ decision-making process: developing an extended model of goal-directed
behavior. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research. Available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2015.1129979
379
Meng, F., Tepanon, Y. and Uysal, M. (2008). Measuring tourist satisfaction by
attribute and motivation: The case of a nature-based resort. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 14(1), pp. 41–56.
Mennell, S., Murcott, A. and Otterloo, A. (1994). The sociology of food. London: Sage.
Menon, S. and Kahn, B. E. (1995). The impact of context on variety seeking in

product choices. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, pp. 285-295.
Milman, A., and Pizam, A. (1995). The role of awareness and familiarity with a
destination: The central Florida case. Journal of Travel Research, 33(3), pp. 21-27.
Mintel Group Ltd. (2019a). Ethnic restaurants and takeaways, UK - February 2019:
Executive Summary. Available at
http://academic.mintel.com/sinatra/oxygen_academic/attachment/id=920368&se
q=1
Mintel Group Ltd. (2019a). World Cuisines, UK - March 2019. Available at

http://academic.mintel.com/sinatra/oxygen/print/id=950990
Mittal, B. and Lee, M. (1989). A causal model of consumer involvement. Journal of

Economic Psychology, 10, pp. 363-389.
Mohr, K., Backman, K. F., Gahan, L. W., and Backman, S. J. (1993). An investigation of
festival motivations and event satisfaction by visitor type. Festival Management and
Event Tourism, 1(3), pp. 89–97.
Money, R.B. and Crotts, J.C. (2003). The effect of uncertainty avoidance on
information search, planning, and purchases of international travel vacations.
380
Mooney, K. M. and Walbourn, L. (2001). When college students reject food: Not just
a matter of taste, Appetite, 36, pp. 41-50.
Muñoz, C., Wood, N. and Solomon, M. (2006). Real or blarney? A cross-cultural

investigation of the perceived authenticity of Irish pubs. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 5(3), pp. 222-234.
Murphy, P., Pritchard, M. and Smith, B. (2000). The destination product and its
impact on traveller perceptions. Tourism Management, 21(1), pp. 43-52.
National Research Council of Thailand and Kasetsart University (2007). Thai food
good health. Available at
http://www.thaifoodtoworld.com/home/multimediadetail.php?multimedia_id=4
[Accessed 11 May 2019]
Narita International Airport Corporation (2019). Flight Information. Available at

https://www.narita-airport.jp/en/flight/weekly/
[Accessed 11 May 2019]
Nestle, M., Wing, R., Birch, L., DiSorga, L., Drewnowski, A., Middleton, S., Sigman-
Grant, M., Sobal, J., Winston, M. and Economos, C. (1998). Behavioral and social
influences on food choice. Nutrition Reviews, 56(5), pp. 50-74.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., Perry, C. and Casey, M. A. (1999). Factors

influencing food choices in adolescents: Findings from focus-group discussions
with adolescents, Journal of American the Dietetic Association, 99(8), pp. 929-937.
Newman, I., and Benz, C.R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology:

exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale: University of Illinois Press.
381
nhs.uk. (2019). Cut down on your calories. Available at
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/cut-down-on-your-calories/
[Accessed 28 Apr. 2019].
Nickerson, N. and Jurowski, C. (2001). The influence of children on vacation travel

patterns. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 7, pp. 19-30.
Nield, K., Kozak, M., and LeGrys, G. (2000). The role of food service in tourist
satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 19(4), pp. 375-384.
Noe, F. P., and Uysal, M. (1997). Evaluation of outdoor recreational settings. A

problem of measuring user satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
4(4), pp. 223–230.
Noe, F. P., Uysal, M., and Magnini, V. P. (2010). Tourist customer service satisfaction:
An encounter approach. New York: Routledge.
Norman, P., and Conner, M. (1996). Predicting health-check attendance among

prior attenders and non-attenders: The role of prior behaviour in the theory of
planned behaviour. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, pp. 1010-1026.
Nunnally, J. C. and Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. (3rd edn). New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Nuttavuthisit, K (2006). Branding Thailand: Correcting the negative image of sex

tourism. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2007), 3, pp. 21-30.
Office for National Statistics (2018). UK population estimates and projections, 1951
to 2041. Available at
https://www.ons.gov.uk/generator?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/popula
tionandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/nove
mber2018/097458d2&format=xls
[Accessed 10 December 2018].
382
Oh, H., and Hsu, C. H. C. (2001). Volitional degrees of gambling behaviors. Annals of
Ohnuki-Tierney, E. (1990). The ambivalent self of the contemporary Japanese.

Cultural Anthropology, 5, pp. 197-21
Okumus, B., Okumus, F., and McKercher, B. (2007). Incorporating local and
international cuisines in the marketing of tourism destinations: The cases of Hong
Kong and Turkey. Tourism Management, 28, pp. 253–261.
Okumus, F., Kock, G., Scantlebury, M. M., and Okumus, B. (2013). Using local
cuisines when promoting small Caribbean island destinations. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 30(4), pp. 410-429.
O'Leary, S., and Deegan, J. (2005). Ireland's Image as a Tourism Destination in

France: Attribute Importance and Performance. Journal of Travel Research, 43(3),
pp. 247- 56.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New

York: McGraw Hill.
Olsen, S. O. (2001). Consumer involvement in seafood as family meals in Norway:

An application of the expectancy-value approach. Appetite, 36(2), 173–186.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Leech, N.L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher:

The importance of combing quantitative and qualitative research methodologies.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), pp. 37-41.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Leech, N.L. (2007). Sampling designs in qualitative research:
Making the sampling process more public. The qualitative report, 12(2), pp. 238–
254.
383
Oppermann, M. (1997). First-time and repeat visitors to New Zealand. Tourism
Management, 18(3), pp. 177-181.
Oppermann, M. (1998). Destination threshold potential and the law of repeat

visitation. Journal of Travel Research, 37(2), pp. 131–137.
Oppermann, M. (1999). Predicting destination choice: a discussion of destination

loyalty. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5(1), pp. 51-65.
Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism Destination Loyalty. Journal of Travel Research,

39(1), pp. 78–84.
Ouellette, J. A., and Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: the
multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological
Bulletin, 124(1), pp. 54-74.
Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using
IBM SPSS 6th edition. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Pansiri, J. (2005). Pragmatism: a methodological approach to researching strategic

alliance tourism. Tourism and Hospitality: Planning & Development, 2(3), pp. 191-
206.
Pansiri, J. (2007). Doing tourism research using the pragmatism paradigm: an

empirical example. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 3(3), pp. 223–
240.
Park, M. K. (2000). Social and cultural factors influencing tourists’ souvenir

purchasing behaviour: A comparative study on Japanese ‘omiyage’ and Korean
‘sunmul’. In K.S. (Kaye) Chon, T. Inagaki, and T. Ohashi (eds) Japanese tourists:
socio-economic, marketing and pshychological analysis. New York: Haworth
Hospitality Press.
384
Park, S. (1998). A comparison of Korean and American gift-giving behaviors.
Psychology and Marketing, 15, pp. 577–93.
Park, S. and Tussyadiah, I. P. (2016). Multidimensional facets of perceived risk in

mobile travel booking. Journal of Travel Research, 56(7), pp. 854-867.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd edn).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pearson, P. H. (1970). Relationship between global and specified measures of

novelty seeking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, pp. 199-204.
Pelchat, M. and Pliner, P. (1995). “Try it. You'll like it”. Effects of information on
willingness to try novel foods. Appetite, 24(2), pp. 153-165.
Perugini, M., and Bagozzi, R. P. (2001). The role of desires and anticipated emotions
in goal-directed behaviors: broadening and deepening the theory of planned
behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(1), pp. 79-98.
Perugini, M., and Bagozzi, R. P. (2004). An alternative view of pre-volitional

processes in decision making: Conceptual issues and empirical evidence. In G.
Haddock and G. R. Maio (eds). Contemporary perspectives on the psychology of
attitudes: The Cardiff symposium. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. pp. 169–201.
Perugini, M., and Connor, M. (2000). Predicting and understanding behavioural

volitions: The interplay between goals and behaviours. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 30(5), pp. 705–731.
Peštek, A., and Činjarević, M. (2014). Tourist perceived image of local cuisine: The
case of Bosnian food culture. British Food Journal, 116(11), pp. 1821–1838.
Petrick, J. F. (2002). An examination of golf vacationers’ novelty. Annals of Tourism

Research, 29(2), pp. 384–400.
385
Petrick, J. F. (2004a). Are loyal visitors desired visitors? Tourism Management, 25,
pp. 463–470.
Petrick, J. F. (2004b). First timers’ and repeaters’ perceived value. Journal of Travel
Research, 43(1), pp. 29-38
Petrick, J. F., and Backman, S. J. (2002). An examination of the construct of

perceived value for the prediction of golf travelers' intentions to revisit. Journal of
Travel Research, 41(1), pp. 38-45.
Petrick, J. F., Morais, D. D., and Norman, W. (2001). An examination of the

determinants of entertainment vacationers’ intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel
Pilgrim, F. J. (1957). The components of food acceptance and their measurement.

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 5(2), pp. 171-175.
Pizam, A. and Ellis, T. (1999). Customer satisfaction and its measurement in

hospitality enterprises. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 11(7), pp. 326–339.
Pizam, A. and Jeong, G. (1996). Cross-cultural tourist behaviour: Perception of

Korean tour-guides. Tourism Management, 17(4), pp. 277-286.
Pizam, A., and Milman, A. (1993). Predicting Satisfaction among First Time Visitors
to a Destination by Using the Expectancy Disconfirmation Theory. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 12(2), pp. 197-209.
Pizam, A. and Sussmann, S. (1995). Does nationality affect tourist behaviour?

Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4), pp. 901–917.
386
Pliner, P. (1982). The effects of mere exposure on liking for edible substances.
Appetite, 3, pp. 283-290.
Pliner, P. and Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the trait of

food neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19(2), pp. 105-120.
Pliner, P. and Pelchat, M. L. (1991). Neophobia in humans and the special status of
foods of animal origin. Appetite, 16, pp. 205-218.
Pliner, P., Pelchat, M. and Grabski, M. (1993). Reduction of Neophobia in Humans by

Exposure to Novel Foods. Appetite, 20(2), pp. 111-123.
Pliner, P. and Salvy, S.J. (2006). Food neophobia in Humans. In R. Shepherd and M.
Raats (eds) The psychology of food choice. (Frontiers in Nutritional Science, No. 3.).
Wallingford: CABI. pp. 75-92.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), pp. 879-903.
Pollard, T. M., Steptoe, A., and Wardle, J. (1998). Motives underlying healthy eating:
Using the Food Choice Questionnaire to explain variation in dietary intake. Journal
of Biosocial Science, 30(2), pp. 165–179.
Poria, Y., Butler, R., and Airey, D. (2004). Links between tourists, heritage, and
reasons for visiting heritage sites. Journal of Travel Research, 43, pp. 19-28.
Powell, T. C. (2001). Competitive advantage: Logical and philosophical

considerations. Strategic Management Journal, 22(9), pp. 875-888.
Prescott, J., Young, O., O’Neill, L., Yau, N. J. N., and Stevens, R. (2002). Motives for
food choice: A comparison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia and New
Zealand. Food Quality and Preference, 13, pp. 489–495.
387
Prestwich, A., Perugini, M., and Hurling, R. (2008). Goal desires moderate intention-
behaviour relations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(1), pp. 49-71.
Promsivapallop, P. and Kannaovakun, P. (2019). Destination food image

dimensions and their effects on food preference and consumption. Journal of
Destination Marketing & Management, 11, pp. 89-100.
Public Health England and Food Standards Agency (2019). National Diet and
Nutrition Survey: Years 1 to 9 of the Rolling Programme (2008/2009 – 2016/2017):
Time trend and income analyses. [Online]. London: PHE Publications. Available at
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/at
tachment_data/file/772434/NDNS_UK_Y1-9_report.pdf
Puh, B. (2015). Destination image and tourism satisfaction: The case of a

Mediterranean destination. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(13), pp.
538–544.
Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative app

roaches. (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Putnick, D. L. and Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions

and reporting: the state of the art and future directions for psychological research.
Developmental Review, 41, pp. 71-90.
Quintal, V. A. and Polczynski, A. (2010). Factors influencing tourists’ revisit

intentions. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 22(4), pp. 554-578.
Quan, S. and Wang, N. (2004). Towards a structural model of the tourist experience:
an illustration from food experiences in tourism. Tourism Management, 25, pp. 297-
305.
388
Ragavan, N., Subramonian, H. and Sharif, S. (2014). Tourists’ Perceptions of
Destination Travel Attributes: An Application to International Tourists to Kuala
Lumpur. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 144, pp. 403-411.
Raju, P.S. (1980). Optimal stimulation level: Its relationships to personality,

demographics and exploratory behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, pp. 272-
282.
Ramkissoon, H., Uysal, M. and Brown, K. (2011). A cross-cultural comparison of

tourists’ cultural behavioural intentions. e-Review of Tourism Research, 9(5), pp.
190-220.
Randall, E., and Sanjur, D. (1981). Food preferences: their conceptualisation and
relationship to consumption. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 11(3), 151-161.
Raudenbush, B. and Frank, R. (1999). Assessing Food Neophobia: The Role of

Stimulus Familiarity. Appetite, 32(2), pp. 261-271.
Reichheld, F. F., and W. E. Sasse. (1990). “Zero Defections: Quality Comes to

Services.” Harvard Business Review, 68, pp. 105-11.
Reid, L. and Reid, S. (1993). Communicating tourism supplier services: Building

repeat visitor relationships. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing. 2(2/3), pp. 3-
19.
Reisinger, Y. (2009). Cross-cultural differences in tourist behaviour. In M. Kozak

and A. Decrop (eds) Handbook of tourist behavior: Theory & practice. New York:
Reisinger, Y. and Turner, L. (1999). A cultural analysis of Japanese tourists:

challenges for tourism marketers. European Journal of Marketing, 33(11), pp. 1203-
1227.
389
Richetin, J., Perugini, M., Adjalia, I., and Hurling, R. (2008). Comparing leading
theoretical models of behavioural predictions and post-behaviour evaluations.
Psychology and Marketing, 25(12), pp. 1131–1150.
Ritchey, P.N., Frank, R.A., Hursti, U. and Tuorila, H. (2003). Validation and cross-
national comparison of the food neophobia scale (FNS) using confirmatory factor
analysis. Appetite, 40(2), pp. 163–173.
Rittichainuwat, B. N., Hailin, Q., and Mongkhonvanit, C. (2001). Thailand’s

international travel image: Mostly favourable. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Admistration Quaterly, 42(2), pp. 82-95.
Rittichainuwat, B. N., Hailin, Q., and Mongkhonvanit, C. (2002). A study of the

impact of travel satisfaction on the likelihood of travelers to revisit Thailand.
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 12(2/3), pp. 19-43.
Rittichainuwat, B. N., Hailin, Q., and Mongkhonvanit, C. (2008). Understanding the

motivation of travelers on repeat visits to Thailand. Journal of Vacation Marketing,
14, pp. 5-21.
Rittichainuwat, B. N., Qu, H., and Leong, J. K. (2003). The collective impacts of a
bundle of travel determinants on repeat visitation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 27(2), pp. 217 – 236.
Ritter, W. (1987). Styles of tourism in the modern world. Tourism Recreation

Research, 12(1), pp. 3-8.
Roaché, D. J. (2017). Intercoder Reliability Techniques: Percent Agreement. In. M.

Allen. (ed) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roger, P .J., Green, M., and Edwards, S. (1994). Nutritional influences on mood and
cognitive performance: Their measurement and relevance to food acceptance. In H.
390
J. H. MacFie and D. M. H. Thomson (eds) Measurement of food preferences. Glasgow:
Blacke Academic & Professional. pp. 227-252.
Rohs F. (1999). Response Shift Bias: A Problem in Evaluating Leadership

Development with Self-report Pretest-posttest Measures. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 40(4), pp. 28-37.
Ronald, R., Druta, O., and Godzik, M. (2018). Japan’s urban singles: negotiating
alternatives to family households and standard housing pathways. Urban
Geography, 39(7), pp. 1018-1040.
Rozin, E. (1982). The structure of cuisine. In L. Barker (ed) The psychobiology of

human food selection. Westport: AVL. pp. 189-202.
Rozin, P. (1989). The role of learning in the acquisition of food preferences by

humans. In R. Shepherd (ed) Handbook of the psychophysiology of human eating.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. pp. 205-227.
Rozin, P. (1990). Development in the food domain. Developmental Psychology, 26,

pp. 555-562.
Rozin, P. (1996). The socio-cultural context of eating and food choice. In H.L.
Meiselman and H.J.H. Macfie (eds) Food choice, acceptance and consumption,
London, Blackie Academic & Professional, pp. 83-104.
Rozin, P. (2006). The integration of biological, social, cultural and psychological

influences on food hoice. In R. Shepherd and M. Raats (eds) The psychology of food
choice. Oxfordshire: CAB International. pp. 19-39.
Rutkowski L, Svetina D. (2014). Assessing the hypothesis of measurement

invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 74(1), pp. 31–57.
391
Ryan, C. (2002). From motivation to assessment. In C. Ryan (ed.), The tourist
experience (2nd edn). London: Continuum. pp. 58–77.
Ryu, K. and Han H. (2010). Predicting tourists' intention to try local cuisine using a
modified theory of reasoned action: The case of New Orleans. Journal of Travel &
Ryu, K., and Jang, S. S. (2006). Intention to experience local cuisine in a travel
destination: The modified theory of reasoned action. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 30 (4), pp. 507-516.
Samovar, L. A. and Porter, R. E. (1991). Communication between cultures. Belmont,

CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Sánchez-Cañizares, S. M. and López-Guzmán, T. (2012): Gastronomy as a tourism

resource: profile of the culinary tourist. Current Issues in Tourism, 15(3), pp. 229-
245.
Saratokos, S. (1998). Social research. New York: Palgrave.
Saunders, M.N.K., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business
students. (6th edn). Harlow: Pearson.
Schiffman, LG, and Kanuk, LL. (1997). Consumer behaviour. (6th edn). New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Schifter, D. and Ajzen, I. (1985). Intention, perceived control, and weight loss: An
application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49(3), pp. 843-851.
Schlegel, R., DAvernas, J., Zanna, M., DeCourville, N. and Manske, S. (1992). Problem
drinking: A problem for the theory of reasoned action?. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 22(5), pp.358-385.
392
Schofield, P. (2000). Evaluating castlefield urban heritage park from the consumer
perspective: Destination attribute importance, visitor perception, and satisfaction.
Tourism Analysis, 5(2–4), pp. 183–189.
Schumacker, R. E. and Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural eqution

modelling. (2nd edn). New York: Psychology Press.
Schumann, F. (2006). Changing trends in Japanese overseas travel: implications for

Guam as a resort destination. Ritsumeikan Journal of Asian Pacific Studies, 21, pp.
125-149.
Scott, D. (1996). A comparison of visitors’ motivations to attend three urban

festivals. Festival Management and Event Tourism, 3(3), pp.121-128.
Seaton, A. V., and Benett, M. M. (1996). Marketing tourism products: Concepts, issues,
cases. London: International Thomson Business Press.
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. (4th
edn). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Seo, S. and Yun, N. (2015). Multi-dimensional scale to measure destination food

image: case of Korean food. British Food Journal, 117(12), pp. 2914-2929.
Seo, S., Yun, N. and Kim, O. Y. (2017). Destination food image and intention to eat
destination foods: a view from Korea. Current Issues in Tourism, 20(2), pp.135-156.
Seymour, D. (2004). The social construction of taste. In D. Sloan (ed) Culinary taste:
Consumer behaviour in the international restaurant sector. Oxford: Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann. pp. 1-22.
Sheldon, P. and Fox, M. (1988). The role of foodservice in vacation choice and
experience: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 27(3), pp. 9–15.
393
Shen, S., Schüttemeyer, A. and Braun, B. (2009). Visitor’s intention to visit world
cultural heritage sites: An empirical study of Suzhou, China. Journal of Travel &
Shenoy, S. S. (2005). Food tourism and the culinary tourist. PhD Thesis, Clemson
University.
Shepherd, R. (1985). Dietary salt intake. Nutrition and Food Science, 85(5), pp. 10–
11.
Shepherd, R. (1989). Factors influencing food preferences and choice. In R.

Shepherd (ed) Handbook of the psychophysiology of human eating. Chichester:
Wiley. pp. 3-24.
Shepherd, R. and Farleigh, C. A. (1986). Attitudes and personality related to salt

intake. Appetite, 7, pp. 343–54.
Shepherd, R. and Farleigh, C.A. (1989). Sensory assessment of foods and the role of
sensory attributes in determining food choice. In R. Shepherd (ed) Handbook of the
Psychophysiology of Human Eating. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. pp. 25-56.
Shepherd, R. and Raats, M. M. (1996). Attitudes and beliefs in food habits. In H. L.

Meiselman and H. J. H. Macfie (eds) Food choice, acceptance and consumption.
London: Blacke Academic & Professional. pp. 346–364.
Shepherd, R. and Sparks, P. (1992). Culture, identity and psychology: Eating what
the others eat. In National Consumer Council (ed) Your food: Whose choice? London:
HMSO. pp. 37-48.
Shepherd, R. and Sparks, P. (1994). Modelling food choice. In H. J. H. Macfie and D.

M. H. Thomson (eds) Measurement of food preferences. London: Chapman and Hall.
pp. 202–226.
394
Singsomboon, T. (2015). The use of Thai food knowledge as marketing strategies
for tourism promotion. Thammasat Review, 18(1), pp. 82–98.
Shoemaker, S. and Lewis, R. C. (1999). Customer loyalty: the future of hospitality

marketing. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18(4), pp. 345- 370.
Sijtsema, S., Linnemann, A. van Gaasbeek, T. Dagevos, H. and Jongen, W. (2002).

Variables Influencing Food Perception Reviewed for Consumer-Oriented Product
Development. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 42(6), pp. 565–581.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysis talk, test
and interaction. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Silverman, D. (2000). Do qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage

Publications Ltd.
Smith, R. A. and Biddle, S. J. H. (1999). Attitudes and exercise adherence: Test of the
Theories of Reasoned Action and Planned Behaviour. Journal of Sports Sciences,
17(4), pp. 269-281.
Smith, S., Costello, C. and Muenchen, R. A. (2010). Influence of push and pull
motivations on satisfaction and behavioral intentions within a culinary tourism
event. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 11(1), pp. 17-35.
Smith, S., and Xiao, H. (2008). Culinary tourism supply chains: A preliminary
examination. Journal of Travel Research, 46, pp. 289–299.
Sobal, J. (1998). Cultural comparison research designs in food, eating and nutrition.
Food Quality and Preference, 9(6), pp. 385-392.
Sobal, J., Bisogni, C. A., Devine, C. M., and Jastran, M. (2006). A conceptual model of
the food choice process over the life course. In R. Shepherd and M. Raats (eds) The
395
psychology of food choice (Frontiers in Nutritional Science, No. 3). Wallingford: CABI.
pp. 1- 18.
Sobal, J. and Bisogni, C. A. (2009). Constructing food choice decisions. Annals of

Behavioral Medicine, 38(1), pp. 37-46.
Solomon, M. (2013). Consumer behaviour: Buying, being and having. (10th edn).
Harlow: Pearson Education, Limited.
Som, A. P. M. and Badarbeh, B. (2011). Tourist Satisfaction and Repeat Visitation;

Toward a New Comprehensive Model. International Journal of Social, Behavioral,
Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 5(2), pp. 239-246.
Som, A. P. M., Marzuki, A., Yousefi, M., S., and Khalifeh, A. A. N. (2012). Factors
influencing visitors' revisit behavioral intentions: A case study of Sabah, Malaysia.
International Journal of Marketing Studies, 4(4), pp. 39-50.
Song, H. J., Lee, C. K., Kang, S. K., and Boo, S. J. (2012a). The effect of environmentally
friendly perceptions on festival visitors’ decision-making process using an
extended model of goal-directed behavior. Tourism Management, 33(6), pp. 1417-
1428.
Song, H. J., Lee, C. K., Norman, W., and Han, H. (2012b). The role of responsible
gambling strategy in forming behavioral intention: An application of a Model of
Goal Directed Behavior. Journal of Travel Research, 51(4), pp. 512–523.
Song, H. J., You, G. J., Reisinger, Y., Lee, C. K., Lee, S. K. (2014). Behavioral intention of
visitors to an Oriental medicine festival: An extended model of goal directed
behavior. Tourism Management, 42, pp. 101-113.
Sonmez, S. F., and Graefe, A. R. (1998). Determining future travel behavior from
past travel experience and perceptions of risk and safety. Journal of Travel
Research, 37(2), pp. 171–177.
396
Sparks, B. (2007). Planning a wine tourism vacation? Factors that help to predict
tourist behavioural intentions. Tourism Management, 28, pp. 1180-1192.
Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and

perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,
pp. 438–443.
Statistics Bureau (2018). Current Population Estimates as of October 1, 2017.

Available at
http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/jinsui/2017np/index.html
[Accessed 10 December 2018].
Steenkamp, J., Hofstede, F. and Wedel, M. (1999). A cross-national investigation into

the individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness. The
Journal of Marketing, 63(2), pp. 55-69.
Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. and H. Baumgartner (1998). Assessing measurement

invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research
25(1), pp. 78-90.
Steptoe, A., Pollard, T. M. and Wardle, J. (1995). Development of a measure of the

motives underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite,
25, pp. 267-284.
Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. (5th edn.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Story, M. and French,S. (2004). Food Advertising and Marketing Directed at

Children and Adolescents in the US. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition
and Physical Activity, 1(3). Available at
http://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-1-3
397
Swenson, D, (2009), Investigating the potential economic impacts of local foods for
southeast Iowa. Iowa State University. Department of Economics.
TAT Intelligence Center (2019a). International Tourist Arrivals to Thailand 1987-

2017. Available at
https://intelligencecenter.tat.or.th/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2017_total_new.pdf
[Accessed 15 January 2019].
TAT Intelligence Center (2019b). International Tourist Arrivals to Thailand 1987-

2017: United Kingdom Available at
https://intelligencecenter.tat.or.th/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2017_europe_new.pdf
TAT Intelligence Center (2019c). International Tourist Arrivals to Thailand 1987-

2017: Japan. Available at
https://intelligencecenter.tat.or.th/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2017_eastasia_new.pdf
Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. (5th edn).

Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
Tasci, D. A. A., and Gartner, W.C. (2007). Destination image and its functional
relationship. Journal of Travel Research, 45(4), pp. 413-425.
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative

and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taylor, S. A. (2007). The addition of anticipated regret to attitudinally based, goal-

directed models of information search behaviours under conditions of uncertainty
and risk. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(4), pp. 739-768.
398
Taylor, S. A., Ishida, C., and Wallace, D. W. (2009). Intention to engage in digital
piracy: a conceptual model and empirical test. Journal of Service Research, 11(3), pp.
246-262.
The National Identity Board, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of Thailand.

(2000). Thailand into the 2000’s. Available at
http://www.mfa.go.th/web/20/php
[Accessed 10 June 2015].
The University of Auckland (2014). About Thematic Analysis. Available at

http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/our-research/research-
groups/thematic- analysis/about-thematic-analysis.html
Thiumsak, T., and Ruangkanjanases, A. (2016). Factors influencing international

visitors to revisit Bangkok, Thailand. Journal of Economics, Business and
Management, 4(3), pp. 220–230.
Torres, R. (2002) Toward a better understanding of tourism and agriculture

linkages in the Yucatan: Tourist food consumption and preferences. Tourism
Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment,
4(3), pp. 282-306.
Tourism Authority of Thailand (2008a). Executive Summary: British Tourist Attitude

and Behaviour. Available at
http://tatic.tourismthailand.org/wp-
content/uploads/download/article/research/1801uk.pdf
[Accessed 13 February 2016]
Tourism Authority of Thailand (2008c). Executive Summary: Japanese Tourist

Attitude and Behaviour. Available at
content/uploads/download/article/research/2401japan.pdf
399
[Accessed 13 February 2016].
Tourism Authority of Thailand (2013). Executive Summary: Repeat Visitor to

Thailand. Available at
content/uploads/download/article/research/Revisit_TAT/FinalReport.pdf
Tourism Authority of Thailand (2017). The incredible history of Thai cuisine. Food
Guide. Amazing Thailand blog. 31 May 2017. [Blog] Available at
http://tourismthailand.in/food-guide/history-of-thai-food/
[Accessed 13 July 2018].
Tourism Authority of Thailand (2018). Discover Thai Cuisine through its famous four
regions. 13 January 2018. TAT Newsroom. Available at
https://www.tatnews.org/2018/01/discover-thai-cuisine-famous-four-regions/
[Accessed 1 Nov 2019].
Tourism Authority of Thailand (2019). Gastronomy Tourism: Thailand means “good

food” in any language. 5 February 2019. TAT Newsroom. Available at
https://www.tatnews.org/2019/02/gastronomy-tourism-thailand-means-good-
food-in-any-language/
Tsai, C. (2016). Memorable tourist experiences and place attachment when

consuming local food. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18(6), pp. 536-
548.
Tse, P., and Crotts, J. C. (2005). Antecedents of novelty seeking: International

visitors’ propensity to experiment across Hong Kong’s culinary traditions. Tourism
400
Tuorilla, H., Meiselman, H., Bell, R., Cardello, A. and Johnson, W. (1994). The role of
sensory and cognitive information in the enhancement of certainty and liking of
novel and familiar food. Appetite, 23(3), pp. 231-246.
Tuorila, H., Lähteenmäki, L., Pohjalainen, L. and Lotti, L. (2001). Food neophobia
among the Finns and related responses to familiar and unfamiliar foods. Food
Quality and Preference, 12(1), pp. 29-37
Um, S., Chon, K., and Ro, Y. H. (2006). Antecedents of revisit intention. Annals of
UNWTO (2007). A Practical Guide to Destination Management. UNWTO: Madrid.
UNWTO (1999). National and Regional Tourism Planning. International Thomson

Business Press: London.
Uysal, M., and Hagan, L. R. (1993). Motivation of pleasure to travel and tourism. In
M. A. Khan, M. D. Olsen, and T. Var (eds) VNR’S encyclopedia of hospitality and
tourism. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. pp. 798 – 810.
Uysal, M., and Juroswski, C. (1994). Testing the push and pull factors. Annals of
Tourism Research, 21, pp. 844 – 846.
Vabo, M. and Hansen, H. (2014). The relationship between food preferences and
food choice: A theoretical discussion. International Journal of Business and Social
Science, 5(7), pp. 145-157.
Vandenberg, R. J. and C. E. Lance (2000). A review and synthesis of the

measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations
for organisational research. Organisational Research Methods, 3(1), pp. 4-70.
Van Trijp, H., Lähteenmäki, L. and Tuorila, H. (1992). Variety seeking in the
consumption of spread and cheese. Appetite, 18, pp. 155-164.
401
Van Trijp, H. and Steenkamp, J. (1992). Consumers' variety seeking tendency with
respect to foods: measurement and managerial implications. European Review of
Agricultural Economics, 19(2), pp. 181-195.
Van Trijp, H.C.M. and Meulenberg, M.T.G. (1996). Marketing and consumer
behaviour with respects to foods. In H. L. Meiselman and H. J. H. Macfie (eds) Food
choice, acceptance and consumption. London: Blacke Academic & Professional. pp.
264-292.
Veal, A. J. (2006). Research methods for leisure and tourism. (3rd edn). Essex:
Prenctice Hall.
Vengesayi, S. (2008). Destination Attractiveness: Are There Relationships with

Destination Attributes. The Business Review, Cambridge, 10(2), pp. 289-294.
Venkatesan, M. (1973). Cognitive Consistency and Novelty Seeking. In S. Ward and

T. S. Robertson (eds) Consumer Behavior: Theoretical Sources. New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall. pp. 355-384.
Verma, R, Pullman, ME and Goodale, JC. (1999). Designing and positioning food
service for multicultural markets, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 40(6), pp. 76-87.
Wall, G. and Nuryanti, W. (1997). Marketing Challenges and opportunities Facing

Indonesian Tourism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 6(1), pp. 69–84.
Wang, D. (2004). Tourist behavior and repeat visitation to Hong Kong. Tourism
Geographies, 6(1), pp. 99–118.
Wang, Y. and Davidson, M. C. G. (2010). Pre- and post-trip perceptions: an insight

into Chinese package holiday market in Australia. Journal of Vacation Marketing,
16(2), pp. 111-123.
402
Warde, A. and Martens, L. (2000). Eating out: Social Differentiation, Consumption
and Pleasure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wardle, J., Haase, A.M., Steptoe, A., Nillapun, M., Jonwutiwes, K.and Bellisle, F.
(2004). Gender differences in food choice: The contribution of health beliefs and
dieting. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 27(2), pp. 107-116.
Wardle, J. and Steptoe, A. (1991). The European health and behaviour survey:
Rationale, methods and results from the United Kingdom. Social Science and
Medicine, 33, pp. 925-936.
Weaver, D., and Lawton, L. (2002). Tourism management. (2nd edn). Milton, Old:
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Weiermair, K. (2000) Tourists’ perceptions towards and satisfaction with service

quality in cross-cultural service encounters: implications for hospitality and
tourism management, Managing Service Quality, 10(6), pp. 397-409.
Williams, C., and Buswell, J. (2003). Service quality in leisure and tourism. UK: CABI
Publishing.
Wolf, E. (2002). Culinary tourism: A tasty economic proposition. International

Culinary Tourism Task Force.
Wood, R.C. (1995). The Sociology of the Meal. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press Ltd.
Wright, L. T., Nancarrow, C. and Kwok, P. M.H. (2001). Food taste preferences and
cultural influences on consumption. British Food Journal, 103(5), pp. 348-357.
Xu, F., Morgan, M. and Song, P. (2009). Students’ travel behaviour: A cross-cultural
comparison of UK and China. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11, pp. 255-
403
268.
Yilmaz, Y., Yilmaz, Y., Icigen, E. T., Ekin, Y. and Utku, B. D. (2009). Destination image:
a comparative study on pre and post trip image variations. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing and Management, 18(5), pp. 461-479.
Yolal, M., Chi, C. and Pesämaa, O. (2017). Examine destination loyalty of first-time
and repeat visitors at all-inclusive resorts. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 29(7), pp. 1834-1853.
Yoon, M. and Kim, ES. (2014). A comparison of sequential and nonsequential

specification searches in testing factorial invariance. Behavior Research Methods,
46, pp. 1199–1206.
Yoon, Y., and Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and
satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1),
pp. 45-56.
You, X., O'leary, J., Morrison, A. and Hong. G. (2000). A Cross-Cultural Comparison of
Travel Push and Pull Factors. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Administration, 1(2), pp. 1-26
Yu, L., and Goulden, M. (2006). A comparative analysis of international tourists'

satisfaction in Mongolia. Tourism Management, 27(6), pp. 1331-1342.
Yuan, S., and McDonald, C. (1990). Motivational determinates of international

pleasure time. Journal of Travel Research, 29(1), pp. 42–44.
Yuksel, A. (2001). Managing customer satisfaction and retention: A case of tourist

destinations, Turkey. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 7(2), pp. 153-168.
Yüksel, A., and Yüksel, F. (2001). The expectancy-disconfirmation paradigm: A

Critique. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 25(2), pp. 107-31.
404
Zabkar, V., Brenc, M. M., and Dmitrovic, T. (2010). Modelling perceived quality,
visitor satisfaction and behavioural intentions at the destination level. Tourism
Management, 31(4), pp. 537-546.
Zait, A. and Bertea, P. (2011). Methods for Testing Discriminant Validity.

Management and Marketing, 9(2), pp. 217-224.
Zeppel, H., Hall, M., 1991. Selling art and history: cultural heritage and tourism.
Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(1), pp. 29–45.
Zint, M. (2002). Comparing three attitude-behavior theories for predicting science

teachers’ intentions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), pp. 819-844.
Zhou, L. (2005). Destination attributes that attract international tourists to Cape

Town. Master Degree Research Project, University of the Western Cape.
405
Interview date: ______________________ Start: ______________ End: ______________
Venue: ________________________________ Participant: ___________________________
APPENDIX 1
PRELIMINARY STUDY
SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE AND QUESTIONS
Research title: Factor affecting tourists’ revisit intention to Thailand as a
culinary tourism destination
Section 1: Destination Experience

Frequency: First timers VS repeaters
1. When did you visit Thailand?
2. Was that your first time to visit Thailand?

• If YES, go to Q5
• If NO, the next question would be asked
3. How many times have you visited Thailand?
4. When was your last visit?
5. Who you are travelling with?
6. Which provinces have you been to?
7. How long did you stay in each province?
Purpose of visit/Motivation to visit VS Purpose of revisit/Motivation to revisit

8. For first timers: What was the purpose of your visit to Thailand?
For repeaters: What were the purposes of your visits to Thailand?
406
9. For your first visit, can you explain your reasons for choosing to visit
Thailand rather than other countries?
10. For repeaters: If you have visited more than once, can you explain your
reasons for choosing to visit Thailand again?
Section 2: Local Thai food experience

11. Can you tell me as much as you can recall about your local Thai food
experiences during your last holiday in Thailand?
Note: Following questions would be used to elicit more details if participants do

not cover them in their answers.
11.1. Did you eat local Thai food during your last holiday in Thailand?
11.2. If so, what kinds of local Thai food did you eat on that holiday?
11.3. During your last holiday in Thailand how often did you eat local
Thai food?
11.4. In which places did you eat local Thai food? (Which province,
festival, event, restaurant etc.)
11.5. Could you explain your reasons for choosing to eat local Thai
food on that holiday?
11.6. What was pleasurable about tasting local Thai food on holiday?
407
12. Please give words best describe your feelings when you tasted local Thai food
that you enjoyed on holiday (More than one word)
12.1. Probing: Could you explain the meaning of those words that you
mentioned?
13. What do you think are the advantages of tasting local Thai food on holiday?
14. Of the local Thai food you saw on holiday, was there any food you chose NOT
to eat?
14.1. Probing: What was it?
14.2. Probing: Could you explain your reasons for choosing not to eat?
Dislike
15. What was NOT pleasurable about tasting local Thai food on holiday?
16. Please give words best describe your feelings when you tasted local Thai food
that you did NOT enjoy on holiday (More than one word)
mentioned?
17. What do you think are the disadvantages of tasting local Thai food on
holiday?
408
18. In total, are you satisfied with your local Thai food experiences on your
holiday?
18.1. Probing: Could you explain your reasons for satisfaction?
OR
Probing: Could you explain your reasons for dissatisfaction?
19. Do you think eating local Thai food is essential for your visit to Thailand?
19.1. Probing: Could you explain in more detail?
20. Does local Thai food make your total visit more memorable?
Food Familiarity
21. Are there other types of foods that you ate during that holiday?
21.1. Probing: What are they?
21.2. Probing: Could you explain your reasons for choosing to eat?
Thailand Images/Food Images

22. Please give three words best describe Thailand from your holiday
experiences.
mentioned?
409
Section 3: Future intention
Revisit intention
Introduction: I am going to ask you about your likelihood to visit Thailand in the
future.
23. Do you plan to visit Thailand again in the future?
24. What will make you to revisit this country?
25. Would you recommend Thailand to your friends or relatives?

26. Would you recommend local Thai food to your friends or relatives?
27. Have you heard about food tourism activities in Thailand such as food events
or festivals, eating tours, food-shopping tours, and cooking classes for
tourists in Thailand?
If YES, ask Q 27.1 to elicit responses
If NO, ask Q 27.2 to elicit responses

27.1. Have you ever joined this kind of activities?
27.1.1. Probing: What are they?
410
27.1.2. Probing: Could you explain your reasons for joining these
activities?
27.2. Are you interested to join these activities in the future?
28. Are you willing to visit Thailand again with the main purpose of getting more
experience of Thai food?

28.1. What would persuade you to make this kind of visit?
28.2. What do you think are the factors that influence you to join food
tourism activities in Thailand?
411
Section 4: Previous Thai food experiences
Previous Thai food experiences/Exposure
29. Can you tell me as much as you can recall about your Thai food experiences
before your visit to Thailand?

29.1. Have you ever eaten Thai food before your visit to Thailand?
29.2. How many times you had it?
29.3. If so, what kinds of Thai food did you eat?
29.4. In which places did you eat that Thai food? (Which country, town,
festival, event, restaurant etc.)
29.5. What do you think about that food? or How is your feeling when
you ate that food?
Authenticity
30. How often you eat Thai food in your country?
31. What do you think about Thai foods you ate in your country in comparison
with the local ones you ate in Thailand?
31.1. Probing: Which one you prefer more?
31.2. Could you explain your reasons?
412
Section 5: General travel behaviours
Possibility to be food tourists
Introduction: I am going to ask you about your general travel behaviours
32. What are the factors that influence which country you choose to visit?
32.1. Probing: Could you tell me more about…? or Could you give me
some examples?
33. Do you think food is an important factor for you to choose a place or a
country to visit?
33.1. Probing: Could you expand a little bit on what you said?
34. When you travel, do you normally think about food or eating as a priority?
34.1. Probing: Could you explain your reasons?
35. When you travel, how much is where and what you eat important to you?
35.1. Probing: Could you explain this a bit more? or Could you give me
some examples?
413
Section 6: Participant’s information
1. What is your nationality?
☐ British ☐ Japanese ☐ Chinese
2. What is your gender?
☐ Female ☐ Male
3. What is your household structure?
☐ Single ☐ Single with children

☐ Living with partner without children
☐ Living with partner with children
☐ Others (please specify) ________________________
4. How old are you?
18-24 25 to 34 35 to 44
☐ 45 to 54 ☐ 55 and above
5. What is your education level?
High school College/Associated degree
☐ Undergraduate degree ☐ Postgraduate degree
6. What is your occupation?
__________________________________________
414
APPENDIX 2 PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET (ENGLISH VERSION)
Participant Information Sheet
AN INVESTIGATION OF FACTORS AFFECTING TOURISTS’ REVISIT

INTENTION TO THAILAND AS A CULINARY TOURISM DESTINATION
Thank you very much for agreeing to serve as a participant for my study.
Let me give you some information about me and my research:
My name is Nuttanuch Issariyakulkarn. You can call me ‘Tharn’, my nickname. I

am a PhD researcher in Hospitality and Tourism Management at University of
Surrey in UK. I am conducting interviews for my research study investigating
“factors affecting tourists’ revisit intention to Thailand as a culinary tourism
destination” as part of my PhD thesis.
I hope that my study results will generate valuable information for Thailand’s
culinary tourism marketing practice and would be beneficial for Tourism
Authority of Thailand in developing unique local Thai food as a tourist attraction.
It will provide a better insight of what influences tourists’ intention to undertake
a repeat visit to Thailand for appreciating its cuisine.
You have been invited for this study because you are on a holiday in Thailand
and the researcher is very interested to explore your Thai food experiences on
your holiday. You will be interviewed face-to-face. If you agree to take part, the
interview will be arranged to take place at a mutually convenient time and place.
The interview could take from 15 to 30 minutes. I am going to ask you about
your Thailand travel experiences, your local Thai food experiences, your views
about Thailand and your intention to revisit Thailand. With your permission, the
interview will be audio-recorded. However, the data will be used only for my
415
PhD and possibly publications arising from it. There are no right or wrong
answers, so please feel free to express your thoughts.
If you decide that you would like to be a participant, you will have to read and
sign an accompanying form giving your informed consent to take part. Please
note that your personal data will be completely anonymised when I report the
findings and will be kept strictly confidential. Data will be stored securely in
accordance with the UK Data Protection Act 1998. Your participation is
completely voluntary and you have the right to not answer questions or to
withdraw from this study at any time without giving a reason if you wish to do so.
If you have any further queries about the study, please reach me through
email at N.issariyakulkarn@surrey.ac.uk
Should there be any complaints or concerns please address using the contact
information below
Investigator: Nuttanuch Issariyakulkarn N.issariyakulkarn@surrey.ac.uk
Main supervisor: Dr Anita Eves A.Eves@surrey.ac.uk
Co- supervisor: Dr Eunice Eunjung E.yoo@surrey.ac.uk
Thank you for taking the time to read this Information Sheet. Please read
the consent form and, if you agree, please sign the form.
416
APPENDIX 3 PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET (JAPANESE VERSION)
89 1
9
8
8 8
8 8 face-
to-face( )
8
417
20 40
8 8
9
8 9
1 9
89
8 8
8
1
9
1 9
N.issariyakulkarn@surrey.ac.uk
Nuttanuch Issariyakulkarn N.issariyakulkarn@surrey.ac.uk

Dr Anita Eves A.Eves@surrey.ac.uk
Dr Eunice Eunjung E.yoo@surrey.ac.uk
89 1
1 8 9
418
UniS
APPENDIX 4 CONSENT FORM (ENGLISH VERSION)
Consent Form
• I the undersigned voluntarily agree to take part in the study on An investigation of factors
affecting tourists’ revisit intention to Thailand as a culinary tourism destination
• I have read and understood the Information Sheet provided. I have been given a full
explanation by the investigator (Nuttanuch Issariyakulkarn) of the nature, purpose, location and
likely duration of the study, and of what I will be expected to do. I have been given the
opportunity to ask questions on all aspects of the study and have understood the advice and
information given as a result.
• I agree to comply with any instruction given to me during the study and to co-operate fully with
the investigators.
• I consent to my personal data, as outlined in the accompanying information sheet, being used
for this study and possibly publications arising from it. I understand that all personal data
relating to volunteers is held and processed in the strictest confidence, and in accordance with
the Data Protection Act (1998).
• I understand that I am free to withdraw from the study at any time without needing to justify
my decision and without prejudice.
• I confirm that I have read and understood the above and freely consent to participating in this
study. I have been given adequate time to consider my participation and agree to comply with
the instructions and restrictions of the study.
Name of volunteer (BLOCK CAPITALS) ........................................................
Signed ........................................................
Date ......................................
Name of researcher (BLOCK CAPITALS) NUTTANUCH ISSARIYAKULKARN
Signed ..................................................
Date ..............................
419
UniS
APPENDIX 5 CONSENT FORM (JAPANESE VERSION)
Consent Form
•
9
• (Ms. Nuttanuch
Issariyakulkarn) 98
1 1
• 1
• 98
98 9
• 1
( ) ........................................................
........................................................
..................................
(BLOCK CAPITALS) NUTTANUCH ISSARIYAKULKARN
........................................................
..................................
420
APPENDIX 6 INTERVIEW GUIDE AND QUESTIONS (ENGLISH VERSION)

INTERVIEWER’S GUIDE AND QUESTIONS
Filter questions
1. Are you British/Japanese? (If NO = End of interview)
2. Are you visiting Thailand for pleasure or business purposes?
(If for BUSINESS = End of interview)
3. Are you under 18? (If YES = End of interview)
4. Who you are travelling with?
Probing:
4.1 Are you travelling in a packaged tour or by your own?
(If in PACKAGED TOUR = End of interview)
4.2 Are you travelling with children? (If YES = End of interview)
4.3 Are you travelling with a Thai partner? (If YES = End of interview)
5. How many nights have you stayed in Thailand up to now? (2 nights up)
6. How many times did you have local Thai foods during this trip?
(If LEAST THAN 6 MEALS = End of interview)
If meets all criteria, give the participant the PIS to read and ask him/her to
sign the consent form after that.
Introducing the interview
1. Thank to the participant for taking part in the interview.
2. Introduce the researcher’s name and position
3. Inform that the interview will be used as part of PhD thesis and publications
arising from it only.
4. Inform the aim of the interview is ‘’To explore factors affecting tourists’
intention to revisit Thailand as a culinary tourism destination”
5. Re-emphasise that “All data will be treated confidentially and anonymous as
stated in the PIS and consent form”.
6. Please feel free to inform me if you feel uncomfortable or distressed at any
stage of the interview
7. Inform that the conservation is being digitally recorded but you can ask me to
stop it at anytime if you wish to do so.
8. Give the participant a chance to ask questions regarding the document or
interview
421
9. Ask to start the interview

Section 1: Travel experiences
Q1. How many times have you visited Thailand before?
***If first timer ->

Q2. As this is your first visit, can you explain your reasons for choosing to visit
Probing:
2.1 What are things that encouraged you to come to Thailand? Please provide
details. (e.g. advertisements, travel magazines, Thai festivals in your country, TV
programmes)
2.2 Are there any other factors that motivated you to visit Thailand?
***If repeater->
Q2-1. Because you have visited Thailand more than once, can you explain
your reasons for choosing to visit Thailand again?
Probing:
2-1.1 What are things that encouraged you to revisit Thailand? Please provide
details. (e.g. memorable experiences, Thai food)
2-1.2 Are there any other factors that motivated you to revisit Thailand?
Q3. Which provinces in Thailand have you been to on this trip?
Q4. What tourism activities have you done so far?
422
Section 2: Local Thai food experiences

Definition: Local Thai Food is food and beverages that are locally produced and
has a local Thai identity or sold as local Thai specialties. However, the raw
materials or ingredients used to produce the local Thai food can be from other
countries. (e.g. cumin seeds used in Thai Massaman curry are imported from
Indonesia)
Q5. Can you tell me as much as you can recall about your local Thai food
experiences during this trip in Thailand?
Probing:
5.1 What kind of local Thai foods you have tried in Thailand?
5.2 Where did you have it? (On street/small restaurant/food court/fine
dining/Which area?)
5.3 What are your reasons to choose those foods?

(What do you consider as important when you choose those foods?)
5.4 How do you feel about eating those foods? (e.g. Did you enjoy it? What
was good and was not good?)
5.5 In total, are you satisfied with your local Thai food experiences on
your holiday (Probing: Can you tell me your reasons of satisfaction?)
423
Q6. Please tell me about any thought you have about the importance of local Thai
food when you go holiday in Thailand?
(Do you think eating local Thai food is essential for your visit to Thailand?)
Q7. Have you ever done any following food-related tourism activities in
Thailand?
Ex1. Going to a particular area for tasting variety of local foods by your own such
as going to eat street foods in Soi Convent, Bangkok
Ex2 Going to a specific area, food stall, food cart or restaurant to eat its own
famous dishes by your own such as going to Thip Samai restaurant to eat its
legendary Pad Thai.
Ex3. Purchasing local food products/ingredients as souvenirs or for your own

use
Ex4. Experiencing the characteristics of a local Thai food/beverage - producing

place such as visiting Khlong Kanom Waan (the Dessert Canal), Nonthaburi to
see how to make Thai desserts or visiting Amphawa Chaipattana Nurak
Conservation Project, Samutsongkram to see how to make a coconut palm sugar.
Ex5. Participating in a food-eating or shopping packaged tour
Ex6. Attending a local cookery course
Ex7. Visiting a local food festival or event
**If Yes ->

Q8. Can you tell me your reasons of choosing that (these) activity (ies)? Please
also give the details of each activity you have done such as where and what you
did there.
424
**If No ->
Q8-1. Is there any reason you did not done any of these food-related activities?
8-1.1 What would make you to try any food-related activities in your next
trip to Thailand?
Q9. Do you have any preference for food when you on holiday abroad? (Familiar
to you or new to you?)
425
Section 3: Thailand image and revisit intention

Q10. How did you view Thailand before visiting this country?
Q11. Please give words best describe Thailand from your holiday experiences.
Q12. What do think will be your memories of your visit to Thailand after this trip
is over?
Q13. Do you plan to visit Thailand again in the future?

***If Yes ->
Q14. What are things that motivated you to plan to visit Thailand again?
(Are they any other factors?)
Q15. When will be your next visit?
Q16. In your next trip, which provinces in Thailand you plan to travel to?
Q17. What are main tourism activities you plan to do?
Probing:
17.1 Are you willing to get more experiences of local Thai food in your
next trip? (Are you willing to participate in any kinds of food-related tourism
activities in your next trip?)
***If No ->
Q14-1. Is there any reason you do not plan to visit Thailand again?
Q15-1. What would make you to visit Thailand again?
426
Section 4: Participant’s information

1. What is your gender?
☐ Female ☐ Male
2. How old are you?
☐ 18 to 24 ☐ 25 to 34 ☐ 35 to 44
☐ 45 to 54 ☐ 55 and above
3. What is your household structure?
☐ Single ☐ Single with children

☐ Living with partner without children
☐ Living with partner with children
☐ Others (please specify) ________________________
4. What is your education level?
☐ High school ☐ College/Associated degree

☐ Undergraduate degree ☐ Postgraduate degree
5. What is your occupation?
__________________________________________
427
APPENDIX 7 INTERVIEW GUIDE AND QUESTIONS (JAPANESE VERSION)
1. ( )
2.
( )
3. ( )
4. P _ M C
Probing:
4.1 i
( i )
4.2 C ( )
4.3 C C ( )
5. M C (2 )
6. g C
( )
PIS( )
428
1. g
2. g
3.
4. o CM :
g g
5. g CM
M
6. _ ? :
7. gCM :
M
8. g
9. : : M
429
Q1. C
*** M
Q2. M C b g
Probing:
2.1 : C C C M
_ P r
2.2 C b
***
Q2-1. b
Probing:
2-1.1 : C C M
_ P
2-1.2 C b
Q3. P C C
Q4. P gC C
430
M i
g C C M
g M : M
:
Q5. M g M
CM
Probing:
5.1 P g C
5.2 P? C
r P CMP
5.3 g g
?
5.4 g M C
C C ? ?
5.5 g C
) * g M
431
Q6. M MP
: g ?
Q7. g C ? : b
C g M g CM
C r r M
g C
_ P M
g C :
g C
CM
Pg M M C
_ C C
r
M g g C
rr n : i
g C C
g C g
i C C
g r C C
_ r P
b ? g bC C
** C ? :
หาก “ใช่”
Q8. g C g M CM C
g M
432
** C ? :
Q8-1. g C
8-1.1 C g C
Q9. P :
433
3
Q10. ? gP M C
Q11. b g g
M CM g g M
Q12. : ?
Q13.
***
Q14. : CM
b
Q15.
Q16. P
Q17. C P
Probing:
17.1 M g
b
***
Q14-1. gC
Q15-1. C
434
1.
/ /
2.
/ 18 to 24 / 25 to 34 / 35 to 44
/ 45 to 54 / 55
3.
/ / :
/ :
/
/ ((((((((((((((((((((((((
4.
/ /
/ /
5.
__________________________________________
435
APPENDIX 8 INTERVIEW GUIDE AND QUESTIONS (THAI VERSION)
INTERVIEWER’S GUIDE AND QUESTIONS

Filter Question
1. คุณเป็นคนญี่ปุ่นใช่ไหม? (ถ้าไม่ใช่ จบการสัมภาษณ์)
2. คุณเดินทางมาประเทศไทยเพื่อการท่องเที่ยวพักผ่อนหรือเพื่อวัตถุประสงค์ทางธุรกิจ?
(ถ้าเพื่อทางธุรกิจ จบการสัมภาษณ์)
3. คุณอายุต่ํากว่า 18 หรือเปล่า? (ถ้าใช่ จบการสัมภาษณ์)
4. คุณมาเที่ยวด้วยวิธีไหน และมากับใคร?
Probing:
4.1คุณมาเที่ยวกับบริษัททัวร์หรือเที่ยวด้วยตนเอง?
(ถ้ามาแบบ PACKAGED TOUR จบการสัมภาษณ์)
4.2 ในทริปนี้มีเด็กมาท่องเที่ยวด้วยรึเปล่า? (ถ้าใช่ จบการสัมภาษณ์)
4.3 คุณมาท่องเที่ยวทริปนี้กับคู่รักคนไทยรึเปล่า? (ถ้าใช่ จบการสัมภาษณ์)
5. จนกระทั่งถึงตอนนี้ คุณพักอยู่ในเมืองไทยมากี่คืน? (2 คืนขึ้นไป)
6. ในการท่องเที่ยวครั้งนี้ คุณได้ทานอาหารไทยท้องถิ่นไปกี่ครั้งแล้ว? (ถ้าทานน้อยกว่า 6 ครั้ง จบการสัมภาษณ์)
ถ้าเงื่อนไขครบตามที่กําหนด ให้ผู้สัมภาษณ์อ่าน PIS และให้เซ็น Consent Form เพื่อยอมรับการถูกสัมภาษณ์
436
ขั้นตอนการแนะนําการสัมภาษณ์
1. ขอบคุณผู้ให้สัมภาษณ์ที่ให้ความร่วมมือในการสัมภาษณ์
2. แนะนําชื่อและตําแหน่งของผู้วิจัย
3. แจ้งว่าข้อมูลทั้งหมดจะถูกใช้เพื่อการทําวิทยานิพนธ์ปริญญาเอกและงานตีพิมพ์ที่เกี่ยวข้องเท่านั้น
4. เเจ้งว่าการสัมภาษณ์นี้มีวัตถุประสงค์ เพื่อค้นหาปัจจัยที่มีผลกระทบต่อความตั้งใจของนักท่องเที่ยว
ในการมากลับมาเที่ยวประเทศไทยซ้ํา ในฐานะที่ประเทศไทยเป็นจุดหมายปลายทางของการท่องเที่ยวเชิงอาหาร
5. เน้นว่า ข้อมูลส่วนตัวของผู้ให้สัมภาษณ์ทั้งหมดจะถูกเก็บไว้เป็นความลับ
และชื่อจริงของผู้ให้สัมภาษณ์จะไม่ถูกใช้ในการรายงานผลใดๆ ทั้งสิ้น ๆ
6. ผู้ให้สัมภาษณ์สามารถแจ้งได้ ถ้ารู้สึกไม่สบายใจ หรือไม่สะดวกที่จะตอบคําถามใด ๆ
7. เเจ้งว่ากําลังบันทึกเทปการสัมภาษณ์ แต่คุณสามารถบอกให้ผู้วิจัยหยุดการสัมภาษณ์ได้ตลอดเวลา
ถ้าไม่สะดวกจะให้สัมภาษณ์ต่อ
8. ให้โอกาสผู้สัมภาษณ์ในการถามคำถามก่อนเริ่มต้นการสัมภาษณ์
9. ถามผู้ให้สัมภาษณ์ว่า พร้อมที่จะเริ่มให้สัมภาษณ์รึยัง
437
ส่วนที่ 1: ประสบการณ์การท่องเที่ยว
Q1. คุณเคยมาเมืองไทยกี่ครั้งแล้ว ?
***ถ้ามาเที่ยวครั้งแรก ->
Q2. เนื่องจากคุณมาเมืองไทยครั้งแรก กรุณาให้เหตุผลที่คุณเลือกมาเที่ยวประเทศไทย
แทนที่จะไปเที่ยวประเทศอื่นๆ
Probing:
2.1 คุณคิดว่าอะไรคือสิ่งที่ดึงดูดให้คุณเลือกมาเที่ยวประเทศไทย? กรุณาให้รายละเอียดเพิ่มเติม (เช่น
โฆษณาตามสื่อต่างๆ รายการทีวี คอลัมน์ในแมกกาซีน เทศกาลอาหารไทยในประเทศญี่ปุ่น)
2.2 มีปัจจัยอื่นอีกหรือไม่ ที่ทําให้คุณเลือกมาเที่ยวเมืองไทย?
***ถ้ามาเที่ยวหลายครั้งแล้ว->
Q2-1. เนื่องจากคุณมาเที่ยวประเทศไทยมากกว่าหนึ่งครั้ง กรุณาให้เหตุผลที่คุณกลับมาเที่ยวประเทศไทยซ้ํา
แทนที่จะไปเที่ยวประเทศอื่นๆ
Probing:
2-1.1 คุณคิดว่าอะไรคือสิ่งที่ดึงดูดให้คุณกลับมาเที่ยวประเทศไทยซ้ํา? กรุณาให้รายละเอียดเพิ่มเติม (เช่น
ประสบการณ์ดีๆ ที่น่าจดจํา, อาหารไทย)
2-1.2 มีปัจจัยอื่นอีกหรือไม่ ที่ทําให้คุณกลับมาเที่ยวเมืองไทยซ้ํา?
Q3. ในการท่องเที่ยวครั้งนี้ คุณไปเที่ยวจังหวัดไหนในประเทศไทยมาเเล้วบ้าง?
Q4. จนกระทั่งถึงตอนนี้ คุณทํากิจกรรมท่องเที่ยวใด มาแล้วบ้าง?
438
ส่วนที่ 2: ประสบการณ์อาหารท้องถิ่น
ความหมาย: อาหารไทยท้องถิ่น คือ อาหารหรือเครื่องดื่มไทยที่ถูกผลิตในท้องถิ่น
และมีเอกลักษณ์ที่บ่งบอกความเป็นไทย หรือผลิตภัณฑ์อาหารไทยที่มีลักษณะพิเศษของท้องถิ่นนั้นๆ
อย่างไรก็ตาม วัตถุดิบหรือส่วนผสมที่ใช้ผลิตอาหารไทยท้องถิ่น สามารถนําเข้ามาจากต่างประเทศได้เช่นกัน
(ตัวอย่างเช่น เมล็ดยี่หร่าที่ใช้ในเครื่องแกงมัสมั่น นําเข้ามาจากอินโดนีเซีย)
Q5.กรุณาเล่าเกี่ยวกับประสบการณ์อาหารไทยท้องถิ่นในการเที่ยวประเทศไทยครั้งนี้ของคุณ
ให้มากที่สุดเท่าที่คุณจําได้
Probing:
5.1 คุณเคยลองทานอาหารไทยท้องถิ่นจานใด มาแล้วบ้าง?
5.2 คุณทานอาหารไทยท้องถิ่นเหล่านั้น ที่ไหน? (ตามทางเท้า/ร้านอาหารเล็กๆ

ริมถนน/ศูนย์อาหาร/ร้านอาหารแบบหรูหรา/ที่ไหนที่คุณมักเลือกทานอาหารเหล่านั้น?)
5.3 คุณคิดว่า อะไรคือเหตุผล ที่คุณเลือกทานอาหารไทยท้องถิ่นเหล่านั้น?

(คุณพิจารณาว่า อะไรคือสิ่งที่สําคัญ ที่ทําให้คุณเลือกทานอาหารไทยท้องถิ่นเหล่านั้น?)
5.4 คุณรู้สึกอย่างไร เมื่อทานอาหารไทยท้องถิ่นเหล่านั้น? (เช่น คุณชอบอาหารเหล่านั้นหรือไม่?/

มีอะไรที่คุณชอบและอะไรที่คุณไม่ชอบบ้างไหม?)
5.5 ในภาพรวม คุณพึงพอใจกับประสบการณ์อาหารไทยท้องถิ่นของคุณ ในการท่องเที่ยวไทยครั้งนี้ไหม?

(Probing: กรุณาบอกเหตุผลที่ทําให้คุณพึงพอใจ?)
439
Q6. คุณมีความคิดเห็นอย่างไรบ้าง เกี่ยวกับความสําคัญของอาหารไทยท้องถิ่น ต่อการมาเที่ยวประเทศไทยของคุณ

(คุณคิดว่า การทานอาหารไทยท้องถิ่น คือสิ่งจําเป็นที่นักท่องเที่ยวควรจะทําเมื่อมาเที่ยวประเทศไทยรึเปล่า?)
Q7. คุณเคยทํากิจกรรมการท่องเที่ยวเชิงอาหารเหล่านี้ ในประเทศไทยหรือไม่?

7Ex1. เดินทางไปพื้นที่ใดพี้นที่หนึ่งโดยเฉพาะ เพื่อที่จะทดลองชิมอาหารไทยท้องถิ่นหลากหลายอย่างด้วยตัวคุณเอง
เช่น เดินทางไปซอยคอนแวนต์ในกทม. เพื่อลองทานอาหารข้างทางหลากหลายชนิด
Ex2. เดินทางไปพื้นที่ใดพี้นที่หนึ่งโดยเฉพาะ หรือเพิงอาหาร รถเข็นขายอาหาร

ร้านอาหาร เพื่อที่จะทานอาหารไทยท้องถิ่นที่มีชื่อเสียงโด่งดังของที่แห่งนั้นด้วยตัวคุณเอง
เช่น เดินทางไปร้านทิพย์สมัย เพื่อทานผัดไทยที่มีชื่อเสียงโด่งดังของร้าน
Ex3. เลือกซื้อผลิตภัณฑ์อาหารไทยท้องถิ่น หรือส่วนผสม/เครื่องปรุง/เครื่องเทศ และนํากลับไปยังญี่ปุ่น

เพื่อเป็นของฝากหรือเพื่อใช้ในการปรุงอาหารไทยด้วยตนเอง
Ex4. เดินทางไปเยี่ยมชมแหล่งผลิตอาหาร/เครื่องดื่มไทยท้องถิ่น เช่น เดินทางไปเยี่ยมชมคลองขนมหวาน

ที่จ.นนทบุรี เพื่อชมการสาธิตทําขนมไทย หรือเดินทางไปเยี่ยมชมโครงการอัมพวา ชัยพัฒนานุรักษ์
ที่จ.สมุทรสงคราม เพื่อชมการสาธิตทําน้ําตาลมะพร้าว
Ex5. เลือกใช้บริการทัวร์พาชิมอาหารไทยท้องถิ่น หรือทัวร์พาเลือกซื้ออาหารไทยท้องถิ่น
Ex6. เรียนการทําอาหารไทยท้องถิ่นกับโรงเรียนสอนทําอาหารไทย
Ex7. เยี่ยมชม และหรือ เลือกซื้ออาหารไทยท้องถิ่น ในเทศกาลอาหารหรือการแข่งขันทําอาหาร
**ถ้าทํากิจกรรมใด กิจกรรมหนึ่ง->
Q8. กรุณาบอกเหตุผลในการเลือกทํากิจกรรมนั้นๆ พร้อมทั้งบอกรายละเอียดของแต่ละกิจกรรมที่ทํา
รวมถึงสถานที่ๆ คุณทํากิจกรรมนั้นๆ
440
**ถ้าไม่ได้ทํากิจกรรมใดๆ ->
Q8-1 เพราะเหตุใด คุณจึงไม่เลือกที่จะทํากิจกรรมท่องเที่ยวเชิงอาหาร?
8-1.1 ถ้าคุณได้กลับมาเที่ยวประเทศไทยอีกครั้ง
คุณคิดว่าอะไรจะคือสิ่งที่สามารถชักจูงให้คุณทํากิจกรรมท่องเที่ยวเชิงอาหาร?
Q9. เมื่อคุณท่องเที่ยวในต่างประเทศ คุณชอบที่จะทานอาหารที่คุ้นเคย หรืออาหารที่แปลกใหม่สําหรับคุณ?
ส่วนที่ 3: ภาพพจน์ประเทศไทยและความตั้งใจในการกลับมาท่องเที่ยวซ้ํา
Q10. ก่อนที่คุณจะเดินทางมาเที่ยวประเทศไทย คุณเคยมองประเทศไทยเป็นอย่างไร?
Q11. จากประสบการณ์ท่องเที่ยวประเทศไทยของคุณ กรุณายกคําต่างๆ (อย่างน้อย 3 คํา)

ที่คุณคิดว่าสามารถใช้บรรยายประเทศไทยได้ดีที่สุด พร้อมอธิบายเหตุผล
Q12. หลังจากทริปนี้จบ คุณคิดว่าอะไรจะเป็นสิ่งที่คุณจะจดจํา สําหรับการท่องเที่ยวประเทศไทยของคุณในครั้งนี้?
Q13. คุณมีการวางแผนที่จะกลับมาเที่ยวประเทศไทยอีกครั้งรึเปล่า?
***ถ้าจะกลับมา ->
Q14. อะไรคือสิ่งที่เป็นแรงบันดาลใจ ให้คุณวางแผนที่จะกลับมาเที่ยวประเทศไทยอีกครั้ง? (มีปัจจัยอื่นๆ
อีกรึเปล่า?)
Q15. คุณวางแผนที่จะกลับมาเที่ยวประเทศไทยอีกเมื่อไหร่?
Q16. ในการเที่ยวประเทศไทยครั้งต่อไปของคุณ คุณวางแผนจะไปเที่ยวจังหวัดไหน?
Q17. คุณวางแผนที่จะทํากิจกรรมท่องเเที่ยวหลักๆ อะไรบ้าง?
441
Probing:
17.1 ในการท่องเที่ยวประเทศไทยครั้งถัดไป คุณตั้งใจที่จะเปิดรับประสบการณ์อาหารไทยท้องถิ่นให้มากขึ้นรึไม่?
(สนใจทํากิจกรรมท่องเที่ยวเชิงอาหารหรือไม่?)
***ถ้าจะไม่กลับมา ->
Q14-1. เพราะเหตุใด คุณถึงไม่วางแผนที่จะกลับมาเที่ยวประเทศไทยอีกครั้ง?
Q15-1. คุณคิดว่าอะไรคือสิ่งที่จะทําให้คุณกลับมาเที่ยวประเทศไทยอีกครั้ง?
ส่วนที่ 4: ข้อมูลของผู้ให้สัมภาษณ์
1. กรุณาระบุเพศของคุณ
☐ หญิง ☐ ชาย
2. คุณอายุเท่าไหร่?
☐ 18 - 24 ☐ 25 - 34 ☐ 35 - 44
☐ 45 - 54 ☐ 55 ขึ้นไป
3. ลักษณะโครงสร้างครอบครัวของคุณเป็นแบบไหน?
☐ โสด ☐ โสด แต่อาศัยอยู่กับบุตร
☐ อาศัยอยู่กับคู่รัก แต่ไม่ได้อยู่กับบุตร
☐ อาศัยอยู่กับคู่รัก และอยู่กับบุตร
☐ อื่นๆ (กรุณาระบุ) ________________________
4. คุณจบการศึกษาสูงสุด ในระดับใด?
☐ มัธยมศึกษาตอนปลาย ☐ ประกาศนียบัตรวิชาชีพ/อนุปริญญาหรือเทียบเท่า
☐ ปริญญาตรี ☐ ปริญญาโทขึ้นไป
5. อาชีพของคุณ คืออะไร
__________________________________________
442
APPENDIX 9 EXAMPLES OF TRANSCRIPTS
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
Transcript 05 (Ms. V & Mr. T)
Date 12 Nov 16
Location Taling Chan Floating Market
British/Female/25-34/Living with partner without children
/Undergraduate/Primary school teacher
British/Male/25-34/Living with partner without children
/College/Associated degree/Chef
Q. Thank you very much for your kind participation in the interview. My
name is Tharn, I’m a PhD researcher in Hospitality and Tourism Management,
University of Surrey. The aim of the interview is to explore factors affecting
tourists’ intention to revisit Thailand as a culinary tourism destination. All data
will be treated confidentially and anonymous and will be used as part of PhD
thesis and publications arising from it only.
A1. That’s fine.
Q. The conservation is being digitally recorded but you can ask me to stop it
at anytime if you wish to do so. Do you have any questions before I start?
A1. No.
Q. Shall we start now?

A1. All right.
Q. How many times have you visit Thailand before?

A1. None. This is my first visit.
CATEGORY = REASONS TO VISIT
Q. As this is your first visit, can you explain your reasons for choosing to visit
A1. Wow, good question. The food- 1st MAIN THEME = THAI FOOD
A2. Yea, the food, yea.
443
SUB-THEME OF WOM FROM FRIENDS
A1. Yea, and people. Umm… everybody came all the way say all Thai people’re
so lovely, so friendly and they’re right, so right.
Q. Can I call it’s words of mouth?
A1. Yeah 2nd MAIN THEME = WOM FROM FRIENDS
Q. From whom?
A1. Our friends
Q. You said food is a reason of visiting Thailand. Does it mean you had Thai
food before coming here?
A1. Yeah, in UK.
Q. Which part of UK?

A2. Southwest, Cornwall
Q. A town in Cornwall?
A2. Yes, we live there.
Q. How many Thai restaurants there?

A2. Yea, quite a few.
A1. You know. We live in a very small town and there-
A2. Three.
A1. Yea, three and there’re a very small town, you see.
Q. Right. What are things that encouraged you to come to Thailand? And
things else like advertisements on TV or magazine, or a Thai festival you have
visited?
A1. I don’t think so, No.
A2. No, no I don’t think so.
Q. Have you ever attended a Thai food festival in UK?

A1. No [affirmative], no. Where like Cornwall where we live is really cut off
from the rest of England, as it’s all small places. It’s not like Birmingham or
444
Manchester where I imagine that sorts of things are happening. Yea, yeah, it’s
much smaller.
A2. Yea, yeah.
Q. I see. Which provinces in Thailand have you been to on this trip?

A1. So far just Bangkok, yeah.
Q. Do you plan to go to any other provinces?

A1. Yeah, umm… where’re we going?
A2. We’re going to Chiang Mai-
A1. And we’re going to Ayutthaya-
A2. The islands
Q. Are you going down to the islands in South?

A1. Yea
Q. Is that Phi Phi or Phuket or-?

A1. I don’t know we’re going to either though.
A2. We booked a further service down to Koh Libong and Koh Mook.
Q. What’re your reasons to choosing to go to both islands?

A2. I think where like Krabi, Phuket or Phi Phi is a bit touristy, too many
westerners, so, and it’s very expensive. So, we probably won’t go to those
particular ones and it will be the lesser-known ones like Koh Libong and Koh
Mook and maybe Koh Lanta.
Q. So, it means you like the places that is, unspoilt, not so touristy.
A. Yeah (Both A1 & A2).
Q. That’s a good idea. So, What tourism activities have you done so far in
Bangkok?
A1. Umm…a cooking course, yeah.
Q. Oh, great! Anything else?
445
A1. Umm.. We’ve mixed it. We’ve gone to a Buddha day, the other day, wasn’t
it? So, we went and saw Buddha and Buddhist temples.
Q. Have you been to the Royal Palace?

A1. Not yet, we’re going there in January, my mom, we’re away for year, so
we’re going to other countries then we’ll come back to do the Royal Palace and
Wat Arun…What’s it called?
A2. Yea, that’s right.
Q. Have you been to a temple near the Royal Palace, Wat Pho?
A2. Not yet, no.
A1. Not really. We just went to see a Big Buddha, Happy Buddha and…
A2. That’s it. That was it, Happy Buddha and Big Buddha.
Q. You said you are away from work for a year to travel?
A1. Yea, in Asia, not just in Thailand.
Q. Which countries do you plan to go next?

A1. Cambodia, Vietnam, back to Thailand, Philippines, New Zealand, Sri
Lanka, and Borneo, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia and maybe India or South
America, I don’t know yet.
Q. It’s very long trip.

A1. Yeah [Laugh]
Q. That’s amazing! Will your mother come to Thailand in January?

A1. Yea, she will join our trip here.
Q. I see. Let’s move to the next section about local food experiences
A1. Oh, wow.
Q. The definition of local Thai food in my research context is food and

beverages that are locally produced and has a local Thai identity or sold as local
446
Thai specialties. So, you can talk about any experiences you’ve had with local
food, beverages, and snacks, anything you want to talk about.
A1. Yea, OK.
Q. Can you tell me as much as you can recall about your local Thai food
A1. We obviously did the cooking course yesterday and that was five dishes,
and we learnt how to make, first of all, spicy shrimp soup. It was lovely. We
probably used too much chili but… [Laugh]
A2. [Laugh]
A1. We weren’t very good. Umm… what else’s we made… Pad Thai, and we
made green curry paste and then green curry and umm… what else’s we made,
mango sticky rice. That’s good, umm… so naughty, very sweet [Smile]. Umm…
A2. That’s all. Pad Thai, green curry, Tom Yum Kung-
A1. Minced chicken with basil and mango sticky rice
Q. Yea, all are five dishes.

A1. And we had a few Pad Thai because we ate Pad Thai at home. And we
know a few people who have been to Thailand and said “Oh! That’s just like the
one in Thailand’’, so….umm…But it’s not (affirmative). [Laugh]
A2. Yea, it’s different.
A1. It’s definitely different.
Q. It’s different from the one you have in UK?

A1. Yea, definitely but it’s a good thing. It’s as lovely.
Q. Which one you like?

A1. Both but for different reasons, the one at home is… err…
almost…umm…it’s hard to explain it. What’s it? Thinking about it’s wrong, you
know what I mean?
A2. Yea, it’s… I don’t know.
A1. It’s spicier at home.
A2. It’s spicier at home. Yea, yeah.
447
Q. Really? Spicier at home?
A2. Yea but it’s sweeter here.
A1. Yea, yea.
A2. Lot sweeter. It’s a lot of sugar. It’s good. It’s good. It tastes really good.
A1. We had… we had...umm… Oh! I know it was very strange we saw one stall
selling what’s it said Pad Thai.
Q. Mm… hmm (Affirmative)

A1. But it’s literally just rice noodle with egg. That’s it and they called it Pad
Thai, yea.
A2. No…
A1. That was on Khao San Road.
Q. Oh, really. It’s quite strange.

A. Yea, yea [Laugh] (Both A1 & A2)
A2. I wouldn’t buy it. [Laugh]
Q. Khao San is a touristy area, so they might adjust food to what they think
it’s appropriate to Westerners but actually it’s not.
A. Yea, yea [Laugh] (Both A1 & A2)
A1. We had a pork dish, sour pork, umm…which we’re quite nervous to eat
because the pork at first it looked raw because it was pink. It was just the whole
thing. So, then I was like ‘’Oh, gosh’’.
Q. Oh, I know what’s it. It’s a kind of Northern Thai sausage. It’s actually
made from raw pork and pork skin and marinated with rice, chilli and garlic
giving sour taste. We slice it and eat it raw by mixing with shallot, ginger and
peanut. I really like this kind of sausage but I eat this dish only at home as I can
choose the gamma-radiated one, which the parasites and germs in the pork are
killed. Anyway, do you have it in salad?
A1. No, we had it in rice.
448
Q. Oh, yea, yeah. It is also put in fried rice and it’s cooked. It’s actually one of
my favorite-fired rice. [Smile]
A2. Yes it was nice but I wasn’t. We wouldn’t have it again.
Q. How was it tastes?

A1. It was sour, almost smoked.
A2. It’s some chilli inside and I smelled of herbs. There were some vegetables
in fried rice and it was a bowl of soup on the side.
A1. The rice and the soup were good.
Q. That’s definitely the sausage I told you. Where did you have it?
A2. In Bangkok, it was under bridge. You know, Rama the Ninth Bridge. It’s
the big one.
Q. Yeah
A1. It was underneath there. We ate in there.
Q. Is it a restaurant or on street?
A1. It’s a restaurant.
Q. So, do you really dislike it?

A1. Umm…it was ok but we wouldn’t eat it again. No, I wouldn’t choose it.
A2. It was the worst food we had so far. [Laugh] But everything else’s been so
good.
Q. Did you get any food poisoning after having it?

A1. No, we wouldn’t puree but we’re just a bit “Shall we? Shall we?” [Laugh].
What else’s we been eating. That was awesome! [Pointed at the food she has just
had].
A2. That was really good.
A1. Oh! My goodness. Umm…yeah, really tasty. I don’t know what it was but it
was good.
449
Q. It’s a crispy egg crepe made from egg and flour stuffed with beansprout,
salted turnip, and grated coconut with palm sugar and the dipping is called
Ajard. It’s the same one served with Satay. It’s cucumber, chili, shallot in vinegar
and syrup.
A1. Yea, it’s nice.
Q. Do you normally have local Thai food on street or in restaurants?

A1. Both
Q. Which one is more often?

A1. Umm…we’ve done more on street? Or we’ve done both, haven’t we?
A2. Yea, we ate in both sites.
A1. Just depend what we fancy or what smells really good. [Laugh]
Q. So, it depends on your mood, right?

A. Yeah (Both A1 & A2)
Q. Does it mean you don’t have preference for street food?

A2. No, no.
Q. All right. What are your reasons to choose those local foods?
A1. We want to understand more about what other people here would eat
normally. So, yea, to get an idea of-
A2. Yea, we want authentic-
A1. Yea, experience. That’s a good word.
A2. That’s why we came somewhere like this.
Q. Some people said like street food is more authentic than restaurant food.
What do think about that?
A2. Umm…I think it’s…no, no. I think there are some restaurants, especially
around Khao San road where you can get Western food but we just walked
straight past those. To be honest, we wouldn’t eat on Khao San road or anywhere
450
like that. I swore we do eat under the bridge or somewhere just we thought that
would be…where locals eat.
Q. When you should the food to eat, do you mind about cleanliness or
hygiene?
A1. Err…it’s so clean, so clean
A2. Yea, everything
A1. Yea, it look likes the street vendor is really clean. Restaurant is so
miraculous. I wouldn’t worry at all.
A2. We would brave we saw somewhere that wasn’t clean, we wouldn’t eat
there.
A1. Yea, of course
A2. But we haven’t found somewhere like that.
A1. Yea, all were really, really good.
Q. Have you ever had local street food in other countries?

A2. We had lots in Sri Lanka.
Q. Was it clean or not?

A2. It’s good. It was completely different.
A1. Was it clean?
A2. No, no, no. Nowhere word clean. Nowhere near word clean.
Q. So, Thai street food is much better, right?

A1. Yea, you can trust it more.
A2. Yea, yeah, that’s all definitely.
Q. In total, are you satisfied with your local Thai food experiences on your
holiday?
A2. Absolutely, yeah.
A1. Yeah very much, we can have it more and more.
Q. Which one you prefer local Thai food here or Thai food in UK?
451
A2. It’s much better here when you come to Thailand you can get definitely
more varieties, new things like these you would never get eat in Thai
restaurants. You get your standard curries, green curry, red curry, yellow curry.
Q. How about the taste? Do you think they are different?

A1. Everyone we’ve met here is English or Western had said ‘‘damn! The
food’s really really spicy. Be careful!’’ But no, it doesn’t sound that.
A2. No, no. The only one that’s been spicy is the one that we made at the
cookery course, where she said five chilies in the soup is local standard-
A1. So, we did four. And I was just about I think five would be the way too hot
but four is fine.
A2. But we do like hot food, so but overall is better, absolutely.
A1. I think it’s less spicy here, huh?
A2. Yes, so far so far. [Laugh]
Q. Please tell me about any thought you have about the importance of local
Thai food when you go holiday in Thailand
A1. Well, local Thai food is a highlight of our Thailand trip. As we already told
you, we come here mainly because of the food.
A2. Massively, I am a chef at home.
Q. Oh! Really…
A2. Yea, so, it’s huge for me then and I think it was lovely to see-
A1. It’s essential for me as well, so learning about food is really good for-
A2. And also A1’s skin she got eczema and-
A1. Thai food’s so good for it. English food’s awful. It’s all processed and
rubbish but not here.
A2. We have to look at labels and everything to see whether she can eat it. But
in here everything is fine, pretty much.
A1. Yea, no problem.
A2. Everything is all right.
452
Q. How about in some places that you can’t find an English menu or you
don’t exactly know what’s inside, would you choose to eat in there?
A1. Yea, I tried it first.
Q. That’s cool because you are a chef.

A1. Yeah, definitely. [Laugh]
A2. Yea, when I wasn’t sure but everything he tried and he said it’s fine. It
would be fine. I mean I can’t have beef but not much beef here. I can’t have wheat
but it’s not much wheat here. Umm…I can’t have milk, butter and there’re not
much milk and butter here. So, you know. Everything is fine here.
Q. Yeah, so, Thai food really suits for you. [Smile]

A1. Yea, really good.
A2. Definitely.
Q. As you said before that you think that eating local Thai food can help you
to understand more what locals eat and how they live, right?
A1. Yeah, food is a big part of culture.
A2. Yea, definitely, local food is identity.
Q. You said that you have done a cookery course. What’re your reasons of
choosing to do this kind of activity?
A1. To learn for my personal benefit, to learn to teach others, to learn to cook-
A2. Yea, for my job.
A1. As a job. Yeah, so lots of reasons.
A2. Yeah and because we enjoyed it and we wanted to make it.
A1. And to me Thai people are really kind and to be able to ask about food in a
secured environment in where you feel silly that you can and they understand
you, yeah.
Q. Where did you do the cooking class?

A1. Silom. It’s Silom Thai cooking school. We saw in the Internet.
453
Q. Is it near Saladeang Skytrain station?
A1. Umm… It’s in Silom 13.
A2. It’s very good.
Q. Have you ever heard about other food-related tourism activities like a
walking and eating tour in Thailand?
A1. Yes, like a street food tour. Yea, I have heard but we just decided to go to a
cooking one, so…yeah.
Q. How about visiting a local food-producing place or attending a local food

festival or event?
A1. No, we’ve never heard about those.
A2. Where it it?
Q. For a local food-producing place, there are some local tours including
visiting a coconut palm sugar making demonstration in a province outside
Bangkok. You can actually search for information on Google and go there on your
own. There are some places but not a lot and not really promoted like Khlong
Kanom Waan (the Dessert Canal) in Nonthaburi where you can see how to make
Thai desserts.
A2. That sounds interesting.
A1. Yea, we’ve never heard about that.
Q. For a Thai food festival, there are a few held in other provinces like an
annual food festival such as the vegetarian food festival in Phuket. And there are
also a few occasionally popped up in a big department store in Bangkok and last
for a week, which normally include local food from different regions of Thailand
or local food from famous food areas. These are not actually promoted to
foreigners. It likes you can meet it by chance if you walk into a big department
store.
A. I see (Both A1 & A2)
454
Q. Do you have any plan to buy local food products as souvenirs or food
ingredients, herbs, spices to use at home?
A2. We are interested to buy some ingredients but not now as we are in a
very long trip.
A1. It would be wasted if we bought them now.
A2. Yea, we might come back here at the end of our trip to by them back
home.
Q. Do you have any preference for food when you on holiday abroad such as
food that is familiar to you or new to you?
A2. We do go for both. As A1 has eczema that is concerned about food allergy,
we normally go for familiar foods. But when we’re travelling, we also like to try
something we don’t know but could roughly guess what’s in it. As I told you
earlier, I would taste it first before letting A1 have it.
Q. What’s about strange foods like insects?

A2. We haven’t had it yet.
A1. We saw it on a street food cart at Khao San but there were only tourists
having it, not locals.
A2. We might have it somewhere that looks more hygienic but not in Khao
San.
Q. Well, let’s move to the section about Thailand image and your revisit
intention. How did you view Thailand before visiting this country?
A1. We had a bad experience in Sri Lanka with a local seller on street who
tried to chase us to buy their goods, even though we refused him at first. So, we
thought that there would be some here but it’s not.
A2. But it’s not here. Thai people are not. When we refused to buy, they just
walked away, no any chasing like that.
A1. Yea, so far we haven’t seen any.
Q. Is there any positive image?

A1. Yea [Laugh]. Lovely and friendly people, tasty food.
455
Q. Please give words best describe Thailand from your holiday experiences.
A2. Everything is awesome.
A1. Friendly people and tasty food
Q. What do think will be your memories of your visit to Thailand after this
trip is over?
A1. Food, people and Buddha
Q. Do you plan to visit Thailand again in the future?

A1. As I told you, we will be here till the day after tomorrow and fly to
Cambodia. Then, we’ll come back here in January to meet my mom and travel in
Bangkok.
A2. And then go to Chiang Mai, Ayutthaya, Koh Mook and Koh Libong.
Q. All right. How about the next Thailand trip after that planned one? When
do think it will be? 1ST SUB-THEME OF THAI FOOD
A2. Umm…we don’t know yet but we will definitely come back here to explore
more, of course more local food, and especially where we have never been to. We
like Thailand so much, especially Thai food. MAIN THEME = THAI FOOD
A1. We can’t tell yet when it would be because this is a very long trip, a year
for a whole.
CATEGORY = REVISIT INTENTION FACTORS
Q. I see. What are things that motivated you to plan to revisit Thailand?
A1. Food and friendly people we have met here.
Q. What are main tourism activities you plan to do when you are back in
January? 2ND SUB-THEME OF THAI FOOD
A1. We might do another cookery course in Chiang Mai.

A2. Because we know that you have regional foods, which differ in each part
of the country. So, we want to learn how to cook the Northern Thai food.
Q. Great! There are very few interviewees who know about this. Do you
want to know their differences in detail?
456
A1. Yes, of course if you can tell us.
Q. I’ll roughly explain it to you but you can find more detail from a website
that I’ll give you after the interview.
A2. Great!
Q. For example, the northern food tastes less spicy than the other regions as
it is influenced from Chinese, Lao and Myanmar cuisine, which the territories are
close. Less use of coconut milk but more variety of vegetables used because of
the cooler mountain climate. Similar to the northeastern, sticky rice is preferred
to white rice due to the influence from Laos and Myanmar. So, you can easily find
Som Tam, Laab and sticky rice in Northeastern. In contrast, southern Thai food
is normally spicier than food from other parts and more use of seafood from the
warm seas as its large part is located on a peninsula stretching down to Malaysia.
A2. Wow, it’s so fascinating.
A1. Yea, really interesting
Q. Well, that’s all. We have come to the end of the interview. Thank you very
much for your time.
A1. It’s our pleasure, dear.
A2. Nice to talk with you. Good luck for your study.
457
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
Transcript 08 (Mr. M & Ms. K)
Date 12 Feb 17
Location Taling Chan Floating Market
Japanese/Male/35-44/Single/High school /Self employed
Japanese/Female/35-44/Single/College/Associated degree/Employee
Q. First of all, I would like to say thank you for your kind participation in the
interview.
A. My pleasure
Q. You can call me Tharn, my nickname. I am Thai, studying PhD in

Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Surrey.
A. OK
Q. As stated in the participant information sheet, your information will be

used only for my PhD thesis and some publications arising from my thesis.
A. OK
Q. Please speak a bit louder as it’s quite lots of noise here.

[A train was passing]
A. Yeah. [Laugh]
Q. The conservation is being digitally recorded but please feel free to tell me
if you feel uncomfortable or want to stop the interview at anytime. Do you have
any questions before I start the interview?
A. No.
Q. Shall we start now?

A. All right.
Q. The first section is about your travel experiences.

A1. OK
458
Q. How many times have you visited Thailand before?
A1. This time is the 1st time.
Q. Can you explain your reasons for choosing to visit Thailand rather than
other countries?
A1. Thailand is safe to travel and I wanted to visit temples.
Q. Are there any reasons to visit Thai temples?

A1. I want to know Thai culture.
Q. Are there any other factors that motivated you to visit Thailand?
A1. I compared Thailand with other South East Asia countries such as Laos,
Cambodia… then I wanted to visit Thailand first rather than going to other
countries because here is safer and more interesting.
A2. Japan is an island country and quite far from here, so I wanted to visit
other countries, especially the mainland countries to see the differences from
Japan.
Q. How did you get the information about Thailand?

A1. From Internet and Guidebooks
Q. Are there any other factors that motivated you to visit Thailand?
A2. We had Thai food in Japan. It was so tasty, so I wanted to visit Thailand to
taste the real Thai food.
Q. Which provinces in Thailand have you been to on this trip?

A1. We have been to Bangkok and Ayutthaya. Only two provinces so far.
Q. Where have you been in Bangkok?

A1. Wat Pho, Wat Arun
A2. Khao San Road… the Royal Palace and its surrounding area.
Q. Where did you visit in Ayutthaya?
459
A2. I don’t know the names of the places. I only remembered that I went to a
temple having a big reclining Buddha.
Q. It’s Wat Lokayasutharam.

A2. Oh! It’s quite a long name. [Smile]
Q. Yes, it is.
Q. What tourism activities have you done so far?

A1. Visiting Temples, the Ayutthaya ruins. We took a local bus to go around,
not a taxi.
A2. We tried to do the same lifestyle as local people. [Smile]
Q. We are moving to the section 2. I’m going to ask you about your local food
experience. Firstly, I will give you the definition of local Thai food in my research
context. Local Thai Food is food and beverages that are locally produced and has
a local Thai identity or sold as local Thai specialties.
A1. [Nodded]
A2. I see.
Q. For examples, Pad Thai, noodle, papaya salad, Pad Ka Prao, green curry.
A2. Umm…
Q. Can you tell me as much as you can recall about your local Thai food
A1. Tom Yum Goong was so tasty. We also had Pad Thai and chicken & rice
soup.
Q. Where did you have those foods?

A1. Street food shops near Khao San road.
Q. What are your reasons to choose those foods?

A1. We like to dine in a street shop as it’s easy to order and uncomplicated, no
need to order many dishes like in restaurants.
460
Q. When you eat on street, are you concerned about the food safety?
A. Not so much [Both of A1 & A2].
Q. Does it mean you usually eat on street in this trip?

A1. Yes.
Q. How do you feel about eating those foods?

A2. I really like them.
A1. Yes, we like them very much.
Q. Is there any local Thai food you already tried but you dislike it?
A1. Nothing special
A2. No, so far. I like all dishes I tried.
Q. Is there any local Thai food you saw but you don’t want to try it?
A2. [Laugh]
A1. Insects
Q. What are your reasons of not trying insects?

A1. We don’t eat them in Japan.
A2. For me, bottled drinks and juices are much sweeter than the ones in Japan.
So, I am also afraid to buy snack and dessert in Thailand because it might be too
sweet for me.
Q. You already tried some but you dislike them, right?

A2. Yes, I bought them from a convenience store. Tea also. They were very
sweet.
Q. So, what kind of drinks do you normally have in this trip?

A2. Coconuts water and Sugar cane juice.
461
Q. Does it mean you prefer fresh juices with natural taste to the processed
ones sold in a convenience store?
A. Yes, I prefer the fresh juices! They are much tastier!
Q. In total, are you satisfied with your local Thai food experiences on your
holiday?
A1. Yes, they were very tasty. We like them very much. It’s pity that we can’t
have these tastes in Japan. When I’m back to Japan, I might not want to have Thai
food there. [Laugh]
Q. What are differences between local Thai food and Thai food sold in Japan?
A1. Local Thai food is more spicy and tastier.
A2. It makes me wonder the seasonings used may be different…
Q. Are the herbs used in Thai food are not fresh in Japan? Do they use the
dried ones?
A2. I don’t actually know…
A1. The taste is milder in Japan.
Q. Maybe the taste of Thai food in Japan is adjusted for Japanese?

A2. Yes, maybe.
A1. I think so.
Q. Please tell me about any thought you have about the importance of local
Thai food when you go holiday in Thailand.
A1. I think it’s necessary for tourists to try local Thai food.
Q. Can you explain your reasons?

A2. For me, when thinking of Thailand, 50% of my thought is of Thai food, as
it is unique and tasty. I feel good and enjoyable with Thai food.
Q. Any more reasons?
462
A1. The simple reason is that local Thai food in Thailand is tastier than Thai
food in Japan. After we had Thai food in Thailand, we don’t feel Thai food in
Japan is so tasty.
A2. I think I can learn some Thai culture and Thai lifestyle from Thai food,
especially at street food vendors where we can see when locals are cooking. So,
we can see what they are putting in the dish, how the food is cooked and
whether the food is fresh or not. In Japan, we generally don’t have street food
vendors, excepting in a festival.
Q. Does it mean you normally try to eat local food in a country you are on
holiday?
A1. Yes, we usually do that.
Q. Have you ever done any of food-related tourism activities in Thailand?

[Showed the list]
A2. Not yet for Ex1.
Q. What’s about the Ex2 buying some food souvenir?

A2. Now I am thinking to buy, but not yet….
Q. Do you have any specific ideas for the food souvenir?

A2. Now I am thinking. Which one do you recommend?
Q. Uhhhh, maybe some snack, dry fruits…mango, durian.

A2. Where can we buy pork skin? The crispy one in the clear plastic pack
Q. You can find crispy pork skin in MBK, JJ market, 7-11, any department stores
in their super markets …
Q. Have you ever tried it before?

A2. I have heard that it’s tasty. It’s sold in South East Asia, not in Japan. It is
dried before being flied, right? I want to bring it back home.
463
Q. It is actually Northern Thai food, so you can find them easily in local
markets and touristic areas in Chiang Mai, but not so easy like that in Bangkok.
A2. I see.
Q. Have you ever visited the local food-producing place or somewhere

showing how to produce a local food/beverage product?
A2. Never but I would love to visit them. I want to see how the food products
are made.
Q. Have you ever joined an eating and walking tour on this trip?
A2. No, Ohh, can we have it as a choice? I don’t know about it before.
Q. Yes, you can. I will tell you their web sites.

A2 Nice!
Q. Are you interested to attend a Thai food cooking class?

A2. Yes, very much indeed! I haven’t done it yet, maybe in our next trip.
Q. Have you ever been to Thai food festivals in Thailand?

A2. Never. We also don’t have a chance to go to the Thai festival in Japan.
Because I am living in Nagano prefecture, bit countryside, we don’t have a Thai
festival in countryside in Japan. It’s held in Tokyo, but it’s not easy to go from
where I live.
Q. What are your reasons of wanting to join a Thai food cooking class?
A2. Because I like Thai food. I also want to cook them by myself and then I can
cook for him and my friends. [Smile]
Q. For the food tour, what are your reasons of your interest?
A1. We want to eat local Thai foods that we haven’t tried it yet and it’s good to
have someone guiding us.
A2. Yes, yes.
464
Q. When you are on holiday abroad, do you prefer familiar food or new food?
A1. New food.
Q. You said you prefer new food. If the new food looks strange, will you try
it?
A1. I might want to try. I like challenging.
A2. Hahaha [laugh] but I’m not.
Q. Will you try to insects in your next trip?

A1. Yes, I want to try at least one time in my life.
A2. Hahaha [laugh]
Q. We are already in the last section. I’m going to ask you about Thailand
image and your revisit intention.
A2. Yes.
Q. How did you view Thailand before visiting this country?

A1. Religion…Buddhism
Q. Anything else?
A1. Very hot weather [Laugh].
Q. Have you ever heard about Thailand bad news?

A1. Yes, the explosion terrorism at Bangkok in 2015. So I was afraid a little bit.
Q. Did that situation make you feel afraid to visit Thailand at that time?
A1. Yes only that time and after the Thai Bhumibol King passed away, I
wonder how was the Thailand moving on…
Q. Did you have any negative image of Thailand?

A2. About prostitute women… but not so much like in the past…so long time
ago it was….
465
Q. Please give three words best describe Thailand from your holiday
experiences.
A1. Err… the religion, Buddhism
A2. Kindly people and…. tasty Thai food
Q. Can you give more detail of choosing the word “Buddhism”?

A1. Thai people have a strong belief in Buddhism. It’s much more than
Japanese people.
Q. Is it because there are many temples in Thailand? Or have seen many

people go to the temples?
A1. Buddhism is really in Thai people’s mind.
A2. We can see this everywhere in Thailand, so we can feel that Buddhism is
really in Thai people’s mind.
Q. What do think will be your memories of your visit to Thailand after this
trip is over?
A2. Near the Royal Palace, many volunteer people were working to cook
foods and give them to the people. We, travelers did not know so much about the
Bhumibol King who passed way, but they treated us the same way as local
people. So we felt so impressed and happy.
Q. Do you plan to visit Thailand again in the future?

A. Yes (Both A1 & A2)
Q. What are things that motivated you to plan to visit Thailand again?
A1. This trip was so short, just for 5 days. So, we want to stay longer next time
and we want to try local people’s lifestyle…. Like taking a train…
Q. Where do you plan to visit next time?

A2. I have been only in Bangkok and Ayutthaya, so I want to visit Chiang Mai.
Q. By trains?
466
A1. Yes
Q. These days we have new and modern trains to Chiang Mai.

A2. Really? Great!
Q. When will be your next visit?

A1. As soon as possible
Q. This year? Or Next year?

A1. If possible, by this year.
Q. What are main tourism activities you plan to do?

A1 I want to take a train, visit local markets and drive a car.
Q. You said you want to try a cooking class, right?

A2. Of course
Q. Are you willing to gain more experience of local Thai food?

Q. Do you plan to try Northern Thai food in your next trip?

Q. Do you know that local Thai food is different depending on the regions?
A2. We know some but not so much.
Q. Actually, the local food from different regions is not the same. For
example, the northern food tastes less spicy than the other regions as it is
influenced from Chinese, Lao and Myanmar cuisine, which the territories are
close. Less use of coconut milk but more variety of vegetables used because of
the cooler mountain climate. Similar to the northeastern, sticky rice is preferred
to white rice due to the influence from Lao and Myanmar cuisine.
A2. Oh… really? I see.
467
Q. We have covered all the questions. Thank you very much.
A. My pleasure (Both A1 & A2).
468
APPENDIX 10 PRE-TEST QUESTIONNAIRE
QUESTIONNAIRE
Good morning/afternoon, I am a PhD researcher at University of Surrey, UK. I am currently conducting a
study on “factors affecting tourists’ intention to revisit Thailand as a culinary tourism destination”. I am very
interested in your opinion. Do you have a few minutes to answer some questions for me? All information
obtained will be treated as strictly confidential and will be used for academic purposes only. Thank you very
much for dedicating your time to complete this survey.
Nuttanuch Issariyakulkarn, PhD Researcher
(i) Are you a British or a Japanese tourist visiting Thailand?
1 British 2 Japanese 0 Other nationalities – end of questionnaire
(ii) Are you over 18?

1 Yes 0 No – end of questionnaire
(iii) Are you visiting Thailand for pleasure or business purposes?

1 Pleasure 0 Business – end of questionnaire
2 Combined business and pleasure
(iv) Who are you travelling with?

1 Travel Alone 0 Travelling in a packaged tour – end of questionnaire
2 With boyfriend/girlfriend 0 With Thai partner – end of questionnaire
0 With family/friends (with children) – end of questionnaire
3 With family/friends (without children)
(v) Have you eaten local Thai food 6 meals plus during this trip?
1 Yes – please go to the next question 0 No – end of questionnaire
Q1. How important are the following criteria in the choice of Very Neutral Very
your travel destination? Unimportant Important
1. Experiencing a different culture 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Local crafts and handiwork 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Local cuisine and new food 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Interesting and friendly local people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. Opportunity to see or experience people from different ethnic
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
backgrounds
6. Opportunity to see or experience unique native groups 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Opportunity to increase your knowledge about places, people,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
and things
8. Variety of things to see and do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Visiting a place you can talk about when you get home 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
469
Q2. Is this your first visit to Thailand?
1 Yes 2 No – number of previous visit(s): _________________
Never Occasionally Very

Q3. How often have you visited Thailand …
Many Times
1. In the last three years? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. In the last ten years? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q4. In total, how many nights will you spend in Thailand on this trip? ___________ nights
Q5. How would you describe the image that you had of Thailand before your first visit?
Highly Neutral Highly
Unfavourable Favourable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q6. Please state the extent to which you agree with each of Strongly Neutral Strongly
the following statements Disagree Agree
1. An opportunity to experience local Thai food in Thailand was
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
important in my decision to visit/revisit Thailand this time.
2. I think Thai food was familiar to me prior to my visit this time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. I am constantly sampling new and different foods. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. If I don’t know what is in a food, I won’t try it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I like foods from different countries. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. At dinner parties, I will try a new food. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. I am afraid to eat things I have never had before. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. I like to try new ethnic restaurants 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. I don’t think much about food each day. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Talking about what I ate or am going to eat is something I like
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
to do.
9. Compared with other daily decisions, my food choices are not
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
very important.
10. When I travel, one of the things I anticipate most is eating
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
the food there.
11. When I eat out, I don’t think or talk much about how the food
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
tastes.
12. I do most or all of my own food shopping. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
470
*The definition of local Thai food here is all food and beverages that are locally produced and
has a local Thai identity or sold as local Thai specialties. (e.g. Pad Thai, Papaya Salad, Tom Yum
Goong, Khao Mun Gai and other regional Thai dishes such as Khao Soi and Crab Curry)
Q8. Please state the extent to which you agree with each of
Strongly Neutral Strongly
the following statements regarding your local Thai food
Disagree Agree
experiences during your holiday in Thailand
1. Local Thai food is tastier than Thai food in my home country. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Local Thai food has more aroma than Thai food in my home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
country.
3. It is important to me that local Thai food I eat looks nice. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I don’t eat things that are not eaten in my culture. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. Local Thai food is better value for money than Thai food in my
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
home country.
6. In Thailand, street food is better value for money than
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
restaurant food.
7. Local Thai food has more variety of dishes than Thai food in
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
my home country.
8. Eating local Thai food is part of my travel/holiday experience.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Eating local Thai food is an opportunity to try new and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
different food.
10. Local Thai food is food that differ to what I eat everyday.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Tasting local Thai food gives me an opportunity to increase
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
my knowledge about Thai culture.
12. Tasting local Thai food enables me to see how Thai people
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
live.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
authentic/traditional/real Thai food.
14. Tasting local Thai food is an experience that I can’t have in
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
my home country.
15. It is important to me to eat local Thai food in where locals
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
eat, not tourists.
16. I eat strange local Thai food as I can say that I have done it.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. I often have local Thai food in where recommended by media
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(e.g. travel guidebook/Internet/TV)
18. I like to take pictures of local Thai food to show friends.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. Local Thai food is healthy food and natural produce.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. Local Thai food contains more fresh ingredients than Thai
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. Local Thai food contains more natural contents than Thai
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. I have local Thai food in where is recommended by my
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
friends/family.
23. I have local Thai food in where is recommended by locals
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
that the food is nice.
471
24. I have local Thai food in where is tourist-friendly. (e.g. with
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
English menu/meal pictures/English speaking staff)
25. I am willing to try any local Thai food as long as it’s hygienic.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
26. When I eat on the street in Thailand, I emphasise on eating in
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
where that is fairly clean.
27. I don’t eat street food in Thailand because it is not safe to eat.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
28. I often have local Thai food on street when I want a quick
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
stop or am short of time.
29. I think that a busy local eating-place provides nice local Thai
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
food.
Q9. During your holiday in Thailand, have you ever done any of the following food-related
tourism activities?
1 Going to a particular area/market for tasting a variety of local Thai foods on my own such as
going to eat street foods in Bangrak, Bangkok
2 Visiting a specific food stall, food cart, café, or restaurant to eat its own famous local Thai
dishes on my own such as going to Thip Samai restaurant to eat its legendary Pad Thai.
3 Visiting a local food festival/event and tasting a variety of local Thai foods on my own
4 Purchasing local food products/ingredients back home as a souvenir for friends/family or
for own use
5 Experiencing a local Thai food/beverage - producing place such as visiting Amphawa
Chaipattana Nurak Conservation Project, Samutsongkram to see how to make a coconut palm
sugar.
6 Participating in a street food tour/local food tour 7 Attending a Thai cookery course
8 Others – please specify: __________________________ 0 None
Q10. How would you describe the overall quality of your local Thai food experience in
Thailand this time?
Very Neutral Very
Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q11. How important has your local Thai food experience been to your overall experience
in Thailand this time?
Very Neutral Very
Unimportant Important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q12. How would you describe the overall quality of your stay in Thailand this time?
Very Neutral Very
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
472
1. I want to revisit Thailand for holiday in the future. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I hope to revisit Thailand for holiday in the future. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. My wish to revisit Thailand for holiday in the future can be

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
described desirably.

Q14. Within next three years, …
Disagree Agree
1. I will make an effort to revisit Thailand for holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I intend to revisit Thailand for holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I will certainly invest time and money to revisit Thailand for

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
holiday.
4. I am willing to revisit Thailand for holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q15. Within next ten years, …
Disagree Agree
1. I will make an effort to revisit Thailand for holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I intend to revisit Thailand for holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I will certainly invest time and money to revisit Thailand for

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
holiday.
4. I am willing to revisit Thailand for holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q16. I think that revisiting Thailand for holiday is …
Disagree Agree
1. Positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Beneficial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Valuable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Necessary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Extremely Neutral Extremely

Q17. Revisiting Thailand would enable me to …
Unlikely Likely
1. Experience more local Thai food 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Participate in any food related tourism activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Have new & different travelling experience 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Experience different/interesting culture 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
473
5. Meet friendly people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Visit friends and relatives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Experience nature/natural attractions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Travel with cheap prices/budget 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Have an easy and convenient trip on the whole 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. Experience a variety of places and activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Connect flights to other South-east Asian countries 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Neutral Very

Q18. For me, revisiting Thailand …
1. To experience more local Thai food is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. To participate in any food related tourism activities is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. To have new & different travelling experience is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. To experience different/interesting culture is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. To meet friendly people is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. To visit friends and relatives is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. To experience nature/natural attractions is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. To travel with cheap prices/budget is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. To have an easy and convenient trip on the whole is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. To experience a variety of places and activities is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. To connect flights to other South-east Asian countries is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q19. Most people who are important to me …
Disagree Agree
1. Support that I revisit Thailand for holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Understand that I revisit Thailand for holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Agree with me about revisiting Thailand for holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Recommend revisiting Thailand for holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
474
Q20. The following people would approve Strongly Neutral Strongly
or disapprove of me revisiting Thailand Disapprove Approve
1. Family 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q21. The likelihood of me listening to

what the following people say about my
Unlikely Likely
revisit to Thailand is
1. Family 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. I am capable of revisiting Thailand for holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I am confident that if I want, I can revisit Thailand for holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I have resources (money) to revisit Thailand for holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I have enough time to revisit Thailand for holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q23. Revisiting Thailand is difficult for me because
Disagree Agree
1. The travel cost is expensive. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Thailand is very far away to visit. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I do not have enough time to travel. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I do not have enough information about Thailand.

(e.g. Travel guidebook, Magazines, TV programmes, Thai 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
festivals in my country)
Q24. To what extent would the following influence your Strongly Neutral Strongly
decision to revisit Thailand for holiday? Disagree Agree
1. Travel cost 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Distance to Thailand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Enough time to travel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Information about Thailand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
475
Q25. If I succeed in achieving my goal of revisiting Thailand Not Neutral Very
for holiday… At All Much
1. I will be excited. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I will be glad. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I will be satisfied. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I will be happy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q26. If I fail in achieving my goal of revisiting Thailand for Not Neutral Very
holiday. At All Much
1. I will be angry. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I will be disappointed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I will be worried. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I will be sad. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Could you tell me something about you?

1. Your gender?
1 Female 2 Male
2. Your age?
1 18 to 24 2 25 to 34 3 35 to 44 4 45 to 54 5 55 and above
3. Your highest level of education?

1 High school or less 2 College/Associated degree
3 Undergraduate degree 4 Postgraduate degree
4. Your living arrangements?

1 Living alone 2 Living alone with children
3 Living with partner without children 4 Living with partner with children
5 Others - (please specify) _____________________________________
5. Your monthly household net income?

1 £750 or less 2 £751 - £1,250 3 £1,251 - £2,500
4 £2,501 - £5,000 5 £5,001 or above
6. Your current occupation? _________________________________________________
476
APPENDIX 11 PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH VERSION)
QUESTIONNAIRE
Good morning/afternoon, I am a PhD researcher at University of Surrey, UK. I am conducting a study on “factors
affecting tourists’ intention to revisit Thailand as a culinary tourism destination”. I am very interested in your opinion.
Do you have a few minutes to answer some questions for me? All information obtained will be treated as strictly
confidential and will be used for academic purposes only. You have the right to withdraw to this study at anytime
without giving a reason if you wish to do so. Thank you very much for your time in completing this survey.
PART A: GENERAL DESTINATION CHOICE
A1. How important are the following criteria in the choice of Very Neutral Very

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
backgrounds

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
and things
PART B: THAILAND AS A TOURIST DESTINATION
B1. Is this your first visit to Thailand?
B2-1. How many times have you visited Thailand in the last three years? ______ times
B2-2. How many times have you visited Thailand in the last ten years? _______ times
B3. In total, how many nights will you spend in Thailand on this trip? ___________ nights

B4. Before your first visit, …
1. How would you describe the overall image that you had of Thailand? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. How would you describe the overall image that you had of Thai food? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
B5. Please state the extent to which you agree with each of the Strongly Neutral Strongly
following statements Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
477
PART C: GENERAL FOOD PREFERENCE
C1. Please state the extent to which you agree with each of the following
statements regarding your general attitude towards food and level of
Disagree Agree
interest in food
8. Talking about what I ate or am going to eat is something I like to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Compared with other daily decisions, my food choices are not very important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. When I travel, one of the things I anticipate most is eating the food there. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. When I eat out, I don’t think or talk much about how the food tastes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART D: LOCAL THAI FOOD EXPERIENCES IN THAILAND

*The definition of local Thai food here is all food and beverages that are locally produced in Thailand and have a
local Thai identity or sold as local Thai specialties.
(e.g. Pad Thai, Papaya Salad, Tom Yum Goong, Thai Curries, Khao Mun Gai, and other regional Thai dishes such as
Khao Soi and Crab Curry)
D1. Please state the extent to which you agree with each of
the following statements regarding your local Thai food Strongly Neutral Strongly
experiences during your holiday in Thailand Disagree Agree
(N/A: There is no applicable answer)
1. Local Thai food is tastier than Thai food in my home country. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
country.
3. It is important to me that local Thai food I eat looks nice. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I don’t eat things that are not eaten in my culture. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
home country.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
restaurant food.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
my home country.
8. Eating local Thai food is part of my travel/holiday experiences.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
different food.
478
10. Local Thai food is food that differ to what I eat everyday.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Tasting local Thai food gives me an opportunity to increase
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
my knowledge about Thai culture.
12. Tasting local Thai food enables me to see how Thai people
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
live.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Tasting local Thai food is an experience that I can’t have in
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
my home country.
15. It is important to me to eat local Thai food in where locals eat,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not tourists.
16. I eat strange local Thai food (e.g. insects) as I can say that I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
have done it.
17. I often have local Thai food in places recommended by media.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(e.g. travel guidebook/magazine/Internet/TV)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. Local Thai food is healthy and natural produce.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. Local Thai food contains more fresh ingredients and natural
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
contents than Thai food in my home country.
21. I have local Thai food in places recommended to me by my
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
friends/family.
22. I have local Thai food in places recommended to me as nice
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
by locals.
23. I have local Thai food in places that are tourist-friendly.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(e.g. with English menu/meal pictures/English speaking staff)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
25. When I eat on the street in Thailand, I insist on eating in
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
places that are fairly clean.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
27. I often have local Thai food on the street when I want a quick
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
28. I think that a busy local eating-place provides nice local Thai
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
food.
More
D2: How often do you take part in the following food-related Three Than
Never Once Twice
tourism activities during your holiday in Thailand? Times Three
Times
1. Going to a particular area/market for tasting a variety of local
Thai foods on my own 1 2 3 4 5
(e.g. Going to eat street foods in Bangrak, Bangkok)
2. Visiting a specific food stall, food cart, café, or restaurant to eat its
own famous local Thai dishes on my own 1 2 3 4 5
(e.g. Going to Thip Samai restaurant to eat its legendary Pad Thai)
3. Visiting a local food festival/event and tasting a variety of local
1 2 3 4 5
Thai foods on my own
4. Purchasing local food products/ingredients back home as a
1 2 3 4 5
souvenir for friends/family or for own use
479
5. Experiencing a local Thai food/beverage - producing place
(e.g. Visiting Amphawa Chaipattana Nurak Conservation Project, 1 2 3 4 5
Samutsongkram to see how to make a coconut palm sugar)
6. Participating in a street food tour/local food tour 1 2 3 4 5
7. Attending a Thai cookery course 1 2 3 4 5
PART E: EXPERIENCE EVALUATION
E1. How would you describe the overall quality of your local Thai food experiences in Thailand this time?
Very Neutral Very
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
E2. How important have your local Thai food experiences been to your overall experiences in Thailand
this time?
Very Neutral Very
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
E3. How would you describe the overall quality of your stay in Thailand this time?
Very Neutral Very
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

E4. From your holiday experiences this time, …
1. How would you describe the overall image that you have of Thailand? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. How would you describe the overall image that you have of Thai food? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART F: REVISITING THAILAND FOR A HOLIDAY IN THE FUTURE
F1. Please state the extent to which you agree with each of the
following statements regarding your desire to revisit Thailand for a
Disagree Agree
holiday in the future
1. I want to revisit Thailand for a holiday in the future. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I hope to revisit Thailand for a holiday in the future. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
480
F2. For each timeframe, please state the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements
regarding your intention to revisit Thailand for a holiday.
Please use the following scale, from 1) Strongly Disagree … 4) Neutral … to 7) Strongly Agree.
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Within next three years, … Within next ten years, …
1. I will make an effort to revisit Thailand for a holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I intend to revisit Thailand for a holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I am willing to revisit Thailand for a holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F3. I think that revisiting Thailand for holiday is …
Disagree Agree
1. Positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Beneficial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Valuable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F4. Revisiting Thailand would enable me to …
Unlikely Likely
3. Have new & different travelling experiences 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Neutral Very

F5. For me, revisiting Thailand …
1. To experience more local Thai food is … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. To participate in any food related tourism activities is … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. To have new & different travelling experiences is … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. To experience different/interesting culture is … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. To meet friendly people is … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. To visit friends and relatives is … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
481
7. To experience nature/natural attractions is … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. To travel with cheap prices/budget is … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F6. Most people who are important to me …
Disagree Agree
1. Support my decision to revisit Thailand for a holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Understand the significance of revisiting Thailand for a holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Agree I should revisit Thailand for a holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Recommend revisiting Thailand for a holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F7. The following people would approve or disapprove Strongly Neutral Strongly
of me revisiting Thailand for a holiday Disapprove Approve
1. Family 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F8. The likelihood of me listening to what the following Extremely Neutral Extremely
people say about my revisit to Thailand for a holiday is Unlikely Likely
1. Family 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F9. Please state the extent to which you agree with each of the Strongly Neutral Strongly
1. I am confident that if I want, I can revisit Thailand for a holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I have resources (money) to revisit Thailand for a holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I have enough time to revisit Thailand for a holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F10. Revisiting Thailand for a holiday is difficult for me because …
Disagree Agree

(e.g. Travel guidebook, Magazines, TV programmes, Thai festivals in my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
country)
482
F11. To what extent would the following influence your decision to Strongly Neutral Strongly
revisit Thailand for a holiday? Disagree Agree
1. Travel cost 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F12. If I succeed in achieving my goal of revisiting Thailand for a Not Neutral Very
holiday… At All Much
2. I will be glad. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I will be happy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not Neutral Very

F13. If I fail in achieving my goal of revisiting Thailand for a holiday…
At All Much
3. I will be sad. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART G: PERSONAL INFORMATION
G1. Gender: 1 Female 2 Male
G2. Age group:

G3. Highest level of education:

1 Secondary or equivalent 2 Post-Secondary/College/Vocational or equivalent
G4. Living arrangements:

G5. Monthly household income (after tax):

1 £1000 or less 2 £1001 - £1,500 3 £1,501 - £2,500
4 £2,501 - £5,000 5 £5001 or above 0 Prefer not to say
G6. Current occupation: _________________________________________________
483
APPENDIX 12 PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE (JAPANESE VERSION)
QUESTIONNAIRE
( . . .
PART A:
A1.
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART B:
B1.
1 2 – : _________________
B2-1. 3 ? ______
B2-2. 10 ? _______
B3. ? ___________
B4. …
1. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
B5.
1.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
484
PART C:
C1.
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART D:
*
e.g
D1.
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.
7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.
9.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
485
11.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(e.g. / / / )
18. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23.
(e.g. / / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
)
24. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
25.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
26. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
27. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
28.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
,
D2:
1.
1 2 3 4 5
(e.g. , )
2.
1 2 3 4 5
(e.g. )
3. / 1 2 3 4 5
4. / .
1 2 3 4 5
486
5. /
(e.g. 1 2 3 4 5
)
6. 1 2 3 4 5
7. 1 2 3 4 5
PART E:
E1. . ?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
E2. . ?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
E3. . ?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
E4. . …
1. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART F:
F1. .
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
487
F2.
( / /
)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3 , … 10 , …
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F3. , …
1. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. . , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F4.
…
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F5. ,
1. … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. , … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
488
6. … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F6. …
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F7. …
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F8.
…
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F9. .
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F10. …
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(e.g. , , , )
489
F11. .
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F12. …
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F13. …
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART G:
G1. : 1 2
G2. :
1 18 ) 24 2 25 ) 34 3 35)44 4 45)54 5 55
G3. :
1 2
3 4
5 -( ) _____________________________________
G4 :
1 2
3 4
5 -( ) _____________________________________
G5. ( ):
1 ¥220,000 2 ¥220,001 - ¥300,000 3 ¥300,001 - ¥450,000
4 ¥450,001 - ¥750,000 5 ¥750,001 0
G6. : _________________________________________________
490
APPENDIX 13 MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH VERSION)
QUESTIONNAIRE
Good morning/afternoon, I am a PhD researcher at University of Surrey, UK. I am conducting a study on “factors
affecting tourists’ intention to revisit Thailand as a culinary tourism destination”. I am very interested in your opinion.
Do you have a few minutes to answer some questions for me? All information obtained will be treated as strictly
confidential and will be used for academic purposes only. You have the right to withdraw to this study at anytime
without giving a reason if you wish to do so. Thank you very much for your time in completing this survey.
PART A: GENERAL DESTINATION CHOICE
A1. How important are the following criteria in the choice of Very Neutral Very

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
backgrounds

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
and things
PART B: THAILAND AS A TOURIST DESTINATION
B1. Is this your first visit to Thailand?
B2-1. How many times have you visited Thailand in the last three years including this time? ______ times
B2-2. How many times have you visited Thailand in the last ten years including this time? _______ times
B3. In total, how many nights will you spend in Thailand on this trip? ___________ nights

B4. Before your first visit, …
1. How would you describe the overall image that you had of Thailand? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. How would you describe the overall image that you had of Thai food? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
B5. Please state the extent to which you agree with each of the Strongly Neutral Strongly
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
491
PART C: GENERAL FOOD PREFERENCE
C1. Please state the extent to which you agree with each of the following
statements regarding your general attitude towards food and level of
Disagree Agree
interest in food
8. Talking about what I ate or am going to eat is something I like to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Compared with other daily decisions, my food choices are not very important. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. When I travel, one of the things I anticipate most is eating the food there. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. When I eat out, I don’t think or talk much about how the food tastes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART D: LOCAL THAI FOOD EXPERIENCES IN THAILAND

*The definition of local Thai food here is all food and beverages that are locally produced in Thailand and have a
local Thai identity or sold as local Thai specialties.
(e.g. Pad Thai, Papaya Salad, Tom Yum Goong, Thai Curries, Khao Mun Gai, and other regional Thai dishes such as
Khao Soi and Crab Curry)
D1. Please state the extent to which you agree with each of
the following statements regarding your local Thai food
Disagree Agree
experiences during your holiday in Thailand
1. Local Thai food is tastier than Thai food in my home country. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
country.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
home country.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
restaurant food.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
my home country.
6. Eating local Thai food is part of my travel/holiday experiences.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
different food.
8. Tasting local Thai food gives me an opportunity to increase my
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
knowledge about Thai culture.
492
9. Tasting local Thai food enables me to see how Thai people live.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. I often have local Thai food in places recommended by media.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(e.g. travel guidebook/magazine/Internet/TV)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Local Thai food is healthy and natural produce.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Local Thai food contains more fresh ingredients and natural
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
contents than Thai food in my home country.
15. I have local Thai food in places recommended to me by my
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
friends/family.
16. I have local Thai food in places recommended to me as nice
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
by locals.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. When I eat on the street in Thailand, I insist on eating in

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
places that are fairly clean.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. I often have local Thai food on the street when I want a quick
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
More
D2: How often do you take part in the following food-related Three Than
Never Once Twice
tourism activities during your holiday in Thailand? Times Three
Times
1. Going to a particular area/market for tasting a variety of local
Thai foods on my own 1 2 3 4 5
(e.g. Going to eat street foods in Bangrak, Bangkok)
2. Visiting a specific food stall, food cart, café, or restaurant to eat its
own famous local Thai dishes on my own 1 2 3 4 5
(e.g. Going to Thip Samai restaurant to eat its legendary Pad Thai)
3. Visiting a local food festival/event and tasting a variety of local
1 2 3 4 5
Thai foods on my own
4. Purchasing local food products/ingredients back home as a
1 2 3 4 5
souvenir for friends/family or for own use
5. Experiencing a local Thai food/beverage - producing place
(e.g. Visiting Amphawa Chaipattana Nurak Conservation Project, 1 2 3 4 5
Samutsongkram to see how to make a coconut palm sugar)
6. Participating in a street food tour/local food tour 1 2 3 4 5
7. Attending a Thai cookery course 1 2 3 4 5
PART E: EXPERIENCE EVALUATION
E1. How would you describe the overall quality of your local Thai food experiences in Thailand this time?
Very Neutral Very
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
493
E2. How important have your local Thai food experiences been to your overall experiences in Thailand
this time?
Very Neutral Very
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
E3. How would you describe the overall quality of your stay in Thailand this time?
Very Neutral Very
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

E4. From your holiday experiences this time, …
1. How would you describe the overall image that you have of Thailand? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. How would you describe the overall image that you have of Thai food? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART F: REVISITING THAILAND FOR A HOLIDAY IN THE FUTURE
F1. Please state the extent to which you agree with each of the
following statements regarding your desire to revisit Thailand for a
Disagree Agree
holiday in the future
1. I want to revisit Thailand for a holiday in the future. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I hope to revisit Thailand for a holiday in the future. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F2. For each timeframe, please state the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements
regarding your intention to revisit Thailand for a holiday.
Please use the following scale, from 1) Strongly Disagree … 4) Neutral … to 7) Strongly Agree.
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Within next three years, … Within next ten years, …
1. I will make an effort to revisit Thailand for a holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I intend to revisit Thailand for a holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I am willing to revisit Thailand for a holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F3. I think that revisiting Thailand for holiday is …
Disagree Agree
1. Positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Beneficial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Valuable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
494
F4. Revisiting Thailand would enable me to …
Unlikely Likely
3. Have new & different travelling experiences 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Neutral Very

F5. For me, revisiting Thailand …
1. To experience more local Thai food is … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. To participate in any food related tourism activities is … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. To have new & different travelling experiences is … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. To experience different/interesting culture is … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. To meet friendly people is … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. To visit friends and relatives is … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. To experience nature/natural attractions is … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. To travel with cheap prices/budget is … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F6. Most people who are important to me …
Disagree Agree
1. Support my decision to revisit Thailand for a holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Understand the significance of revisiting Thailand for a holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Agree I should revisit Thailand for a holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Recommend revisiting Thailand for a holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F7. The following people would approve or disapprove Strongly Neutral Strongly
of me revisiting Thailand for a holiday Disapprove Approve
1. Family 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
495
F8. The likelihood of me listening to what the following Extremely Neutral Extremely
people say about my revisit to Thailand for a holiday is Unlikely Likely
1. Family 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F9. Please state the extent to which you agree with each of the Strongly Neutral Strongly
1. I am confident that if I want, I can revisit Thailand for a holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I have resources (money) to revisit Thailand for a holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I have enough time to revisit Thailand for a holiday. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F10. Revisiting Thailand for a holiday is difficult for me because …
Disagree Agree

(e.g. Travel guidebook, Magazines, TV programmes, Thai festivals in my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
country)
F11. To what extent would the following influence your decision to Strongly Neutral Strongly
revisit Thailand for a holiday? Disagree Agree
1. Travel cost 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F12. If I succeed in achieving my goal of revisiting Thailand for a Not Neutral Very
holiday… At All Much
2. I will be glad. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I will be happy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
496
Not Neutral Very
F13. If I fail in achieving my goal of revisiting Thailand for a holiday…
At All Much
3. I will be sad. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART G: PERSONAL INFORMATION
G1. Gender: 1 Female 2 Male
G2. Age group:

G3. Highest level of education:

1 Secondary or equivalent 2 Post-Secondary/College/Vocational or equivalent
G4. Living arrangements:

G5. Monthly household income (after tax):

1 £1000 or less 2 £1001 - £1,500 3 £1,501 - £2,500
4 £2,501 - £5,000 5 £5001 or above 0 Prefer not to say
G6. Current occupation: _________________________________________________
497
APPEXDIX 14 MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE (JAPANESE VERSION)
QUESTIONNAIRE
( . . .
PART A:
A1.
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART B:
B1.
1 2 – : _________________
B2-1. 3 ?_______
B2-2. 10 ?_______
B3. ? ___________
B4. …
1. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
B5.
1.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
498
PART C:
C1.
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART D:
*
e.g
D1.
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.
5.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
.
7.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
499
11.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(e.g. / / / )
12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
D2:
1.
1 2 3 4 5
(e.g. , )
2.
1 2 3 4 5
(e.g. )
3. / 1 2 3 4 5
4. / .
1 2 3 4 5
5. /
(e.g. 1 2 3 4 5
)
6. 1 2 3 4 5
7. 1 2 3 4 5
PART E:
E1. . ?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
500
E2. . ?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
E3. . ?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
E4. . …
1. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART F:
F1. .
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F2.
( / / )
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3 , … 10 , …
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F3. , …
1. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. . , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
501
F4.
…
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F5. ,
1. … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. , … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. … 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F6. …
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F7. …
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
502
F8.
…
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F9. .
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F10. …
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(e.g. , , , )
F11. .
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
F12. …
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
503
F13. …
1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART G:
G1. : 1 2
G2. :
1 18 ) 24 2 25 ) 34 3 35)44 4 45)54 5 55
G3. :
1 2
3 4
5 -( ) _____________________________________
G4 :
1 2
3 4
5 -( ) _____________________________________
G5. ( ):
1 ¥220,000 2 ¥220,001 - ¥300,000 3 ¥300,001 - ¥450,000
4 ¥450,001 - ¥750,000 5 ¥750,001 0
G6. : _________________________________________________
504

An Investigation of Factors Affecting Tourists

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Investigation of Factors Affecting Tourists

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An investigation of factors affecting tourists’

revisit intention to Thailand as a culinary tourism

Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

School of Hospitality and Tourism Management

Professor Anita Eves

©Nuttanuch Issariyakulkarn 2019

While factors affecting tourists’ revisit intention to a destination have been

Figure 1.1 Hoftsede’s six cultural dimension scores of Thailand in 9

Table 2.1 Items of food choice questionnaire (FCQ) 26

Table 6.18 Correlation between pre-visit and on-site destination 225

Table 6.58 Moderating effects between nationalities for short-term 302

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH

Additionally, the Thai government has heavily emphasised policies to promote

1.1.2 Local Food Consumption at a Destination

As local food consumption and experience has become increasingly important in

Specifically, model of local food consumption at a tourist destination, was

1.1.3 Tourist’s Revisit Intention to a Holiday Destination

Concerning differences in determinants influencing revisit proneness between

Even though factors affecting tourists’ revisit intention to a destination have

1.2 PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH

1.3 RATIONALE FOR SELECTING TWO NATIONALITIES OF TOURISTS

Hofstede’s national cultural rankings have been used to investigate cultural

Culinary tourism is defined as “any tourism experience in which one learns

Culinary tourism activities comprise various forms of tourists’ food-related

Figure 1.2 Structure of the thesis

Chapter 3 reviews tourists’ revisit intention literature and highlights differences

Chapter 4 discusses research methodology including research philosophy,

Chapter 6 illustrates and discusses the findings of the stage 2: a questionnaire

2.2 FOOD CHOICE AND PREFERENCE

2.2.1 Food Choice Models

Concerning differences between models, Pilgrim (1957) considered the

2.2.1.1. Food acceptance model (Pilgrim, 1957)

Figure 2.1 Food acceptance model

2.2.1.2 Food preferences model (Khan, 1981)

Figure 2.3 Food preferences and consumption model

The characteristics of the individual refer to a person’s age, sex, income,

2.2.1.4 Food choice and intake model (Shepherd, 1985)

Psychological differences between individuals, such as personality, can also

2.2.1.5 Food choice process model (Furst et al., 1996)

2.2.2 Food Choice Questionnaire

It is important to me that the food I eat on a typical day:

Health - Contains a lot of vitamins and minerals

Price - Is not expensive

Familiarity - Is what I usually eat

Ethical Concern - Comes from countries I approve of politically

Source: Steptoe et al. (1995)

Prescott et al. (2002) conducted a cross-cultural comparison study for food

Besides, psychological and physiological perceptions of the sensory aspects of

2.2.3.2 Factors related to the environment

2.2.3.3 Factors related to the individual

Health and nutrition concern

1) Variety seeking tendency

Regarding to food consumption behaviour, variety-seeking tendency or a

Since various consumer motivations may underlie observed variation in

Table 2.3 Items of variety seeking scale (VARSEEK)

In relation to the work of McAlister and Pessemier (1982), an interdisciplinary

Table 2.4 Items of food neophobia scale (FNS)

Another study concentrating on validation of the FNS and cross-national

Juhl and Poulsen (2000) examined the importance of several antecedents

Olsen (2001) proposed a theoretical model of involvement to consume derived

Table 2.5 Items of food involvement scale (FIS)

The researchers concluded that food involvement could be considered as a stable