CC BY
569
DOI https://doi.org/10.18551/rjoas.2017-01.15
STUDY ON DESTINATION IMAGE, SATISFACTION, TRUST AND BEHAVIORAL INTENTION
Pujiastuti Eny Endah*, Nimran Umar, Suharyono, Kusumawati Andriani
Faculty of Administrative Science, University of Brawijaya, Indonesia *E-mail: eny [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study was to develop understanding about the influence of Destination image, and satisfaction towards pada trust and behavioral intention in the tourist village in Sleman, Yogyakarta. The sampes of the study were the domestic tourists whose ages were between 18 and 35 years old. The method of analysis was Generalized Structured Component Analysis (GSCA) in order to analyze the correlation between Destination image as well as satisfaction and trust as well as behavioral intention. The findings show that Destination image had significant influence towards trust, satisfaction had significant influence towards trust, Destination image did not have significant influence towards behavioral intention, satisfaction did not have any significant influence towards behavioral intention and trust did not have significant influence towards behavioral intention. It also showed that satisfaction had indirect influence towards behavioral intention through trust. It was expected that further study may explore the role of trust towards tourism village in Indonesia. It is important to conduct further studies where data are taken from several tourism villages in Indonesia. The findings indicated that there was correlation between Destination image, satisfaction, and trust; these three had influence towards behavioral intention in the future. At last, trust played important role in tourism village.
KEY WORDS
Destination image, satisfaction, trust, behavioral intention.
Intertational tourism business will give contribution to several groups. International tourism provides foreign exchange as well as job opportunity and career development for million people in Indonesia through retail, construction, manufacture, telecommunivation and tourist agency (Mohamad et al., 2014). Development of tourism industry provides job opportunity and investment for the locals in order to improve local economics (Nunkoo and Smith, 2013). The impact of tourism exceeds economic and business aspects. Therefore, tourism becomes strong calayst for growth so that it can result in higher multiplier effect and encourage the growth of other economic sectors (Srivastava, 2013; Hanif et al., 2013). Besides that, tourism boosts regional development tremendously (Chen and Tsai, 2007).
Jayawardena (2002) stated that the future of tourism relied heavily towards how capable each country is in providing qualified products of torusim in order to meet constantly changing preference, need, expectation and demand of international travelers. It showed change in consumer behavior more particularly related to traveler's motivation to travel or decide which tourism spots he or she is going to visit. Another phenomenon that shows change in consumer's behavior is thousand of people go on vacation either on holiday or during the weekend to rural areas especially those with historical sites and architectures. Similar behavior was found in relation to the flow of tourist where most of them travelled to rural areas or villages either as tourist or excursionist (Royo-Vela, 2009).
In tourism industry, it is vital to make sure that travelers re-visit particular tourism spots in the future based on their first experience visiting the places (Osman and Sentosa, 2013). Therefore, tour manager should understand traveler's behavior. The study analyzed traveler's behavioral intention due to its pivotal role for tourist agency; traveler's intention, intention to revisit, and word-of-mouth (recommendation) help predicting whether a traveler will become long-term customer and bring more benefit for tourist agency (Lingling Fan, 2009). Behavioral intention is the signal of actual purchase (Zeithaml et al., 1996).
Destination image and traveler's satisfaction are important predictors of intention to re-visit (Yoon and Uysal, 2005), satisfaction is direct antecedent of traveler's intention (Cronin et al., 2000). The traveler's intention to revisit depends heaviliy towards his or her positive perception of certain tourist destination (Chi and Qu, 2008). Destination image is essential due to its influence towards potential traveler's decision-making process (Mayo, 1981; Crompton, 1979). It is evident that destination image affect how potential travelers select tourist destination (Hunt, 1975; Gunn, 1988).
Satisfaction is the major indicator of long-term customers and has become significant identifier of customer behavior in the future in terms of tourism; Petrick, 2002) (Oliver, 1980; Cronin and Taylor, 1992. Customer staisfaction predicts following behavior of the customers (Fornell et al.,1996). For touris agents, traveler satisfaction towards destination is the most pivotal element to develop sustainable business (Khuong and Ha, 2014) and the key of successful marketing; satisfaction influence choice of destination and decision to re-visit (Yoon and Uysal, 2005).
Some external factors such as risk are important indicators of traveler's behavioral intention (Moutinho, 1987). It is a challenge to minimize risk so that travelers feel safe and enjoy their visit. Therefore, tour managers should gain traveler's trust since trust can reduce traveler's uncertainty. Travelers should not feel vulnerable and should believe they can rely on trustworthy organization/ institution during their visit (Aydin and Ozer, 2006). A trustworthy tourist destination has strong competitive advantage compared to other tourist destination and may become an alternative for travelers to decide where they are going to spend their vacation (Srivastava, 2013). More specifically, trust minimize traveler's uncertainty in the way that they feel they can rely on tourist agency (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Considering the pivotal role of trust in successful marketing, trust is used as one of the variables in the study. Hence, the purpose of the study is to describe the correlation between destination image, satisfaction, and trust and behavioral intention in order to promote the national rural tourism. In other words, it evaluates some concept related to destination image, satisfaction, trust and behavioral intention.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Destination image. Brand image is the main driver of brand equity, which refers to the general perception of the consumer and feelings about the brand, and influences consumer behavior (Zhang, 2015). Kottler (2009) defined brand image as a set of beliefs, ideas and impressions an individual has toward certain brand. Keller (1993) defined brand image as "the brand relations retained in consumers mind causes the assumptions about a brand. Studi dari brand image, brand personality, brand relationship and brand loyalty' which can be found in the literature related to general marketing focusing on consumer products (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999). However, the application of the theory of branding and its relationship with tourist destination is still relatively new.
Brand image for research in tourism is frequently called destination image. Destination image is the major topic of tourism industry for any destination. It can affect the decisionmaking process for travelling and sales of products for travelling (Jenkins, 1999). Image refers to the impression of a destination by tourists, and the image is an overall description traveler has in mind that it is an important factor that encourages consumers to take a decision or cognition (Dichter, 1985). "Destination image is an interactive system of thoughts, opinions, feelings, visualisations, and intentions toward a destination (Tasci et al., 2007)." Destination image is the amount of beliefs, attitudes and impressions of individuals or groups to travel to certain tourist destination or the aspect of destination (Weaver and Lawton, 2010). Thus, destination image may be defined as the perception of the destination in the minds of consumers as the driving force in decision-making process.
Once travelers have positive impression towards certain tourist destination, they will have tendency to return (revisit) (Laws, 2002; Beerli and Martin, 2004; Bonn et al., 2005). Destination image is significant and effective for traveller's decision-making process (Yilmaz et al., 2009). Destination image affect the decision-making of the travelers especially during
process to find alternative destination, search for destination, satisfaction towards the destination, and behavioral intention (Jenkins, 1999). It can be concluded that destination image affect traveller's decision-making process when they select alternative destination.
Image becomes the basis of behavioral analysis of travelers: prior to, during and after vacation (Bigne et al., 2001). Image is essential concept in studies about consumer behavior because it influences individual/ public, subjective perception, value for customers, satisfaction and behavioral intention (Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990). According to Schiffman and Kanuk (2008), positive brand image is related to customer loyalty and customer trust about positive brand image and willingness to find the image.
Satisfaction. Conventional literature in consumer behavior showed that customer satisfaction was the result or the final step of the psychological process from recognition of need to evaluate the experience towards certain product (Peter and Olson, 1999). Satisfaction is defined as response to consumer fulfillment towards attitude that involves elements such as ratings after purchase or a series of interaction between consumer and product (Lovelock and Wirtz, 2004). Satisfaction is evaluation of the overall purchase (Fornell, 1992). Oliver (1981) defined customer satisfaction as a direct perception of customer after experiencing particular product or service. It shows that satisfaction is the result of an evaluation after the entire purchasing activities has been completed.
In literatures about tourism, consumer satisfaction is evaluation based on interaction with service providers and used by customers to predict future experience (Crosby et al., 1990). Traveler satisfaction, according to Baker and Crompton (2000), is emotional state of travelers after experience. It means satisfaction is traveler's reaction after having experience or visiting tourist destination. Traveler's satisfaction is real experience after traveling which is derived from psychological state resulted from individual experience to reach certain toruism spot.
In the context of tourism, satisfaction solely refers to traveler's evaluation about tourist destination based on their on-site destination. Traveler's satisfaction is defined as positive mental state activated by experience travelers obtained while traveling (Meng and Uysal, 2008). Destination satisfaction refers to emotional state reflected in post-exposure evaluation of a tourist based on tourism spot he/she visited (Baker and Crompton, 2000) ;(Su et al., 2014). Therefore, it can be inferred that in terms of tourism consumer satisfaction is consumer's reaction and positive impression having visited tourist destination.
Tse and Wilton (1988) developed perceived performance model. The model evaluated satisfaction as actual performance apart from customer expectation prior to purchasing. In other words, actual performance and initial expectation should be measured independently, instead of comparing performance and past experience. Thus, in the model, traveler's expaction is not one of the elements for evaluating traveler's satisfaction using traveling experience. Measuring satisfaction using Tse and Wilton (1988)'s model is measuring performance the traveler's feel and therefore, expectation prior to purchasing is not taken into account. In conclusion, satisfaction is evaluating performance without paying attention to customer satisfaction.
Trust. Trust based on Deshpande and Zaltman (1993, as cited by Little and Marandi, 2003) was willingness to rely on exchange partners and one of them was to believe in trust towards the partner. Trust refers to consumer expectation that service provider is trustworthy and dependable to fulfil their promise (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002). Barnes, (2001) stated that trust involved individual willingness to conduct certain action because he or she believes his/ her partners would grant his/her wishes and expectation an individual generally has that words, promiste or other people's statement can be trusted. Based on the ideas, it is concluded that trust is to believe that partners are dependable and will fulfil their promises.
Increasing trust in tourist destination is frequently quoted as vital element for suceesful relationship and as the effect, results in increasing quality of relationship to destination. (Keller and Kotler, 2009) explained trust was developed by creating strong bond with customers. Trust showed that each group in developing partnership believes in each other, fulfills promise and develops mutual relationship (Jesri et al., 2013). Based on the elaboration, trust enables the bond between customers and tourist destination.
In marketing, trust has two components, self-trust and reliability which are significantly influenced by customer satisfaction (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Customer trust signifies customer intention to depend on partners in vulnerable situation (Coleman and Coleman, 1994). Dabholkar and Sheng, (2012) believed that service providers gained customer trust when the customers believe goods and service the providers sell benefit them. In conclusion, customer satisfaction affects trust.
Behavioral intention. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) also stated that behavioral intention always referred to future behavior and was often correlated to overall behavior. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) described the intention to behave/ take action as function of (a) evaluative belief towards products of tourism, (b) social factors that likely gave a set of normative belief for tourists, and (c) situational factors that could be anticipated during vacation plans or commitment. Behavioral intention) according to Peter and Olson (1999) was proposition that connected an individual to future actions. (Blackwell et al., 2001) explained behavioral intention as subjective judgment about the behavior in the future. Intention to behave was defined as planned or anticipated future behavior of individuals (Oliver and Swan, 1989). Based on those statements, it was concluded that behavioral intention was intention to take actions in the future after consumption or purchasing. Dimensions of behavioral intention frequently used in scientific studies are:
Table 1 - Dimensions of Behavioral Intention
No. Researcher/Year Dimension of Behavioral Intention
1 Anderson et al., (1994) 1).repurchase intentions, 2). word-of-mouth intentions, and 3). willingness to pay more.
2 Zeithaml et al. (1996) 1) say positive things about them, (2) recommend them to other customers, (3) remain loyal to them (i.e. repurchase from them), (4) spend more with them, and (5) pay price premiums.
3 Bloemer et al., (1998) Consumer complaint behaviour, price sensitivity and word-of-mouth.
4 Oliver, (1999) Repurchase intentions and recommend destinations.
5. Chen and Tsai (2007) 1). Revisit the destination in the future and 2).recommend destinations
6 Kuenzel et al., (2009) Intention to revisit (intention to purchase /loyalitas) and word-of-mouth (WOM) recommendation.
7 Canny(2013) 1). Revisit, 2) say positif things and 2) recommend destinations.
Source: secondary data, 2016.
RESEARCH METHODS
Research model. The manager of the tourist village was interested in finding out how destination image and satisfaction may result in traveler's trust and eventually traveler's behavioral intention in the future. The bases were the previous conducted by Chen and Phou (2013), Prayag et al., (2013), Osman and Sentosa (2013), Susyarini et al., (2014), Banki et al., (2014), Canny (2013), Tang (2014), Tavitiyaman and Qu, (2013), and Lo et al., (2013), among others.
Figure 1 - Hypothesis Model Hipotesis
HYPOTHESES
Relationship between destination image and trust. Schiffman and Kanuk (2008) stated that positive brand image was related to consumer loyalty, consumer trust about positive brand and willingness to search for the brand. In their conceptual study, Chen and Phou (2013) revealed the correlation between destination image and trust. Based on the theory, the first hypothesis of the study was:
H1: Destination image has influence towards trust.
Relationship between satisfaction and trust. Osman and Sentosa (2013)'s study provided empirical evidence related to the positive influence of satisfaction towards trust. It revealed the positive correlation between customer satisfaction and trust. Another study conducted by Chen and Phou (2013) corroborated to Osman and Sentosa (2013) that satisfaction influenced trust. Therefore, the second hypothesis was:
H2: Satisfaction has influence towards trust.
Relationship between trust and behavioral intention. Trust was generally perceived as the key of relationship marketing success (Little and Marandi, 2003). Callaghan et al., (1995) and Morgan and Hunt, (1994) explained that relationship marketing was multidimensi that consisted of six components namely trust, commitment, shared value, empathy and mutual undertsanding. Trust directed to successful relationship that improved communication, cooperation, and buying intention as well as encouraged buying attention when complexity and risk could be eliminated (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Based on the elaboration, the third hypothesis was:
H3: Trust has influence towards behavioral intention.
Relationship between destination image and behavioral intention. Numerous studies had analyzed the relationship between destination image and behavioral intention; one of them was a study conducted by Susyarini et al. (2014). The findings showed that destination image influenced behavioral intention. Hasil yang berbeda ditunjukkan oleh hasil penelitian Banki et al. (2014) showed different finding that cognitive destination image did not influence behavioral intention but affective destination image had positive, direct influence towards behavioral intention. Therefore, the fourth hypothesis was:
H4: Destination image has influence towards behavioral intention.
Relationship between satisfaction and behavioral intention. The was significant correlation between satisfaction towards tourist destination and traveler's intention in the future (Canny, 2013). In addition, Tang, (2014) described that satisfaction had positive correlation towards intention to behave/ take action (re-evaluation and recommendation). Prayag et al. (2013) also postulated that satisfaction had positive correlation to behavioral intention. Other previous studies that supported the study were one conducted by Banki et al., 2014; Tavitiyaman and Qu, 2013; Manhas and Ramjit 2013; Susyarini et al., 2014; Lo et al., 2013 and Chou, 2013). Based on the findings of the previous studies, the fifth hypothesis was:
H5: Satisfaction has influence towards behavioral intention.
METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH
Survey instrument. There were 4 (four) variables in the study, destination image, satisfaction, trust and behavioral intention. 24 (twenty-four) items were observed to measure the exogenous, independent variables. Destination image, satisfaction and trust consisted of 6 items each. The endogenous variable, behavioral intention, consisted of 6 items. The study also used the 5-point Likert scale (1-strongly agree, 2-agree, 3-meutral, 4-disagree and 5-strongly disagree). The demographics variables questioned are gender, age, status, and education background of the respondents.
Sample. The targeted population was local or domestic travelers visiting the tourist village located in Sleman, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The sampling technique used was accidental sampling. The characteristics of the samples were (1) they were between 18 and
35 years old; (2) they stayed there for at least one day; (3) they were first-time visitors and (4) they decided to visit the place themselves. The total number of samples was 155.
Data analysis. Inferential statistics, GSCA (Generalized Structured Component Analysis), was used to test the influence of destination image and satisfaction towards trust and behavioral intention. Hwang et al., (2010) stated that GSCA evaluated entire aspects of a model so that one understood how appropriate a model was and then was able to compare the model with other alternatives. gSCa may also be applicable for complex indicators, either reflective or formative indicators. GCSA functioned to obtain structural model for analysis. There are three types of model evaluation based on GSCA namely evaluation of the measurement model, structural model evaluation, and the evaluation of the overall model. SPSS version 20 for Windows was also used to facilitate the data analysis.
FINDINGS OF RESEARCH
Profiles of the respondents. 54.84% of the respondents were male while the remaining 45.16% of them were female. 41.93 % of the respondents were between 18 and 22 years old, 30.97% was between 23 and 27 years old, 16.13% was between 28 and 32 years old and 10.97% was between 33 and 35 years old.
In terms of level of education, 58.06% of them were high school graduate, 27.74% was university graduate, 5.81% had master's degree, 5.16% graduated from three-year diploma program and 3.23% was junior high school graduate. 42.58% of the respondents were university students, 17.41% worked in private institutions, 8.39% was government officers, police officers or worked in the army, 8.38% was non-permamanent workers, 7.74% worked in the government institutes, 5.81% owned business, 3.87% was teachers, 3.23% was students and 1.29% was housewives. 1.3% of the respondents had other occupation.
Construct validity, dimensionality and reliability. Based on the analysis, the loading factors of all of the indicators that measured the 4 variables (destination image, satisfaction, trust, and behavioral intention) were higher than 0.6. Thus, all of the indicators were valid.
The discriminant validity showed that the AVE roots of each of the variables were higher than the correlational coefficient between the variables. Therefore, the discrimanant validity that measured all the four variables had been fulfilled.
The construct validity showed that AVE scores of the variables (destination image, satisfaction, trust, and behavioral intention) were higher than 0.50, the cut-off value. Based on the AVE scores, the indicators were reliable. The cronbach's alpha of the variables (destination image, satisfaction, trust, and behavioral intention) was higher than 0.60, the cutoff value and therefore, based on the cronbach's alpha, all of the indicators were reliable.
Model analysis. The first model was presented directly from destination image to trust, satisfaction to trust, destination image to behavioral intention, satisfaction to behavioral intention and trust to behavioral intention. The first stage of testing using GCSA was the Goodness of Fit Model. Goodness of fit was used to find out whether the construct being developed had been fit or not. There are several goodness of fit index in GSCA analysis, Fit, AFit, GFI, and SRMR. Using GFI, the criteria were if GFI > cut off (0.90) the model had good fit, but when GFI was between 0.8 and 0.9 the model had marginal fit. Furthermore, FIT showed how far exogenous variables explained the endogenous variables.
Based on the goodness-of-fit, it was found out that the GFI global optimization index was 0.986. It showed GFI > 0.9. Thus, the overall model of GSCA towards behavioral intention had good fit. The Fit of 0.701 showed that destination image, satisfaction, and trust had 70.1% influenced towards behavioral intention, while other variables outside the study had 29.9% influences.
Furthermore, criterion-based hypothesis-testing showed that when critical ratio (CR) > t-tabel (t=2.00, alpha = 5%), the exogenous variable had significant influence towards the endogenous variables.
Table 2 showed out of 5 hypotheses, 3 hypotheses were accepted and 2 hypotheses were rejected. The findings were as follow: (1) Based on GSCA analysis, the estimated value was 0.257 and the CR value was 2.78 * (asterisk). It meant CR> t-table (t = 2.00, alpha =
5%). Therefore, H1 was accepted due to the empirical findings. It implied that destination image had significant effect towards trust (H1).
Table 2 - Results of Hypothesis-Testing on Direct Effect
Exogenous Endogenous Estimation SE CR Claim
Accepted Rejected
Destination image Trust 0.257 0.092 2.78 Accepted
Satisfaction Trust 0.486 0.078 6.19 Accepted
Trust Behavioral Intention 0.2 0.091 2.2 Accepted
Destination image Behavioral Intention 0.031 0.069 0.45 Rejected
Satisfaction Behavioral Intention 0.132 0.098 1.34 Rejected
Source: Primary Data, 2016.
(2) The estimated value was 0.486 and CR value was 6.19 * (asterisk). It meant CR> t-table (t = 2:00, alpha = 5%). Therefore, H2 was accepted. In other words, satisfaction had significant influence towards trust (H2). (3) The estimated value was 0.2 and the CR value was 2.2 * (asterisk). It meant CR> t-table (t = 2.00, alpha = 5%). Therefore, H3 was accepted. In other words, trusts had significant influence towards behavioral intention (H3).
(4) The estimated value was 0.031 and CR was 0:45. It meant CR <t-table (t = 2:00, alpha = 5%). H4 was rejected or could not be accepted. It implied that destination image did not have significant influence towards behavioral intention (H4). (5) The estimated value was 0.132 and CR was 1.34 (asterisk). It meant CR <t-table (t = 2:00, alpha = 5%). H5 was rejected or could not be accepted. Therefore, satisfaction did not have significant influence towards behavioral intention (H5). In conclusion, the two rejected hypotheses were hypothesis 4 and 5, destination image did not have significant influence towards satisfaction (H4) and satisfaction did not have significant influence towards behavioral intention (H5). The findings of the study were described in the following charts.
Note: * = significant influence Figure 2 - Findings of the Study
The second was trust became the mediating variable between customer experience and behavioral intention (see Tabel 6). Based on the analysis of the mediating variable shown in Table, there was not any correlation involving the mediating variable. The result f the analysis was as follow:
Table 3 - Results of Mediating Variable Testing
No. Variable Estimation SE CR
Exogenous Mediating 1 Endogenous
1. X1 Y1 Y2 0.089 0.089 0.996
2. X2 Y1 Y2 0.097 0.047 2.073*
Source: Primary Data, 2016 Note: * = Significant
Table 3 showed that destination image did not have indirect correlation to behavioral intention. Satisfaction had indirect correlation to behavioral intention, through trust.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The finding showed that the destination image had significant influence towards trust. It supported the findings of Chen and Phou (2013)'s study that there was correlation between destination image and trust. Schiffman and Kanuk (2008) stated that positive brand image was related to customer loyalty, consumer trust regarding the positive brand value, and willingness to look for the brand.
The study also found that satisfaction had significant influence towards trust. It corroborated to Osman and Sentosa (2013)'s study that there was positive correlation between customer satisfaction and trust. Another study, one conducted by Chen and Phou (2013), also showed that satisfaction influenced trust. The findings of the study was at the opposite of Nili et al., (2013)'s study, which stated that satisfaction had no effect towards trust.
The study also revelaed tat trust had significant influence towards behavior intention meaning that when the travelers had good impression towards the tourist village, they would take positive action such as behavioral intention. There has yet been any study in tourism that analyzed the influence of trust towards behavioral intention in the future. Trust resulted in successful relationship that enhanced communication, cooperation, purchase intention and trust may trigger an increase in the purchase as long as complexity and risk of purchasing were reduced (Morgan and Hunt, 1994).
Other finding was destination imahe had no significant influence towards behavioral intention. It supported the previous studies conducted by Banki et al., (2014), Jin et al.,
(2013). Banki et al., (2014) that cognitive destination image did not influence behavioral intention but affective destination image had direct influence towards behavioral intentions. The finding was not in line with the previous studies conducted by Susyarini et al., and
(2014), Moon et al., (2013). Moon et al., (2013) stated that the destination image was positively associated to behavioral intentions of consumers. As an addition, Susyarini et al., (2014) stated that destination image influenced behavioral intention.
Furthermore, the study found that satisfaction did not have significant influence towards behavioral intention. It also described that satisfaction had indirect relationship to behavioral intention of behaving through trusts. They were different from the findings of Canny (2013)'s study that there was significant correlation between satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the future. Tang (2014) showed satisfaction had positive correlation to behavioral intention (in revisiting or giving recommendation). Prayag et al., (2013) also postulated that satisfaction had positive correlation to behavioral intention. The previous studies of which findings were different from the study were Banki et al., (2014), Tavitiyaman and Qu (2013), Manhas and Ramjit (2013), Susyarini et al., (2014), Lo (2012), and Chou (2013)'s studies. They showed that satisfaction did not have influence to behavioral intention in the future. Keaveney (1995) and Reichheld (1993) explained the phnomemon by explaining that certain customers would switch products and buy another product although they were satisfied with the products they had bought. Garcia et al., (2012) stated that even though travelers were satisfied and had no regrets about their choice of tourist destination, they may switch to other tourist destination due to variation.
CONCLUSION
The main objective of the study is to describe the influence of destination image and satisfaction towards trust and behavioral intention in the future in the rural tourism industry. Based on the review of previous studies in tourism, there has yet been any study that examines the relationship between the trust and behavioral intention. Preliminary studies found the influence as well as no influence of destination image towards trust, satisfaction towards trust, destination image towards behavioral intention and satisfaction towards
behavioral intention. The model was developed to explain the influence of destination image towards trust, satisfaction towards trust, trust towards behavioral intention, destination image towards behavioral intention and satisfaction towards behavioral intention. To achieve the research objective, GSCA was adipted for data analysis.
Then, the mediation is introduced in the model where trust becomes mediating variable in destination image and behavioral intention as well as satisfaction towards behavioral intention. Theoretically, it is not easy to justify the superiority of the model; to solve the issue, empirical testing was conducted. The study proposes empirical model to evaluate and make sure that there is indirect relationship between destination image and behavioral intention as well as satisfaction and behavioral intention where trust becomes mediating variable.
Based on the findings, there are direct and indirect correlation between variables. The first finding is destination image has influenced towards trust. Second, satisfaction has significant influence towards trust. Third, trust has significant influence towards behavioral intention. Fourth, destination image does not have any significant influence towards behavioral intention. Fifth, satisfaction does not have significant influence towards behavioral intention. Based on the findings, it is revealed that trust is an important factor affecting behavioral intention. The conclusion shows there is estination image, satisfaction, and trust only have direct influence towards behavioral intentions. Trust has a role as a mediator in the correlation between the satisfaction and behavioral intention or satisfaction has indirect relationship towards behavioral intention.
Practical implications. The practical implications is to increase the trust of travelers about the tourist village. The study revealed that trust had important influence towards behavioral intention in the future. Second, the tourist village should carry out relationship marketing and gains trust from the visitors. The future of the tourist village depends on ability of the management to gain customer's trust. Studies have shown that trust results in behavioral intention and is needed to reduce risk. Trust is fundamental element for the success of relationship marketing. Behavioral intention in the future was intention to say positive things about them, revisit, give recommendation, and alternative.
Research limitations and directions for future research. The researchers describe the limitation of the study as reference for future researcher. First, the study is cross sectional study that has limitation to analyze dynamics of the variables involved from time to time. Trust, as variable, has long-term effect while satisfaction and destination image are dynamics. Therefore, longitudinal study can give stronger conclusion. Second, satisfaction is measured using single item (performance).
To enhance their contribution, it is expected that future researchers use longitudinal approach and invite participation of the management of the tourist village in order to get more comprehensive findings. As an addition, further studies should not use single item of measurement. Futher studies should widen the setting of the study and involve various types of tourist village as their objects. At last, domestic travelers visiting the village for more than one time should be used as unit of analysis.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C., and Lehmann, D.R., 1994. Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. J. Mark. 53-66.
2. Arasl, H. et al 2014. European Tourist Perspective on Destination Satisfaction in Jorand's Industries. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, pp.1416-1425.
3. Aydin, S., Ozer, G., 2006. How switching costs affect subscriber loyalty in the Turkish mobile phone market: An exploratory study. J. Target. Meas. Anal. Mark. 14, 141-155.
4. Baker, D.A., and Crompton, J.L., 2000. Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Ann. Tour. Res. 27, 785-804.
5. Banki, M.B., Ismail, H.N., Dalil, M.,and Kawu, A., 2014. Moderating role of affective destination image on the relationship between tourists satisfaction and behavioural intention: evidence from Obudu Mountain Resort. J. Environ. Earth Sci. 4, 47-60.
6. Barnes, J.G., 2001. Secrets of customer relationship management: It's all about how you make them feel. McGraw-Hill Companies.
7. Beerli, A., Martin, J.D., 2004. Tourists' characteristics and the perceived image of tourist destinations: a quantitative analysis—a case study of Lanzarote, Spain. 25, 623-636.
8. Bigne, J.E., Sanchez, M.I., and Sanchez, J., 2001. Tourism image, evaluation variables and after purchase behaviour: inter-relationship. Tour. Manag. 22, 607-616.
9. Blackwell, R.D., Miniard, P.W., Engel, J.F., 2001. Consumer behavior 9th. South-West. Thomas Learn. Mason OH.
10. Bloemer, J., De Ruyter, K., and Peeters, P., 1998. Investigating drivers of bank loyalty: the complex relationship between image, service quality and satisfaction. Int. J. Bank Mark. 16, 276-286.
11. Bonn, M.A., Joseph, S.M., and Dai, M., 2005. International versus domestic travelers: An examination of destination image perceptions. J. Travel Res. 43, 294-301.
12. Callaghan, M. et al 1995. Dimensions of a relationship marketing orientation: an empirical exposition, in: Proceedings of the 7th Biannual World Marketing Congress. pp. 10-65.
13. Canny, I.U., 2013. An empirical investigation of service quality, tourist satisfaction and future behavioral intentions among domestic local tourist at Borobudur Temple. Int. J. Trade Econ. Finance 4, 86.
14. Chaudhuri, A., and Holbrook, M.B., 2001. The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. J. Mark. 65, 81-93.
15. Chen, C.-F., and Phou, S., 2013. A closer look at destination: Image, personality, relationship and loyalty. Tour. Manag. 36, 269-278.
16. Chen, C.-F., and Tsai, D., 2007. How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions? Tour. Manag. 28, 1115-1122.
17. Chi, C. et al 2008. Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tour. Manag. 29, 624-636.
18. Chou, H.-J., 2013. The effect of the traveler's consumption experience and tourism image on tourist satisfaction and revisit intention of Taiwan's night markets. GSTF Bus. Rev. GBR 3, 129.
19. Coleman, J.S. et al 1994. Foundations of social theory. Harvard university press.
20. Crompton, J. 1979. Motivations for Pleasure Vacation. Annals of Tourism Research 6:408-424.
21. Cronin, J. J., and Taylor, S. R. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68.
22. Cronin, J.J. et al 2000. Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. J. Retail. 76, 193-218.
23. Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R.,and Cowles, D., 1990. Relationship quality in services selling: an interpersonal influence perspective. J. Mark. 68-81.
24. Dabholkar, P. et al 2012. Consumer participation in using online recommendation agents: effects on satisfaction, trust, and purchase intentions. Serv. Ind. J. 32, 1433-1449.
25. Dichter, E., 1985. What's in an image. J. Consum. Mark. 2, 75-81.
26. Dobni, D., and Zinkhan, G.M., 1990. In search of brand image: A foundation analysis. NA-Adv. Consum. Res. Vol. 17.
27. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
28. Fornell, C., 1992. A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish experience. J. Mark. 6-21.
29. Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., and Bryant, B. E. (1996). The American customer satisfaction index: Nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 7-18.
30. Garbarino, E., and Johnson, M.S., 1999. The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. J. Mark. 70-87.
31. Garcia, I. S. et al 2012. When Satisfied Consumers Do Not Return: Variety Seeking's Effect on Short- and Long-Term Intentions. Psychology and Marketing, 29: 15-24
32. Gunn, C.A., 1988. Vacationscape: Designing tourist regions. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
33. Hanif, M.I., Shao Yunfei, Bai Xiu Yin, Muhammad Shahzad Hanif and Muhammad Tariq Shareef, 2013. The Efficiency of Innovative Marketing Information System: An Empirical Study of Tourism Industry of Pakistan. International Review of Management and Business Research, 2(4), pp.1042-1056.
34. Hunt, J.D., 1975. Image as a factor in tourism development. J. Travel Res. 13, 1-7.
35. Hwang, H., Malhotra, N.K., Kim, Y., Tomiuk, M.A., and Hong, S., 2010. A comparative study on parameter recovery of three approaches to structural equation modeling. J. Mark. Res. 47, 699-712.
36. Jayawardena, Chananda, 2002, "Mastering Caribbean tourism", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 14 Iss: 2, pp.88 - 93
37. Jenkins, O.H., 1999. Understanding and measuring tourist destination images. Int. J. Tour. Res. 1, 1.
38. Jesri, P. et al 2013. Effects of relationship marketing (RM) on customer loyalty (case study: Mehr bank, Iran). Interdiscip. J. Contemp. Res. Bus. 4, 304-312.
39. Jin, N. et al. The Effect of Experience Quality on Perceived Value, Satisfaction, Image and Behavioral Intention of Water Park Patrons: New versus Repeat Travelers, International Journal of Tourism Research, 17:82-95 (2015)
40. Keaveney, S. M. 1995. Customer Switching Behaviour in Service Industries: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Marketing, 59 (April): 71-82.
41. Keller, L.L. 1993. Conceptualising, measuring and managing customer based brand equity. Journal of Marketing. (57) 1:1-22.
42. Keller, K.L., Kotler, P., 2009. Manajemen Pemasaran. Ed. Kedua Belas Jilid 1.
43. Kuenzel, S., Katsaris, N., 2009. A critical analysis of service recovery processes in the hotel industry. TMC Acad. J. 4, 1-11.
44. Khuong, M.N. and Ha, H.T.T., 2014. The Influences of Push and Pull Factors on the International Leisure Tourists' Return Intention to Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam — A Mediation Analysis of Destination Satisfaction. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 5(6), pp.490-496.
45. Kotler, Philip. 2009. Manajemen Pemasaran. Jakarta : Erlangga
46. Kotler,Philip and Kevin Lane Keller. 2009. Manajemen Pemasaran,Jilid 1, Penerbit Erlangga, alih bahasa Bob Sabran
47. Laws, E., 2002. Tourism marketing: quality and service management perspectives. Thomson Learning.
48. Lingling Fan.2009, The Study on the Relationship between Tourist Experience and Tourist Further Behavior in Wetland Park. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University
49. Little, E., and Marandi, E., 2003. Relationship marketing management. Cengage Learning EMEA.
50. Lo, M.-C. et al 2013. Rural tourism and destination image: Community perception in tourism planning. Macro-Theme Rev. 2, 102-118.
51. Lovelock, C.H.,and Wirtz, J., 2004. Services marketing: people, technology, strategy. Pearson Prentice Hall.
52. Manhas, P.S. and Ramjit. 2013. Customer Experience and Its Relative Influence on Satisfaction and Behavioural Intention in Hospitality and Tourism Industry. South Asian Journal of Tourism and Heritage, 6(1), pp.53-68.
53. Mayo, E. and Jarvis, L.P. 1981. The psychology of leisure travel. Boston, MA: CBI.
54. Meng.F and M. Uysal. 2008. Effects of gender differences on perceptions of destination attributes, motivations, and travel values: An examination of a nature-based resort destination,Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 16, pp. 445-466,
55. Mohamad, M. et al 2014. Satisfaction as a Mediator to the Relationships Between Destination Image and Loyalty. World Appl. Sci. J. 30, 1113-1123.
56. Moon, Kae-Sung; Yong Jae Ko; Andiel P. Connaughton and Jeoung-Hak Lee. 2013. A mediating role of destination image in the relationship between event quality, perceived value, and behavioral intention, Journal of Sport & Tourism, 18:1, 49-66,
57. Morgan, R.M., and Hunt, S.D., 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. J. Mark. 20-38.
58. Moutinho, L. 1987. Consumer behaviour in tourism European Journal of Marketing, 21(10), 3-44.
59. Nili, M., Navabakhsh, M. and Khosropour, A. 2013. Influence of Corporate Reputation and Brand Personality on Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty in Communication Services. Technical Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 3(16), pp.1800-1808.
60. Nunkoo, R., and Smith, S. L. 2013. Political economy of tourism: trust in government actors, political support, and their determinants. Tourism Management, 36,120-132.
61. Oliver, R. L. 1980. "A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions." Journal of Marketing Research, 17: 460-69.
62. Oliver, R.L., 1981. What is customer satisfaction? Whart. Mag. 5, 36-41.
63. Oliver, R.L., 1999. Whence consumer loyalty? J. Mark. 33-44.
64. Oliver, R.L., Swan, J.E., 1989. Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and satisfaction in transactions: a field survey approach. J. Mark. 21-35.
65. Osman, Z. et al 2013. A study of mediating effect of trust on customer satisfaction and customer loyalty relationship in Malaysian rural tourism. Eur. J. Tour. Res. 6, 192-206.
66. Peter, J. P., and Olson. J. C., 1999. Perilaku konsumen and strategi pemasaran, Edisi keempat (terjemahan). Jakarta : Erlangga
67. Petrick, J.F., 2002. An examination of golf vacationers' novelty. Ann. Tour. Res. 29, 384400.
68. Prayag, G. 2009. Tourists' Evaluations of Destination Image, Satisfaction, and Future Behavioral Intentions—the Case of Mauritius. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26(8), pp.836-853.
69. Prayag, G., Hosany, S., Odeh, K., 2013. The role of tourists' emotional experiences and satisfaction in understanding behavioral intentions. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2, 118-127.
70. Reichheld, F. 1993. Loyalty-Based Management. Harvard Business Review, 71: 64-73
71. Royo-Vela, M., 2009. Rural-cultural excursion conceptualization: A local tourism marketing management model based on tourist destination image measurement. Tour. Manag. 30, 419-428.
72. Schiffman, L., Kanuk, L.L., 2008. Perilaku konsumen. Indeks Jkt.
73. Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., Sabol, B., 2002. Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. J. Mark. 66, 15-37.
74. Srivastava, M., 2013. Investigating the Mediating Effect of Customer Satisfaction in the Service Quality - Customer Loyalty Relationship. J. Cust. Satisf. 26, 25-37.
75. Su, L., Hsu, M.K., and Swanson, S., 2014. The Effect of Tourist Relationship Perception on Destination Loyalty at a World Heritage Site in China: The Mediating Role of Overall Destination Satisfaction and Trust. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 1096348014525630.
76. Susyarini, N. et al 2014. Tourists behavioral intentions antecedent meeting incentive convention and exhibition (MICE) in Bali. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. 6, 102-109.
77. Tang, M.-L., 2014. Tourist Attraction, Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intention of Industrial Tourist: Economic Factors as Moderator. J. Int. Manag. Stud. 9, 105.
78. Tasci, A.D., Gartner, W.C., and Cavusgil, S.T., 2007. Conceptualization and operationalization of destination image. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 31, 194-223.
79. Tavitiyaman, P. et al 2013. Destination image and behavioral intention of travelers to Thailand: The moderating effect of perceived risk. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 30, 169-185.
80. Tse, D.K., and Wilton, P.C., 1988. Models of consumer satisfaction formation: An extension. J. Mark. Res. 204-212.
81. Weaver, D. and L. Lawton, 2010. Tourism Management (4th ed.). Australia: J. Wiley.
82. Yilmaz, Y. et al 2009. Destination image: A comparative study on pre and post trip image variations. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 18, 461-479.
83. Yoon, Y., Uysal, M., 2005. An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: a structural model. Tour. Manag. 26, 45-56.
84. Zeithaml, V. et al 1996. The behavioral consequences of service quality. J. Mark. 31-46.
85. Zhang, Y., 2015. The Impact of Brand Image on Consumer Behavior: A Literature Review. Open J. Bus. Manag. 3, 58.
