| Literature DB >> 31842426 |
Hyunjoon Kim1, Jinkyung Jenny Kim2, Muhammad Asif3.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the antecedents and consequences of travelers' well-being perceptions in the context of a duty-free shop. For this, data were collected from 742 Chinese tourists who purchased goods at duty free shops while traveling in Korea within the past year using an online survey company's system in China. The results indicated that pragmatic, hedonic, and sociability experiences have a positive influence on travelers' well-being perceptions. In addition, travelers' well-being perceptions aided the enhancement of brand attitude and brand preference, which in turn positively affected word-of-mouth. Novelty is the originality of this study as very few studies on this topic are presented in the extant literature and practical implications are also discussed.Entities:
Keywords: brand attitude; brand preference; duty free shop; travelers’ experiences; well-being perceptions; word-of-mouth
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31842426 PMCID: PMC6950536 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16245081
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Proposed conceptual model. Note: H = hypothesis.
Profile of the survey respondents’ travel characteristics (n = 742).
| Variable |
| Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 330 | 44.5 |
| Female | 412 | 55.5 |
| Education Level | ||
| High school diploma | 170 | 22.9 |
| Associate’s degree | 35 | 4.7 |
| Bachelor’s degree | 464 | 62.6 |
| Graduate degree | 73 | 9.8 |
| Marital Status | ||
| Single | 121 | 16.3 |
| Married (including divorced and widow/widower) | 621 | 83.7 |
| Occupation | ||
| Company employee | 474 | 63.9 |
| Self-employed | 53 | 7.1 |
| Sales/service | 15 | 2.1 |
| Student | 13 | 1.8 |
| Civil servant | 57 | 7.7 |
| Professional | 122 | 16.4 |
| Other | 8 | 1.0 |
| Yearly income | ||
| Less than US$16,600 | 144 | 19.4 |
| US$ 16,601–US$21,600 | 139 | 18.7 |
| US$ 21,601–US$27,770 | 157 | 21.2 |
| US$ 27,771–US$37,000 | 179 | 24.1 |
| More than US$37,001 | 123 | 16.6 |
| Mean Age = 32.76 years |
Information about travel characteristics (n = 742).
| Variable |
| Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| How many times have you visited Korea, including this tour? | ||
| One time | 165 | 22.2 |
| Two times | 283 | 38.1 |
| Three times | 174 | 23.5 |
| Over four times | 120 | 16.2 |
| What is your main purpose of this tour? | ||
| Leisure | 666 | 89.8 |
| Business | 26 | 3.5 |
| To meet friends or relatives | 7 | 0.9 |
| Shopping | 43 | 5.8 |
| How long did you stay in Korea? | ||
| One night | 7 | 0.9 |
| Two nights | 73 | 9.8 |
| Three nights | 248 | 33.4 |
| Four nights | 223 | 30.1 |
| Over five nights | 191 | 25.7 |
| With whom did you travel? | ||
| Alone | 42 | 5.7 |
| Friend | 264 | 35.6 |
| Association or Company | 39 | 5.3 |
| Family or Relatives | 397 | 53.5 |
| How much did you spend for shopping? | Average | US$2560 |
Descriptive statistics and associated measures.
| Construct | No. of Items | Mean (SD) | AVE | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Pragmatic experience | 4 | 4.23 (0.89) | 0.674 |
| 0.768 b | 0.773 | 0.717 | 0.781 | 0.742 | 0.672 | 0.712 |
| (2) Hedonic experience | 4 | 4.10 (0.90) | 0.672 | 0.590 c |
| 0.720 | 0.739 | 0.771 | 0.667 | 0.635 | 0.658 |
| (3) Sociability experience | 4 | 3.73 (0.97) | 0.649 | 0.598 | 0.518 |
| 0.772 | 0.819 | 0.671 | 0.634 | 0.668 |
| (4) Usability experience | 4 | 4.05 (0.86) | 0.655 | 0.514 | 0.546 | 0.596 |
| 0.778 | 0.679 | 0.652 | 0.683 |
| (5) Well-being perceptions | 3 | 4.24 (0.92) | 0.701 | 0.610 | 0.594 | 0.671 | 0.605 |
| 0.690 | 0.655 | 0.718 |
| (6) Brand attitude | 6 | 4.26 (0.93) | 0.698 | 0.551 | 0.445 | 0.450 | 0.461 | 0.476 |
| 0.753 | 0.776 |
| (7) Brand preference | 3 | 4.08 (0.89) | 0.733 | 0.452 | 0.403 | 0.402 | 0.425 | 0.429 | 0.567 |
| 0.753 |
| (8) Word-of-mouth | 3 | 4.21 (0.88) | 0.718 | 0.507 | 0.433 | 0.446 | 0.466 | 0.516 | 0.602 | 0.567 |
|
| Goodness-of-fit statistics: χ2 = 717.922, | |||||||||||
Note: SD = standard deviation; AVE = average variance extracted; NFI = normed fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. Bold diagonal values are square root of AVE showing discriminant validity; correlations are above the diagonal; squared correlations are below the diagonal.
Confirmatory factor analysis: Items and loadings.
| Construct and Scale Items | Cronbach Alpha | Composite Reliability (CR) | Standardized Loadings a |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| Worthwhile | 0.854 | ||
| Useful | 0.784 | ||
| Valuable | 0.843 | ||
| Relevant | 0.802 | ||
|
|
|
| |
| Pleasing | 0.793 | ||
| Exciting | 0.772 | ||
| Deeply engrossing | 0.864 | ||
| Enjoyable | 0.847 | ||
|
|
|
| |
| Friendly | 0.733 | ||
| Personal | 0.779 | ||
| Polite | 0.781 | ||
| Inviting | 0.827 | ||
|
|
|
| |
| Not tiring | 0.805 | ||
| Not stressful | 0.820 | ||
| Not confusing | 0.811 | ||
| Consistent | 0.801 | ||
|
|
|
| |
| This duty free shop played an important role in my well-being. | 0.842 | ||
| This duty free shop met my overall well-being needs. | 0.814 | ||
| This duty free shop played an important role in enhancing my quality of life. | 0.856 | ||
|
|
|
| |
| How would you characterize your attitude toward the duty free shop? | |||
| I think my attitude toward the duty free shop is | |||
| Unfavorable—Favorable | 0.823 | ||
| Dislike—Like | 0.741 | ||
| Bad—Good | 0.790 | ||
| Unpleasant—Pleasant | 0.756 | ||
| Poor quality—High quality | 0.744 | ||
| Unsatisfactory—Satisfactory | 0.783 | ||
|
|
|
| |
| When I want to shop, I consider this duty free shop a viable choice very often. | 0.885 | ||
| This duty free shop meets my shopping needs better than other comparable duty free shops. | 0.871 | ||
| I am interested in this duty free shop more than in other comparable duty free shops. | 0.811 | ||
|
|
|
| |
| I said positive things about this duty free shop to others. | 0.831 | ||
| I recommended this duty free shop to others. | 0.865 | ||
| I encouraged others to visit this duty free shop. | 0.845 |
Note: Bold values are showing constructs’ reliabilities. a standardized factor loadings.
Standardized parameter estimates for the structural model.
| Paths | Standardized Estimate | Hypothesis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| → | Well-being perceptions | 0.543 | 4.498 | Supported | |
| → | Well-being perceptions | 0.234 | 2.589 | Supported | |
| → | Well-being perceptions | 0.173 | 1.990 | Supported | |
| → | Well-being perceptions | 0.014 | 0.805 | Not supported | |
| → | Brand attitude | 0.746 | 17.208 | Supported | |
| → | Brand preference | 0.319 | 6.744 | Supported | |
| → | Word-of-mouth | 0.208 | 5.032 | Supported | |
| → | Brand preference | 0.512 | 9.917 | Supported | |
| → | Word-of-mouth | 0.256 | 5.366 | Supported | |
| → | Word-of-mouth | 0.516 | 10.080 | Supported | |
| Goodness-of-fit statistics: χ2 = 783.088, | |||||
Note: H = hypothesis.
Figure 2Standardized theoretical path coefficients.