Current Issues in Tourism

ISSN: 1368-3500 (Print) 1747-7603 (On ine) !ourn" #ome$"%e: #tt$:&&'''(t"n)*on ine(+om& oi&r+it,0

FACTORS INFLUENCING THEME PARK

VISTORS BRAND SWITCHING BEHAVIOR AS
BASED ON VISITORS PERCEPTIONS
1i"n C#en%2 3uos#i 4u 5 6un*ei 7"

To +ite t#is "rti+ e: Qian Cheng, Ruoshi Du & Yunlei Ma (2016) Facto s inl!uencing the"e #a $
%isito & an'-s(itching &eha%iou as &ase' on %isito #e ce#tion, Cu ent )ssues in *ou is", 1+,1-,
1-2.-1--6, D/), 1001010213613.000201-011.-+4

To in. to t#is "rti+ e: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.885497

Published o li e: 11 !"r 2014.

#ub$it %our "rti&le to this 'our "l

(rti&le )ie*s: 1035

+ie* ,ross$"r- d"t"

,iti g "rti&les: 2 +ie* &iti g "rti&les

.ull /er$s 0 ,o ditio s o1 "&&ess " d use &" be 1ou d "t

http://***.t" d1o li e.&o$/"&tio /'our "l2 1or$"tio 3'our "l,ode4r&it20
Current Issues in Tourism, 2016
Vol. 19, No. 14, 1425 – 1446, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.885497

Factors influencing theme park visitor brand-switching behaviour

as based on visitor perception
Qian Cheng∗ , Ruoshi Du and Yunfei Ma

College of Tourism and City, Zhejiang Gongshang University, #18 Xuezheng St, Jianggan District,
Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province 310018, People’s Republic of China
(Received 5 April 2013; final version received 12 January 2014)

With the development of theme parks, which represent a multi-million-pound

industry worldwide, research investigating the factors affecting theme park visitor
brand-switching behaviour is an important method for improving theme park
competitiveness. In the present work, models and research hypothesis are constructed
based on visitor perception, and the survey data are collected and analysed to assess
the hypothesis and to revise the conceptual model in this paper. The results indicate
that there are seven factors influencing visitor brand-switching behaviour: ‘visitor
variety-seeking’, ‘visitor satisfaction’, ‘switching cost’, ‘perceived value’, ‘competitor
attraction’, ‘theme park image’ and ‘visitor involvement’. The perceived value and
visitor satisfaction strongly influence brand-switching behaviour as intermediate
variables. Visitor variety-seeking and competitor attraction are positively related to
visitor brand switching behaviour, whereas the other five factors are negatively
related to visitor brand-switching behaviour.
Keywords: theme park; switching behaviour; visitor perception; brand; factor

Introduction
The importance and difficulty of retaining customers is a constant feature of marketing lit-
erature. Competition for customers is fierce in most industries, and consumers are sur-
rounded by numerous brands. More customers are loyal to multiple brands than they are
to a single brand. Satisfied customers may still engage in brand-switching behaviours.
This switching happens because customers feel different levels of satisfaction due to the
schema they form from their knowledge, experiences and disposition (Kahneman &
Snell, 1992). This study was motivated by a question – what factors induce customer
switching behaviours?
The concept of branding has been extensively applied to products and services in the
generic marketing field (Blain, Levvy, & Ritchie, 2005). Nevertheless, brands are also
found in many categories of tourism products and permeate almost all facets of tourism
activities (Cai, 2002; Gnoth, Baloglu, Ekinci, & Sirakaya-Turk, 2007). Theme parks are
considered a form of leisure activity because they provide an opportunity for entertainment
during an individual’s discretionary free time (Milman, 1991). According to Milman
(2001), the popularity of theme parks and attractions will continue to grow, as they are
increasingly associated with new vacation experiences. With the development of
theme parks, the leisure and tourism industry has faced intense competition from a wide

∗ Corresponding
author. Email: qiancheng525@163.com

# 2014 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

1426 Q. Cheng et al.

range of rapidly emerging innovative leisure products (Milman, 2001; Stevens, 2000). The
brand has become the main factor affecting visitors’ selection of theme parks. Competition
in the theme park market has already entered the brand era, having exited the product-
dominated era. In addition, the competition in tourism has already transitioned from
initial resources competition to brand competition. A well-known theme park brand has
already become strongly attractive to visitors.
As competition in the theme park industry is becoming fierce, and retaining existing
customers is a crucial basis for obtaining continuous competitive advantage over other
businesses, the significance of defensive marketing strategies as opposed to aggressive mar-
keting strategies for attracting new visitors is growing. A portion of operators have begun to
pay more attention to brand management in theme parks. To establish an unassailable com-
petitive position, certain theme parks implement brand-orientation strategies. Without a full
understanding of the factors influencing brand-switching behaviour, the operators of theme
parks will usually invest considerable resources into useless factors; thus, the strategies of
the theme park operators will not be significantly effective. Therefore, the operators need to
pay close attention to how to ensure that visitors do not choose rival products, revisit their
own theme park, reduce brand-switching behaviour and cultivate brand loyalty.
As a result, it is necessary to analyse the fundamental reasons and factors influencing
the switching behaviour of visitors regarding theme parks. This study intends to examine
the organic causation of visitor switching behaviour in the theme park industry.

Literature review
Pearce described theme parks as ‘extreme examples of capital-intensive, highly developed,
user-oriented, man-modified, recreational environments’ (Pearce, 1988). A theme park
cannot be successful without good service quality. McClung (1991) identified influential
factors in the choice of theme park of a visitor by determining the characteristics of the
attraction and theme preferences of visitors versus non-visitors. The important factors influ-
encing visitors’ choice of theme parks were theme park entertainment, low waiting rate,
good environment and facilities (Moutinho, 1988). Pikkemaat and Schuckert (2007) ident-
ified a list of theme park success factors and found that a high level of service quality
enables a theme park to gain the competitive advantage, better positioning than its compe-
titors, and enhanced customer loyalty. Ye (2003) proposed that branding can guarantee the
success, profit and sustainable development of theme parks, as a brand helps to identify a
certain product in addition to implying product characteristics and quality, which improve
the revisitation rate and loyalty of tourists.
The benefits of customer retention and the costs of customer switching behaviour have
received considerable attention in the literature. The identification of those customers prone
to service switching behaviour is a high priority. Prior work has examined the reasons for
customer service switching (Keaveney, 1995), differences in satisfaction and loyalty of
service switchers versus stayers (Ganesh, Arnold, & Reynolds, 2000), cognitive models
of service switching (Bansal & Taylor, 1999), and process models of customer service
switching (Roos, 1999). A substantial body of research supports the relationships of two
attitudinal variables, satisfaction and service quality, to customers’ switching intentions
(Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994; Oliver & Bearden, 1985; Reichheld & Sasser,
1990; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). Fewer studies have examined these relation-
ships in the context of actual switching behaviour, but they also suggest that dissatisfaction
explains at least some customer switching (Bansal & Taylor, 1999; Keaveney, 1995). When
customers are satisfied, they are likely to repeatedly visit a business and be highly loyal to
 Current Issues in Tourism 1427

the business (Valle, Silva, Mendes, & Guerio, 2006). Other research has supported the need
to consider causes of service switching beyond dissatisfaction.
In an exploratory study of customer switching behaviour in the services industry,
Keaveney (1995) identified eight major causes, namely, pricing, inconvenience, core
service failures, service encounter failures, employee responses to service failures, attrac-
tion by competitors, ethical problems and involuntary switching. The occurrence of
brand switching mainly depends on three aspects. The first aspect is customer perceived
value. The second aspect is the amount of money that a customer invests in brand switch-
ing; the third aspect is the loss that occurs when the customer stops his or her relationship
with a brand (Dube & Shoemaker, 2000).
Based on the theoretical model of consumer behaviour, many researchers have devel-
oped theoretical models of consumer behaviour in relation to theme parks, including
such factors as how customers perceive revenue management practice in the theme park
industry (Heo & Lee, 2009) and in a national park (Schwartz, Stewart, & Backlund,
2012) and how visitor emotions in a theme park environment influence satisfaction and
behavioural intentions (Bigné, Andreu, & Gnoth, 2005). Empirical research was conducted
on visitor satisfaction with two theme parks in South Africa (Boshoff, 2006).
The empirical studies reveal that tourism image is a direct antecedent of perceived
quality, satisfaction, intention to return and willingness to recommend the destination
(Bigné, Sánchez, & Sánchez, 2001). Theme park image has been investigated by deter-
mining the relative importance of the evaluation criteria of visitors for a theme park and
their assessments of the extent to which the theme park satisfied such criteria (Haahti &
Yavas, 2004). On the basis of switching cost, the influence on brand switching was
researched, and it was found that consumers might give up switching from a brand
because of the high switching cost (Jones, Mothersbaugh, & Betty, 2002). The relation-
ship between visitor satisfaction, perceived value, service quality and visitors’ behaviour
motives was studied for Yamay Discovery World (Tsai, 2005). Bigné, Sanchez, and
Andreu (2009) found the propensity for variety-seeking was a main determinant of a
tourist’s intent to return to the same destination for the next holiday. Although
researchers agree on the importance of relationships between satisfaction, perceived
value, service quality variables, and behavioural intentions, there are no conclusive
findings.
Several researchers have begun to study the factors influencing theme park develop-
ment based on the perspective of the visitor experience. Milman (2001) analysed the
future theme park development and found that economic motive force and human resources
play an inestimable role in the development of theme parks, and visitors will pay more
attention to theme parks through interactive experiences. However, few studies to date
have identified which, if any, visitor characteristics might be effective in predicting
theme park visitor switching behaviour.
Perceived value has its roots in equity theory, which considers the ratio of consumer’s
outcome/input to that of the service provider’s outcome/input (Oliver & DeSarbo, 1988).
The equity concept refers to customer evaluation of what is fair, right, or deserved for
the perceived cost of the offering (Bolton & Lemon, 1999). Perceived costs include mon-
etary payments and non-monetary sacrifices such as time consumption, energy consump-
tion and stress experienced by consumers. In turn, customer perceived value results from
an evaluation of the relative rewards and sacrifices associated with the offering. Customers
are inclined to feel equitably treated if they perceive that the ratio of their outcome to inputs
is comparable to the ratio of outcome to inputs experienced by the company (Oliver &
DeSarbo, 1988; Pakdil & Harwood, 2005).
1428 Q. Cheng et al.

Customer perceived value has recently gained a large amount of attention from
marketers and researchers because of the important role that it plays in predicting purchas-
ing behaviour and achieving sustainable competitive advantage (Bolton & Drew, 1991;
Parasuraman, 1997; Zeithaml, 1988). A consumer chooses a product or brand according
to how the product or brand can bring greater utility or value to him over competing
brands. This value primarily depends on the consumer perceived value of the product
(Zeithaml, 1988). Although the value is subjective, in general, perceived value is a
balance between the customer perceived risk (profit and loss) and perceived benefits
(Ravald & Gronroos, 1996; Parasuraman, 1997). To provide consumers with excellent
value is regarded as the main source of competitiveness in the enterprise market (Woodruff,
1997). Perceived value provides a new perspective for the research on branding.
Currently, tourism consumers will pay more attention to the experience and perception.
Developing the experience economy and visitor perception are foundational in the con-
struction of a theme park’s brand, service and value (Xiao & Xia, 2008). Therefore, the
main purpose of this study is to investigate the factors influencing visitor theme-park
switching behaviour as based on visitor perception. First of all, a conceptual framework
of factors influencing visitor theme-park switching behaviour is presented. Based on pre-
vious studies, a conceptual model combining seven factors influencing visitor switching be-
haviour are tested using factor analysis.

Conceptual model and research hypotheses

Conceptual model
The conceptual model put forward in this paper is based on the research of Keaveney (1995)
in combination with the factors influencing visitor switching-behaviour in the second
part. A framework that incorporates key variables from visitor satisfaction and switch-
ing-behaviour relationships (Crosby & Stephens, 1987), visitor perceived value and switch-
ing-behaviour relationships (Zeng & Ni, 2006), switching cost, visitor involvement and
switching-behaviour relationships (Dube & Shoemaker, 2000), is used to examine the
factors that determine visitor switching behaviours.
According to Banwari and Walfried (1998) and Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Betty (2000), a
consumer’s switching behaviours are determined by his/her satisfaction, and this satisfaction
is affected by competitor attraction, and that, in turn, is affected by consumer variety-seeking.
Visitor switching behaviour is affected by visitor perceived brand value (Liao, 2005; Lu &
Zhang, 2004). The visitor perceived brand value is also affected by (a) theme park image,
(b) competitor attraction, and (c) visitor variety-seeking. Dube and Shoemaker (2000) and
Oliver (1993) consider that switching behaviour is affected by the degree of involvement.
According to Jones et al. (2000), consumers may give up switching brands because of the
high switching cost, so the switching cost can affect visitor switching behaviour.
Thus, we refine the factors affecting visitor theme-park switching behaviour, and they
are ‘switching cost’, ‘visitor involvement’, ‘competitor attraction’, ‘theme park image’,
‘variety-seeking’, ‘perceived value’ and ‘visitor satisfaction’. Figure 1 presents a concep-
tual model of a visitor’s intention and behaviour when engaging in theme park brand-
switching behaviour.

Research hypotheses
The relationship between the demographic variable and eight variables. Demographic vari-
ables are the objective description of individuals, as well as the basic elements to distinguish
consumer groups in marketing management. Lapersonne, Laurent, and Goff (1995) believe
 Current Issues in Tourism 1429

Figure 1. The conceptual model of customer’s switching behaviour on theme parks brand.

that demographic variables have a significant effect on customers’ purchasing behaviour.

Thus, this study will provide further discussion on the influence of demographic variables
on theme park visitor switching behaviour. The following is hypothesised:

H1: Gender has a significant influence on the eight variables.

H2: Different age groups have a significant influence on the eight variables.
H3: Average monthly income has a significant influence on the eight variables.
H4: Education level has a significant influence on the eight variables.

Relationship between visitor satisfaction and visitor switching behaviour. As Crosby and
Stephens (1987) note, dissatisfaction is related to a visitor’s switching behaviour and the
brand-switching intention. While customer payment intent increases when a customer
feels a certain level of satisfaction (Lind & Tyler, 1988), dissatisfied customers’ intent to
maintain payment decreases, which ultimately leads to switching intent (Homburg,
Koschate, & Hoyer, 2005). Bearden and Teel (1983) said that customer satisfaction and
switching intent had a negative relationship. Keaveney (1995) demonstrated that customer
dissatisfaction was the most essential factor for switching behaviour (Ganesh et al., 2000),
and Han, Kim, and Hyun (2011) noted that satisfied customers always had low switching
intent, stressing the negative relationship between customer satisfaction and switching
intent (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993). Based on these results, this study assumed that custo-
mer satisfaction would negatively affect customer switching intent and establishes the fol-
lowing hypothesis:

H5: Visitor satisfaction is negatively related to visitor switching behaviour.

Relationship between visitor perceived value and switching behaviour and satisfaction.
Customer repurchase intentions are frequently determined by perceived value (Cronin,
Brady, & Hult, 2000). Perceived value is based on a customer’s careful evaluation of a
product or service (Zeithaml, 1988) and can be summarised as a trade-off between per-
ceived benefits and perceived costs (Lovelock, 2000). The visitor’s perceived value has a
positive effect on satisfaction (Lee, Trail, Kwon, & Anderson, 2011). Shi and Liu (2005)
1430 Q. Cheng et al.

established the repeat purchase behaviour model, in which perceived quality is one of the
factors affecting consumers’ brand-switching behaviour. According to the results and the
in-depth interviews about the theme park brand, most consumers cited perceived value
as the cause of brand switching, and perceived value greatly influences visitor satisfaction.
Therefore, this paper puts forward the following hypotheses:
H6.1: Visitor perceived value is negatively related to visitor switching behaviour.
H6.2: Visitor perceived value is positively related to visitor satisfaction.

Relationship between theme park image and visitor perceived value, satisfaction, and
visitor switching behaviour. Image has been proved to be a pivotal factor in travellers’
decision processes and destination selection behaviour (Um & Crompton, 1990). Cao
(2008) indicates that theme park image when building the logical model of theme park
influences visitor satisfaction. In a conceptual study, Hsu and Cai (2009) propose that a des-
tination’s positive image will increase tourist trust in regard to choosing it. Just as brand
image can positively influence satisfaction and trust (Esch, Langner, Schmitt, & Geus,
2006; Ha, 2004), destination image can positively influence travellers’ satisfaction and
trust towards a destination. Past studies have demonstrated that destination image signifi-
cantly affects visit and revisit intention (Choia, Tkachenkoa, & Silb, 2011; Nadeau,
Heslop, O’Reilly, & Luk, 2008; Lee & Back, 2008). Baloglu and Mangaloglu (2001)
believe that the competition between tourism destinations is based on differences
between their perceived images. Therefore, this study includes the theme park image into
the model, and at the same time, the study will consider the influence of the theme park
image on perceived value and visitor satisfaction. Therefore, this paper proposes the follow-
ing hypotheses (7.1 – 7.3):
H7.1: The theme park image is positively related to visitor perceived value.
H7.2: The theme park image is positively related to visitor satisfaction.
H7.3: The theme park image is negatively related to visitor’ switching behaviour.

Relationship between competitor attraction and visitor perceived value, satisfaction, and
visitor switching behaviour. Keaveney (1995) noted that the attraction by competitors
can influence consumer brand-switching behaviour. Gwinner, Gremler, and Bitner (1998)
insisted that even if customers perceive a firm’s service attributes not to be fully satisfactory,
they may stay in a relationship if they receive important relational benefits such as confi-
dence, social, and special treatment benefits. Customers often stay in a specific relationship
with their provider because they perceive a lack of a superior alternative. Finally, an indi-
vidual’s perceived lack of attractive alternatives may be regarded as an important constraint
on his/her switching act (Colgate & Lang, 2001; Han & Ryu, 2009). Therefore, this paper
puts forward the following hypotheses (8.1 – 8.3):
H8.1: Competitor attraction is negatively related to visitor perceived value.
H8.2: Competitor attraction is significant negative related to visitor satisfaction.
H8.3: Competitor attraction is positively related to visitor switching behaviour.

Relationship between visitor variety-seeking and visitor perceived value, satisfaction, and
switching behaviour. Prior studies on the effects of perceived value on postconsumption
behaviours uncovered that a higher perception of quality in a consumption situation
leads to positive behavioural intentions (Bell, Auh, & Smalley, 2005; Fullerton, 2004; Gon-
zalez, Comesana, & Brea, 2007). One way to reduce dissonance is to change the actual
 Current Issues in Tourism 1431

behaviour by seeking alternatives (Festinger, 1957). In regard to brand-switching beha-

viours, customer variety-seeking means that the possibility of purchasing a specific
brand reduces the possibility of buying the same brand in future consumption situations
(Kahn, 1995; Ratneshwar & Mick, 2005). The variety-seeking of products by customers
means the customers need different product categories or different brands of the same cat-
egory to meet their different needs. The variety-seeking of customers of brands will affect
customers’ satisfaction and loyalty, which means that regardless of whether the customers
feel satisfied with the original brand, they may switch and buy another brand just because
their diversification needs (Raju, 1980). Therefore, visitor switching behaviour may occur
only because customers need to try a new brand to meet psychological needs. Therefore,
this paper puts forward the following hypotheses (9.1 – 9.3):
H9.1: Visitor variety-seeking is negatively related to visitor perceived value.
H9.2: Visitor variety-seeking is negatively related to visitor satisfaction.
H9.3: Visitor variety-seeking is positively related to visitor switching behaviour.

Relationship between visitor involvement and visitor perceived value, satisfaction, and
visitor switching behaviour. Previous research (Beatty, Homer, & Kahle, 1988; Traylor,
1981) highlights the relationship between consumer involvement and visitor switching
behaviour. A high level of involvement greatly influences future visitor behavior
(Homburg & Giering, 2001). Oliver’s (1993) research identifies consumer involvement
as one of the factors influencing consumer switching behaviour and confirms the impact
of consumer involvement on satisfaction and brand-switching behaviour. The more
involved the customer is in the purchasing transactions with a brand, the more likely
they are to display greater brand loyalty. Hence, this paper formulates the following hypoth-
eses (10.1 – 10.3):

H10.1: Visitor involvement is positively related to visitor perceived value.

H10.2: Visitor involvement is positively related to visitor satisfaction.
H10.3: Visitor involvement is negatively related to visitor switching behaviour.

Relationship between switching cost and visitor perceived value, satisfaction, and
switching behaviour. Some scholars evaluate switching costs in economic terms only
(Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Switching costs have been considered as any barrier that makes
it more difficult to change service providers (Jones & Sasser, 1995). Jones et al. (2000)
verified the relationship between switching cost, customer satisfaction, and switching
behaviour, which indicates that the higher the switching cost is, the smaller the possibility
of brand switching, and switching cost can also affect consumer satisfaction. Thus, in the
present paper, we formulate the following hypotheses:

H11.1: Switching cost perception is positively related to visitor perceived value.

H11.2: Switching cost perception is positively related to visitor satisfaction.
H11.3: Switching cost perception is negatively related to visitor switching behaviour.

Research methodology
Research approach and sampling frame
The applied study of visitor switching behaviour in theme parks is of theoretical and prac-
tical interest. The intrinsic peculiarities of visitor satisfaction and switching behaviour have
1432 Q. Cheng et al.

an effect on the research methodology. Thus, a qualitative and quantitative approach has
been adopted.
In-depth interviews involve direct and purposeful social interaction and discussion
between the researcher and a respondent (Trochim & Donnelly, 2007), so they are often
used before conducting quantitative research to guide in its formulation. In this study,
semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted to help define suitable measurement
scales for switching behaviour evaluation in the theme park. Specifically, in-depth face-
to-face interviews were conducted with employees as well as with customers of theme
parks. Two visitor focus groups were set up, with the objectives of determining, as precisely
as possible, the characteristics of the possible responses to the questionnaire used in the
quantitative research. In addition, two focus group discussions were arranged, with both
groups made up of visitors with a recent experience of visiting a theme park. One group
consisted of 10 respondents (4 of them male), and the other consisted of 8 respondents
(4 of them male). Each focus group session started with a brief introduction in a relaxed
atmosphere to facilitate elicitation of the respondents’ honest opinions.
Each interview began with the researcher introducing the general research theme and
inviting the interviewee to elaborate on two topics: (1) ‘What criteria did you use to
assess your recent theme park visit?’ and (2) ‘What are the factors or aspects that may influ-
ence your theme-park switching behaviour?’ After the warm-up questions, each respon-
dent, in turn, talked about the park they had visited recently, and the discussion was
guided to focus on the participants’ expectations of, feelings about and evaluations of
the visitation experience. The drivers of visitor-switching behaviour and behavioural inten-
tions were emphasised as much as possible. The reliability and content validity of the
survey were checked using the results from the in-depth interview and consumer focus
groups, and the questionnaire was revised and supplemented.
However, a quantitative focus was adopted. The questionnaire is designed according to
the concept model and hypotheses, and it is divided into three parts. In part one, visitors
displaying theme park brand-switching behaviour of theme parks are selected for further
study. In part two, visitor personal factors, including gender, age, income, job, among
others, are surveyed, and these data are utilised for identifying the demographic character-
istics. Part three includes the core contents, which are eight variables, including theme park
image, competitor attraction, visitor variety-seeking, visitor involvement, switching cost
perception, visitor perceived value, satisfaction and visitor switching behaviour. A five-
point Likert-type scale is adopted to measure the variables in the factors influencing
theme park brand-switching behaviour, and the measurement degree ranges from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The final questionnaire was distributed to visitors in
theme parks that provide a form of entertainment activity.
Survey data were collected during June to July 2011. A total of 500 copies of the
questionnaire were distributed, and 438 completed questionnaires were collected, for
a return rate of 87.6%. Of the returned questionnaires, 114 were invalid. Thus, only
324 questionnaires were analysed. The socio-demographic characteristics are listed in
Table 1.
The theme parks researched in this paper were chosen using several steps. In the first
step, the relevant information about all the theme parks in Hangzhou was collected.
Then, the four theme parks were selected based on two aspects. First, visitors have rela-
tively high possibilities in brand switching for theme parks. Second, the selected theme
parks produce a large proportion of the tourism income of all the theme parks in Hangzhou.
In the second step, using the visitor number, tourism income and brand recognition as a
standard, four main theme parks that represent different theme park brands were chosen.
 Current Issues in Tourism 1433

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents

(N ¼ 324).

Characteristics Percentage (%)

Gender
Female 57.1
Male 42.9
Age
Younger than 18 25.0
18 – 30 33.3
31 – 40 16.7
41 and older 25.0
Monthly salary
Less than USD 159 29.1
USD 159 – 476 8.3
USD 476 – 794 30.5
USD 794 and above 32.1
Education
Lower than middle school 16.7
High school 19.4
College and undergraduate 53.4
Graduate and higher 10.5

These four parks are Songcheng Theme Park, Future World Theme Park, Waipojia Red
Lanterns Theme Park, and Ocean World Theme Park in Hangzhou.

Measures
The measurement scales that we used were designed to examine the study’s target question:
What contributes to visitor theme park brand-switching behaviour? Specific attributes were
adapted from the theories discussed in the above literature review and included the follow-
ing categories for 25 items: visitor variety-seeking (3 questions), visitor satisfaction (4 ques-
tions), switching cost (4 questions), visitor perceived value (4 questions), competitor
attraction (3 questions), theme park image (4 questions), and degree of visitor involvement
(3 questions). The questionnaire included questions regarding the demographic character-
istics of respondents and their experiences in theme parks. Visitor satisfaction and visitor
perceived value items were adapted from Lau and Lee (1999), Cronin et al. (2000) and
Cao (2008). Theme park image items were adopted from Chi and Qu (2008) and Wang
(2009). Items concerning competitor attraction and visitor variety-seeking were adapted
from Jones et al. (2000), William and Hu (2003) and Raju (1980). Switching cost items
were based on Burnham, Frels, and Mahajian (2003) and Huang and Huang (2007).
Lastly, visitor involvement items were based on a literature review and by considering
Zaichkowsky (1985).

Results
Exploratory factor analysis
This paper uses principal component analysis to perform an exploratory factor analysis and
consolidate the 25 considered items under seven major influential factors. The Kaiser –
Meyer – Olkin value is 0.800, and the Bartlett test of sphericity (p , 0.000) results indicate
1434 Q. Cheng et al.

that the data meets the requirements for factor analysis. In regard to the characteristic root of
one as the standard to intercept the data and the variance maximisation orthogonal rotation
adoption, the results reveal that there are seven factors whose characteristic roots are greater
than one, and the cumulative total variance of these five factors explain 68.86% of the
characteristic variation. The 25 items are reduced to 23 items by this analysis. Two ques-
tions, ‘You believe you select the theme park because of its reputation’ and ‘You believe
the theme park you are visiting is reputable’, whose loading is under 0.5, are removed.
The seven factors, which include 23 items (Table 2), are ‘theme park image’, ‘competitor
attraction’, ‘switching cost’, ‘visitor involvement’, ‘visitor variety-seeking’, ‘visitor per-
ceived value’, and ‘visitor satisfaction’. The Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient test
results indicate that the reliability of all the factors exceeded 0.76, a high level (Table 2).

Variance analysis
The main aim of this section is to determine the influence of the socio-demographic charac-
teristics on the eight variables (‘theme park image’, ‘competitor attraction’, ‘switching
cost’, ‘visitor involvement’, ‘visitor variety-seeking’, ‘visitor perceived value’, ‘visitor sat-
isfaction’ and ‘visitor switching behaviour’). To examine whether visitors of different
gender have significant differences in the eight variables, the T-test was used. As seen in
Table 3, indicated that the Sig. (two-tailed) of F2, F3, F4, F5, F6 and F7 are greater
than 0.05. This indicates that there are no obvious differences in regard to gender and
visitor perception of those six factors. But, the Sig. value of the two factors, F1 (visitor
variety-seeking) and F (visitor switching behaviour), is less than 0.05, which means
there are significant differences for visitors of different gender in regard to visitor
variety-seeking and brand-switching behaviour. In addition, the perceptions of men
towards visitor variety-seeking and visitor switching behaviour are stronger than for
women.
For the purpose of determining the influence of different ages on the eight factors, a var-
iance test for different ages was conducted. In this section, mean value analysis is adapted to
determine whether the variables are significantly different among the visitors of different
age groups, and single factor analysis variance (ANOVA) is mainly used to analyse the
different visitor groups. The significance level is fixed at 0.05. A probability Sig. value
is less than the significance coefficient (0.05) indicates significant differences (Table 4).
Table 4 indicates that visitors of different ages displayed significant differences in four
variables: F1 (visitor variety-seeking), F3 (switching cost), F7 (visitor involvement),
F (visitor switching behaviour). Among these variables, there are extremely significant
differences (p , 0.01) in factor F1 (visitor variety-seeking) and F (visitor switching behav-
iour). With increases of age, visitors tend to prefer a stable feeling, and do not like pursuing
variety. The switching cost perception of visitors above 31 years old is much lower than
visitors between 18 and 30 years old. The perception of visitor switching behaviour for
the younger respondents was obviously higher than that of the older respondents.
Next, the variance testing of different monthly income was conducted. ANOVA was
mainly used to analyse the different visitor groups. The significance level was fixed at
0.05. As seen in Table 5, visitors of different monthly income display significant differences
in three variables: F1 (visitor variety-seeking), F3 (switching cost), and F (visitor switching
behaviour). The perception of visitor variety-seeking of visitors with a high income is much
higher than visitors with low income. The switching cost perception of visitors with a high
income is not highly sensitive, and it is lower than for visitors with low income. Because of
the characteristics of visitors with high income in terms of visitor variety-seeking and
 Current Issues in Tourism 1435

Table 2. Principal component analysis.

Factor Variable Loading Coefficient

F1 (Visitor variety- You like to try to visit theme parks with different 0.883 0.920
seeking) characteristics
You like to try to visit theme parks with different 0.848
brands
You feel psychological satisfaction when visiting 0.808
theme parks with different brands
F2 (Visitor You believe you have a good time in the current theme 0.790 0.766
satisfaction) park, and it was a wise decision to visit here
You believe the entertainment facilities in the theme 0.743
park are in accordance with your expectations
You can have more fun now in the theme park than 0.709
other parks you visited before
In general, you are satisfied with the brand of the 0.671
theme park
F3 (Switching cost) If you visit another theme park in the future, you think 0.878 0.737
you will spend more money
If you visit other theme parks in the future, you think 0.792
you will consider the ticket price, the transportation
and the accommodation expenses
If you visit other theme parks in the future, you think 0.751
you will consider the local consumption levels
If you visit other theme parks in the future, you think 0.711
you need to take time to learn travel information
F4 (Visitor You are satisfied with the service quality of the theme 0.755 0.749
perceived value) park
You consider the overall quality of the theme park very 0.683
good
You are satisfied with the product features and quality 0.664
of the theme park
F5 (Competitor You can have more happy experiences in theme parks 0.673 0.729
attraction) of other brands
Theme parks with other brands can meet your 0.581
requirements better
Your requirements can be equally or even better 0.573
satisfied by theme parks with other brands
F6 (Theme park The stronger the curiosity related to a theme park is, 0.849 0.810
image) the more likely you will visit the theme park
You believe the theme park you are visiting now 0.801
makes you feel relaxed and excited
You believe you chose this theme park because of its 0.653
theme
F7 (Visitor You believe it is worthwhile to take time to learn all 0.888 0.668
involvement) the information about the theme park
You believe it is worthwhile to take a lot of time to 0.865
learn all the information related to different theme
parks
You believe it is a very important decision when 0.862
deciding to visit a theme park
Credibility 0.760

switching cost, there is a relatively high probability of switching behaviour. That is,
visitors with high income have reported obviously higher perceived switching behaviour
than visitors with low income.
1436 Q. Cheng et al.

Table 3. Independent sample T-test of gender on different factors.

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F
Mean value
Male 3.7652 3.5746 3.3824 3.8485 3.4876 3.4527 3.2867 4.1747
Female 3.3867 3.6983 3.6487 3.9839 3.5382 3.6253 2.9856 3.8527
Standard deviation
Male 0.9866 1.0823 1.0486 0.9591 1.0283 0.9994 1.0169 0.8774
Female 0.9915 0.9176 0.9736 1.0263 0.9816 1.0110 0.9251 0.7965
T
Male 23.387 0.444 0.300 21.128 20.852 20.371 0.244 3.735
Female 23.388 0.432 0.297 21.139 20.846 20.372 0.243 3.683
Sig(two-sided)
Male 0.025 0.658 0.765 0.263 0.397 0.712 0.835 0.000
Female 0.024 0.667 0.768 0.259 0.401 0.711 0.836 0.000
Note: F means visitor’s switching behaviour.

Table 4. Single factor variance test of ages to different factors.

Age F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F
Less than 18 years old 4.8743 3.2168 4.0132 3.9451 3.9457 3.743 4.0243 4.2654
18 – 30 years old 4.6854 3.5143 3.8461 3.8013 3.8507 3.537 3.6065 3.9015
31 – 40 years old 3.7410 3.7319 3.6457 3.7206 3.6013 3.436 3.4310 3.6431
Above 40 years old 3.2163 3.8237 3.534 3.9718 3.4735 3.615 3.7536 3.1049
F-value 7.325 1.837 4.385 1.203 0.538 1.268 3.356 6.583
Sig. 0.000 0.509 0.026 0.316 0.658 0.292 0.027 0.000

Table 5. Single factor variance test of monthly income to different factors.

Monthly income F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F
Less than 159 dollars 3.1905 3.6135 3.8341 3.7355 3.5336 3.6429 3.3742 3.2092
Between 159 and 476 3.4573 3.6431 3.7586 3.7246 3.4783 3.6864 3.3014 3.3103
dollars
Between 476 and 794 3.7064 3.5385 3.4753 3.6382 3.5469 3.7347 3.4032 3.6482
dollars
Above 794 dollars 4.0363 3.5406 3.2847 3.7901 3.4592 3.7563 3.4873 3.9316
F-value 8.120 0.739 7.414 0.197 0.495 0.546 0.612 6.363

The final variance analysis concerned different education levels. In this section, mean
value analysis is adopted to determine whether variables have significant differences
among visitors of different education levels, and ANOVA is mainly used to analyse the
different groups of visitors. The significant level is fixed at 0.05. A probability Sig.
value is less than the significance coefficient (0.05) that indicates significant differences.
As seen in Table 6, visitors of different education levels display significant differences in
four variables: F1 (visitor variety-seeking), F3 (switching cost), F7 (visitor involvement)
and F (visitor switching behaviour). In addition, reported visitor variety-seeking become
much lower along with increases in the education level. The reported switching cost of visi-
tors with a high education level is higher than that of visitors with a low education level.
 Current Issues in Tourism 1437

Table 6. Single factor variance test of education to different factors.

Education F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F
Middle school level and 4.0628 3.7549 3.6224 3.6032 3.6463 3.7205 3.8094 3.8289
below
High school level 3.8269 3.7003 3.7023 3.6238 3.5329 3.6349 3.7209 3.7306
College and 3.6349 3.6975 3.7593 3.7237 3.5014 3.6232 3.6302 3.5892
undergraduate
Graduate and above 3.4349 2.7032 3.8726 3.7504 3.4012 3.5019 3.4128 3.2087
F-value 4.830 1.760 5.653 0.465 0.476 0.515 3.216 2.938
Sig. 0.004 0.163 0.002 0.588 0.700 0.673 0.027 0.016

The reported involvement degree of visitors with high education level is lower than visitors
with a low education level. With the increase of the education level, there is less visitor
switching.

Correlation analysis
The results of correlation analysis of each factor and visitor switching behaviour are shown
in Table 7. The correlation coefficient between visitor variety-seeking and visitor switching
behaviour is 0.678, and the uncorrelated significance probability is 0.000. These results
indicate F1 (visitor variety-seeking) has a remarkable linear correlation relationship with
visitor switching behaviour. F2 (visitor satisfaction), F3 (switching cost), F4 (visitor per-
ceived value), F5 (competitor attraction), F6 (theme park image) and F7 (visitor involve-
ment) all have a remarkable linear correlation relationship with visitor switching
behaviour. In addition, visitor variety-seeking and competitor attraction are positively cor-
related to visitor switching behaviour, whereas the other five factors are negatively corre-
lated to visitor switching behaviour.

Table 7. Correlation analysis between seven factors and visitor’s switching behaviour.

F (Visitor’s
switching F4 (Visitors
Factor Item behaviour) perceived value) F2
F1 Pearson correlation coefficient 0.678∗∗ 20.254∗ 20.167∗
Significance probability (two-sides) 0.000 0.018 0.023
F2 Pearson correlation coefficient 20.429∗∗ 0.683∗∗
Significance probability (two-sides) 0.000 0.000
F3 Pearson correlation coefficient 20.398∗∗ 0.013 0.026
Significance probability (two-sides) 0.000 0.802 0.793
F4 Pearson correlation coefficient 20.323∗∗ 0.683∗∗
Significance probability (two-sides) 0.006 0.000
F5 Pearson correlation coefficient 0.425∗∗ 20.348∗∗ 20.270
Significance probability (two-sides) 0.000 0.002 0.016∗
F6 Pearson correlation coefficient 20.364∗∗ 0.302∗∗ 0.325
Significance probability (two-sides) 0.000 0.008 0.004∗∗
F7 Pearson correlation coefficient 20.329∗∗ 0.063 0.047
Significance probability (two-sides) 0.003 0.598 0.679
F 20.323∗∗ 20.429∗∗
0.006 0.000
∗
Means significant correlation in the level of 0.05.∗ ∗ Means significant correlation in the level of 0.01.
1438 Q. Cheng et al.

The correlation analysis results between each factor and visitor perceived value and
visitor satisfaction can be presented in Table 7. As seen in the table, F3 (switching cost)
and F7 (visitor involvement) are not related to the visitor perceived value, other factors
have a significant relationship. Among them, F2 (visitor satisfaction) and F6 (theme
park image) present a positive correlation relationship with visitor perceived value. F1
(visitor variety-seeking), F5 (competitor attraction) and F (visitor switching behaviour)
are negatively related with visitor perceived value. F3 (switching cost) and F7 (visitor
involvement) have no correlational relationship with visitor perceived value.
In addition, as seen on the table, except for F3 (switching cost) and F7 (visitor involve-
ment), which are not related to visitor satisfaction, other factors all have a significant
relationship with it. F4 (visitor perceived value) and F6 (theme park image) present a posi-
tive correlation relationship with visitor satisfaction. F1 (visitor variety-seeking), F5 (com-
petitor attraction) and F (visitor switching behaviour) are negatively related to visitor
satisfaction.

Regression analysis between seven factors and visitor switching behaviour

This study examines visitor switching behaviour, visitor perceived value, visitor satisfac-
tion as dependent variables and takes each influential factor as an independent variable
to investigate whether there is a causal relationship between factors. The regression analysis
involved a stepwise regression method and entered the independent variables into the
regression equation one by one. SPSS 17.0 software was used to determine the statistical
probability of the variable coefficient F entering the regression equations was 0.05.
Thus, the statistical probability of deleting the variable F in the regression equations was
0.10 (Table 8).
Based on the above analysis, the seven influential factors are regarded as independent
variables, and visitor switching behaviour is regarded as a dependent variable (Table 8). The
seven major factors influencing visitor switching behaviour all enter the regression model
(Table 8). As seen in Table 8, the constant term T ¼ 31.129, and its corresponding signifi-
cant probability Sig. ¼ 0.000, which is far smaller than 0.05. This indicates that there are
significant differences between the constant term and 0, and the absolute term should
belong to the regression equation. The significance probability Sig. of the seven major
factors’ T values as the independent variable is less than 0.05, which indicates that there

Table 8. Linear model coefficient table.

Un-standardised Standardised Co-linearity
regression coefficient regression coefficient analysis

Standard
Sequence B error Beta T-value Sig. Permission VIF
Constant 3.653 0.055 41.539 0.000 1.000 1.000
term
F1 0.686 0.055 0.678 9.513 0.000 1.000 1.000
F2 20.435 0.055 20.429 26.302 0.000 1.000 1.000
F5 0.428 0.05 0.425 6.118 0.000 1.000 1.000
F3 20.407 0.055 20.398 25.908 0.000 1.000 1.000
F6 20.385 0.055 20.364 25.514 0.000 1.000 1.000
F7 20.359 0.055 20.329 25.124 0.000 1.000 1.000
F4 20.353 0.055 20.323 24.497 0.006 1.000 1.000
 Current Issues in Tourism 1439

Figure 2. The updated conceptual model of customer’s switching behaviour on theme parks brand.

are significant differences between the coefficient of these factors and 0, and it should be
regarded as an explanatory variable appearing in the regression equation. In addition, the
change of explanatory variable can be explained in the regression equation. The permission
and the value variance inflation factor (VIF) is one, indicating that there is no co-linearity.
The above-mentioned indexes reveal that the overall fitting degree of regression is much
better. Among the independent variables and visitor switching behaviour, the visitor
variety-seeking is most closely related to visitor switching behaviour, whereas the sub-
sequent factors are visitor satisfaction, switching cost, perceived value, competitor attrac-
tion, theme park image and degree of visitor involvement.

Hypothesis testing and model updating

Based on the above correlation analysis, regression analysis and the research hypothesis
testing results, the paths without support were removed in the hypothesis model, namely,
the path of F3 (switching cost) with visitor perceived value and visitor satisfaction, the
path of F7 (visitor involvement) with visitor perceived value and visitor satisfaction are
removed from the model. Thus, the model is updated, and the results are shown in
Figure 2.

Conclusions and discussion

The study proposed a conceptual model of visitor theme park brand-switching behaviour.
The proposal was based on Keaveney’s (1995) customer’s switching theory, which draws
on the marketing and switching behaviour literature, and is extended from Cai’s (2002) fra-
mework of destination branding process.
The research indicated that there are seven factors influencing visitor switching behav-
iour, namely, ‘visitor satisfaction’, ‘perceived value’, ‘visitor variety-seeking’, ‘switching
cost’, ‘competitor attraction’, ‘theme park image’ and ‘visitor involvement’. Both visitor
perceived value and visitor satisfaction are strongly related to visitor switching behaviour
as the intermediate variable, and visitor variety-seeking and competitor attraction are posi-
tively related to visitor switching behaviour, whereas the remaining five factors are nega-
tively related to it. Moreover, our results reveal that visitor variety-seeking and
1440 Q. Cheng et al.

competitor attraction strongly affect two intermediate variables, namely visitor perceived
value and visitor satisfaction, which have a positive correlation with visitor switching be-
haviour. Switching cost and degree of visitor involvement have negative correlation with
visitor switching behaviour on theme park directly. Visitor variety-seeking is most
closely related to visitor switching behaviour, whereas the subsequent factors are visitor sat-
isfaction, switching cost, perceived value, competitor attraction, theme park image and
degree of visitor involvement.
For demographic variables, gender has a significant influence on visitor variety-seeking
and visitor switching behaviour. There is a significant relationship between age and visitor
variety-seeking, switching cost, degree of visitor involvement and switching behaviour.
The average monthly income has a significant influence on visitor variety-seeking, switch-
ing cost and visitor switching behaviour. The level of education has a significant influence
on visitor variety-seeking, switching cost, visitor involvement and visitor switching
behaviour.
The analysis indicates that visitor variety-seeking is positively related to visitor switch-
ing behaviour, through two intermediate variables, namely visitor perceived value and sat-
isfaction. The reason why customers pursue diversity in a consumption situation is that they
want to experience something new or their hedonic motive is stronger than their motive for
benefits. The results indicate that variety-seeking effects significantly influence people’s
choice of theme parks. These results are similar to those obtained by Hoyer and
Ridgway (1984) and Simonson (1990) who observed that customer variety-seeking was
as an important factor in switching intent, and it was verified that there was a significant
influence by customer variety-seeking on the relationship between customer satisfaction
and loyalty and switching intent (Jung & Yoon, 2012).
Visitor perceived value is negatively related to visitor switching behaviour through the
intermediate variable visitor satisfaction. The perceived value stems from a comparison
between what passengers acquire and what they pay to acquire it (Zeithaml, 1988), and
the research results were similar to those of previous research (Lee et al., 2011). Our find-
ings indicate that both perceptive quality and perceived value lead to satisfaction. Thus,
these findings add weight to Bagozzi’s (1992) suggestion that cognitive evaluations
precede emotional responses. The results also provide empirical support for Woodruff’s
(1997) conceptualisation of value and satisfaction. The service quality perceptions are
also an important determinant of customer satisfaction, and dissatisfaction may relate to
switching behaviour (Kemperman & Timmermans, 2012).
Customer switching intent means the possibility of transferring their existing trans-
actions with a company to a competitor. Visitor satisfaction and switching intent had a nega-
tive relationship; this finding supported earlier work (Fullerton & Taylor, 2002; Ganesh
et al., 2000; Halstead & Page, 1992; Reichheld, 1993). Consequently, if customers are sat-
isfied, they display special behaviours favourable to relevant companies, such as recom-
mending them to others (Reichheld & Sasser, 1990) or loyal behaviours, such as positive
oral transmission (Sirohi, McLaughlin, & Wittink, 1998) or voluntary expression of
intent of maintenance (Dick & Basu, 1994).
The relationship analysis performed in this study indicates that the destination image,
which directly and indirectly influences behavioural intentions, appears to have the most
important effect on switching behaviour – a finding consistent with previous studies
(Chi & Qu, 2008). Theme park image was verified to impact visitor switching behaviour
through visitor perceived value and satisfaction. The current results suggest that improving
a theme park’s image is a critical method to generate future revisits, even if a visitor was
dissatisfied or had a poor experience. A positive image can suggest that the visitor’s
 Current Issues in Tourism 1441

poor experience was a rare exception. Hence, endeavours to build or improve a theme
park’s image may reduce switching behaviour, thus helping a theme park’s success and
tourism development.
The results indicated that competitor attraction is positively related to visitor switching
behaviour, and this is verified by previous works by Jones et al. (2000) and Han and Ryu
(2009), who found that a lack of attractive alternatives significantly affected the relationship
between the performance or evaluation of a core service and behavioural intentions.
The visitor involvement and switching cost are directly negatively related to theme park
visitor switching behaviour. In theme park tourism, the visitors’ level of involvement in
their visiting decision- making significantly affects their behaviours, similar to satisfaction
and switching. The higher the visitors’ level of involvement, the more detailed information
on a theme park service they wanted and the more effort they made in selecting a theme
park, which results in positive satisfaction. When visitor involvement in a certain theme
park is high, the visitors display greater interest in their decision-making process and
seek a larger amount of information on the theme park. As a result, such a high level of
involvement greatly influences their future behaviours. These results are similar to those
by some studies (Homburg & Giering, 2001; Peter & Olson, 1996; Zaichkowsky, 1985).
These findings support that switching costs have a strong impact on switching behav-
iour, and similar suggestions have been made in support of switching costs by Anderson
(1994). Switching costs are conceptualised as the perception of the magnitude of the incre-
mental costs required to terminate a relationship and secure an alternative (Porter, 1980).
This research makes important contributions to managerial implications concerning
issues of ‘visitor theme park brand switching’. This research identified that those visitors
who have the high satisfaction, perceived value, degree of visitor involvement and a
good image of the theme park will be less likely to switch to another theme park brand.
A high switching cost can also prevent visitors from switching to other theme park
brands. In addition, if the competitor attractor is relatively high and visitors always try to
pursue diversity, they are more likely to turn to other theme park brands.
This study is of an exploratory nature and focuses on the relationship between many
research concepts in the context of visitor satisfaction, and it is useful as a basic study
on theme parks that examines the relationships between visitor satisfaction, loyalty, and
switching behaviour. This study also verified that satisfied visitors became loyal, and
loyal visitor switching intent decreased.
From a theme park’s perspective, the most important variable that can strengthen visitor
loyalty and decrease switching behaviour is visitor satisfaction, but in a modern, competi-
tive society, it is difficult to enhance visitor satisfaction through differentiation of product
quality. The reason is that visitors select theme parks that can provide them with the most
benefits among various alternatives, and their standard of evaluating them or desire continu-
ously changes, resulting in changes in visitor satisfaction or loyalty (Keaveney, 1995).
Therefore, the operators of theme parks should formulate relevant promotion measures to
align the image before visiting with the experience of visitors when visiting the park.
Brand loyalty should be cultivated to reduce brand switching behaviour. The findings of
this research also suggest that theme park managers need to pay greater attention in promot-
ing factors, such as visitor variety-seeking, perceived value and visitor satisfaction. This
approach will help the theme parks to differentiate their offerings in terms of visitor percep-
tions and thus lure such visitors away from competitors.
Despite its several contributions, this research also has several limitations that future
research may address. First, the sample consists of visitors at four theme parks. The gener-
alisability of the results may be limited to visitors in those particular categories. Therefore,
1442 Q. Cheng et al.

variables can be added or modified to expand the scope of the study and enhance accuracy,
which means that the results are more comprehensive. In addition, especially with regard to
variety-seeking, developing a reliable and valid scale of measurement remains a key issue
facing theme park visitor switching behaviour. Thus, future studies should examine that if
there were effects related to visitor variety-seeking in the causal relationships between
visitor satisfaction and switching behaviour.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful with the anonymous reviewers whose suggestions helped to improve the
paper. The preparation of this article was supported by the Humanities and Social Sciences Planning
Fund of Chinese Ministry of Education (11YJAZH017) and by the Zhejiang Province philosophy
social science planning subject (13NDJC041YB) and by the 2013 Qianjiang talent project C item
(QJC1302013).

References
Anderson, E. W. (1994). Cross-category variation in customer satisfaction and retention. Marketing
Letters, 5(1), 19 – 30.
Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market share, and
profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 53 – 66.
Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The antecedents and consequences of customer
satisfaction for firms. Marketing science, 12(2), 125 – 143.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology
Quarterly, Special Issue: Theoretical Advances in Social Psychology, 55(2), 178 – 204.
Baloglu, S., & Mangaloglu, M. (2001). Tourism destinations images of Turkey, Egypt, Greece, and Italy
as perceived by US-based tour operators and travel agents. Tourism Management, 22(1), 1 – 9.
Bansal, H., & Taylor, S. (1999). The service provider switching model (SPSM): A model of switching
behavior in services industries. Journal of Service Research, 2(2), 200 – 218.
Banwari, M., & Walfried, M. L. (1998). Why do customers switch? The dynamics of satisfaction
versus loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing, 12(3), 177 – 194.
Bearden, W. O., & Teel, J. E. (1983). Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction and complaint
reports. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(1), 21 – 28.
Beatty, S. E., Homer, P., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). The involvement – commitment model: Theory and
implications. Journal of Business Research, 16(2), 149 – 167.
Bell, S. J., Auh, S., & Smalley, K. (2005). Customer relationship dynamics: Service quality and cus-
tomer loyalty in the context of varying levels of customer expertise and switching costs. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33, 169 – 183.
Bigné, J. E., Andreu, L., & Gnoth, J. (2005). The theme park experience: An analysis of pleasure,
arousal and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 26, 833 – 844.
Bigné, J. E., Sanchez, I., & 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), 103 – 115.
Bigné, J. E., Sánchez, M. I., & Sánchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables and after pur-
chase behaviour: Inter-relationship. Tourism Management, 22(6), 607 – 616.
Blain, C., Levy, S. E., & Ritchie, B. (2005). Destination branding: Insights and practices from desti-
nation management organizations. Journal of Travel Research, 43(4), 328 – 338.
Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A multistage model of consumer feelings and purchase likeli-
hood. Psychology and Marketing, 9, 347 – 363.
Bolton, R. N., & Lemon, K. N. (1999). A dynamic model of customers’ usage of services: Usage as an
antecedent and consequence of satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 171 – 186.
Boshoff, C. (2006). A proposed instrument to measure the customer satisfaction of tourists to a theme
park. Management Dynamics, 15(3), 2 – 11.
Burnham, T. A., Frels, J. K., & Mahajan, V. (2003). Consumer switching costs: A typology, antece-
dents, and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(2), 109 – 126.
Cai, L. A. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3),
720 – 742.
 Current Issues in Tourism 1443

Cao, X. L. (2008). Study on the measurement of theme park visitors satisfaction. Guangdong: Jinan
University.
Chi, C. G. Q., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist
satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism Management, 29, 624 – 636.
Choia, J. G., Tkachenkoa, T., & Silb, S. (2011). On the destination image of Korea by Russian tourists.
Tourism Management, 32, 193 – 194.
Colgate, M., & Lang, B. (2001). Switching barriers in consumer markets: An investigation of the
financial services industry. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18, 332 – 347.
Cronin, J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value and customer
satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing,
76(2), 193 – 218.
Crosby, L. A., & Stephens, N. (1987). Effects of relationship marketing on satisfaction, retention and
prices in the life insurance industry. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(4), 404 – 411.
Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99 – 113.
Dube, L., & Shoemaker, S. (2000). Brand switching and loyalty for services. In A. S. Teresa &
D. Iacobucci (Eds.), Handbook of services marketing and management (pp. 384 – 385).
New York, NY: Sage.
Esch, F. R., Langner, T., Schmitt, B. H., & Geus, P. (2006). Are brands forever? How brand knowl-
edge and relationships affect current and future purchases. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 15, 98 – 105.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fullerton, G. (2004). The service quality – loyalty relationship in the retail services: Does commitment
matter? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12, 99 – 111.
Fullerton, G., & Taylor, S. (2002). Mediating, Interactive, and non-linear effects in service quality and
satisfaction with services research. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 19, 124 – 136.
Ganesh, J., Arnold, M. J., & Reynolds, K. E. (2000). Understanding the customer base of service
providers: An examination of the differences between switchers and stayers. The Journal of
Marketing, 64, 65 – 87.
Gnoth, J., Baloglu, S., Ekinci, Y., & Sirakaya-Turk, E. (2007). Special issue: Building destination
brands. Tourism Analysis, 12(5/6), 339 – 483.
Gonzalez, M. E. A., Comesana, L. R., & Brea, J. A. F. (2007). Assessing tourist behavioral intentions
through perceived service quality and customer satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 60,
153 – 160.
Gwinner, K. P., Gremler, D. D., & Bitner, M. J. (1998). Relational benefits in services industries: The
customer’s perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26, 101 – 114.
Ha, H. Y. (2004). Factors influencing consumer perceptions of brand trust online. Journal of Product
& Brand Management, 13, 329 – 342.
Haahti, A., & Yavas, U. (2004). A multi-attribute approach to understanding image of a theme park:
The case of Santa Park in Lapland. European Business Review, 16(4), 390 – 397.
Halstead, D., & Page, T. J. (1992). The effects of satisfaction and complaining behavior on
consumer repurchase intentions. Journal of Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining
Behaviour, 5(1), 1 – 11.
Han, H., Kim, W., & Hyun, S. S. (2011). Switching intention model development: Role of service
performances, customer satisfaction, and switching barriers in the hotel industry. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 619 – 629.
Han, H., & Ryu, K. (2009). The roles of the physical environment, price perception, and customer
satisfaction in determining customer loyalty in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 33(4), 487 – 510.
Heo, Y. C., & Lee, S. (2009). Application of revenue management practices to the theme park
industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(3), 446 – 453.
Homburg, C., & Giering, A. (2001). Personal characteristics as moderators of the relationship
between customer satisfaction and loyalty: An empirical analysis. Psychology and Marketing,
18(1), 43 – 66.
Homburg, C., Koschate, N., & Hoyer, W. D. (2005). Do satisfied customers really pay more? A study
of the relationship between customer satisfaction and willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing,
69(2), 84 – 96.
1444 Q. Cheng et al.

Hoyer, W. D., & Ridgway, N. M. (1984). Variety seeking as an explanation for exploratory purchase
behavior: A theoretical model. In Thomas C. Kinnear (Ed.), NA – advances in consumer research
(Vol. 11, pp. 114 – 119). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Hsu, C., & Cai, L. P. (2009). Brand knowledge, trust and loyalty – a conceptual model of destination
branding. International CHRIE Conference-Referee Track, Paper 12. Retrieved from http://
scholarworks.umass.edu/refereed/Sessions/Friday/12
Huang, Y. H., & Huang, F. C. (2007). Tourists’ perceived value model and its measurement: An
empirical study. Tourism Tribune, 22(8), 42 – 47.
Jones, M. A., Motherbaugh, D. L., & Beatty, S. E. (2000). Switching barriers and repurchase
intentions in services. Journal of retailing, 76(2), 259 – 274.
Jones, M. A., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Beatty, S. E. (2002). Why customers stay: Measuring the under-
lying dimensions of services switching costs and managing their differential strategic outcomes.
Journal of Business Research, 55(6), 441 – 450.
Jones, T. O., & Sasser, W. E. (1995). Why satisfied customers defect. Harvard Business Review, 73(6),
88 – 99.
Jung, H. S., & Yoon, H. H. (2012). Why do satisfied customers switch? Focus on the restaurant patron
variety-seeking orientation and purchase decision involvement. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 31, 875 – 884.
Kahn, B. E. (1995). Consumer variety-seeking among goods and service. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 2(3), 139 – 148.
Kahneman, D., & Snell, J. (1992). Predicting a changing taste: Do people know what they will like?
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5, 187 – 200.
Keaveney, S. M. (1995). Customer switching behavior in service industries: An exploratory study.
Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 71 – 82.
Kemperman, A., & Timmermans, H. (2012). Environmental correlates of active travel behavior of
children. Environment and Behavior, 12, 1 – 26.
Lapersonne, E., Laurent, G., & Le Goff, J. J. (1995). Consideration sets of size one: An empirical
investigation of automobile purchases. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(1),
55 – 66.
Lau, G. T., & Lee, S. H. (1999). Consumers’ trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty. Journal of
Market-Focused Management, 4, 341 – 370.
Lee, D., Trail, G. T., Kwon, H. H., & Anderson, D. F. (2011). Consumer values versus perceived
product attributes: Relationships among items from the MVS, PRS, and PERVAL scales. Sport
Management Review, 14(1), 89 – 101.
Lee, J. S., & Back, B. J. (2008). Attendee-based brand equity. Tourism Management, 29, 331 – 344.
Liao, H. Q. (2005). Empirical research on consumers’ brand choice behavior. Modern Management
Science, 11, 45 – 48.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY:
Plenum.
Lovelock, C. H. (2000). Services marketing (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
International.
Lu, J., & Zhang, D. H. (2004). An empirical study on factors influencing brand loyalty. Finance and
Trade Research, 6, 39 – 46.
McClung, G. W. (1991). Theme park selection: Factors influencing attendance. Tourism Management,
12(2), 132 – 140.
Milman, A. (1991). The role of theme parks as a leisure activity for local communities. Journal of
Travel Research, 29(3), 11 – 16.
Milman, A. (2001). The future of the theme park and attraction industry: A management perspective.
Journal of Travel Research, 40(2), 139 – 147.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20 – 38.
Moutinho, L. (1988). Amusement park tourist behaviour – Scottish attitudes. Tourism Management,
9(4), 291 – 300.
Nadeau, J., Heslop, L., O’Reilly, N., & Luk, P. (2008). Destination in a country image context. Annals
of Tourism Research, 35, 84 – 106.
Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of
Consumer Research, 20(3), 418 – 430.
 Current Issues in Tourism 1445

Oliver, R. L., & Bearden, W. O. (1985). Crossover effects in the theory of reasoned action. Journal of
Consumer Research, 12, 324 – 340.
Oliver, R. L., & DeSarbo, W. S. (1988). Response determinants in satisfaction judgments. Journal of
Consumer Research, 14(4), 495 – 507.
Pakdil, F., & Harwood, T. N. (2005). Patient satisfaction in a preoperative assessment clinic: An
analysis using SERVQUAL dimensions. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
16(1), 15 – 30.
Parasuraman, A. (1997). Reflections on gaining competitive advantage through customer value.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 154 – 161.
Pearce, P. L. (1988). The Ulysses factor: Evaluating visitors in tourist settings. New York, NY:
Springer-Verlag.
Peter, J. P., & Olson, J. C. (1996). Consumer behavior and marketing strategy. Irwin series in market-
ing. Chicago: Irwin.
Pikkemaat, B., & Schuckert, M. (2007). Success factors of theme parks – an exploration study.
Turizam: znanstveno-stručni časopis, 55(2), 197 – 208.
Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Raju, P. S. (1980). Optimum stimulation level: Its relationship to personality, demographics, and
exploratory behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 272 – 282.
Ratneshwar, S., & Mick, D. G. (Eds.). (2005). Inside consumption: Consumer motives, goals, and
desires. London: Routledge.
Ravald, A., & Gronroos, C. (1996). The value concept and relationship marketing. European Journal
of Marketing, 30(2), 19 – 33.
Reichheld, F. F. (1993). Loyalty-based management. Harvard Business Review, 71(2), 64 – 73.
Reichheld, F. F., & Sasser, W. E. (1990). Zero defections: Quality comes to services. Harvard
Business Review, 68(5), 105 – 111.
Roos, I. (1999). Switching processes in customer relationships. Journal of Service Research, 2,
376 – 393.
Schwartz, Z., Stewart, W., & Backlund, E. A. (2012). Visitation at capacity-constrained tourism
destinations: Exploring revenue management at a national park. Tourism Management, 33(3),
500 – 508.
Shi, Y. C., & Liu, C. L. (2005). Empirical research on customers’ repeat purchase behavior. Nankai
Business Review, 8(1), 35 – 41.
Simonson, I. (1999). The effect of purchase quantity and timing on variety-seeking behavior. Journal
of Marketing Research, 27(2), 150 – 162.
Sirohi, N., McLaughlin, E. W., & Wittink, D. R. (1998). A model of consumer perceptions and store
loyalty intentions for a supermarket retailer. Journal of Retailing, 74(2), 223 – 245.
Stevens, T. (2000). The future of tourist attractions. Travel & Tourism Analyst, 1, 61 – 85.
Traylor, M. B. (1981). Product involvement and brand commitment. Journal of Advertising Research,
21(6), 51 – 56.
Trochim, W., & Donnelly, J. (2007). The research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.). Ohio: Atomic
Dog Publishing.
Tsai, W. K. (2005). The study on relationship among theme park tourists: Service quality, customer
satisfaction, perceived value and behavioral intention – an empirical case of Yamay Discovery
World (Unpublished master’s thesis). Chaoyang University of Technology, Taiwan.
Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice. Annals of
Tourism Research, 17, 432 – 448.
Valle, P., Silva, J., Mendes, J., Guerio, M., (2006). Tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty
intentions. International Journal of Business Sciences and Applied Management, 1(1), 25 – 44.
Wang, B. (2009). Research on the factors influencing tourists loyalty. Dalian: Dalian University of
Technology.
William, J., & Hu, K. C. (2003). Application of perceived value model to identify factors affecting
passengers’ repurchase intentions on city bus: A case of the Taipei metropolitan area.
Transportation, 30(3), 307 – 327.
Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 139 – 153.
Xiao, Y. N., & Xia, M. (2008). On the creation of experience value in the theme park. Tourism
Tribune, 23, 57 – 61.
1446 Q. Cheng et al.

Ye, Z. X. (2003). Theme park brand construction and maintenance. Beijing: China Travel &Tourism
Press, 11, 97 – 102.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12,
341 – 352.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means – end model and
synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2 – 22.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service
quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31 – 46.
Zeng, M. D., & Ni, N. (2006). The formation mechanism of consumers brand conversion behavior.
Seeker, 10, 62 – 64.