How Promotional Activities and Evaluative Factors Affect Destination Loyalty: Evidence from International Tourists of Vietnam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tourists’ expectations regarding a given destination are affected to a certain extent by the destination’s promotional activities. Although tourism destinations have promotional strategies that are put into effect with the goal of increasing the number of visitors, destination promotional failures are inevitable in the tourism industry. Many of the marketing planners in Vietnam tend to encounter difficulties when deciding which promotion tools to employ because they fail to understand tourists’ consumer behaviors. The main purpose of this study is to explore how promotional activities and evaluative factors affect destination loyalty within the tourism industry. This study proposes a structural model of the relationships among promotional activities (PAs), tourist expectations (TEs), tourist satisfaction (TS) and destination loyalty (DL). Randomly selected respondents from the population of international tourists departing from Vietnamese international airports were selected to participate in the questionnaire study. Initially, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to test the validity of the constructs, and the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), using AMOS, was used to test the significance of the proposed hypothesis model. The results show that the relationships among PA, TE,TS and DL appear significant. The results also indicate that, beside their high expectations regarding a given destination’s features, international tourists seem to be dissatisfied with the services that they received when visiting Vietnam. This dissatisfaction leads to a low level of tourists’ intentions to return to Vietnam. This paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the findings from the study for tourism marketers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".