Numerous variables, such as demographics, attribute satisfactions, and push and pull motivators, can affect repeat visitation [1-3].It is necessary to apply the push-and-pull motivation theory in order to identify the repeat-visit drivers [1,4]. This study seeks to determine whether push-and-pull motivators mediate the association between attribute satisfaction and repeat visitors. A significant proportion of travel and tourism research is shaped by consumer purchasing behavior theories [5,1,6]. Choosing a travel destination is a difficult decision for consumers, especially because tourism is more expensive than other options [6]. Tourism research examines a vast array of options and motivations, including when, how, and where to travel, who to travel with, cost and ease of travel, and more [2].

This study is the first to examine the relationship between push and pull motivation theories and repeat visitors, thereby breaking new ground. The study has the greatest impact on push and pull theories in tourism research and on repeat visitors. In particular, it indicates that pull motivations associated with repeat visitors are insignificant, whereas push motivation plays a crucial role in attracting repeat visitors. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that push and pull motivations reinforce one another. These results suggest that traditional marketing focuses on first-time visitors and disregards motivation research when predicting actual repeat visits based on the concept of destination loyalty. In addition, the study investigates the effect of demographics on push and pull motivation. Age moderates pull motivations but not push motivations, and surprisingly, neither push nor pull motivations are affected by gender. These findings are intriguing.

Relevant Implications

Repeat visitors present a lucrative opportunity for businesses in the tourism industry, as they have the potential to increase profits [7]. By emphasizing tourists' dissatisfaction with their current location, hospitality companies can increase the influence of push motivations, according to the study's practical implications [8,1]. In addition, businesses can highlight the advantages of recharging one's energy by taking a break from a demanding job or escaping inclement weather, which could also serve as a push motivator [9,10]. In addition, the study indicates that attribute satisfaction alone can motivate repeat visits, but this effect can be enhanced by focusing on push motivations. In addition, the findings suggest that older tourists may be more influenced by pull motivations, possibly due to the perceived attractiveness of the destination. In conclusion, the study reveals that combining pull and push motivations can increase the likelihood of repeat visits.

 Methodological Consequences

This study's methodology introduces a model that addresses the limitations of destination loyalty constructs and incorporates push and pull motivations as mediators between attribute satisfaction and repeat visitation. In this model, demographics can also be studied as mediators of push and pull motivations. The model provides a continuum that enables spiral research of tourist behavior, which is not accounted for by traditional loyalty-based models. This model can assist practitioners in developing methods for establishing long-lasting customer relationships by illustrating the complexity of visitation decisions. In addition, pull factors can be used to segment markets, and the survey's demographics can be expanded in order to gain a deeper understanding of how motivations influence tourist decisions.

Destination loyalty" is the intent to return to a place and recommend it to others, such as family and friends [6]. "Attribute satisfaction" refers to a tourist's satisfaction with specific characteristics that define a destination, such as lodgings, attractions, shopping, dining, etc. "Research demonstrates a correlation between destination loyalty and attribute satisfaction [11,12].Attribute satisfaction influences destination loyalty; likewise, repeat visitors demonstrate a high level of attributes satisfaction [13,14]. Destination loyalty refers to the intention to return to the same location and recommend it to others, including friends and family. Prior to this study, tourism research used destination loyalty as a dependent variable. Interestingly, there is a weak correlation between destination loyalty and repeat visitation [15,16,6]. This is because the construct of destination loyalty has the limitation of measuring only the intent to return. Increasing destination loyalty, which includes the intent to return, offers a number of benefits, including the creation of positive word-of-mouth, the attainment of greater cost-effectiveness, and the enhancement of economic profit .Tourists are prompted to leave their current location by push motivations, whereas they are drawn to a destination by pull motivations. These motivating factors frequently operate in tandem [2,1].

At the same time, push and pull factors may influence destination selection decisions differently and must therefore be studied separately.

Numerous studies in the tourism literature have examined the effect of demographic variables, such as age and gender, on destination loyalty [17,18,6].

Demographics can serve as a tool for segmentation. Studies must consider the influence of demographics on tourist preferences. Identify sixty tourism-related papers that failed to account for potentially significant demographics. In certain instances, demographic factors may be irrelevant. Multiple studies failed to find a correlation between demographics and destination image [6,19]. Inconsistent findings have resulted from research examining the relationship between attribute satisfaction, destination loyalty, and demographics. This study builds on criticisms of the push-pull theory of research by ignoring demographics and individual characteristics. In order to gain a deeper understanding of how push and pull factors may influence the actualization of return intentions, this study includes a number of demographic variables regarded as moderators of satisfaction and return visit characteristics[20,18,6].

Theory

According to studies, attribute satisfaction is positively associated with destination loyalty and intent to return Repeated visitors frequently exhibit a high level of attribute satisfaction [12-14].In contrast, it has been demonstrated that destination loyalty has a weak correlation with repeat visitation. Curiously, intention to return also fails to accurately predict subsequent visits [6, 21]. Similarly, there may be no correlation between high levels of attribute satisfaction and repeat visits to tourist destinations [21-23]. These contradictory findings raise the question of what, if not destination loyalty, are the key drivers of repeat visits. Some tourists may be motivated by the familiar, while others may be demotivated by the familiar, depending on the previously visited destination. First-time visitors are typically acquainted with a destination through advertisements, films, and television, as well as word-of-mouth; however, repeat visitors develop more complex images of a destination as a result of increased knowledge and experience [24].

Additionally, previous research has demonstrated that repeat visitors may express greater satisfaction with particular aspects of a location. For instance, tourists may believe that the location allowed them to unwind after a hard day's work at home, experience moments of tranquility, escape crowded cities, release tension, spend quality time with family and friends, enjoy the care, hospitality, and attention of the staff, get more exercise and improve oneself physically and intellectually, enjoy the scenery, feel closer to nature, see new things, appreciate warmer weather and outings, and visit relatives.

Clearly, these are very distinct characteristics, although both may encourage repeat visits. Such combinations of attributes may be associated with the perceived stability and consistency of a location, causing the traveler to repeatedly select the same destination. Other sets of attributes could be associated with multi-layered experiences; that is, some tourists could revisit a location to get to know it well as opposed to being satisfied with a relatively superficial first-time exposure and learning to value its underlying authenticity [25]. Other repeat visitors, however, may reselect the same location because they view it as a safe option: what if we don't enjoy it as much as we do this one? Repeat visitation could be explained by the status quo bias or a number of stability biases, such as loss aversion identified in prior research. In general, repeat visitors may be completely satisfied with particular location characteristics and fear that they will be less satisfied with new destinations. Consequently, they may repeatedly choose the same location [26,25]. To summarize.

Pull Motives and Recurring Visits

Pull motivations are frequently associated with tourist-attractive destination characteristics (e.g., climate, scenery, cultural events, recreational opportunities, and other benefits). They may also be activated by additional factors that facilitate travel (such as the location's safety, seasonality, security, and accessibility. Consequently, a hospitality or tourism business may seek to activate the pull motives by emphasizing the attractive qualities of the facilities (e.g., cleanliness and safety), their accessibility and affordability (e.g., ease of access and value for money), the exciting features of the natural environment (e.g., sunny and exotic locales), and the location's capacity to satisfy travelers' curiosity (e.g., to explore the environment) [8].

Certainly, pull factors could encourage a traveler to revisit a destination. Prior research has demonstrated that repeat visitors value a location's warm climate, safety, pleasant weather, and opportunities for exploration the most. Repeat visitors may also be attracted by the sentimental value of the destination and the desire to experience some of its features that were missed on a previous trip. They may also plan to show the destination to their loved ones or be motivated by the desire to become intimately acquainted with it [25].

There is no doubt that attribute satisfaction and pull motives can overlap. Thus, a traveler could be satisfied with a destination's affordability and accessibility, which could become the primary pull factors that encourage repeat visits. Additionally, there is a distinction between attribute satisfaction and pull motives. In numerous locations, travelers can find accessibility and affordability. Thus, pull motives are not necessarily influenced by a location's attractiveness. One could satiate their curiosity by appreciating the uniqueness, natural beauty, convenience, and even opportunities for self-improvement in numerous locations. Pull factors may also serve as re-antecedents. visitation's On the one hand, pull factors could attract a tourist to a destination because it is representative of a particular type of location (e.g., places situated on another continent, places known for their natural beauty or places providing opportunities for self-development). Additionally, pull factors may partially mediate the relationship between attribute satisfaction and repeat visits. This could occur if pull factors supported and even enhanced travelers' satisfaction with some of the previously enjoyed characteristics of a destination; as a result, the traveler could be more motivated to revisit a destination than to visit a brand-new location [25,8]. To summarize:

Proposition 2a. Pull motives will correlate positively with repeat visits.

The second alternative a portion of the effect of attribute satisfaction on repeat visitation will be mediated by pull motives.

Encourage Motivations and Repeat Visits

Scholars have conceptualized push factors as being driven by three main factors: "anomie" (i.e., the normlessness and meaninglessness of modern civilization creating the need to enjoy compensatory, meaning-infused experiences elsewhere), ego-enhancement (i.e., status-seeking and thus choosing prestigious locations), and fantasy (i.e., seeking fulfillment of one's dreams through travel). In addition, researchers contrasted escapist motives for travel (i.e., seeking a break from mundane and depressing environments) with seeking intrinsic rewards from travel, arguing that both motivations may have personal and interpersonal dimensions [1].

Research defines push factors as internal forces that motivate an individual to escape, rest and relax, experience an adventure, pursue specific interests, engage in social interactions, and enhance self-esteem and status. In one study, the six most important push factors were listed as knowledge seeking, escapism, spending time with family, fun and excitement, and relaxation. In contrast to pull factors, which are motivated by curiosity and concern for well-being, push factors are motivated by apathy and ego-enhancement and can be personal or interpersonal [8,1].  Therefore, push factors may reflect the traveler's dissatisfaction with the current location, resulting in travel intentions centered on escape, relaxation, self-exploration, socialization, entertainment, and sports participation [27,8].

Push factors may also overlap with attribute satisfaction, similar to pull factors. In particular, push factors may express the desire to find entertainment or relaxation that may be absent at home. Such entertaining or calming attributes of a particular destination may contribute to attribute satisfaction. Similar to pull factors, push factors may play a dual role. In particular, push factors may be positively associated with repeat visits if they satisfy travelers' desires to escape, relax, socialize, reside in a prestigious location, or self-explore. In addition, push motives may serve as mediators between attribute satisfaction following previous visits and actual return visits. To summarize:

Proposition 3a. Push motivations will correlate positively with repeat visitation.

Push motives will partially mediate the relationship between attribute satisfaction and repeat visitation.

Push Motives versus Pull Motives as Repeat Visit Predictors

Push and pull motivations may be in conflict with one another. For instance, a person attempting to escape may not even consider their destination as they seek to flee. However, push and pull motivations may also reinforce and complement one another. Thus, one may desire to leave a familiar, mundane, and common place in order to encounter something exotic. Additionally, push factors or pull factors may be dominant. In particular, push factors may predominate pull factors as antecedents of return visitation and as mediators of the association between attribute satisfaction and return motivation. People are likely to re-select a destination because it allows them to make up for features or experiences they may miss at home. Thus, demonstrated that repeat offenders were predominantly motivated by apathy or push motive.

A person may reselect a location based on its perception as prestigious or relaxing due to external forces. The fact that other locations could match its quality becomes less significant. In contrast, pull factors may attract in the opposite direction, as they emphasize novelty of the location or personal growth. There may be additional reasons for selecting the same location again. People may return to the same location for safety, affordability, and perceived prestige, as well as to continue exploration and gain a deeper understanding. Consequently, push factors acting alone or as mediators in the relationship between attribute satisfaction and return visitation are probably more accurate predictors of return visitation than pull factors. However, push and pull factors may reinforce one another, so that the combination of these two motivations may be a more accurate predictor of return motivation than either acting alone. One could, for instance, view a repeat destination as providing the greatest opportunities for relaxation, while also being attracted by its natural beauty and exotic qualities. To summarize:

Push motives will be a more accurate predictor of repeat visits than pull motives.

Push and pull motives will reinforce one another, making the combination of push and pull motives a stronger predictor of return motivation than either alone.

Age and Gender as Push and Pull Motive Modifiers

Demographic factors, such as age and gender, may influence which characteristics are more appealing to tourists and what motivates them to return. Thus, gender may influence destination image and push versus pull motivation [28, 29]. Recent research indicates that age affected push factors. Specifically, cultural and natural resources were more appealing to older tourists. They were "more likely to visit parks to appreciate the park's natural environment and cultural heritage". Furthermore, older tourists' perceptions of certain attractions differed from those of younger tourists. Thus, older tourists deemed easy access to educational, historical, and natural resources, as well as destination information and facilities, to be more important than younger visitors [25,30].

Additionally, push and pull factors may be affected by gender. In the same study, women ranked the pull factors relaxation and nature appreciation, curiosity, and easy access to educational, historical, and natural resources significantly higher than men. Males rated significantly higher than females the push factor 'escape and health' and the pull factor 'destination information and facilities'

Age will moderate the push versus pull motivations of tourists.

The gender of tourists will moderate their push and pull motivations.

Figure 1: The gender of tourists will moderate their push and pull motivations.

Figure 2: Is a summary of our research methodology.

Survey

This study examined the reasons for repeat visits to tourist destinations. A cross-sectional survey was administered via a web-based questionnaire. Survey participants were randomly selected from a group that met a series of qualifying questions.

The third section measured repeat visitation, which was the outcome variable in our research model. Thus, question 5 asked respondents how many times they had visited the location. The remainder of the third section solicited additional information about the location and the tourists' attitude toward the location [8].

This analysis provided a descriptive profile of the participants' demographics and responses to items regarding repeat visitation, attribute satisfaction, and pull and pull motivations.

Statistical Techniques

SEM was used to test the hypotheses. SEM is a second-generation method developed in the last twenty years to analyze the statistical relationships between multiple variables. SEM provides many advantages over first-generation methods, such as multiple regression.

It facilitates the examination of the relationships between multiple predictor variables and multiple outcome variables.

It has flexible theoretical assumptions (such as multicollinearity tolerance);

It facilitates the analysis of mediation (when the correlation between two variables is the result of their joint correlation with a third variable);

It facilitates the analysis of moderation (when a third variable modifies the magnitude and/or direction of the correlation between two variables); and

Utilizing an intuitive graphical user interface to create path diagrams and visualize the hypothesized relationships between variables is involved.

SEM is commonly used to evaluate the relationships between variables operationalized from multiple-item scores obtained from self-report instruments.

SEM employs confirmatory factor analysis and path analysis. The first stage involves validating the measurement model using factor analysis. The measurement model consists of the relationships between the indicators (e.g., the item scores measured using questionnaires) and the latent variables (e.g., the constructs formulated using multidimensional scaling).

Covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) and partial least squares-based SEM (PLS-SEM), also known as PLS path modeling, were considered for this study. However, PLS-SEM was chosen due to its less stringent data requirements [31].

The sample size requirements for CB-SEM are extremely stringent. According to, over 80% of research articles using CB-SEM drew false conclusions due to insufficient sample sizes. In contrast, sample size considerations are less critical when using PLS-SEM. Its method of estimation includes both small and large samples. . . PLS is particularly useful in generating estimates with small sample sizes (as low as 30 observations or less)" (p. 776). PLS-SEM is most commonly used for business and marketing research involving the analysis of data collected in questionnaires, such as the prediction of customer loyalty and satisfaction [31-33].The software used in this study was SmartPLS version 2.0. The advantages of SmartPLS over other SEM packages (e.g., AMOS) were as follows: (a) SmartPLS is free (downloaded from the developer's website at http://www.smartpls.de), (b) it has a user-friendly graphic interface that an inexperienced user can quickly master, and (c) it operates with an algorithm that [30].

After confirming the model's validity and reliability, we computed and evaluated the model in terms of the standardized path coefficients () and the R2 values between the latent variables. Because they are standardized, the values (equivalent to partial regression coefficients in a multiple linear regression model) ranged from 1 to +1.

Sample Size

To avoid errors or bias in the statistical analysis, respondents were excluded if they: (a) provided nonsensical information; (c) did not report their Age or Gender (male or female); or (d) did not complete at least 60 out of 62 questions regarding Attribute Satisfaction, Push Motivation, and Pull Motivation.

Participants' Qualities

The sample included a wide range of ethnicities. The majority of participants were employed (n = 565, 57.3%), homemakers (n = 113, 11.5%), or self-employed (n = 95, 9.6%). The average household incomes ranged from less than $25,000 to over $200,000; the majority of participants fell into the income categories of $25,000 to $49,000 and $50,000 to $74,999.

The most frequently revisited destinations were Florida (n = 104, 10.5%), Disneyland/Disneyworld (n = 98, 9.9%), and Las Vegas (n = 77, 7.7%). The majority of respondents (n = 766, 77.7%) returned to the destinations between 2 and 10 times.

Cross-loadings of factor loading coefficients on output g are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Indicator Cross-Loadings on Latent Variables.

Table 2: The reliability and validity of latent variables.

Restrictions and Suggestions for Future Research

Self-report data may be biased or distorted because respondents may not always tell the truth for complex psychological reasons. For example, extreme response bias occurs when respondents consistently provide item scores at the very low (strong disagreement) or very high (strong agreement) ends of all the item scales.

It was not possible to answer research questions beginning with "Why," such as (a) Why are pull motivations positively associated with repeat visitation but not push motivations; (c) Why is there a positive correlation between pull and push motivations?

The limitation of statistical analysis of survey data is that it is only possible to summarize the findings and generalize the results from a sample to a population. However, it is only possible to consider the data provided by each individual within a population [34,35].

Despite the fact that many tourism and hospitality businesses want to increase the number of return visitors, it is not clear how this can be accomplished.

In this study, we hypothesized that an interaction of different motivational factors could explain why tourists return to the same destination rather than seeking new experiences. Proposed that tourists can be pushed away from where they live by the psychological forces of anomie, ego enhancement, and fantasy, as well as attracted or pulled to specific destinations by their unique characteristics.

In comparison to previous research, our study enables a more in-depth understanding of return visitation. Push factors are related to seeking relaxation (the anomic motive), seeking a prestigious location (the self-enhancement motive), or seeking an exotic location (the fantasy motive). Pull factors are related to variety and novelty seeking as well as looking for specific attributes or features of the location [1,25,27]. 

Interestingly, push factors appear to appeal equally strongly to travelers regardless of their gender and age, and thus can be considered universal. Age moderated the tourists' pull motivations, but it did not affect their push motivations. Gender did not moderate either push motives or pull motives, which contradicts previous research that suggests gender may influence destination loyalty [6,29].

As with any study, this one has limitations. Our sample may be skewed toward individuals who are less sensitive to pull motivations and more sensitive to push motivations. It is also possible that a more fine-grained analysis would reveal subtler differences in how age and gender may affect push and pull motivations. Nevertheless, our findings appear robust and can be used to generate practical recommendations for tourism-related businesses.

Future research on the relationship between attribute satisfaction, repeat visitation, and push and pull motivations could examine specific situations in which these concepts may interact differently. For instance, different types of locations may make certain push or pull forces more effective. Furthermore, additional contextual factors and tourist types may also influence the relationship.

1. Iso-Ahola SE. Toward a social psychological theory of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 1982; 9: 256-262.
2. Crompton JL, Ankomah PK. Choice set portfolio development modeling destination decisions, Annals of Tourism Research. 1993; 2: 35-43.
3. Geissler GL, CT Rucks. The overall theme park experience: A visitor satisfaction tracking study. J Vacation Mark. 17: 127-138.
4. Navratil J, Picha K, Navratilova J. Satisfaction with visits to tourist attractions. Whence consumer loyalty, J Mark. 2012; 63: 33-44.
5. Crompton JL. Motivations for pleasure vacation. 1979; 408-424.
6. McKercher B, Tse TS. Is intention to return a valid proxy for actual repeat visitation? Journal of Travel Research. 2012; 51: 671-771.
7. Reichheld FF, Sasser EW. Zero defects: Quality leads to repeat visits. Harvard Business Review. 1990; 35: 105-112.
8. Chen L, Chen W. Push-pull factors in international borders travel. Tourism Management. 2015; 48: 416-425.
9. Bansal, Eisel. Tourist motivations and planning: Exploratory Research.Tourism Management. 2004; 25: 387-396.
10. Bogari NB, Crowther G, Marr. Motivation for domestic tourism: A case study of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Tourism Analysis. 2003; 8: 137-141.
11. Chi CGQ, Hallin Q. Examining the structure relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction, and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. 2008.
12. Sun X, Chi CQ, Xu H. Developing destination loyalty: The case of Hainan Island, Annals of Tourism Research. 2013; 43: 547-577.
13. Anwar SA, Sohail MS. Festival tourism in the United Arab Emirates: First-time versus repeat visitor perceptions. J Vacation Mark. 2004; 10: 161-182.
14. Chi CGQ. Destination loyalty formulation and travelers' demographic characteristics: A multiple group analysis approach. J Hosp Tour Res. 2011; 35: 191-210.
15. Patterns of destination repeat business: British tourists in Mallorca Spain. J Travel Research. 1989; 28: 24-30.
16. Temporal destination revisit intention: The effects of novelty seeking and satisfaction. Tourism Management. 2007; 28: 580-600.
17. Zeitham VA, Berry LL, Parasurama A.The behavioral consequences of repeat visit quality. J Mark. 1996; 60: 31-46.
18. Choi TY, Chu R. Determinants of hotel guests' satisfaction and repeat patronage in the Hong Kong hotel industry, Hospitality Management. 2001; 20: 277-297.
19. Baloglu S, McCleary W. A model of destination image formation, Annals of Tourism Research. 1999; 25: 868-897.
20. Snyder DR. Demographic correlations with consumer repeat visit loyalty. Journal of Professional Repeat Visit Marketing. 1991; 8: 45-55.
21. Cooper, Watson, Wixom, Goodhue. Data Warehousing Supports Corporate Strategy at First American Corporation. MIS Quarterly. 2000; 24: 547-567.
22. Shoemaker S, Lewis RC. Customer loyalty: the future of hospitality marketing. Int J Hospitality Manag. 1999; 18: 345-370.
23. Um S, Chon K, Ro Y. Antecedents of revisit intention, Annals of Tourism Research. 33: 1141-1158.
24. MacDonald AGR, Burford M. Grounded theory of leisure travel: Woodside. J Trav Tour Mark. 2004; 17.
25. Li XR, Cheng CK, Kim H, Petrick JF. A systematic comparison of first-time and repeat visitors via a two-phase online survey. Tourism Management. 2008; 29: 278-293.
26. Before You Make That Big Decision, Kahneman, Lovallo, and Sibony Harvard Business Review. 2011; 89: 50-60.
27. Kinnaird V, Hall D. Tourism: A gender analysis, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, The "pull" of tourism destination: A means-end investigation (Klenosky, 2002). Journal of Travel Research. 1994; 40: 385-395.
28. Prayag G, Ryan C. Antecedents of tourists' loyalty to Mauritius: The role and influence of destination image, place attachment, personal involvement, and satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research. 2011; 51: 2-15.
29. Chi CGQ. A study of developing a destination loyalty model. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University. 2005.
30. Wang D, Ap J. Factors influencing tourism policy implementation: A conceptual framework and a case study in China. Tourism Management. 2013; 36: 221-233.
31. Hair JJ, Anderson RE, Babin BJ, Tatman RL, Black W. Upper Saddle River. NJ, Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall. 2010.
32. Ray WJ. Methods toward a science of behavior and experience (8th ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth. 2006.
33. Wetzels M, Shroder OG, van Open C. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2009; 33: 177-195.
34. Denzin NK, Lincoln Y. Strategies of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Los Angeles. 2008.
35. Yin RK. Sage published Case Study Research, Design and Method, Fifth Edition. 2014.
36. Reassessing brand loyalty, price sensitivity, and merchandising effects on consumer brand choice. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics. 1995.
37. Anderson EW, Sullivan MW. The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction. Marketing Science. 1993; 12: 125-143.
38. Bazerman MH, Moore D. Judgment in managerial decision making (7th edition). John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey. 2009.
39. Bigne EJ, Sanchez MI, Sanchez J. Tourism Management Tourism image, evaluation variable, and after-purchase behavior interrelationship. 2001; 22: 607–616.
40. Tourism Management. 31: 862-864.
41. What motivates people to travel: Integrating the tourist motivation paradigms. J China Tourism Research. 2015; 7: 120-136.
42. A repeat visitation of push and pull motivation of green event tourists.
43. Chi CGQ. An examination of destination loyalty: Differences between first-time and repeat visitors, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research. 2012; 36: 24.
44. Tourism Management. 29: 624-636.
45. Crompton JL, McKay SL. Visitors' motivations for attending festival events. Annals of Tourism Research. 1997; 24: 425-439.
46. Ferguson CF. An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 2009; 532-538.
47. Image formation process. J Trav Tour Mark. 1993; 2: 191-212.
48. Halsey, Everett C, Vowler, Drummon. The fickle P value generates irreproducible results. Nature Methods. 2015; 12: 179-185.
49. Personal characteristics as moderators of the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty: An empirical investigation.
50. Mythologies of a theme park: An icon of contemporary family life. J Vacation Mark. 8: 320-326.
51. Kamakura WA, Mittal V. Investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics on satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior. J Mark Res. 2001; 38: 131-142.
52. Lee J, Beeler C. Event Manager. An investigation of predictors and satisfaction and future intention: Links to motivation, involvement, and quality in a local festival. 2009; 13: 17-28.
53. Are tourists or markets location-loyal? J Trav Res. 50: 121-132.
54. Introduction to statistical mediation analysis, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, D.P. MacKinnon. Tourism. 2007; 60: 411-430,
55. Oliver RL. Measurement and control of response bias. The social psychology of tourist behavior, International Series in Experimental Social Psychology.
56. An examination of the determinants of entertainment tourists' intentions to return, Travel and Tourism Research Association. 2001; 40: 42-50.
57. Roles of motivation and destination image in predicting tourist revisit intention: A case of branding Indonesia. Int J Inn Manag Tech. 2014; 5: 19-30.
58. When the Middle East meets the West: Understanding the motivations and perceptions of young tourists from the United Arab Emirates. Tourism Management. 40, 35-45.
59. The role of tourists' emotional experiences and satisfaction in comprehending their behavioral intentions, J Destination Mark Manag. 2013; 2: 119-130.
60. Are your satisfied customers loyal? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly. 2004; 45: 221-227.
61. Testing the push and pull factors, Annals of Tourism Research.1994; 21: 844-846.
62. Comparative attitudes in customer loyalty models: Some experiences in the commercial airline industry.