Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267212164
CITATIONS READS
3 1,353
1 author:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamed Mohamed Battour on 05 November 2014.
ABSTRACT
The objectives of this study are to test the relationship between tourism motivations and tourist
satisfaction, and to test how ‘Religion’ moderates the relationship. The variable ‘Religion’ is
represented by the availability of Islamic norms and practices relevant to tourism at the
destination. The results of the Partial Least Square (PLS) indicate that tourism motivations are
significantly and positively related to tourist satisfaction. The results also showed that Religion
significantly moderates the relationship between pull motivation and tourist satisfaction.
However, the moderating effect of Religion on the relationship between push motivation and
tourist satisfaction was not supported.
1
Please address all correspondence to
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Tourism industries are always searching for a new customer segment. For example, over
the last decade, the tourism industry has witnessed many firms in the industry catering to the
needs of special groups such as elderly tourists, disabled tourists and gay tourists (Weidenfeld,
2006). However, one relatively unexplored segment is the ‘Religiously conscious’ tourist.
Evidence indicates that some tourists feel they have no other choice but to compromise their
religious beliefs in order to enjoy tourism. If this situation is common, then it means there is a
large potential of unsatisfied need in this significant market segment. It is no wonder, therefore,
that some researchers in this field insist that catering to the religious needs of any faith in this
Religion is associated with tourism, in terms of consumer (tourist) behaviour and the
supplier (host), as well as the relationship between them (Poria et al., 2003). However, there is
limited research available on this relationship (Howe, 2001; Rinschede, 1992). Furthermore, in
the current competition amongst destination marketers, destination marketing objectives need to
be guided by an investigation of tourist motivation and its interaction with tourist satisfaction
(Devesa et al., 2010; Yoon & Uysal, 2005; Zabkar et al., 2010). The destination marketers
should position and differentiate themselves according to tourist perceptions (Chattalas et al.,
2008). When the appropriate tourists are provided with prior-trip information related to the
current products/services, they could be enabled to identify a destination and may generate
Muslim customers constitute a global market of approximately 1.82 billion potential customers
(Muslim population worldwide, 2009; WTM, 2007). The potential of this market is also reflected by
2
its rapid growth. In addition, the Muslim market has its special requirements and culture, which
cannot be ignored (Battour et al. 2013;Battour et al., 2012; Battour et al. 2010). Thus, satisfying
the religious needs of Muslim tourists may encourage them to travel to a specific destination.
The prevalence of religious beliefs and values could be an important factor to consider when a
Muslim decides to travel abroad (WTM, 2007). The Muslim tourist may decide not to travel to a
particular destination in the absence of certain Islamic attributes (Battour et al., 2011).
This study attempts to address this problem by empirically testing the relationship between
tourism motivation and overall tourist satisfaction with the availability of religion (Islam) as a
moderating variable. The religion is represented by the availability of Islamic norms and
practices related to tourism at the destination. Moreover, recent years have witnessed a growing
interest in new concepts such as ‘Halal (Islamic) tourism’(Chitakasem, 2007; WTM, 2007, p. 5),
‘Halal hospitality’, ‘Sharia Compliant Hotels’ and ‘Halal friendly travel’(Crescentrating, 2011).
This study contributes to an understanding the real meaning of such terms. Furthermore, this
study addresses Halal issues in the tourism sector, which have not been adequately covered.
Most discussions in tourism and destination marketing have applied the theory of push-
and-pull motivation when explaining why people travel and select a specific destination.
Researchers generally agree that people travel and select their destinations according to different
push-and-pull motivational factors (Baloglu & Uysal, 1996; Chul Oh et al., 1995; Crompton,
1979; Dann, 1981; Iso-Ahola, 1982; Jang & Cai, 2002; Kim & Lee, 2002; Kozak, 2002;
Mansfeld, 1992; Uysal & Jurowski, 1994; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). The theory assumes that people
3
are first of all pushed by internal desires or emotional factors to travel and then they are pulled
by external or tangible factors (destination attributes). Moreover, it assumes that these two sets of
Tourism marketers need to ascertain the motives behind certain types of travel behaviour,
including the selection of a destination and the attributes found in the choice vacation spot of
choice (Yoon & Uysal, 2005). According to Uysal et al. (2008), destination is a consumer
product and tourists are consumers who buy diverse tourism products and services. For effective
destination marketing, marketers must comprehend what motivates individuals to travel and what
attributes are essential for an individual to travel to a destination. If destination marketers have a
clear awareness of why their products are in demand for a given market segment or group, they
will be able to tailor their products to suit customer needs using the right advertising and sales
messages.
levels of satisfaction (Qu & Ping, 1999). Undoubtedly, satisfaction is a crucial key in marketing
(Devesa, et al., 2010; Yoon & Uysal, 2005; Zabkar, et al., 2010) because it is directly linked to
destination choice, products/services consumption, and repeat visits (Kozak & Rimmington,
2000). Fang et al. (2008) report that measuring tourist satisfaction presents information related to
how well a destination matches the tourists’ needs, which may help destination marketers to
improve the quality of products and services that interest tourists. Yoon and Uysal (2005) have
found a significant relationship between destination attributes and overall tourist satisfaction.
Furthermore, Chiang and Jogaratnam (2006) claim that travel motivation studies frequently give
4
more attention to the general population. Thus, instead of heterogeneous marketing which
focuses on specific groups, researchers can discover the desires of smaller homogeneous groups.
On the other hand, research carried out on Muslim travel motivations has not received the same
level of attention as is given to identifying western travel motives, even though the Muslim
It is noted that very few empirical studies (i.e Bogari et al., 2004; Weidenfeld & Ron, 2008
) have been conducted to purely examining the travel motivation for Muslim tourists. Moreover,
it is very important to recognize that no research has been conducted to investigate tourism
motivations for Muslim tourists from different religious denominations as suggested by Haq and
Jackson(2009). To fill this gap, the current study will try to determine the possible tourism
motivations that drive Muslim tourists to travel and select a specific destination. Furthermore,
using the travel motivation theory (push and pull) as a base, many researchers have tried to give
more attention to the pull and push relationship by frequently modifying items associated with
the constructs. To fill this gap, in addition to studying the tourism motivation for Muslim
tourists, this research will also investigate the relationship between tourism motivation and the
The influence of travel motivation on overall tourist satisfaction has been studied in
previous research (e.g.Chi & Qu, 2008; Devesa, et al., 2010; Dunn Ross & Iso-Ahola, 1991;
Fang, et al., 2008; Fielding et al., 1992; Yoon & Uysal, 2005; Zabkar, et al., 2010). Each
variable, push motivations (PUSM) and pull motivations (PULM), have hypothesized effects on
5
overall tourist satisfaction (OTS).To test the relationship between travel motivations (pull and
push) and overall tourist satisfaction, the following hypotheses are proposed (See Fig. 1):
H1: the push motivations (PUSM) positively influence overall tourist satisfaction (OTS).
H2: the pull motivations (PULM) positively influence overall tourist satisfaction (OTS).
The link between religion and consumer behaviour has been recognized theoretically.
Prior studies show the impact of religion on behaviour and purchasing decisions (Delener, 1990;
Fam et al., 2004; Hirschman, 1981; Weaver & Agle, 2002). Furthermore, a range of studies have
investigated religion’s impact on habits, attitudes, people’s values and behaviour. In their study,
Essoo and Dibb (2004) provide substantial affirmation for presenting religion as an important
variable in the study of consumer behaviour and they have found that religion influences how
people shop. Tourism and religion may affect tourist behaviour; for example, religion influences
the destination choice, tourist product favourites, and the selection of religious opportunities and
facilities offered (Weidenfeld & Ron, 2008). The encouragement of tourists likely to meet the
requirements of Shari'a law is termed Muslim tourism (Noel Scott& Jafar Jafari, 2010).
Fang et al. (2008) support that tourists almost certainly select destinations that are
supposed to best fulfil their internal desires or preferred destination attributes. Religion emerges
as a distinct type of attraction in tourism literature (Din, 1989). Therefore, the availability of
some religious attributes that meet the needs of Muslim tourists may play an important role in
Islamic tourism. Religion should be more recognized in the context of the current competitive
6
If the destination marketers understand and are aware of the reasons why Muslim tourists
travel, they may be able to launch successful marketing campaigns based on tourism
motivations. Bogari et al. (2004) claim that destination attributes and issues pertaining to Islamic
culture have not been sufficiently covered by researchers. By using qualitative data, Battour et al.
(2011) identifies Islamic attributes of destination that may attract Muslim tourists, e.g. prayer
facilities, Halal food, Islamic entertainment, Islamic dress codes, general Islami c morality and
the Islamic call for prayer. Furthermore, it has been recommended to study the effect of catering
to the religious needs of tourists in order to gain a high level of satisfaction (Fleischer, 2000;
Weidenfeld & Ron, 2008). In line with that, Battour et al. (2010) claim that future research is
needed to explore the religious attributes of destination which may satisfy Muslim tourists.
Battour et al. (2011) also recommend that the needs of Muslim travellers should be studied
Although the relationship between tourism and religion has been addressed in the
literature on tourism, there remains a shortage of theoretical publications in the area of tourism in
the context of Islam. When it comes to the relationship between tourism and Islam, the lack of
literature is more obvious, especially regarding Islamic norms and practices related to tourism at
the destination and their impact on the needs of Muslim tourists. Furthermore, no study currently
exists that provides a model which includes Islamic norms and practices at the destination in
order to test their impact on Muslim tourist satisfaction. When the Muslim traveller decides to
travel (push motivation) and selects a specific destination (pull motivation), he /she may be
satisfied if the religious attributes are available. However, the availability of reli gious attributes
7
may not be the only reason satisfying Muslim traveller. Religious attributes could be
Islamic norms and practices related to tourism at the destination (INP), is proposed between
The impact of religion on behaviour and purchasing decisions has been discussed in
previous studies (Delener, 1990; Essoo & Dibb, 2004; Hirschman, 1981). Weidenfeld (2006)
supports that the availability of goods and services to suit the religious needs of tourists will
increase their satisfaction. Therefore, it has been posited that religion (INP) moderates the
relationships between push motivations (PUSM) and overall tourist satisfaction (OTS), as well as
the relationship between pull motivations (PULM) and overall tourist satisfaction (OTS). Using
the propositions arrived at through the literature review, the following hypotheses were
developed:
H3: Religion (INP) moderates the relationship between the push motivations (PUSM) overall
H4: Religion (INP) moderates the relationship between the pull motivations (PULM) and overall
8
INP
H3 H4
PUSM H1
OTS
H2
PULM
Key: PUSM – Push motivations; PULM – Pull motivations; OTS – overall tourist satisfaction;
INP – Islamic norms and practices related to tourism at the destination
3. RESEARCH METHODS
This study follows the sequence of steps that should be performed in developing
measures of constructs, as suggested by Churchill (1979). Four stages are suggested for
developing religion as a construct. Stage one includes determining the domain by conducting a
thorough review of tourism and Islamic teachings literature. Stage two includes generating items
that capture the domain, as specified on the basis of combining qualitative research (Two FGDs
& 53 interviews with tourists) and reviewing the literature. Stage three involves purifying the
measures through a panel of tourism experts and Islamic scholars, and then carrying out a pre-
test. Stage four includes fine-tuning the measures through exploratory factor analysis, a
reliability assessment, and construct validity assessment. Once the internal consistency and
9
construct validity have been decided as satisfactory, the Islamic norms and practices related to
tourism at the destination (INP) – the ‘religion’ instruments- can be used for further analysis. The
In order to measure the overall tourist satisfaction (OTS), the measurements developed
by Bigné et al. (2005), Chi & Qu (2008), Del-Bosque & Martín (2008), and Yoon & Uysal
(2005) were adopted. The OTS construct consists of four items. Tourism motivation items
(push/pull) were adopted from previous research (Baloglu & Uysal, 1996; Jang & Cai, 2002;
Jang & Wu, 2006; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). The push motivation (PUSM) construct consists of 30
This study was conducted in Malaysia because of convenient accessibility to Muslim tourists.
A total of 1,300 questionnaires were distributed (Administered from February to May 2010) in
international hotels and tourism sites in four Malaysian cities: Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Terengganu,
Penang, and Johor Bahru. The questionnaires were handed out in these cities following a
convenience sampling approach. There was a scanning question on the cover page of the
questionnaire to determine whether or not the tourist was Muslim or not. If the tourist was a
Muslim, he/she was invited to proceed in filling in the questionnaire. The questionnaires were
distributed in two versions –Arabic and English. The study used a questionnaire in Arabic
because some of the tourists visiting Malaysia are from the Arab countries and may not
understand English.
Before assessing of the measurement model, both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed for the purpose of data reducti on in tourism
motivations and Religion. The principal components analysis (PCA) method was applied for this
study. The items with factor a loading above the cut-off point │0.50│are retained for further
10
analysis (Hair et al., 2010). All of these procedures were performed using SPSS 18. The
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is a special case of the structural equation model (SEM). The
process of item purification is applied through multiple iterations of CFA, with the maximum
likelihood estimation (MLE) method. The unfitted items are deleted from the measurement
model. As recommended by Hair et al. (2010), a modification of the initially hypothesized model
is performed where it is seen to be applicable. This is achieved based on such indicat ors as
modification indices (MI≥4), standardized residuals (< │4.0│), path estimates (≥0.5; ideally
≥0.7; and be significant), and squared multiple correlations (SMC or Reliability≥0.3). These
model diagnostics are used to suggest some model changes, which are known by specification
The measurement models are commonly used to assess the construct validity (Churchill,
1979). The construct validity involves the evaluation of the degree to which a measure correctly
measures what it is supposed to measure (Cavana et al., 2008; Chen & Paulraj, 2004; Hair, et al.,
2010; Malhotra, 2007). To achieve a construct validity, some conditions must be satisfied
Kelly & Vokurka, 1998). Unidimensionality means that a set of items can be explained by a
single underlying construct (Hair et al., 2010, p. 696). The procedure for assessing
unidimensionality requires that the items are significantly associated with an underlying
construct, plus each item being associated with one, and only one, latent variable (O'Leary-Kelly
& Vokurka, 1998). By using EFA, the indicator variables load on only one construct with a
factor loading of ±0.5. By using CFA, the regression weights are 0.5 or higher with their
significant t-values (t-value ≥ 1.96 at a=0.05), as recommended by Hair et al. (2010, pp.
117,708).
11
To achieve a good reliability, the reliability coefficient or Cronbach’s alpha should be .7
or higher (Hair et al., 2010, p. 125). By using CFA, composite reliability (CR) is used which
refers to the internal consistency of indicators measuring the underlying factors (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). The rule of thumb of CR is that 0.7 or higher implies good reliability (Hair et al.,
2010, p. 710).
To examine the convergent validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) was computed
by the indicators corresponding to each of the study constructs. AVE is the amount of variance
that is captured by the construct in relation to the amount of variance due to measurement error.
If the AVE is less than 0.50, the variance due to measurement error is larger than the variance
captured by the construct, and the validity of the individual indicators, as well as the construct, is
questionable (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Thus, the convergent validity is established if the AVE
for each construct accounts for 0.50 or more of the total variance as applied by Battor and
Battour (2010).The discriminant validity is the extent to which the measure is indeed novel and
not simply a reflection of some other variable (Churchill, 1979). It is the extent to which the
measures of the constructs are distinctly different from each other. The discriminant validity was
examined using the procedure recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981), whereby the
discriminant validity is established for a construct if its AVE is larger than its shared variance
with any other construct. The AVE was compared with the highest variance that each construct
The partial least square (PLS) technique is selected to assess the structural model in the
current study. PLS and structural equation modelling (SEM) are second generation data analysis
12
techniques (Gefen et al., 2000). Although there are some diversities between the PLS and SEM
programmes, the basic specification of the structural model is similar (Hair, et al., 2010, p. 775).
The SEM is a covariance-based approach using a fitting model to compare the researcher’s
model, as given by theory, to the best possible model fit. SEM is more focused on explanation
and is a more appropriate tool for theory testing (Hair et al., 2010, p. 776). In contrast, PLS is
designed to explain the variance, variance-based, similar to OLS multiple regressions (Gefen, et
al., 2000). Therefore, the focus is much more on prediction (Hair et al., 2010, p. 776). PLS
estimates the parameter that minimizes the residual variance of all the dependent variables in the
model, rather than estimating the variance of all observed variables as in covariance-based
Although PLS can be used for confirming the theory; it can also be used to suggest
whether relationships exist or not and to propose suggestions for further testing (Chin, 1998). In
general, PLS is a prediction model (Chin, 1998; Chin & Newsted, 1999). The use of PLS
(Henseler et al., 2009). Henseler et al. (2009) have reported that “As of March 2008, more than
journals”. Moreover, PLS may be considered as the method of choice for successful factor
studies in marketing (Albers, 2009 cited in Henseler et al., 2009) and for estimating the various
PLS has been increasingly used as an alternative to SEM (Hair et al., 2010, p. 775). Thus,
the major reasons for using PLS in the current study as opposed to SEM are: (a) PLS is more
suitable for exploratory studies such as the current study, where some measures are new and the
13
relationships have not been previously tested enough (Ainuddin et al., 2007; Hair, et al., 2010;
Holzmüller & Kasper, 1991; Lee et al., 2006; Tsang, 2002); (b) PLS is recommended for
complex models focusing on the prediction and latent variable model of interaction effects (Chin
et al., 2003). It is, therefore, necessary to use PLS as the proposed model including a moderating
variable; (c) PLS is recommended when multi-item measures are not available for latent
constructs (Hair et al., 2010, p. 778), which is similar to the current study, because the overall
tourist satisfaction variable has only four items; (d) PLS is suggested where relationships might
or might not exist (Chin, 1998) and where theory is insufficiently grounded (Acedo & Jones,
2007); (e) At an early stage of the model development, the regression based approach of PLS is
considered more suitable than the covariance-based methods such as SEM (Venaik et al., 2005),
and (f) PLS determines the relationship between established indicators to its respective latent
variables, which is critical for validating the exploratory models (Julien & Ramangalahy, 2003;
In order to examine the relationship between the constructs in the proposed model as well
as to test the hypotheses, two stages of analysis were performed to evaluate the structural model:
(a) Structural model without the moderating variable, and (b) Structural model with the
moderating variable. The method of examining competing models was applied in these two
stages as recommended by previous researchers (Chin et al., 2003; Sarkar et al., 2001; Walter et
al., 2006). The path modelling and analysis were performed using SmartPLS software
(http://www.smartpls.com/).The path coefficients and the R-squared values derived from the
competing models provided the statistical basis for hypotheses testing to determine whether the
hypothesized relationships were statistically significant. The path coefficients reflect the strength
of the relationship between the exogenous and endogenous variables. The R-squared value
14
indicates the predictive power of a model for the endogenous variables. The significance of the
paths is determined by calculating the t-value using a bootstrap resampling method (500
The effect size is also calculated, this being a measure of the strength of the theoretical
relationship, including the moderating effect (Chin, et al., 2003). The effect size values of .02,
.15, and .35 are considered small, moderate and large effects, respectively (Cohen, 1988); the
The interaction effect is a result of multiplying the independent and moderator variable, and to
decrease the possible problems with multi-collinearity resulting from interaction terms. The
mean was centred to the indicators prior to multiplying them, as suggested by Chin et al. (2003).
The significance of the effect size was tested with the F statistic, as suggested by Tabachnick and
Out of 1,300 questionnaires, 551 were completed and returned. This represented an
effective response rate of 42.3%. After data cleaning, the final sample size was 508. The EFA
results significantly determined the correlated factors, including six push travel motivations, five
15
pull travel motivations, and four factors representing religion (Tables 1, 2 and 3). Seven items
were dropped from push motivations, while four items were dropped from pull motivations and
no items were dropped from religion (INP). After EFA, the measures were subjected to
confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS 18 software. The purification of items for the purpose
of searching for model specifications (Hair et al., 2010) was performed. Seven push items and
eight pull items were dropped, as they could not survive the model diagnostic procedure. The
results of the confirmatory factor analysis of the modified models of the push motivations, pull
16
Table 1
Push Factors
Variance Cronbach Mean
Push factors Loading
explained alpha (Std. dv.)
Factor 1: Achievement 35.58 .950 3.21(.717)
Meeting new people .808
Going places friends have not been .862
Talking about the trip .858
Indulging in luxury .829
Factor 2: Exciting and adventure 7.42 .839 3.05(.589)
Finding thrills and excitement .727
Being entertained and having fun .755
Being daring and adventuresome. .779
Being free to act how I feel .608
Factor 3: Family togetherness 5.60 .942 3.24(.682)
Visiting places my family came from .812
Visiting friends and relatives .774
Being together as a family .801
Seeing as much as possible .714
Factor 4: Knowledge/education 5.43 .850 3.01(.712)
Learning new things or increasing
.721
knowledge
Experiencing new/different .682
Seeing and experiencing a foreign
.708
destination
Visiting historical places .759
Factor 5: Escape 4.828 .871 3.06(.677)
Getting away from the demands at home .836
Getting a change from a busy job .828
Feeling at home away from home .664
Experiencing a simpler lifestyle .771
Factor 6: Sports 3.728 .555 2.66(.710)
Participating in sports .787
Desire to watch sports events .603
Participate in physical activity .758
Total variance explained 62.61
KMO = .926 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity p- Value =.000
17
Table 2
Pull Factors
Variance Cronbach’s Mean
Pull factors Loading
explained alpha (Std. dv.)
Factor 1: Natural scenery 35.71 .884 3.00(.806)
Outstanding scenery .601
Mountainous areas .868
Natural ecological sites .867
Wilderness and undisturbed nature .839
Factor 2: Wide space & activities 8.45 .875 2.95(.682)
Wide spaces to get away from crowds .842
Variety of activities to see .604
Water sports .812
Personal safety .835
Factor 3: Cleanness & shopping 7.74 .939 3.06(.699)
Standards of hygiene and cleanness .754
Shopping facilities .810
Reliance/privacy .749
High quality restaurants .796
Factor 4: Modern atmosphere 5.48 .784 2.92(.718)
Modern cities .770
Exotic atmosphere .671
First class hotels .784
Reliable weather .749
Factor 5: Different culture 5.06 .722 2.98(.611)
Interesting and friendly local people .661
Different culture from my own .678
Historic old cities .734
Interesting town/village .750
Total variance explained 62.46
KMO = .888 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity p- Value =.000
18
Table 3
INP Factors
Variance Cronbach’s Mean
INP factors Loading
explained alpha (Std. dv.)
Factor 1: Worship facilities 52.43 .883 3.76(.533)
Availability of Mosque (Masjid) .752
Availability of prayer facilities at tourism sites, airport, .726
shopping malls, hotels, conference halls, parks, etc.
Presence of loud public pronouncement of Azan to .761
indicate prayer time.
Placement of Qibla direction (Qibla stickers/direction .642
point towards Makkah city) in your hotel room
Provision of a copy of the Holy Qur’an in each hotel
.727
room
Availability of water supply in toilets at tourism sites, .648
airport, shopping mall, hotel, parks, etc.
Factor 2: Halalness 7.57 .893 3.76 (.535)
Availability of Halal food at tourism sites, airport, .708
shopping malls, hotels, parks, etc.
Availability of segregated Halal kitchen in hotels and .714
restaurants
Availability of segregated areas for women at beaches .753
Availability of hotels with segregated swimming pools .697
and gymnasium for men and women
Banning of sex channels in hotel entertainment system .747
Factor 3: General Islamic morality 6.46 .889 3.78(.563)
Observation of Islamic dress code by hotel and .624
restaurant staff
Prevalence of Islamic dress code (e.g. Hijab) at public .670
places
Banning by the authority of prostitution .779
Banning by the authority of indecent display of affection .649
between sexes at public places (such as kissing etc.)
Censorship by the authority of adult scenes in movies .745
shown on TV
Factor 4: Alcoholic drinks and gambling free 5.70 .918 3.79(.606)
Banning of alcoholic drinks by the authority at public .857
places (such as tourism sites, hotels, parks, etc.)
Banning of gambling activities by the authority at public .862
places (such as tourism sites, hotels, parks, etc.)
Total variance explained 72.18
KMO = .943 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity p- Value =.000
19
Table 4
Fit Measures for the CFA Models
Acceptable
Fit Indexes PUSM PULM INP
level
Chi-square 203.582 95.886 304.933
Degree of freedom (df) 94 48 129
p 0.000 0.000 0.000 >0.05
Normed Chi-square (CMIN/DF) 2.166 1.998 2.364 < 3.00
Goodness-of-fit Index (GFI) 0.953 0.970 0.938 ≥ 0.90
Adjusted Goodness-of-fit Index (AGFI) 0.932 0.951 0.918 ≥ 0.90
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) 0.981 0.992 0.968 ≥ 0.90
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.985 0.994 0.973 ≥ 0.90
Root Mean Square of Error of Estimation 0.048 0.044 0.052 ≤0.08
(RMESA)
Key: PUSM – Push motivations; PULM – Pull motivations; OTS – overall tourist satisfaction;
INP – Islamic norms and practices related to tourism at the destination
It was found that the items in EFA have a loading of ≥ 0.5 (.601 to .868). In the CFA
results, all the regression weights (.51 to .99; with their significant t-values) are also greater than
0.5, the threshold recommended by Hair et al. (2010). These results verified that the existence of
the uni-dimensionality was established in this study. To achieve a level of good reliability, the
alpha ranges in EFA were .55 to .95. It is notable that one alpha value (PUSM) falls below the
threshold of 0.7 as recommended by Hair et al. (2010). However, the value is still above 0.5, the
reliability values calculated from the CFA results indicate a high level of reliability, as all the
alpha values are above the recommended threshold of 0.7. All the results of the uni-
20
Table 5
Results of Unidimensionality and Reliability Assessment
Unidimensionality Reliability
EFA CFA EFA CFA
Constructs
Factor Regression Critical Cronbach’s Composite
loading weight Ratio Alpha Reliability
PUSM .603-0.862 .76-.95 18-40 .55-0.95 .87-.94
PULM .601-0.868 .82-.99 23-65 .72-0.93 .95-.98
INP .624-0.860 .51-.93 12-26 .88-0.91 .88-.91
Acceptable ±.3 to ±.4; λ≥.50 t ≥ 1.96 α≥.7 CR≥.7
level ideally ±.5 at α= .05
To assess the convergent validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) was examined by
running the smartPLS software for the entire measurement model. The results revealed that the
measures exceeded the recommended level of 0.50 for push motivation (0.530), pull motivation
(0.591), overall tourist satisfaction (0.737), and religion (0.542), providing evidence of
convergent validity. The discriminant validity is established if the square root of the average
variance extracted (AVE) for each construct is greater than the value for the correlations between
the given construct and each of the other constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 6 shows
that the bold number in the diagonal of the table, the square root of the average variance
extracted (AVE), is always greater than the correlation values. These results suggest an
acceptable discriminant validity for the study measures. To sum up, these measurement model
results are satisfactory and suggest that it is suitable to proceed with the evaluation of the
structural model.
21
Table 6
Correlation between Constructs
PUSM PULM INP OTS
PUSM 0.728
PULM 0.305 0.768
INP 0.353 0.501 0.736
OTS 0.402 0.626 0.723 0.858
variables modelled in PLS (Chin, et al., 2003; Henseler & Chin, 2010; Sarkar, et al., 2001;
Walter, et al., 2006). This issue was investigated by comparing the baseline model in stage1 with
the model in stage 2 (See Fig. 2). In stage 1, the model included only the INP as the main effect
but the model in stage 2 includes INP as the main effect as well as the interaction effect of INP
on overall tourist satisfaction (Endogenous variable). The interaction effect (INP* PUSM,
INP*PULM) is a result of multiplying the independent variable (PUSM, PULM) and the
sampling with replacement was used, and standard errors computed on the basis of 500
bootstrapping runs. The effect size is also calculated. The comparison of the two stages is
presented in Table 7.
22
PUSM
.11(3.85)
.51(11.14)
INP OTS
.33(7.56)
PULM
Stage 1: Main effect
INP * PUSM
PUSM
.14(4.42)
-.11(1.25)
.49(10.34)
INP OTS
.15(5.05)
.27(6.04)
PULM INP * PULM
Results in stage 1 indicate that the direct paths, PUSM to OTS, PULM to OTS, and INP to
OTS, are statistically significant as the t-values (3.85, 7.56, and 11.14) are greater than 1.64. The
explained variance (R-squared) is 0.54 for overall tourist satisfaction (OTS). The goodness-of-fit
(GoF) is 0.56. whereas the results in stage 2, compared with stage 1, show that the R-squared
was increased to 0.66 providing evidence of a better-explained variance. The effect size is 0.26
23
indicating that the Religion (INP) has a more than moderate effect (0.26 > 0.15) on overall
tourist satisfaction (OTS). Using procedures suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007, p.148),
the increased R-squared is attributable to the moderating effects and the effect size is statistically
significant at 0.05 (F3, 504 =129.6 > Critical = 2.6). The GoF increased from 0.56 to 0.62,
Table 7
Tests of PLS Path with Bootstrap for Stage 1 and Stage 2
Stage 1 Stage 2
Path Path
t-value t-value
coefficient coefficient
PUSM → OTS 0.11 3.85* 0.14 4.42*
PULM→ OTS 0.33 7.56* 0.27 6.04*
INP → OTS 0.51 11.14* 0.49 10.34*
PUSM*INP→ OTS - - -0.11 1.25
PULM*INP→ OTS - - 0.15 5.05*
R-squared 0.54 0.66
GoF** 0.56 0.62
Effect size - 0.26
*Sig. if above 1.64 for 1-tailed test.
In stage 2, the moderating effect of INP on the relationship between the pull motivation
and overall tourist satisfaction is statistically significant as the t-value of the interaction path
(PULM*INP to OTS) is 5.05 and higher than 1.64. However, the results show no support for the
moderating effects of INP on the relationship between the push motivation and overall tourist
satisfaction as the t-value of this path (PUSM*INP to OTS) is 1.25 and less than 1.64. These
results suggest that the Model in stage 2 is better than the Model in stage1 and provides evidence
that Religion (INP) moderates the relationship between pull motivation (PULM) and overall
tourist satisfaction (OTS). Table 8 shows that the results supported hypotheses H1, H2, and H4,
24
as evidenced by the path coefficient and significant t-value, while hypothesis H3 was not
supported, meaning that there is no significant moderating relationship between PUSM and OTS
by INP.
Table 8
Results of Hypothesis Testing Using the Structural Model Results
Path Empirical
Hypothesis Relationship t-value
coefficient conclusions
H1 PUSM → OTS 0.14 4.42* Supported
H2 PULM→ OTS 0.27 6.04* Supported
H3 PUSM*INP→ OTS -0.11 1.25 Not Supported
H4 PULM*INP→ OTS 0.15 5.05* Supported
*Sig. if above 1.64 for 1-tailed test.
5. CONCLUSION
The results clearly indicate that there is a relationship between push motivation and overal l
tourist satisfaction (β = 0.14, t-value (4.42) >1.64). However, this finding is not similar to the
outcome of the Yoon and Uysal study (2005), as the relationship between tourist satisfaction and
push travel motivation was not supported. This may be explained by using SEM in Yoon and
Uysal’s study to test this relationship, which is totally dissimilar to the PLS used in this study.
Furthermore, the results of the PLS indicate that the pull motivation significantly and positively
relates to overall tourist satisfaction (β = 0.27, t-value (6.04) > 1.64). This result confirms robust
findings which suggest that a positive and direct relationship exists between the destination
attributes and overall tourist satisfaction. Determining the preferable destination attributes for
tourists may also help destination marketers to design and develop better products and services.
The findings of this study show a similar outcome to that of previous studies in terms of
the relationship between destination attributes and overall tourist satisfaction. For example,
Devesa et al. (2010) empirically confirm that specific attributes of destination affect the level of
25
visitor satisfaction. Zabkar et al. (2010) have found that destination attributes affect tourist
satisfaction, while Fang et al. (2008) report that destination attributes are a function of overall
tourist satisfaction. Chi and Qu (2008) support that satisfaction with destination attributes has a
positive impact on overall tourist satisfaction. Lastly, Yoon and Uysal (2005) have found that
destination attributes (small size and reliable weather, cleanliness & shopping, night life and
local cuisine) have an impact on overall tourist satisfaction. The results show that four factors
were extracted from amongst eighteen Islamic norms and practices items and labelled: worship
facilities, Halalness, general Islamic morality, alcoholic drinks and the absence of gambling.
Among these four factors, a lack of public consumption of alcohol and public gambling activities
were found to be the most important Islamic norms and practices with a mean score of 3.79,
followed by general Islamic morality (3.78), worship facilities (3.765), and Halalness (3.763).
The four factors were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis, revealing results that supported
good construct validity, and were then subjected to the PLS structural model.
The results of the PLS indicate that religion significantly moderates the relationship
between the pull motivation and overall tourist satisfaction, based on significant interaction and
variance explained, as β = 0.15, t-value (5.05) >1.64. This result confirms that the availability of
Islamic norms and practices related to tourism at the destination contributes to overall tourist
satisfaction and strengthens the relationship between conventional destination attributes and
tourist satisfaction for Muslim tourists. If destination marketers outline the preferable Islamic
norms and practices to Muslim tourists, this could help them to design and tailor Halal products
and services for example providing female taxi driver. In addition, the results of the PLS reveal
that religion does not moderate the relationship between the push motivation and overall tourist
satisfaction based on insignificant interaction (β = -0.15, t-value (1.25) <1.64). In other words,
26
this relationship has not been supported by the research results, which, accordingly, show that
religion is not considered as the moderating variable between push motivation and overall tourist
satisfaction. This kind of relationship may have resulted from the nature of the push motivations
as internal desires are not related to destination attributes. Therefore, religion may fail to
This study empirically investigated the effects of tourism motivation on overall tourist
satisfaction focusing on the moderating role of religion (Islam) between them. Thus, this study
makes several contributions to the body of knowledge in certain areas. First, the primary
motivation and religion (Islam) for a better understanding of Muslim tourist behaviour.
Secondly, this study makes methodological contributions. It employs PLS analysis to test
hypotheses, thereby enabling the simultaneous analysis of multiple effects which focus more on
predicating than confirming. This highlights the advantages of using PLS as a method of analysis
for this study, even though it is not widely used in destination marketing and tourism motive
studies. Thus, the application of this technique in this study may provide some guidelines for use
in this context. Thirdly, this study empirically investigates a new area of research.This study has
identified some Islamic norms and practices (INP), which may satisfy the Muslim tourists. The
identified INP and their corresponding items can be used in advancing the study on INP
pertaining to Muslim countries similar to that of Malaysia, and thus enable comparative studies
in other countries.
Fourthly, the theoretical model was developed based on the theory of pull and push
motivation by adding the religion construct as the moderating variable. Such additions of Islamic
norms and practices to the theory may be considered as a contribution, which will open a new
27
area for future research. Understanding the moderating effects of INP on the links between
tourism motivation and overall tourist satisfaction is of extreme importance as it enables the
interactive effects of INP on the direct relationships between PULM and OTS to be studied.
Fifth, the findings of this study should help marketers to better understand “Islamic tourism” and
so develop marketing strategies to attract Muslim tourists. A destination can enhance the
probability of its selection if its ability to meet the needs that the selected travel segments
consider important can be identified and marketed. Furthermore, this study could offer some
useful and practical guidelines for tourism organizations and other types of business wishing to
successfully satisfy Muslim customers. Moreover, destination marketers might be able to design
creative programmes that harness the unique characteristics of tourism products to satisfy and
delight Muslim tourists; For example, designing resorts that fully meet Islamic religious needs,
such as segregated beaches, segregated swimming pools, and alcoholic free drinking.
For the purpose of future research, and since it is considered as a limitation to the present
study, the first limitation concerns the context of the study (Malaysia) and the use of convenience
sampling method, which may constrain on the generalisation of results, compared with other
countries. No claim can be made, therefore, for the generalisation of the findings beyond these
contexts. Further research is underway to extend the current work to several other countries.
Focusing on country other than Malaysia will increase our understanding of Islamic norms and
practices at the destination in other contexts and help to demonstrate the universality and global
importance of that concept. Future research that replicates this study in other contexts would be
welcome and would further improve our understanding of the significance of the impact that pull
motivation has on overall tourist satisfaction, based on the availability of Islamic norms and
practices at the destination. Furthermore,, future research might investigate distinctive Islamic
28
norms and practices at the destination through a comparison with specific countries. This is
extremely important as there are significant cultural differences in the way different Muslims
travel between countries and these may provide substantial insights into understanding the
research results. The second limitation is related to the selection of the PLS as a method of
conduct this study by collecting new data and using the structural equation model to confirm
these relationships. Further research also needs to be carried out with other tourism motivation
measures (items) (e.g.,Kau & Lim, 2005; S. S. Kim, Lee, & Klenosky, 2003) and the addition of
religious motivations items (pull and pull) which are similar to those in this study. Moreover,
research is also needed to investigate the direct impact of religious attributes on satisfaction.
Finally, areas such as Islamic hospitality, Halal friendly travel, and Halal airlines need to be
References
Acedo, F. J., & Jones, M. V. (2007). Speed of internationalization and entrepreneurial cognition:
Insights and a comparison between international new ventures, exporters and domestic
Ainuddin, R. A., Beamish, P. W., Hulland, J. S., & Rouse, M. J. (2007). Resource attributes and
firm performance in international joint ventures. Journal of World Business, 42(1), 47-60.
Albers, S. (2009). PLS and success factor studies in marketing.: In: V.EspositoVinzi, W.
29
Baloglu, S., & Uysal, M. (1996). Market segments of push and pull motivations: a canonical
8(3), 32-38.
Battor, M., & M., B. M. (2010). The impact of customer relationship management capability on
Battour, M. M., Ismail, M. N., & Battor, M. (2010). Toward a Halal Tourism Market. Tourism
Battour, M. M., Ismail, M. N., & Battor, M. (2011). The impact of destination attributes on
Battour, M. M., Ismail, M. N., & Battor, M. (2012). The Mediating Role of Tourist Satisfactio n:
A Study of Muslim Tourists in Malaysia. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29 (3),
279-297.
Battour, M., Battor, M. and Bhatti, M. A. (2013), Islamic Attributes of Destination: Construct
Development and Measurement Validation, and Their Impact on Tourist Satisfaction. Int.
Bigné, J. E., Andreu, L., & Gnoth, J. (2005). The theme park experience: An analysis of
Bogari, N. B., Geoff Crowther, & Marr, N. (2004). Motivation for domestic tourism: a case
Cavana, R. Y., Delahaye, B. L., & Sekaran, U. (2008). Applied business research: qualitative
30
Chattalas, M., Kramer, T., & Takada, H. (2008). The impact of national stereotypes on the
25(1), 54-74.
Chen, I. J., & Paulraj, A. (2004). Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs
Chi, C. G.-Q., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image,
Chiang, C.-Y., & Jogaratnam, G. (2006). Why do women travel solo for purposes of leisure?
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable
modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo
Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small
samples using partial least squares. Statistical strategies for small sample research, 2,
307–342.
Chitakasem, P. (2007). Halal tourism -untapped potential for middle east. [Online]. Retrieved
31
Chul Oh, H., Uysal, M., & Weaver, P. A. (1995). Product bundles and market segments based on
Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4),
408-424.
Dann, G. M. S. (1981). Tourist motivation an appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(2), 187-
219.
del Bosque, I. R., & Martín, H. S. (2008). Tourist satisfaction a cognitive-affective model.
Delener, N. (1990). The effects of religious factors on perceived risk in durable goods purchase
Devesa, M., Laguna, M., & Palacios, A. (2010). The role of motivation in visitor satisfaction:
Din, K. H. (1989). Islam and tourism : Patterns, issues, and options. Annals of Tourism Research,
16(4), 542-563.
Dunn Ross, E. L., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1991). Sightseeing tourists' motivation and satisfaction.
Essoo, N., & Dibb, S. (2004). Religious Influences on Shopping Behaviour: An Exploratory
32
Fam, K. S., Waller, D. S., & Erdogan, B. Z. (2004). The influence of religion on attitudes
38(5/6), 537-555.
Fang, M., Yodmanee, T., & Muzaffer, U. (2008). Measuring tourist satisfaction by attribute and
motivation: The case of a nature-based resort. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14(1), 41.
Fielding, K., Pearce, P. L., & Hughes, K. (1992). Climbing ayers rock: relating visitor
motivation, time perception and enjoyment. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 3(2), 40-52.
Fleischer, A. (2000). The tourist behind the pilgrim in the Holy Land. International Journal of
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression:
Systems, 4(1), 7.
Goossens, C. (2000). Tourism information and pleasure motivation. Annals of Tourism Research,
27(2), 301-321.
Hair, J. F. J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis:
Haq, F & Jackson, J (2009). Spiritual journey to Hajj: Australian and Pakistani experience.
33
Henseler, J., & Chin, W. W. (2010). A Comparison of Approaches for the Analysis of Interaction
Effects Between Latent Variables Using Partial Least Squares Path Modeling.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path
Hirschman, E. C. (1981). American Jewish Ethnicity: Its Relationship to Some Selected Aspects
Holzmüller, H. H., & Kasper, H. (1991). On a theory of export performance: personal and
Howe, A. C. (2001). Queer pilgrimage: The San Francisco homeland and identity tourism.
Jang, S., & Cai, L. A. (2002). Travel Motivations and Destination Choice: A Study of British
Jang, S., & Wu, C.-M. E. (2006). Seniors' travel motivation and the influential factors: An
Julien, P. A., & Ramangalahy, C. (2003). Competitive strategy and performance of exporting
SMEs: An empirical investigation of the impact of their export information search and
34
Kau, A. K., & Lim, P. S. (2005). Clustering of Chinese tourists to Singapore: an analysis of their
7(4,5), 231.
Kim, S.-S., & Lee, C.-K. (2002). Push and Pull Relationships. Annals of Tourism Research,
29(1), 257-260.
Kim, S. S., Lee, C.-K., & Klenosky, D. B. (2003). The influence of push and pull factors at
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-
Lee, K., Yang, G., & Graham, J. L. (2006). Tension and trust in international business
Mahmood, M. A., Bagchi, K., & Ford, T. C. (2004). On-line shopping behavior: Cross-country
Jersey.
Mansfeld, Y. (1992). From Motivation to Actual Travel. Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 399-
419.
http://www.islamicpopulation.com/
35
Noel Scott, Jafar Jafari (2010), Chapter 21 Conclusion, in Noel Scott, Jafar Jafari (ed.) Tourism
in the Muslim World (Bridging Tourism Theory and Practice, Volume 2), Emerald Group
O'Leary-Kelly, S. W., & J. Vokurka, R. (1998). The empirical assessment of construct validity.
Pew Forum in Religion and Public Life. (2011). The Future of the Global Muslim Population.
Population.aspx
Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2003). Tourism, Religion and Religiosity: A Holy M ess.
Qu, H., & Ping, E. W. Y. (1999). A service performance model of Hong Kong cruise travelers'
Rinschede, G. (1992). Forms of religious tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(1), 51-67.
Sarkar, M. B., Echambadi, R., & Harrison, J. S. (2001). Alliance entrepreneurship and firm
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics: New York: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Tenenhaus, M., Esposito Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y. M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modelling.
36
Tsang, E. W. K. (2002). Acquiring knowledge by foreign partners from international joint
Uysal, M., & Jurowski, C. (1994). Testing the push and pull factors. Annals of Tourism
Uysal, M., Li, X., & Sirakaya-Turk, E. (2008). Push-pull dynamics in travel decisions Handbook
Venaik, S., Midgley, D. F., & Devinney, T. M. (2005). Dual paths to performance: the impact of
Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial
541-567.
Weaver, G. R., & Agle, B. R. (2002). Religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations: A
Weidenfeld, A. (2006). Religious needs in the hospitality industry. Tourism and Hospitality
Weidenfeld, A., & Ron, A. (2008). Religious needs in the tourism industry.
12(4), 38-49.
WTM. (2007). The World Travel Market Global Trend Reports 2007. World Travel
Market:London.
37
Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on
Zabkar, V., Brencic, M. M., & Dmitrovic, T. (2010). Modelling perceived quality, visitor
31(4), 537-546.
38