Attitudinal and Behavioral Loyalty: Do Psychological and Political Factors Matter in Tourism Development?
, Mariam Alkazemi 2, Waed Abdeljalil 1, Hala Al Harthi 1 and Fatema Al Maqbali 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Tourism plays a very important role in the development of a certain state, as it creates new jobs, provides income to the state and local budgets, contributes to the inflow of investments into the country and fosters to increase of the level of its culture. The tourism development is influenced by many factors, among which there is a political one. Political instability in the country, terrorism development has a very negative effect on tourism. However, there are countries that take a neutral position in relations with other states, which provides opportunities for the development of the country as a whole and tourism development. For example, such countries include Oman. This article is devoted to the study of tourists' loyalty to visiting Oman due to the country's political neutrality.
The article reveals the essence of the concepts of attitudinal and behavioral loyalty, characterizes the risks that can affect tourism, analyzes previous studies, describes the research methodology based on surveys of local and foreign tourists, characterizes the results of the assessment of demographic and psychological variables, evaluates the perception of risks, degree of terrorism concern among tourists in the Middle East and Oman. The results of tourist surveys on the influence of Oman's political neutrality, media coverage of the country on the development of tourism in the country are also characterized, and the statistical model of Behavioral and Attitudinal loyalty are revealed.
The article was performed at a high scientific and methodological level using sociological and statistical research methods. But along with this, there are some remarks to the authors:
· The description of the Ordinal Logistic Model (OLM), linear regression model (OLS) (p. 15-16) should be included in the research methodology section
· · Survey results should be displayed in the form of pie charts (now they are in the form of a histogram) (fig. 2-5)
· · It’s not understandable rating scale system (Table I, p.7). Please, describe which points are assigned for a specific answer.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
We appreciate the reviewer’s comments and efforts to improve the quality of this paper. The followings are the point-by-point responses:
Comment 1: Tourism plays a very important role in the development of a certain state, as it creates new jobs, provides income to the state and local budgets, contributes to the inflow of investments into the country and fosters to increase of the level of its culture. The tourism development is influenced by many factors, among which there is a political one. Political instability in the country, terrorism development has a very negative effect on tourism. However, there are countries that take a neutral position in relations with other states, which provides opportunities for the development of the country as a whole and tourism development. For example, such countries include Oman. This article is devoted to the study of tourists' loyalty to visiting Oman due to the country's political neutrality. The article reveals the essence of the concepts of attitudinal and behavioral loyalty, characterizes the risks that can affect tourism, analyzes previous studies, describes the research methodology based on surveys of local and foreign tourists, characterizes the results of the assessment of demographic and psychological variables, evaluates the perception of risks, degree of terrorism concern among tourists in the Middle East and Oman. The results of tourist surveys on the influence of Oman's political neutrality, media coverage of the country on the development of tourism in the country are also characterized, and the statistical model of Behavioral and Attitudinal loyalty are revealed.
The article was performed at a high scientific and methodological level using sociological and statistical research methods.
Response 1: Thank you so much.
Comment 2: The description of the Ordinal Logistic Model (OLM), linear regression model (OLS) (p. 15-16) should be included in the research methodology section
Response 2: The method and methodology section was updated to include a description of the models.
Comment 3: Survey results should be displayed in the form of pie charts (now they are in the form of a histogram) (fig. 2-5)
Response 3: The charts were changed accordingly, but we are not sure if pie charts are better than histograms in this case for readers.
Comment 4: It’s not understandable rating scale system (Table I, p.7). Please, describe which points are assigned for a specific answer.
Response 4: The table was updated with the rating scale system specifications clarified as a note.
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is original and the research gap is correctly formulated by the authors. The presented content, including the literature review, is adequate to the stated purpose of the article and hypotheses. Significant compounds were investigated, and the correct conclusions were formulated. Theoretical and practical implications as well as research limitations are correctly indicated.
Some tables may seem too long and monotonous, but this is the authors' own concept, and the whole is logical, so I have no comments on this, although in my opinion it could be presented more synthetically.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
We appreciate the reviewer’s comments and efforts to improve the quality of this paper. The followings are our point-by-point responses:
Comment 1: The topic is original and the research gap is correctly formulated by the authors. The presented content, including the literature review, is adequate to the stated purpose of the article and hypotheses. Significant compounds were investigated, and the correct conclusions were formulated. Theoretical and practical implications as well as research limitations are correctly indicated.
Some tables may seem too long and monotonous, but this is the authors' own concept, and the whole is logical, so I have no comments on this, although in my opinion it could be presented more synthetically.
Response 1: We appreciate your understanding and comments. Thank you so much.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors, the idea of the article is really interesting. However, before publishing, some major improvements must be performed.
Abstract. The abstract is very informative. It contains all the necessary elements: scope, aim, methods and results. Also, scientific and practical value is evident. What is missing is some emphasis to the future: what could be further research implications?
Introduction. The contribution of the manuscript to the literature is clearly presented. However, the authors focus on the practical issues, and the scientific value of the paper remains blurry.
Conceptual framework and research hypotheses. In this chapter the authors state that they will use some framework elaborated for the case of Thailand, and provide the framework in a figure. To my opinion, acquiring some framework without any analysis or comparison to others is too primitive. How do you know, that this one suits your case best? Maybe some insights from other frameworks can be included?
Moreover, as the chapter is called “<…> and research hypotheses” I was expected to find at least one of them.
Literature review. To my opinion, the literature review had to be provided before the conceptual framework. Even more, the conceptual framework should have been constructed based on the literature review.
The literature review is messy. The sub-chapter 3.1 is called “Attitudinal and behavioral loyalty”; however, the authors do not provide a clear key-points regarding these conceptions. This chapter discusses some antecedents of loyalty, without providing a clear explanation of how these antecedents are related to attitudinal or behavioral loyalty. To my opinion this chapter does not meet its title. Moreover, as you describe the antecedents of loyalty, why such antecedents as image or e.g. environmental preservation are omitted? I suggest analysing several models of tourist satisfaction (where loyalty is the main antecedent) and considering other authors’ insights.
The hypotheses are wrongly formulated. E.g., H1: Destination experience (satisfaction, perceived value, attachment, and familiarity) has a positive effect on attitudinal and behavioral loyalty. Based on this hypothesis, 8 relations must be tested! H2 is not substantiated by theory.
The sub-chapter 3.2 is called “Risk and tourism”. I suggest renaming it. The authors are talking only about political stability-related risks. However, there are more different risk types in tourism which are omitted. Once again, the hypotheses must be reformulated ang substantiated by theory. E.g., H3: Low perceived risk of Oman has a positive impact on attitudinal and behavioral loyalty; however, in this chapter there was nothing about the perceived risk of Oman. E.g., for me it looks quite risky.
Finally, concluding the review of the literature review, it is messy, lacks a clear structure and does not provide a background for the empirical research.
Methods. The authors describe the procedure quite clearly. However, the reliability of results is doubtful. The Cronbach’s alpha for Risk perception is lower that 0,7. Such alpha is below the acceptance level (or please provide theoretical substantiation for its acceptability). Maybe composed reliability measure would substantiate the scale used? Or maybe you could have removed the items with low AVE?
Results and discussion. The methods used for the analysis of results (descriptive statistics and evaluation means) are not appropriate for the hypotheses testing. When discussing attitudinal and behavioral loyalty (sub-chapter 5.6), the interpretation of results is not clear. Were you trying to verify hypotheses? What led to the choice of particular methods used?
As the chapter is called “Results and discussion”, I would also expect finding discussion. The purpose of discussion is demonstrating the results obtained by the author comparing to the results obtained by others. How do results of this study prove/contradict the results obtained by others?
Discussion and conclusions. Once again, the discussion is missing.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
We appreciate the reviewer’s comments and efforts to improve the quality of this paper. The followings are our point-by-point responses:
Comment 1: Dear Authors, the idea of the article is really interesting. However, before publishing, some major improvements must be performed.
Abstract. The abstract is very informative. It contains all the necessary elements: scope, aim, methods and results. Also, scientific and practical value is evident. What is missing is some emphasis to the future: what could be further research implications?
Response 1: We summarized the main implications of the study in the last sentence of the abstract. The detailed implications are discussed in the discussion section and further research ideas on the conclusion section. Unfortunately, there is a maximum word count for the abstract and our abstract is already longer than expected.
Comment 2: Introduction. The contribution of the manuscript to the literature is clearly presented. However, the authors focus on the practical issues, and the scientific value of the paper remains blurry.
Response 2: Sure, the literature review section was reformulated and enhanced.
Comment 3: Conceptual framework and research hypotheses. In this chapter the authors state that they will use some framework elaborated for the case of Thailand and provide the framework in a figure. To my opinion, acquiring some framework without any analysis or comparison to others is too primitive. How do you know, that this one suits your case best? Maybe some insights from other frameworks can be included?
Moreover, as the chapter is called “<…> and research hypotheses” I was expected to find at least one of them.
Response 3: Sorry for that, it was based on the literature in which Thailand is one example. We have amended that as well as we included the hypotheses in this section.
Comment 4: Literature review. To my opinion, the literature review had to be provided before the conceptual framework. Even more, the conceptual framework should have been constructed based on the literature review. The literature review is messy. The sub-chapter 3.1 is called “Attitudinal and behavioral loyalty”; however, the authors do not provide a clear key-points regarding these conceptions. This chapter discusses some antecedents of loyalty, without providing a clear explanation of how these antecedents are related to attitudinal or behavioral loyalty. To my opinion this chapter does not meet its title. Moreover, as you describe the antecedents of loyalty, why such antecedents as image or e.g. environmental preservation are omitted? I suggest analysing several models of tourist satisfaction (where loyalty is the main antecedent) and considering other authors’ insights. The hypotheses are wrongly formulated. E.g., H1: Destination experience (satisfaction, perceived value, attachment, and familiarity) has a positive effect on attitudinal and behavioral loyalty. Based on this hypothesis, 8 relations must be tested! H2 is not substantiated by theory. The sub-chapter 3.2 is called “Risk and tourism”. I suggest renaming it. The authors are talking only about political stability-related risks. However, there are more different risk types in tourism which are omitted. Once again, the hypotheses must be reformulated ang substantiated by theory. E.g., H3: Low perceived risk of Oman has a positive impact on attitudinal and behavioral loyalty; however, in this chapter there was nothing about the perceived risk of Oman. E.g., for me it looks quite risky. Finally, concluding the review of the literature review, it is messy, lacks a clear structure and does not provide a background for the empirical research.
Response 4: Please accept our sincere apologies for this. The literature review and Conceptual Framework & Research Hypothesis sections were adjusted accordingly. We indicated that the framework and the hypotheses are based on the literature. We have reformulated the objectives and hypotheses to be aligned and matching the results section. Consequently, we updated the results, discussion, and conclusion sections to specify the corresponding hypothesis. Moreover, we specified the risk to be “political risk” now.
Comment 5: Methods. The authors describe the procedure quite clearly. However, the reliability of results is doubtful. The Cronbach’s alpha for Risk perception is lower that 0,7. Such alpha is below the acceptance level (or please provide theoretical substantiation for its acceptability). Maybe composed reliability measure would substantiate the scale used? Or maybe you could have removed the items with low AVE?
Response 5: The majority of the items have acceptable reliability; risk variables are a 3-point rating scale which probably has resulted in a slightly lower than 0.7. We present all survey items in the Table, but items with low AVE were not considered in the formal analysis.
Comment 6: Results and discussion. The methods used for the analysis of results (descriptive statistics and evaluation means) are not appropriate for the hypotheses testing. When discussing attitudinal and behavioral loyalty (sub-chapter 5.6), the interpretation of results is not clear. Were you trying to verify hypotheses? What led to the choice of particular methods used? As the chapter is called “Results and discussion”, I would also expect finding discussion. The purpose of discussion is demonstrating the results obtained by the author comparing to the results obtained by others. How do results of this study prove/contradict the results obtained by others?
Response 6: Discussion section has been added. We have reformulated the objectives and hypotheses to be aligned and matching the results and discussion sections. Consequently, we indicated within the results and discussion sections the corresponding hypothesis. In addition, we specified where relevant when it is a qualitative or quantitative analysis.
Comment 7: Discussion and conclusions. Once again, the discussion is missing.
Response 7: Discussion section has been added.
Reviewer 4 Report
Very hard to follow. Paper attempted to address several (2 main total 4) research objectives.
Title only covers half of the paper. It does not reflect the entire paper.
Conceptual framework (Figure 1) is misleading in places. It says attitudinal VS behavioural loyalty but paper analyses attitudinal AND behavioural loyalty (Section 5.6).
Literature review is quite repetitive.
Hypotheses: H1: Destination experience H2: Variables of attitudinal loyalty H3: Low perceived H4: Media coverage H4: Media coverage has a positive influence on attitudinal and behavioural loyalty.
Paper does not make it clear whether these hypotheses are met.
Section 5.2. Psychological variables: Referring back to figure 1 only some parts of those factors examine. Does this part addresses to any hypothesis?
Table 3 is t test being undertaken to reveal the difference between local and international tourist? This was given as a study objective but no such hypotheses were developed. It could aid reader if study objectives and research hypotheses are aligned.
Paper title is on political instability but the whole section analyses risk perceptions. Figures 2 3 4 5 are standalone analyses and the conceptual framework showed its affects along with psychological variables.
New variables introduced in the linear regression analysis
Paper has no discussion session.
Conclussion: Paper in fact compare local and international tourist.
Most of the managerial implications part could have been under discussion
Research has not revealed any new information.
Overall:
Paper attempted to have difficult task at once. It is not really clear whether the focus on political instability, or risk perception or on general satisfaction. Paper tried to address 4 objectives that none of the addresses properly. It is not clear how and which hypothesises are met. Each section approached the aims and objectives differently. Very hard to follow.
I suggest reducing the number of aims, clearly state which hypotheses are met an simplify the structure.
Author Response
Reviewer 4
We appreciate the reviewer’s comments and efforts to improve the quality of this paper. The followings are our point-by-point responses:
Comment 1: Very hard to follow. Paper attempted to address several (2 main total 4) research objectives.
Response 1: Please accept our sincere apologies for this. We did our best to rearrange to make it easy to follow. Although the paper addresses multiple objectives, they are in fact simple and short, we have avoided complicated research objectives.
Comment 2: Title only covers half of the paper. It does not reflect the entire paper.
Response 2: Sure, the title has been amended to be more comprehensive.
Comment 3: Conceptual framework (Figure 1) is misleading in places. It says attitudinal VS behavioral loyalty but paper analyses attitudinal AND behavioural loyalty (Section 5.6).
Response 3: Sorry for that. The conceptual framework was adjusted accordingly.
Comment 4: Literature review is quite repetitive.
Response 4: The literature review was improved upon and reduced to the main discussed aspects.
Comment 5: Hypotheses: H1: Destination experience H2: Variables of attitudinal loyalty H3: Low perceived H4: Media coverage H4: Media coverage has a positive influence on attitudinal and behavioural loyalty. Paper does not make it clear whether these hypotheses are met.
Response 5: The results, discussion, and conclusion sections were updated to specify the corresponding hypothesis.
Comment 6: Section 5.2. Psychological variables: Referring back to figure 1 only some parts of those factors examine. Does this part addresses to any hypothesis?
Response 6: This section mainly contains qualitative analysis for the purposes of comparison between the local and international tourists. All items under psychological variables were discussed in this section. After reformulation of the hypotheses, this section now addresses hypothesis 2 as indicated in the text.
Comment 7: Table 3 is t test being undertaken to reveal the difference between local and international tourist? This was given as a study objective but no such hypotheses were developed. It could aid reader if study objectives and research hypotheses are aligned.
Response 7: Right. Sorry if it was not clear. t tests were undertaken to reveal the difference between local and international tourist. We have added this as an additional hypothesis and indicated that in the text.
Comment 8: Paper title is on political instability but the whole section analyses risk perceptions. Figures 2 3 4 5 are standalone analyses and the conceptual framework showed its affects along with psychological variables.
Response 8: The title and the hypotheses were updated to be more aligned and comprehensive. This section shows the qualitative analysis as descriptive statistics of the data. In section 5.6. political instability-related risks are tested.
Comment 9: New variables introduced in the linear regression analysis
Response 9: To test if attitudinal loyalty influences behavioral loyalty. We have added justification and linked it to the objectives and hypotheses.
Comment 10: Paper has no discussion session.
Response 10: The paper was updated with a specific discussion section.
Comment 11: Conclusion: Paper in fact compare local and international tourist.
Most of the managerial implications part could have been under discussion
Response 11: Addressed. We have separate sections for the results, discussion, and conclusion.
Comment 12: Research has not revealed any new information.
Response 12: We have stated the contributions of the study in the introduction and the discussion sections.
Comment 13: Overall: Paper attempted to have difficult task at once. It is not really clear whether the focus on political instability, or risk perception or on general satisfaction. Paper tried to address 4 objectives that none of the addresses properly. It is not clear how and which hypothesises are met. Each section approached the aims and objectives differently. Very hard to follow.
I suggest reducing the number of aims, clearly state which hypotheses are met an simplify the structure.
Response 13: We did our best to improve the fluency and the linkages between the hypothesis and the analysis. We have reformulated the objectives and hypotheses to be aligned and matching the results section. Although the paper addresses multiple objectives, they are in fact simple and short.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstract. The objective stated in the abstract does not correspond to the title of the paper. After changing the title, I would expect to find more political factors. Currently, the authors speak only about political neutrality. I didn’t understand what was meant by the term “quality of tourists”. Once again, I could not find implications for further research.
Conceptual framework and research hypotheses. The conceptual framework and hypotheses are not substantiated by the relevant literature. To my opinion, this chapter must be constructed based on the analysis of scientific literature, not vice versa. The authors provide 6 hypotheses, but their background (what led to hypothesize so) is not clear.
Moreover, the hypotheses do not correspond to Figure 1. As provided one after another, they both must reflect the research logic. Currently, they do not. If considering Figure 1, it is primitive, and the meaning of arrows is disputable. What do the arrows mean? Influence? It must be explained.
Literature review. This chapter provides the analysis of scientific literature, which is supposed to substantiate the hypotheses. My suggestion would be moving the hypotheses to this chapter. This way, you would demonstrate that the hypotheses are substantiated by literature, not the splash in your mind.
Once again, I will repeat my consideration. As the conceptual framework of the paper was not properly substantiated by theory, I suggest moving the literature review before the conceptual framework part. Thus, you will have fully substantiated conceptual framework.
Moreover, in a chapter called “Attitudinal and behavioral loyalty”, a clear delineation between two types of loyalty is necessary. Which antecedents might evoke attitudinal, and which behavioral loyalty? Currently, the analyzed previous research only substantiates antecedents of loyalty in general.
Discussion and conclusions. Once again, the discussion is missing. I would expect to find discussion regarding all the research results. The purpose of discussion is to demonstrate the results obtained by the author comparing to the results obtained by others. How do results of this study prove/contradict the results obtained by others?
Author Response
Reviewer 3
We appreciate the reviewer’s comments and efforts to improve the quality of this paper. The followings are our point-by-point responses:
Comment 1: Abstract. The objective stated in the abstract does not correspond to the title of the paper. After changing the title, I would expect to find more political factors. Currently, the authors speak only about political neutrality. Response: Thank you for raising this point. We have addressed it on page 1.
I didn’t understand what was meant by the term “quality of tourists”. Response: This term is used to indicate tourists with economic impact, those who actively demand tourism products and services.
Once again, I could not find implications for further research. Response: The implications for further research are discussed in the discussion section and further research ideas on the conclusion section.
Comment 2: Conceptual framework and research hypotheses. The conceptual framework and hypotheses are not substantiated by the relevant literature. To my opinion, this chapter must be constructed based on the analysis of scientific literature, not vice versa. The authors provide 6 hypotheses, but their background (what led to hypothesize so) is not clear. Response: we have replaced the literature review before the conceptual framework and hypotheses, as well as we have indicated within the literature review section how hypotheses were formulated.
Moreover, the hypotheses do not correspond to Figure 1. As provided one after another, they both must reflect the research logic. Currently, they do not. If considering Figure 1, it is primitive, and the meaning of arrows is disputable. What do the arrows mean? Influence? It must be explained. Response: Yes, arrows mean influence; we have added justification on page 7.
Comment 3: Literature review. This chapter provides the analysis of scientific literature, which is supposed to substantiate the hypotheses. My suggestion would be moving the hypotheses to this chapter. This way, you would demonstrate that the hypotheses are substantiated by literature, not the splash in your mind. Once again, I will repeat my consideration. As the conceptual framework of the paper was not properly substantiated by theory, I suggest moving the literature review before the conceptual framework part. Thus, you will have fully substantiated conceptual framework. Response: We have replaced the literature review before the conceptual framework and hypotheses.
Moreover, in a chapter called “Attitudinal and behavioral loyalty”, a clear delineation between two types of loyalty is necessary. Which antecedents might evoke attitudinal, and which behavioral loyalty? Currently, the analyzed previous research only substantiates antecedents of loyalty in general. Response: A clearer comparison is added on page 4. Attitudinal loyalty is a lower level of loyalty relative to a behavioral one, but based on the literature same antecedents influence both types.
Discussion and conclusions. Once again, the discussion is missing. I would expect to find discussion regarding all the research results. The purpose of discussion is to demonstrate the results obtained by the author comparing to the results obtained by others. How do results of this study prove/contradict the results obtained by others? Response: Discussion section was enhanced as in pages 23 and 24.
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for accepting the comments I made for you and making the necessary arrangements.
Author Response
You are most welcome. We greatly appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for addressing my comments and suggestions. Also, p.3, L.140 Reference source not found. Figure 1 must be pinned into its place.
