Tourism Management Perspectives 18 (2016) 98–106

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management Perspectives

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tmp

Tourist shopping: The relationships among shopping attributes,

shopping value, and behavioral intention
Tahir Albayrak a,⁎, Meltem Caber a, Nesli Çömen b
a
Akdeniz University, Faculty of Tourism, Campus, Antalya, Turkey
b
Akdeniz University, Social Sciences Institute, Tourism and Hotel Management Programme, Antalya, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Tourist shopping is important as a source of revenue at the tourist destination. To maximize that income destina-
Received 16 December 2015 tions need to offer high shopping value to the visitors. This paper reports the results of a study using data derived
Received in revised form 15 January 2016 from 643 respondents at Antalya. The determinants of shopping value are found to be tangibles, staff and product,
Accepted 23 January 2016
of which staff was the most important, but also the least satisfactory. Additionally shopping value was found to
Available online xxxx
comprise three sub-dimensions: the hedonic-enjoy, hedonic-escapism and utilitarian. Utilitarian value had the
Keywords:
highest impact on behavioral intention. The managerial implications of these findings are discussed and recom-
Tourist shopping mendations made.
Shopping attributes © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Shopping value
Behavioral intention

1. Introduction in terms of leading to high shopping value and positive behavioral

For tourist destinations, especially those where tourism revenues
are a major contributor to the local economy, it is important to identify
the spending patterns of tourists in order to increase total revenue. Re-
search results show that a large component of the travel expenditures of
tourists is derived from shopping. For example, some studies have re-
vealed that tourists spend approximately one-third of their total travel
expenditures on shopping (LeHew & Wesley, 2007; Shopping Center
World, 2001; Turner & Reisinger, 2001). The number of tourist visits
and the amount of expenditures on shopping may be increased only if
the experiences at the destination provide a high value to tourists,
since perceived value is an important antecedent of overall satisfaction
and behavioral intention (Cronin, Brady, Tomas, & Hult, 2000).
Although many studies have investigated the effect of perceived
shopping value on both overall satisfaction and behavioral intention,
comprehensive studies examining the additional role of shopping attri-
butes in generating shopping value and behavioral intention are still
scarce. There is a need to investigate this field, because in the process
of shopping, tourists are assumed to form perceptions about different
shopping attributes that may individually and significantly affect the
overall value of tourists' shopping (Yeung, Wong, & Ko, 2004). By fol-
lowing an attribute-level approach, both researchers and destination
authorities may able to identify which shopping attributes are critical
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tahiralbayrak@akdeniz.edu.tr (T. Albayrak),
meltemcaber@akdeniz.edu.tr (M. Caber), neslicomen@gmail.com (N. Çömen).
intention.
The objective of this study, therefore, is to investigate the role of
shopping attributes in the formation of shopping value, which, in turn,
affects behavioral intention in the tourism context. We presume that
tourists' satisfaction with shopping attributes will influence both their
shopping value perceptions and their behavioral intentions. In accor-
dance with this research purpose, the content of the present paper is
configured as follows: in the first section, a literature review about the
shopping and behavioral characteristics of tourists as shoppers is pre-
sented. Tourists' satisfaction with shopping attributes is discussed in
the next section, following which, shopping value and behavioral inten-
tion relationships are briefly explained. After the research model is con-
figured, the survey setting (the ancient site of Side, Antalya) is
introduced. Then, the results are presented and discussed in detail. Fi-
nally, the findings are concluded, and some managerial implications
are proposed.
2. Tourists' shopping behavior
Tourists behave differently when they shop while traveling than
they do when in their home countries (Oh, Cheng, Lehto, & O'Leary,
2004; Wong & Wan, 2013). Thus, it is interesting to consider what
kind of attributes are important to tourists, and how their value percep-
tions are formed while they are shopping while traveling. Shopping is
one of the most important activities for tourists (Lloyd, Yip, & Luk,
2011). Sometimes, the desire to shop can be the main motivation for
travel (Timothy & Butler, 1995). Especially since 2000, academics have
shown greater interest in examining why people are motivated to

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2016.01.007
2211-9736/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 T. Albayrak et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 18 (2016) 98–106
shop while they are traveling, and how they are influenced by the host
destination's shopping environment and facilities. The majority of the
existing studies in the literature are about the relationships between de-
mographics and shopping attitudes (Jansen-Verbeke, 1988, 1990; Mok
& Lam, 1997; Oh et al., 2004; Swanson & Horridge, 2004; Yazdani,
2007), shopping satisfaction (Heung & Cheng, 2000; Lin & Lin, 2006;
Reisinger & Turner, 2002; Turner & Reisinger, 2001; Wong & Wan,
2013), shopping behavior (Choi, Liu, Pang, & Chow, 2008; Littrell, Paige,
& Song, 2004; Suh & Gartner, 2004), shopping motivation (Dellaert,
Borgers, & Timmermans, 1995; Swanson & Horridge, 2006), exterior envi-
ronment (Yüksel, 2013), shopping malls (Christiansen & Snepenger,
2002; LeHew & Wesley, 2007; Stoel, Wickliffe, & Lee, 2004), cross-
border shopping (Asplund, Friberg, & Wilander, 2007; Timothy & Butler,
1995; Yeung & Yee, 2012), shopping evaluation (Yüksel, 2004), risk per-
ception (Yüksel & Yüksel, 2007), and modeling (Law & Au, 2000). With
the growing importance of repeat visitors, the shopping behavior differ-
ences of first-time and repeat visitors are also being investigated by aca-
demics (e.g. Rosenbaum & Spears, 2005). For example, Wang, Chen,
Chan, and Zheng (2000) demonstrated that repeat visitors spend more
on shopping compared to first-time visitors. Similarly, Rosenbaum and
Spears (2005) revealed that first-time visitors were likely to purchase
local souvenirs by focusing on exploration and learning, while repeat vis-
itors were often focused on relaxation. In contrast, showed that visitors'
preferences and expenditure patterns were not affected by their previous
travel experiences. However, there is still a need for further research to
clarify the complex structure of tourists' shopping behavior.
The need for more research into tourists' shopping basically arises
from the behavioral differences between tourists' shopping and their
regular shopping activities in their homelands (Oh et al., 2004;
Stansfield, 1971; Wong & Wan, 2013). Oh et al. (2004) identified
three main reasons for changes in people's purchasing behavior. The
first reason is the time when the shops open, allowing tourists to
make their purchases at “unordinary times.” Tourists feel that they are
very free from daily responsibilities when they are on vacation, and
they see the shopping experience as an escape from the routines of
life. The second is the “consumption of place,” which differs from the
usual shopping settings, where the shopping habitat becomes a social
and cultural interaction point with the local people. Tourists consider
shopping in such different environments as a leisure and hedonic activ-
ity. The third is the “special and symbolic meaning of the souvenirs” that
tourists bring back home, either for themselves or to support their rela-
tionships with other people. Moreover, tourists shop not only for per-
sonal necessities, but also for family members, friends, colleagues, and
relatives (Lin & Lin, 2006). In some cases, tourists are attracted by
unique products, brand names, logos, locations of stores, and bargains
at the destination (Gee, 1987; Yüksel, 2004).
In addition to such behavioral changes, many research results show
that people tend to spend more money while they are tourists (Turner &
Reisinger, 2001). From the destination management perspective, the
expenditures of tourists significantly contribute to the local economy
(Yüksel, 2004). Yazdani (2007) states that tourists' shopping offers
“economic advantages and job opportunities for local merchandise
and those that make the products by themselves.” Moreover, popular
tourism destinations can benefit from tourist spending by offering
high quality goods and services, and by enhancing the visitor experi-
ences to gain a global competitive advantage over other destinations.
In particular, tourist destinations that are famous for their rich shopping
opportunities, such as Hong Kong, Taipei, and Seoul, have become the
most popular areas for research by academics investigating the shop-
ping behaviors and cross-border shopping of tourists and the economic
benefits of such spending to the local economies.
3. Shopping attributes and their influences on value perception
Being a social phenomenon, shopping involves much more than just
the purchasing of products (Tosun, Temizkan, Timothy, & Fyall, 2007).
99
In fact, it contains both intangible and tangible factors. Therefore, in ad-
dition to tangible factors, such as location, working hours, cleanliness,
price levels, and so on, any empirical research on tourist shopping be-
havior should consider intangible factors, which consist of interpersonal
contacts, and the in-store and out-store atmosphere, including the local
people, accessibility, and cleanliness.
In particular, the exterior and in-store shopping environment and
contacts with the local people become more important for tourists
than they are in their usual living conditions. Such shopping factors
and others are known as “shopping attributes.” Shopping attributes
consist of various factors that are important at the pre-shopping, shop-
ping, and post-shopping phases, such as the accessibility of the store/
area, cleanliness, service quality, prices, and so on. For example, Haans
(2011) states that in the pre-shopping phase, giving actual price infor-
mation to consumers who have a regular shopping goal will decrease
their buying intentions and anticipated satisfaction, while consumers
with an immediate shopping goal are expected to tolerate high prices.
Moreover, Hummel and Savitt (1988) note that service quality may be
composed of different elements (such as “policies” in the pre-
shopping phase, “inventory” in the shopping phase, and “warranty sup-
port” in the post-shopping phase), and the importance of these ele-
ments may also change in the phases of shopping.
In the literature, starting from the early 1990s, many studies have
attempted to identify the most important shopping attributes at the
destinations. In one of the earliest studies aimed at the identification
of the main shopping attributes and the measurement of their influence
on tourists' value perceptions, Keown (1989) identified 16 attributes in
Hong Kong and compared the shopping experiences of Japanese tourists
with other nationalities. While human-side attributes (such as the neat-
ness, honesty, and friendliness of the salespersons) were more impor-
tant for the Japanese tourists, and also became the main reasons for
dissatisfaction, the study found that other tourists felt better about
their shopping experiences. In another study, which was conducted in
Hong Kong, Heung and Cheng (2000) identified 15 shopping attributes,
which they grouped under four factors: “tangibles quality”
(e.g., physical setting, opening hours, and cleanliness), “staff service
quality” (e.g., language ability, attitude), “product value” (e.g., price,
value for money), and “product reliability.” A study of domestic tourists
visiting the Gold Coast Region of Queensland by Turner and Reisinger
(2001) indicated that “cost,” “shop presentation”, and “product display”
attributes had the highest influence on tourists' satisfaction with their
shopping experiences.
For the purposes of both travel tourists' holidays and visits to
friends and relatives (VFR), “value” was considered important,
which was defined as a wide range of high quality goods at affordable
prices. Lin and Lin (2006), who examined a Mainland Chinese group
of travelers to Taiwan, identified 20 attributes that were clustered
under five dimensions: “physical attraction,” “staff service quality,”
“product features,” “uniqueness and convenience,” and “discount
and display.” The results of their study showed that the tourists
were only satisfied with “providing home delivery service,” while
they were the least satisfied with some attributes such as “commem-
oration of the product,” “uniqueness of the product,” and “price of
product.” In a recent study, Tosun et al. (2007) investigated tourists'
perceptions of shopping attributes in the Cappadocia Region of
Turkey and obtained two dimensions: “tangible quality of shops”
and “staff service quality.”
According to Bajs (2011), a “tourist destination is a specific prod-
uct composed of complexes of different attributes offered to tour-
ists.” Although shopping attributes may be identified differently,
depending on the destination-specific factors and the measurement
tool used, perceived value is mostly defined as “the consumers'
overall assessments of the utility of a product or a service based on
what is received and what is given” (Zeithaml, 1988). Zeithaml
(1988) suggested that value perception “involves not only price
variations but also other psychological factors” (Jamal, Othman, &
100 T. Albayrak et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 18 (2016) 98–106
Muhammad, 2011). She also noted that other sacrifices made by the
consumers in obtaining the product or service, such as time, cogni-
tive activity, and behavioral effort (Lexhagen, 2008), should be
taken into account in the value concept. For Schechter (1984), per-
ceived value “is composed of all factors—qualitative and quantita-
tive, objective and subjective—that are jointly important for
consumers' buying experiences.” As a consequence of their shopping
experiences, which are formed by various shopping attributes at the
destinations, tourists are expected to generate positive or negative
value perceptions. For example, the results of Yüksel's (2007) study
indicated that the shopping environment has an influence on shop-
ping emotions, and those emotions further affect shopping value
and approach behaviors. Thus, the identification and assessment of
the most important shopping attributes and the measurement of
their effects on tourists' shopping value perceptions may allow retail
company managers to generate accurate strategies (LeHew &
Wesley, 2007). Based upon the above discussion, the following hy-
pothesis is proposed:
H1. Satisfaction with shopping attributes is a significant determinant of
shopping value.
4. Influence of value perception on behavioral intention
Customer value has been widely investigated by academics as being
an important determinant of behavioral intention (Cronin et al., 2000;
Oh, 2000). However, the definition of customer value differs depending
on the author's point of view. The academics who suggest that customer
value has a unidimensional nature conceptualize customer value as
what consumers get for what they give (Zeithaml, 1988; Petrick,
2004). According to this approach, “customer value is essentially con-
ceived with a utilitarian perspective, whereby economic and cognitive
reasoning is used to assess the relevant benefits and costs” (Sánchez-
Fernández & Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007). Thus, they utilize single-item mea-
sures or capture customer value simply as a trade-off between price
and quality (Lloyd et al., 2011).
However, this conceptualization does not adequately explain the
total value of the customers' shopping experience because the extant
research has revealed that customer value is multidimensional in na-
ture (Chen & Dubinsky, 2003). According to the multidimensional
approach, utilitarian and hedonic value dimensions appear to be
the universal dimensions of customer value (Babin, Darden, &
Griffin, 1994). The utilitarian value is the customers' overall judg-
ment of the functional benefits and sacrifices (Overby & Lee, 2006).
It is often characterized as the task-related, cognitive, and non-
emotional outcome of a shopping experience. Hedonic value is de-
fined as customers' overall judgment of the experiential benefits
and sacrifices related to the multisensory, fantasy, and emotive as-
pects of consumption (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982; Overby & Lee,
2006). Researchers have argued that hedonic and utilitarian value
perceptions may vary between subjects (i.e., value is personal), be-
tween products, and over time (i.e., low and high season) (Gallarza
& Gil, 2008; Yüksel, 2004).
In this study, the authors adapt the multidimensional approach of
customer value rather than the unidimensional one, which offers a
much more holistic perspective. However, it should be noted that the
unidimensional and multidimensional approaches “represent ‘simple’
and ‘complex’ viewpoints respectively, and are not polar opposites”
(Sánchez-Fernández & Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007). In the current customer
value literature, studies about customer value can be grouped under
two categories: The first group of studies attempt to identify the dimen-
sions of this construct, while the second group of studies investigate the
relationships between value and other variables. Gallarza and Gil
(2008) characterized the approach of the first group of studies as
intra-variable and that of the second group of studies as inter-variable.
Most of the previous research of the second group has focused on the
antecedents of customer value. Only a few studies have focused on its
effect on behavioral intention (Jones, Reynolds, & Arnold, 2006). In
one of these limited studies, Ryu, Han, and Jang (2010) found that he-
donic and utilitarian values have both direct and indirect effects (via
customer satisfaction) on behavioral intentions in fast-casual
restaurants.
Some studies have suggested that hedonic value is more important
than utilitarian value (Jones et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2000), while
some others have indicated that utilitarian value is more determinative
than hedonic value (Ha & Jang, 2010; Overby & Lee, 2006). The reason
for these inconsistencies is the context-dependent structure of value,
which signifies that value may differ from one person to another and
from one occasion to another. For example, the effect of hedonic and
utilitarian shopping values on retail outcomes, such as positive word
of mouth and re-patronage intentions, were investigated by Jones
et al. (2006). The authors found that hedonic value has a positive and
significant influence on positive word of mouth, although utilitarian
value has no effect. While utilitarian value had a positive and significant
effect on re-patronage intention, hedonic value had no influence. They
concluded that utilitarian shopping value is a necessary, but not suffi-
cient, condition for building customer loyalty (Jones et al., 2006).
Moreover, Yüksel (2007) examined shopping value's effect on ap-
proach behaviors (e.g., revisit intentions) using a comprehensive
model. The study results revealed that hedonic value positively affected
approach behavior, while the influence of utilitarian value on approach
behavior was found to be insignificant. Therefore, the author concluded
that the higher hedonic shopping value brought by the positive effect
would result in increased approach behaviors. Similarly, Stoel et al.
(2004), who examined the relationships among satisfaction with mall
attributes, resource expenditures, shopping value, and future patronage
intention, stated that it was important to determine the attributes that
influence hedonic value, because customers who derived hedonic
value from their shopping experiences were found to be highly prone
to return (to the mall). However, there was not such an association for
utilitarian value. As a result, the second hypothesis of this study is as
follows:
H2. Shopping value is a significant determinant of behavioral intention.
5. The site (Side, ancient site/Antalya)
The survey was conducted at the ancient site of Side, which is locat-
ed on a peninsula in Antalya, Turkey (Fig. 1). Side means “pomegran-
ate,” and it symbolizes a “blessing” in the Luwian language, which is
one of the oldest languages spoken in Anatolia. The city is believed to
have been founded in the seventh century BC. Side was famous for its
commercial harbor during Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine times.
The local people abandoned the city after the 12th century AD because
of ongoing wars, fires, and earthquakes. A new settlement was
established when the Ottomans brought immigrants from the island
of Crete in the 1890s. In the modern era of the Turkish Republic, Side
regained its popularity as a historical and touristic center.
Inside the ancient site, there are 598 retail stores that serve both do-
mestic and international visitors (Side Case Analysis Report, 2009). The
most popular type of business is textiles, followed by food and beverage,
entertainment, accommodation, leather products, and souvenirs
(Table 1). Outside the ancient site, there are almost two times as
many retail companies, which are mostly accommodation facilities,
food and beverage outlets, and entertainment businesses.
Yüksel (2004) stated that tourists may seek to experience a specific
habitat while purchasing goods. Since the locations of the retail compa-
nies on the Side peninsula are very close to each other, and tourists may
find opportunities to purchase various products or services in the same
location, the authors of this study have assumed that retail companies
 T. Albayrak et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 18 (2016) 98–106 101

Fig. 1. Side, peninsula.

create a special shopping habitat where both tangible and intangible Sample items included: “This shopping trip was truly a joy”; “While
shopping attributes can be obtained and experienced simultaneously. shopping, I felt a sense of adventure.” This construct was measured
with a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
6. Method agree). Behavioral intention was measured by two items on a five-
point scale (1 = very low, 5 = very high): “The probability that I'm
6.1. Measures going to shop in ancient Side again” and “The likelihood that I would
recommend the shopping experience in ancient Side to other people”
For testing the research model, satisfaction with shopping attributes, (Chen & Chen, 2010). In addition, seven items were included in the
shopping value and behavioral intention variables were measured with questionnaire to identify the demographic characteristics of the respon-
a questionnaire. The section that measures satisfaction with shopping dents, as well as their trip and shopping preferences. The scales used in
attributes uses a five-point scale (1 = very dissatisfied, 5 = very satis- this study were translated into German and Dutch from English by a
fied) capturing 17 items and is generated from the work of Tosun et al. professional translation company, and its capability of being understood
(2007) and Heung and Cheng (2000). Sample items included: “I was was checked by native-speaking German and Dutch people. To verify
satisfied with the language ability of the sales staff”; “I was satisfied the questionnaire, a pilot-test was conducted with 60 tourists in the re-
with the price of the product.” The 15-item scale developed by Babin search setting of the ancient site of Side. The set of items representing
et al. (1994) was used to assess the shopping value of the participants. satisfaction with shopping attributes, shopping value, and behavioral
intention constructs had a high level of clarity according to the pilot
Table 1 study results. Thus, the authors decided to use the generated measure-
Retail companies located inside and outside the ancient site of Side. ment tool in the same way in the survey that followed.
Type of the companies Location and number of the companies
6.2. Procedure
Inside of the ancient Outside of the ancient
site site
By using the convenience sampling method, the survey was con-
Textile 135 90
ducted with the participation of tourists from the four main markets vis-
Food & beverage, entertainment 89 118
Accommodation 72 137 iting Side (German, British, Dutch, and Belgian). The respondents were
Leather products 64 40 interviewed during their relaxation times at the location after their
Souvenir 54 37 shopping. Two trained university students approached the tourists
Small-size Tradesmen 38 102
and asked their nationalities, and if they had already shopped. Informa-
Supermarket 36 151
Jewelry 34 28 tion about the aim of the study was given to the tourists who had
Glasses and Watches 20 13 shopped and were members of the targeted nationalities, and their vol-
Others 56 235 untary participation was requested. The survey was conducted between
Total 598 956 1 July and 30 August 2012. At the end of this period, a total of 643 fully
Source: Side Case Analysis Report, 2009. answered questionnaires were collected.
102 T. Albayrak et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 18 (2016) 98–106

7. Results and discussion Table 3

Dimensions of the shopping attributes.

7.1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample Variance

Factor Cronbach's
Means explained
loadings alpha
Table 2 presents the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample. (%)

Of the 643 respondents, 38.1% were German, 30.5% were British, 26.9% Tangibles 4.07 22.76 .845
were Dutch, and 4.5% were Belgian. The majority of the participants T1 Opening hours .807 4.26
T2 Neatness and cleanliness .647 3.94
were married (58.9%) and women (55.2%). Furthermore, 42.2% were
T3 Lighting and ambiance .662 4.05
company employees, and 16.8% were students. The average age of the T4 Accessibility .774 4.05
respondents was 38.25 (SD 15). The duration of the holidays was be- T5 Choice of payment methods .681 3.99
tween eight and 14 days for 64.2% of the respondents. More than half T6 Location .702 4.18
(55%) of the respondents were visiting the ancient site of Side for the Staff 3.61 18.22 .833
S1 Language ability of sales staff .715 3.81
first time. The goods that were purchased the most were clothes, souve- S2 Attitude of sales staff .796 3.49
nirs, and local foods. S3 Efficiency of sales staff .726 3.63
S4 Product knowledge of sales .691 3.55
7.2. Refinement of the scales staff
Product 3.41 23.20 .881
P1 Price of product .685 3.34
First, to determine the underlying factors of the shopping attributes, P2 Value for the money .682 3.46
an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using the maximum P3 Availability of product .782 3.59
likelihood method with the varimax rotation technique. Two items P4 Product reliability .861 3.36
(“Variety of products” and “Authenticity”) were deleted due to low P5 Product quality .828 3.36

communalities (below .50). Finally, three factors were obtained Total variance explained 64.20%; KMO: .908; Bartlett's Test of Sphericity: 4885.9 (.000).
(Table 3) with eigenvalues greater than one, which explained 64.2% of
the variance in the shopping attributes scale. There were no cross load-
ings, and all items loaded significantly on a factor. The first factor, which this study, the authors obtained a three-factor solution (tangibles,
captured six items explaining 22.76% of the variance, was called the staff, and product). The “product value” and “product reliability” dimen-
“tangibles” on the basis of the shared meanings of the items. The second sions of Heung and Cheng (2000)’s generated a unique dimension called
factor, which consisted of the characteristics of the “staff” (four items), “product” in this study.
explained 18.22% of the variance. The third factor was labeled “product,” While the respondents in this study were found to be slightly satis-
which explained 23.20% of the variance. The Cronbach's alpha reliability fied with “tangibles,” they were less satisfied with “staff” and “product.”
values were between .833 and .881, which were above the recommend- This finding is similar to Tosun et al.’s (2007) study, which was conduct-
ed cut-off value of .70 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). Whereas ed in Cappadocia, a popular cultural and religious tourist destination in
Heung and Cheng's (2000) study found four factors for shopping attri- Turkey. In their study, the authors detected that the respondents were
butes: “tangibles,” “staff,” “product value,” and “product reliability,” in satisfied with staff (e.g., language ability, 4.33; knowledge of products,
4.11). “Product” and “staff” were also identified by Heung and Cheng's
(2000) study in Hong Kong as attributes about which tourists were
Table 2 dissatisfied.
Sample characteristics.
Secondly, a factor analysis (maximum likelihood with the varimax
Characteristics N % rotation) was conducted on the shopping value data. Four items (“This
Nationality German 245 38.1 shopping trip truly felt like an escape,” “I enjoy being emerged in excit-
British 196 30.5 ing new products,” “This shopping trip was not a very nice time out,” “I
Dutch 173 26.9 couldn't buy what I really needed”) were eliminated since their commu-
Belgian 29 4.5
nalities were below .50. Even though the factor analysis based on eigen-
Gender Male 288 44.8
Female 355 55.2 values greater than one indicated a two-factor solution, an examination
Marital status Married 379 58.9 of the scree plot revealed that the three-factor solution was more appro-
Single 264 41.1 priate. After this decision, three factors were extracted, explaining
Occupation Company employee 271 42.2 66.06% of the variance. They were labeled: hedonic-enjoy value (5
Government sector 75 11.7
Student 108 16.8
items, α = .843), hedonic-escapism value (3 items, α = .765), and util-
Business owner 42 6.5 itarian value (2 items, α = .521). (Table 4) Only the reliability of the
Retired 43 6.7 utilitarian value was found to be lower than the recommended value,
Other 103 16.1 but given that there were strong theoretical reasons for the dimension,
Times of visit to ancient site of side 1st time 352 55.0
the authors decided to keep it.
Between 2 and 4 times 216 18.9
5 and more times 72 26.1 At first glance, the three sub-dimensional structure of shopping
Duration of holiday Between 1 and 7 days 175 27.3 value obtained in this study seems to be at odds with Babin et al.'s
Between 8 and 14 days 411 64.2 (1994) widely accepted two-dimensional (hedonic and utilitarian)
15 days and more 54 8.5 structure. However, other studies in the literature provide support
Purchased goods⁎ Clothes 410 63.7
that hedonic value consists of the enjoyment and escapism (from bore-
Souvenirs 229 35.6
Local foods 213 33.1 dom) sub-dimensions (e.g., Chang, Leslie, & Francis, 2005).
Watches and jewelry 190 29.5
Leather 78 12.1 7.3. Research model analysis
Medication 67 10.4
Arts and handcrafts 62 9.7
Glasses 56 8.7 The EFA results offered three sub-dimensions for both the shopping
Tobacco and wine 35 5.4 attributes and shopping value constructs. Based on the EFA results, the
Electronic products 15 2.3 research model was constructed, as shown in Fig. 2, by taking into con-
Perfumes & cosmetics 13 2.0 sideration the shopping attributes and the shopping value constructs'
⁎ More than one selection was available. sub-dimensions.
 T. Albayrak et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 18 (2016) 98–106 103

Table 4
Dimensions of the shopping value.

Factor loadings Means Variance explained (%) Cronbach alpha

Hedonic-enjoy 3.55 30.48 .843

HE1 This shopping trip was truly a joy. .834 3.71
HE2 I continued to shop, not because I had to, but because I wanted to do. .790 3.72
HE3 Compared to other things I could have done, the time spent at shopping was truly enjoyable. .713 3.29
HE4 I enjoyed this shopping trip for its own sake, not just for the items I may have purchased. .756 3.51
HE5 I had a good time because I was able to act on ‘spur-of-the-moment’. .600 3.55
Hedonic-escapism 2.77 22.02 .765
HS1 During the trip, I felt the excitement of the hunt. .816 2.57
HS2 While shopping, I was able to forget my problems. .790 2.88
HS3 While shopping, I felt a sense of adventure. .786 2.86
Utilitarian 3.45 13.54 .521
U1 While shopping, I found just the items(s) I was looking for. .899 3.41
U2 I accomplished just what I wanted to on this shopping. .639 3.50

Total variance explained 66.06%; KMO: .872; Bartlett's Test of Sphericity: 2199.04 (.000).

The research model of the present study was tested using a two- reliabilities, and average variance extracted (AVE), are displayed in
stage analysis, as suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). First, Table 5. All construct reliabilities, except utilitarian value, exceeded
the measurement model was developed by conducting a confirmatory the cut-off value of .70 (Bagozzi & Youjae, 1988). Average variance ex-
factor analysis (CFA) to validate all of the constructs. Then, the structural tracted estimates were more than .50 (except for utilitarian value and
equation paths were estimated to test the research model. tangibles), suggesting the convergent validity of the constructs
The measurement model comprised the following seven constructs: (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As shown in Table 6, the square roots of the
hedonic-enjoy value, hedonic-escapism value, utilitarian value, tangi- AVE values of every construct are greater than the correlations between
bles, staff, product, and behavioral intention. The fit of the measurement them and any other construct; discriminant validity was, therefore, sup-
model was evaluated by the following indices: the χ2 was 920.39 with ported (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
303 degrees of freedom (χ2/df = 3.037) and the goodness-of-fit index The goodness of fit indices for the research model indicated that the
(GFI) was .90, which indicated a good model fit (Bagozzi & Youjae, model fitted the data (χ2 = 1058.57, df = 309, χ2/df = 3.42, GFI = .89,
1988). The RMSEA index of .056 fell below the acceptable level of .07. AGFI = .87, RMSEA = .061, NFI = .96, CFI = .97). Although the values of
In addition, both the comparative fit index (CFI; .98) and the Bentler– GFI (.89) and AGFI (.87) were slightly less than the recommended value
Bonett normed-fit index (NFI; .96) met the commonly used threshold (.90), they were still acceptable (Bagozzi & Youjae, 1988). The model
level of .90. To conclude, the results provided a good fit for the measure- explained 59% of the variation in behavioral intention. The results indi-
ment model. cated that the three variables reflecting shopping value (hedonic-enjoy
In addition, the reliability, the convergent validity, and the discrimi- value, hedonic-escapism value, utilitarian value) predict tourists' shop-
nant validity of the constructs were examined. The results of the mea- ping behavioral intention. Thus, hypothesis 2 was supported. Among
surement model, including the standardized factor loadings, construct the variables, the utilitarian value was shown to have the greatest im-
pact in predicting behavioral intention (Fig. 3). That is, having a utilitar-
Table 5
ian value was associated with having higher levels of behavioral
Measurement model results.a, * intentions. This finding is different from previous studies in which the
influence of hedonic value on tourists' behavioral intentions was
Constructs Items FL AVE Reliabilitya
found to be higher than that of utilitarian value (e.g., Yüksel, 2007). At
Hedonic-enjoy value HE1 .80 .524 .846 resort destinations like Side, where, in general, all-inclusive service is of-
HE2 .68
fered, tourists may prefer to spend most of their vacation inside their
HE3 .73
HE4 .75 hotels. Therefore, it may be predicted that tourists just shop to satisfy
HE5 .65 their utilitarian motivations. They might shop because they feel obliged
Hedonic-escapism value HS1 .72 .514 .760 to meet personal or urgent needs or to buy gifts for other people, rather
HS2 .75 than expect any hedonic value from shopping.
HS3 .70
Utilitarian value U1 .76 .399 .557
All three dimensions of shopping attributes had significant and pos-
U2 .47 itive effects on hedonic-enjoy, hedonic-escapism, and utilitarian values,
Tangibles T1 .70 .482 .848 indicating support for hypothesis 1. This finding is consistent with pre-
T2 .68 vious studies that were conducted in different contexts (e.g., Babin et al.,
T3 .72
1994; Oh, 2007; Stoel et al., 2004). The results reveal some interesting
T4 .75
T5 .66 findings: the influence of staff on the three value dimensions was higher
T6 .65 than other shopping attributes; the effect of tangibles on utilitarian
Staff S1 .59 .572 .840
S2 .81
S3 .85 Table 6
S4 .75 Discriminant validity of the constructs.
Product P1 .71 .606 .884
Construct HE HS U T S P BI
P2 .71
P3 .77 HE 0.724
P4 .86 HS 0.461 0.717
P5 .83 U 0.448 0.246 0.632
Behavioral intention BI1 .83 .759 .862 T 0.435 0.113 0.394 0.694
BI2 .91 S 0.498 0.323 0.408 0.521 0.756
P 0.461 0.382 0.407 0.450 0.612 0.778
FL: standardized factor loading; AVE: average variance extracted.
a BI 0.544 0.360 0.398 0.436 0.549 0.524 0.871
Construct reliability = (∑standardized loading)2 /[(∑standardized loading)2 + ∑εj].
⁎ See Tables 2 and 3 for item meanings. Bold diagonal values are square root of AVE, others are correlation coefficients.
104 T. Albayrak et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 18 (2016) 98–106
Fig. 2. Research model.
value was higher than its effect on other value dimensions; and, an un-
expected finding was that tangibles had a negative relationship with the
hedonic-escapism value. Product, in contrast, had a stronger influence
on both hedonic-escapism and utilitarian values than on the hedonic-
enjoy value. While the tangibles dimension of shopping attributes neg-
atively affects the hedonic-escapism value, all of the other dimensions
of shopping attributes positively influence value dimensions.
8. Conclusion
In the tourism and travel literature, a scarce number of studies have
been conducted to investigate the relationships between shopping
value and behavioral intention. The findings of these studies have con-
firmed the general idea adopted by academics that a positive relation-
ship exists between perceived value and behavioral intention, as
suggested by Cronin et al. (2000). However, any study will be limited
if the factors that have an influence on shopping value are ignored.
Thus, to fill this gap in the literature, the authors of this study tested a
comprehensive model for investigating the effects of shopping attri-
butes on shopping value and behavioral intention.
Shopping habitats, such as Side, where this study was conducted,
“not only include boutiques, restaurants, bars, and gift stores, but also
areas for street vendors, historical buildings and architecture” (Yüksel,
2007). Such habitats motivate domestic and international tourists to
visit destinations and to spend considerable amounts buying traditional,
low-price brands, gifts, souvenirs, and many other items. Shopping is
also seen by many tourists as a leisure activity that enhances their travel
experiences. In the present study, the key dimensions of shopping attri-
butes identified by the factor analysis were tangibles, staff, and product,
which is very similar to Heung and Cheng's (2000) findings.
Fig. 3. Standardized path coefficients.
Another significant finding of this study is the identification of two
dimensions for hedonic value: hedonic-enjoy and hedonic-escapism.
In previous studies, hedonic value has been considered to have a unidi-
mensional structure (e.g., Jones et al., 2006). This dual distinction will
make it possible to obtain more detailed results in empirical research.
For example, the authors of this study identified that the strength of
shopping attributes' influence on the hedonic-enjoy and hedonic-
escapism dimensions varies. Moreover, hedonic-enjoy and hedonic-
escapism values have varying effects on behavioral intention. Thus, it
is suggested that researchers consider hedonic value as a multidimen-
sional variable.
In addition, this study has examined tourists' satisfaction with shop-
ping attributes and perceived shopping value variables, as well as their
impacts on behavioral intention, using a comprehensive model. In the
literature, little research has investigated the relationship of satisfaction
with shopping attributes and value (Stoel et al., 2004). By contributing
to the existing literature, the results of the structural equation model
have shown that each shopping attribute has a varying impact on
value dimensions, which further affects behavioral intentions. For ex-
ample, staff has the strongest effect on the hedonic-enjoy value, while
tangibles have the weakest. That finding shows the importance of the
customer-staff interactions and the role of staff in creating joyful shop-
ping experiences. Thus, companies should enhance the quality of
customer-staff relationships. Physical attributes, in contrast, have a lim-
ited effect on shopping value. For that reason, only offering good quality
products to the customers, without making them satisfied with their
human-based interactions, will not lead positive behavioral intention.
Utilitarian value is also identified as being influenced more strongly by
tangibles. This result shows that the physical elements of a shopping ex-
perience serve to meet the customers' utilitarian value expectations.
 T. Albayrak et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 18 (2016) 98–106
Thus, the authors recommend that companies promote evidence of the
utilities of the products/services to the customers. The research model
results indicate that the utilitarian, hedonic-enjoy, and hedonic-
escapism values have a positive and almost intermediate level of influ-
ence on behavioral intention. For this reason, customer value should be
investigated by academics using a holistic point of view. One notable
finding of this study is that staff attributes is the least satisfying factor
in shopping at the destination, although this attribute has the highest ef-
fect on shopping value. Therefore, destination authorities and store
managers should take steps to increase the overall service quality of
their staff. Another interesting result is the relatively low means for
the hedonic-escapism value against the hedonic-enjoy and utilitarian
values. Tourists seem not to consider shopping as a nice escape from
their daily activities (hedonic-escapism); rather, some of them prefer
to shop to have fun (hedonic-enjoy), while some others see shopping
as an errand (utilitarian). Thus, the attractiveness of shopping has to
be improved by entertainment organizations or by providing extra facil-
ities at the shopping location.
The results of the present study should be interpreted under some
limitations. Although previous studies have pointed out the behavioral
differences between first-time and repeat visitors, in this study, the au-
thors did not investigate these differences. Although the academics
have widely explored the differences between first-time and repeat
tourists' destination evaluations, service quality perceptions, and be-
havioral intentions, there are, as yet, only a limited number of research
about the outcomes of shopping experiences in tourism destinations.
Future studies that focus on exploring this topic are expected to contrib-
ute to the literature. In addition, the data in the study were collected in
the summer season. However, tourist behaviors and value perceptions
may vary during the high and low seasons. At the low season, company
staff may show more interest and generate more consideration for tour-
ists' needs, which may increase the level of perceived service quality,
and a contradictory situation may be observed during the high season.
Therefore, the authors recommend that academics perform similar
studies to understand the behavioral and perceptual differences of tour-
ists at the high and low seasons.
9. Managerial implications
The research findings of the present study offer a number of useful
outcomes for destination authorities and practitioners in formulating
their strategies. First of all, in this study, the main shopping attributes
are identified as: tangibles, staff, and product. Out of these attributes,
staff has the highest impact on generating positive shopping value per-
ception. Thus, it is suggested that training programs for staff should be
organized to improve the performance of the staff, as this attribute sig-
nificantly affects both the shopping value perception and the behavioral
intention of tourists. Secondly, destination attributes outside of the
stores (tangibles) have been identified as having an influence on tour-
ists' shopping value formation. Thus, attributes located or offered both
inside and outside the retail companies need to be planned, and if nec-
essary, improved and controlled by standardization. To achieve a posi-
tive tourist experience and gain competitive advantages, destination
authorities should give importance to each attribute. In this way, the
Side peninsula could be managed as an open shopping mall by the
stakeholders. This shopping habitat has an isolated location, enabling
the authorities to generate a collaborative marketing strategy, which
is open to the participation of all retail companies. By creating a synergy
and a common point of view among retail companies, the destination
can offer both an improved tourist shopping experience and increased
competitiveness compared to other destinations. In the sample of the
Side peninsula, retail company owners have established the “Side
Tradesmen Union Association,” which aims to generate collaborative re-
lationships among the companies, to decide upon a code of ethics and to
prepare strategic plans. Such compositions enable tourism destinations
105
to offer high quality shopping services and to create fair trade conditions
for both the local people and tourists.
In this study, the findings show that utilitarian value has the highest
impact on tourists' behavioral intentions, while hedonic-enjoy and
hedonic-escapism values have a relatively lower impact. In addition to
high quality goods with reasonable prices, retailers in the destination
should aim at enabling the tourists to experience more enjoyment, sur-
prise, and satisfaction with their shopping experiences. Moreover, the
current efforts of the retailers to improve their professional skills and
collaborative practices are expected to positively affect the efficiency
of tourist-retailer relationships. To conclude, tourist shopping behavior
is an emerging area of interest, not just for academics, but also for retail
companies and destination authorities.
References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A re-
view and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Asplund, M., Friberg, M., & Wilander, F. (2007). Demand and distance: evidence on cross-
border shopping. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 141–157.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644–656.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Youjae, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
Bajs, I. P. (2011). Attributes of tourist destination as determinants of tourist perceived
value. International Journal of Management Cases, 13(3), 547–554.
Chang, E., Leslie, D. B., & Francis, S. K. (2005). Gender differences in the dimensional struc-
ture of apparel shopping satisfaction among Korean consumers: The role of hedonic
shopping value. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 22(4), 185–199.
Chen, C. F., & Chen, F. S. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and be-
havioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31, 29–35.
Chen, Z., & Dubinsky, A. J. (2003). A conceptual model of perceived customer value in
e-commerce: A preliminary investigation. Psychology and Marketing, 20(4),
323–347.
Choi, T. M., Liu, S. C., Pang, K. M., & Chow, P. S. (2008). Shopping behaviors of individual
tourists from the Chinese mainland to Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 29, 811–820.
Christiansen, T., & Snepenger, D. J. (2002). Is it the mood or the mall that encourages tour-
ists to Shop? Journal of Shopping Centre Research, 9(1), 7–26.
Cronin, J. J., Jr., Brady, M. K., Tomas, G., & Hult, M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality,
value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioural intentions in service envi-
ronments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218.
Dellaert, B. G. C., Borgers, A. W. J., & Timmermans, H. J. P. (1995). A day in the City: Using
conjoint choice experiments to model Urban Tourists' choice of activity packages.
Tourism Management, 16(5), 347–353.
Fornell, C. R., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unob-
servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39–50.
Gallarza, M. G., & Gil, I. (2008). The concept of value and its dimensions: A tool for
analysing tourism experiences. Tourism Review, 63(3), 4–20.
Gee, C. Y. (1987). Travel related to shopping and financial services. The Travel Industry
(pp. 422–456).
Ha, J., & Jang, S. (2010). Perceived values, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: the role
of familiarity in Korean restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
29, 2–13.
Haans, H. (2011). Evaluating Retail format extensions: the role of shopping goals. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18, 389–396.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis
(5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, U.S.A.
Heung, V. C. S., & Cheng, E. (2000). Assessing tourists’ satisfaction with shopping in the
Hong Kong special administrative region of China. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4),
396–404.
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts,
methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101.
Hummel, J. W., & Savitt, R. (1988). Integrated customer service and retail strategy.
International Journal of Retailing, 3(2), 5–21.
Jamal, S. A., Othman, N., & Muhammad, N. Nik Maheran Nik (2011). Tourist perceived
value in a community-based homestay visit: An investigation into the functional
and experiential aspect of value. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 17(1), 5–15.
Jansen-Verbeke, M. (1988). Leisure, recreation and tourism in inner cities: explorative
case studies. Netherlands Geographical Studies, 58, 79–100.
Jansen-Verbeke, M. (1990). Leisure + shopping = tourism product mix. In Gregory J.
Ashworth, & Brian Goodall (Eds.), Marketing tourism places (pp. 128–138). London,
UK: Routledge.
Jones, M. A., Reynolds, K. E., & Arnold, M. J. (2006). Hedonic and utilitarian shopping
value: investigating differential effects on Retail outcomes. Journal of Business
Research, 59, 974–981.
Keown, C. F. (1989). Hong Kong tourists' shopping experiences. The Hong Kong Manager,
25(4), 30–35.
Law, R., & Au, N. (2000). Relationship modeling in tourism shopping: A decision rules in-
duction approach. Tourism Management, 21(3), 241–249.
106 T. Albayrak et al. / Tourism Management Perspectives 18 (2016) 98–106

LeHew, M. L. A., & Wesley, S. C. (2007). Tourist shoppers’ satisfaction with regional shop- Technology, Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences, 1–85.
ping mall experiences. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Luleå, Sweden.
Research, 1(1), 82–96. Yeung, R. M. W., & Yee, W. M. S. (2012). A profile of the mainland Chinese cross-border
Lexhagen, M. (2008). Customer perceived value of travel and tourism websites, Wp:2008, shoppers: Cluster and discriminant analysis. Tourism Management Perspectives, 4,
ETOUR. Sweden: European Tourism Research Institute, Mittuniversitetet, Östersund. 106–112.
Lin, Y. H., & Lin, K. Q. R. (2006). Assessing mainland Chinese visitors’ satisfaction with Yeung, S., Wong, J., & Ko, E. (2004). Preferred shopping destination: Hong Kong versus
shopping in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 11(3), 247–268. Singapore. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6(2), 85–96.
Littrell, M., Paige, R., & Song, K. (2004). Senior travellers: tourism activities and shopping Yüksel, A. (2004). Shopping experience evaluation: A case of domestic and international
behaviours. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(4), 348–362. visitors. Tourism Management, 25(6), 751–759.
Lloyd, A. E., Yip, L. S. C., & Luk, S. T. K. (2011). An examination of the differences in Retail Yüksel, A. (2007). Tourist shopping habitat: Effects on emotions, shopping value and be-
Service evaluation between domestic and tourist shoppers in Hong Kong. Tourism haviours. Tourism Management, 28(1), 58–69.
Management, 32(3), 520–533. Yüksel, A., & Yüksel, F. (2007). Shopping risk perceptions: Effects on tourists’ emotions,
Mok, C., & Lam, T. (1997). A model of Tourists' shopping propensity: A case of Taiwanese satisfaction and expressed loyalty intentions. Tourism Management, 28(3), 703–713.
visitors to Hong Kong. Pacific Tourism Review, 1(2), 137–145. Yüksel, F. (2013). The streetscape: Effects on shopping tourists’ product/service quality
Oh, H. (2000). The effect of brand class, brand awareness, and price on customer value inferences and their approach behaviours. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality
and behavioural intentions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 24(2), & Tourism, 14(2), 101–122.
136–162. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end
Oh, J. Y. J., Cheng, C. K., Lehto, X. Y., & O'Leary, J. T. (2004). Predictors of tourists' shopping model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
behaviour: Examination of socio-demographic characteristics and trip typologies.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(4), 308–319.
Tahir Albayrak completed his PhD at Akdeniz University,
Oh, Y.J. (2007). An exploration of tourist shopping. Texas A & M University, Unpublished
Business Management Programme in 2008. He has several
Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, In the Major Subject of: Recreation, Park and Tour-
published international conference papers and refereed arti-
ism Sciences, U.S.A.
cles about niche marketing, consumer behavior and service
Overby, J. W., & Lee, E. J. (2006). The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shopping
quality at the marketing and tourism journals. He is currently
value on consumer preference and intentions. Journal of Business Research, 59(10–
the editor-in-chief of Advances in Hospitality and Tourism
11), 1160–1166.
Research (AHTR): An International Journal of Akdeniz Uni-
Petrick, J. F. (2004). The roles of quality, value, and satisfaction in predicting cruise pas-
versity, Tourism Faculty.
sengers' behavioural intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4), 397–407.
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. W. (2002). The determination of shopping satisfaction of
Japanese tourists visiting Hawaii and the gold Coast compared. Journal of Travel
Research, 41(2), 167–176.
Rosenbaum, M., & Spears, D. (2005). Who buys that? Who does what? Analysis of cross-
cultural consumption behaviours among tourists in Hawaii. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 11(3), 235–247.
Ryu, K., Han, H., & Jang, S. (2010). Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values, sat-
Meltem Caber works as associate professor at Akdeniz Uni-
isfaction and behavioural intentions in the fast-Causal Restaurant industry.
versity, Faculty of Tourism. She is currently the head of pro-
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(3), 416–432.
gram of Tourism Guidance. She is also the co-editor of
Sánchez-Fernández, R., & Iniesta-Bonillo, M.Á. (2007). The concept of perceived value: A
Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research (AHTR): An
systematic review of the research. Marketing Theory, 7(4), 427–451.
International Journal of Akdeniz University, Tourism Faculty.
Schechter, L. (1984). A normative conception of value. Progressive Grocer (pp. 12–14).
Some of her research interests are e-CRM, foreign direct in-
Shopping Center World (2001). The mall's next mission: trap those tourists!, 30(7), 6–9.
vestments in tourism and destination management. She has
Side Case Analysis Report. (2009). Side Tradesmen Union Association, Antalya, Turkey.
several published international conference papers and
Stansfield, C. A. (1971). The nature of seafront development and social status of seaside
refereed articles about tourism management.
resorts. Society and Leisure, 4, 117–141.
Stoel, L., Wickliffe, V., & Lee, K. H. (2004). Attribute beliefs and spending as antecedents to
shopping value. Journal of Business Research, 57(10), 1067–1073.
Suh, Y. K., & Gartner, W. C. (2004). Preferences and trip expenditures— A conjoint analysis
of visitors to Seoul, Korea. Tourism Management, 25(1), 127–137.
Swanson, K. K., & Horridge, P. E. (2004). A structural model for souvenir consumption,
travel activities, and tourist demographics. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4), 372–380.
Nesli Çömen graduated from Akdeniz University, Tourism
Swanson, K. K., & Horridge, P. E. (2006). Travel motivations as souvenir purchase indica-
and Hotel Management High School and completed her Mas-
tors. Tourism Management, 27(4), 671–683.
ters education at Akdeniz University, Social Sciences Insti-
Timothy, D. J., & Butler, R. W. (1995). Cross-border shopping: A North American perspec-
tute, Tourism and Hotel Management Programme. Her
tive. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 16–34.
research interest is tourism marketing.
Tosun, C., Temizkan, S. P., Timothy, D. J., & Fyall, A. (2007). Tourists shopping experiences
and satisfaction. International Journal of Tourism Research, 9(2), 87–102.
Turner, L. W., & Reisinger, Y. (2001). Shopping satisfaction for domestic tourists. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 8(1), 15–27.
Wang, C. -L., Chen, Z. -X., Chan, A. K. K., & Zheng, Z. -C. (2000). The influence of hedonic
values on consumer behaviors. Journal of Global Marketing, 14(1–2), 169–186.
Wong, I. A., & Wan, Y. K. P. (2013). A systematic approach to scale development in tourist
shopping satisfaction linking destination attributes and shopping experience. Journal
of Travel Research, 52(1), 29–41.
Yazdani, M. (2007). An investigation on influencing factors on tourists shopping attitude of
iranian handmade carpet in Isfahan, unpublished master's thesis, Luleå University of