The role of motivation in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidencein rural tourismMara Devesaa,*, Marta Lagunaa, Andre s PalaciosbaFac. CC. Sociales, Jur dicas y de la Comunicacion, Universidad de Valladolid, Plaza de la Tierra, 3, 40001 Segovia- SpainbEscuela de Magisterio, Plaza de Colmenares s/n, 40001-Segovia-Spainarti cle i nfoArticle history:Received 10 September 2008Accepted 15 June 2009Keywords:MotivationSatisfactionRural tourismCluster analysisSpainabstractMotivation and satisfaction are two concepts widely studied in tourism literature; the relevance of theseconstructs being derived from their impact on tourist behaviour. The purpose of this paper is to inves-tigate the relationship between motivation and visitor satisfaction. A survey questionnaire was distrib-utedtovisitorsat arural destinationinSpainandthedataanalysedbyANOVA, factorandclusteranalyses. Theresultsveriedourhypothesisthatmotivationisadeterminantofthevisitassessmentcriteria and, as a direct consequence, of the level of satisfaction (specic factors) of the visitor. However,this investigation also detected the existence of certain elements, which are independent of the reasonsthat motivated the journey (general factors), but which affect general satisfaction. Based on our ndings,implications for management and marketing are presented. 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.1. IntroductionTourismcan be considered, in one of its many aspects, as a socio-psychologicalexperience (Castan o, 2005;Ross &Iso-Ahola, 1991;Rubio, 2003; Wacker, 1996). Although factors such as socio-demographic characteristics affect tourist behaviour, other factorsrelated to the customers subjective experience are stronglyemerging to explain this complex process. In this context, motiva-tionandsatisfactionaretwoessential elementsthat determineindividual behaviour in the eld of tourism.A reviewof previous literature on tourismmotivation reveals thatpeople travel because they are pushed into travelling by internalreasons or factors, or because they are pulled by destination attri-butes (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1977, 1981; Uysal & Jurowski, 1994).Pushfactors are more relatedtointernal or emotional aspects, suchasthe desire for escape, rest and relaxation, adventure, or social inter-action. Pullfactorsarelinkedtoexternal, situational, orcognitiveaspects, of which, attributes of the chosen destination, leisure infra-structure and cultural or natural features are examples. Nevertheless,these destination attributes may reinforce push motivations (Yoon &Uysal, 2005).Thus, motivation has become a meta-concept that functions asa trigger for travel behaviour and determines different aspects oftourist activity, in respect of (i) the reasons for travelling or why, (ii)the specic destination or where, (iii) and the results obtained oroverall satisfaction with the trip (Castano, Moreno, Garca, & Crego,2003).The last element of the cycle is key in the eld of tourism. Itsrelevance lies in the role it plays in repetitive purchase or servicepatterns, i.e. in the loyalty towards a product, brand or destination(Barsky & Nash, 2002; Garca & Gil, 2005; Yoon & Uysal, 2005); inthefavourablecriticismit generatesandtherefore, thepositivemarketingcommunicatedbywordof mouth(Oh, 1999; Opper-mann, 2000; Rodrguez del Bosque, San Martn, & Collado, 2006);or in the increase of company benets (Anderson, Fornell, &Lehman, 1994).The relationship between motivation and satisfaction hasalreadybeen studiedin tourism researchfrom differentperspec-tives and working methodologies (see, for example, Ibrahim & Gill,2005; Laguna & Palacios, 2009; Oliver, 1980; Severt, Wang, Chen, &Breiter, 2007), and applied studies have been carried out fordifferent sectorsof themarket (Devesa&Palacios, 2005, 2006;Garca & Gil, 2005; Lee, Lee, & Wicks, 2004; Lopes, 2006; Qu & Ping,1999;Rodrguezdel Bosqueetal., 2006, amongothers). Roma n,Recio, and Martn (2000) point out that the current demand trendtowards greater segmentation can be mostly explained because ofthe diversication of visitor motivation. Therefore, diversication isa very valuable element when directing the expansion of emerging*Corresponding author. Tel.: 34 921 112122; fax: 34 921 112101.E-mail addresses: mdevesa@eco.uva.es (M. Devesa), martalag@eade.uva.es(M. Laguna), palacios@psi.uva.es (A. Palacios).Contents lists available at ScienceDirectTourism Managementj ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ t ourmanARTICLEINPRESS0261-5177/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.006Tourism Management xxx (2009) 16Please cite this article in press as: Devesa, M., et al., The role of motivation in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidence in rural tourism, TourismManagement (2009), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.006tourismproductssuchasruraltourism. Moreover, theseauthorsafrmthat an offer exclusively based on countryside and fresh air isinsufcient to be considered as a determining factor for a satisfac-tory experience of a visit.Theobjectof thisresearchistoanalysetherelationexistingbetweenmotivationandsatisfactionobtainedbyvisitorsintherural tourismsector. Morespecically, thestudyexamines theinuenceof motivationdas trigger factor andantecedent fortourism behaviour don the satisfaction obtained by the visitor tothe destination. We maintain that individuals visiting a particulartourist destination, irrespective of the reason, will obtain a higheror lower satisfaction level depending on their evaluation of thoseaspects of their visit or destination which are more closely relatedto their motivation for travel.2. MethodologyInordertoachievetheproposedobjectives, datacollectedina survey designed for visitors to a rural tourismdestination in Spainhas been used. Rural tourism in this area, the Province of Segovia(situated in the central region ofthe country), can be considereda reliable, representative sample of rural tourism in Spain, whichcurrently is a growing segment of the market and a very valuableresource for the inner provinces.Interviews were carried out in a range of places, at various timesof day and at different periods (between April and October, 2004)and 316 valid responses were obtained. The sample was balanced interms of sex, with a slight predominance of men (52%); a mean agearound 4549 years; a high proportion with university degrees andin employment. There were no statistically signicant differencesarising from the different periods when the survey was collected.All signicantvariablesintheresearchallowustoconsiderthedifferent sub-sets as a unique tourist sample with a sample error of5.49% for a signicance level of 95%.The research structure and the analysis methodology used aresummarized in Fig. 1.Two different scales were used: a motivation scale and a satis-faction scale. The motivation scale (a 10-point Likert-scale)included 17 items regardingpush andpullfactors. Their identi-cationwasdeterminedinaccordancewithourliteraturereview,includingandadaptingsomeitemsinorder tocompleteafulladaptation of the population and destination attributes studied. Asregards the satisfaction scale, we assumed the concept of multidi-mensionality and, therefore, the idea that the evaluation made byFig. 1. Research structure and methodology.Table 1Cluster denition by motivation variables.Cluster (cluster size) Cluster name Motivating variables with signicant differencesA (129 individuals) Visitor looking for tranquillity, rest and contact with nature. ULooking for tranquillityUNon-expensive routine escapeURestUKnowing new placesUContact with natureUProximityB (69 individuals) Cultural visitor UMonuments sightseeingUCultural motivationUKnowing new placesC (40 individuals) Proximity, gastronomic and nature visitor UWorking reasonsUGastronomic reasonsUProximityUVisiting natural parksUPractising sportsUContact with natureD (50 individuals) Return tourist UVisiting friendsUOwning a second residenceULocal festivitiesURestM. Devesa et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2009) 16 2ARTICLEINPRESSPlease cite this article in press as: Devesa, M., et al., The role of motivation in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidence in rural tourism, TourismManagement (2009), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.006individuals of their ownexperienceis theresult of acomplexprocess involving a high number of elements. The scale wasdeveloped with 18 items on a 10-point Likert-scale correspondingto different attributes ofthe destination and some aspectsofthejourney (hospitality infrastructure, treatment received, cultural andnatural heritageconservation, etc.). Theselectionof theseattri-butes was based on previous research on destination satisfaction. Inboth cases, Cronbachs alpha coefcient for the nal scales resultedin a robust value (0.849 and 0.823, respectively).ConrmatoryFactorAnalysis(CFA)wascarriedoutwiththesurveysitemsasacomplement toevaluatethevalidityof thestudy on both motivation and satisfaction scales. Polychoriccorrelationmatrices andunweightedleast squares (ULS) wereusedasalgorithmstoperformthecalculations, asthisstrategyallows the establishment of consistent estimations withoutneedingto assumemultinormalityin thevariables(Ruiz, 2000).The results obtained highlight the validity of the indicators usedineachof thefactorsofthescale, bothonthesatisfactionandmotivation scales.However, given that satisfaction with a particular destination issomethingmorethanjust visitor satisfactionwiththeservicesutilizedanddestinationattributes(Truong&Foster, 2006;Yu&Goulden, 2006); a measure containing the overall satisfaction levelobtained with the visit was also included. This measure reinforcesthe holistic focus that we undertook for our study.Finally, the questionnaire also included socio-demographicitems (age, gender, marital status, place of residence, employmentstatus) andtrip-relatedcharacteristics(compositionandsizeoftravel group, type of accommodation rented, daily expenditure perperson).3. Results3.1. Tourist segmentation by visit motivationA cluster analysis was run in order to identify visit motivationand to segment visitors destinations. A factorial analysis of classi-cationvariables hadpreviously beencarriedout inorder toguarantee the absence of correlations between factorial scores andastandardmeasurementsystem(seeTableA1intheAppendix).Theclusteranalysis,carriedoutusinganon-hierarchicalclassi-cation method with the factorial scores of ve factors (see Table A2in the Appendix), identied four groups of visitors based on theirmotives, as shown in Table 1.Table 2Expected relationship between motivational typologies and tourists evaluation offeatures offered.Motivational typologies Expected feeling according to the hypothesison features offeredA.- Visitor looking for tranquillity,rest and contact with natureUAccessUParking facilitiesUTranquillityUConservation of natural heritageUPrice evaluationB.- Cultural visitor UAccessURoad signpostingUParking facilitiesUOpening hours of monumentsUGuided toursUConservation of monumental heritageC.- Proximity, gastronomicand nature visitorUParking facilitiesULodging qualityULodging availabilityUConservation of natural heritageUSport facilitiesUGastronomic qualityURestaurants equipment/facilitiesURestaurants availabilityD.- Return tourist UAccessUComplementary offer tourist activitiesUTranquillityUConservation of monumental heritageTable 3Average differences between tourists evaluation of features offered and visit satisfaction by motivational typology.Evaluation of different aspects offered to tourist Motivational typology and degree of satisfaction (more satisedless satised)Type A Visitor looking fortranquillity, rest andcontact with natureType B Cultural visitor Type C Proximity,gastronomic andnature visitorType D Return TouristDegree of satisfaction(more satisedlesssatised)Degree of satisfaction(more satisedlesssatised)Degree of satisfaction(more satisedlesssatised)Degree of satisfaction(more satisedlesssatised)Less More t Sig. Less More t Sig. Less More t Sig. Less More t Sig.Access evaluation 5.93 7.28 L4.42 0.00 5.48 6.11 1.35 0.18 4.75 6.08 1.70 0.10 6.06 6.91 1.47 0.16Road signposting evaluation 5.61 6.29 1.85 0.07 4.21 5.83 L3.29 0.00 5.88 6.75 1.62 0.16 5.59 6.52 1.37 0.18Parking facilities evaluation 6.45 7.06 1.85 0.07 5.06 7.00 L5.60 0.00 3.63 6.83 L4.26 0.00 5.29 6.66 L2.09 0.05Lodgings quality evaluation 6.38 7.12 0.82 0.42 6.13 6.58 0.41 0.69 3.00 6.00 L2.27 0.04 5.71 7.33 1.44 0.18Lodgings availability 6.14 7.13 1.12 0.27 5.00 7.31 1.97 0.08 1.00 6.33 L8.29 0.00 5.40 7.00 1.24 0.25Opening hours of monuments 5.87 6.81 L3.10 0.00 5.38 6.46 L2.21 0.03 6.00 7.36 L2.59 0.01 4.62 6.52 L2.57 0.01Price evaluation 5.25 5.82 1.62 0.11 4.70 4.84 0.25 0.80 5.57 6.00 0.78 0.44 4.35 5.55 L1.98 0.05Guided tours evaluation 7.11 7.24 0.21 0.84 7.28 8.20 L2.38 0.02 5.67 8.00 1.58 0.17 5.63 8.09 L3.02 0.02Treatment received 7.21 8.08 L4.52 0.00 7.15 7.80 L2.06 0.04 7.38 8.36 L3.36 0.00 6.53 8.28 L4.03 0.00Tranquillity 7.61 8.54 L4.43 0.00 7.32 7.89 1.90 0.06 7.75 8.45 1.78 0.08 7.24 8.41 L2.54 0.01Conservation of monumental heritage 6.85 7.60 1.86 0.17 7.05 7.74 L1.98 0.05 7.13 7.91 1.38 0.18 6.65 7.66 L2.44 0.02Conservation of natural heritage 7.02 7.80 L3.36 0.00 7.10 7.06 0.10 0.92 7.00 8.27 L0.62 0.02 6.82 7.45 1.82 0.08Facilities for sports practice 5.68 6.50 0.99 0.32 5.56 4.57 0.96 0.35 3.25 6.44 L3.50 0.01 6.20 6.63 0.43 0.67Gastronomic quality evaluation 7.56 8.00 L1.95 0.05 7.64 8.31 L2.06 0.04 7.43 8.25 L2.21 0.03 6.88 7.84 L2.60 0.01Restaurant equipment/facilities 6.83 7.74 L4.52 0.00 7.12 7.73 2.03 0.06 7.29 7.64 0.77 0.45 6.71 7.52 L2.34 0.02Restaurant availability 6.25 7.09 L3.22 0.00 4.93 6.67 L3.12 0.00 6.11 7.18 L2.01 0.03 5.63 7.24 L3.26 0.00Evaluation of tourist information 6.00 7.00 L3.33 0.00 6.46 7.53 L2.56 0.01 4.71 6.73 L3.54 0.00 5.56 7.00 L2.06 0.05Complementary offer of leisure activities(riding, festivals, performances.)5.24 6.26 L1.95 0.05 3.94 6.58 L4.42 0.00 5.00 7.00 L3.61 0.00 5.75 7.15 L2.08 0.04M. Devesa et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2009) 16 3ARTICLEINPRESSPlease cite this article in press as: Devesa, M., et al., The role of motivation in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidence in rural tourism, TourismManagement (2009), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.006Therstclusterismadeupofvisitorslookingfortranquillityand rest through contact with nature and spending little money. Itis the biggest cluster and, therefore, the most representative in theruraltourismdestinationanalysed. Itisformedbyvariablesthatwould dene visitors as searching for tranquillity and rest throughcontact with nature as an escape from living in the city. The secondmost relevant cluster is composed of visitors whose motivation isrelated to culture and monuments, as well as the desire to discovernewplaces. Theyshowstatisticallysignicantdifferencesinthedistance that they have to cover in order to arrive at their chosendestination. They are, therefore, long distance cultural visitors.Athirdclusteriscomprisedofvisitorswithasharedinterestmotivatedbygastronomyor visitingnatural parks, andwhoseresidence is not very far away from the area visited. In addition, thevisitors in this group might also enjoy practising sport during theirvisits. We have named themgastronomic and nature visitors. Thelast cluster has beennamedreturntourism andtheir mainmotivation is visiting friends and relatives (VFR). It is composed ofpeople that live in cities close to the destinations visited, who owna house or use their family and friends accommodation in order toattend local festivities, or just to rest.3.2. Evaluation of satisfaction with the experience in the destinationand motivation of the visitOnce the motivational typologies hadbeenestablished, weaimedtoprovetheinitialhypothesis, whichsuggeststhatmoti-vation is an important factor in the visit evaluation criteria and, asaconsequence, in thesatisfactionofwhat hasbeenexperienced.Forthisreason, weset upindicatorsof thefacilitiesofferedtotouristsandthemaincharacteristicsassociatedwitheachofthemotivational typologies, asoutlinedinTable2. Forexample, thecultural visitor is someone that has to cover a long distance in orderto arrive at the chosen destination. As a consequence, we includeaspects related to access (roads, signposting and parking), inadditiontotheopeninghoursof monuments, guidedtoursandconservationof cultural heritage. Ontheotherhand, thevisitorwho is interested in gastronomy and nature, in a signicant numberof cases, spends the night at the destination and, thus, tends to beparticularlyawareof theavailabilityandqualityof lodgingandrestaurants.After identifying which aspects of the features offered to touristsare pertinent toeachmotivational typology, we needonly toTable 4Expected and found relationship between the motivational typologies, visit satisfaction and tourists evaluation of features offered.Motivational typologies Expected differences among the tourists evaluation of featuresoffered according to the hypothesisFound differences in the touristsevaluation of features offeredA1-A2.- Visitor looking for tranquillity,rest and contact with natureAccess AccessTranquillity TranquillityConservation of natural heritage Conservation of natural heritageParking facilities evaluation Monuments opening hoursPrice evaluation Received treatmentGastronomic qualityRestaurants availabilityRestaurants equipment/facilitiesComplementary offer leisure activitiesTourist informationB1-B2.- Cultural visitor Road signposting Road signpostingParking facilities evaluation Parking facilities evaluationMonuments Opening hours Monuments Opening hoursGuided tours Guided toursConservation of monumental heritage Conservation of monumental heritageAccess Received treatmentGastronomic qualityRestaurants availabilityComplementary offer leisure activitiesTourist informationC1- C2.- Proximity, gastronomicand nature visitorParking facilities evaluation Parking facilities evaluationLodging quality Lodging qualityLodging availability Lodging availabilityConservation of natural heritage Conservation of natural heritageSports facilities Sports facilitiesGastronomic quality Gastronomic qualityRestaurants availability Restaurants availabilityRestaurants equipment/facilities Complementary offer leisure activitiesTourist informationReceived treatmentMonuments Opening hoursD1-D2.- Return tourist Complementary offer leisure activities Complementary offer leisure activitiesTranquillity TranquillityConservation of monumental heritage Conservation of monumental heritageAccess Parking facilities evaluationMonuments opening hoursReceived treatmentPrice evaluationGuided toursRestaurants equipment/facilitiesGastronomic qualityRestaurants availabilityTourist informationM. Devesa et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2009) 16 4ARTICLEINPRESSPlease cite this article in press as: Devesa, M., et al., The role of motivation in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidence in rural tourism, TourismManagement (2009), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.006compare the evaluations of those indicators associated with eachmotivation. Evenso, wehavedenedmoresatisedtouristsasthose whose general satisfaction is above average and less satisedtourists as those whose general satisfaction is below average. Thevalues are presented in Table 3.As we had presumed, the evaluations of the rest and relaxationvisitors exhibit some signicant differences in the aspects related totranquillity, conservation of natural heritage and access. However,we did not nd statistically signicant differences in the evaluationof parking facilities and prices, which we had initially expected. Infact, this latter aspect was negatively assessed by both more satis-ed and less satised people. We also found these low satisfactionlevels in the rest of the motivational typologies. From this point on,weassumedthelackofsatisfaction withpricestobeaconstantfeature of all the people interviewed, irrespective of their motiva-tion for the visit.Long distance cultural visitors, indicating a highdegree ofsatisfaction, tended to evaluate the various aspects of thefeatures offered, whichwere relatedtotheir ownmotivation(monumentandmuseumopeninghours, guidedtours, conser-vationof monumental heritage, roadsignpostingandparkingfacilities), more positively and with statistically signicantdifferences. We also found considerable differences in unex-pected aspects such as restaurant availability and complementaryleisure activities.The differences expected regarding visitors that we havenamed gastronomic and nature visitors were found to berelatedto their visiting goals. Theyhavebeen dividedintofourlarge groups: conditions of stay (ease of parking, suitable offer ofhigh quality lodgings); satisfactory gastronomic options; anappropriate conservation of natural heritage; and adequatefacilities for the practice of sports. Once more, our data conrmsthat visit satisfactionis related, amongother factors, tovisitmotivation.Finally, the return tourists also showsignicant differences in theaspects regarded as important in this type of tourism: tranquillity,complementary leisure activities and conservation of monumentalheritage. However, differences are not signicant in terms of eval-uation of access.Despite this clear relationship between motivationand satis-faction, certainaspects ofthetourist attractionevaluationseemto be especially sensitive when comparing more satised and lesssatisedvisitors, independentof themotivationof theirvisits.This is the case in the evaluationoftreatmentreceived. Accord-ingtothisaspect, thosetouristsshowingahighersatisfactionlevel produced higher average evaluations, regardless of themotivation of their visits. Treatment received represents anindependent satisfactionelement withnolinks tomotivation.Positive evaluation, therefore, inuences satisfaction ineverygroup of visitors: rest, cultural, gastronomic, and return. We havealsofoundother determiningaspects, suchas complementaryleisure activities, gastronomic quality, restaurant availability andtourist information. Inall cases, a lower evaluationis closelyrelatedtolowersatisfactionlevelsandviceversa. Theseareallindependent satisfactionelementswithnolinkstomotivationandcan, therefore, beconsideredfactorsofgeneralsatisfaction.This information is summarizedin Table 4.4. ConclusionsUnderstanding the variables that moderate and determinetourism satisfaction is extremely important in a highly competitivecontextwithinformedanddemandingtourists. Itisanessentialconditionforthesuccessofanydestinationandacrucial aidtocompetitiveness. The relationship between motivation andsatisfaction has been demonstrated in previous tourism literatureand that individuals travelling to a particular destination can haveverydifferentmotives. Thishighlightstheexistenceof differentmotivation schemes for a particular destination that affect touristsexpectations and, therefore, their overall satisfaction. Thus, a morein depth study of the relationship between the two concepts, withaspecial emphasis onidentifyingthesegmentationof visitorsmotives, is needed.The present study has characterized four market segments forthesampleof visitors:avisitorlookingfortranquillity, restandcontactwithnature;cultural visitor;proximity-gastronomicandnature visitor; andreturntourist. These typologies have beenidentiedusingmotivationalfactorsrelatingto aparticularruraldestination in Spain. The results have shown that individuals makedifferentevaluationsofcertainfactors, activitiesanddestinationattributes depending on their relation to the reasons that motivatedor determined the trip.Thisfactallowsustoidentifytheexistenceofarelationshipbetween typologies of visitors classied according to theirmotives and their evaluation of elements that compose thedestinationstourist opportunitiesandthevisitorsexperience.For example, the tourists that we have named cultural visitors,whopresenthighlevelsofsatisfaction, haveregisteredstatisti-cally signicant higher evaluations of those items related to theirculturalmotivation, interalia:monumentandmuseumopeninghours, guidedtoursandtheconservationof monumental heri-tage. This reveals theexistenceof certainspecic satisfactoryelements directly linked to the motivation for the trip. Therefore,serviceprovidersat tourist destinationsneedalsotofocusonthesespecicattributesandservicesastheywillimpact onthetourists level of satisfaction.On the other hand, we have also found the existence of certainelements that strongly affect global satisfaction and functionindependentlyof thereasonsmotivatingthetrip. Wecouldcallthem general satisers. Aspects like treatment received,gastronomy quality, opening hours, availability of services(restaurants and leisure activities), and tourist information, affectvisitorsatisfactioninall identiedsegments. However, someofthemdas is the case withgastronomic quality dcanhaveaspeciccharacter, astheyareconnectedtothemotivationofa certain visitor typology.The identication ofthese attributes, which are ableto deter-mine visitor satisfaction independently fromthe visit motivation, isveryuseful inthedirectionofmarketingplanningforthedesti-nation. This is especially true of those decisions linkedto itsconguration and planning as a product. Destination managers willhave to dedicate the necessary resources and effort to ensure thatsuch aspects are correctly managed because of their inuence onthe visitors general satisfaction, regardless of their motivation andsocio-demographic characteristics.The diversity inthe tourist market also requires improvedidentication and strengthening of those attributes that function asspecic satisfactory elements. These elements may determine thesatisfaction of certain segments. We need to be especially carefulwith those segments that, either because of their size or appeal, area priority for a particular destination.Finally, afewlimitationsof thestudyshouldbeaddressed.First, the sample was drawn exclusively from visitors to a specicrural tourism destination in Spain. This may cause possible non-representation issues and, thus, the results should not begeneralized. Second, thesamplewascomprisedof peoplewhocameonlyfromregionswithinSpain. Itcouldbeinteresting, asa future line ofresearch, toreplicate the study with a question-naire adapted to international tourists as different cultural valuesmay affect both service delivery and visitor experience.M. Devesa et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2009) 16 5ARTICLEINPRESSPlease cite this article in press as: Devesa, M., et al., The role of motivation in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidence in rural tourism, TourismManagement (2009), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.006Appendix. Supplementary materialSupplementary data associated with this article can be found, inthe online version, at doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.006.ReferencesAnderson, E. W., Fornell, C., &Lehman, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction,marketshareandprotability:ndingsfromSweden. Journal of Marketing,58(3), 5366.Barsky, J., & Nash, L. (2002). Evoking emotion: affective keys to hotel loyalty. CornellHotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 3946.Castano, J. M. (2005). Psicolog a Social de los viajes y del turismo. Madrid: ThomsonParaninfo.Castano, J. M., Moreno, A., Garca, S., & Crego, A. (2003). Aproximacio n psicosociala la motivacio n turstica: variables implicadasen la eleccio nde Madridcomodestino. Estudios Tur sticos, 158, 541.Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research,6(4), 408424.Dann, G. M. S. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancementandtourism. AnnalsofTourismResearch, 4(4), 184194.Dann, G. M. S. (1981). Tourism motivation: an appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research,8(2), 187219.Devesa, M., & Palacios, A. (2005). Predicciones en el nivel de satisfaccio n percibidapor los turistas a partir de variables motivacionales y de valoracio n de la visita.Informacion Comercial Espanola, 821, 241255.Devesa, M., & Palacios, A. (2006). Determinantes de la satisfaccio n percibida en elturismo rural. In D. Blanquer (Dir.) (Ed.), Turismo en los espacios rurales (pp. 199220). Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch.Garca, M., &Gil, I. (2005). Expectativas, satisfaccio nylealtadenlos servicioshoteleros. Un enfoque desde la cultura nacional. Papers de Turisme, 37(38), 725.Ibrahim, E. E., & Gill, J. (2005). A positioning strategy for a tourist destination, basedon analysis of customers perceptions and satisfactions. Marketing Intelligence &Planning, 23(2), 172188.Laguna, M., &Palacios, A. (2009). La calidadpercibidacomodeterminantedetipologasdeclientesysurelacio nconlasatisfaccio n: aplicacio nalosser-vicios hoteleros. Revista Europea deDireccionyEconom adelaEmpresa, 18(3),189212.Lee, C. K., Lee, Y. K., &Wicks, B. (2004). Segmentationof festival motivationbynationality and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 25(1), 6170.Lopes, E. (2006). La motivacio n turstica: el caso de la regio n de las aguas termalesde Goia s, Brasil. Bolet n de la A.G.E, 42, 303314.Oh, H. (1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: a holisticperspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18, 6782.Oliver, R. L. (1980). Acognitivemodel of theantecedentsandconsequencesofsatisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 460469.Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourismdestinationloyalty. Journal of Travel Research,39(1), 7884.Qu, H., & Ping, E. W. Y. (1999). A service performance model of Hong Kong cruisetravelers motivationfactors and satisfaction. TourismManagement, 20(2),237244.Rodrguez del Bosque, I. A., San Martn, H., & Collado, J. (2006). The role of expec-tationintheconsumersatisfactionformationprocess:empirical evidenceinthe travel agency sector. Tourism Management, 27(3), 410419.Roma n, M. V., Recio, M., &Martn, M. T. (2000). Segmentacio ndel turismoruralatrave s deindicadores desatisfaccio n: aplicacio nal casodeAndaluca. InD. Blanquer (Dir.) (Ed.), Comercializacion de Productos, Gestion de Organizaciones,Aeropuertos yProteccionde laNaturaleza(pp. 111125). Valencia: Tirant loBlanch.Ross, E. L. D., &Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1991). Sightseeingtourists motivationandsatis-faction. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(2), 226237.Rubio, A. (2003). Sociolog a del Turismo. Barcelona: Ariel.Ruiz, M. A. (2000). Introduccionalosmodelosdeecuacionesestructurales. Madrid:UNED.Severt, D., Wang, Y., Chen, P., &Breiter, D. (2007). Examiningthemotivation,perceivedperformance, andbehavioural intentionsof conventionattendees:evidence from a regional conference. Tourism Management, 28(2), 399408.Truong, T. H., & Foster, D. (2006). Using HOLSAT to evaluate tourist satisfaction atdestinations: the case of Australian holidaymakers in Vietnam. TourismManagement, 27(5), 842855.Uysal, M., & Jurowski, C. (1994). Testing the push and pull factors. Annals of TourismResearch, 21(4), 844846.Wacker, N. (1996). Changing demands. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(1), 3134.Yoon, Y., &Uysal, M. (2005). Anexaminationof theeffects of motivationandsatisfactionondestinationloyalty: astructural model. TourismManagement,26(1), 4556.Yu, L., &Goulden, M. (2006). Acomparativeanalysis of international touristssatisfaction in Mongolia. Tourism Management, 27(6), 13311342.M. Devesa et al. / Tourism Management xxx (2009) 16 6ARTICLEINPRESSPlease cite this article in press as: Devesa, M., et al., The role of motivation in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidence in rural tourism, TourismManagement (2009), doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.006