Souvenir shopping satisfaction: antecedents and consequences

RESEARCH PAPER 191 Souvenir shopping satisfaction: antecedents and consequences Mario Castellanos-Verdugo 1 , M. Ángeles Oviedo-Garcia 2* and Manuela Vega-Vázquez 3 Received: 01/09/2016 Accepted: 21/12/2016 1 Associate Professor, Faculty of Tourism and Finance, University of Seville; Email: [email protected] 2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Economics and Business Management Av/ Ramón y Cajal, 1 41018 Seville, Spain; Email: [email protected] 3 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Tourism and Finance, University of Seville; Email: [email protected] * Corresponding author Abstract Souvenirs function as mementos and are palpable evidence of a journey. The souvenir is certainly a key element of the destination experience of tourists. In this study, we analyze shopping value as an antecedent of tourist souvenir-shopping satisfaction, the consequences of which are positive word of mouth and overall tourist satisfaction. Using Partial Least Squares, a variance-based structural equation modeling technique for data analysis, we arrive at results that show a positive and significant relationship between tourist souvenir shopping satisfaction and both positive word of mouth and overall tourist satisfaction. Moreover, the results also suggest that it is shopping value above all through its hedonic dimension that heightens tourist shopping satisfaction. The study provides useful insights into business strategy for souvenir retailers and its results may serve to guide the tourism planning and promotion activities of destination marketing organizations. © 2017 Varna University of Management. All rights reserved Keywords: souvenir; tourist satisfaction; shopping value; positive word of mouth; tourist shopping satisfaction. Citation: Castellanos-Verdugo, M., M. Oviedo-Garcia, M. Vega-Vázquez (2017) Souvenir shopping satisfaction: antecedents and consequences. European Journal of Tourism Research 17 pp.191-205 Introduction Tourist shopping activities are very popular and account for a large share of travel expenditure, as many tourists shop while travelling even though they might not travel with shopping in mind (Kinley, Forney and Kim, 2012; Lloyd, Yip and Luk, 2011; Murphy, Moscardo, Benckendorff and Pearce, 2011). When tourists shop, besides purchasing something that is of value for them, they contribute to destination image enhancement. On their return home, they share their experiences at the destination with relatives and acquaintances showing the local products and even giving them away as gifts. Additionally, tourist shopping underpins the wealth of the tourism industry, creating economic growth and employment, in particular in the retail sector (Murphy et al., 2011; Swanson and Horridge, 2006; Tosun, Temizkan, Timothy and Fyall, 2007; Wong and Wan, 2013). Souvenir shopping satisfaction: antecedents and consequences. 192 Souvenir shopping is an important element within the global tourist experience at a destination (Lloyd et al., 2011, Murphy et al., 2011). The production, sale and purchase of souvenirs are routine economic activities, often with enormous annual turnovers at tourist destinations (Swanson and Timothy, 2012). Nevertheless, it may be surprising that academics have only recently focused on souvenir shopping (Hu and Yu, 2007; Kemperman, Borgers and Timmermans, 2009; Swanson and Timothy, 2012). The aim of this study is twofold: first, to determine whether and if so the degree to which shopping value is an antecedent of tourist souvenir shopping satisfaction; and, second, to evaluate its impact on two desirable outcomes: positive word-of-mouth and overall tourist satisfaction. While most earlier research has devoted its attention to international tourist shopping satisfaction, the focal point in this research is domestic tourist shopping satisfaction (Lin and Chen, 2013; Reisinger and Turner, 2002; Tosun et al., 2007; Yüksel and Yüksel, 2007). Several researchers have called for further investigation to gain a deeper understanding of word-of-mouth recommendations in tourism (Murphy, 2001; Simpson and Siguaw, 2008). Our analysis is in the setting of a Mediterranean country, as research on tourism shopping behavior, with the exception of only a few studies (Hu and Yu, 2007; Kemperman et al., 2009), has largely focused on the shopping behavior of Asian tourists (in the Asian market or abroad) and foreign tourists at Asian destinations (Hsieh and Chang, 2006; Kim, Timothy and Hwang, 2011; Lloyd et al., 2011; Wong and Wan, 2013; Wu, Wall, and Pearce, 2014; Wu, Li and Song, 2012; Xu and McGehee, 2012). The results of this research lead to recommendations of interest to local destination marketing organizations (DMOs) and to retailers that point to the effect of tourist shopping on overall tourist satisfaction. In the following sections, relevant previous research on souvenir and tourism shopping, focusing on its antecedents and consequences, is discussed and the research hypotheses are stated. The methodology used to test the hypotheses is explained later in the research methodology section. Then, the results are presented and discussed in detail, leading up to the presentation of the research conclusions and both the theoretical and the managerial implications. Literature review Souvenirs Travel experiences are very often momentaneous ones and tourists tend to hold on to a tangible representation of their own personal ones when buying souvenirs: arts and crafts, jewelry, antiques, collectibles, clothing and/or food (Hu and Yu, 2007; Kim et al., 2011; Swanson and Horridge, 2004; Swanson and Timothy, 2012). Travel experiences are full of memories and feelings that can be kept thanks to a souvenir (Hu and Yu, 2007). Although the tangible form of the souvenir is important itself, it is even more important to gain further insight into how producers, retailers and buyers understand it (Timothy, 2005). The souvenir has diverse roles: they lengthen the experience of the trip (Hu and Yu, 2007; Swanson, 2004), and they are the physical evidence of the trip for oneself, as well as one’s friends, neighbors and relatives (Meng and Xu, 2012; Swanson and Thimoty, 2012). Even though purchasing a souvenir is rarely if ever the initial motivation for a trip, some psychological needs of the tourist are satisfied (Snepenger, Murphy, O’Connell and Gregg, 2003; Tosun et al., 2007). Souvenir types can be classified (Swanson and Timothy, 2012): a) tourist commodities (normally found in souvenir shops and handicraft markets); b) symbolic reminders (for instance, metonymics of events, places or experiences, imbued with meaning); c) other commodities in the marketplace (goods that only when later used at home are one day regarded as souvenirs, prompting memories of the experience); and, d) other reminders (not necessarily purchased, such as a passport visa, for example). Earlier research has shown that what tourists seek when they buy souvenirs are items of “authenticity, connections to the destination, an Castellanos-Verdugo, M., M. Oviedo-Garcia, M. Vega-Vázquez (2017) / European Journal of Tourism Research 17 pp.191-205 193 item of utilitarian value, a memento of the trip, intrinsic beauty and workmanship” together with a “relationship with craftspeople and vendors” (Kim et al., 2011: 544). Nevertheless, there is so far little research on tourist satisfaction when buying souvenirs which, therefore, becomes the target of this research, as well as its antecedents and consequences. Tourism, shopping and shopping satisfaction: consequences Tourist shopping experiences are more than the souvenirs themselves for they comprise interactions with products, services as well as retail in-store ambience (Murphy et al., 2011; Yu and Littrell, 2005). Several authors have highlighted and referred to the importance of tourist shopping as a number one activity for tourists (Lloyd et al., 2011), the most widespread activity of tourists (Murphy et al., 2011), which generates enjoyment and satisfaction even when it is not the main purpose of the journey (Hsieh and Chang, 2006; Murphy et al., 2011; Tosun et al., 2007). Therefore, if tourists have no chance to go shopping, the touristic experience would be incomplete (Hu and Yu, 2007; Lloyd et al., 2011). Actually, as a part of their experience at the destination, tourists will probably go shopping, even if the initial motivation to travel was not consumer-oriented. So, we propose the following hypothesis: H1. Tourist shopping satisfaction has a positive relation with overall tourist satisfaction. Tourist satisfaction can be defined as the “subjective evaluation of his or her shopping experience with retail stores and merchandise purchased during his or her stay in a travel destination” (Wong and Wan, 2013: 31). This definition is useful as a framework for research on shopping satisfaction considering, on the one hand, the individual and, on the other, the services of the retailer. Prior research stated that satisfaction influences positive attitudes towards the purchase experience and, at the same time, future purchase intentions may be influenced by the satisfaction level that is reached (Esbjerg et al., 2012) without forgetting its effect on positive word of mouth (Cambra Fierro, Melero Polo and Sesé Oliván, 2014; Kumar, Dalla Pozza and Ganesh, 2013). It is known, thanks to previous research, that a firm’s overall reputation can be enhanced through positive word of mouth from satisfied customers that moreover reduces the costs of attracting new customers (Kumar et al., 2013). On the contrary, dissatisfaction will evolve in the search for new products, in order to replace those which provoked dissatisfaction (Yoon and Uysal, 2005; Hui, Wan and Ho, 2007), negative product-specific comments (negative word of mouth) and, lastly, waning customer loyalty (Song, van der Veen, Li and Chen, 2012). In general, consumers tend to rely on word of mouth when selecting a service provider for hospitality-based services, partly because belief in a quality experience motivates the recommendation (Swanson and Hsu, 2011). Therefore, particularly in the area of tourist shopping, we propose that: H2. Tourist shopping satisfaction has a positive relation with positive word of mouth among tourists. Tourism shopping satisfaction antecedents: Utilitarian shopping value and hedonic shopping value Within the consumption experience, the shopping value construct encompasses an interaction between a consumer and a product, which entails both the extrinsic and the intrinsic value of the object (Yu and Littrell, 2005). Shopping value is defined as “the perceived subjective worth that the consumer perceives in general in consideration of all evaluation standards” (Seo and Lee, 2008: 492). Previous research on shopping motivation shows that shopping value has both a utilitarian and a hedonic dimension, with which the overall value of the consumption activity may be comprehensively assessed (Ryu, Han and Jang, 2010). Therefore, utilitarian and shopping value provide a framework, based on rational and emotional needs, for the analysis of shopping. Utilitarian value is tied to the effectiveness and the efficiency of the shopping experience, reflecting task-related value. The level at which Souvenir shopping satisfaction: antecedents and consequences. 194 0.70*** 0.25*** Tourist shopping satisfaction Shopping value 0.47*** Hedonic value Utiitarian value 0.93+++ 0.34++ Service product and environmental sat. Staff service quality satisfaction Merchadise value satisfaction Service differentiation satisfaction Positive word of mouth R2= 0.49 Tourist overall satisfaction R2= 0.06 H1. Tourist shopping satisfaction → Tourist overall satisfaction H2. Tourist shopping satisfaction → Positive word mouth H3. Shopping value → Tourist shopping satisfaction +++ p < 0.001, ++ p < 0.01 (based on t(4999), two-tailed test) *** p < 0.0001, ** p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, ns: not significant (based on t (4999), one t-tailed test) Figure 1. Proposed and final model a need to consume, which prompts the shopping experience, is satisfied is perceived utilitarian shopping value (Seo and Lee, 2008). Hence, that satisfaction denotes the level of fulfillment of the instrumental expectations of the consumer (Ryu et al., 2010), the successful intention of the consumer buying goods or services (Seo and Lee, 2008). Hedonic value is primarily non-instrumental, experiential and affective and is related to the enjoyment of the shopping experience itself (Carpenter and Moore, 2009). Hedonic shopping value, more subjective and individualistic than utilitarian shopping value, reflects the pleasure and emotional worth of shopping: fun, pleasure, recreation, freedom, fantasy, increased arousal or escape from reality, among others (Seo and Lee, 2008). As Gursoy, Spangenberg and Rutherford (2006: 281) stated “the hedonic dimension of a consumption experience can be derived from a product’s uniqueness, symbolic meaning, and the emotional arousal and imagery it evokes”. In the case of tourist shopping and, especially, in souvenir shopping, the relevance of hedonic value can be higher than a utilitarian one; unlike at home (where utilitarian values prevail), in a tourist context enjoyment is the core (Swanson and Timothy, 2012). The shopping experience yields utilitarian as well as hedonic value (Fisher and Arnold, 1990; Sherry, 1990). However, short seasons, undifferentiated product lines and highlyconcentrated direct competition are each a challenge of a different kind for souvenir retailers (Swanson and Timothy, 2012). Surprisingly, earlier research has not addressed this issue, in spite of the interest in assessing the effect of utilitarian and hedonic value on shopping satisfaction. Correlations between hedonic and utilitarian shopping value with satisfaction, repeat purchase behavior and loyalty in different contexts (Babin, Gonzales and Watts; 2007; Babin and Babin, 2001; Kim, Galliers, Shin, Ryoo and Kim, 2012; Jones, Reynolds and Castellanos-Verdugo, M., M. Oviedo-Garcia, M. Vega-Vázquez (2017) / European Journal of Tourism Research 17 pp.191-205 195 Arnold, 2006; Sánchez-Fernández, Swinnen and Iniesta-Bonillo, 2013) have been made in previous research, although that relationship has not always been supported (Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998; Cater and Cater, 2009). H3. Shopping value is an antecedent of souvenir shopping satisfaction. Figure 1 depicts the hypothesis and, as explained later in the research methodology section, it also shows both the measurement and the structural model used to test those hypotheses. Research methodology Data collection and research instrument The aim of this study is to analyze shopping value as an antecedent of tourist souvenirshopping satisfaction, the consequences of which are positive word of mouth and overall tourist satisfaction. The surveys to collect the data were administered over the extended weekend of the Day of the Constitution- Immaculate Conception (from December 6th to 9th), in 2013, in Seville (Spain). A little behind Madrid and Barcelona, Seville was the third most popular city among tourists over this extended weekend (Europapress, 2014). The questionnaire was built from a relevant literature review considering previously validated research instruments (Jones et al., 2006; Murphy et al., 2011; Tosun et al., 2007; Yu and Littrell, 2005; Wong and Wan, 2013). Previous research has related several retail shop characteristics and goods with shopping satisfaction: tangible quality, staff-service quality, product value, product reliability, price, cleanliness of the shop, the appearance of sales assistants, opening hours, product packaging, and product size (Reisinger and Turner, 2002). However, a single, noncomprehensive measure of tourist satisfaction has usually been preferred (Wong and Wan, 2013). For this reason, the multidimensional scale of shopping satisfaction proposed by Wong and Wan (2013), adapted to a context of commoditized souvenirs, was adopted in this research. Three researchers with expertise in customer satisfaction refined and checked the face validity of the scales. The translation of the scales from English to Spanish, a crucial step when generating a questionnaire, was carefully carried out. The aim was to consider the Spanish context, mindful of equivalences in terms of meaning, nuances and connotations. In the first stage, a bilingual translator translated the original version into Spanish. In the second stage, a reverse translation was performed by a different translator from Spanish back into English. Finally, both English versions were compared, in order to remove discrepancies (McGorry, 2000). A pilot test with 32 tourists who had purchased souvenirs during the weekend of November 16th and 17th, 2013, was conducted before the final questionnaire. Very few problems of comprehension were encountered. The questionnaire was organized into five sections. The first was devoted to the souvenir shopping satisfaction of tourists (22 items). Section number 2 had only one item, which measured the overall level of tourist satisfaction in Seville. A single item was preferred due to its ease of use and empirical support (Chi, 2012). The third and fourth sections of the questionnaire, respectively, collected information on positive word of mouth among tourists and shopping value. The socio-demographic information of the respondents was collected in the fifth section. Except for the fifth section, all the variables were measured on a Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Lastly, to ensure the content validity of the questionnaire, a three-phase pre-test process was followed: a) the questionnaire was compiled from previous literature; b) the questionnaire was then reviewed twice and corrected; and c) the pilot test was conducted. The self-administered questionnaires were distributed at random to visitors in the centre of Seville – the Cathedral, the Alcazar, the Santa Cruz district, the most popular touristic areas (Turismo de Sevilla, 2012)–with the help of three research assistants. The research assistants had information on this research objectives, the questionnaire and had been given precise instructions on data collection. A small token of appreciation for their participation was given to participants who had previously confirmed that they had bought souvenirs during their stay in Seville. Souvenir shopping satisfaction: antecedents and consequences. 196 During the month of December 2013, 87,767 domestic tourists stayed overnight in the province of Seville (Consejería de Turismo y Comercio de Andalucía, 2014). Since no information on overnight stays in the city of Seville was available over the extended weekend of the Constitution Day-Immaculate Conception of 2013, the figure for overnight stays during December 2013 was calculated from a representative sample with a ninety-five percent confidence level and a permitted error of 5% (384 people). Four-hundred and eight valid questionnaires were eventually collected. The profile of the sample included slightly more females (58.5%) than males, slightly more single people (53.1%) than couples, and the majority were men and women under 34 years old (72.8%). The main reasons for travel to Seville were leisure (51.0%) and visiting friends and relatives (39.7%). Just a small proportion of respondents were alone when they had bought souvenirs (14.8%). Most of respondents belonged to households consisting of families of up to three individuals (73.1%) and slightly over half had travelled to Seville in groups (55.3%). Respondents were mainly from Madrid (22.1%), Barcelona (7.4%), Valencia (5.1%), Badajoz (5.1%) and Zaragoza (3.4%). Data analysis techniques PLS, a variance-based structural equation modeling technique, was selected to perform the analysis (Henseler, Ringle, and Sinkovics, 2009). The analysis was performed on Smart PLS 2.0 M3 software (Ringle, Wende, and Will, 2005). PLS is particularly appropriate in this research (Roldán and Sánchez-Franco, 2012), as the study focuses on the prediction of dependent variables and is based on previous models, but introduces new measures and structural paths –of an incremental character- (Chin, 2010). Furthermore, the PLS method is effective with small samples and when there are subjective observations of a phenomenon (Chin and Newsted, 1999; Reinartz, Haenlein and Henseler, 2009; Roldán and Sánchez- Franco, 2012; Sosik, Kahai and Piovoso, 2009). The latent model approach was adopted to analyze the relationships between the different constructs and their indicators (MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Jarvis, 2005). Having linked the second-order factors, a twostep approach was followed (Calvo-Mora, Leal and Roldán, 2005) and the latent variable scores were created by optimally weighing and combining items for each dimension using the PLS algorithm. Both hedonic shopping value and utilitarian shopping value are first-order reflective dimensions which constitute shopping value. In contrast, tourist shopping satisfaction is a second-order formative multidimensional construct. This means tourist shopping satisfaction is a composite of its four components: service product and environment satisfaction (formative dimension), staff services quality satisfaction (reflective dimension), merchandise value satisfaction (reflective dimension) and service differentiation satisfaction (reflective dimension). So, shopping value and tourist shopping satisfaction, which are second-order constructs, were produced by combining their first-order factors. Later the dimensions became the observed indicators of the secondorder constructs. Positive word of mouth and overall tourist satisfaction are first-order reflective dimensions. Results and discussion Evaluation of the measurement model The individual reliability of the item was analyzed, to determine the validity and reliability of the measures, internal consistency or reliability of the construct, convergent validity and discriminatory validity. These aspects only refer to the latent constructs with reflective indicators. The analysis that should be performed in the case of the constructs with formative indicators is to check multicollinearity between the indicators that form the construct (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001; Mathieson, Peacock and Chin, 2001). With regard to the individual reliability of each item, a factorial load of over 0.7 would indicate that the shared variance between the construct and its indicators is greater than the variance of the error (Carmines and Zeller, 1979). Two items from the construct of utilitarian value were removed because they did not reach this threshold (“I buy what I really need” and “I try to Castellanos-Verdugo, M., M. Oviedo-Garcia, M. Vega-Vázquez (2017) / European Journal of Tourism Research 17 pp.191-205 197 Table 1. Reliability measures Construct/dimensions/indicators Weight Loading Composite reliability AVE VIF Shopping Value (aggregate multidimensional construct) N.A. N.A. Utilitarian Value (reflective dimension) 0.34++ 0.73 0.60 1.00 G1. While buying, I only try to find the product that I am looking for 0.52 G4. I feel satisfied, if I buy everything that I want in the same store 0.96 Hedonic Value (reflective dimension) 0.93+++ 0.95 0.64 1.00 F1. Compared with other things that I could do, spending time going shopping is really enjoyable 0.76 F2. While I go shopping, I feel as if I’m on an adventure 0.81 F3 I enjoy shopping in itself, not only because of the products I buy 0.82 F4. When I buy I feel a lot of emotion 0.87 F5. Buying is really a pleasure 0.86 F6. Buying is an evasion 0.73 F7. When I buy, I am able to forget my problems 0.79 F8. When I buy, I enjoy that time because I am able to act without thinking 0.83 F9. I continue shopping not because I have to buy but because I want to buy 0.73 F10. I enjoy being surrounded by new products 0.77 Tourism Shopping Satisfaction (aggregate multidimensional construct) N.A. N.A. Service Product and Environment Satisfaction (formative dimension) 0.46+++ 1.75 A1. Accepted means of payment -0.15 1.25 A2. Decoration 0.24 1.57 A3. Exposition of products 0.09 1.85 A4. Variety of products 0.24 1.61 A5. Reputation of the shop 0.24 1.43 A6. Variety of brands 0.16 1.33 A7. Atmosphere inside the store 0.39 1.77 A8. Opening hours -0.11 1.89 A9. Cleanliness 0.08 1.45 A10. Lighting -0.01 1.82 A11. Its location 0.20 1.71 Staff Service Quality Satisfaction (reflective dimension) 0.09 0.88 0.60 1.45 B1. Attitudes of store employees 0.81 B2. Communication skills of store employees 0.81 B3. Diligence of store employees 0.83 B4. Product knowledge among employees 0.79 B5. Language training of employees 0.64 Merchandise Value Satisfaction (reflective dimension) 0.18+++ 0.82 0.60 1.94 C1. Product quality 0.81 C2. Souvenirs are a reflection of local culture 0.78 C3. Price of souvenirs 0.74 Service Differentiation Satisfaction (reflective dimension) 0.49+++ 0.84 0.64 1.83 D1. Home-delivery service 0.79 D2. A single or specialized merchandise 0.79 D3. Special conditions (payment, amount, …) 0.83 Positive Word of Mouth (reflective construct) 0.87 0.69 E1. I will often mention the store where I went shopping to other people 0.64 E2. I will not miss the chance to speak to other people about the shop 0.92 E3. I will speak about the shops that I visited with a sense of pride 0.90 Tourist Overall Satisfaction (reflective construct) 1 1 H1 In general, I consider the global experience of my trip very satisfactory 1 +++ p < 0.001, ++ p < 0.01 (based on t(4999), two-tailed test) N.A.: Not applicable. Souvenir shopping satisfaction: antecedents and consequences. 198 Table 2. Discriminant validity (1) (2) (3) (4) (1) Shopping satisfaction n.a. (2) Tourist overall satisfaction 0.25 1 (3) Shopping value 0.47 0.16 n.a. (4) Positive word of mouth 0.70 0.14 0.40 0.83 Diagonal elements (bold) are the square root of variance shared between the constructs and their measures (AVE). Off-diagonal elements are the correlations among constructs. For discriminant validity, the diagonal elements should be larger than the off-diagonal elements. Note: n.a.: not applicable buy only what I want when I go shopping”). However, due to their contribution to content validity (Roldán and Sánchez-Franco, 2012), the items “language training of the employees”, “I often mention the shop in which I have bought” and “while I go shopping, I try to buy only the product that I’m looking for” were retained, although they are under 0.7 value. Chin (1998) affirmed that this rule should not be so inflexible, provided that there are no significant deviations (Barclay, Higgins and Thompson, 1995). In this case, they are not too far from 0.7 and the rest of the conditions of reliability and validity were met. The composite reliability of the construct is used to evaluate the internal consistency of all the indicators (Werts, Linn and Jöreskog, 1974). According to Nunnally (1978) 0.7 is an acceptable level for ‘modest’ reliability within an early stage of research context while a higher level of 0.8 is required for basic research. All the constructs in this research were within the minimum established threshold (Table 1). Convergent validity points to a set of indicators that represents a single underlying construct, which can be estimated by means of Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and should be above 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981); this requirement is met by all of the reflective constructs. Finally, the AVE should be higher than the variance shared between the construct and the other constructs that are represented, in order to establish the discriminant validity. As shown in table 2, it may be seen that all the elements of the principal diagonal (square root of the extracted variance) are higher than the correlations between the constructs (the remainder of the elements of its corresponding row and column); a requirement with which all of the reflective constructs comply. As previously mentioned, in the case of formative constructs, the evaluation of the indicators should consider possible multicollinearity between the construct indicators (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001; Mathieson et al., 2001). Multicollinearity refers to the linear intercorrelations between indicators, as when there are different indicators that measure the same phenomena and these observable variables correlate highly with each other, those indicators could be redundant, which would lead to overlap in the regression models. Thus, a high collinearity between indicators would produce unstable estimations, given that it would be difficult to separate the distinctive effect of each indicator on the construct. Although Belsley (1991) proposed a Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) < 5 as an indicator of no high levels of multicollinearity between the formative indicators, we follow Roberts and Thatcher (2009) who proposed that a VIF >3.3 indicates a high level of multicollinearity. The VIF value of the formative constructs indicates a minimum level of multicollinearity (Table 1). In the case of the constructs with formative indicators and the second-order factors, PLS provides weights that offer information on the composition and the relative importance of each indicator or dimension (Chin, 1998). This information allows us to establish a classification of the dimensions with regard to their contribution. Castellanos-Verdugo, M., M. Oviedo-Garcia, M. Vega-Vázquez (2017) / European Journal of Tourism Research 17 pp.191-205 199 Table 3. Effect on the endogenous variables R2 Q2 Direct effect Correlation Explained Variance Tourist overall satisfaction 0.06 0.06 H1: Shopping Satisfaction 0.25 0.25 6.25% Positive word of mouth 0.49 0.33 H2: Shopping Satisfaction 0.70 0.70 49.0% Shopping satisfaction 0.22 0.13 H3: Shopping Value 0.47 0.47 22.09% Table 4. Hypotheses test Hypotheses Suggested Effect Path Coefficient (β) T value (bootstr ap) Upheld/ Not upheld H1: Shopping satisfaction → Tourist overall satisfaction (+) 0.25*** 5.06 Upheld H2: Shopping satisfaction → Positive word of mouth (+) 0.70*** 22.18 Upheld H3: Shopping value → Shopping satisfaction (+) 0.47*** 11.44 Upheld ***p<0.001, **p<0.01,*p<0.05, ns: not significant t (0.05; 499) = 1.64791345; t (0.01; 499) = 2.333843952; t (0.001; 499) = 3.106644601 Not surprisingly, the two dimensions that define shopping value present positive weights and their hedonic value is higher than their utilitarian value (0.93 and 0.34, respectively) because, while shopping, tourists are involved in a joyful, recreational and happy context and, therefore, hedonic motivations overcome utilitarian ones (Swanson and Timothy, 2012). When the relative importance of the different dimensions of tourist shopping satisfaction is considered, the following stand out: service differentiation satisfaction (0.49) and service product and environment satisfaction (0.46) clearly highlight the relative importance of staff service quality satisfaction (0.09) and of merchandise value satisfaction (0.18) (Table 1). The statistical significance of the weighting can be valued through bootstrapping. All the loads are significant except the one that corresponds to the dimension of staff service quality satisfaction. Nevertheless, despite this, it remained in the analysis, because it is appropriate to retain non-significant dimensions that contribute to the content domain of a formative construct (Roberts and Thatcher, 2009). Evaluation of the structural model In order to evaluate the structural model, the explained variance of the dependent constructs and the dependency coefficients of the model (which highlights the relative strength of the relations between the constructs) were assessed. The amount of explained variance that each antecedent variable explains in relation to its endogenous construct is shown in Table 3. Tourist shopping satisfaction explains 6.25% of the variance of overall tourist satisfaction and 49% of positive word of mouth. In contrast, shopping value has a positive influence on tourist shopping satisfaction, explaining 22.09% of the explained variance. The bootstrapping (5000 resamples) technique generates standard errors and t-statistics used to assess the statistical significance of the path coefficients (Henseler et al., 2009). These coefficients provided the bootstrapping confidence intervals of the standardized regression coefficients in the analysis. In accordance with the results that have been reached, the three hypotheses proposed in this investigation were shown to be of statistical significance, as the path coefficients were significant (see Table 4). The Q2 index developed by Stone (1974) and Geisser (1975) was used to measure the predictive relevance or the predictability of the endogenous constructs. There are two types of Q2, according to the predictive form: crossvalidated communality and cross-validated