##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

This study aims to analyze the relationship between country image variables, travel constraints, past travel experience, tourist motivation, attitude, subjective norms, and revisit intention in Japan. This research uses quantitative research methods. This study uses quantitative data to determine the relationship between variables and explain the phenomena that occur systematically and accurately. The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between the factors of country image, travel constraints, past travel experience, tourist motivation, attitude to revisit, and subjective norms on revisit intention. Data collection in this study is done using a questionnaire, and analysis of this research is done using SEM (Structural Equation Modeling). The number of samples collected and used for research analysis with 32 items was 160. The results of the study show that factors that significantly influence attitudes toward revisiting are travel constraints, past travel experience, and tourist motivation. Meanwhile, the factors that significantly influence revisit intention are only past travel experience and subjective norms. Revisit intention is closely related to past travel experience and subjective norms, where tourists tend to consider their past experiences in visiting a place and also the advice or opinions of the closest people who determine their decision to visit Japan again.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Introduction

People, in general, routinely carry out daily activities such as work and study, and these activities can cause stress due to various problems, such as problems at work, school, or university, in the family, and many more. One way to deal with stress is to do various entertainment activities such as playing, watching concerts, doing hobbies, taking vacations, and so on. Vacation is a favorite choice of Indonesians, so the flow of travelers to Indonesia has increased significantly every year. According to Handayani (2022), there are many benefits to travel itself, one of which is increasing happiness. Three main components make up the tourism sector: tourists, geographical components, and tourism businesses (Cooperet al., 2005). Each tourist has their motivation for traveling. Five main elements have been established to differentiate between these motivations: personality, lifestyle, previous experience, perception, and image (Swarbrooke & Horner, 2006). According to Ismayantiet al. (2011), Indonesian tourists are attracted by various external factors such as distance, facilities, attractions, and cultural activities. According to Bimata.id (2020), Indonesian tourists like traveling for various reasons, such as wanting to find their identity, finding new things that have never been found before, adding insight into a place visited, and eliminating curiosity about a place that is often talked about by others.

Despite the high interest in traveling among tourists, it is not easy to do so. A common problem for working tourists is the difficulty in taking time off. Then, for tourists traveling with family, there are obstacles, such as the difficulty of adjusting the time between family members. Surveys show that 84% of Indonesians wish they could travel with their families more often (Handayani, 2017). According to Huang and Hsu (2009), there are other travel constraints, such as needing a lot of money, not having enough vacation days, and difficulty adjusting time with family or friends. There are three main reasons why many families find it difficult to travel: the difficulty in arranging dates and schedules that work for all family members (29%), affordability (22%), and the inability to find suitable accommodation for all family members (16%) (Handayani, 2017). Understanding travel constraints is also considered very important in predicting future travel trends (Yuanet al., 2005). By looking at the current travel phenomenon in Indonesia, it is necessary to conduct more research to find out the behavior of tourists who tend to be interested in making a return visit.

Seeing the phenomenon of travel that began to increase again after the COVID-19 pandemic made matters related to revisiting intention, especially returning to Japan, which is a favorite destination by Indonesian tourists, an interesting and relevant topic to research. All of this was evident when Japan opened its borders on October 11, 2022. The demand to visit Japan rose 170% compared to the previous month (Dinisari, 2022). Previous studies on the topic of revisit intention examined the return visit to Hong Kong (Huang & Hsu, 2009), Kuba (Chaulagainet al., 2019), and Indonesia (Mustafidah, 2016; Purbaet al., 2021), and many more. However, research on return visits to Japan has yet to be conducted. One of the biggest factors in revisiting Japan is its unique culture (asiahighlights.com, 2022), but no research has been found on the characteristics of respondents who like Japanese culture that can influence a tourist to revisit Japan. Although Japan is becoming a popular destination that tourists are interested in revisiting, as mentioned earlier, this research is still relevant to conduct as tourist preferences and travel trends change over time, and it is important to understand the evolving needs and wants of tourists (White, 2021). Researching Japan’s return visit intentions can help identify emerging trends and adapt to changing tourist demands, ensuring continued success in attracting visitors to make repeat visits to Japan (Gitelson & Crompton, 1984).

The behavior of tourists who tend to be interested in doing a revisit can be found out by using the theory of consumer behavior. According to Kim and Noh (2004), consumer behavior theory can be applied to the fields of recreation and tourism because tourists are one type of consumer. Recreational activities and tourism destinations are elements of tourism that can be considered products. Therefore, theories that explain how consumers choose products can also be used to explain how tourists choose certain recreational destinations and activities, including when choosing a destination to return to. One of the frequently used theories of consumer behavior is the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), and TRA is also considered one of several influential conceptual frameworks for studying human behavior due to its effectiveness in predicting behavioral intentions (Park, 2000). TRA has two main constructs of intention: (1) attitude toward behavior and (2) subjective norm associated with the behavior. This study will examine the effects of these two constructs on Indonesian tourists’ intentions to travel back to Japan.

In the context of tourism marketing, it was found that subjective norms are significant determinants of intention to visit a particular destination (Jalilvand & Samiei, 2012). In other studies, subjective norms are also used to predict intentions to travel abroad (Kim & Noh, 2004) and to attend sporting events (Gibsonet al., 2012). However, no research examines the relationship between subjective norms and revisit intention. It is the opinions and experiences of the closest people that are likely to influence a person’s desire to revisit a place; for example, when doing a behavior, a person will be likely to consider the approval of his environment (Nugrahaet al., 2022). This study also involves the attitude to revisit variable, which is associated with the revisit intention variable, because the attitude to revisit variable that will be used is very important for the context of Japan because Japan is one of the countries that tourists are very interested in revisiting. After all, when a tourist has a positive or good attitude, he will tend to bring up revisit intention in him (Nugrahaet al., 2022). Previous research conducted by Huang and Hsu (2009) discusses variables of past travel experience, travel constraint, tourist motivation, and attitude to revisit on revisit intention, and (Chaulagainet al., 2019) discussed the variables of destination image, country image, and destination familiarity on intention to visit, but no previous research has been found that uses the TRA concept developed with the variables of country image, past travel experience, travel constraints, and tourist motivation in one study. Based on the description above, this study aims to analyze the relationship between country image variables, travel constraints, past travel experience, tourist motivation, attitude, subjective norms, and revisit intention in Japan.

Literature Review

Country Image

Country image is commonly referred to as the stereotype of a country or the view of a country (Nebenzahlet al., 1997). It is undeniable that image is important in influencing people’s choice of product, service, or destination (Zhanget al., 2018). Therefore, the country’s image is important in attracting tourists to travel. Country image is used to generate the sum of individual beliefs and perceptions about a location by combining various aspects of history, politics, economy, culture, customs, and technology (Reinet al., 1993). Another definition of country image is consumers’ perceptions of different countries and the quality of products and brands made in those countries (Liet al., 2008). In general, the country image can be defined as the sum of a person’s descriptive, inferential, and informational beliefs about a particular country (Martin & Eroglu, 1993). Country image can be measured from the average results of cognitive and affective evaluations (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999). Martin and Eroglu (1993) say that a country’s public and private promoters can benefit from knowing what the targeted parties’ perceptions of the country are to attract international investment. Elliotet al. (2010) also state that an individual’s trust, familiarity, and acceptance of a destination are strongly influenced by the country’s image. When this happens, their memory processing can influence their intention to revisit (Camposet al., 2017). Stock (2009) identified three main reasons why countries should manage their country image: to attract tourists, add value to domestic products, and attract foreign investment.

Travel Constraint

According to Hung (2015), travel constraints are things that make a person unable to travel regularly and prevent them from doing so. The effect or restriction on a visitor’s intention to revisit a country is known as a travel constraint (Huang & Hsu, 2009). Travel decisions are greatly affected when travel constraints are considered; this can change the context of traditional decision-making models and lead to changes in travel arrangements (Goodrich, 1978). Sonmez and Graefe (1998) state that travel constraints greatly affect the travel behavior of a tourist. According to Crawfordet al. (1991), there are three levels of hierarchy, including intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural constraints, used to study travel constraints. At the intrapersonal level, one’s stress level and skills, as well as other psychological characteristics such as fear, can factor into travel constraints. The next level is the interpersonal level, such as social interactions with friends and family. This will not be felt by people until interpersonal issues have been resolved. Structural constraints at the lowest level include cost and accessibility issues such as a lack of resources in money, time, facilities, and information (Alexandriset al., 2011). According to Huang and Hsu (2009), other travel constraints can include a lack of funds, insufficient vacation time, and difficulty fitting in time with family or friends. Understanding travel constraints is considered important for predicting future travel trends that can help a country (Yuanet al., 2005).

Past Travel Experience

Travel experience focuses on the cumulative travel experience of travelers (Oppermann, 1995). Kim (2018) defines a tourism experience as a travel experience that is remembered positively after the event occurs. Based on Stamboulis and Skayannis (2003), a tourist experience is known as an event regarding past travel related to visiting, seeing, and enjoying activities in a tourist place that leaves a unique, emotional impression and provides high subjective value. Gomez-Jacintoet al. (1999) assume that the tourist experience includes intercultural interactions, tourist activities, service quality, and vacation satisfaction. Sonmez and Graefe (1998) adopt a simpler approach, using the number of international trips as an indicator of travel experience. According to Pine and Gilmore (2013), companies need to understand consumer memory, which is referred to as the memory of customers, to be able to maintain and increase market share, customer loyalty, and profitability. Customers will be willing to pay more for an experience that is memorable and involves them in something personal. The tourist experience can never be controlled by anyone, but the efforts that can be made by a destination to create a unique and memorable experience for tourists by adding different values to tourist products and services (Mustafidah, 2016). The success of a tourist destination that can build a memorable experience for visitors will determine its future success.

Tourist Motivation

Tourist motivation is defined as a global network of biological and cultural forces that add value and direction to travel decisions, behaviors, and experiences (Pearceet al., 1998). Travel motivation is also certainly influenced by an individual’s motivation to travel to see more things not encountered daily, which has largely been shaped by society and daily life. From several previous studies (Chaet al., 1995; Crompton, 1979; Turnbul & Uysal, 1995), it can be concluded that there is a concept of push and pull motivation. Push motivations explain the desire to travel, while pull motivations explain the actual choice of destination. Some tourist motivations are identified and classified as sociopsychological (push) motivations, and others as cultural (pull) motivations. Push motivations consist of social interaction, the desire for escape, adventure, relaxation, and self-exploration. Meanwhile, pull motivations consist of seeing new things and education. A review of the literature shows that the study of tourist motivation incorporates various theories and methodologies (Cohen, 1974). According to Lundberg (1972), often, when discussing motivation in terms of individuals, researchers have a two-stage discussion. First, they will try to identify the environment of the destination and how it affects the visitors. They also pay attention to whether some demands and pressures make potential tourists consider traveling. Secondly, they generally examine how the requirements and pressures occur during the trip. The motivations behind consumer behavior and travel intentions must be understood by travel workers to effectively advertise tourism services and locations (Geeet al., 1984).

Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)

The theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) is a theory used to explain human behavior. According to Ajzen and Fishbein (1977), research in social psychology shows that a person’s behavioral intention towards a particular behavior is a determining factor in whether or not the individual performs the behavior. Desire is determined by two independent variables, including attitude and subjective norms. TRA explains that beliefs can influence attitudes and subjective norms, which will change the form of behavioral desires, either guided or just happening in an individual’s behavior. Behavioral beliefs are considered to be the underlying influence on the attitude of the individual toward performing the behavior, while normative beliefs influence the subjective norms of the individual about the performance of the behavior (Kim & Noh, 2004).

Attitude to Revisit

Usually, consumers beliefs about the value received affect their overall attitude toward the product or service, such as their intention to repurchase if they perceive positive value (Yoon & Uysal, 2005). This also applies to the field of tourism; namely, if tourists get a positive attitude from their first visit to a tourist spot, they will intend to visit again (Rousta & Jamshidi, 2020). Attitude toward return visits is conditioning behavior toward a goal (Deng & Li, 2013; Leeet al., 2005), which is conceptualized as an affective tendency to visit a goal in the future (Huang & Hsu, 2009).

Subjective Norms

Subjective norms represent social pressure from important people on an individual to influence someone to do or not do a behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Park, 2000). According to Franzoi (2003), Subjective norms can also be defined as an individuals assessment of whether most people who are very important to the individual would approve of a particular behavior under consideration.

Revisit Intention

Revisit intention is the willingness or readiness of individuals to return to the same location (Tosunet al., 2015). Revisit intention is considered an important element in ensuring the success of a destination (Maiet al., 2019). Revisit intention is also consumer loyalty in terms of behavior (Sugandiniet al., 2019). Revisit intention can be defined as a strong desire to return to a country with or without a favorable attitude towards the visited party (Hanet al., 2009).

Research Methods

This research uses quantitative research methods because it uses statistics to test hypotheses. Sampling techniques are usually randomized. Data collection is carried out using research tools and quantitative data analysis, with the aim of testing predetermined hypotheses. This research is included in the category of descriptive research because, according to Kamper (2020), descriptive research aims to provide an overview of certain situations and conditions; this research will use data to provide a quantitative summary of phenomena that are descriptive or explain the relationship between variables. This study uses quantitative data to determine the relationship between variables and also explain the phenomena that occur systematically and accurately. The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between country image factors, travel constraints, past travel experience, tourist motivation, attitude to revisit, and subjective norms on revisit intention. Data collection in this study was done using a questionnaire, and this research analysis used SEM (Structural Equation Modeling).

Based on the hypothesis developed, a research model was constructed and presented in Fig. 1. The objects of this research are country image variables, travel constraints, past travel experience, tourist motivation, attitudes to revisit, subjective norms, and revisit intention. This research will be focused on the travel industry in Indonesia, which is one of the industries that contributes the most to the country’s economy (Yakup, 2019). The country chosen to be studied in this research is Japan, one of the countries that is very attractive to Indonesian tourists (Kaneko, 2019). The population in this study are Indonesians who live in the Jabodetabek area and have visited Japan. The sample in this study is made up of Indonesians who live in the Jabodetabek area, like Japanese culture and have visited Japan for vacation. Hairet al. (2011) state that the number of samples that must be obtained is a minimum of 5 times or a maximum of 10 times the item to be analyzed, which means that the number of samples collected and used for research analysis with 32 items is 160 samples, which meets the minimum requirements for the number of samples from several references above.

Fig. 1. Research model. (Sources: Chaulagainet al., 2019; Huang & Hsu, 2009; Wu & Liu, 2007).

Results and Discussions

Based on testing the reliability of the actual study, Table I shows that the seven variables with a total of 26 indicators have passed the reliability test, where the composite reliability value of each variable is higher than 0.7.

Variables Items Indicator loading AVE Composite reliability
Country image(CI) CI1 0.705 0.559 0.835
CI3 0.813
CI4 0.712
CI5 0.756
Travel constraint (TC) TC2 0.567 0.680 0.859
TC4 0.922
TC5 0.933
Past travel experience (EXP) EXP1 0.891 0.658 0.885
EXP2 0.775
EXP3 0.767
EXP4 0.806
Tourist motivation (MOT) MOT1 0.800 0.613 0.887
MOT2 0.646
MOT3 0.836
MOT4 0.830
MOT5 0.786
Attitude to revisit (AR) AR1 0.778 0.620 0.867
AR2 0.717
AR3 0.822
AR4 0.826
Subjective norms (SN) SN2 0.885 0.709 0.887
SN3 0.750
SN4 0.884
Revisit intention (RI) RI2 0.529 0.651 0.841
RI3 0.9925
RI4 0.904
Table I. Convergent Validity and Composite Reliability Test Results (Actual Study)

Based on the results from Table III, the R-squared value for revisit intention is 0.231, which means that the country image, travel constraint, past travel experience, tourist motivation, and subjective norms variables explain the revisit intention variable by 23.1%, while the remaining 76.9% can be explained by other variables not examined by other studies. Then the R-squared value for the attitude to revisit variable is 0.445, which means that the country image, travel constraint, past travel experience, and tourist motivation variables explain the attitude to revisit variable by 44.5%, while the remaining 55.5% can be explained by other variables not examined by this study.

To see whether the variable is acceptable in terms of discriminant validity, the square root of the AVE of each construct must be greater than the correlation of a construct with other constructs (Hairet al., 2011). The results of the test of discriminant validity can be seen in Table II.

AR CI EXP RI SN MOT TC
AR 0.787
CI 0.479 0.748
EXP 0.548 0.478 0.811
RI 0.240 0.074 0.376 0.807
SN −0.004 −0.078 0.071 0.234 0.842
MOT 0.572 0.560 0.572 0.241 0.013 0.783
TC −0.417 −0.387 −0.261 0.064 0.072 −0.406 0.825
Table II. Discriminant Validity Test Results (Actual Study)
Variables R-squared Variables
Attitude to revisit 0.445 Attitude to revisit
Table III. Discriminant Validity Test Results (Actual Study)

Hypothesis Testing Results

To get answers and conclusions of this study, the hypotheses were tested. Path coefficient, t-value, and p-value are some of the variables examined in this study to test the hypothesis.

Based on Table IV, it can be seen that H3, H5, H6, H7, and H10 in this study are accepted. The results for the t-value and p-value meet the requirements, where the t-value is higher than 1.65, and the p-value is also smaller than 0.05, so these five hypotheses are accepted. Past travel experience and tourist motivation variables have a positive influence on attitude to revisit, and past travel experience and subjective norms variables also have a positive influence on revisit intention, while travel constraint variables have a negative influence on attitude to revisit.

Path Coefficient t p Conclusion
H1 CI -> AR 0.120 1.346 0.178 Not accepted
H2 CI -> RI −0.127 1.509 0.131 Not accepted
H3 TC -> AR −0.189 2.217 0.027 Accepted
H4 TC -> RI 0.192 3.156 0.002 Not accepted
H5 EXP -> AR 0.292 3.104 0.002 Accepted
H6 EXP -> RI 0.332 3.012 0.003 Accepted
H7 MOT -> AR 0.261 3.086 0.002 Accepted
H8 MOT -> RI 0.123 1.145 0.252 Not accepted
H9 AR -> RI 0.129 1.301 0.193 Not accepted
H10 SN -> RI 0.185 3.481 0.001 Accepted
Table IV. Hypothesis Test Results

However, different things for H1, H2, H8, and H9 in this study were rejected because the t-value and p-value did not meet the requirements of the provisions set. Although the t-value and p-value of H4 meet the requirements, because the path coefficient results obtained are positive, this hypothesis is rejected. Thus, the results of testing the five hypotheses show that they are not significant enough to support the statement that the country image variable has a positive influence on attitude to revisit and revisit intention, the tourist motivation variable has a positive influence on revisit intention, the travel constraint variable has a negative influence on revisit intention, and the attitude to revisit variable has a positive influence on revisit intention.

H1: Country Image Does Not Have a Significant Positive Influence on Attitude to Revisit

Based on the results of hypothesis testing (H1), the country image does not have a significant positive effect on attitude to revisit, so H1 is rejected. These results indicate that a positive image of Japan does not have a significant influence on a tourist’s attitude to revisit. There is also previous research conducted by Soonsan and Sukahbot (2019) that states the same result: that country image does not directly affect revisit intention, but it can occur if there is a mediator. For example, a tourist’s love for Japanese culture means that all images cannot affect their intention to visit Japan again. This is due to the behavior of tourists, who usually trust their judgment more than other people’s views on Japan (Perdue, 2008).

Although country image plays a role in shaping people’s initial attitude towards visiting a country (Kim & Richardson, 2003), it does not necessarily have a significant positive effect on their willingness to revisit. This could be because, for most respondents, many other factors influence their attitude toward revisiting. One of the factors is personal experience, where everyone has different experiences in a country. When someone has a positive experience, they will have a positive attitude toward revisiting it. This statement is supported by the results of an interview with one respondent who has visited Japan, as follows:

“I had previously visited a small town in Japan called Kanazawa. Since I was traveling with my friend, we were more interested in exploring small towns than big cities like Tokyo, Osaka, and others. Of course, we wanted to try some local restaurants there, but there were no menus in English, and the staff didn’t speak English at all, which made me and my friends too overwhelmed to just order food. Japan is a beautiful and culturally rich country, but I would prefer to revisit a country where I can communicate fluently without any barriers.” (Nicholas, 24 years old).

Based on the interview results from one of the respondents who had visited Japan before, it can be concluded that experience determines their attitude toward revisiting. In his previous experience, James had problems communicating with the local community, such as when he wanted to order food. Even though Japan is a very beautiful country, this influenced his attitude not to want to revisit Japan; instead, he preferred to visit a country where the majority of the population could understand daily conversations in international languages such as English. This is supported by the statement of Camposet al. (2017), who said that active participation and interaction between tourists and residents are needed to fade the boundaries between them to create better interactions and impressions.

H2: Country Image Does Not Have a Significant Positive Effect on Revisit Intention

Based on the results of hypothesis testing (H2), the country image does not have a significant positive effect on revisit intention, so H2 is rejected. These results indicate that a positive image of Japan does not have a significant influence on a tourist’s revisitation intention. There is also previous research conducted by Soonsan and Sukahbot (2019) that states the same result: that country image does not directly affect revisit intention, but it can occur if there is a mediator. For example, a tourist’s love for Japanese culture means that all images cannot affect their intention to visit Japan again. This is due to the behavior of tourists, who usually trust their judgment more than other people’s views on Japan (Perdue, 2008).

Some tourists also prefer to visit countries they have never visited rather than revisit countries they have already visited. This is due to the highly competitive tourism industry, where many countries offer unique experiences to attract tourists (Galindo-Martínet al., 2020). The majority of respondents were aged between 13 and 28 years old (70%), and in this age range, they are generally still keen to explore other interesting countries. This could be one of the reasons why Japan’s country image is not something to be worried about.

There were 53% of respondents who last visited Japan more than 3 years ago, which could also be a factor in why a country’s image is not a significant reason for them to return to the country but rather their longing for Japan. This is a strong reason why, despite a positive country image, it does not always have a significant effect on revisit intention.

H3: Travel Constraint Has a Significant Negative Effect on Attitude to Revisit

Based on the results of hypothesis testing (H3), travel constraints have a significant negative effect on attitude to revisit, so H3 is accepted. These results indicate that travel constraints when traveling to Japan have a negative effect on tourists’ attitudes toward returning. This means that travel constraints when traveling to Japan are one of the determining factors in their willingness to revisit Japan. This result is in accordance with previous research conducted by Chenet al. (2013), which found that travel constraints negatively affect the intention to travel again.

The majority of our respondents have an income above IDR 10,000,001 (50%), indicating that the majority of respondents in this study do not have constraints on traveling, at least in one aspect, namely the economy. This is in line with the statements of Ajzen (1991) and Crawfordet al. (1991), which state that consumer perceptions about the availability or absence of resources (e.g., time or money) to engage in certain travel behaviors will influence behavior toward the intention to travel again. There is also a statement that having resources such as time and money is an important factor in determining whether someone has a good attitude toward revisiting a country (Sparks & Pan, 2009).

It can also be seen from the low mean result of the travel constraint indicator, TC5 (M = 1.18), which states, “Family or friends do not approve of my decision to visit Japan.” This statement proves that most respondents feel they have no constraints to revisit Japan. Also seen from the results of the highest mean indicator of attitude to revisit, namely AR1 (M = 4.89), which states, “Visiting Japan again would be fun,” the statement indicates that the respondents’ attitude to revisit Japan is positive. From these two statements, it can be concluded that the family or friends of the respondents to this study approved of their decision to visit Japan, so the respondents considered that going back to Japan would be fun. This is in line with Schwarzer and Knoll (2007)'s statement that when talking about travel constraints, tourists may expect to be able to include their friends or family’s relative resources (such as emotional support, information, attitudes, and knowledge) in themselves to achieve goals related to travel activities.

H4: Travel Constraints Do Not Have a Significant Negative Effect on Revisitation Intentions

Based on the results of hypothesis testing (H4), travel constraints do not have a significant negative effect on revisit intention, so H4 is rejected. The results of this study indicate that the constraints of a tourist have a significant positive effect on the revisit intention of a tourist to Japan, which means that with travel constraints, tourists still want to make a return visit to Japan.

There is previous research conducted by Huang (2007) that states that tourists who have visited a country before are proof that they have passed the constraints they were worried about before visiting the country. Therefore, travel constraints are considered a significant obstacle for potential tourists who want to visit a country for the first time, but they are not considered an obstacle for repeat tourists (tourists who have visited a place repeatedly). Tourists feel that if they have already visited a country and decide they want to visit it again, they must also already know what constraints will be felt on previous visits; therefore, constraints will not affect their desire to visit again.

It can be seen from the high mean result of the travel constraint indicator, TC2 (M = 2.95), which states that respondents always have enough days off to visit Japan because they have planned their holidays and leave in advance before planning a vacation to Japan. According to the results of Sadya (2022), Indonesians usually plan their vacations at least a week to six months in advance, and planning vacations in advance is also very necessary to estimate the budget needed while in Japan (Dunia, 2022).

H5: Past Travel Experience Has a Significant Positive Influence on Attitude to Revisit

Based on the results of hypothesis testing (H5), past travel experience has a significant positive effect on the attitude to revisit, so H5 is accepted. This result shows that a person’s experience traveling to Japan affects their attitude toward revisiting it. This means that a person’s past travel experience is an important factor in their decision to revisit Japan. This result follows the previous research conducted by Huang (2007), which found that past travel experiences have a positive influence on attitudes toward revisiting. Then, Gomez-Jacintoet al. (1999) and Sonmez & Graefe (1998) also stated that past travel experience was found to be one of the determinants of the attitude of tourists in the future.

The statements of Gomez-Jacintoet al. (1999) and Sonmez and Graefe (1998) follow the statement from Liet al. (2022), where the uniqueness of a place also plays an important role in determining the destination, so destinations with unique charisma can permanently attract people to revisit a place. Of course, the uniqueness of a place can be felt on previous visits, which can determine the attitude of tourists toward visiting again. Japanese culture is one of the unique features of Japan that cannot be found anywhere else (japaninternships.com, 2019).

It can be seen from the high mean result of the past travel experience indicator, EXP1 (M = 4.88), which states, “My overall evaluation of past experiences visiting Japan is positive.” This statement proves that most respondents enjoyed their previous experiences when vacationing in Japan. This is also seen from the results of the highest mean of the attitude to revisit indicator, namely AR1 (M = 4.89), which states, “Visiting Japan again would be fun.” The statement indicates that the respondents’ attitude toward revisiting Japan is positive. From these two statements, it can be concluded that the respondents’ overall evaluation of past experiences visiting Japan was positive, so they considered that going back to Japan would be fun. This is in line with the statement of Natasia and Tunjungsari (2021), which explains the importance of a tourist’s ability to form pleasant and positive memories because a memorable tourism experience can increase their willingness to return.

H6: Past Travel Experience Has a Significant Positive Effect on Revisit Intention

Based on the results of hypothesis testing (H6), past travel experience has a significant positive effect on revisit intention, so H6 is accepted. This result shows that a person’s past experience traveling to Japan has an effect on their revisit intention. This means that a person’s travel experience is an important factor in their decision to revisit Japan. This result is in accordance with previous research conducted by Gomez-Jacintoet al. (1999), which found that past travel experience has a positive influence on revisit intention. Fakeye and Crompton (1991) also state that interaction with the destination country is an important component of past travel experiences.

Fakeye and Crompton (1991) statement is consistent with that of Goeldner and Ritchie (2009): Travelers who have previously visited a destination have first-hand knowledge and personal experience of its service quality. This allows them to actually witness and experience the destination’s level of service. In our study, the majority of respondents (91%) were fans of Japanese culture. This indicates that the respondents commonly interact with various Japanese cultures, such as food, cosplay, festivals, music, and others. When associated with Fakeye and Crompton (1991)'s statement, this can certainly have a positive impact on their revisit intention. This is in line with the high mean result of the past travel experience variable indicator, EXP4 (M = 4.85), which states, “I am happy with my past experiences when visiting Japan.” This statement proves that most respondents feel happy with their previous experiences when vacationing in Japan. This is also seen from the results of the highest mean of the attitude to revisit indicator, namely AR1 (M = 4.89), which states, “Visiting Japan again would be fun.” The statement indicates that the respondents’ attitude toward revisiting Japan is positive. From these two statements, it can be concluded that the respondents were happy with their past experiences when visiting Japan, so they considered that going back to Japan would be fun. This is in line with the statement of Kimet al. (2010), which says that the components of a memorable experience can foster a sense of wanting to return to the same place, do the same tourist activities, and generate promotion through positive word of mouth.

H7: Tourist Motivation Has a Significant Positive Effect on Attitude to Revisit

Based on the results of hypothesis testing (H7), tourist motivation has a significant positive effect on attitudes to revisit, so H7 is accepted. This result shows that tourists’ motivation when traveling to Japan has an effect on their attitude toward returning. This means that a person’s tourist motivation is an important factor in their decision to revisit Japan. These results are in accordance with previous research conducted by Wanget al. (2018), which found that tourist motivation has a positive influence on attitudes toward revisiting. Motivation is usually considered the initial driving force behind behavior; it is possible that tourist motivation will influence tourist attitudes towards revisits (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999).

According to Huang and Hsu (2009), tourists’ attitudes toward revisiting a destination are determined by their needs. For example, if a destination can fulfill a tourist’s relaxation needs, then a tourist who has previously visited will formulate a positive attitude towards revisiting the place. The majority of respondents in this study are fans of Japanese culture (91%), regardless of the cultural variations. This could be one of their motivations for revisiting Japan. This is in line with the high mean result of the tourist motivation variable indicator, MOT1 (M = 4.85), which states, “I enjoy a different culture when on vacation in Japan.” This statement proves the influence of their attitude to revisit Japan due to the needs of most respondents for a vacation that is fulfilled, namely, to experience a different culture between Indonesian culture and Japanese culture. This is also seen from the results of the highest mean indicator of attitude to revisit, namely AR1 (M = 4.89), which states, “Visiting Japan again would be fun.” The statement indicates that the respondents’ attitude toward revisiting Japan is positive. From these two statements, it can be concluded that the respondents enjoyed a different culture while on vacation in Japan, so they thought that going back to Japan would be fun. This is in line with the statement of Kimet al. (2010), which says that factors such as enjoying, actively participating, and experiencing local culture can foster a sense of wanting to visit again.

H8: Tourist Motivation Does Not Have a Significant Positive Effect on Revisit Intention

Based on the results of hypothesis testing (H8), tourist motivation does not have a positive effect on attitudes to revisit, so H8 is rejected. These results indicate that the motivation of a tourist does not have a significant influence on their interest in revisiting Japan. There is previous research conducted by Tysa and Dwita (2022) that explains that tourist motivation has no influence on revisiting a location because if the purpose of a tourist on vacation is to see beautiful scenery, it will not affect a tourist to come back. After all, he has seen the scenery before. This can certainly be a barrier to a person’s intention to revisit Japan if they are already satisfied with what they experienced and saw on their previous trip. In vacationing, tourists usually also have different preferences in choosing a tourist destination (Korantiet al., 2017). For example, if tourists are more interested in visiting the beach as a vacation destination, the motivation to revisit Japan is not suitable because Japan is better known for its natural and cultural tourism (Merdeka, 2022).

Another reason why tourist motivation does not have a significant influence on interest in revisiting Japan is that tourists want to experience a different culture or destination in a new destination rather than revisiting Japan. This is supported by research from Chandralal and Valenzuela (2013), which states that tourists are not interested in visiting past destinations because they feel that they want to experience something new on each tourist trip.

H9: The Attitude to Revisit Does Not Have a Significant Positive Effect on Revisit Intention

Based on the results of hypothesis testing (H9), attitude toward revisiting does not have a significant positive effect on revisit intention, so H9 is rejected. This result indicates that a tourist’s attitude does not have a significant influence on their intention to revisit Japan. This could be because, although attitude toward revisiting appears to have a direct impact on revisit intention, there are other factors that play a more significant role in determining a tourist’s revisit intention. Another factor that influences this is people’s attraction to new experiences and new places where they can challenge themselves, learn new things, and enlarge their perspective on things (Goldberg, 2016). Therefore, even if someone has a positive attitude toward revisiting a country, they may choose to explore new options and experiences.

From our study, it can also be seen that with the majority of the age category 13 to 28 years old (70%), this age category is often affected by a phenomenon called “Travel FOMO (Fear of Missing Out),” where a person’s decision to travel is strongly influenced by what they see others doing (Hake, 2023). Travel FOMO can manifest in different ways. Some people may feel pressured to travel to meet the expectations of their peers or society. They may worry that if they don’t travel, they will miss out on opportunities for relationships, personal growth, or creating memories. Some people may fear being excluded from conversations or feeling left out when their friends or family share stories and experiences about their travels.

Not only that, as mentioned above, the majority of tourists in this age category tend to be more inclined to seek new experiences and get out of their comfort zone (Manolicǎet al., 2022). With factors such as flight routes, travel deals, and affordability, young people who are generally economically challenged may prefer to take advantage of such opportunities rather than revisit a country they have already visited.

H10: Subjective Norms Have a Significant Positive Effect on Revisit Intention

Based on the results of hypothesis testing (H10), subjective norms have a significant positive influence on attitudes to revisit so that H10 is accepted. This result shows that other people’s opinions of tourists when traveling to Japan have an effect on their revisitation intentions. This means that subjective norms are an important factor in their intention to revisit Japan. This is in line with Hasanet al. (2019), who state that subjective norms have a significant positive effect on revisit intention. This can be caused because humans are social creatures who often seek or need validation and praise from others. This validation can make them feel socially accepted (De Vrieset al., 1988).

If revisiting a place can make a person feel seen and socially accepted, then there will be some tourists who feel obliged to conform and revisit. Generally, people also fear disapproval or negative social judgment if they do not. This pressure to conform to societal expectations can positively influence revisit intention (Romano & Balliet, 2017).

It can be seen from the high mean results of the subjective norms indicator, SN4 (M = 3.31), which states, “Opinions discussed in travel forums influence my decision to visit Japan again.” This statement proves that respondents agree that opinions discussed on travel forums on the internet influence their decision to visit Japan again because the majority of respondents are Generation Z with an age range from 13 to 28 years (70%), and Generation Z is more dependent on the internet and makes the internet the main source of finding information due to easy access to the internet via cellphones and their participation in the era of globalization (Binus University (n.d.)). This is also in line with the high mean result of the revisit intention indicator, RI4 (M = 4.78), which states, “I will probably visit Japan again in the future.” From these two statements, it can be concluded that respondents consider that the opinions discussed in travel influence their decision to visit Japan again, so they are interested in revisiting Japan in the future. This is in line with the statement of which states that when there are people who express trust in a destination online, it can help a tourist decide to visit a tourist destination again.

Conclusion

Based on the results of the study, it is obtained that factors that significantly influence attitudes toward revisiting are travel constraints, past travel experience, and tourist motivation. Meanwhile, the factors that significantly influence revisit intention are only past travel experience and subjective norms. Revisit intention is closely related to past travel experience and subjective norms, where tourists tend to consider their past experiences in visiting a place and also the advice or opinions of the closest people who determine their decision to visit Japan again.

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
     Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888.
     Google Scholar
  3. Alexandris, K., Funk, D. C., & Pritchard, M. (2011). The impact of constraints on motivation, activity attachment, and skier intentions to continue. Journal of Leisure Research, 43(1), 56–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2011.11950226.
     Google Scholar
  4. Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00030-4.
     Google Scholar
  5. Berapa Lama Masyarakat Indonesia Rencanakan Libur Akhir Tahun? (2022).
     Google Scholar
  6. Bimata.id. (2020, March 4). 5 Alasan Kenapa Orang Suka Travelling. [5 Reasons Why People Like Traveling]. https://bimata.id/2020/03/5-alasan-kenapa-orang-suka-travelling/.
     Google Scholar
  7. Binus University. (n.d.). Gen Z dan Kaitannya dengan Sosial Media. [GEN Z and its Relationship with Social Media]. https://communication.binus.ac.id/2023/02/23/gen-z-dan-kaitannya-dengan-sosial-media/.
     Google Scholar
  8. Campos, A. C., Mendes, J., Valle, P. O. d, & Scott, N. (2017). Cocreating animal-based tourist experiences: Attention, involvement and memorability. Tourism Management, 63, 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.06.001.
     Google Scholar
  9. Cha, S., McCleary, K. W., & Uysal, M. (1995). Travel motivations of Japanese overseas travelers: A factor-cluster segmentation approach. Journal of Travel Research, 34(1), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759503400104.
     Google Scholar
  10. Chandralal, L., & Valenzuela, F.-R. (2013). Exploring memorable tourism experiences: Antecedents and behavioural outcomes. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, October, 1(2), 177–181. https://doi.org/10.7763/joebm.2013.v1.38.
     Google Scholar
  11. Chaulagain, S., Wiitala, J., & Fu, X. (2019). Journal of destination marketing & management the impact of country image and destination image on US tourists’ travel intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 12(October 2018), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2019.01.005.
     Google Scholar
  12. Chen, P. J., Hua, N., & Wang, Y. (2013). Mediating perceived travel constraints: The role of destination image. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 30(3), 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2013.774914.
     Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, E. (1974). Who is a tourist?: A conceptual clarification1. The Sociological Review, 22(4), 527–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1974.tb00507.x.
     Google Scholar
  14. Cooper, C. P. (2005). Tourism Principles and Practice. 3rd Edition, Har- low, England: Prentice Hall Financial Times.
     Google Scholar
  15. Crawford, D. W., Jackson, E. L., & Godbey, G. (1991). A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13(4), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409109513147.
     Google Scholar
  16. Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 408–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(79)90004-5.
     Google Scholar
  17. De Vries, H., Dijkstra, M., & Kuhlman, P. (1988). Self-efficacy: The third factor besides attitude and subjective norm as a predictor of behavioural intentions. Health Education Research, 3(3), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1093/HER/3.3.273.
     Google Scholar
  18. Deng, Q., & Li, M. (2013). A model of event-destination image transfer. Journal of Travel Research, 53(1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513491331.
     Google Scholar
  19. Dinisari, M. C. (2022). Jepang Bebas Visa 11 Oktober 2022, Akankah Tarik Wisatawan di Tengah Ancaman Rudal. [Visa Free Japan 11 October 2022, Will Attract Tourists Amid Missile Threats]. https://traveling.bisnis.com/read/20221005/361/1584380/jepang-bebas-visa-11-oktober-2022-akankah-tarik-wisatawan-di-tengah-ancaman-rudal.
     Google Scholar
  20. Dunia, J. (2022, December 19). Berapa Budget Liburan ke Jepang? Cek di Sini!. [What is the budget for a holiday to Japan? Check Here!]. Kumparan.com. https://kumparan.com/jendela-dunia/berapa-budget-liburan-ke-jepang-cek-di-sini-1zT8pfpUEQT.
     Google Scholar
  21. Elliot, S., Papadopoulos, N., & Kim, S. S. (2010). An integrative model of place image: Exploring relationships between destination, product, and country images. Journal of Travel Research, 50(5), 520–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287510379161.
     Google Scholar
  22. Fakeye, P. C., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Image differences between prospective, first-time, and repeat visitors to the lower rio grande valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30(2), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759103000202.
     Google Scholar
  23. Franzoi, S. L. (2003). Social Psychology. United States: McGraw-HIll.
     Google Scholar
  24. Galindo-Martín, M., Mendez-Picazo, M., & Castaño-Martínez, M. (Eds.). (2020). Analyzing the Relationship Between Innovation, Value Creation, and Entrepreneurship. Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-1169-5.
     Google Scholar
  25. Gee, C. Y., Makens, J. C., & Choy, D. J. L. (1984), The Travel Industry. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 2016.
     Google Scholar
  26. Gibson, H. J., Kaplanidou, K., & Kang, S. J. (2012). Small-scale event sport tourism: A case study in sustainable tourism. Sport Management Review, 15(2), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2011.08.013.
     Google Scholar
  27. Gitelson, R. J., & Crompton, J. L. (1984). Insights into the repeat vacation phenomenon. Annals of Tourism Research, 11(2), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(84)90070-7.
     Google Scholar
  28. Goeldner, C. R., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2009). Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies. 12th edition, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
     Google Scholar
  29. Goldberg, B. (2016). 10 powerful reasons why people love to travel. https://www.virtuoso.com/travel/articles/10-powerful-reasons-why-people-love-to-travel.
     Google Scholar
  30. Gomez-Jacinto, L., Martin-Garcia, J. S., & Bertiche-Haud’Huyze, C. (1999). A model of tourism experience and attitude change. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 1024–1027. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00063-8.
     Google Scholar
  31. Goodrich, J. N. (1978). The relationship between preferences for and perceptions of vacation destinations: Application of a choice model. Journal of Travel Research, 17(2), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728757801700202.
     Google Scholar
  32. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139– 152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.
     Google Scholar
  33. Hake, N. (2023). Don’t catch a case of travel FOMO. https://travellemming.com/travel-fomo/.
     Google Scholar
  34. Han, H., Back, K. J., & Barrett, B. (2009). Influencing factors on restaurant customers’ revisit intention: The roles of emotions and switching barriers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), 563–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHM.2009.03.005.
     Google Scholar
  35. Handayani, I. (2017). Orang indonesia lebih sering berwisata bersama keluarga. https://www.beritasatu.com/news/436466/orang-indonesia-lebih-sering-berwisata-bersama-keluarga.
     Google Scholar
  36. Handayani, F. P. (2022). Manfaat traveling menurut psikolog: Dekatkan hubungan keluarga. https://id.theasianparent.com/manfaat-traveling.
     Google Scholar
  37. Hasan, M. K., Abdullah, S. K., Lew, T. Y., & Islam, M. F. (2019). The antecedents of tourist attitudes to revisit and revisit intentions for coastal tourism. International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research, 13(2), 218–234. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-11-2018-0151.
     Google Scholar
  38. Huang, S. (2007). The Effects of Motivation, Past Experience, Perceived Constraint, and Attitude on Tourist Revisit Intention. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
     Google Scholar
  39. Huang, S., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2009). Effects of travel motivation, past experience, perceived constraint, and attitude on revisit intention. Journal of Travel Research, 48(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287508328793.
     Google Scholar
  40. Hung, C. (2015). A study of residents perceived benefit by 2014 Taiwan taiping loquat festival. Journal of Advanced Management Science, 3(3), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.12720/joams.3.3.265-269.
     Google Scholar
  41. Ismayanti, I., Djamhur, I., & Levyda, L. (2011). Indonesian tourists’ preferences influence of conscious and unconscious motives. The Winners, 12(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.21512/tw.v12i1.680.
     Google Scholar
  42. Jalilvand, M. R., & Samiei, N. (2012). The effect of electronic word of mouth on brand image and purchase intention: An empirical study in the automobile industry in Iran. Marketing Intelligence and Plan- ning, 30(4), 460–476. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634501211231946.
     Google Scholar
  43. Kamper, S. J. (2020). Types of research questions: Descriptive, predictive, or causal. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 50(8), 468–469. https://doi.org/10.2519/JOSPT.2020.0703.
     Google Scholar
  44. Kaneko, M. (2019). Let’s vacation in Japan! A study of Indonesian images of Japan through tourism. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(3), 1219–1239. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2019.43.12191239.
     Google Scholar
  45. Kim, J. H. (2018). The impact of memorable tourism experiences on loyalty behaviors: The mediating effects of destination image and satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 57(7), 856–870. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517721369.
     Google Scholar
  46. Kim, J. H., Brent Ritchie, J. R., & Tung, V. W. S. (2010). The effect of memorable experience on behavioral intentions in tourism: A structural equation modeling approach. Tourism Analysis, 15(6), 637–648. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354210X12904412049776.
     Google Scholar
  47. Kim, M.-K., & Noh, J.-H. (2004). Prediction of travel Abroad: A comparison of the theory of reasoned action and planned behavior. International Journal of Tourism Sciences, 4(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15980634.2004.11434560.
     Google Scholar
  48. Kim, H., & Richardson, S. L. (2003). Motion picture impacts on destination images. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 216–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00062-2.
     Google Scholar
  49. Koranti, K., Sriyanto S., & Lestiyono, S. (2017). Analisis preferensi wisatawan terhadap sarana di wisata taman wisata kopeng. Jurnal Ekonomi Bisnis, 22(3), 242–254.
     Google Scholar
  50. Lee, C. K., Lee, Y. K., & Lee, B. K. (2005). Korea’s destination image formed by the 2002 World Cup. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 839–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.11.006.
     Google Scholar
  51. Li, Z. G., Fu, S., & Murray, L. W. (2008). Country and product images. The Perceptions of Consumers in the People’s Republic of China, 10(1–2), 115–139. https://doi.org/10.1300/J046V10N01_07.
     Google Scholar
  52. Li, J., Zhong, Y., Li, Y., Hu, W., Deng, J., Pierskalla, C., & Zhang, F. (2022). Past experience, motivation, attitude, and satisfaction: A comparison between locals and tourists for Taihu Lake international cherry blossom festival. Forests, 13(10), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13101608.
     Google Scholar
  53. Lundberg, D. E. (1972). Why tourists travel. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 12(4), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/001088047201200413/ASSET/001088047201200413. FP.PNG_V03.
     Google Scholar
  54. Mai, K. N., Nguyen, P. N. D., & Nguyen, P. T. M. (2019). International tourists’ loyalty to Ho Chi Minh City destination-a mediation analysis of perceived service quality and perceived value. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(19), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195447.
     Google Scholar
  55. Manolicaˇ, A., Ionesi, D. S., Draˇgan, L. M., Roman, T., Bertea, P. E., & Boldureanu, G. (2022). Tourists’ apprehension toward choosing the next destination: A study based on the learning zone model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 5085. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2022.987154/BIBTEX.
     Google Scholar
  56. Martin, I. M., & Eroglu, S. (1993). Measuring a multi-dimensional construct: Country image. Journal of Business Research, 28(3), 191– 210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(93)90047-S.
     Google Scholar
  57. Merdeka. (2022, June 1). Rekomendasi Wisata Jepang yang Paling Indah & Populer, Wajib Tahu. [Recommendations for the Most Beautiful and Popular Japanese Tours, You Must Know]. https://www.merdeka.com/trending/rekomendasi-wisata-jepang-yang-paling-indah-amp-populer-wajib-tahu-kln.html.
     Google Scholar
  58. Mustafidah (2016). Pengaruh motivation, perceived value, dan expe- rience terhadap revisit intention pada hawai waterpark malang. Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Fakultas Ekonomi Dan Bisnis Universitas Brawijaya, 4(2).
     Google Scholar
  59. Natasia, N., & Tunjungsari, H. K. (2021). Country image, destination image, self-congruity, and revisit intention to Singapore: The mediating role of memorable tourism experience. Proceedings of the International Conference on Economics, Business, Social, and Humanities (ICEBSH 2021), 570(Icebsh), 1450–1455. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210805.228.
     Google Scholar
  60. Nebenzahl, I. D., Jaffe, E. D., & Lampert, S. I. (1997). Personifying country of origin research. MIR: Management International Review, 37(1), 27–49.
     Google Scholar
  61. Nugraha, R. N., Sannindra, A. E., & Zaqi, M. (2022). Analisis faktor yang memengaruhi revisit intention pada tamu hotel Ibis senen Jakarta. Jurnal Manajemen Pelayanan Hotel, 6(1), 274–282.
     Google Scholar
  62. Oppermann, M. (1995). A model of travel itineraries. Journal of Travel Research, 33(4), 57–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759503300409.
     Google Scholar
  63. Park, H. S. (2000). Relationships among attitudes and subjective norms: Testing the theory of reasoned action across cultures. Communication Studies, 51(2), 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970009388516.
     Google Scholar
  64. Pearce, P., Morrison, A. M., & Rutledge, J. L. (1998). Tourism: Bridges across continents. Sydney: McGraw-Hill.
     Google Scholar
  65. Perdue, R. R. (2008). Internet site evaluations: The influence of behavioral experience, existing images, and selected website characteristics. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 11(2–3), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073V11N02_02.
     Google Scholar
  66. Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (2013). The experience economy: Past, present and future. In J. Sundbo, & F. Sørensen (Eds.), Handbook on the Experience Economy, 21–44. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/edcoll/9781781004210/9781781004210.00007.xml.
     Google Scholar
  67. Purba, G. M., Suhud, U., & Aditya, S. (2021). Faktor-faktor yang mem- pengaruhi customer satisfaction dan revisit intention pada turis danau toba. Jurnal Bisnis, Manajemen, Dan Keuangan, 2(3), 891– 905.
     Google Scholar
  68. Rein, I., Kotler, P., & Haider, D. (1993). Marketing places: Attracting investment, industry, and tourism to cities, states, and nations. In The Free Press. New York: The Free Press, https://doi.org/10.2/JQUERY.MIN.JS.
     Google Scholar
  69. Romano, A., & Balliet, D. (2017). Reciprocity outperforms conformity to promote cooperation. Psychological Science, 28(10), 1490–1502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617714828.
     Google Scholar
  70. Rousta, A., & Jamshidi, D. (2020). Food tourism value: Investigating the factors that influence tourists to revisit. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 26(1), 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766719858649.
     Google Scholar
  71. Sadya, S. (2022, December 15). Berapa Lama Masyarakat Indonesia Rencanakan Libur Akhir Tahun?. [How long do Indonesians plan for their end-of-year holidays?]. Data Indonesia. https://dataindonesia.id/ragam/detail/berapa-lama-masyarakat-indonesia-rencanakan-libur-akhir-tahun.
     Google Scholar
  72. Schwarzer, R., & Knoll, N. (2007). Functional roles of social support within the stress and coping process: A theoretical and empiri- cal overview. International Journal of Psychology, 42(4), 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590701396641.
     Google Scholar
  73. Sonmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998). Determining future travel behavior from past travel experience and perceptions of risk and safety. Journal of Travel Research, 37(2), 171–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759803700209.
     Google Scholar
  74. Soonsan, N., & Sukahbot, S. (2019). Testing the role of country and destination image effect on satisfaction and revisit intentions among Western travellers. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 8(4), 138–160.
     Google Scholar
  75. Sparks, B., & Pan, G. W. (2009). Chinese outbound tourists: Understanding their attitudes, constraints and use of information sources. Tourism Management, 30(4), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TOURMAN.2008.10.014.
     Google Scholar
  76. Stamboulis, Y., & Skayannis, P. (2003). Innovation strategies and technology for experience-based tourism. Tourism Management, 24(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00047-X.
     Google Scholar
  77. Stock, F. (2009). Identity, image and brand: A conceptual framework. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 5(2), 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1057/pb.2009.2.
     Google Scholar
  78. Sugandini, D., Effendi, M. I., Susilo, P., Suryani, W., Muafi, M., & Syafri, W. (2019). Revisit intention: The study of community based tourism. Quality-Access to Success, 20(173), 100–106.
     Google Scholar
  79. Swarbrooke, J., & Horner, S. (2006). Consumer Behaviour in Tourism. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. 1–428. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080466958.
     Google Scholar
  80. Tosun, C., Dedeog ̆lu, B. B., & Fyall, A. (2015). Destination service quality, affective image and revisit intention: The moderating role of past experience. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 4(4), 222–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JDMM.2015.08.002.
     Google Scholar
  81. Turnbul, D. R., & Uysal, M. (1995). An exploratory study of german visitors to the caribbean: Push and pull motivations. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 4(2), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v04n02_07.
     Google Scholar
  82. Tysa, H. M., & Dwita, V. (2022). The influence of tourist motivation and destination image on the revisit intention mediated by the satisfaction variables in the harau valley attractions of lima puluh. Eighth Padang International Conference On, Ponte Vedra, Florida. 659, 199–206.
     Google Scholar
  83. Wang, W., Yaoyuneyong, G., Sullivan, P., & Burgess, B. (2018). Travel motivation influence attitudes toward cultural souvenirs and travel intentions. Association of Marketing Theory and Practice Proceedings 2018. Ponte Vedra, Florida.
     Google Scholar
  84. White, O. (2021). The travel and tourism industry by 2030. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/12/27/the-travel-and-tourism-industry-by-2030/.
     Google Scholar
  85. Wu, J., & Liu, D. (2007). The effects of trust and enjoyment on intention to play online games. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 8(2), 128–140.
     Google Scholar
  86. Yakup, A. P. (2019). Pengaruh Sektor Pariwisata Terhadap Pertumbuhan Ekonomi Di Indonesia. Surabaya, Indonesia: Universitas Airlangga Surabaya.
     Google Scholar
  87. Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.08.016.
     Google Scholar
  88. Yuan, J. J., Cai, L. A., Morrison, A. M., & Linton, S. (2005). An analysis of wine festival attendees’ motivations: A synergy of wine, travel and special events? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766705050842.
     Google Scholar
  89. Zhang, Y., Lin, Y., & Goh, K. H. (2018). Impact of online influencer endorsement on product sales: Quantifying value of online influencer. Proceedings of the 22nd Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems-Opportunities and Challenges for the Digitized Society: Are We Ready?, PACIS 2018, Yokohama, Japan.
     Google Scholar