Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Psychological need satisfaction can contribute to psychological benefits and future actions. Building on self-determination theory, this research suggested the model of psychological need satisfaction–well-being–behavioral intentions in tourism. Specifically, two-stage strategies were utilized to investigate the distinct and integrated role of psychological need satisfaction in positively predicting well-being (hedonic and eudaimonic well-being) that affects behavioral intentions (revisit intention, word-of-mouth intention). The first-stage model identified that a holiday trip offered experiences to fulfill psychological needs, such as autonomy, relatedness, and competence; most of these significantly affected hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, as well as revisit intention. The second-stage model confirmed significant impacts of psychological need satisfaction on well-being, revisit intention, and word-of-mouth intention. Furthermore, hedonic well-being was significantly associated with revisit intention and word-of-mouth intention, while eudaimonic well-being did not significantly predict them. Research findings make significant contributions to tourism literature and practices by extending the role of psychological need satisfaction.

Keywords

psychological need satisfaction hedonic well-being eudaimonic well-being revisit intention word-of-mouth intention

Introduction

Psychological need satisfaction helps individuals achieve psychological development by enhancing well-being and intentions to act. Within tourism, holiday trips involve need-satisfying experiences that contribute to psychological benefits such as higher hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (Fan et al., 2024; J. Yu et al., 2021). Psychologically satisfied consumers are more likely to revisit the same place and spread positive word-of-mouth (Ahn, 2020; Y. C. Huang et al., 2020). Given these phenomena, an increasing amount of tourism literature has explored psychological need satisfaction by applying self-determination theory in either the well-being framework (Fan et al., 2024) or the consumer decision-making process (Zhang et al., 2019).

The satisfaction of psychological needs is considered an essential condition for human growth and well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Martela & Sheldon, 2019; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). With this notion, tourism studies have enriched our understanding of both the distinct and integrated roles of psychological need satisfaction. For example, the satisfaction of each psychological need was demonstrated to explain well-being through transformative tourism (X. Huang et al., 2024), and to predict the travel motivation, trip persistence and behavioral intentions of individuals with mobility challenges (Zhang et al., 2019). This approach enables the formulation of specific interpretations regarding the role of each need’s satisfaction in tourism settings (Ahn, 2020; Vada et al., 2023). Conversely, the satisfaction of the three psychological needs was integrated as a single concept to comprehend the innate and universal nature of psychological needs and their fulfilled states (Fan et al., 2024; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). This approach has been used to investigate global life satisfaction and psychological well-being in general contexts such as a holiday (Philippe & Bernard-Desrosiers, 2017) and a domestic pleasure trip (Fan et al., 2024).

Despite the extant literature, past empirical work has had limitations in assessing the post-trip well-being. For example, a holiday trip can consist of need-satisfying experiences that affect hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (Fan et al., 2024; J. Yu et al., 2021). A trip’s impact on well-being lasts for only a limited time (J. Yu et al., 2021). After returning home, the adaptation of well-being occurs (Kwon & Lee, 2020) since people tend to re-find the sense of well-being by concentrating on the satisfaction of daily needs (Philippe & Bernard-Desrosiers, 2017) and other events in significant life domains (e.g., job, family) (Y. Chen et al., 2013). Given the influence of other life circumstances, the post-trip impacts might not be fully understood unless both psychological need satisfaction (e.g., Fan et al., 2024) and well-being (e.g., Vada et al., 2019a) are accurately conceptualized in tourism contexts. Nonetheless, previous studies have not contextualized psychological need satisfaction and well-being simultaneously in examining post-trip phenomena, while identifying their relationships.

Moving beyond the relationships between psychological need satisfaction and well-being, recent tourism well-being studies have valued marketing perspectives by extending the roles of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in explaining behavioral intentions (Al-okaily et al., 2023; Vada et al., 2019b). This is because the likelihood of consumers revisiting a destination and spreading positive word-of-mouth can be determined by the levels of hedonic (Y. C. Huang et al., 2020; Vada et al., 2019b) and eudaimonic well-being (Al-okaily et al., 2023). Despite continuous attention, a combined framework of well-being and behavioral intentions has not been comprehensively investigated. Specifically, in the well-being literature, dual-dimensional approaches of behavioral intentions (i.e., revisit intention, word-of-mouth intention) have been relatively neglected (Al-okaily et al., 2023; Y. C. Huang et al., 2019; Vada et al., 2019b), despite their distinct characteristics (J. H. Kim, 2018).

Based on the foregoing literature, this research integrates psychological need satisfaction into the framework of well-being and behavioral intentions. Above all, to address the research gaps, this research conceptualizes psychological need satisfaction, well-being and behavioral intentions in the context of a holiday trip and explores the constructs’ relationships comprehensively. Based on specialized concepts, three research objectives are to be addressed by (1) identifying both distinct and integrated impacts of the satisfaction of three psychological needs (i.e., autonomy, relatedness, competence) on well-being (i.e., hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being) and behavioral intentions (i.e., revisit intention and word-of-mouth intention); (2) identifying impacts of hedonic well-being on revisit intention and word-of-mouth intention; and (3) identifying impacts of eudaimonic well-being on revisit intention and word-of-mouth intention. Research objectives are achieved via two-stage strategies that allow for the investigation of both lower-order and higher-order constructs and related consequences in a single quantitative study (Magno & Cassia, 2021; Wang et al., 2019).

This research focuses on residents in the United Kingdom (UK) as the sample population for several reasons. First, previous literature has shown that UK residents placed significant value on intrinsic motives (You et al., 2000), making them an appropriate sample for testing the main premise of self-determination theory in a tourism context. Second, the UK has a diverse population with various travel preferences and experiences (You et al., 2000), which enables a more comprehensive examination of relationships between psychological need satisfaction, well-being, and behavioral intentions in a general tourism setting. With research findings, this research contributes to the literature by enriching self-determination theory and introducing the framework of psychological need satisfaction–well-being–behavioral intentions into tourism, while providing effective mechanisms that tourism organizations can utilize in their product design, communication with customers, and evaluations of designed products.

Theoretical Background

Psychological Need Satisfaction in Self-Determination Theory and Tourism

Self-determination theory is a human motivation theory that has proved the existence of innate psychological needs, namely autonomy, relatedness, and competence (B. Chen et al., 2015; Deci & Ryan, 2000). Behaviors relevant to innate psychological needs (also called “innate psychological nutriments” in self-determination theory; Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 229) articulate psychological growth and integrity. Above all, events or experiences satisfying innate psychological needs can facilitate one’s psychological functions (Ahn, Back, & Boger, 2019) and domain life satisfaction (Walker & Kono, 2018). Psychological need satisfaction consists of autonomy, relatedness, and competence (Sheldon et al., 2001).

Autonomy refers to the state of obtaining what individuals want and how they behave, following their volition (Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). During a trip, autonomous experience helps individuals feel a sense of freedom and true self (Fan et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2019) with less pressure and external control (Vada et al., 2023). Therefore, individuals’ own interests in travel play a significant role in pursuing and performing autonomous behavior (Cini et al., 2013). During a visit to a tourist attraction, people who experience autonomy tend to become highly immersed in what they are doing (Lunardo & Ponsignon, 2020).

In addition to autonomy, relatedness is a core component of psychological need satisfaction, representing the desire to feel a sense of genuine connection with others (B. Chen et al., 2015; Deci & Ryan, 2000). Therefore, the fulfilled state of relatedness is closely related to the sense of belonging (Sheldon et al., 2001). During a visit to a tourist attraction, this relatedness can be achieved through a bidirectional connection between oneself and other people (Zhang et al., 2019) and between oneself and a community (Vada et al., 2023). For instance, at a tourist destination, people can experience a sense of connectedness with people who are spending time together on a trip (Fan et al., 2024), and with local residents (Vada et al., 2023).

The last component of psychological need satisfaction is competence referring to a sense of effectance achieved through interaction with the external environment (Sheldon et al., 2001). The need for competence can be fulfilled when individuals feel confident in performing an activity (B. Chen et al., 2015). People also experience competence when a place makes them feel capable and effective (Ahn, Back, & Choe, 2019), as well as helps them gain new skills and knowledge of a destination (Vada et al., 2023). Furthermore, during a trip, competence satisfaction might be generated when tourists travel well and fulfill their motives. Tung and Ritchie (2011) found that during a trip, tourists could express gratitude about their fulfilled plans and exceeded expectations.

As such, each factor of psychological need satisfaction has its own nature and characteristics. However, Martela and Sheldon (2019) claimed that “satisfaction of all three needs directly affects subjective well-being and other health and wellness outcomes, can efficiently explain the effects of various behaviors and conditions upon well-being outcomes, and are universally impactful across cultures” (p. 458). Self-determination theory also assumes that psychological need satisfaction can contribute to a growth-oriented nature and achieve well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Martela & Sheldon, 2019). Acknowledging its significance, tourism studies have valued the integrated concept of psychological need satisfaction (Fan et al., 2024; Y. C. Huang et al., 2020). Based on the theory and discussion above, in this research, psychological need satisfaction is referred to as the fulfillment of psychological needs, namely autonomy, relatedness, and competence, which are experienced during a trip.

Well-Being and Tourism

Well-being is a broad concept associated with the subjective evaluation of diverse events (Choi et al., 2017), life domains (Schimmack et al., 2002), life as a whole (Diener et al., 1999), and psychological functioning (Diener et al., 2010; J. Yu et al., 2021). In the psychology and tourism literature, the concept of well-being has been conceptualized as two compatible constructs: hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being (Huta & Waterman, 2014; J. Yu et al., 2021).

Hedonic well-being is comprised of various forms, including affect and life satisfaction (J. Yu et al., 2021). In defining hedonic well-being, previous psychology literature has emphasized affective states that represent a higher level of positive affect and a lower level of negative affect, as well as cognitive judgments of one’s life (Huta & Waterman, 2014; J. Yu et al., 2021) and life domains (Walker & Kono, 2018). Recent tourism and hospitality literature has devoted more attention to cognitive aspects of hedonic well-being such as the evaluation of the quality of overall life (Ahn, Back, & Boger, 2019; J. Yu et al., 2021) and of a trip (Vada et al., 2019a, 2019b). Furthermore, past studies have investigated changes in the well-being effects of a holiday (Y. Chen et al., 2013; J. Yu et al., 2021). Kwon and Lee (2020) found that the level of hedonic well-being affected by a holiday trip decreased over time. This phenomenon might occur due to exposure to numerous other factors existing in other life circumstances (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005) or other life domains (Y. Chen et al., 2013). In other words, when measuring hedonic well-being, people depend on various shortcuts affected by currently available information (Schimmack et al., 2002; Schwarz & Strack, 1999). Therefore, well-being can be better gaged by investigating life satisfaction when responding to the past (Pavot et al., 1998), which happens in a specific event (Vada et al., 2019b). For example, Vada et al. (2019a) used items such as “In most ways, this recent trip was close to ideal” (p. 326). In this way, hedonic well-being can be evaluated with specific reference points after a holiday trip has occurred.

On the other hand, eudaimonic well-being refers to positive psychological functioning or orientations, which represent purpose in life and personal growth (Diener et al., 2010; Huta & Waterman, 2014; Martela & Sheldon, 2019). Acknowledging its significance in determining post-trip well-being, tourism studies have investigated eudaimonic well-being in the form of psychological well-being (Fan et al., 2024; Vada et al., 2019a) and flourishing (Ahn, Back, & Boger, 2019; J. Yu et al., 2021). Among them, past studies have valued the concept of flourishing in comprehensively investigating eudaimonic well-being from the cross-sectional (Ahn, Back, & Boger, 2019) and longitudinal perspectives (J. Yu et al., 2021) in that flourishing explains positive functioning through multifaceted features such as being optimistic, engaged, self-accepting, meaningful, and competent (Diener et al., 2010). For example, J. Yu et al. (2021) found a holiday trip determined a great sense of growth and flourishing, contributing to enhancing one’s capacities and meaning in life and optimism toward one’s own future. Such flourishing states gradually decreased after returning from the trip. Despite the contributions of a holiday trip to flourishing, previous tourism literature has investigated flourishing without an active conceptualization (e.g., Diener et al., 2010) in tourism contexts (e.g., Ahn, Back, & Boger, 2019; J. Yu et al., 2021). Given the above notions of well-being adaptation and the direct impact of a trip on flourishing, this research defines eudaimonic well-being as the state of psychological functioning (J. Yu et al., 2021) through a trip.

As such, a holiday trip can inspire certain forms of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. To better capture post-trip well-being, this research investigates cognitive evaluations of the quality of a trip (hedonic well-being; Vada et al., 2019a) and the state of psychological functioning (J. Yu et al., 2021) through a trip (eudaimonic well-being).

Behavioral Intentions

A trip involves various experiences that generate information sources of social communication in daily life (Jepson et al., 2019) or a return to a destination (J. H. Kim, 2018). In the post-trip stage, people can reveal their behavioral intentions by showing a desire to (re)visit the same place(s) and to spread positive word-of-mouth (J. H. Kim, 2018; Y. Kim et al., 2022b). Behavioral intentions can be referred to as the tendency to perform a particular behavior in the future (Afshardoost & Eshaghi, 2020; Ajzen, 1991).

In the tourism literature, revisit intentions have been widely understood in terms of antecedents such as tourism experience (J. H. Kim, 2018), emotion (Y. C. Huang et al., 2019), and well-being (Vada et al., 2019b). In the post-trip stage, remembered experiences direct the future actions of consumers in various ways, such as planning a future trip (H. Kim & Chen, 2019) and revisiting the same destination (J. H. Kim, 2018). Furthermore, consumers can evaluate their trip based on their remembered experiences, and use their own knowledge for a future visit (Y. Kim et al., 2022a; H. Kim & Chen, 2019). In this process, people may develop the desire to repeat such a trip (Y. Kim et al., 2022b).

Moreover, individuals tend to spread positive word-of-mouth when they are satisfied with previous tourism experiences (J. H. Kim, 2018). Sharing personal experiences is a major outcome of a trip, as people use the social function of memory for telling their stories or recommending destinations (Alea & Bluck, 2003; Y. Kim et al., 2022a). Therefore, sharing activities—such as saying something positive and recommending tourist destinations or attractions—is a significant post-trip behavior of consumers (Agapito et al., 2017; Ahn, 2020). In a similar vein, J. H. Kim (2018) confirmed the relationship between memorable tourism experiences, satisfaction, destination image, and behavioral intentions consisting of revisit intention and word-of-mouth intention.

Hypotheses and Theoretical Framework Development

Psychological Need Satisfaction and Well-Being

Within self-determination theory, three psychological needs are described as nutriments essential to ongoing personal growth, and for existence as a living entity (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Reis et al., 2000). Ultimately, fulfilled needs can lead to both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (Ahn, Back, & Choe, 2019). Relatedly, self-determination theory posits that the satisfaction of psychological needs comprises autonomy, relatedness, and competence, all of which impact well-being, such as the enhancement of psychological functioning (Ahn, Back, & Boger, 2019; Martela & Sheldon, 2019) and satisfaction in specific life domains (Walker & Kono, 2018) and general life (Y. C. Huang et al., 2020).

Specifically, the satisfied need for autonomy articulates the potential consequences such as overall well-being by conducting desirable activities that are of interest to the individual (Cini et al., 2013). People need to understand what they are doing and then evaluate their experiences to determine their level of well-being. The satisfaction of autonomy enables people to consider their behavior volitional and self-congruent, which ultimately improves well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000; S. Yu et al., 2018). In particular, travel can be considered a well-being-inducing activity (Choi et al., 2017). Y. C. Huang et al. (2019) found that autonomy experienced during a vacation predicted hedonic well-being (e.g., life satisfaction). Such an effect existed regardless of the duration of stay in a hotel spa. Recent tourism research further confirmed that psychological need satisfaction including autonomy influences hedonic well-being after a trip (Fan et al., 2024). Furthermore, autonomy positively can affect eudaimonic well-being because individuals take a trip or engage in other leisure activities to fulfill intrinsic motives such as escaping from daily responsibilities (Vada et al., 2023), which may result in a positive evaluation of a trip and improved psychological functioning (Ahn, Back, & Choe, 2019; X. Huang et al., 2024).

Autonomy is not the only determinant of well-being since people often achieve social interaction with travel partners (Fan et al., 2024), other tourists, staff (H. Kim & Chen, 2019), or local people (Vada et al., 2023). People tend to have had a certain level of secure attachment to their caregivers when they were young, which plays a significant role in behavior such as contact or proximity (Ainsworth, 1979). Given human nature, the need for relatedness and belongingness is universal (B. Chen et al., 2015; Deci & Ryan, 2000). When the need for relatedness is satisfied, people experience greater growth (Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013) and well-being (Ahn, Back, & Boger, 2019). This might be because they feel social closeness by caring for, or being cared for by others (Philippe & Bernard-Desrosiers, 2017), or they feel connected (Sheldon et al., 2001). Previous studies have used diverse approaches to investigate the impact of relatedness on well-being. Howell and Hill (2009) confirmed the association between the satisfaction of relatedness, vitality, and well-being by comparing an experiential purchase (e.g., traveling) and a material purchase (e.g., clothing). Cini et al. (2013) found that less autonomous behaviors (e.g., spending time with friends) did not positively predict hedonic well-being (e.g., life satisfaction). However, as theory and past studies have implied (e.g., Sheldon et al., 2001), relatedness can be satisfied through bidirectional interactions with others, which means that well-being can be achieved when people feel cared for by others during a trip (Fan et al., 2024).

Competence can articulate individuals’ abilities utilized in selected activities and help achieve goals, thus enhancing overall well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In tourism and hospitality contexts, competence is not always explained by completing and mastering a challenging task (Ahn, Back, & Choe, 2019; Vada et al., 2023). Tourists can use a range of skills at specialist and commonplace levels, depending on travel types (Mertena et al., 2022). Furthermore, Vada et al. (2023) found that travel can contribute to developing the capability of having sufficient knowledge. This may lead to a sense of competence. They further argued that competence can be achieved through familiarity and destination-related knowledge, which leads to well-being. Ahn, Back, and Choe (2019) also stated that resort destinations can make visitors feel effective, capable, and competent. They found that a satisfied state of competence predicted eudaimonic rather than hedonic well-being. X. Huang et al. (2024) recently suggested the model of activity–needs–well-being by exploring transformative travel experiences. They focused on various travel activities that predict the fulfillment of needs. Eudaimonic well-being was mainly explained by competence, while hedonic well-being was predicted by fulfilled needs related to esthetics, relaxation, and relatedness.

Finally, Philippe and Bernard-Desrosiers (2017) confirmed that psychological need satisfaction in a holiday memory can affect overall well-being consisting of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being over time. Y. C. Huang et al. (2020) further identified the integrated effect of psychological need satisfaction on hedonic well-being. Based on both theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Martela & Sheldon, 2019) and empirical evidence (Ahn, Back, & Boger, 2019; Fan et al., 2024; X. Huang et al., 2024; Walker & Kono, 2018), this research assumes that psychological need satisfaction positively and significantly leads to both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Therefore:

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between psychological need satisfaction and hedonic well-being.

Hypothesis 1a: There is a positive relationship between autonomy and hedonic well-being.

Hypothesis 1b: There is a positive relationship between relatedness and hedonic well-being.

Hypothesis 1c: There is a positive relationship between competence and hedonic well-being.

Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between psychological need satisfaction and eudaimonic well-being.

Hypothesis 2a: There is a positive relationship between autonomy and eudaimonic well-being.

Hypothesis 2b: There is a positive relationship between relatedness and eudaimonic well-being.

Hypothesis 2c: There is a positive relationship between competence and eudaimonic well-being.

Psychological Need Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions

Within self-determination theory, the rudimentary foundation of human behavior is an intrinsic motivation of three innate psychological needs, which may imply that individuals behave in a way that fulfills their psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Based on this assumption, previous studies have extended self-determination theory by integrating behavioral intentions (Barkoukis et al., 2010; Y. C. Huang et al., 2020). For example, people with higher psychological need satisfaction tend to have a desire to behave in a way consistent with their approach behaviors, such as planning another visit in the near future or spreading positive word-of-mouth (Ahn, 2020).

Within tourism, psychological need satisfaction has been considered a key determinant that supports behavioral intentions (Y. C. Huang et al., 2020). For example, autonomy can provide the freedom to perform an action following one’s interests (B. Chen et al., 2015). Relatedly, people may return to the same destination to experience autonomy and less external pressure (Vada et al., 2023). Individuals can make a decision to revisit a tourist destination to feel a sense of freedom (Vada et al., 2023). In other words, when individuals comprehend a discrepancy between travel life and everyday life, the sense of freedom experienced during a trip may help in pursuing autonomous goals and actions.

People can return to the same place to feel a sense of belonging and connect with others (Ahn, 2020). Relatedness has been valued as a significant determinant for revisiting the same places as people remember positive experiences, such as social interactions with others (Vada et al., 2023). Also, people naturally have continuous pursuits of belonging with other people (Ryan & Deci, 2000), and occasionally with places (Boley et al., 2021). Vada et al. (2023) found that repeat visitors felt like they had returned to a second home.

Furthermore, people tend to pursue efficacy and capacity in performing a certain task or engaging in an activity (Sheldon et al., 2001). Individuals may use their own skills during events (e.g., trips; Mertena et al., 2022) and be likely to engage in such events if they feel competent (Barkoukis et al., 2010). Zhang et al. (2019) investigated the relationship between psychological need satisfaction, travel motivation, purchase intention, and trip persistence. They used two scenarios of a poor accessibility package and an acceptable accessibility package. In both conditions, there were significant effects of satisfaction of competence on trip persistence.

As well as (re)visit intention, satisfied customers are likely to spread positive word-of-mouth (J. H. Kim, 2018). Ahn (2020) investigated integrated resort customers and found that the satisfaction of all three psychological needs had positive effects on not only revisit intention but also word-of-mouth intention, except for the effect of competence on revisit intention. Thus, it can be assumed that basic psychological need satisfaction plays a significant role in predicting word-of-mouth intention.

Finally, Y. C. Huang et al. (2020) focused on the integrated role of psychological need satisfaction in a creative tourism setting and identified positive effects of psychological need satisfaction on life satisfaction, emotion, and behavioral intention to revisit and recommend. As such, psychological needs in self-determination theory can represent goal-directed action in travel life. People may pursue ongoing growth (Deci & Ryan, 2000) by using their desire to revisit the same place and share their experiences. Therefore, psychological need satisfaction has positive effects on revisit intention and word-of-mouth intention (Ahn, 2020; Y. C. Huang et al., 2020). Based on empirical evidence, this research proposes:

Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relationship between psychological need satisfaction and revisit intention.

Hypothesis 3a: There is a positive relationship between autonomy and revisit intention.

Hypothesis 3b: There is a positive relationship between relatedness and revisit intention.

Hypothesis 3c: There is a positive relationship between competence and revisit intention.

Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relationship between psychological need satisfaction and word-of-mouth intention.

Hypothesis 4a: There is a positive relationship between autonomy and word-of-mouth intention.

Hypothesis 4b: There is a positive relationship between relatedness and word-of-mouth intention.

Hypothesis 4c: There is a positive relationship between competence and word-of-mouth intention.

Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being

Hedonic and eudaimonic well-being have been recognized as compatible concepts within psychology (Huta & Waterman, 2014) and tourism (J. Yu et al., 2021). Increasing amounts of tourism literature have argued that hedonic well-being is not enough to examine the multifaceted nature and roles of well-being (Filep, 2016). Thus, recent studies have focused on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being as outcome factors (J. Yu et al., 2021) or the antecedents of a behavioral factor (e.g., Vada et al., 2019b). Despite interest in well-being, the relationship between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being is relatively unexplored.

Vada et al. (2019b) emphasized that there might be a complex relationship between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, which goes beyond correlation. Indeed, the bottom-up approach of well-being has demonstrated that satisfaction with life domains (e.g., leisure, travel; Sirgy et al., 2011) or events (e.g., trips; Vada et al., 2019b) can lead to overall well-being. Despite the hierarchical nature among well-being components, the impact of hedonic well-being on eudaimonic well-being was relatively unknown until Vada et al. (2019b) confirmed their positive relationship.

Individuals experience hedonic well-being related to cognitive evaluations of a previous trip (Vada et al., 2019a), while experiencing eudaimonic well-being associated with the perception, behavior, and representation of oneself (Diener et al., 2010) affected by a recent trip. In the post-trip stage, people evaluate the quality of a trip, namely hedonic well-being (Vada et al., 2019a). Happy consumers may be more likely to interpret themselves positively by using remembered experiences (Al-okaily et al., 2023; Vada et al., 2019b). As a result, satisfaction with a trip (i.e., hedonic well-being) is likely to lead to a state of flourishing (i.e., eudaimonic well-being) after the trip. Given the discussion and empirical evidence (Vada et al., 2019b) above, this research proposes:

Hypothesis 5: There is a positive relationship between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.

Well-Being and Behavioral Intentions

To enhance one’s mental health and well-being, people can engage in tourism activities (Buckley, 2023) and desire to return to the same place and recommend it (Y. C. Huang et al., 2020; J. H. Kim, 2018). Particular activities (e.g., taking a trip, communicating, socializing) can represent essential mechanisms for experiencing well-being in daily life (Choi et al., 2017). People may desire to repeat certain activities due to their well-being experienced in the past (Wirtz et al., 2003).

Researchers have explored well-being and behavioral intentions as separate dependent variables (Y. C. Huang et al., 2020), while increasing numbers of studies have explored the link between well-being and behavioral intentions (Al-okaily et al., 2023; Y. C. Huang et al., 2019). People may pursue and continuously engage in activities that will enhance well-being in the future by sharing their travel experiences with others and returning to a tourist destination (Vada et al., 2019b). Wirtz et al. (2003) found that people had a desire to repeat the same experience after encountering hedonic pleasure following a vacation. Spreading word-of-mouth can be one of the ways to improve interpersonal communication (Berger, 2014) and achieve a sense of closeness and connection with a travel partner (Jepson et al., 2019; H. Kim & Chen, 2019).

Empirical evidence has been sought to confirm that hedonic and eudaimonic well-being can affect people’s future actions. Vada et al. (2019b) found that behavioral intentions were predicted significantly by hedonic well-being and non-significantly by eudaimonic well-being. However, Al-okaily et al. (2023) confirmed the significant effect of eudaimonic well-being on behavioral intentions (i.e., integration of revisit intention and word-of-mouth). In previous studies, the relationship between well-being and behavioral intention was inconsistent, while there also existed a lack of understanding about two-construct approaches of behavioral intentions (e.g., revisit intention, word-of-mouth intention). Based on the above discussion, this research proposes:

Hypothesis 6: There is a positive relationship between hedonic well-being and revisit intention.

Hypothesis 7: There is a positive relationship between hedonic well-being and word-of-mouth intention.

Hypothesis 8: There is a positive relationship between eudaimonic well-being and revisit intention.

Hypothesis 9: There is a positive relationship between eudaimonic well-being and word-of-mouth intention.

Impacts of Past Visit(s)

A past visit can help explain well-being (Vada et al., 2019a) and behavioral intentions (Hsieh et al., 2016). For various reasons, people may frequently or infrequently return to the same place(s). Correia et al. (2015) emphasized repeated behavioral patterns in order to explain their relationship with behavioral intentions. They confirmed that the frequency of past visits can be explained by factors identified before (e.g., tourists’ expectations) and after (e.g., satisfaction and behavioral intentions) a trip. Furthermore, Hsieh et al. (2016) found the relationship between attitude and behavioral intentions (e.g., travel intention) can be stronger in an experienced visitors’ group than in a novice group.

More recently, Vada et al. (2019a) explored the moderating role of a past visit between memorable tourism experience and hedonic well-being, and between memorable tourism experience and eudaimonic well-being. The moderating effect of past visit on hedonic well-being was stronger for first-time visitors, while the moderating effect of past visit on eudaimonic well-being was stronger for repeat visitors. In a recent study, Vada et al. (2023) postulated a strengthened relationship between repeat visitors, well-being, and psychological need satisfaction. They found unique aspects of psychological need satisfaction felt by repeat visitors.

As such, past visits have a relationship with psychological need satisfaction (Vada et al., 2023), well-being (Vada et al., 2019a), and behavioral intentions (Hsieh et al., 2016). This does not necessarily mean there are significant mean differences, while the roles of a past visit in explaining psychological need satisfaction and word-of-mouth intention are relatively unknown. This research thus focuses on finding mean differences in psychological need satisfaction (Sheldon et al., 2001), well-being (Vada et al., 2019a), and behavioral intentions (J. H. Kim, 2018) between a repeat visit group and a first-time visit group. Specifically, by posing a research question (RQ), this research explores how significantly the past visit contributes to well-being and behavioral intentions.

RQ1: Does the past visit (repeat vs. first-time visit) explain any significant differences in psychological need satisfaction, well-being, and behavioral intentions?

Impacts of Travel Type

During a trip, individuals visit either a domestic or an international destination(s) (Bonn et al., 2005; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2023). While traveling within domestic or international locales, travelers may have diverse tourism experiences related to intrinsic motives (K. Kim, 2007), which contribute to well-being (J. Yu et al., 2021) and behavioral intentions (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2023). Specifically, international and domestic travel is represented by slightly different motives. K. Kim (2007) found that international travel was associated with greater fun, relaxation, and education, while domestic travel placed a higher value on family togetherness. Also, domestic tourists have psychological need-satisfying experiences during pleasure trips (Fan et al., 2024).

Both domestic and international travel can contribute to higher well-being. International travelers tend to experience high levels of hedonic well-being (e.g., life satisfaction), with the effects lasting for around a month after the trip (Kwon & Lee, 2020). In contrast, J. Yu et al. (2021) found that domestic travel led to high eudaimonic well-being (e.g., flourishing), with the effects lasting for approximately 2 months. Furthermore, individuals may revisit and recommend both domestic and international destinations. Rasoolimanesh et al. (2023) confirmed that travel satisfaction positively affected overall behavioral intentions (e.g., revisit intention, recommendation intention), and these relationships did not differ significantly between domestic and international travel.

As such, travel type is related to the fulfillment of needs, well-being, and behavioral intentions. However, its impacts remain underexplored, as psychological need satisfaction and well-being have rarely been compared in a single study, with the exception of behavioral intentions (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2023). Therefore, this research poses a second research question to investigate the role of travel type:

RQ2: Does the travel type (domestic vs. international travel) explain any significant differences in psychological need satisfaction, well-being, and behavioral intentions?

Based on self-determination theory and existing literature, this research develops a theoretical framework that links psychological need satisfaction, well-being, and behavioral intentions in tourism. Moreover, both past visit and travel type are integrated and controlled in the proposed framework, as they have been identified as factors potentially affecting well-being and behavioral intentions (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Theoretical framework.

Methodology

Sample, Data Collection, and Survey Instruments

Research hypotheses in the theoretical framework were assessed by using a sample who had completed a holiday trip in the last 2 months. The respondents were based in the United Kingdom and were aged 18 years or older at the time of data collection. In October 2023, data were collected through the online data collection platform, Prolific (www.prolific.com). Prolific is designed for the scientific community and online subject recruitment (Palan & Schitter, 2018). All respondents completed questionnaires that consisted of a consent form, questions regarding psychological need satisfaction, hedonic well-being, eudaimonic well-being, revisit intention, and word-of-mouth intention, as well as trip characteristics (e.g., past visit) and sociodemographic information (e.g., age).

To examine post-trip phenomena and enhance the relevance of this research, the research constructs were operationalized in the context of the latest holiday trip. Except for sociodemographic information, all scale items were adapted and modified to fit the tourism context. Specifically, 12 items of psychological need satisfaction were adapted and modified based on B. Chen et al. (2015), Sheldon et al. (2001), and Ahn, Back, and Choe (2019), with four items each for the three dimensions of autonomy, relatedness, and competence. Five items of hedonic well-being were adapted and modified based on Diener et al. (1985), Pavot et al. (1998), and Vada et al. (2019a). Eight items of eudaimonic well-being were adapted from Diener et al. (2010). Following Purohit et al.’s (2022) approach, all items were modified to fit the context of current research. Three items of revisit intention were adapted from Agapito et al. (2017) and Um et al. (2006). Three items of word-of-mouth intention were further adapted from Agapito et al. (2017). Except for sociodemographic and trip characteristics, all variables were measured using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree).

Although all survey instruments were adapted or modified using well-validated scales, there might have potential difficulty for the target population to understand the contents of the questionnaire. Therefore, before data collection, a research ethics approval team and three British residents reviewed the questionnaire to confirm its quality. Based on their feedback, the questionnaire was further improved and then used for the data collection.

Data Analysis

SPSS Statistics 29 was used to report the results of descriptive analysis and Cronbach’s alpha. Furthermore, an independent samples t-test was conducted to answer the research questions. More specifically, an independent samples t-test was used to confirm mean differences (Pallant, 2016) in psychological need satisfaction, well-being, and behavioral intentions between repeat and first-time visits and between domestic and international travel.

Furthermore, this research employed covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation in order to test the hypotheses (Hair et al., 2019). CB-SEM is useful when the research framework has been developed based on well-established theory (Hair et al., 2017). As this research drew on self-determination theory, the theoretical framework and hypotheses were tested via CB-SEM. By using AMOS 29.0, two-step approaches were used, which included confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and CB-SEM (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).

To confirm the quality of the model, numerous measures of fit were utilized. For example, this research used traditional χ², the comparative fit index (CFI > 0.90), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI > 0.90), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA < 0.08), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR < 0.08) (Hu & Bentler, 1999; McDonald & Ho, 2002). Various measures were used for evaluating the model fit because the traditional chi-square is sensitive to sample size (Brown, 2015), which limits the provision of a meaningful result.

To test the research hypotheses and achieve the research objectives, this research employed two-stage strategies in CB-SEM, enabling the testing of first and second-stage models (Magno & Cassia, 2021). These strategies were adapted to capture the distinct and integrated role of psychological need satisfaction in determining well-being and behavioral intentions. Each component of psychological need satisfaction (i.e., autonomy, competence, relatedness) is built on a unique theoretical foundation (Ahn, Back, & Choe, 2019; Deci & Ryan, 2000), while self-determination theory emphasizes the holistic understanding of psychological need satisfaction (Y. C. Huang et al., 2020; Martela & Sheldon, 2019; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013).

Accordingly, the first-stage model consisted of only first-order constructs, while in the second-stage model, the three components of psychological need satisfaction were merged to build a second-order construct that predicted its consequences. Therefore, path analysis was performed twice to test the distinct and integrated role of psychological need satisfaction in determining well-being and behavioral intentions.

Results

Sample Characteristics

To clean the data, this research excluded respondents who had not had a holiday trip over the last 2 months and who failed an attention check (e.g., please select “Strongly agree”). A total of 588 respondents agreed to participate in this research. Among them, 189 respondents had not had a holiday trip over the previous 2 months and six respondents did not pass the attention check. As a result, a sample of 393 respondents was included for the data analysis, which was sufficient for CB-SEM analysis (Kline, 2011).

Of the respondents, 57.5% were female. The age groups were 18 to 29 (26.2%), 30 to 39 (33.6%), 40 to 49 (19.1%), 50 to 59 (11.2%), and 60 years or older (9.9%). Regarding marital status, 46.6% of the respondents were single, while 48.9% of them were married. Slightly more than half of the respondents (51.1%) had engaged in international travel; 49.4% of respondents indicated that they had never visited the same place(s) before the latest trip, while the remaining respondents were repeat visitors. The results are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Respondents’ Profile (n = 393).

Variables	Category	Frequency	Percentage
Sex	Male	167	42.5
Sex	Female	226	57.5
Age (years)	18–29	103	26.2
	30–39	132	33.6
	40–49	75	19.1
	50–59	44	11.2
	60 or older	39	9.9
Marital status	Single	183	46.6
	Married	192	48.9
	Divorced	12	3.1
	Widowed	6	1.5
Education	High school or lower	75	19.1
	College/University degree	235	59.8
	Postgraduate degree	83	21.1
Travel type	International	201	51.1
Travel type	Domestic	192	48.9
Past visit	Never visited before this trip	194	49.4
	1	69	17.6
	2	41	10.4
	3	30	7.6
	4	14	3.6
	5 or above	45	11.5

Descriptive Analysis, Common-Method Bias, and Independent Samples T-Test

To confirm the normality of indicators of all continuous variables, a descriptive analysis was carried out. As shown in Table 2, all indicators had skewness (<±3.0) and kurtosis (<±8.0) values in the acceptable ranges (Kline, 2011). Furthermore, all indicators had a mean value greater than 4.0, while having a Cronbach’s alpha (α) that was greater than .7. Based on this result, composite variables were created by averaging scores of conceptually related indicators. For psychological need satisfaction, values of autonomy, relatedness, and competence were averaged.

Table 2.

Result of Descriptive Analysis and Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Variables/items	Mean	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	Standardized Loading	AVE	CR
Psychological need satisfaction						0.515^a	0.756^a
Autonomy (α = .878)						0.648	0.880
During this trip…
I felt that my choices were based on my true interests and values.	5.824	0.941	−1.048	1.845	0.741
I felt free to do things my own way.	5.832	1.061	−1.298	2.201	0.795
I felt that my choices expressed my “true self.”	5.705	0.984	−0.784	0.687	0.835
I felt a sense of choice and freedom.	5.824	1.034	−1.231	2.106	0.845
Relatedness (α = .910)						0.708	0.905
During this trip…
I felt a sense of contact with people who care for me, and whom I care for.	5.850	1.069	−1.069	1.270	0.896
I felt close and connected with other people who are important to me.	5.929	1.088	−1.399	2.434	0.971
I felt a strong sense of intimacy with the people I spent time with.	5.692	1.210	−1.077	1.085	0.697
I experienced a warm feeling with the people I spent time with.	5.967	1.074	−1.435	2.827	0.775
Competence (α = .902)						0.707	0.905
During this trip…
I felt confident that I could do things well.	5.761	0.966	−0.992	1.374	0.899
I felt capable at what I did.	5.865	1.005	−1.258	2.421	0.900
I felt competent to achieve my goals.	5.654	1.044	−0.840	0.606	0.846
I felt that I could successfully complete this trip.	6.188	0.802	−1.099	1.828	0.703
Well-being
Hedonic well-being (α = .852)						0.633	0.873
The conditions on this trip were excellent.	5.702	1.023	−1.246	2.741	0.729
I was satisfied with this trip.	6.135	0.866	−1.663	5.071	0.775
In most ways, this trip was close to ideal.	5.344	1.310	−1.045	1.070	0.894
If I could take the same trip again, I would change almost nothing.	4.967	1.578	−0.638	−0.493	0.776
Eudaimonic well-being (α = .887)						0.673	0.891
This trip leads me to purposeful and meaningful life.	5.107	1.385	−0.674	0.009	0.805
This trip drives me to be engaged and interested in my daily activities.	5.193	1.301	−0.671	0.138	0.875
This trip makes me feel competent and capable in the activities that are important to me.	5.290	1.279	−0.850	0.628	0.894
This trip helps me to be optimistic toward my future.	5.481	1.193	−0.915	0.901	0.693
Behavioral intentions
Revisit intention (α = .949)						0.866	0.951
I would return to the same place(s) for pleasure.	5.875	1.257	−1.508	2.561	0.911
I would spend holidays in the same place(s) in the future.	5.756	1.337	−1.227	1.057	0.967
I would like to revisit the same place(s) in the future.	5.715	1.416	−1.247	1.011	0.913
Word-of-mouth intention (α = .916)						0.801	0.923
I would say positive things about this trip to other people.	6.209	0.941	−1.592	3.950	0.757
I would encourage friends and/or relatives to visit the place(s).	5.985	1.125	−1.375	2.326	0.952
I would recommend the place(s) to friends and/or relatives.	6.008	1.087	−1.453	2.825	0.961

Note. AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability.

Values were calculated in CFA of the second-order model (a part of second-stage model in this research); standardized loadings of psychological need satisfaction as a second-order construct represented 0.831 of autonomy, 0.555 of relatedness, and 0.739 of competence.

Common-method bias may pose a threat to the validity of research findings given the self-reported nature of the data collected in this research. To confirm whether one single factor explained any variance in the data, Harman’s single-factor test was used. Based on all items presented in Table 2, this research confirmed that common-method bias did not seriously affect the research findings, confirming the first factor accounted for 42.9% of the total variance (i.e., less than 50.0%; Podsakoff et al., 2003).

To answer research questions 1 and 2, an independent samples t-test was performed to confirm mean differences in psychological need satisfaction, well-being, and behavioral intentions. Before conducting an independent samples t-test, the group of past visits was divided into repeat visit and first-time visit. Results showed that there were only significant differences in revisit intention and word-of-mouth intention, confirming that repeat visitors had a higher revisit intention (M_{repeat visit} = 6.163, SD = 0.927 vs. M_{first-time visit} = 5.392, SD = 1.455: t(326.239) = 6.246) and word-of-mouth intention (M_{repeat visit} = 6.183, SD = 0.937 vs. M_{first-time visit} = 5.949, SD = 1.000: t(391) = 2.395). These results answer the research question 1, confirming the significant role of a past visit in explaining behavioral intentions.

Furthermore, in terms of the travel type (coded: domestic travel = 1, international travel = 0), there were no significant mean differences in psychological need satisfaction, well-being, and behavioral intentions. These results answer research question 2, confirming that there were no significant mean differences in any of the research variables. The results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Result of Independent Samples t-Test.

			Repeat visit		First-time visit			Domestic travel		International travel
Constructs	Overall mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	t-Value	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	t-Value
Psychological need satisfaction	5.841	0.727	5.893	0.673	5.788	0.776	1.433	5.837	0.772	5.845	0.683	−0.111
Autonomy	5.796	0.861	5.843	0.768	5.749	0.946	1.085	5.784	0.904	5.808	0.819	−0.283
Relatedness	5.859	0.986	5.92	0.962	5.798	1.009	1.226	5.865	1.035	5.854	0.941	0.101
Competence	5.867	0.843	5.916	0.805	5.817	0.879	1.163	5.862	0.869	5.872	0.820	−0.116
Hedonic well-being	5.537	1.02	5.589	0.983	5.483	1.055	1.03	5.560	0.979	5.515	1.059	0.437
Eudaimonic well-being	5.268	1.116	5.317	1.07	5.218	1.162	0.877	5.284	1.145	5.252	1.091	0.278
Revisit intention^a	5.782	1.275	6.163	0.927	5.392	1.455	6.246*	5.872	1.234	5.697	1.309	1.362
Word-of-mouth intention	6.067	0.975	6.183	0.937	5.949	1.000	2.395*	6.092	0.968	6.043	0.983	0.497

Significant p-value (<.05) was found in Levene’s test of equality of variances, therefore, independent t-test results of equality not assumed was reported (Pallant, 2016).

p < .05.

Measurement Model Assessment

Following Magno and Cassia (2021) and H. Kim and Chen (2019), this research adopted a two-stage approach. First, CFA was conducted. The initial model fit of the first-stage model was not acceptable (Hu & Bentler, 1999; McDonald & Ho, 2002). Therefore, indicators that contained a low factor loading (e.g., <0.690) were removed, which led to the deletion of five items, including one item of hedonic well-being (e.g., “I achieved important things on this trip”) and four items of eudaimonic well-being (e.g., “This trip makes people respect me”). After the removal of items, both constructs still reflected the nature of each construct represented as the cognitive evaluation of the quality of a trip (hedonic well-being) and the state of psychological functioning through a trip (eudaimonic well-being), thus confirming face validity (Churchill, 1979).

Furthermore, after confirming modification indices, two errors were correlated, referring to indicators of relatedness (i.e., “I felt a strong sense of intimacy with the people I spent time with”; “I experienced a warm feeling with the people I spent time with”). This was determined due to a high covariance greater than 80.000. After the modification of the first-stage model, the model fit was improved, reporting χ2 = 707.334, df = 277, χ2/df = 2.554, p-value < .001, CFI = 0.949, TLI = 0.941, RMSEA = 0.063, SRMR = 0.064. For the second-stage model, the model fit was calculated using the second-order construct of psychological need satisfaction, and all the other variables. In the second-stage model, a factor loading of relatedness (0.555) was relatively low. Data analysis was conducted without modification since the removal of relatedness can significantly affect the face validity of psychological need satisfaction (Ahn, Back, & Choe, 2019; Deci & Ryan, 2000). The results reported a model fit (χ2 = 738.882, df = 285, χ2/df = 2.593, p < .001, CFI = 0.947, TLI = 0.939, RMSEA = 0.064, SRMR = 0.068). Overall, both models showed acceptable model fits.

Furthermore, convergent validity was assessed. As average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) values were greater than 0.50 and 0.70, respectively, convergent validity appeared acceptable. Furthermore, discriminant validity was assessed based on correlation and the square root of AVE. To evaluate discriminant validity, Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criterion was used by comparing the square root of AVE of each construct with the correlations among the latent variables. As seen in Table 4, the discriminant validity test produced a satisfactory result for the first-stage model. The second-stage model showed acceptable discriminant validity except for the relationship between psychological need satisfaction and hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (see Table 5).

Table 4.

Result of Discriminant Validity: First-stage Model.

	A	R	C	HWB	EWB	RI	WOM
Autonomy (A)	0.805
Relatedness (R)	0.428	0.841
Competence (C)	0.626	0.417	0.841
Hedonic well-being (HWB)	0.668	0.404	0.540	0.796
Eudaimonic well-being (EWB)	0.540	0.456	0.580	0.669	0.821
Revisit intention (RI)	0.413	0.306	0.273	0.473	0.309	0.931
Word-of-mouth intention (WOM)	0.548	0.319	0.354	0.619	0.453	0.655	0.895

Note. The bold diagonal elements represent the squared root of AVE.

Table 5.

Result of Discriminant Validity: Second-stage Model.

	PNS	HWB	EWB	RI	WOM
Psychological need satisfaction (PNS)	0.718
Hedonic well-being (HWB)	0.769	0.796
Eudaimonic well-being (EWB)	0.720	0.667	0.820
Revisit intention (RI)	0.462	0.473	0.309	0.931
Word-of-mouth intention (WOM)	0.587	0.619	0.453	0.655	0.895

Note. The bold diagonal elements represent the squared root of AVE.

Hypotheses Test: First-Stage Model

CB-SEM was employed to test the research hypotheses. Model fit and squared multicorrelation were determined based on variables and indicators used in the CFA model. As the significant role of trip characteristics was identified in previous studies (e.g., Hsieh et al., 2016; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2023; Vada et al., 2019a), a past visit (coded: repeat visit = 1, first-time visit = 0) and travel type (coded: domestic travel = 1, international travel = 0) were added as control variables affecting well-being and behavioral intentions.

Two-stage strategies were adapted to test the distinct and integrated role of psychological need satisfaction and positive relationships between variables. The first-stage model showed acceptable model fit (χ2 = 752.359, df = 315, χ2/df = 2.388, p < .001, CFI = 0.949, TLI = 0.939, RMSEA = 0.060, SRMR = 0.061). The model explained 48%, 54%, 33%, and 43% of the variance in hedonic well-being, eudaimonic well-being, revisit intention, and word-of-mouth intention, respectively.

As seen in Table 6, all three components of psychological need satisfaction had significant associations with hedonic well-being. Autonomy had the strongest effect on hedonic well-being (β = .512, p < .05), followed by competence (β = .174, p < .05) and relatedness (β = .112, p < .05). These results support Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c. Furthermore, autonomy did not have a significant effect on eudaimonic well-being (p > .05), while competence (β = .265, p < .05) and relatedness (β = .159, p < .05) were found to be significant predictors. Therefore, Hypotheses 2b and 2c are supported, while Hypothesis 2a is rejected.

Table 6.

Result of Hypotheses Test Through a First-stage Model.

Relationships	β	b	C.R.	Decision
H1a: Autonomy → Hedonic well-being	.512	0.548	7.246*	Supported
H1b: Relatedness → Hedonic well-being	.112	0.087	2.271*	Supported
H1c: Competence → Hedonic well-being	.174	0.15	2.858*	Supported
H2a: Autonomy → Eudaimonic well-being	−.003	−0.006	−0.051	Rejected
H2b: Relatedness → Eudaimonic well-being	.159	0.185	3.4*	Supported
H2c: Competence → Eudaimonic well-being	.265	0.34	4.552*	Supported
H3a: Autonomy → Revisit intention	.172	0.282	2.25*	Supported
H3b: Relatedness → Revisit intention	.114	0.137	2.173*	Supported
H3c: Competence → Revisit intention	−.06	−0.079	−0.906	Rejected
H4a: Autonomy → WOM intention	.268	0.274	3.659*	Supported
H4b: Relatedness → WOM intention	.038	0.028	0.774	Rejected
H4c: Competence → WOM intention	−.102	−0.084	−1.626	Rejected
H5: Hedonic well-being → Eudaimonic well-being	.463	0.691	6.792*	Supported
H6: Hedonic well-being → Revisit intention	.382	0.587	4.7*	Supported
H7: Hedonic well-being → WOM intention	.444	0.424	5.583*	Supported
H8: Eudaimonic well-being → Revisit intention	−.073	−0.075	−1.007	Rejected
H9: Eudaimonic well-being → WOM intention	.048	0.031	0.705	Rejected
Control: Past visit → Hedonic well-being	−.008	−0.012	−0.188
Control: Past visit → Eudaimonic well-being	.009	0.02	0.232
Control: Past visit → Revisit intention	.275	0.628	6.24*
Control: Past visit → WOM intention	.085	0.12	2.054*
Control: Travel type → Hedonic well-being	.014	0.021	0.337
Control: Travel type → Eudaimonic well-being	.022	0.049	0.564
Control: Travel type → Revisit intention	.034	0.078	0.782
Control: Travel type → WOM intention	.017	0.024	0.405

Note. β = standardized estimate; b = unstandardized estimate; C.R. = critical ratio; WOM = word-of-mouth.

p < .05.

Furthermore, revisit intention was also significantly predicted by autonomy (β = .172, p < .05) and relatedness (β = .114, p < .05). Conversely, the relationship between competence and revisit intention was non-significant. These results support Hypotheses 3a and 3b, while Hypothesis 3c is rejected. Word-of-mouth intention was significantly predicted by autonomy (β = .268, p < .05), whereas relatedness and competence were not significantly related to word-of-mouth intention. These results support Hypothesis 4a, while rejecting Hypotheses 4b and 4c.

The relationship between hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being (β = .463, p < .05) was significantly positive, thus supporting Hypothesis 5. Finally, the relationship between well-being and behavioral intention was tested. Hedonic well-being had significant and positive relationships with both revisit intention (β = .382, p < .05) and word-of-mouth intention (β = .444, p < .05), which support Hypotheses 6 and 7. However, eudaimonic well-being was not significantly related to either revisit intention or word-of-mouth intention, indicating a rejection of Hypotheses 8 and 9. Regarding the control variables, only past visit significantly predicted revisit intention and word-of-mouth intention, which implies that repeat visit was a significant factor of behavioral intentions.

Hypotheses Test: Second-Stage Model

To further confirm the integrated role of psychological need satisfaction in explaining well-being and behavioral intentions, the second-stage model was tested. A past visit and travel type were included as control variables. Similar to the first-stage model, the second-stage model indicated an acceptable model fit (χ2 = 784.462, df = 327, χ2/df = 2.399, p < .000, CFI = 0.946, TLI = 0.938, RMSEA = 0.060, SRMR = 0.065). The model explained 59%, 55%, 33%, and 42% of the variance in hedonic well-being, eudaimonic well-being, revisit intention, and word-of-mouth intention, respectively. After the confirmation of acceptable model fit and squared multicorrelation, the same standard was used for interpreting the hypothesized relationships. The results are presented in Table 7.

Table 7.

Result of Hypotheses Test Through a Second-stage Model.

Relationships	β	b	C.R.	Decision
H1: Psychological need satisfaction → Hedonic well-being	.771	0.988	9.748*	Supported
H2: Psychological need satisfaction → Eudaimonic well-being	.508	0.968	4.97*	Supported
H3: Psychological need satisfaction → Revisit intention	.278	0.546	2.409*	Supported
H4: Psychological need satisfaction → WOM intention	.281	0.344	2.556*	Supported
H5: Hedonic well-being → Eudaimonic well-being	.276	0.411	3.083*	Supported
H6: Hedonic well-being → Revisit intention	.337	0.516	3.609*	Supported
H7: Hedonic well-being → WOM intention	.426	0.406	4.681*	Supported
H8: Eudaimonic well-being → Revisit intention	−0.133	−0.137	−1.677	Rejected
H9: Eudaimonic well-being → WOM intention	−0.039	−0.025	−0.525	Rejected
Control: Past visit → Hedonic well-being	−0.022	−0.033	−0.504
Control: Past visit → Eudaimonic well-being	.003	0.006	0.063
Control: Past visit → Revisit intention	.273	0.624	6.103*
Control: Past visit → WOM intention	.08	0.114	1.913
Control: Travel type → Hedonic well-being	.016	0.024	0.374
Control: Travel type → Eudaimonic well-being	.03	0.066	0.731
Control: Travel type → Revisit intention	.04	0.091	0.899
Control: Travel type → WOM intention	.02	0.029	0.49

Note.β = standardized estimate; b = unstandardized estimate; C.R. = critical ratio; WOM = word-of-mouth.

p < .05.

The research further analyzed the relationship between psychological need satisfaction and well-being. The results of path analysis confirmed that psychological need satisfaction significantly influenced hedonic well-being (β = .771, p < .05) and eudaimonic well-being (β = .508, p < .05). Furthermore, psychological need satisfaction significantly predicted revisit intention (β = .278, p < .05) and word-of-mouth intention (β = .281, p < .05). These results support Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Similar to the first-stage model, hedonic well-being significantly influenced eudaimonic well-being (β = .276, p < .05). Hedonic well-being had significant impacts on revisit intention (β = .337, p < .05) and word-of-mouth intention (β = .426, p < .05). Thus, Hypotheses 5, 6, and 7 are supported. Eudaimonic well-being did not significantly predict either revisit intention or word-of-mouth intention, which leads to the rejection of Hypotheses 8 and 9. Finally, the control variables did not significantly predict well-being and behavioral intentions, except for the relationship between past visit and revisit intention.

Discussion

This research addressed its research objectives by constructing the model of psychological need satisfaction–well-being–behavioral intentions and confirming their relationships in tourism. To test self-determination theory, well-being and behavioral intentions were integrated with psychological need satisfaction. According to self-determination theory, human well-being can be achieved based on the rudimentary foundation of human behavior motivated by three innate psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Martela & Sheldon, 2019). In a related vein, distinct and integrated characteristics of psychological need satisfaction were investigated to predict hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.

Overall, research findings are consistent with previous studies, confirming, in general, the significant effects of psychological need satisfaction on well-being. For example, previous studies found significant relationships between psychological need satisfaction and hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being (e.g., Ahn, Back, & Choe, 2019; Fan et al., 2024). In this research, hedonic well-being was significantly predicted by psychological need satisfaction (H1) consisting of autonomy (H1a), relatedness (H1b), and competence (H1c). This outcome is similar to previous empirical findings (Fan et al., 2024; Y. C. Huang et al., 2019; Walker & Kono, 2018). Furthermore, eudaimonic well-being was investigated in tourism contexts, and it was found to be a significant consequence of psychological need satisfaction (H2) consisting of autonomy, relatedness, and competence (Ahn, Back, & Boger, 2019; Fan et al., 2024). More specifically, relatedness (H2b) and competence (H2c) significantly predicted eudaimonic well-being, while confirming the nonsignificant effect of autonomy (H2a). This outcome is consistent with results obtained through a sample taken from the United States, except for the relationship assumed in H2a, while being inconsistent with results found in a sample taken from Macau in Ahn, Back, and Choe (2019) study.

Furthermore, this research confirmed that behavioral intentions are outcomes of the interaction among experiences that generate psychological need satisfaction. Similar to Ahn (2020) and Y. C. Huang et al.’s (2020) studies, the present research confirmed the significant effects of psychological need satisfaction (H3), autonomy (H3a), and relatedness (H3b) on revisit intention. Word-of-mouth intention was only predicted by psychological need satisfaction (H4) and autonomy (H4a). This finding is inconsistent with Ahn’s (2020) research. Furthermore, as Vada et al. (2019b) identified, there was a significant relationship between hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being (H5) in this research.

Hedonic well-being significantly affected revisit intention (H6) and word-of-mouth intention (H7), while eudaimonic well-being did not predict behavioral intentions (H8, H9). These results are consistent with Vada et al. (2019b) and Y. C. Huang et al. (2019). Among the respondents, those who revisited the same place(s) had stronger behavioral intentions.

Conclusion and Implications

Theoretical Implications

Based on self-determination theory, this research confirmed the distinct and integrated role of psychological need satisfaction in determining well-being and behavioral intentions and suggested the framework of psychological need satisfaction–well-being–behavioral intentions in tourism. These research findings make several important contributions to theory and the tourism literature.

First, this research enhances the understanding of the role of psychological need satisfaction in self-determination theory. This research focused on psychological need satisfaction that individuals felt during a trip, which can be differentiated from other tourism literature that investigated impacts of a brand (e.g., Ahn, 2020) or a pleasure trip (e.g., Fan et al., 2024) on psychological need satisfaction. Moreover, based on the tourism literature (e.g., Y. C. Huang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2019) and previous scales (Ahn, Back, & Choe, 2019; B. Chen et al., 2015; Sheldon et al., 2001), this research adapted and validated a 12-item scale that captures the experiential aspects of autonomy, relatedness, and competence in a general tourism context (see Tables 2 and 4). This finding enriches the knowledge of psychological need satisfaction and its measurement tool, which enables tourism researchers to confirm self-determination theory more effectively.

Furthermore, to address research gaps, this research utilized two-stage strategies (Wang et al., 2019), which provided a more comprehensive understanding of psychological need satisfaction. Therefore, in comparison with previous studies, the research findings obtained through two-stage strategies could provide diverse insights into the tourism literature by addressing the limitations of a single research strategy, such as adopting either a first or second-stage model only. For example, as each dimension of psychological need satisfaction has its own unique role and characteristics, researchers can provide diverse interpretations of the satisfaction of the three psychological needs and their outcome variables (e.g., Walker & Kono, 2018; Zhang et al., 2019). However, when there are some statistically nonsignificant relationships between psychological need satisfaction and its outcomes (e.g., H2a, H3c) in the first-stage model, researchers may not simply challenge self-determination theory if given significant findings (e.g., H2, H3) from the second-stage model. Relatedly, past studies had also emphasized not only individual components of need satisfaction but also their interplay as a single construct (Y. C. Huang et al., 2020; Martela & Sheldon, 2019; Zhang et al., 2019) in determining need satisfaction outcomes (e.g., H1–H4). Therefore, this research suggests future researchers should consider both integrated and distinct effects of psychological need satisfaction.

Second, this research extends the literature on the consequences of psychological need satisfaction in self-determination theory by investigating well-being conceptualized in tourism. Previous studies had focused on global concepts of well-being in confirming their relationships with psychological need satisfaction and the theory’s premise (Ahn, Back, & Boger, 2019; Fan et al., 2024). However, previous literature had overlooked the well-being adaptation phenomena in testing relationships between psychological need satisfaction and post-trip well-being. The effect of a trip on well-being lasts for only limited time periods (Kwon & Lee, 2020; J. Yu et al., 2021) since individuals are influenced by other life circumstances after returning home (Y. Chen et al., 2013; Philippe & Bernard-Desrosiers, 2017). Given the nature of tourism and the shortcomings of previous studies, this research refined well-being constructs in the tourism context and investigated the relationship between psychological need satisfaction and well-being. Specifically, research gaps were addressed by confirming research hypotheses (e.g., H1a, H1b, H1c, H2b, and H2c). These research findings offer the tourism literature new empirical evidence with insights into effective mechanisms of investigating the relationship between psychological need satisfaction and post-trip well-being.

Third, this research extends the framework of well-being and behavioral intentions by using two-dimensional approaches. There has been an increase in research on the relationship between well-being and behavioral intentions (Al-okaily et al., 2023; Vada et al., 2019b), which supports the rationale of why well-being needs to be considered in consumer decision-making models. Despite this, tourism well-being studies have framed behavioral intentions (Al-okaily et al., 2023; Vada et al., 2019b) as a unidimensional construct despite the different nature of revisit intention versus word-of-mouth intention (J. H. Kim, 2018). To theoretically and empirically contribute to the tourism literature, this research used a two-dimensional approach to behavioral intentions and confirmed relationships with hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. A relevant theoretical discussion and empirical evidence (H6–H9) might inspire future researchers to pursue fruitful directions for testing the combined framework of well-being and behavioral intentions comprehensively.

Finally, this research contributes to self-determination theory by introducing the combined framework of psychological need satisfaction, well-being, and behavioral intentions in tourism. Despite the literature on outcomes of psychological need satisfaction and well-being, a limited number of tourism studies had applied self-determination theory in developing the decision-making model (Y. C. Huang et al., 2020). Thus, this research explored an extended role of psychological need satisfaction in a framework including both well-being and behavioral intentions by supporting hypotheses (H1–H7). These findings are useful for articulating the serial process of decision-making activated through the fulfillment of innate psychological needs and well-being. Above all, the suggested framework could be easily applied in terms of different types of trips, well-being, or behavioral intentions.

Practical Implications

Research findings are also valuable for tourism organizations. First, tourism organizations can use research findings to design tourism experiences that fulfill psychological needs. In this research, a holiday trip provided individuals with experiences that satisfied their psychological needs, including autonomy, relatedness, and competence (see Table 2). Above all, psychological need satisfaction showed significant effects on well-being (H1, H2). These findings reveal the significance of designing for and seeking to provide psychological need satisfaction in tourism settings. Specifically, in designing psychological need-satisfying experiences, tourism managers should understand the extent to which their products contain characteristics of need-satisfying experiences. Furthermore, they should consider how much their experiential products bring consumers’ psychological benefits (e.g., well-being) through need-supportive environments (Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). For example, tourism destinations might be deliberately sculpted into an “autonomy-supportive environment” (Ahn, 2020, p. 765) by fulfilling tourists’ intrinsic motives; a relatedness-supportive environment by offering activities that help tourists interact with travel partners and locals; and a competence-supportive environment by fulfilling tourists’ extrinsic motives and controlling constraints to help visitors successfully complete their trip. Following these recommendations, tourism organizations might design and provide need-satisfying experiences that potentially lead to well-being.

Second, research findings might also be utilized to build communication strategies aimed at stimulating customers’ desire to (re)visit a tourism destination. The present research focused on individuals who completed a holiday trip over the previous 2 months, and confirmed the relationships between psychological need satisfaction and revisit intention (H3). Informed by this research, advertising cues should concentrate on need-satisfying activities that generate customers’ desires to achieve their “true self” (B. Chen et al., 2015), experience social connectedness (Fan et al., 2024), and successfully take another trip. In a similar vein, strategically placed statements might contain expressions such as “(re)experience your true self,” “enhance social connectedness with your beloved ones,” and “complete your trip with us.” It is also recommended to include travel partners or people enjoying travel activities in marketing materials that include visuals. To maximize the likelihood of consumers’ future visits, tourism organizations should consider the satisfaction of all three psychological needs in advertising their products.

Finally, tourism managers might evaluate the performance of their products by securely collecting and appropriately utilizing information about psychological need satisfaction, well-being, and behavioral intentions from customers. A customer feedback survey is an effective method for evaluating consumer experiences (Y. Kim et al., 2022b). In assessing designed experiences, a descriptive analysis (Pallant, 2016) would allow tourism marketers to obtain useful information for improving their products. When marketing managers find low mean scores on psychological need satisfaction and well-being, they might repair relevant factors. This is because the fulfillment of psychological needs can enhance customers’ well-being (e.g., H1a, H1b, H1c). Also, well-being affects customers’ future intentions to revisit (H6) and recommend the destination (H7). To accurately evaluate the performance of tourism products, it is recommended to use the measures presented in Table 2 since they are parsimonious and reliable.

Limitations and Future Directions

This research makes significant contributions to tourism literature and practices by achieving its stated objectives. Despite its useful findings and implications, there are several limitations that need to be addressed in future research. As the data were collected from UK residents, the findings may not be representative of other cultural backgrounds. In addition, this research focused on a general tourism context (i.e., holiday trips) to test the research framework, which limited the in-depth interpretation of specific destinations and tourism types. Future research might extend the framework by investigating interactions with multiple destinations or pull motivational outcomes cross-culturally, thus providing a more comprehensive understanding of how the proposed relationships may vary across different tourism contexts.

While this research aimed to test the main premise of self-determination theory in a general tourism context, future research could focus on exploring the role of specific psychological needs in particular types of tourism or tourist groups. For example, researchers might investigate how autonomy, competence, or relatedness individually contribute to well-being and behavioral intentions in adventure tourism or wellness tourism. Experimental designs could be employed to confirm the impact of each psychological need component in these specific tourism contexts (Zhang et al., 2019).

This research did not directly address the potential moderating role of personal values in the relationship between psychological need satisfaction, well-being, and behavioral intentions. Future research could explore how tourists’ personal values influence these relationships, particularly in cross-cultural contexts. Furthermore, the research framework could not account for enduring effects of psychological need satisfaction. Future researchers can overcome this limitation by integrating and longitudinally examining global life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985) in their frameworks.

Also, the second-stage model had relatively low discriminant validity in terms of the relationship between psychological need satisfaction and well-being. This might have occurred since their associations are theoretically high by nature (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Such validity could be improved by investigating other kinds of trips. Finally, research findings cannot explain negative aspects of psychological needs. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the tourism literature has recognized the significance of situations related to managing crises, risk, and tourists’ mobility. Therefore, it is recommended that future research explores psychological need frustration (Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013).

Footnotes

The author would like to thank Dr. Manuel Alector Ribeiro and Mr. Alex Mackrell for their valuable advice in improving this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the University of Aberdeen.

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent Statements

This research project was approved by the university research ethics committee (Application ID: 1070789). Before collecting data,informed consent was obtained,and every participant was aware of the confidentiality and anonymity of the participants. Also,participants gave their voluntary consents to take part in this study before completing the survey questionnaires.

ORCID iD

Youngsoo Kim

Data Availability Statement

According to Ethical Approval (Application ID: 1070789),participants’ personal information,responses,etc. will not be disclosed to anyone outside of the research team.

Author Biography

Youngsoo Kim,PhD is a lecturer in Business Management at the Business School,University of Aberdeen. His current research focuses on psychological need satisfaction,tourism autobiographical memory,well-being and consumer decision-making process.

References

Afshardoost

Eshaghi

M. S.

(2020). Destination image and tourist behavioural intentions: A meta-analysis. Tourism Management, 81, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104154

Agapito

Pinto

Mendes

(2017). Tourists’ memories, sensory impressions and loyalty: In loco and post-visit study in Southwest Portugal. Tourism Management, 58, 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.015

Ahn

(2020). Role of harmonious and obsessive passions for autonomy, competence, and relatedness support with integrated resort experiences. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(6), 756–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1574722

Ahn

Back

K. J.

Boger

(2019). Effects of integrated resort experience on customers’ hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 43(8), 1225–1255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348019861740

Ahn

Back

K. J.

Choe

(2019). Customers’ needs satisfaction: A scale validation with refinement in the integrated resort setting. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 82, 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.03.028

Ainsworth

M. D.

(1979). Infant- -mother attachment. American Psychologist, 34(10), 932–937. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.932

Ajzen

(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

Alea

Bluck

(2003). Why are you telling me that? A conceptual model of the social function of autobiographical memory. Memory, 11(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/741938207

Al-okaily

N. S.

Alzboun

Alrawadieh

Slehat

(2023). The impact of eudaimonic well-being on experience and loyalty: a tourism context. Journal of Services Marketing, 37(2), 216–231. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-08-2021-0282

10.

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.103.3.411

11.

Barkoukis

Hagger

M. S.

Lambropoulos

Tsorbatzoudis

(2010). Extending the trans-contextual model in physical education and leisure-time contexts: Examining the role of basic psychological need satisfaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(Pt 4), 647–670. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709910X487023

12.

Berger

(2014). Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 586–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.002

13.

Boley

B. B.

Strzelecka

Yeager

E. P.

Ribeiro

M. A.

Aleshinloye

K. D.

Woosnam

K. M.

Mimbs

B. P.

(2021). Measuring place attachment with the abbreviated place attachment scale (APAS). Journal of Environmental Psychology, 74, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101577

14.

Bonn

M. A.

Joseph

S. M.

Dai

(2005). International versus domestic visitors: An examination of destination image perceptions. Journal of Travel Research, 43(3), 294–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287504272033

15.

Brown

T. A.

(Ed.). (2015). In confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Publications.

16.

Buckley

(2023). Tourism and mental health: Foundations, frameworks, and futures. Journal of Travel Research, 62(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875221087669

17.

Chen

Vansteenkiste

Beyers

Boone

Deci

E. L.

Van der Kaap-Deeder

Duriez

Lens

Matos

Mouratidis

Ryan

R. M.

Sheldon

K. M.

Soenens

Van Petegem

Verstuyf

(2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39(2), 216–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1

18.

Chen

Lehto

X. Y.

Cai

(2013). Vacation and well-being: A study of Chinese tourists. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 284–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.02.003

19.

Choi

Catapano

Choi

(2017). Taking stock of happiness and meaning in everyday life: An experience sampling approach. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(6), 641–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616678455

20.

Churchill

G. A.

(1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377901600110

21.

Cini

Kruger

Ellis

(2013). A model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations on subjective well-being: The experience of overnight visitors to a national park. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 8(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-012-9173-y

22.

Correia

Zins

A. H.

Silva

(2015). Why do tourists persist in visiting the same destination? Tourism Economics, 21(1), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.5367/te.2014.0443

23.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01

24.

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

25.

Diener

Suh

E. M.

Lucas

R. E.

Smith

H. L.

(1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.125.2.276

26.

Diener

Wirtz

Tov

Kim-Prieto

Choi

D. W.

Oishi

Biswas-Diener

(2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y

27.

Fan

Wong

I. A.

Zhang

Lin

(2024). A multiwave study on tourist well-being: The role of attention restoration, psychological-need and social-sharing satisfaction. Tourism Management Perspectives, 51, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2024.101234

28.

Filep

(2016). Tourism and positive psychology critique: Too emotional? Annals of Tourism Research, 59(C), 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.04.004

29.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

30.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(Eds.). (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning EMEA.

31.

Hair

J. F.

Matthews

L. M.

Matthews

R. L.

Sarstedt

(2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmda.2017.10008574

32.

Howell

R. T.

Hill

(2009). The mediators of experiential purchases: Determining the impact of psychological needs satisfaction and social comparison. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 511–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903270993

33.

Hsieh

C. M.

Park

S. H.

McNally

(2016). Application of the extended theory of planned behavior to intention to travel to Japan among Taiwanese youth: Investigating the moderating effect of past visit experience. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 33(5), 717–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2016.1167387

34.

Huang

Wang

(2024). Well-being through transformation: An integrative framework of transformative tourism experiences and hedonic versus eudaimonic well-being. Journal of Travel Research, 63(4), 974–994. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875231171670

35.

Huang

Y. C.

Chen

C. C. B.

Gao

M. J.

(2019). Customer experience, well-being, and loyalty in the spa hotel context: Integrating the top-down & bottom-up theories of well-being. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36(5), 595–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2019.1604293

36.

Huang

Y. C.

Cheng

J. S.

Chang

L. L.

(2020). Understanding leisure trip experience and subjective well-being: An illustration of creative travel experience. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15(4), 1161–1182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-019-09727-y

37.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

38.

Huta

Waterman

A. S.

(2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from Hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1 5(6), 1425–1456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9485-0

39.

Jepson

Stadler

Spencer

(2019). Making positive family memories together and improving quality-of-life through thick sociality and bonding at local community festivals and events. Tourism Management, 75, 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.05.001

40.

Kim

Chen

J. S.

(2019). The memorable travel experience and its reminiscence functions. Journal of Travel Research, 58(4), 637–649. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287518772366

41.

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

42.

Kim

(2007). Understanding differences in tourist motivation between domestic and international travel: The university student market. Tourism Analysis, 12(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354207780956717

43.

Kim

Ribeiro

M. A.

(2022a). Tourism memory characteristics scale: Development and validation. Journal of Travel Research, 61(6), 1308–1326. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875211033355

44.

Kim

Ribeiro

M. A.

(2022b). Tourism memory, mood repair and behavioral intention. Annals of Tourism Research, 93, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2022.103369

45.

Kline

R. B.

(Ed.). (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.

46.

Kwon

Lee

(2020). Why travel prolongs happiness: Longitudinal analysis using a latent growth model. Tourism Management, 76, 103944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.06.019

47.

Lunardo

Ponsignon

(2020). Achieving immersion in the tourism experience: The role of autonomy, temporal dissociation, and reactance. Journal of Travel Research, 59(7), 1151–1167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287519878509

48.

Lyubomirsky

Sheldon

K. M.

Schkade

(2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111

49.

Magno

Cassia

(2021). Effects of agritourism businesses’ strategies to cope with the COVID-19 crisis: The key role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) behaviours. Journal of Cleaner Production, 325, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129292

50.

Martela

Sheldon

K. M.

(2019). Clarifying the concept of well-being: Psychological need satisfaction as the common core connecting eudaimonic and subjective well-being. Review of General Psychology, 23(4), 458–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268019880886

51.

McDonald

R. P.

M. H.

(2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64

52.

Mertena

Kaaristo

Edensor

(2022). Tourist skills. Annals of Tourism Research, 94(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2022.103387

53.

Palan

Schitter

(2018). Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004

54.

Pallant

(2016). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Allen & Unwin.

55.

Pavot

Diener

Suh

(1998). The temporal satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70(2), 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa7002_11

56.

Philippe

F. L.

Bernard-Desrosiers

(2017). The odyssey of episodic memories: Identifying the paths and processes through which they contribute to well-being. Journal of Personality, 85(4), 518–529. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12257

57.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

58.

Purohit

Arora

Paul

(2022). The bright side of online consumer behavior: Continuance intention for mobile payments. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 21(3), 523–542. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2017

59.

Rasoolimanesh

S. M.

Iranmanesh

Seyfi

Ari Ragavan

Jaafar

(2023). Effects of perceived value on satisfaction and revisit intention: Domestic vs. international tourists. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 29(2), 222–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/13567667221086326

60.

Reis

H. T.

Sheldon

K. M.

Gable

S. L.

Roscoe

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200266002

61.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

62.

Schimmack

Diener

Oishi

(2002). Life-satisfaction is a momentary judgment and a stable personality characteristic: The use of chronically accessible and stable sources. Journal of Personality, 70(3), 345–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.05008

63.

Schwarz

Strack

(1999). Reports of subjective well-being: Judgmental processes and their methodological implications. In Kahneman

Diener

Schwarz

(Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 61–84). Russell Sage Foundation.

64.

Sheldon

K. M.

Elliot

A. J.

Kim

Kasser

(2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325

65.

Sirgy

M. J.

Kruger

P. S.

Lee

D. J.

G. B.

(2011). How does a travel trip affect tourists’ life satisfaction? Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287510362784

66.

Tung

V. W. S.

Ritchie

J. R. B.

(2011). Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1367–1386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.03.009

67.

Chon

(2006). Antecedents of revisit intention. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), 1141–1158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2006.06.003

68.

Vada

Prentice

Hsiao

(2019a). The influence of tourism experience and well-being on place attachment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 47, 322–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.12.007

69.

Vada

Prentice

Hsiao

(2019b). The role of positive psychology in tourists’ behavioural intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 293–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.06.015

70.

Vada

Filep

Moyle

Gardiner

Tuguinay

(2023). Welcome back: Repeat visitation and tourist wellbeing. Tourism Management, 98, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2023.104747

71.

Vansteenkiste

Ryan

R. M.

(2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032359

72.

Walker

G. J.

Kono

(2018). The effects of basic psychological need satisfaction during leisure and paid work on global life satisfaction. Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(1), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1374439

73.

Wang

(2019). Impact of lifestyle-oriented motivation on small tourism enterprises’ social responsibility and performance. Journal of Travel Research, 58(7), 1146–1160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287518800389

74.

Wirtz

Kruger

Scollon

C. N.

Diener

(2003). What to do on spring break? The role of predicted, on-line, and remembered experience in future choice. Psychological Science, 14(5), 520–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.03455

75.

You

O’leary

Morrison

Hong

G. S.

(2000). A cross-cultural comparison of travel push and pull factors: United Kingdom vs. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 1(2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1300/j149v01n02_01

76.

Smale

Xiao

(2021). Examining the change in wellbeing following a holiday. Tourism Management, 87, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104367

77.

Levesque-Bristol

Maeda

(2018). General need for autonomy and subjective well-being: A meta-analysis of studies in the US and East Asia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(6), 1863–1882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9898-2

78.

Zhang

Cole

Ricci

Gao

(2019). Context-based leisure travel facilitation among people with mobility challenges: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Travel Research, 58(1), 42–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517741004

Exploring the Interplay of Psychological Need Satisfaction,Well-Being,and Behavioral Intentions in Tourism: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Psychological Need Satisfaction in Self-Determination Theory and Tourism

Well-Being and Tourism

Behavioral Intentions

Hypotheses and Theoretical Framework Development

Psychological Need Satisfaction and Well-Being

Psychological Need Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions

Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being

Well-Being and Behavioral Intentions

Impacts of Past Visit(s)

Impacts of Travel Type

Methodology

Sample, Data Collection, and Survey Instruments

Data Analysis

Results

Sample Characteristics

Descriptive Analysis, Common-Method Bias, and Independent Samples T-Test

Measurement Model Assessment

Hypotheses Test: First-Stage Model

Hypotheses Test: Second-Stage Model

Discussion

Conclusion and Implications

Theoretical Implications

Practical Implications

Limitations and Future Directions

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent Statements

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

Author Biography

References