Submitted:
15 July 2024
Posted:
16 July 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Cultural Tourism and Cultural Tourism Interpreter
2.2. Cultural Tourism Interpreter’s Service Competence and Revisit Intention
2.3. Tourist Empathy
3. Methodology
3.1. Sampling and Data Collection
3.2. Measures
4. Data Analysis and Results
4.1. Demographic Profiles of Sample
4.2. Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis
4.3. Descriptive Statistics between Variables
4.4. Hypotheses Testing
| Dependent Variable: Revisit Intention | ||||||||||||||||||
| Model1 | Model2 | Model3 | ||||||||||||||||
| Factor | Unstd. Coeffs. | Std. Coeffs. | T-value | Unstd. Coeffs. | Std. Coeffs. | T-value | Unstd. Coeffs. | Std. Coeffs. | T-value | VIF | ||||||||
| B | SE | β | B | SE | β | B | SE | β | ||||||||||
| P.K (A) | .16 | .05 | .148** | 3.47 | .15 | .05 | .145** | 3.38 | .17 | .05 | .158** | 3.58 | 1.41 | |||||
| S.O.M (B) | .23 | .05 | .216** | 4.83 | .23 | .05 | 214** | 4.77 | .24 | .05 | .227** | 4.92 | 1.55 | |||||
| KND (C) | .20 | .04 | .202** | 4.64 | .20 | .04 | .200** | 4.58 | .18 | .05 | .177** | 3.84 | 1.47 | |||||
| COM (D) | .17 | .04 | .159** | 3.85 | .17 | .04 | .156** | 3.76 | .18 | .05 | .169** | 3.97 | 1.32 | |||||
| ACC (E) | .24 | .05 | .231** | 5.32 | .24 | .04 | .227** | 5.17 | .23 | .05 | .217** | 4.72 | 1.47 | |||||
| TM (M1) | .26 | .03 | .237** | 7.71 | .26 | .03 | .236** | 7.56 | 1.23 | |||||||||
| (A) * (M1) | .15 | .04 | .149** | 3.90 | 1.48 | |||||||||||||
| (B) * (M1) | .05 | .05 | .05 | 1.04 | 1.69 | |||||||||||||
| (C) * (M1) | -.03 | .04 | -.04 | -.86 | 1.56 | |||||||||||||
| (D) * (M1) | .18 | .04 | .167** | 4.29 | 1.35 | |||||||||||||
| (E) * (M1) | -21 | .04 | -21.00 | -.48 | 1.50 | |||||||||||||
| R2 | 0.489 | 0.539 | 0.634 | |||||||||||||||
| AdjR2 | 0.482 | 0.537 | 0.628 | |||||||||||||||
| R2 change | - | .051** | .095** | |||||||||||||||
| F | 75.702*** | 63.054.*** | 35.199*** | |||||||||||||||
| F change | - | 12.648*** | 27.855*** | |||||||||||||||
| *: p<.05, **: p<.01 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Notes: Professional Knowledge: P.K, Sense of Mission: S.O.M, Kindness:KND, Communication:COM, Acceptance:ACC Tourist Empathy: TM, unstandardized coefficients: Unstd. Coeffs., Standardized coefficients: Std. Coeffs. standard error: SE, Variance Inflation Factor:VIF | ||||||||||||||||||
4.5. Robustness Testing
![]() |
4.6. Summary of Hypothesis Test Results
5. Discussion and Implications
5.1. Discussion
5.2. Implications
References
- Chen, C.-F.; Tsai, D. How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions? Tourism management 2007, 28, 1115–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, A.D. (1976). International tourism development: forecasts to 1985. Economist Intelligence Unit.
- Ghilagaber, G. Another Look at Chow’s Test for the Equality of Two Heteroscedastic Regression Models. Quality and Quantity 2004, 38, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, C.-L.; Wang, J. The Effect of Cultural Tourism Commentator¡¯s Role on Interpretation Satisfaction and Revisiting Intention - Moderating Effects of Perceived. FoodService Industry Journal 2023, 19, 83–98, http://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE11466007. [Google Scholar]
- Hackney, H. The evolution of empathy. The Personnel and Guidance Journal 1978, 57, 35–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyung Ju, L.; Sung Hyup, H. The Impact of Tour Guides` Rapport-Building Behavior on Tourist Empathy and Tourist Citizenship Behavior: Focused on Chinese Group Tourists Visiting Korea. International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 2015, 29, 5–24, http://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE06643361. [Google Scholar]
- Ins son, J. A study on the satisfaction degree of tourists visiting the Interpreter of Culture and Heritage. Journal of Tourism Management Research 2003, 7, 291–312, https://www.earticle.net/Article/A138953. [Google Scholar]
- Jacobs, M.H.; Harms, M. Influence of interpretation on conservation intentions of whale tourists. Tourism management 2014, 42, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeong Ja, C.; Jae Myung, S. A Study on Roles and Qualifications from the Perspective of Culture and Tour Guides: An Application of Cultural Consensus Analysis. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Studies 2008, 10, 157–169, http://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE07439858. [Google Scholar]
- Ji, H. (2020). Restaurant Selection Attributes Influencing Customer Satisfaction, Revisit Intention, and Recommendation Intention -Michelin guide star Restaurant and Deluxe hotel Restaurant as Moderating Variables- Sejong University. Seoul. https://www.riss.kr/link?id=T15486642.
- Jin Woo, J.; Yeon Sook, K.; Hun Jin, P. A Study on the Effects of the Selection Attributes of Korean Restaurant Menu on Customer Satisfaction and Revisit Intention. Culinary Science & Hospitality Research 2011, 17, 1–17, http://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE02436932. [Google Scholar]
- Jin-hoo, K. Moderated Regression Analysis in Korean Tourism and Hospitality Research: Is 3-step Hierarchical Procedure Necessary? The Tourism Sciences Society of Korea 2019, 43, 169–183, https://kiss.kstudy.com/Detail/Ar?key=3697280. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S.-H.; Huh, Y.-D. The Structural Relationship Between Capacity of Cultural Tourism Commentator’s, Tourism Satisfaction and Behavior Intention. Journal of Tourism and Leisure Research 2019, 31, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kozak, M. Measuring tourist satisfaction with multiple destination attributes. Tourism analysis 2003, 7, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.-D. Cultural events and cultural tourism development: Lessons from the European Capitals of Culture. European planning studies 2014, 22, 498–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, P.A.; Eisenberg, N. The relation of empathy to aggressive and externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological bulletin 1988, 103, 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moscardo, G.; Woods, B.; Saltzer, R. (2004). The role of interpretation in wildlife tourism. In. Common Ground Publishing.
- Oliver, R.L. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of marketing research 1980, 17, 460–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, G.-Y. A Study on the Effect of the competencies of Cultural Tourism Interpretation Tourist Satisfaction and Repeat Visitation: Focus on Dae-Jeon City Tourists Visitors. Journal of Tourism and Leisure Research 2018, 30, 281–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parry, S.B. The quest for competencies. Training 1996, 33, 48. [Google Scholar]
- Pei, Y. (2018). The Influence of the Narrator’s Ability on Tourism Satisfaction and Educational Effect in Dark Tourist Scenic Spots - Taking the Nanjing Massacre Memorial as the survey object - Sejong University. https://m.riss.kr/link?id=T14926195. 1492. [Google Scholar]
- Poria, Y.; Biran, A.; Reichel, A. Visitors’ preferences for interpretation at heritage sites. Journal of Travel Research 2009, 48, 92–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richards, G. Cultural tourism: A review of recent research and trends. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 2018, 36, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suk Hee, P. Tourism Resources Interpretation System; The Case of Secret Garden in Seoul. Journal of Tourism Sciences 1994, 18, 43–69, https://kiss.kstudy.com/Detail/Ar?key=155494. [Google Scholar]
- Se Jong, P. The Exploration for the Theoretical Construction of Cultural Tourism Studies. International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 2014, 28, 37–49, http://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE06643105. [Google Scholar]
- Seung Kyu, N. The Theoretical Study of Consumer Sympathy. The Korean Journal of Consumer and Advertising Psychology 2010, 11, 619–636, https://kiss.kstudy.com/Detail/Ar?key=2883372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silberberg, T. Cultural tourism and business opportunities for museums and heritage sites. Tourism management 1995, 16, 361–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tilden, F. (2009). Interpreting our heritage. ReadHowYouWant. com.
- Tse, D.K.; Wilton, P.C. Models of consumer satisfaction formation: An extension. Journal of marketing research 1988, 25, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

| Demographics | Engage responses (n=402) |
Percent (10%) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Female | 199 | 49.5 |
| Male | 203 | 50.50 |
| Age | ||
| Under 20 | 28 | 6.97 |
| 21-25 | 95 | 23.63 |
| 26-30 | 77 | 19.15 |
| 31-35 | 63 | 15.67 |
| 36-40 | 62 | 15.43 |
| 41 and over | 77 | 19.15 |
| Education | ||
| High School | 73 | 18.16 |
| Vocational colleges | 144 | 35.82 |
| University | 107 | 26.62 |
| Graduate School | 78 | 19.40 |
| Personal monthly income (RMB) | ||
| Less than 3000 | 62 | 15.42 |
| 3001~4000 | 28 | 6.97 |
| 4001~5000 | 103 | 25.62 |
| 5001~6000 | 66 | 16.42 |
| 6001~7000 | 69 | 17.16 |
| More than 7001 | 74 | 18.41 |
| Factor (Cronbach-αvalue) |
Factor loading | Eigenvalues | Explained Variance |
| CTISC | |||
| Sense of Mission(α=0.851) | 6.478 | 16.541 | |
| He responsibly explained to me | .750 | ||
| He explained with a sense of mission. | .679 | ||
| He explained as best he could. | .661 | ||
| I felt a fundamental sense of diligence." | .687 | ||
| Professional Knowledge(α=0.848) | 1.638 | 16.312 | |
| He possessed Professional knowledge. | .728 | ||
| He was familiar with the tourist attractions. | .668 | ||
| He gave a commentary with Professional knowledge. | .658 | ||
| He had a broad understanding of tourism. | .697 | ||
| Acceptance(α=0.804) | 1.463 | 13.195 | |
| His appearance was good. | .694 | ||
| He was well-dressed for commentary. | .642 | ||
| His overall impression was good. | .626 | ||
| Kindness(α=0.820) | 1.358 | 12.823 | |
| He was generally friendly to tourists. | .739 | ||
| He explained with good manners. | .648 | ||
| He explained courteously to the tourists." | .646 | ||
| Communication(α=0.795) | 1.222 | 12.651 | |
| His explanation was easy to understand. | .717 | ||
| He explained at the level of the tourists. | .637 | ||
| He had excellent communication skills. | .587 | ||
| Full Explained 71.522%, KMO=.882 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: Chi-square= 3166.077 (p<.01) | |||
| RI (α=0.916) | 2.573 | 85.775 | |
| I am willing to visit this tourist destination again. | .907 | ||
| If given the opportunity, I would visit again with friends and family. | .946 | ||
| When choosing a tourist attraction, it will be prioritized over other attractions. | .924 | ||
| Full Explained 85.775%, KMO=.742 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: Chi-square= 886.238(p<.01) | |||
| TE (α=0.945) | 2.704 | 90.121 | |
| I understood the behavior from the perspective of a cultural tourism interpreter. | .949 | ||
| I looked at the problem from the perspective of a cultural tourism interpreter. | .955 | ||
| I understand the situation of cultural tourism interpreters. | .945 | ||
| Full Explained 90.121%, KMO=.772 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: Chi-square= 1131.530(p<.01) | |||
| * Factor extraction method: Principal Component Analysis, Rotation method: Varimax rotation ** Variables with factor loading values of 0.5 or higher were interpreted. α = Reliability coefficient by internal consistency test using Cronbach’s Alpha value. | |||
| Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Standard Deviation | ||
| Independent Variable CTISC |
Sense of Mission | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.381 | .969 |
| Professional Knowledge | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.363 | .968 | |
| Acceptance | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.444 | .971 | |
| Kindness | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.359 | 1.026 | |
| Communication | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.389 | .951 | |
| Dependent Variable | RI | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.395 | 1.186 |
| Moderator Variable | TM | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.361 | 1.024 |
| Notes: Cultural Tourism Interpreter’s Service Competence: CTISC, Revisit Intention: RI, Tourist Empathy: TM | |||||
![]() |
| Research Hypotheses | Summary of the Analysis Results | Acceptance Decision |
| H1 | Among the service competency factors perceived by Chinese tourists visiting the Nanjing Museum, expertise, kindness, appearance, and communication capabilities exhibit a significant positive effect (+) on the intention to revisit. | Acceptance |
| H2 | The study revealed notable distinctions in Chinese tourists’ perceptions of service competence among cultural tourism interpreters within Nanjing museums, contingent upon the level of empathy exhibited by the tourists. Specifically, variations were observed in the influence of interpreters’ expertise and communication skills on tourists’ intentions to revisit. | Acceptance (Moderation Effect) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

