Next Article in Journal
Distress and Positive Experiences Among Adolescents in Northern Chile in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study
Previous Article in Journal
Relationship Between Attachment and Social Skills in Adulthood Education in the Digital Society
Previous Article in Special Issue
Land of Maramureș (Romania) Identity Valences: Perceptions, Promotion and Potential for Valorisation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Societies
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/soc15010009
societies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploring the Mediation Effect of Brand Trust on the Link Between Tourism Destination Image, Social Influence and Brand Loyalty

by
Abu Elnasr E. Sobaih
1,*,
Hassane Gharbi
2,
Riadh Brini
2,3,* and
Nadir Aliane
1
1
Management Department, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsaa 31982, Saudi Arabia
2
Management Department, Faculté des Sciences Économiques et de Gestion de Nabeul, Nabeul 8000, Tunisia
3
Department of Business Administration, College of Business Administration, Majmaah University, Al Majma’ah 11952, Saudi Arabia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Societies 2025, 15(1), 9; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010009
Submission received: 25 September 2024 / Revised: 31 October 2024 / Accepted: 3 January 2025 / Published: 9 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tourism, Urban Culture and Local Development)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study examines the structural relationship between a destination’s image (DI), social influence (SI), and tourists’ brand trust (BT) and brand loyalty (BL) in the destination of Tozeur, a Tunisian town located at the gateway to the Sahara and rooted in the Atlas Mountains, where George Lucas set scenes for the Star Wars saga. The structural correlations between the variables in the model were tested through structural equation modeling (SEM). Data from 1405 tourists, who had visited Tozeur, were analyzed through SEM using AMOS software (version 25). The results showed that DI significantly affects BT (β = 0.924, p < 0.001) and significantly affects BL (β = 0.481, p < 0.01). Additionally, SI significantly affects BT (β = 0.274, p < 0.001) and significantly affects BL (β = 0.234, p < 0.001). Furthermore, BT significantly affects the BL (β = 0.461, p < 0.01). Tourist’s trust in a brand was found to act as a partial mediator on the link between destination image and brand loyalty and between social influence and brand loyalty. The findings demonstrate the importance of the tourism destination as well as social influence in boosting tourism trust and increasing destination loyalty among tourists. The results have many practical implications for destination marketers.

1. Introduction

Like other oases in Southern Tunisia, Tozeur represents an exemplary case of human adaptation to harsh desert conditions, where traditional agricultural systems based on palm groves have historically demonstrated remarkable resilience and sustainability through sophisticated water management and multi-layered farming techniques [1]. What really stands out in Tozeur are its vast spaces, where gigantic waves of dunes in a multitude of colors ranging from canary yellow to blood red weave mirages that satisfy the desires of travelers. While the oasis landscape has undergone significant transformations since the 1970s due to agricultural modernization and tourism development [2], its traditional ecological and cultural heritage continues to shape both local identity and visitor experience. Small neighboring oases offer travelers the pleasure and curiosity of discovering tangled labyrinths that time and the winds have given almost Martian configurations. Among these oases, Chott El Jerid, also known as the Palm Oasis, is considered according to UNESCO (https://whc.unesco.org/, accessed on 1 September 2024) to be a unique site of outstanding natural beauty. Birdlife International has classified it as an important bird area due to the presence of a wide variety of birds from the Mediterranean and Sindo–Saharan biomes. The name of the town Tozeur (Thusuros) bears witness to its Roman origins, tracing a culture and atmosphere all its own, based, on the one hand, on the production of dates, fruit trees in the shade of palm trees, and market garden crops on the ground, and on activities on the edge of the desert based on camel farming on the other. In this authentic and sensational mountain landscape, nuances create differences.
It is easy to understand why Georges Lucas, with 8.5 million km2 of Sahara stretching across the territory of ten countries—Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, Mauritania, Niger, Mali, Chad and Sudan—as well as the disputed territory of Western Sahara, chose Tozeur as a special setting in films of the Star Wars saga. He established “Mos Espa” here, a small town on the planet Tatooine that has since become a pilgrimage destination for fans of science fiction and special effects [3].
The image of Tozeur as a destination is a decisive issue in visitors’ decisions to visit. Destination image has an essential role in the tourism industry by developing infrastructure in these destinations and offering employment opportunities [4]. Therefore, a good image of the destination [5] makes it easier for potential tourists to plan their holidays [6,7,8]. The image of the destination aims to influence people’s knowledge of their destination and their travel intentions [9,10,11]. Furthermore, destination image relates to the set of collective beliefs, judgements and perceptions visitors hold with respect to a specific destination [12].
Often reflected as a two-dimensional model, the image of the destination includes both a cognitive aspect, regarding knowledge, and an affective aspect, referring to emotions [13]. Moreover, Hsu and Cai [14] point out that “a destination is important because a trusted brand builds tourist loyalty” (p. 3). Subsequently, the same authors argued that “for image research to be relevant to today’s destination branding challenge, it must be examined in the context of brand knowledge and in conjunction with other branding concepts, such as trust and brand loyalty” (2009, p. 4). In addition, the theory of social influence [15] and subsequent research, although aimed at other issues, evoke the mysterious role of social influence, which can be either favorable or detrimental [16,17,18]. Family and friends can significantly affect the decision-making processes of individuals and, consequently, the way in which they perceive a product, a service, or a trip, as in our case. This power, which is all the more enigmatic in that it is difficult to control [18], can manifest itself through several means, notably via word of mouth [19,20,21], social networks [22] and online brand communities [23]. In this respect, social influence focuses on opinions from friends and family members virtually [24] and through face-to-face [25] conversations.
This research addresses the crucial role that destination image and social influence could play in building brand trust among tourists and their loyalty to that destination. This raises the importance of destination development and marketing to achieve such a positive outcome. However, in the face of fierce global competition, this task has become increasingly difficult for political decision-makers, city managers, and urban tourism stakeholders. The increasingly demanding and personalized expectations of tourists represent a challenge for these players. The omnipresence of social networks amplifies the impact of each experience, whether positive or negative, on a destination’s reputation. In a competitive environment where tourism choices have become highly subjective and measured, building visitor loyalty is now an essential strategic issue for guaranteeing the sustainability of activities and the economic development of local areas. The research questions (RQ) are as follows: (RQ1) What are the effects of tourism destination image on brand trust and loyalty? (RQ2) What are the effects of social influence on brand trust and loyalty with regard to tourism destinations? (RQ3) What is the effect of brand trust on loyalty towards tourism destinations? (RQ4) What mediating roles will tourists’ trust in the brand have in the relationships that link the image of the destination and social influence to brand loyalty?
This research assesses the impact of tourist trust on the link between destination image, social influence, and loyalty to the Tozeur brand. By analyzing data collected from 1405 visitors, the aim is to determine whether trust in the Tozeur brand plays a mediating role in these relationships and helps to strengthen tourist loyalty over the long term. The results of this study offer a superior understanding of the mechanisms influencing visitor loyalty and identify opportunities for improving the region’s tourism marketing strategies.
The next parts of this paper begin by reviewing related studies, building research hypotheses, and providing a conceptual model of the research. The paper then moves on to discussing the research instrument used for data collection. The data collected from the participants is then interpreted using AMOS software, providing the structural research model. The paper then discusses the results and provides some implications for scholars and practitioners. It concludes with final remarks and highlights the limitations of the research and future directions.

2. Theoretical Analysis and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Destination Image and Brand Trust

By definition, trust refers to the degree to which visitors consider that the destination in question will be able to fulfill their intentions or satisfy their a priori needs, wants, and expectations [26]. As a result, trust has always been a considerable concern for tourist destinations [27]. Moreover, one of the most frequently used definitions of destination image was presented by Jenkins [28], who supported the idea that destination image includes individual’s or group’s knowledge, impressions, perceptions and emotions with regards to a specific place. Moreover, it is conditioned by the reputation of the destination in question [29]. Indeed, a good reputation specific to a destination will generate credibility and customer attachment to it [30,31]. For their part, Artigas and colleagues argue that affective and cognitive aspects of a destination represent precursors of trust [32]. Empirically, Chen and Phou [30] found that brand trust is an outcome of positive tourist destination. More recently, Poan and Verin [33] conducted research on a sample of 405 travelers looking for an Islamic destination, who visited the city of Padang, in West Sumatra, Indonesia, and demonstrated that image and reputation significantly and positively impact brand trust. Therefore, the first hypothesis can be formulated:
H1. 
The image of the tourism destination significantly affects brand trust.

2.2. Destination Image and Brand Loyalty Through Brand Trust

Consumer brand infidelity is a disturbing fact faced by all existing brands [34]. Park et al. [35] emphasize that, regardless of marketing efforts and favorable or unfavorable economic climates, which may influence behavioral attitudes, brand loyalty is a deep commitment on the part of the consumer to the brand. This loyalty can lead to a feeling of buying and re-purchasing the product/service continuously over time [36]. It becomes an indisputable asset for the brand in question when consumers, eager to consume the same product/service, go so far as to pay more for it [37]. In their respective studies, Shafiee et al. [38] and Aldaihani and Ali [39] demonstrated that destination image positively influences tourists’ loyalty towards the destination. Empirically, statistical data specific to 345 visitors to the state of Arkansas’ Eureka Springs, being analyzed via structural equation modeling, revealed that destination image significantly affect visitors’ satisfaction and loyalty to the destination [40]. In this respect, the same researchers argue that a favorable image increases the chances of returning to the same place [40]. For their part, Ozturk and Qu, [41] based on data from 233 Turkish tourists in Kizkalesi, Turkey, indicated that a promising image significantly influences tourists’ loyalty to the destination of Kizkalesi. Therefore, the following two hypotheses are suggested:
H2. 
The image of the tourism destination significantly affects tourism destination loyalty.
H2a. 
Brand trust could act as a mediator in the relationship between destination image and tourism destination loyalty.

2.3. Social Influence and Brand Trust

Many studies [42,43,44,45] examined the influence of social influence on brand trust. Social influence occurs when people believe that those around them affect their decision or adopt a certain behavior [46]. This power, which is all the more enigmatic because it is difficult to control, can manifest itself in several means, e.g., personal recommendation [19,20,21], social networks [22] and online communities [23]. In this work, social influence focuses on positive reviews from peers and family [24] and face-to-face conversations [25]. Moreover, social influence is inherent in homophilic places in the sense given by Merton [47]. Lazarsfeld and Merton [48] developed the concept of homophily when they first used it in a book entitled “Reference groups” at the Columbia School in 1950. The notion of value homophily appeared there to describe the reciprocal attraction between individuals due to the values they share [47,49]. This concept is dependent on the theory of personal influence [50]. The idea behind this theory is that it is not the media that directly influence the receivers, but the people with whom they discuss, with these people also being receivers of the media. The Columbia School calls them “opinion leaders” [51,52]. These are defined as individuals who will spread an idea and in turn influence the members of their social groups [53]. On this subject, Moscovici [54] states that individuals are more likely to understand their environment through their peers and families. To test the role of social influence on brand trust, San [55] conducted research on a sample of 150 consumers who had purchased from the Next Generation fashion shop. The findings proved that social influence significantly impacts brand trust. By extension, this indicates that consumers were influenced by word of mouth or reviews on websites before choosing the brand. Thus, the third hypothesis will appear under the following statement:
H3. 
Social influence significantly affects brand trust.

2.4. Social Influence and Brand Loyalty Through Brand Trust

Based on Festinger’s theory of social comparison [56], social influence is capable of bringing about changes in individuals’ own cognitive references, often without their knowledge, which will materialize in changes in behavior, ideas, cognitions and even their individual beliefs just as a result of the presence of the other in the relationship. To better understand the issue in question, a simple communication with friends can encourage/dissuade potential buyers when they are about to make a purchase, by making a social comparison with their friends. In line with this reasoning, social influence is capable of conditioning the act of purchasing, establishing/invalidating trust in the brand and consequently establishing/reversing the potential consumer’s loyalty [19,57]. Ruiz-Mafe et al. [58] revealed a significant impact of social influence on the loyalty of active online travel site users. Further empirical evidence is put forward by research by Hoang et al., [59] based on 499 observations made on ecotourism sites in Vietnam, shows that social influence significantly impacts tourist loyalty. Thus, two hypotheses will appear with the following statements:
H4. 
Social influence significantly affect tourists’ brand loyalty.
H4a. 
Brand trust can mediate the link between social influence and tourism destination loyalty.

2.5. Brand Trust and Brand Loyalty

Brand trust refers to “the willingness of the average consumer to rely on the brand’s ability to perform its stated function” ([26], p. 82). Furthermore, the central concern of marketing strategies is to maintain and even develop customer loyalty to the brand [60]. In their respective research, Yunpeng and Khan [61] and Murshed et al. [62] have identified that brand trust is positively associated with brand loyalty. More specifically, the findings show that brand trust significantly affects brand loyalty [63]. Furthermore, the indirect effects of corporate social responsibility on brand loyalty through trust in the brand has been confirmed [64]. For their part, Afiftama and Nasir [65] prove, based on research carried out on a sample of 200 respondents who had used Baberking haircut services in Solo Raya, that brand trust significantly and positively affects brand loyalty. Hence, the fifth hypothesis is the following statement:
H5. 
Trust in tourism destinations as a brand significantly affects tourism destination loyalty.

3. Conceptual Model Proposal

Based on earlier discussions and the assumptions made above, Figure 1 was developed.

4. Methods

4.1. Sample and Measurement Scale

After conducting a thorough review of related studies, a pre-tested scale was adopted to test visitors’ perception of destination image and social influence and their influences on brand loyalty via brand trust. The questionnaire was translated into four languages: French, German, English and Russian. Each item on the scales was scored using the Likert scale [66,67], with respondent’s opinions measured from 1 to 5 as follows: ‘Strongly Disagree = 1’, “Disagree = 2”, “Neutral = 3”, “Agree = 4” and “Strongly Agree = 5”. The mean values ranged from 3.67 to 4.02, with standard deviation ranging from 1.209 to 1.256. This indicates that the data are distributed normally [68]. The distribution of the questionnaire was carried out electronically, to benefit the exploratory phase and to refine the scales. Data were collected in the months of May and June 2024 after the obtaining of ethical approval from the university committee.
Choosing appropriate research scales is a challenging task that has a critical role in ensuring the smooth progress of a project. The reliability and validity of the chosen scales are directly proportional to the richness and significance of the information they provide. In this section, the measurement scales specific to the constructs that are being researched are presented (see Table 1). All the factors were checked to fit with the study requirements. The scales were drawn from previous studies: the brand loyalty scale was drawn from Mrad and Cui [69], the brand trust scale from Jain et al., [70], the social influence scale from Bearden et al. [71] and the destination image scale from Byon and Zhang [72] (see Table 1).

4.2. Purification of the Scales

The original scale was checked to ensure its fit with the study. The unidimensionality of all variables was ensured for “brand loyalty, brand trust, social influence and destination image”, with the identification of single component values of 70.153%, 77.35%, 65.72% and 66.113%, respectively, of the total variance being explained. In addition, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) index values were between 0.733 and 0.901. These results confirmed that the scale items are appropriate for factorial analysis. The Cronbach Alpha result exceeded 0.903; hence, it was excellent [73]. More specifically, the respective Alpha values for brand loyalty (BL), brand trust (BT), social influence (SI) and destination image (DI) are (0.925, 0.910, 0.903, 0.951). Since the p-value specific to the four main factors is close to zero, the null hypothesis was rejected. The principal component analysis (PCA) made it possible to exclude some items that are uncertainly linked to the destination image, seen in Appendix A (DI15, DI19, DI21, DI24, DI25, DI26).

5. Results

5.1. Sample Profile

With regard to the profile of the sample (Table 2), there was slightly more participation from female (53%) than male (47%) participants. The majority of respondents were single (63%) and the rest (37%) were married. There were a variety of nationalities of respondents, from France (32%), Russia (29%), Germany (16%), and other nations (23%). The vast majority of visitors were between 20 years and 50 years old (87%). With regard to their income, it varied between EUR 1000 (or equivalent) and over EUR 3000 per month. Visitors often visited Tozeur with others, e.g., friends (36%), family (23%), or partners (8%), while (33%) visited this destination alone. More than half of respondents (56%) heard about Tozeur from others (see Table 2).

5.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

CFA was conducted to evaluate the scale’s fitness. The first-order confirmatory factor analysis results demonstrated an excellent fit (Table 3). The Chi2 ratio was reported based on the degree of freedom x2/ddl (2.555). This shows a satisfactory result, as it was less than 3. All indices’ results were appropriate: “i.e., root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.033, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.973, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.987, and comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.988”. The results of the first-order CFA met the recommended indices and values in the literature [74]. In addition, skewness and kurtosis values were measured to validate the distribution of the data. The results of skewness and kurtosis values confirmed no violation of the normality assumption [75]. Hence, it could be argued that the data are fairly distributed.
The data shown in Table 4 prove that convergent validity is acceptable for main factors [76]. Both CR and AVE values were checked, which were correspondingly above 0.7 and 0.5. Discriminant validity was tested by ensuring that the square root of the AVE for every main factor was greater than the correlations it shared with other variables (see Table 4 and Table 5). The discriminant validity in Table 4 was confirmed for all four main factors.

5.3. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Results

SEM was undertaken to examine the influences of DI and SI on BL through BT. The results showed fit the data (see Table 6 and Figure 2). The research hypotheses were examined and confirmed (Table 6, Figure 2). The results confirmed that DI significantly affects BT (β = +0.924, p < 0.001 ***) (RQ1 and H1) and significantly affects BL (β = +0.481, p < 0.01 **) (RQ1 and H2). However, SI significantly affects BT (β = +0.274, p < 0.001 ***) (RQ2 and H3) and significantly affects BL (β = +0.234, p < 0.001 ***) (RQ2 and H4). The results showed that BT significantly affects the BL (β = +0.461, p < 0.01 **) (RQ3 and H5). As for the robustness of the structural model, R2 was checked, and the result was R2 = 0.880. Hence, it could be argued that DI, SI, and BT explain around 88% of the variance in BL.
For the sake of methodological rigor, Baron and Kenny’s [77] suggestion was used to verify and approve the mediation influence of BT in the relationship between DI and BL, on the one hand, and on the other, its role in the link that relates SI to BL through four main steps. First, the link between DI and BL and SI and BL has to be significant in order to guarantee that there is a possible mediation to affect. The results showed that DI significantly affects BL (β = +0.481, p = 0.003). The same test was performed for the link between SI and BL, showing that SI significantly affects BL (β = +0.234, p < 0.001). The second step is to demonstrate that DI and SI both have a significant effect on the mediator, in this case BT. Indeed, the model shows that DI and SI, respectively, significantly affect BT (β = +0.924, p < 0.001), (β = +0.274, p < 0.001). The third step is checking the relationship between the mediation factor and BL. The findings show that BT significantly affects BL (β = +0.461, p = 0.008), and regressed with respect to BT and DI (β = 0.153, p < 0.001, t = 1.661), and secondly, with respect to BT and SI (β = 0.325, p < 0.001, t = 3.663). While controlling the latter, the relationship between the pair “BT—DI” as well as the pair “BT—SI”, in our case, was verified. The last step is checking the nature of BT’s mediation of the indirect relationship between DI and BL (see Table 7) and between SI and BL (see Table 7). Applying the bootstrapping technique, offered to us by the AMOS, as Table 7 shows, the relationship between DI and BL stayed significant even after the presentation of BT as a mediator (β = 0.347, p = 0.012 < 0.05) (RQ4 and H2a). Therefore, it can be concluded that BT is partially mediated between DI and BL. After linear regression, the Sobel test on the t-values (ta = 9.054, tb = 8.864) gives us a Z-value equal to ≈6.33390125 > 1.96 with a p-value of 0.000, i.e., below 0.01. According to Table 7, and following the same approach, the relationship also remained significant between SI and BL after introducing BT as a mediating variable (β = 0.095, p = 0.012 < 0.05) (RQ4 and H4a). Therefore, mediation by BT is also partial between SI and BL. Moreover, after linear regression, the Sobel test concerning the following t values (ta = 12.468, tb = 8.573) gives us a Z-value equal to ≈7.06418077 > 1.96 with a p-value of 0.000, i.e., less than 0.01.

6. Discussion and Implications

This research investigates the roles of destination image (DI) and social influence (SI) in building brand loyalty (BL) through brand trust (BT). Data were collected from a sample of 1405 travelers who had visited Tunisia, with a special focus on the Tozeur region. The research showed that DI significantly correlated with BT (β = +0.924, p < 0.001), similar to the findings of Chen and Phou [30] and Poan and Verin [33] who have shown that destination image and reputation significantly affect brand trust. These findings mean that when destination image is properly developed, it significantly contributes to building brand trust among the visitors of this destination. The study confirmed that SI significantly affects BT (β = +0.274, p < 0.001), which is consistent with those by Ruiz-Mafe et al. [58] and Hoang et al., [59]. This means that families and peers could significantly contribute to brand trust among the visitors of a destination. Hence, promoting positive social influences regarding a destination could increase the creation of brand trust for the destination. The study demonstrated that DI significantly affects BL (β = 0.481, p < 0.005), supporting the findings of Chia and Qu [40], Ozturk and Qu [41], and Sobaih et al. [78]. This confirms that superior destination image has the ability to have a direct effect on creation of brand loyalty among visitors of the destination. Furthermore, SI significantly affects BL (β = 0.234, p < 0.001). This result is line with the respective studies by Ruiz-Mafe et al. [58] and Hoang et al. [59]. Again, this confirms that social influence created by friends, family members, and peers has ability to have a direct effect on the creation of brand loyalty among visitors of a destination. Additionally, a significant and positive effect BT on BL (β = 0.461, p < 0.05) was found. This result is in agreement with recent research by Nurcahyani and Prabowo, [63], Rasoolimanesh et al. [64], and Afiftama and Nasir [65]. This reflects the role of brand trust in enhancing brand loyalty among visitors to a destination, as was confirmed among visitors of Tozeur.
Concerning the mediation effect of brand trust, the results revealed that the link between DI and BL still stay significant even after adding brand trust as a mediator (β = 0.347, p = 0.012 < 0.05). This suggests that brand trust has a partial mediation influence on the relationship between destination image and brand loyalty among visitors of a destination. Similarly, introducing brand trust as a mediator is stemmed in a significant relationship between SI and BL (β = 0.095, p = 0.012 < 0.05). This highlights the significant effect of brand trust, with a direct effect of brand loyalty among visitors of a destination, as well as its role in mediating the effect of destination image on brand loyalty among visitors of a destination. Brand trust that was built from superior destination image has a mediating role between destination image and brand loyalty among visitors of a destination. Furthermore, our study concludes that brand trust is also a partial mediator of the relationship between social influence and brand loyalty among visitors of a destination. These results underline the importance of brand trust in shaping the relationships that link destination image, on the one hand, and social influence, on the other, to brand loyalty among visitors of the destination.

Implications of the Study

It must be said that the sum total of knowledge about a destination is one of the most important foundations on which tourists’ own evaluations are based [79]. In the same vein, the affective dimension (generating stimulating feelings towards a product/service) is an inherent stage of the cognitive dimension (making the product/service known). This two-dimensional succession will give rise to the cognitive dimension, or the attitude of asking for the same destination again [80]. In this respect, decision-makers, who invest in presumably creative advertising or even catchy and obsolete propaganda, should hold the attention of potential tourists to a destination brand fleetingly. This is important for radically adapting their strategy and focusing more on knowledge of the destination with the aim of raising awareness in order to create an unshakeable link between tourists or even prospective tourists and the destination brand. This link will give rise to a brand of trust and loyalty for the destination, which is crucial of the success of such a destination in the long run. The results of current research align with the two studies carried out by Malhotra [81] and Prayag [82], which state that characteristics, such as those of cultural and tourist attractions (in our case, the setting of scenes from the Star Wars saga), should be properly developed to influence tourist loyalty to the destination. For this reason, decision-makers should be more cautious about the concept of destination loyalty. This is because it is dependent on the set of perceptions formulated by tourists regarding the place and its characteristics, and above all by the way in which prospective tourists gather information from those who have already visited the destination, hence, the undeniable power of word of mouth [83].
In addition, Tozeur’s political decision-makers and urban tourism stakeholders should adopt marketing strategies that focus on personalized customer experience and active management of the destination’s reputation. Personalizing the tourism experience, for example, by offering tailor-made services adapted to the expectations of each customer segment, is becoming essential to meet the growing demands of visitors. At the same time, it is essential to communicate a consistent and authentic brand image, highlighting Tozeur’s unique assets, such as its desert landscapes, cultural heritage, and traditions, across all communication channels. This consistency in communication strengthens visitor attachment and their desire to return. Furthermore, the cultural and tourist heritage associated with the Star Wars saga is a valuable asset for Tozeur. It would be a good idea to continue to exploit this potential by organizing themed events around this universe, creating immersive experiences for fans and developing attractive derivative products. By making the most of this heritage, Tozeur can stand out on the world stage, attract a varied public, and win the loyalty of a new generation of tourists. These actions, combined with a regular assessment of customer satisfaction and the adjustment of strategies in line with the results, will strengthen Tozeur’s competitiveness in the face of growing international competition and ensure the sustainable development of its tourism business.
This study’s findings add to the body of studies on tourism destination image and its long-term development, particularly in relation to the role of enhancing brand trust in linking the relationship between destination image, social influence, and brand loyalty among tourists of this destination. The study confirmed the partial mediation effect of brand trust in these discussed relationships. As such an important variable, “brand trust” should be given more attention not only from scholars, but also from destination image development parties and marketing firms for ensuring brand loyalty among visitors to this destination.

7. Conclusions

This study had four main research questions and five main research hypotheses. The results answered all research questions and supported all research hypotheses. More specifically, the study revealed a significant positive link between destination image, social influence, and tourist loyalty. Additionally, the study also highlighted the crucial role of brand trust (BT) as a mediator in the above discussed relationships. A positive destination image has a direct and powerful impact on visitor confidence, encouraging long-term loyalty. Similarly, social influence, whether it comes from friends or social networks, plays an essential role in reinforcing this trust. These results show that brand trust acts as a strategic lever that amplifies the impact of the destination’s image and social influence on tourist loyalty, making BT a key element in developing a lasting relationship with visitors.
This research is not without its limitations. Indeed, several other variables could be included in the model and would thus enrich the results of the study. It would be very interesting in future works to add other variables, allowing for a better understanding of the relationships between the concepts of the model, i.e., authenticity, territorial marketing, and the affective dimension of the destination image.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.E.E.S., N.A., R.B. and H.G.; methodology, A.E.E.S. and H.G.; software, H.G.; validation, R.B., A.E.E.S. and H.G.; formal analysis, H.G.; investigation, R.B. and H.G.; resources, A.E.E.S.; data curation, A.E.E.S.; writing—original draft preparation A.E.E.S., N.A., R.B. and H.G.; writing—review and editing, A.E.E.S.; visualization, A.E.E.S.; project administration, A.E.E.S.; funding acquisition, A.E.E.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, grant number KFU241902. The author extends the appreciation to the Deanship of Postgraduate Studies and Scientific Research at Majmaah University for funding this research work through the project number (R-2025-05).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Deanship of Scientific Research Ethical Committee, King Faisal University (project number: KFU241902, date of approval: 1 May 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon request from the corresponding authors following approval from the Ethical Committee.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. Original Measurement Scale

Brand loyalty
“BL1—I’ll visit this city next time”
“BL2—I intend to visit this city”
“BL3—I am attached to this city”
“BL4—I would be prepared to pay a higher price for this city than to visit others”
Brand trust
“BT5—I have trust in this city”
“BT6—I trust this city”
“BT7—I trust the people in this city”
“BT8—This city is safe”
Social influence
“SI9—When I visit a city, I generally choose the one I think others will approve of.”
“SI10—I choose the cities I visit on the basis of what others expect of me”
“SI11—I acquire a sense of belonging by visiting the same cities that others have visited.”
“SI12—If I want to be like someone, I often try to visit the same places as them.”
Cognitive image
Natural Attractions
“DI13—Tozeur has sufficient natural parks.”
“DI14—Tozeur has sufficient natural beauty areas”
“DI15—Tozeur has a sufficient number of historical sites and museums”
General infrastructure
“DI16—Tozeur has quality accommodation facilities”
“DI17—Tozeur has an adequate tourism/tourist information network”
“DI18—Tozeur has standard hygiene and cleanliness conditions”
Atmosphere
“DI19—Tozeur has beautiful beaches”
“DI20—Tozeur has an attractive night life”
“DI21—Tozeur has adequate sports and entertainment areas”
Social Environment
“DI22—The people of Tozeur are friendly and helpful”
“DI23—Tozeur is generally a safe city”
Value for Money
“DI24—Accommodation prices in Tozeur are reasonable”
“DI25—Tozeur is an affordable city”
“DI26—I can get value for the money I pay in Tozeur for a holiday”

References

  1. Carpentier, I.; Gana, A. Les oasis du Sud tunisien, le patrimoine comme levier du développement territorial? Rev. Des Régions Arid. 2012, 28, 225–238. [Google Scholar]
  2. Mekki, I.; Ferchichi, I.; Taouajouti, N.; Faysse, N.; Zairi, A. Oasis extension trajectories in Kebili territory, Southern Tunisia: Drivers of development and actors’ discourse. New Medit 2022, 85–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Samet, C. Les Mille et un Contes et Récits de Tozeur: Ou L’aventure du Sud Tunisien; L’harmattan: Paris, France, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ozduran, A.; Saydam, M.B.; Eluwole, K.K.; Mertens, E.U. Work-family conflict, subjective wellbeing, burnout, and their effects on presenteeism. Serv. Ind. J. 2023, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kusumah, E.P.; Wahyudin, N. Sporting event quality: Destination image, tourist satisfaction, and destination loyalty. Event Manag. 2024, 28, 59–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Morgan, N.J.; Pritchard, A.; Piggot, R. Destination Branding and the Role of the Stakeholders: The Case of New Zealand. J. Vacat. Mark. 2003, 9, 285–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jiménez-Barreto, J.; Rubio, N.; Campo, S. Destination Brand Authenticity: What an Experiential Simulacrum! A Multigroup Analysis of Its Antecedents and Outcomes Through Official Online Platforms. Tour. Manag. 2020, 77, 104022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mostafa, R.B.; Kasamani, T. Brand Experience and Brand Loyalty: Is It a Matter of Emotions? Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2021, 33, 1033–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Junarta, H.; Nuryakin, N.; Fatmawati, I. The influence of heritage image, destination image, and experiential quality on behavioural intentions of foreign tourists. JDM J. Din. Manaj. 2021, 12, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liu, C.-H.; Jiang, J.-F.; Gan, B. The antecedent and consequence behaviour of sustainable tourism: Integrating the concepts of marketing strategy and destination image. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2021, 26, 829–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jorge, F.; Losada, N.; Teixeira, M.-S. Behavioural intentions through virtual reality from a destination image perspective. J. Place Manag. Dev. 2023, 16, 347–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Saydam, M.B.; Arıcı, O.; Ünür, M.; Arasli, H. Identifying unique features of Norway destination image: Evidence from user-generated content. Uluslararası Türk Dünyası Tur. Araştırmaları Derg. 2024, 9, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yilmaz, Y.; Yilmaz, Y. Pre-and post-trip antecedents of destination image for non-visitors and visitors: A literature review. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2020, 22, 518–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hsu, C.; Cai, L.A. Brand Knowledge, Trust and Loyalty—A Conceptual Model of Destination Branding. In International CHRIE Conference-Refereed Track; San Francisco, CA, USA; 2009; p. 12. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14394/42549 (accessed on 1 September 2024).
  15. Kelman, H.C. Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude change. J. Confl. Resolut. 1958, 2, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gharbi, H.; Aliane, N.; Al Falah, K.A.; Sobaih, A.E.E. You Really Affect Me: The Role of Social Influence in the Relationship between Procedural Justice and Turnover Intention. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Aliane, N.; Gharbi, H. Impact of Social Influence on Social Loafing in the Tunisian Hotel Sector: Role of Turnover Intention as a Mediator. Przestrz. Społeczna Soc. Space 2023, 23, 405–428. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gharbi, H.; Touzi, W.; Aliane, N. Exploring the relationship between procedural justice and turnover intention: The mediating effects of social influence and psychological Safety. J. Mod. Proj. Manag. 2023, 11, 98–113. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ruane, L.; Wallace, E. Brand tribalism and self-expressive brands: Social influences and brand outcomes. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2015, 24, 333–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Abubakar, A.M.; Ilkan, M.; Sahin, P. EWOM, eReferral and gender in the virtual community. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2016, 34, 692–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hanum, M.S.; Rofiaty, R. Analyzing the Impact of Word of Mouth and Experience Quality on School Choice Decision Through Perceived Value and Brand Image. J. Apl. Manaj. 2020, 18, 326–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. See-To, E.; Ho, K. Value co-creation and purchase intention in social network sites: The role of electronic Word-of-Mouth and trust—A theoretical analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 31, 182–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ozuem, W.; Willis, M.; Howell, K.; Lancaster, G.; Ng, R. Determinants of online brand communities’ and millennials’ characteristics: A social influence perspective. Psychol. Mark. 2021, 38, 794–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Helal, G.; Ozuem, W.; Lancaster, G. Social media brand perceptions of millennials. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2018, 46, 977–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chin, T.A. Determinants of Brand Image and Their Impacts on Purchase Intention of Grab. 2018. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/38585232/Determinants of Brand Image and their Impacts on Purchase Intention of Grab (accessed on 1 September 2024).
  26. Chaudhuri, A.; Holbrook, M.B. The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. J. Mark. 2001, 65, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zheng, D.; Liu, S.; Lu, W. Do you trust digital health pass? Understanding tourists’ responses toward using health QR codes in pandemic travel. J. China Tour. Res. 2023, 19, 31–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jenkins, O.H. Understanding and Measuring Tourist Destination Images. Int. J. Tour. Res. 1999, 1, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Guo, Y.; Yu, M.; Zhao, Y. Impact of destination advertising on tourists’ visit intention: The influence of self-congruence, self-confidence, and destination reputation. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2024, 31, 100852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chen, C.F.; Phou, S. A closer look at destination: Image, personality, relationship and loyalty. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Molinillo-Jiménez, S.; Japutra, A.; Ekinci, Y. Building brand credibility: The role of involvement, identification, reputation and attachment. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 64, 102819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Artigas, E.M.; Yrigoyen, C.C.; Moraga, E.T.; Villalón, C.B. Determinants of trust towards tourist destinations. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2017, 6, 327–334. [Google Scholar]
  33. Poan, R.; Verin, C.Y. The impact of Islamic tourism on the satisfaction of local tourists. J. Islam. Mark. 2024, 15, 1965–1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Olaoke, R.O.; Bayighomog, S.W.; Tümer, M. Nonlinear Relationship between Bra nd Experience and Customer Satisfaction in the Hospitality Sector: An Exploratory Study. J. Brand Manag. 2021, 28, 643–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Park, J.; Hong, E.; Park, Y. Toward a New Business Model of Retail Industry: The Role of Brand Experience and Brand Authenticity. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 74, 103426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Tarigan, M.I.; Silalahi, E.; Tinambunan, A.P.; Margery, E.; Lusiah, L. Impact of Destination Brand Experience to Increase Destination Brand Loyalty. J. Apl. Manaj. 2024, 22, 219–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Liang, B. How Brand Experience, Satisfac tion, Trust, and Commitment Affect Loyal ty: A Reexamination and Reconciliation. Ital. J. Mark. 2022, 2022, 203–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shafiee, M.; Tabaeeian, R.; Tavakoli, H. Revisit and WOM: An empirical research in Foursquare social media. In Proceedings of the 2016 10th International Conference on e-Commerce in Developing Countries: With Focus on e-Tourism (ECDC), Isfahan, Iran, 15–16 April 2016; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  39. Aldaihani, F.M.F.; Ali, N.A.B. Impact of Electronic Customer Relationship Management on Customers Satisfaction of the Five Stars Hotels in Kuwait. Glob. J. Manag. Bus. Res. 2018, 18, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  40. Chia, G.Q.C.; Qu, H. Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. J. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 624–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ozturk, A.B.; Qu, H. The impact of destination images on tourists’ perceived value, expectations, and loyalty. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2008, 9, 275–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Luhtanen, R.; Crocker, J. A collective SE scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 18, 302–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rubin, M.; Hewstone, M. Social identity theory’s SE hypothesis: A review and some suggestions for clarification. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 1998, 2, 40–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Vogel, E.A.; Rose, J.P.; Roberts, L.R.; Eckles, K. Social comparison, social media, and SE. Psychol. Pop. Media Cult. 2014, 3, 206–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wu, C.-h. The relationship between attachment style and self-concept clarity: The mediation effect of SE. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2009, 47, 42–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Venkatesh, V.; Speier, C.; Morris, M.G. User acceptance enablers in individual decision making about technology: Toward an integrated model. Decis. Sci. 2002, 33, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Merton, R.K.; Kitt, A.S. Reference groups. In Continuities in Social Research, Studies in the Scope and Method of “The American Soldier”; Merton, R.K., Lazarsfeld, P.F., Eds.; Free Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1950. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lazarsfeld, P.F.; Merton, R.K. Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In Freedom and Control in Modern Society; Berger, M., Ed.; Van Nostrand: New York, NY, USA, 1954; pp. 18–66. [Google Scholar]
  49. Merton, R.K. Éléments de Théorie et de Méthode Sociologique; trad. de l’anglais par H. Mendras; Plon: Paris, France, 1965. [Google Scholar]
  50. Bourdon, J. Influence Personnelle. Publictionnaire. Dictionnaire Encyclopédique et Critique des Publics. 2016. Mis en Ligne le. Available online: http://publictionnaire.huma-num.fr/notice/influence-personnelle/ (accessed on 1 September 2024).
  51. Lazarsfeld, P.F.; Berelson, B.; Gaudet, H. The People’s choice. In How the Voter Makes up His Mind in A Presidential Campaign; Duell, Sloan & Pearce: New York, NY, USA, 1944. [Google Scholar]
  52. Lukasik, S. Reformulation de la Figure du Leader D’opinion dans la Réception de L’information des Jeunes via les Réseaux Sociaux Numériques. Actes des Doctorales de la SFSIC 2019, Mulhouse. 2019. Available online: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02415008 (accessed on 1 September 2024).
  53. Katz, E.; Lazarsfeld, P.F. Influence Personnelle: Ce que les Gens Font des Medias; trad. de l’anglais (États-Unis) par D. Cefaï, Paris, A; Colin/Institut National de L’audiovisuel: Paris, France, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  54. Moscovici, S. Psychologie Sociale des Relations à Autrui; Éditions Nathan: Paris, France, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  55. San, T.T.H. Brand Trust and Consumer Purchasing Behaviour of Next Generation Products. Ph.D. Thesis, Yangon University of Economics, Yangon, Myanmar, December 2019. [Google Scholar]
  56. Festinger, L. A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Hum. Relat. 1954, 7, 117–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Labrecque, L.I.; Krishen, A.S.; Grzeskowiak, S. Exploring social motivations for brand loyalty: Conformity versus escapism. J. Brand Manag. 2011, 18, 457–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ruiz-Mafe, C.; Tronch, J.; Sanz-Blas, S. The role of emotions and social influences on consumer loyalty towards online travel communities. J. Serv. Theory Pract. 2016, 26, 534–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hoang, D.S.; Nguyen, T.N.D.; Pham, M. Factors affecting ecotourism loyalty with the moderating role of social influence-Empirical evidence in Vietnam. GeoJournal Tour. Geosites 2022, 43, 946–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Nawaz, N.; Usman, A. What makes customers brand loyal: A study on telecommunication sector of Pakistan. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2011, 2, 213–221. [Google Scholar]
  61. Yunpeng, S.; Khan, Y.A. Understanding the Effect of Online Brand Experience on Customer Satisfaction in China: A Me diating Role of Brand Familiarity. Curr. Psychol. 2023, 42, 3888–3903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Murshed, F.; Dwivedi, A.; Nayeem, T. Brand Authenticity Building Effect of Brand Experience and Downstream Effects. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2023, 32, 1032–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Nurcahyani, D.I.; Prabowo, B. Pengaruh Brand Awareness, Brand Image, dan Brand Trust tehadap Brand Loyalty Pengguna Skincare Skintific: Studi Pada Pelanggan Moisturizer Skintific Melalui E-Commerce Shopee di Wilayah Surabaya. Al-Kharaj J. Ekon. Keuang. Bisnis Syariah 2024, 6, 3753–3766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Tan, P.L.; Nejati, M.; Shafaei, A. Corporate social responsibility and brand loyalty in private higher education: Mediation assessment of brand reputation and trust. J. Mark. High. Educ. 2024, 34, 156–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Afiftama, I.; Nasir, M. The Effect of Brand Image, Brand Trust and Customer Experience on Brand Loyalty. J. Ilm. Manaj. Kesatuan 2024, 12, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Likert, R. New Patterns of Management; McGrow-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1961. [Google Scholar]
  67. Likert, R. The Human Organization: Its Management and Value; McGrow-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
  68. Bryman, A.; Cramer, D. Quantitative Data Analysis with IBM SPSS (21): A Guide for Social Scientists; Rutledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  69. Mrad, M.; Cui, C. Brand addiction: Conceptualization and scale development. Eur. J. Mark. 2017, 51, 1938–1960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Jain, N.K.; Kamboj, S.; Kumar, V.; Rahman, Z. Examining consumer-brand relationships on social media platforms. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2018, 36, 63–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Bearden, W.O.; Netemeyer, R.G.; Teel, J.E. Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. J. Consum. Res. 1989, 15, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Byon, K.K.; Zhang, J.J. Development of a scale measuring destination image. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2010, 28, 508–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory; Mc Graw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  74. Roussel, P.; Durrieu, F.; Campoy, E.; El Akremi, A. Méthodes d’Équations Structurelles: Recherche et Applications en Gestion; Economica: Paris, France, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  75. Kline, P. A Handbook of Test Construction (Psychology Revivals): Introduction to Psychometric Design; Routledge: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  76. Hair, J.F.; Gabriel, M.; Patel, V. AMOS covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM): Guidelines on its application as a marketing research tool. Braz. J. Mark. 2014, 13, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sobaih AE, E.; Gharbi, H.; Zaiem, I.; Aliane, N. The Impact of Agrotourism Destination Image on Tourist’s Loyalty in Zaghouan, Tunisia: Moderating Role of Visit’s Experience. Geo J. Tour. Geosites 2024, 56, 1700–1707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sönmez, S.; Sirakaya, E. A distorted destination image? The case of Turkey. J. Travel Res. 2002, 41, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Gartner, W.C. Tourism Development: Principles, Processes, and Policies; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  81. Malhotra, N. Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation; Perason Education: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  82. Prayag, G. Image, Satisfaction and Loyalty—The Case of Cape Town. Anatolia Int. J. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2008, 19, 205–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Becker, J.M.; Völckner, F.; Sattler, H. How Important Is Word of Mouth? Development, Validation, and Application of a Scale. J. Interact. Mark. 2024, 59, 273–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Societies 15 00009 g001
Figure 1. The research model.
Figure 1. The research model.
Societies 15 00009 g001
Societies 15 00009 g002
Figure 2. The Structural Model.
Figure 2. The Structural Model.
Societies 15 00009 g002
Table 1. Sources measurement scale (see Appendx A for full-scale items).
Table 1. Sources measurement scale (see Appendx A for full-scale items).
VariablesNumber of ItemsSources
Brand loyalty4[69]
Brand trust4[70]
Social influence4[71]
Destination image14[72]
Table 2. Demographic characteristics.
Table 2. Demographic characteristics.
ItemsClassNumber%
GenderMale65447
Female75153
Marital statusMarried51936.94
Single88663.06
NationalityFrench45532.38
German22115.73
Russian40128.54
Others32823.35
Age<20 years755.34
20–30 years36626.05
31–40 years56139.93
40–50 years29821.21
>50 years1057.47
Income levelEUR < 1000 52337.22
EUR 1001–200041329.40
EUR 2001–300020914.87
EUR > 3000 26018.51
If you have already visited Tozeur or if you are planning to do so one day, you will be on your own or accompanied by a friend.Alone45732.53
Friend50936.23
Family33023.49
Partner1097.75
How did you hear about Tozeur?Individually62344.34
Through another78255.66
Total 1405100%
Table 3. Descriptive results.
Table 3. Descriptive results.
CodeMinimumMaximumMeanStandard DeviationSkewnessKurtosis
Brand Loyalty
BL1154.001.233−1.1810.360
BL2154.021.237−1.2160.416
BL3153.961.259−1.1630.307
BL4153.951.216−1.1070.257
Brand Trust
BT5153.951.251−1.1440.272
BT6153.901.230−1.0970.266
BT7153.731.213−0.9250.058
BT8153.841.228−1.0800.290
Social Influence
SI9153.741.218−0.9850.159
SI10153.681.234−0.9450.070
SI11153.681.264−0.9520.013
SI12153.671.252−0.9330.012
Destination Image
DI13153.671.229−1.0150.199
DI14153.891.256−1.0970.220
DI16153.861.239−1.0290.124
DI17154.011.234−1.2190.462
DI18153.981.246−1.2320.530
DI20153.991.245−1.1800.357
DI22154.011.249−1.3090.666
DI23153.931.209−1.0860.280
Model fit: “(χ2 (106, N = 1405) = 270.83 p < 0.001, normed χ2 = 2555, RMSEA = 0.033, SRMR = 0.026, CFI = 0.988, TLI = 0.987, NFI = 0.973, IFI = 0.988, 0.000 p < 0.01”.
Table 4. Scale validity.
Table 4. Scale validity.
Factors and ItemsS. LCRAVEMSVASV1234
1—Brand Loyalty (α = 0.925) 0.8420.5730.8310.830.7560.912 **0.891 **0.911 **
BL10.83
BL20.77
BL30.72
BL40.70
2—Brand Trust (α = 0.910) 0.8120.5200.8370.8340.912 **0.7210.88 **0.915 **
BT50.69
BT60.71
BT70.79
BT80.68
3—Social Influence (α = 0.903) 0.8010.5020.7930.7690.891 **0.88 **0.7080.895 **
SI90.77
SI100.69
SI110.67
SI120.67
4—Destination Image (α = 0.951) 0.8910.5060.8370.8330.911 **0.915 **0.895 **0.711
DI130.81
DI140.70
DI160.80
DI170.72
DI180.64
DI200.71
DI220.64
DI230.65
Note: SL = Standard loading from the first-order model; CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; MSV = Maximum Shared Value; ASV = Average Shared Value; Bold values are the square roots of AVEs; ** = p < 0.01.
Table 5. Correlations (developed by AMOS).
Table 5. Correlations (developed by AMOS).
DESIMSOCINFBRATRUBRALOY
DESIMPearson Correlation1
Sig. (2-tailed)
N1405
SOCINFPearson Correlation0.895 **1
Sig. (2-tailed)0.000
N14051405
BRATRUPearson Correlation0.915 **0.880 **1
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0000.000
N140514051405
BRALOYPearson Correlation0.911 **0.891 **0.912 **1
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0000.0000.000
N1405140514051405
Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 6. Result of Hypotheses.
Table 6. Result of Hypotheses.
(β)p(t-Value)R2Results
H1—Destination Image → Brand Trust0.924***17.221 Supported
H2—Destination Image → Brand Loyalty0.4810.0032.946 Supported
H3—Social Influence → Brand Trust0.274***8.864 Supported
H4—Social Influence → Brand Loyalty0.234***4.280 Supported
H5—Brand Trust → Brand Loyalty0.4610.0082.670 Supported
Brand Loyalty (regression) 0.880
Brand Loyalty on Destination Image and Brand Trust 0.869
Brand Loyalty on Social Influence and Brand Trust 0.867
Model fit: (χ2 (111, N = 1405) = 255.3; p < 0.001, normed χ2 = 2.3; RMSEA = 0.03; SRMR = 0.0354; CFI = 0.952; TLI = 0.929; NFI = 0.934; IFI = 0.952; *** p < 0.001.
Table 7. Mediation type.
Table 7. Mediation type.
HypothesesEstimateLowerUpperpMediation
H2a—DI → BT → BL0.3470.0870.8150.0120.012 < 0.05
Partial Mediation
H4a—SI → BT → BL0.0950.0210.2060.0120.012 < 0.05
Partial Mediation
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sobaih, A.E.E.; Gharbi, H.; Brini, R.; Aliane, N. Exploring the Mediation Effect of Brand Trust on the Link Between Tourism Destination Image, Social Influence and Brand Loyalty. Societies 2025, 15, 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010009

AMA Style

Sobaih AEE, Gharbi H, Brini R, Aliane N. Exploring the Mediation Effect of Brand Trust on the Link Between Tourism Destination Image, Social Influence and Brand Loyalty. Societies. 2025; 15(1):9. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010009

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sobaih, Abu Elnasr E., Hassane Gharbi, Riadh Brini, and Nadir Aliane. 2025. "Exploring the Mediation Effect of Brand Trust on the Link Between Tourism Destination Image, Social Influence and Brand Loyalty" Societies 15, no. 1: 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010009

APA Style

Sobaih, A. E. E., Gharbi, H., Brini, R., & Aliane, N. (2025). Exploring the Mediation Effect of Brand Trust on the Link Between Tourism Destination Image, Social Influence and Brand Loyalty. Societies, 15(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010009

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop