The Relationship Between Risk Perception, Subjective Happiness and Tourists' Revisit Intention in Vietnam - A Case Study in Ho Chi Minh City

Bootstrap test results with sample size 2000 Model Fit Summary

CMIN

Model

NPAR	CMIN	DF	P	CMIN/DF
Default model	49	262,838	161	.000	1,633
Saturated model	210	.000	0
Independence model	20	9501.916	190	.000	50,010

Maybe you are interested!

The Relationship Between Risk Perception, Subjective Happiness and Tourists' Revisit Intention in Vietnam - A Case Study in Ho Chi Minh City - 30
The relationship between travel motivation, destination image and destination choice - A case study of Binh Dinh province tourism destination - 1
Factors affecting the cooperative relationship of travel companies with suppliers in the tourism supply chain - 1
The relationship between travel motivation, destination image and destination choice - A case study of Binh Dinh province tourism destination - 2
Risk management in domestic travel business at domestic tourism sector Saigontourist Travel Service Company Limited 1681114527 - 1

RMR, GFI

Model

RMR	GFI	AGFI	PGFI
Default model	.033	.964	.953	.739
Saturated model	.000	1,000
Independence model	.272	.271	.194	.245

Baseline Comparisons

Model

NFI Delta1	RFI rho1	IFI Delta2	TLI rho2	CFI
Default model	.972	.967	.989	.987	.989
Saturated model	1,000		1,000		1,000
Independence model	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000

Parsimony-Adjusted Measures

Model

PRACTICE	PNFI	PCFI
Default model	.847	.824	.838
Saturated model	.000	.000	.000
Independence model	1,000	.000	.000

NCP

Model

NCP	LO 90	HI 90
Default model	101,838	61,323	150,259
Saturated model	.000	.000	.000
Independence model	9311.916	8996.019	9634.134

FMIN

Model

FMIN	F0	LO 90	HI 90
Default model	.371	.144	.086	.212
Saturated model	.000	.000	.000	.000
Independence model	13,402	13,134	12,688	13,588

RMSEA

Model

RMSEA	LO 90	HI 90	PCLOSE
Default model	.030	.023	.036	1,000
Independence model	.263	.258	.267	.000

AIC

Model

AIC	BCC	BIC	CAIC
Default model	360,838	363,829	584,536	633,536
Saturated model	420,000	432,820	1378.706	1588.706
Independence model	9541.916	9543.137	9633.222	9653.222

ECVI

Model

ECVI	LO 90	HI 90	MECVI
Default model	.509	.452	.577	.513
Saturated model	.592	.592	.592	.610
Independence model	13,458	13,013	13,913	13,460

HOELTER

Model

HOELTER HOELTER

.05 .01

Default model

Independence model

517 555

17 18

Minimization:

.046
Miscellaneous:	1,532
Bootstrap:	4,977
Total: ESTIMATE	6.555

Estimate
NT	<---	CB	-.356
HP	<---	CB	.302
HP	<---	NT	-.339
YD	<---	NT	-.285
YD	<---	HP	.309
YD3	<---	YD	.859
YD2	<---	YD	.833
YD4	<---	YD	.799
YD1	<---	YD	.838
YD5	<---	YD	.754
CB3	<---	CB	.895

Estimate
CB4	<---	CB	.840
CB2	<---	CB	.838
CB5	<---	CB	.809
CB1	<---	CB	.766
HP4	<---	HP	.801
HP2	<---	HP	.782
HP3	<---	HP	.781
HP1	<---	HP	.738
HP5	<---	HP	.747
NT4	<---	NT	.846
NT3	<---	NT	.857
NT5	<---	NT	.799
NT2	<---	NT	.766
NT1	<---	NT	.705

BOOTSTRAP STANDARD ERROR

Parameter

SE	SE-SE	Mean	Bias	SE-Bias
NT	<---	CB	.037	.001	-.354	.002	.001
HP	<---	CB	.039	.001	.301	-.001	.001
HP	<---	NT	.038	.001	-.341	-.002	.001
YD	<---	NT	.039	.001	-.284	.002	.001
YD	<---	HP	.042	.001	.309	.000	.001
YD3	<---	YD	.013	.000	.859	.000	.000
YD2	<---	YD	.016	.000	.833	.000	.000
YD4	<---	YD	.017	.000	.799	.000	.000
YD1	<---	YD	.015	.000	.838	.000	.000
YD5	<---	YD	.021	.000	.754	.000	.000
CB3	<---	CB	.011	.000	.895	.000	.000
CB4	<---	CB	.015	.000	.839	-.001	.000
CB2	<---	CB	.015	.000	.838	.000	.000
CB5	<---	CB	.022	.000	.808	-.001	.000
CB1	<---	CB	.019	.000	.766	.000	.000
HP4	<---	HP	.017	.000	.801	.000	.000
HP2	<---	HP	.018	.000	.781	-.001	.000
HP3	<---	HP	.019	.000	.780	.000	.000
HP1	<---	HP	.021	.000	.738	.000	.000
HP5	<---	HP	.019	.000	.747	.000	.000
NT4	<---	NT	.014	.000	.846	.000	.000
NT3	<---	NT	.012	.000	.857	.000	.000
NT5	<---	NT	.015	.000	.799	.000	.000
NT2	<---	NT	.016	.000	.765	-.001	.000
NT1	<---	NT	.020	.000	.705	.000	.000

APPENDIX 11A: 3RD EXPERT INTERVIEW SCRIPT PART 1: INTRODUCTION

Hello everyone, my name is Le Thi Kieu Anh - a PhD student in Business Administration at Lac Hong University. I am currently conducting a research on the intention to return of tourists in Ho Chi Minh City. I look forward to your enthusiastic discussion. All your frank opinions will contribute to the success of this research topic. All your personal information and answers will be kept confidential, we will only publish the summary results. We sincerely thank you for your cooperation.

PART 2: INTERVIEW OBJECTIVES

The objective of the interview is to explain and evaluate the results obtained from data analysis in quantitative research through a questionnaire that was directly distributed to 710 international and domestic tourists at 10 tourist destinations in Ho Chi Minh City.

To best achieve this goal, the interviewees were experts who had undergone the first interview because these experts had a clear understanding of the concepts as well as the hypotheses and theoretical research models. At the same time, some experts were researchers or had a lot of experience in the tourism field. They would have both an academic and practical perspective to help contribute to the implications.

PART 3: CONTENT

A. Documents provided before interview:

To achieve the best interview results, the author provides relevant documents to help members review and evaluate the content in advance. Documents sent in advance to experts include:

- Official scales of factors such as intention to return, risk perception, subjective happiness, service fairness, culture;

- Descriptive statistics of the surveyed subjects;

- Results of testing theoretical models and research hypotheses.

B. Discussion questions:

To help the interview achieve its goals, some suggested questions are suggested:

1) What are your comments/evaluations about the results of testing the theoretical model and research hypotheses?

2) From those results, do you have any suggestions or recommendations?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP!

APPENDIX 11B: SUMMARY OF 3RD INTERVIEW RESULTS

After obtaining the quantitative research results, the study conducted interviews with 3 experts who have long-term research capabilities and many years of experience in the tourism sector in Ho Chi Minh City and participated in the first expert interview. The results of the interviews with the 3 experts were recorded and summarized as follows:

1. Experts' opinions on research results

Result

Expert opinion
Number of experts agreeing to conclude fruit	Detailed content
		1) The provision of a guaranteed service
		fairness will make customers happy
		satisfied and no longer feel defeated
		disadvantage compared to other customers. From there, receive
		It is obvious that their risk perception will decline.
		of course
		2) On the contrary, if the company only focuses on
The increase of feeling		Provide good quality service without paying attention
get translation credit		Paying attention to fairness does not necessarily make
service will reduce the receipt	3/3 experts	their customers are satisfied, at the same time, increasing
customer risk awareness		fear of being treated unfairly
tourism.		equal.
		3) Some employees/companies tend to
		"foreign-loving" should prioritize international guests
		than domestic guests. Or vice versa, for
		This statue has more priority for domestic guests.
		land due to national pride. From then on, in the past
		service provider, interaction or cost
		Unequal supply costs between two parties

This phenomenon makes many customers feel very uncomfortable. If it happens repeatedly, it will make customers worry about continuing to use the service.

4) When providing services that do not ensure fairness in terms of cost/price, the perception of financial risk increases. Likewise, unclear/transparent procedures/information for each customer will make them feel that they are taking on policy risks. Or, uneven service among customers or providing incorrect information will sometimes cause accidents with serious consequences for health. That said, it is enough to see that the components of service fairness such as service delivery, interaction, procedures, information, price/cost also affect each component of risk perception.

5) The impact of service fairness on risk perception is considered very high (β= - 0.401). This shows that this relationship is considered very close. If customers do not feel fairness when using the service, their risk perception will increase significantly.

An increase in perceived service fairness will increase

subjective happiness

3/3 experts

1) Subjective happiness comes from satisfaction during the use of tourism services, as well as positive emotions. Therefore,

in the process of providing tourism services

fairness will increase satisfaction and positive emotions. In other words, increased service fairness will increase subjective well-being.

2) If the service delivery, the interaction of the staff or the information provided, the price, the procedures applied to all customers are not the same, there is bias or difference, then customers will immediately no longer feel satisfied. At the same time, that is also the cause of their physical and mental effects. From there, positive emotions are reduced and in many cases will last until after the end of the trip.

3) When Service Equity increases by one, it increases the subjective happiness of tourists by 0.316. Thus, businesses that make tourists feel service equity will have their happiness level increase significantly.

Increased risk perception will decrease tourists' subjective well-being.

3/3 experts

1) When incidents occur frequently while traveling, tourists are likely to be dissatisfied. Since the probability and likelihood of incidents occurring increases, subjective well-being decreases.

2) The more serious the incident is, the lower the customer satisfaction level will be because it can affect the customer's mental and physical health.

3) Events related to finance, health

of tourists.

	Health, policies that occur during the travel process will make customers feel dissatisfied with the quality of the trip as well as the positive emotions are reduced. 4) Coefficient β = -0.316 is a high level of impact. It confirms a very close relationship between these two factors.
		1) Tourists encounter incidents
		frequent or severe
		or when financial risks occur,
		health, policy they will usually tend to
		insecure and completely dissatisfied
		with the trip. From there, there will be no thinking
The increase of recognition		any thoughts or plans for the trip
risk awareness will do reduce the intention to turn	3/3 experts	go next. In other words, increased risk perception will reduce the intention to return.
of tourists.		tourist
		2) The impact of risk perception on intention
		return intention is considered high (β= -0.261).
		This demonstrates the relationship between the two characters.
		This factor is very tight. This result is completely consistent.
		suitable for real situation
		1) Subjective happiness is only achieved through travel.
An increase in subjective well-being will increase tourists' intention to revisit.	3/3 experts	tourists have satisfaction and positive emotions during the travel experience. Satisfaction is also one of the components of the intention to return. Therefore, when tourists have a level of happiness Increased subjectivity will also increase the intention to return.
		increased again.

The Relationship Between Risk Perception, Subjective Happiness and Tourists' Revisit Intention in Vietnam - A Case Study in Ho Chi Minh City - 39

Comment