Behavior-Cognition-Affect-Behavioral Intention Model Questionnaire

Abstract

The Behavior-Cognition-Affect-Behavioral Intention Model Questionnaire (BCABI Model) is an empirically validated psychometric instrument developed by Limei Cao, Dengming Xie, and Ying Qu (2023) designed to evaluate the sequential, longitudinal psychological process through which tourists translate past behaviors into post-trip destination loyalty. Rooted in the paradigm of Service-Dominant (S-D) logic and the self-consistency principle of attitude theory, the BCABI instrument captures the structural mechanism linking pre-trip preparatory engagement, on-site cognitive evaluation, affective bonding, and future conative commitment. The questionnaire comprises 17 operational items organized across five foundational latent dimensions: Pre-trip Experience Co-creation Behavior (past behavior), Satisfaction with Experience Co-creation (cognition), Place Identity (affective attachment), Place Dependence (functional attachment), and Destination Loyalty (behavioral intention).

Administered using either a 5-point or 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree,” the instrument was validated through rigorous pilot testing and cross-sectional studies across independent samples of Chinese domestic tourists. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated robust psychometric integrity, yielding excellent model fit statistics (χ²(2) = 2.743, p > 0.01; Standardized Root Mean Square Residual [SRMR] = 0.009; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = 0.053; Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = 0.998; Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] = 0.995). Factor loadings for individual indicators consistently exceeded the conventional 0.70 benchmark (ranging from 0.773 to 0.913), average variance extracted (AVE) values ranged from 0.672 to 0.813, and composite reliability (CR) coefficients spanned from 0.860 to 0.946. Internal consistency reliability assessed through Cronbach’s alpha coefficients was demonstrated across multiple samples (α = 0.682 to 0.923). Discriminant validity was substantiated through the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT < 0.900). By delineating the multi-stage trajectory from anticipatory co-creation to post-visit behavioral loyalty, the BCABI questionnaire provides a robust empirical tool for researchers and destination management organizations investigating customer engagement, cognitive appraisal, place attachment, and tourist retention.

Keywords

Behavior-Cognition-Affect-Behavioral Intention Model, BCABI, Co-Creation Experience, Destination Loyalty, Place Attachment, Place Identity, Place Dependence, Pre-Trip Involvement, Satisfaction with Co-Creation, Service-Dominant Logic, Value Co-Creation, Tourist Behavior

Authors

The Behavior-Cognition-Affect-Behavioral Intention Model Questionnaire was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by an academic research team specializing in tourism consumer psychology, destination marketing, and service management:

• Limei Cao — School of Business, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China. E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID: Sun Yat-sen University Faculty Directory. Research specializations include tourist psychological empowerment, experience co-creation, and consumer value structures.
• Dengming Xie (Corresponding Author) — Faculty of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Macau University of Science and Technology, Avenida Wai Long, Taipa, Macau, People’s Republic of China (Postal Code: 999078). E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3489-9504. Research interests focus on hospitality service dynamics, tourist-destination interactions, and structural equation modeling in consumer behavior.
• Ying Qu — School of Tourism and Urban-rural Planning, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People’s Republic of China. E-mail: [email protected]. Academic investigations center upon sustainable destination development, environmental psychology in tourism spaces, and place-based emotional attachment.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the BCABI Model Questionnaire is to operationalize, quantify, and empirically validate the chronological, multi-stage mental process that governs consumer behavior in experiential service contexts, specifically within leisure tourism and destination management. Traditional models of consumer decision-making frequently examine attitudes or behaviors in isolated snapshots, relying either on static post-consumption evaluations or retrospective satisfaction metrics without systematically modeling the catalytic role of anticipatory consumer inputs. The BCABI instrument addresses this theoretical and methodological gap by providing a coherent measurement model that tracks tourists along a temporal continuum: before the trip (behavior), during the trip (cognition and affect), and after the trip (behavioral intention).

Overcoming Static Evaluation Paradigms

In conventional tourism literature, destination loyalty has predominantly been conceptualized as an immediate consequence of overall customer satisfaction or perceived service quality. However, modern travel is characterized by participatory engagement, where travelers actively design itineraries, curate experiences, consult peer networks, and interact with service personnel long before setting foot at the physical destination. The BCABI questionnaire was specifically constructed to test how this active pre-trip preparatory investment initiates a self-reinforcing cognitive and emotional chain. Rather than viewing tourists as passive recipients of destination services, the instrument treats them as active co-creators of their own experiences whose initial behavioral effort predisposes them to evaluate the destination positively and form deep emotional ties.

Research Applications

In academic research, the BCABI questionnaire serves as an invaluable diagnostic and explanatory instrument across several related disciplines:

• Structural Equation Modeling (SEM): Investigating complex mediation and moderation pathways, such as testing whether cognitive satisfaction mediates the effect of pre-trip behavior on place identity, or whether place dependence exerts a stronger influence on word-of-mouth recommendations than on repeat visitation.
• Cross-Cultural Tourism Research: Analyzing how tourists from different cultural or socio-demographic backgrounds engage in pre-trip planning and whether the translation of co-creation into place attachment varies across cultural dimensions (e.g., individualism versus collectivism).
• Digital Travel and Smart Tourism: Evaluating how modern digital platforms, mobile travel applications, and virtual travel communities facilitate pre-trip information retrieval and social sharing, thereby amplifying downstream satisfaction and attachment.
• Niche and Experiential Tourism: Assessing behavioral-affective chains in specialized contexts, including ecotourism, heritage tourism, wellness retreats, and adventure travel, where traveler involvement and co-creation are exceptionally pronounced.

Practical and Managerial Applications

For destination management organizations (DMOs), hospitality operators, and tourism planners, the BCABI questionnaire provides direct operational utility:

• Pre-Trip Touchpoint Optimization: Identifying the specific channels and tools (e.g., interactive destination websites, user-generated content hubs, responsive service hotlines) that best encourage prospective visitors to search, share, and interact prior to arrival.
• Customer Journey Auditing: Diagnosing bottlenecks in the customer journey by assessing whether high pre-trip engagement fails to translate into on-site co-creation satisfaction due to service delivery failures.
• Targeted Loyalty Marketing: Differentiating marketing campaigns based on emotional place identity versus functional place dependence, tailoring loyalty programs, retention incentives, and referral programs accordingly.

Psychological Construct

The BCABI Model Questionnaire operationalizes five distinct yet interconnected psychological constructs spanning cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains. Each subscale represents a critical milestone within the temporal trajectory of the tourist experience.

1. Pre-Trip Experience Co-Creation Behavior (Past Behavior)

This dimension operationalizes the behavioral effort, physical action, and temporal investment deployed by the consumer prior to departing for the destination. Drawing upon value co-creation theory, this subscale captures active preparatory behaviors, comprising three core facets: (a) rigorous information gathering regarding destination attractions, local norms, and transit; (b) sharing information, perspectives, or trip concepts within peer social circles or digital communities; and (c) proactive communication with destination service providers (e.g., booking concierges, local guides) or fellow travelers. In contrast to passive information exposure, this construct reflects an intentional, agency-driven commitment of personal resources.

2. Satisfaction with Experience Co-Creation (Cognition)

Representing the cognitive dimension within the BCABI sequence, this construct captures the tourist’s post-encounter, reflective evaluation of the collaborative value production process. Grounded in expectation confirmation theory, it assesses whether the actual execution of interactive, participative travel encounters met, surpassed, or fell short of prior expectations. The items evaluate overall process satisfaction, congruence with personal experiential standards, and the cognitive assessment of whether participating in joint activities was delightful and worthwhile.

3. Place Identity (Affective Attachment — Symbolic Dimension)

Place identity constitutes the expressive, symbolic component of environmental bonding. It reflects the cognitive-emotional fusion between an individual’s self-concept and a physical geographic setting. Through place identity, the destination ceases to be merely an external space; it becomes incorporated into the traveler’s personal identity, self-definition, and autobiographical narrative. High scores on this dimension signify a deep sense of belonging, an experience of authenticity (“I can really be myself here”), and a belief that visiting the setting reflects core personal values.

4. Place Dependence (Affective Attachment — Functional Dimension)

Place dependence reflects the functional, utilitarian dimension of place attachment. Rooted in transactional human-environment geography, it reflects the degree to which a specific physical environment facilitates the fulfillment of specific goals, recreational activities, or behavioral desires relative to alternative locations. It quantifies perceived uniqueness, resource availability, and comparative superiority, capturing the respondent’s judgment that no alternative destination could adequately substitute for the unique attributes of the focal setting.

5. Destination Loyalty (Behavioral Intention)

Destination loyalty represents the final conative outcome within the BCABI sequence. In consumer psychology, loyalty spans both attitudinal commitment and behavioral intent. The four items of this construct assess the traveler’s forward-looking commitments: voluntary dissemination of positive word-of-mouth, direct recommendation of the destination to family and friends, explicit intention to return in the future, and prioritization of the setting as the premier choice among alternative leisure options.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the BCABI Model Questionnaire is constructed at the intersection of two foundational psychological and marketing theories: Service-Dominant (S-D) Logic of value co-creation and the Self-Consistency Principle of Attitude Theory.

Service-Dominant Logic and Value Co-Creation

Pioneered by Vargo and Lusch (2004, 2016), Service-Dominant (S-D) logic represents a fundamental paradigm shift away from traditional goods-dominant logic. Under goods-dominant logic, value is viewed as embedded in tangible products manufactured by firms and consumed passively by customers (“value-in-exchange”). Conversely, S-D logic posits that value is fundamentally created through dynamic interaction, integration of resources, and collaborative engagement among institutions, service personnel, and consumers (“value-in-use” and “value-in-context”).

In tourism contexts, a vacation cannot be delivered as an inert physical commodity; the tourist must actively contribute operant resources (knowledge, physical presence, emotional openness, communication) alongside the destination’s operant and operand resources (infrastructure, cultural heritage, tour guides, service staff). Cao et al. (2023) extended S-D logic into a chronological process model. They posited that value co-creation does not suddenly initiate upon arrival at the destination. Rather, it commences in the pre-trip phase through anticipatory information retrieval, interactive itinerary development, and digital dialogue with service providers. This initial investment transforms the consumer from an external spectator into an engaged co-producer of the impending experience.

The Self-Consistency Principle of Attitude Theory

To articulate why pre-trip behavioral engagement systematically leads to elevated satisfaction, deeper emotional attachment, and post-trip loyalty, Cao and colleagues leveraged the self-consistency principle rooted in classic social psychology (Albarracin & Wyer, 2000; Festinger, 1957; Harmon-Jones, Armstrong, & Olson, 2018). Human beings possess a fundamental psychological drive to maintain internal consistency among their past actions, current beliefs, and future behaviors.

When tourists expend considerable time, energy, and cognitive effort preparing for a trip (pre-trip past behavior), psychological tension (cognitive dissonance) would arise if they evaluated the resulting experience negatively or remained emotionally indifferent. To preserve psychological harmony and self-concept consistency, individuals form positive cognitive appraisals regarding the co-creation process (satisfaction). This cognitive affirmation reinforces affective bonds with the physical environment (place identity and place dependence), which in turn creates a strong commitment to sustain the relationship into the future through repeat visits and advocacy (destination loyalty).

The Behavioral-Cognitive-Affective-Conative Hierarchy

The BCABI model systematically maps onto the traditional hierarchy-of-effects frameworks in psychology, while reversing the traditional sequence where attitudes strictly precede behavior:

1. Behavioral Input (Past Action): Pre-trip information searching, sharing, and interaction establish a behavioral anchor.
2. Cognitive Processing: During the travel encounter, tourists evaluate whether the co-created reality validates their investment, generating cognitive satisfaction.
3. Affective Structuring: Cognitive satisfaction deepens emotional bonds, crystallizing into symbolic place identity and functional place dependence.
4. Conative Intentions: Sustained affective attachment drives post-trip behavioral loyalty, closing the self-consistent psychological loop.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the BCABI Model Questionnaire has been established through a multi-stage validation protocol adhering to modern standards for educational and psychological measurement (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011; Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015).

Content Validity and Pilot Testing

Item generation involved adapting established scales from seminal literature (e.g., Lee, 2013; Yuksel et al., 2010; Sun et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2019) to fit the travel co-creation context. To ensure rigorous cross-cultural adaptation, items were translated from English into Mandarin Chinese using Brislin’s (1970) standard translation-back-translation procedure. An expert panel comprising nine senior scholars in tourism psychology and psychometrics reviewed the items. Content validity was evaluated using the Item Content Validity Index (I-CVI) based on the criteria established by Polit, Beck, and Owen (2007). For the pre-trip involvement construct, I-CVI values ranged from 0.889 to 1.000, confirming that the operational indicators exhibited exceptional conceptual alignment with target constructs.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was evaluated using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM). All individual standardized factor loadings surpassed the conservative threshold of 0.70, ranging from 0.773 to 0.913. As summarized in the psychometric profile below, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for all five latent dimensions ranged from 0.672 to 0.813, substantially exceeding the required 0.50 threshold established by Fornell and Larcker (1981), demonstrating that the constructs explain the vast majority of variance in their respective indicators.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was verified using two stringent psychometric procedures:

• Fornell-Larcker Criterion: In accordance with Fornell and Larcker (1981), the square root of the AVE for each latent dimension was verified to be strictly greater than the inter-construct correlation coefficients between that dimension and any other latent variable in the structural model.
• Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT): Following Henseler et al. (2015), the HTMT ratio of correlations was examined. All calculated HTMT values were well below the conservative 0.85 threshold and strictly adhered to the 0.90 upper limit, confirming that each latent construct represents an empirically distinct psychological phenomenon.

Assessment of Common Method Bias

Because all survey indicators were gathered through a self-administered questionnaire, common method variance (CMV) was evaluated using Harman’s one-factor test as recommended by Podsakoff and Organ (1986). An unrotated principal component analysis on all combined indicators revealed that the first unrotated principal component accounted for 47.794% of the total variance. Because this figure remains below the critical 50% threshold, common method variance did not pose a significant threat to construct validity.

Reliability

The BCABI Model Questionnaire exhibits high internal consistency reliability, verified across separate empirical samples of Chinese domestic tourists.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Internal consistency was examined using both traditional Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and Composite Reliability (CR) metrics (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994):

• Sample 1 Validation: In the initial validation sample, Cronbach’s alpha values for all five dimensions ranged from 0.755 to 0.923. Composite reliability values ranged between 0.860 and 0.946, reflecting exceptional scale precision.
• Sample 2 Cross-Validation: In the second independent validation sample, Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from 0.682 to 0.882. While the lower bound for one subscale was marginally beneath 0.70, it surpassed the acceptable benchmark of 0.60 recommended for applied exploratory research and field investigations (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Hair et al., 2011).

Factor Analysis

The factorial structure and dimensionality of the BCABI instrument were examined using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During the preliminary instrument refinement phase, EFA was conducted on the preparatory involvement indicators using principal component extraction with varimax rotation. The analysis extracted a single underlying factor characterized by an eigenvalue substantially greater than 1.0, accounting for 82.45% of the total explained variance. This provided empirical support for the unidimensionality of the preparatory behavioral construct.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Following EFA, a full Confirmatory Factor Analysis was conducted using maximum likelihood estimation to confirm the measurement model across all latent constructs. The single-factor measurement model for the pre-trip involvement dimension produced exemplary goodness-of-fit parameters:

• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom: χ²(2) = 2.743 (p > 0.01), confirming a low discrepancy between observed and implied covariance matrices.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): 0.009 (well beneath the standard 0.08 threshold).
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): 0.053 (with a 90% confidence interval falling well within the acceptable < 0.08 cutoff).
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 0.998 (substantially exceeding the conventional 0.95 criteria for superior model fit).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): 0.995 (exceeding the standard 0.95 benchmark).

Structural Equation Model Path Coefficients

Structural path analysis confirmed the hypothesized psychological cascade: pre-trip co-creation behavior exerted a significant positive influence on satisfaction with experience co-creation (β = 0.54, p < 0.001); satisfaction with co-creation significantly strengthened both place identity (β = 0.48, p < 0.001) and place dependence (β = 0.42, p < 0.001); and both place dimensions subsequently exhibited strong predictive relationships with post-trip destination loyalty (β = 0.39 and β = 0.35, respectively, p < 0.001).

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The formal specifications of the Behavior-Cognition-Affect-Behavioral Intention Model Questionnaire are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: Behavior-Cognition-Affect-Behavioral Intention Model Questionnaire (BCABI Model)
• Test Type: Psychometric Self-Report Questionnaire / Multi-Dimensional Rating Inventory
• Original Authors: Limei Cao, Dengming Xie, and Ying Qu (2023)
• Total Item Count: 17 operational items
• Target Population: Human leisure tourists, vacationers, and consumers of experiential hospitality services (suitable for adolescents aged 13–17 and adults aged 18 and older)
• Response Scale: Rated using either a 5-point or a 7-point Likert-type scale. The response options range from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” In a standard 5-point configuration: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree. In a standard 7-point configuration: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat Disagree, 4 = Neutral, 5 = Somewhat Agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly Agree.
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Dimension 1: Pre-trip Experience Co-creation Behavior (Items 1–3)
  • Dimension 2: Satisfaction with Experience Co-creation (Items 4–6)
  • Dimension 3: Place Identity (Items 7–10)
  • Dimension 4: Place Dependence (Items 11–13)
  • Dimension 5: Destination Loyalty (Items 14–17)
• Scoring Rules: All 17 items are positively keyed. There are no reverse-coded items. Dimension scores are computed by calculating the arithmetic mean or composite sum of the items assigned to each subscale. Higher mean scores indicate higher levels of preparatory engagement, co-creation satisfaction, place identity, place dependence, and post-trip destination loyalty.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Behavior-Cognition-Affect-Behavioral Intention Model Questionnaire was officially published in 2023 in Tourism Management (Volume 96).

• Academic Permissions: The BCABI Model Questionnaire is freely accessible for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical purposes, thesis investigations, and scientific inquiry. Scholars and educators may administer the instrument without paying royalty fees.
• Attribution Requirement: Any empirical study, thesis, or academic presentation employing the instrument must cite the primary source publication: Cao, L., Xie, D., & Qu, Y. (2023). A process perspective on experience co-creation: How pre-trip involvement prompts destination loyalty. Tourism Management, 96, 104711.
• Commercial and Proprietary Licensing: Commercial organizations, private market research agencies, and corporate consultancies seeking to integrate the BCABI model into proprietary customer feedback systems should contact the corresponding author, Dr. Dengming Xie ([email protected]), to secure explicit written permissions.
• Associated Fee: Zero licensing fees ($0.00) for scholarly, peer-reviewed, and educational applications.

References

• Albarracin, D., & Wyer, R. S. (2000). The cognitive impact of past behavior: Influences on beliefs, attitudes, and future behavioral decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.1.5
• Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
• Cao, L., Xie, D., & Qu, Y. (2023). A process perspective on experience co-creation: How pre-trip involvement prompts destination loyalty. Tourism Management, 96, 104711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104711
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503620766
• Fornell, C., & 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
• Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
• Harmon-Jones, E., Armstrong, K., & Olson, J. M. (2018). The action-based model of cognitive dissonance: A review, integration, and expander. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 57, 29–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2017.10.002
• Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
• Lee, T. H. (2013). Integrating approach to validate the components of destination attraction. Tourism Management, 35, 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.06.009
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408
• Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199
• Sun, X., Chi, C. G. Q., & Xu, H. (2013). Developing destination loyalty: The case of Hainan Island. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 547–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.04.006
• Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
• Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0456-3
• Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., & Bilim, Y. (2010). Destination attachment: Effects on customer satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Tourism Management, 31(2), 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.03.007
• Zhang, H., Xu, F., Leung, H. H., & Cai, L. A. (2019). The influence of destination emotional branding on tourists’ loyalty: An integrated model. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36(6), 724–737. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2019.1625845

Items of the Scale