The impact of push-pull motives on internal tourists' visit and revisit intentions to Egyptian domestic destinations: the mediating role of country image

The study examines how push and pull travel motivations influence Egyptian internal tourists’ intentions to visit and revisit domestic destinations, and assesses the mediating role of country image. Grounded in travel motivation theory—particularly the widely accepted push-pull framework—and linked to foundational theories such as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and the escape-seeking model, the research addresses gaps in the Arab/Egyptian context. Push motives include rest and relaxation, ego-enhancement, and novelty/knowledge-seeking; pull motives include tourism facilities, environment and safety, and cultural and historical attractions. Given Egypt’s resilience and prominence as a tourism destination, the study seeks to clarify which motivations most strongly predict visit and revisit intentions during and after global crises like COVID-19, and how country image mediates these relationships.

The review defines tourism and internal tourism (UNWTO, UN) and outlines tourists’ behaviors and motivations. Motivation is viewed as psychological/internal forces prompting action to satisfy needs; in tourism, it encompasses intrinsic and extrinsic drivers. Key frameworks include Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the Travel Career Pattern/Ladder, and the Escape-Seeking Model, culminating in the push-pull paradigm as a generally accepted approach to explain why tourists travel. Push factors (intrinsic/socio-psychological drivers) prompt escape, social interaction, ego-enhancement, novelty, and knowledge seeking; pull factors (destination externalities) include landscape, hospitality, facilities, branding, safety, cleanliness, cultural-historical attractions, and costs. Prior studies highlight novelty/knowledge seeking, cleanliness/safety, and cultural-historical attractions as salient motivations. The review positions country image as the composite of perceptions/impressions about a destination, influencing both visit and revisit intentions and potentially mediating effects of motivations on behavioral intentions. Hypotheses: H1 (push→visit), H1-1 to H1-3 (rest/relaxation; ego; novelty/knowledge→visit), H2 (pull→visit), H2-1 to H2-3 (facilities; environment/safety; cultural/historical→visit), H3 (country image mediates push/pull→visit/revisit), H4 (country image→visit), H5 (country image→revisit), H6 (push/pull→revisit).

Design: Quantitative cross-sectional survey of Egyptian internal tourists using a structured self-administered questionnaire (online; disseminated in Cairo) in March 2022. Instrument development: Item relevance verified via a pilot with three experts; pretested with 30 participants, with no changes recommended. Sections and measures: (1) Travel characteristics. (2) Push/pull motivations: 19 push items and 18 pull items adapted from Yousefi & Marzuki (2015), Hsu & Huang (2008), Sangpikul (2009), Jang & Wu (2006), Hanqin & Lam (1999). (3) Country image: 4 items from Chi & Qu (2008), following Jalilvand & Samiei (2012); Jalilvand et al. (2013). (4) Visit intention: 4 items from Usakli & Baloglu (2011). (5) Revisit intention: 3 items adapted from Deslandes (2003). (6) Socio-demographics (gender, age, marital status, income, occupation, education, travel companion, accommodation, nationality). Scale: Five-point Likert (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). Sampling and data collection: Random selection of Egyptian internal tourists. Population >1 million (CAPMAS, 2021); target sample 384 (Sekaran table). Received 385 responses; 36 incomplete removed; final N=349. Demographics: 70.2% female, 29.8% male; ages 18–24 (7.2%), 25–34 (31.2%), 35–44 (36.7%), 45–54 (20.9%), 55–64 (3.4%), 65+ (0.6%); education: Secondary/Diploma (4.9%), High School (2.6%), Undergraduate (33.8%), Graduate (58.7%); job level: businessperson (18.3%), employee (47.2%), unemployed (31%), retired (3.5%); travel companion: family (62.5%), friends (24.9%), work (4.6%), alone (4.9%), other (3.2%); marital status: single (7.2%), married (85.4%), widowed (6.6%), divorced (0.9%). Reliability and validity: Cronbach’s alpha (all >0.7): novelty/knowledge 0.811; ego 0.732; rest/relaxation 0.737; push dimension 0.76; cultural/historical 0.755; facilities 0.794; environment/safety 0.751; pull dimension 0.767; country image 0.789; visit intention 0.738; revisit intention 0.750. AVE reported as >0.50 across constructs. Descriptives (means; SDs): novelty/knowledge 4.45 (0.4426); ego 4.28 (0.481); rest/relaxation 4.01 (0.4782); cultural/historical 3.6 (0.3); facilities 3.5 (0.7); environment/safety 3.5 (0.6); country image 4.44 (0.548); visit intention 4.3 (0.5); revisit intention 4.3 (0.6). Analysis: Correlation analysis showed significant positive correlations (p<0.01) among country image, visit and revisit intentions, and push/pull dimensions. ANOVA indicated the model significantly improves prediction (F=5084.038, p<0.001). Stepwise multiple regression predicting visit intention from six dimensions reported: novelty/knowledge (β=0.406, p<0.001), ego (β=0.152, p=0.029), rest/relaxation (β=0.087, p=0.107 ns), cultural/historical (β=0.209, p<0.001), facilities (β=0.055, p=0.139 ns), environment/safety (β=0.089, p=0.048). Model fit: R=0.994, R²=0.989, Adj. R²=0.989, SEE=0.460, Durbin–Watson=2.037; linearity and residual assumptions satisfied. SEM/path analysis estimated mediation via country image. Initial step showed push→revisit not significant (p=0.058) and was removed. Final model paths (unstandardized estimates; all p<0.05 unless noted): Pull→Country image=0.444; Push→Country image=0.078; Country image→Visit intention=0.374; Country image→Revisit intentions=0.406; Pull→Visit intention=0.395; Pull→Revisit intentions=0.480; Push→Visit intention=0.050 (p=0.011); Push→Revisit intentions non-significant previously. Indirect effects: Pull→Visit via country image=0.166; Pull→Revisit via country image=0.180; Push→Visit via country image=0.029; Push→Revisit via country image≈0.032. SEM fit indices indicated good fit: NFI=0.948; IFI=0.951; TLI=0.943; CFI=0.949; RMSEA=0.034 (Chi-square significant, attributed to sample size).

- Visit intention predictors (regression): Novelty & knowledge-seeking (β=0.406, p<0.001) and ego-enhancement (β=0.152, p=0.029) significantly and positively predict visit intention; rest & relaxation is not significant (β=0.087, p=0.107). Cultural & historical attractions (β=0.209, p<0.001) and environment & safety (β=0.089, p=0.048) significantly and positively predict visit intention; tourism facilities is not significant (β=0.055, p=0.139). Among predictors, novelty & knowledge-seeking has the strongest effect on visit intention. Model R²=0.989; Durbin–Watson=2.037. - Correlations: Country image, visit intention, and revisit intention are each positively correlated with all push and pull dimensions (p<0.01). - SEM (final model): Pull→Country image=0.444; Push→Country image=0.078; Country image→Visit intention=0.374; Country image→Revisit intentions=0.406; Pull→Visit intention=0.395; Pull→Revisit intentions=0.480; Push→Visit intention=0.050 (p=0.011); Push→Revisit intentions non-significant earlier (p=0.058). Indirect effects via country image: Pull→Visit=0.166; Pull→Revisit=0.180; Push→Visit=0.029; Push→Revisit≈0.032. - Mediation: Country image significantly mediates relationships between push/pull motives and both visit and revisit intentions, strengthening these links. - Hypotheses: Supported—H1-2, H1-3, H2-2, H2-3, H3-1, H3-2, H3-3, H3-4, H4, H5; Not supported—H1-1 (rest & relaxation→visit), H2-1 (tourism facilities→visit). H6 (push-pull→revisit) was rejected (direct effect not significant) but indirect effects via country image were significant.

The results clarify how specific push and pull motives shape Egyptian internal tourists’ behavioral intentions. Among push factors, novelty/knowledge-seeking and ego-enhancement are key drivers of visit intention, aligning with prior studies that identify novelty and learning as central motivations. Rest and relaxation, while commonly cited, did not significantly predict visit intention in this context, suggesting that internal tourists’ visits are more purpose-driven by exploration and self-enhancement than by escape. Among pull factors, cultural and historical attractions and environment/safety significantly influence visit intention, reinforcing the importance of Egypt’s heritage assets and perceived safety in destination appeal; tourism facilities did not significantly predict visit intention, implying that facilities may be secondary to heritage and safety in this market. Country image exerts a direct positive effect on both visit and revisit intentions and mediates the effects of both push and pull motives on these intentions. Notably, direct effects of push/pull motives on revisit were not significant, indicating that revisitation is influenced more by overall country image than by initial motivational drivers. These findings address the research questions by identifying the most influential motivational dimensions and establishing country image as a key mechanism linking motivations to behavioral intentions in the Egyptian internal tourism context.

The study demonstrates that for Egyptian internal tourism, novelty/knowledge-seeking and ego-enhancement (push) and cultural/historical attractions and environment/safety (pull) significantly drive visit intentions, while rest/relaxation and tourism facilities do not. Country image plays a pivotal mediating and direct role, positively influencing both visit and revisit intentions and strengthening the effects of motivational factors. The research advances understanding of travel motivation within the underexplored Arab/Egyptian context and underscores the importance of enhancing destination image. Future research could expand to longitudinal designs to track changes from intention to behavior, compare internal vs. international tourists, incorporate additional mediators/moderators (e.g., satisfaction, perceived value, constraints), and test the model across different Egyptian regions and post-crisis periods.