tourist satisfaction: a view from a mixed international ...stefanva/skrar/tourist satisfaction_ a...

Tourist satisfaction: A view from a mixedinternational guided package tour

David Bowie* and Jui Chi ChangReceived (in revised form): January 2005Anonymously refereed paper

*Department of Hospitality, Leisure and Tourism Management, Business School, Oxford Brookes

University, Gipsy Lane, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK

Tel: +44 (0)1865 483890; Fax: +44 (0)1865 483878; E-mail: [email protected]

David Bowie is a prinicipal lecturer and MSc

programmes director at Oxford Brookes Univer-

sity. His main research interests are branding,

distribution and marketing communication.

Jui Chi Chang (Ricky) has a PhD from Oxford

Brookes University and is now an associate pro-

fessor in the Tourism Department at Providence

University in Taiwan. His main research interests

are consumer behaviour in the travel industry and

package tour operation and management.

ABSTRACT

KEYWORDS: customer satisfaction, expec-tation, equity, hedonism, package tour, tourleader, tour operator

This paper seeks to identify the variables that arerelated to customer satisfaction during a guidedpackage tour service encounter, including the role ofthe tour leader and the service performance bysuppliers – itinerary arrangements, auxiliary sup-port and service delivery. Data were gatheredthrough participant observation during a mixed-nationality tour of Scandinavian destinations. Ex-pectations, customer on-tour attitude and behav-iour and equity were identified as affectingcustomer satisfaction during the service encounter.Additionally, the consumption experience of he-donism and enjoyment (excitement factors) on thetour had a significant effect on customer satisfac-tion. Two primary sources of complaints wereidentified: first, the tour operator’s itinerary plan-

ning and hotel selection (basic factors), and second,the tour leader’s competence (performance factor).The findings indicate that the tour leader is asignificant determinant psychologically, spirituallyand practically in influencing the success of the tourproduct. The result contributes to a better know-ledge for the tour operator of tourism satisfaction inthe international market for guided package tours.

INTRODUCTIONThis study seeks to identify the variableswhich are related to customer satisfactionduring an on-tour service encounter. Partici-pant observation research was carried out toinvestigate the role of the tour leader and theservice performance of suppliers in terms ofitinerary management. The study develops aframework linking the role of the tour leaderto the formation of customer satisfaction,and contributes towards a better knowledgeof tourism satisfaction for tour operators andtravel agencies.

Numerous studies have focused on touristsatisfaction in tourism destinations.1 Thisstudy concentrates on customer satisfactionwith the service performance of the touroperator, and other service suppliers, on aguided package tour. Customer expectationand satisfaction, past travel experiences (atti-tude and behaviour), equity, perceptions ofhedonism and enjoyment and product andservice performances are discussed in theliterature review and then evaluated in the

Page 303

Journal of Vacation Marketing Volume 11 Number 4

Journal of Vacation MarketingVol. 11 No. 4, 2005, pp. 303–322& SAGE PublicationsLondon, Thousand Oaks, CA,and New Delhi.www.sagepublications.comDOI: 10.1177/1356766705056628

findings. It is also revealed that the attribu-tion of inequity is a crucial issue when con-sidering customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction.

The international tourist market has shiftedfrom a seller’s market to a buyer’s market.The result is that clients are more likely todemand cheaper holidays and have an in-creased requirement for high standards ofproduct design.2 The competitiveness of themarketplace and the increased expectations ofcustomers have made service providers re-cognize the importance of customer servicefor future repeat and referral business.3 Jonesand Sasser4 consider that the relationship be-tween satisfaction and loyalty is by no meanslinear. In non-competitive marketplaces, acustomer who is not satisfied has no alterna-tive but to remain loyal. However, in highlycompetitive industries like tourism a highlysatisfied customer has more alternatives andcustomer retention rates can be low. Sincethe tourism industry is a mature competitivemarket, it is more difficult to differentiate thetourism product significantly, but the key todifferentiation may be service quality.

NATURE OF GUIDED (ESCORTED)

PACKAGE TOURSThe package tour is a complex service pro-duct which is synthetic and involves the

assembly of a multitude of components. Thespecial characteristics of services seasonality,intangibility, perishability, inseparability,variability and simultaneous production andconsumption apply to tourism. The packagetour combines ‘hard’ tangible elements witha high proportion of ‘soft’ intangible serviceelements,5 and leads to a highly labour-intensive product. The intangible nature ofthe package tour makes the tour operatorheavily dependent upon the company’s im-age and word of mouth for generating repeatand recommended sales. Levitt6 stated thatthe most important thing to know aboutintangible products is that customers usuallydo not know what they are getting until theydo not get it. However, guided packagetours have become popular for specific mar-ket segments and represent a significant tour-ism market.7

Pre-arranged holiday products are vulner-able in a number of ways. Swarbrooke andHorner8 suggested that two negative factorswhich affect customer satisfaction on vaca-tion are too much stress (see Figure 1), andinsufficient arousal resulting in boredom anddissatisfaction. There is no guarantee that apackage tour will not experience shortcom-ings and negative incidents which are out ofthe tour operator’s control. Moreover, thehighly labour-intensive nature of a tour pro-duct makes the service encounter difficult to

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Figure 1 Sources of stress for tourists

Page 304

Tourist satisfaction

manage and standardize. The inability tostandardize service actions leads to an unpre-dictable quality of the service product. Ser-vice quality delivery is, therefore, based on aservice-oriented approach in which the qual-ity of front-line staff is essential for thesuccessful business. In a sense, it might beargued customers’ satisfaction depends moreupon front-line staff than upon management.

TOUR LEADERThe tour leader manages the group’s passageover a multi-day tour and has intense contactwith the tour participants. This person maybe an employee of the tour operator, aprofessional tour escort hired by the touroperator or a representative of the organiza-tion sponsoring the trip. The term ‘tourleader’ is also used to describe the tourmanager, tour conductor, tour director orcourier in Europe. Indeed, some tour com-panies prefer to call their tour leader a ‘tourguide’ to stress their employee’s sightseeingcommentary skills.9 However, in practicethe role of the tour guide is different fromthat of the tour leader. A tour guide is ‘onewho conducts a tour’, or one with ‘a broad-based knowledge of a particular area whoseprimary duty is to inform’.10 To avoid con-fusion, the term ‘tour leader’ will be used inthis paper to indicate the person who actu-ally escorts the tour participants throughouttheir journey.

The person conducting a tour needs avariety of skills and faces many challenges.The tour leader is a psychologist, diplomat,flight attendant, entertainer, news reporter,orator and even translator and miracleprofessional.11 To be successful at this job isnot easy. Webster12 noted that keeping thetour participants happy and making certainthat all services are provided as contractedare the main responsibilities of the ‘escort’.She also suggested ‘ten dos and ten don’ts’for escorting a tour.

To act professionally and demonstrate lea-dership, Stevens13 warned that a tour leadershould never become personally involvedwith a tour member, since this may result inlosing control of the tour. Undoubtedly, the

tour leader is under considerable pressureduring the service encounter. It requirespatience and care to accomplish the task.Mancini14 offered strategies for managing atour group, suggesting that the ‘tour man-ager’ must be fair; praise a tour group’s be-haviour; exceed the client’s expectations; befirm when facing disruptive behaviour; en-courage client ‘adulthood’; exercise leader-ship; and be flexible.

Many empirical studies15 have demon-strated that the tour leader is a crucial factorin achieving customer satisfaction.Gronroos16 stated that it is the guide (tourleader) who sells the next tour. Mossberg17

studied a charter tour and suggested that atour leader’s performance is a key factor indifferentiating a tour operator from its com-petitors. The tour leader’s performancewithin the service encounter not only affectsthe company image, customer loyalty andword-of-mouth communication but can alsobe seen as a competitive factor. But custo-mers’ satisfaction with the tour leader’s per-formance does not necessarily mean thatcustomers will be satisfied with the touroperator.18 Mossberg19 also proposed that anenhanced understanding of what is happen-ing during the service encounter betweenthe tour leader and the customer is essential.

THE SERVICE ENCOUNTERService is a subjective concept and a compli-cated phenomenon. When selling a tourproduct, it usually also means selling intangi-ble services.20 Quality of service is difficult tocontrol before it is sold or consumed; itsinvisible and intangible nature make custo-mers rely on the image of a firm for furtherpurchases. Gronroos21 states that if an imageis negative, any minor mistake will be con-sidered as greater than it otherwise wouldbe.

The quality of service is decisive when themoment of truth is reached. Shostack22 de-fined the service encounter as ‘a period oftime during which a consumer directly inter-acts with a service’. The service encounter,or the moment of truth, occurs when thecustomer assesses the service quality and his/

05

Bowie and Chang

her satisfaction with the complex set ofbehaviours which have happened betweenthe customer, the server and the servicecompany.23 During service delivery, Gabbottand Hogg24 state that the quality of theservice encounter involves two significantelements service personnel and the servicesetting.

Three characteristics of service personneldirectly affect consumers’ service experi-ence:25 employees’ expertise, employees’attitude and the demographic background ofthe employee. Bitner et al.26 consider thatthe contact employees who dissatisfy custo-mers are often undertrained (which is due toa high turnover rate), suffer from job dissatis-faction or are underpaid with low levels ofmotivation.

The service setting refers to the contact

environment. Maslow and Mintz27 suggestthat aesthetically pleasing physical surround-ings and physical content can influence peo-ple’s mental state – a suggestion that has notlost resonance over time. Gabbott andHogg28 consider that the service encounterinvolves five dimensions: time, physicalproximity, participation, engagement anddegree of customization. There are two un-favourable factors for travel service compa-nies during the service encounter. Whenservice involves multiple-encounter servicesand latent-encounter services, it is difficult tomaintain the same level of satisfaction (seeFigure 2). Secondly, Solomon et al.29 statethat people are constantly changing theirperspective of the service experience. Peopleare social actors; they learn and adapt them-selves through a series of social settings. The

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��!��

"��

#��

#��

��

��

$��

��"��%��&��

��"��&��

��'�� "��

��(��"��!��

"��$��

��!��&��

"��%��

��&��)� ��

%��

� � � � � �

Figure 2 The sectors and critical incidents of a guided package tour

Page 306


level of satisfaction tends to be influencedeasily by other people during multiple-encounter services in a single transaction.

EXPECTATION VERSUS

SATISFACTIONExpectation is the service that the customeranticipates. Santos30 stated that expectationcan be seen as a pre-consumption attitudebefore the next purchase: it may involveexperience, but need not. Davidow andUttal31 proposed that customers’ expecta-tions are formed by many uncontrollablefactors these include previous experiencewith other companies and their advertising,customers’ psychological condition at thetime of service delivery, customer back-ground and values and the image of thepurchased product.

Miller32 constructed expectations in ahierarchical order and related them to differ-ent levels of satisfaction. He proposed the‘zone of tolerance’ which is considered as analternative comparison of standards and dis-confirmation models. Miller categorized fourtypes of expectation comparison standards bylevel of desire: the minimum tolerable level(the lower-level must be), the deserved level(should be), the expected level (will be) andthe ideal level (the higher-level could be).33

The deserved level stems from what theconsumer thinks is appropriate based on thecost and time invested and is more likely tobe considered as a realistic expectation. Theexpected level of product performance isbased on a customer’s objective calculationof the probability of performance. It is themost commonly used standard for compari-son in customer dis/satisfaction research.The ideal level of product performance re-presents the optimal product performance acustomer ideally would hope for. It may bebased on previous product experiences,learning from advertisements and word-of-mouth communication.

Zeithaml et al.34 stated that customer ser-vice expectations are built on complexconsiderations, including their own pre-purchase beliefs and other people’s opinions.

They suggested two levels of expectations –adequate and desired in service quality eva-luations. The adequate level is the minimumlevel considered acceptable, and is what cus-tomers believe it could be. The desired levelis the service the customers wish to receive:this is a mixture of what customers believethe level of performance can be and should bein other words, a mixture of Miller’s idealand deserved level of expectations.35 Be-tween the adequate and desired is the ‘zoneof tolerance’, which represents a range ofperformance that the consumer considersacceptable. The ‘zone of tolerance’ isbounded by ‘the best customers can expectto get’ versus ‘the worst customers willaccept as barely fulfilling their needs’. Itappears that high expectations can frustratesatisfaction achievement.

Furthermore, Bluel36 suggested a ‘zone ofuncertainty’ to separate satisfaction and dis-satisfaction. Woodruff et al.37 and Heskettet al.38 proposed a ‘zone of indifference’regarding perceptions of performance. Theconcepts of ‘zone’ focus on customer uncer-tainty, which represents the position of satis-fied (but not completely satisfied) customerswho do not remain loyal to a firm. Toproduce an outcome of satisfaction, Pizamand Milman39 suggested the need to buildmodest or below-realistic expectations thatare tolerable and meet customers’ investmentvalue. Although this appears to be sensible intheory, in practice it is questionable sincecustomers may not be motivated by unat-tractive or below-level promotion efforts inthe first place among highly competitive andreplaceable travel products.

Perhaps several elements relating to ex-pectation internal to the customer and ex-ternal to the customer need to be taken intoaccount. Internally, even similarly experi-enced tourists may have extremely differentexpectations due to cultural background.Externally, Santos40 considered that custo-mers’ expectations are formed when theyplan to go to a destination where they havenever been and so they anticipate somethingabout which they have no previous experi-ence. It is natural for travellers to dreamabout having a good encounter rather than

Page 307

Bowie and Chang

receiving a bad experience. However, fromthe supplier’s point of view the resultantexpectations may be unclear and unpractical.

Many theoretical frameworks have beenintroduced to measure customer satisfactionin hospitality and tourism. Oh and Parks41

concluded that of the nine theories whichevaluate satisfaction it is expectancy discon-firmation that is most widely acceptedamong them. This theory, proposed byOliver,42 suggested ‘positive disconfirmation’when the perception of the actual receivedperformance exceeds expectation, and ‘nega-tive disconfirmation’ or a dissatisfaction oc-currence when the perceived performance isworse than expected. However, Yuksel andRimmington43 noted that expectancy dis-confirmation theory has received theoreticaland operational criticism. Measuring expec-tations prior to the service experience has itsweaknesses. The expectation may not reflectreality, and may be based on a lack ofinformation and unfair comparisons. Consu-mers’ prediction of performance might alsobe rather superficial and vague the customermay revise his/her expectation based on pre-vious travel experience or on others’opinions during the service encounter.Mazursky44 pointed out that the use of brandexpectations has been questioned by re-searchers. Bowen45 supports Botterill’s46

view, with specific reference to tourpackages, that satisfaction was not achievedby narrowing the gap between expectationand performance. Rather, tourists’ satisfac-tion could be achieved by the adaptation ofthe tourists themselves to unpredictableevents.

PERFORMANCESo, the measurement of customer satisfactionthat compares expectation of performance andperception of performance during the serviceencounter on a tour may not reflect the realscenario. Swan and Trawick47 and Olshavskyand Miller48 suggested that performance onlymight be the crucial determinant of satisfac-tion for some items. Whipple and Thach49

believed that customers’ satisfaction shoulddepend on the performance of suppliers,

especially for those who are first-time pur-chasers. Bowen,50 in a study of long-haulinclusive tours, suggested that six antecedentsindependently or in combination affectedconsumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction per-formance, expectation, disconfirmation, at-tribution, emotion and equity. In hisparticipant observation, he found that theperformance element was considered to havethe greatest influence on tourist satisfactionand dissatisfaction. Furthermore, the tourleader and the participants all have a signifi-cant influence on the tour performance.Geva and Goldman51 noted that the intensecontact and constant interaction with partici-pants gives the tour leader a positive advan-tage compared to a company (tour operator)that is not at the scene and is unable todefend itself.

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE AND

ATTITUDE/BEHAVIOURExtremely satisfied tourists might have greatexpectations of their next purchase. So com-paring experienced travellers to those with-out similar experience, which group expectsmore or is more easily satisfied? Empiricalstudies show that previous experiences affecta person’s attitude and expectation towardsthe next purchase. Westbrook and New-man52 reported that people with previoustravel experience developed more moderateexpectations than did people without pre-vious travel experience. They also pointedout that people with extensive travel experi-ences tended to develop realistic expecta-tions and showed greater satisfaction ratingsthan did people without experience. Whip-ple and Thach53 concluded that ‘experiencedparticipants gave consistently higher expecta-tion and performance ratings for services. . .inexperienced travellers, conversely, ex-pected more from the special events concertand dining’.

Woodruff et al.54 introduced an ‘experi-ence-based model’ which emphasized theconsumers’ experience with an evoked set ofbrands as determinants of satisfaction. Themodel indicated that consumers’ experience

Page 308


should be taken into account when evaluat-ing their satisfaction during service encoun-ters. So far, however, there is limitedevidence to indicate that there is a positiverelationship between experience and satisfac-tion.

Tourist value is associated with the holi-day experience at a destination.55 Zeithaml56

defines perceived value as ‘the consumer’soverall assessment of the utility of a productbased on a perception of what is receivedand what is given’. Many researchers believethat people change their behaviour during avacation. Carr57 considers that personal mo-tivations for taking a vacation and touristculture have an impact on tourist behaviour.They become more liberated and less re-strained than when staying at home. Thistrait of tourist behaviour might be influencedby the holiday atmosphere,58 but it is be-lieved that personal characteristics in terms ofnorms and values also play an important partin influencing this kind of behaviour.59 It hasbeen confirmed that equitable treatmentduring the process of consumption amongtourists is an important factor.

EQUITYEquity concepts are known to influencesatisfaction directly.60 Therefore, equitabletreatment during the process of consumptionamong consumers needs to be paid moreattention. The judgement of fairness is veryindividualistic and diverse because of perso-nal value judgements and cultural back-ground; it involves idiosyncratic tangible andintangible elements.61 Oliver62 stated that:

‘many equity norms are held as passiveexpectation, as in fair play in sports andgentlemen’s agreements more generally.Thus, feelings of equity may not be pro-cessed unless these norms are violated.’

Francken and Van Raaij63 regarded the attri-bution of inequality as a significant factor indetermining satisfaction/dissatisfaction. So-cial equality theory deals with interchangerelationships between individual input (cost)and output (benefit). Oliver and DeSarbo64

proposed the ‘equity model’ of satisfaction

which suggested that the customer would besatisfied when the amount of input to out-come ratio is perceived as impartial and fair.In guided package tours there are manyinteractions and so inputs and outcomes be-tween a tour leader and tour members. Inguiding a package tour, Webster65 suggestedthat the tour leader should not have favour-ites and should try to treat every groupmember equally.

HEDONISM AND ENJOYMENTHunt66 stated that satisfaction is not thepleasurable expression of a consumption ex-perience but an evaluation of product per-formance. Consumption emotion duringproduct usage is distinguishable from satisfac-tion. Joy, anger and fear are expressions ofemotional experience.67 With the study ofconsumption experience in playing videogames, Holbrook et al.68 suggested that it isquite reasonable to expect that one’s emo-tional responses to playful consumption in agame should depend on performance. Thesuccess of the game should reinforce one’sfeeling of pleasure, arousal and dominance.Unger and Kernan69 considered that theconsumption experience of satisfaction, en-joyment, fun and other hedonic aspects havebeen widely accepted as the essence of playand other leisure activities. Holbrook andHirschman70 stated that consumer behaviourincludes hedonic elements of fun, feelingsand fantasies that ought to be examined intheir own right.

Hedonic value is a more subjective andpersonal feeling and results in more fun andplayfulness compared with its utilitariancounterpart.71 The enjoyment perceivedduring the travel encounter is of increasingconcern to holidaymakers and can be viewedas part of the contribution towards the satis-faction with a complete consumption ex-perience. Consciousness of enjoyment itselfis a significant hedonic benefit providedthrough shopping activities72 and travel ex-periences. Babin et al.73 emphasized thatrecreational shoppers are likely to expecthigh levels of hedonic value. Many aspects oftravel experience, such as gift shopping, cui-

Page 309

Bowie and Chang

sine tasting, viewing scenic beauty and re-laxation were perceived as pleasurable bytourists.

STUDY METHODThe primary research method involved par-ticipant observation. Satisfaction is an emo-tional response and changes frequently atmultiple levels during service encountersthroughout a package tour (see Figure 2).The complexity of the service in a tourproduct and the perceptions of customerstoward those services are difficult to unravelunless the consumption experience is actu-ally observed. For example, observation atthe hotel front desk during and after a tourgroup’s check-in can identify significant in-cidents relating to the problems that custo-mers encounter and the service personnel’sresponse. Participant observation can illumi-nate the details regarding human existence,which can then be used to examine criticallyand further develop hypotheses and theories.When a phenomenon is imprecise and im-penetrable to outsiders, or the research pro-blem is imbued with human meanings andinteractions, the researcher needs to investi-gate the issue by gaining access to the inter-nal aspects of the phenomenon andexploring deeper meanings, which can bediscovered by observing the reality.74 Theparticipant observation approach allows aresearcher to interact with those they studyand minimize the distance between the re-searcher and those being researched. Gabbottand Hogg75 suggest that, in reality, it isdifficult to know travellers’ real needs ortravel motives indeed, travellers may not beaware of their motives (the ‘hidden’ motive),or they may not tell the truth. Veal76 con-firmed that participant observation providesan insight into the real world and uncoversthe complexity of social settings. It is a keymethod to research particular phenomenaand is commonly used in leisure and tourismelements.

Participant observation has been utilizedin guided tours in a range of different con-texts.77 In a study of the relationships be-tween client expectations and satisfaction in

river-rafting trips, Arnould and Price78 foundthat participant observation data enrich theinterpretation of qualitative results. Ryan79

stated that in the area of tourism research,direct interaction with respondents by theresearcher playing a real part rather thansimply acting as a detached observer alsogenerates rich and significant data. Seaton80

carried out an exploratory study of a guidedtour party, which involved a three-day tourof European First World War battlefields,using the participant observation technique;his findings confirmed the use and benefitsof participant and unobtrusive observation intourism satisfaction research. Seaton81 sug-gests that the method of observation in aclosed-field tourism event offers real oppor-tunities in research. He also stated that manyresearchers support the view that participantobservation is a valid research methodologyfor conducting tourism research; in anotherstudy, Bowen82 confirmed that participantobservation makes a significant contributionto understanding tour operation manage-ment.

The guided package tourThe researcher, using a combination of con-venience and purposive selection methods,chose a guided package tour to Scandinaviabecause of the destination’s image as a re-mote and exotic holiday; most participantslater described it as a ‘once-in-a-lifetime’experience. The tour operator was selectedbecause it was a major international com-pany with extensive distribution channels.Participants booked the tour from a widevariety of different countries. The nationa-lities included Americans, Australians,Britons, Koreans, Kuwaitis and Singapor-eans. The product was a mid-market, mid-price tour visiting three countries Denmark,Norway and Sweden over a period of 12days in the month of July, starting in Copen-hagen.

The tour comprised two groups (A and B)who stayed in the same hotels and hadmostly the same itinerary. The researcherjoined Group B, which had 43 participants(13 couples, eight solos and two families

Page 310


totalling nine people). There were 24females and 19 males (including the re-searcher). While most of the couple partici-pants were aged between 40 and 60, the soloparticipants, most of whom were female,tended to be younger but over 30. Both thecouples and solo participants had consider-able prior travel experience. Many of theparticipants had used the tour operator be-fore. The tour leader for Group B was a 26-year-old Dutch female with only a fewmonths’ work experience in the travel in-dustry. Group A had a very experiencedmale tour leader. Along with the two tourleaders, three tourist guides were arrangedfor local interpretation in different destina-tions for both groups.

Gathering dataThe participant observation started at Co-penhagen airport on the first day and endedthere on the last day. Observations wereconducted throughout the entire tour ex-perience. A male Chinese researcher carriedout the participant observation; most con-versations and observations took place dur-ing breakfast, dinner, free leisure time andon a coach. The setting of a coach interiorprovides a strong physical and psychologicaldirective for interaction,83 and this physicalproximity encourages interaction. The re-searcher was able to interact with differenttour members on the coach, although theinflexibility of the seating arrangements didcreate some constraints. There was no diffi-culty for the researcher in approaching solosand family members, but some of the couplestended to sit alone and walk together – thisrestricted the researcher from having conver-sations with them. On the second day of thetour the tour leader introduced each groupmember and their nationality, which helpedthe tour members become acquainted witheach other. Most group members seemedinterested in discussing their experienceswith each other.

Ethical considerations appear when re-search involves human participants – theconflict between the ‘right to know’ and theparticipants’ ‘right to privacy, dignity and

self-determination’. Rossman and Rallis84

considered that ethical dilemmas were notsolvable but could be reasoned throughmoral principle; a researcher may not agreewith the prevailing dominant principle buthe or she must be able to explain the reasonbehind it. Judd et al.85 believed that partici-pant observation is clearly not free of ethicalproblems; but the people who are studiedmight be given a more equal voice if theresearch is recoding rather than manipulatingevents, and listening rather than forcing peo-ple into participation. Serious thought wasgiven to the ethical issue before carrying outthis participant observation research. Theresearch team believed that an observationalstudy of naturally occurring behaviour in apublic space, without any manipulation ofevents, was acceptable since it did not exposeparticipants to physical or mental stress orinvade their privacy in any significant de-gree. The collected data, including conversa-tions and observation of participants’ actions,could be coded anonymously, and reflectionupon the customers’ needs and expectationsfrom the package tour could be viewed as asocial phenomenon. It was judged that acovert participant approach was unlikely toaffect the privacy of participants, so partici-pants were not told that they were beingobserved.86 This avoided unnecessary biassince the researcher was one of the groupparticipants and was no different from theother travellers. He paid the same fee forjoining the tour, and the tour operator andcompany employees were not aware of thisresearch. The researcher tried to maintain aneutral role during conversations with groupmembers and avoided forced or leadingquestions throughout the tour. Descriptiveobservation was recorded in fieldnotes writ-ten in Chinese on a regular basis. Thisenabled accurate records of conversationsand incidents to be written in private. Cul-tural differences did not hinder the partici-pant observation.

Modified grounded theory87 was appliedto generate theory. An intensive data analysiswas processed to discover the cultural pat-terns of the social situation that emergedduring the observation. Fieldnotes were ana-

Page 311

Bowie and Chang

lysed using domain analysis, which is a sys-tematic examination of content and thedevelopment of categories.88 The first step inthe analysis was to describe each groupmember’s expectation and the actual travelexperience which they encountered on thetour. The second step was to identify custo-mers’ emotional feelings such as complaints,enjoyment and levels of dis/satisfaction basedon their experiences with the service en-counters and their interactions with othergroup members. The third step was to cate-gorize the critical incidents in each sector ofthe guided package tour which led to com-plaints, enjoyment and levels of dis/satisfac-tion. Critical incidents were identifiedwithin the general framework of Wang etal.89 (see Figure 2). Based on the criticalincidents, the final step was to identify thevariables that related to customer dis/satisfac-tion. This is depicted in Figure 3.

This study focused on the observations ofthe original experiences of tour participantsduring the tour only. An important part ofthis study is the identification of those vari-ables that influence customers’ satisfactionwhich emerged during the participant-

observation. However, it should be notedthat this study evaluates rather than measurescustomers’ satisfaction.

The participating group members wereinternational tourists and most of them spokeEnglish. Some nuances of language mightnot have been observed due to the accentsand second languages spoken. Less familiaritywith cultures, and also cultural differences,among group members may have in minorways affected the researcher’s collection ofwider opinions and interpretation of nuance.However, these limitations were deemed tobe relatively minor restrictions and thoughtnot to have affected the accuracy of dataanalysis. Other limitations may also have oc-curred. First, the data collection primarilyfocused on the stories of the participantgroup members about their experiences,whilst the tour leader’s perspective was notinvestigated in depth. Second, the tour op-erator organized two groups (A and B) at thesame time with the same itinerary. Partici-pants’ dis/satisfaction in Group B (see below)might have been different if they had notbeen able to compare their experiences withGroup A.

��

*��

��

��+��,�'�� ,�-��,��,��,��

.��

��

!��

/��

Figure 3 The study’s approach

Page 312


FINDINGSA number of key findings emerged. First,prior expectations, attitude and behaviourand equity were found to have significantlyinfluenced customers’ enjoyment and satis-faction on the tour. Second, there were twomajor sources of complaints – the tour oper-ator’s arrangements (hotel selection and itin-erary) and the tour leader’s competence.Third, couples seemed to have more enjoy-ment and fewer complaints than the soloparticipants – indeed the British, Irish andAustralian couples did not show especialemotional reactions to problems and did notcomplain. Finally, the results indicated thatthe tour leader is the significant determinant– psychologically, spiritually and practically –affecting the success of the tour product.

ExpectationsThe findings suggested that the customer’sdegree of expectation is strongly related topast travel experience and the perception ofpackage tour products. Past travel experiencecan be classified into past guided packagetour experiences – either with the same or adifferent tour operator – and non-guidedpackage tour experiences. Mancini90 statedthat tour participants bring high expectations– for example, they expect that every mealin the tour will be perfect – and so theirexpectations are unrealistic. In this studyparticipants who had organized their ownvacations, and for whom this was the firsttime they had joined a group tour, tended tohave low expectations. In contrast, thosewho had travelled with the same tour opera-tor before had high expectations; theytended to develop an ideal level of expecta-tion which was based on their previousexperiences.91 However, since all the partici-pants were visiting Scandinavia for the firsttime, some of the expectations about thetour product were not explicit – except theirexpectations of the tour leader’s role.

‘This is my first time joining a group tourand I don’t expect too much.’ JJ (Amer-ican, who has travelled a lot with his wife).

‘Why do you join the group tour if you

don’t expect too much? I always expectmore.’ AW (American woman, Day 10).

AI, an Australian, asked the tour leader foroptional tours on Day 1 and said that shewould like to join them all. She had veryhigh expectations of all the optional tours(from previous experience) – she joinedall of them and was happy with the results.

Most of the participants with previous travelexperience expected the tour leader would‘do a good job’ during the tour. This highexpectation was based on their previouspositive experiences with tour leaders. Thefindings showed that customers’ expectationswere closely related to past personal experi-ences – good experiences resulted in higherexpectations; negative experiences resultedin lower expectations. However, once thetour had started the participants’ actual ex-pectations of Group B’s tour leader wereaffected by comparison with Group A’s tourleader. In one sense, their ‘zone of tolerance’narrowed and their adequate level of expec-tations shifted higher. This comparison mayhave moved the perceptions of performancedown towards the ‘zone of indifference’.

Attitude and behaviourAt the beginning of the tour, participantswho were joining a group tour for the firsttime and had negative thoughts, along withthose who had had unpleasant previous ex-periences, were uncertain and lacked con-fidence in the product. However, theperformance of the tour leader and inter-actions with other group participants eitherconfirmed their fears or altered their opinion(positively). Indeed, the participants’ enjoy-ment of the tour was based more on numer-ous ‘moments of truth’ rather than anyprejudicial pre-tour attitudes. Attitudes werealso influenced by the positive/negative viewsof other participants. Under certain circum-stances, tourists’ behaviour was changed byeither imitation, interaction or the setting.

For example, at the end of the city tour(Day 10), the tour guide was standing at thefront door of the coach waiting for her tips.AI, an experienced traveller who had joined

Page 313

Bowie and Chang

most of the optional tours, said ‘There is noneed to tip the tour guide.’ Not manyparticipants tipped her – despite encourage-ment in the tour booklet and suggestionsfrom the overall tour leader. The coach hadtwo doors and some group members got offthe coach through the back door to avoidthe embarrassment of not tipping.

A positive interpersonal relationship isvital for travellers during the journey. Thestudy group was composed of numerouscouples, several solo travellers and twofamilies from all over the world. The couplesseemed to have more interactions with othercouples and tended to enjoy each other’scompanionship. Most of the solo participantsdid not seem to be enjoying the companion-ship of their tour members very much (seeTable 1). Several causes for this were appar-ent: their cultural background, personality,the reduced chances of interaction with thecouples and purpose of travel. This studyshowed that the couples and family groupsseemed more satisfied and complained lessthan the solo participants but there is cer-tainly scope for confirmation of such a find-ing in a further study.

EquityThe itinerary involved many days of longdriving by coach through rural areas. Thetour leader had requested ‘seat rotation’ toenable each group participant to have anequal opportunity of sitting in the front.

However, many tour participants were con-fused by this, and whilst some participantsdid rotate others did not; this resulted inconflict between group members, which wasnot resolved by the tour leader. Besides seatrotation, several other issues concerned theparticipants, such as the tour leader’s lack ofexperience, the fee paid for the tour, theextra room fee for solo participants and thecontents of optional tours. The following areextracts from the researcher’s notes.

‘In the morning a quarrel occurred. AIcomplained to the tour leader that somegroup participants always occupied thefront seat. The tour leader was quiet. AABfought back and said to AI: ‘‘Lady, whydon’t you just shut up.’’ (Day 10)’

‘AJ, an American, couldn’t sleep in asingle-size bed. She complained and said‘‘it is unfair, I have paid an extra fee forthe hotel room – how come I only get asingle-sized bed in my room?’’ (Day 3)’

‘SG from Singapore said: ‘‘I feel that someoptional tours are focusing on food whichis only suitable for Western people. I feelthat it is not worth joining them – it isboring and a waste of time because thesepeople tend to spend long hours drinkingwine.’’ (Day 2)’

‘The comparison between Group A andGroup B’s tour leaders was noted whenboth groups stayed in the same hotels.Two Taiwanese tour participants in

Table 1: Solo participants and their problems

Character Incident

Divorced woman – AC Had lots of travel experience and had very high expectation of both thetour operator and the tour leader; fought with a group member by accusinghim of not rotating his seat; was mad at a woman who was sitting next toher on the coach for speaking too much; she disliked a lady whocomplained too much.

Single woman – AJ Interrupted others’ conversation without any hesitating; could not findpartners to go to the pub; annoyed tour members and gave the tour leaderlots of headaches by persistent requests for a queen-size bed.

Married woman travellingalone – KW

Lost her luggage for many days; complained that the food was withoutenough vegetables; was not pleased with the tour leader; could not standthe roommate for either making too much noise or being too dependent.

Page 314


Group A told me that Group B are un-happy with their tour leader and they con-sidered Group A tour leader to be muchmore interesting and stimulating. (Day 4)’

EnjoymentUndoubtedly, travellers hope that they willhave an enjoyable holiday. Indeed, enjoy-ment influences the level of customer dis/satisfaction, especially through memorableincidents – both positive and negative. Manystudies have shown that relaxation and ap-preciating the local scenery are important fortravellers.92 This study demonstrated thatmost group participants prefer to rise late,dislike a rushed itinerary and want the op-portunity to explore local areas for them-selves. Many participants suggested that theitinerary of the trip should be altered and thecoach should stop at small towns instead of atrestaurants next to gas stations for breaks. Enroute, potentially interesting scenic visits andcontact with local culture were frequentlyunenjoyable, due to the limited time avail-able because of itinerary constraints. In fact,a contradiction always existed between touroperators and their customers regarding thetight schedule.

Whilst bars were favourite places forWestern people, the Asians were less inter-ested in drinking alcohol in bars. Most of thetour participants regarded shopping and tak-ing photos as significant and enjoyable activ-ities on the tour. Purchasing souvenirs andgifts for family and friends and showingphotos are a key part of the post-tour enjoy-ment – shopping experiences can createvalue by providing enjoyment.93 However,the tour operator arranged accommodationtoo far away from city centres and thisinhibited participants’ opportunity for shop-ping and nightlife activities.

Tour leaders’ performance:

Professional skills and unforeseeable

eventsThe tour leader came under special pressurefrom tour participants when unforeseeable

events occurred. The various ethnic groups,who had different cultural backgrounds anddifferent attitudes, had different approachesto resolving difficulties, and this createdcomplications for the tour leader. Clearly,many unforeseeable factors can affect custo-mer enjoyment and satisfaction, especiallythe performance of the tour leader underpressure. This study identified two dimen-sions – external factors and internal factors –which put the tour leader under pressure.The external factors included delayed flights,hotels’ labour shortage, bad weather, lostluggage, illness, non-punctuality such asgroup members arriving late for coach de-partures, overcrowding in restaurants, tourmembers’ attitudes such as breaking the rulesand selfishness and language obstacles.Among those variables, participants’ person-ality was found to be the key factor involvedwith the unforeseeable events. All of theseevents occurred and influenced dis/satisfac-tion to a certain degree, but they were out ofthe tour leader’s control. These events werenoted by the reseacher.

‘Following a city tour there was some freetime for leisure before the journey contin-ued. When it was time for the coach todepart, AC was missing and no one knewwhere she was. One hour later she cameback and the tour leader wanted her toapologize to all the group members. ACjust said: ‘‘I lost direction’’, but other tourparticipants were upset. (Day 4)’

‘KW, a married Korean woman from theUSA, took the tour alone because ofmarital problems. The airline lost her lug-gage and did not return her suitcases forseveral days. This put her in an extremelybad mood and totally ruined her holiday –even though the tour leader spent a lot oftime calling the airline on her behalf.’

Internal factors primarily involved the tourleader’s professional skills. The findings re-vealed that the tour leader’s character, perso-nal experience and knowledge were mostimportant. The lack of experience of theGroup B tour leader and the comparisonwith the Group A tour leader made the

Page 315

Bowie and Chang

Group B tour leader a target for criticism.However, without such a comparison (i.e. ifthere was only one coach on the tour),Group B participants might have had differ-ent opinions/perceptions of their tour lea-der. Some evidence demonstrating the tourleader’s shortcomings included:

• unfamiliarity with the local language –the tour leader could not help customersto order food;

• non-familiarity with some hotels ar-ranged for the journey;

• lack of enthusiasm to help tour partici-pants under certain circumstances;

• unwillingness to hear advice;• inadequate knowledge in interpretation;• inadequate communication skills, which

resulted in misunderstandings with someof the group members.

A number of tour participants chose thetour operator because of their favourableimpression of tour leader performance onprevious tours. The Group B tour leaderadmitted that she had only a few months’guiding experience. Although she actuallydid make a considerable effort on behalf ofparticipants, the comparison with the experi-enced tour leader put her in a difficult situa-tion. This finding showed that aninexperienced tour leader could easily jeo-pardize customers’ satisfaction because of alack of core knowledge and the inability toexplain local Scandinavian culture, customsand history. Simply providing a good servicewithout giving detailed explanations of thelocality was not satisfactory for some partici-pants. Interpersonal communication skillswere another significant factor for success,especially when providing services for inter-national tourists.

Participants’ complaints with regard to theGroup B tour leader included:

• did not control noisy participants whentravelling on the coach;

• forgot to pick up a participant at theairport!

• lack of knowledge and inexperienced;• did not take group members out to local

bars and attractions;

• talked too much;• did not prevent disagreements between

participants, for example forgetting toremind participants to rotate their seats.

Some of the complaints stemmed fromthe fact that the tour leader had personalfavourites. Indeed, the performance of thetour leader could have been improved if shehad paid more attention to the opinions ofthe tour participants. These shortcomings in-fluenced customer enjoyment and satisfac-tion in different degrees, either directly orindirectly. However, not all the tour partici-pants were upset by these shortcomings.

ComplaintsOne cause of dissatisfaction toward the touroperator was the intense itinerary and manydays of long driving by coach especially thewhole day driving on Day 11. However, thefindings showed that tour members com-plained more about the hotel services andthe tour leader than other services. Thismight indicate a correlation between thelength of contact time and the number ofcomplaints. Participants tended to expectbetter-quality hotel facilities and services, butcomplained when the services were incon-sistent or unsatisfactory. In fact, customers’complaints about the service of hotelsseemed to be understandable; they did notoverexaggerate their demands or requirehigh standards of service quality or facilities.Their complaints could be avoided if serviceproviders were thoughtful when providingservices. Complaints were noted by the re-searcher.

‘During a hotel check-in, BJW, a couplewho were both slightly disabled, wereupset by the hotel service. The hotel hadno elevators and no service personnel whocould help them to carry their luggage tothe hotel room. (Day 1)’

‘The hotel on the first night and the lastnight was situated next to a railway, whichupset many participants. One participantcomplained that this was an absolutelyunforgivable mistake. (Day 1)’

Page 316


‘During lunchtime, AI, AJ and AC sattogether. AJ from America complainedthat she couldn’t sleep and fell out of thebed all the time. She said ‘‘. . .the singlesize bed is too small for me to sleep in.’’ AJapproached the tour leader many times torequest a double bedroom. One day be-fore the check-in to the hotel she againargued with the tour leader. The tourleader said, ‘‘. . . our conversation is over’’(Day 2, 3)’

DISCUSSIONIt might seem that there is no way in whicha tour operator could satisfy each individualneed during a service encounter unlessdealing with a luxury/small tour with ahomogeneous group. Although customers’expectations are strongly related to past travelexperiences, their expectations can be unrea-listic when on the tour. Too many unfore-seeable factors affect the service delivery notto mention the complex background of amixed group of international tourists. Cul-tural differences and individual personalityalso influence the satisfaction of customers.Moreover, the tour leader’s performanceseems difficult to standardize. It is true thatan experienced tour leader should be able toforesee problems and solve them before theyoccur. To avoid misunderstanding, perhapsthe tour operator should provide customerswith a list of the ‘dos and don’ts’ that mightallow a tour to be more successful. If this isnot practical, an introduction at the begin-ning of a tour by the tour leader so as toidentify the nature of the product and local

culture is essential. Psychological build-upand good communication with customersare important for providing a successful ser-vice.

However, whilst the work that the touroperator or tour leader has done on behalf ofcustomers may be very good, it may notentirely influence customers’ total satisfac-tion. In short, customers’ satisfaction is com-posed of hard tangible elements and softintangible service. It is the combination of,on the one hand, the service performance ofthe tour leader and the tour operator and, onthe other, the customers’ anticipation andperceptions of the vacation, their expecta-tions prior to the tour, their attitudes andbehaviour (past travel experience) and theirperceptions of equity and unforeseeableevents during service encounters. The tourleader coordinates the successful delivery ofthe tour operator’s product provided by amultiplicity of suppliers. Customers’ satisfac-tion will be developed through confidencein the product and the leadership of the tourleader (see Figure 4). Pond94 discovered that‘condescending’, substandard behaviour to-ward groups is rampant throughout the in-dustry. He considered that leadership andsocial skills are significant in the guidingexperience. Lopez95 considered that leader-ship styles of tour leaders during a tour arerelated to customer satisfaction. Lopez sug-gested that in the initial period of the tourthe group members are more satisfied withthe tour quality under authoritarian leader-ship. By contrast, in the latter part of the tourthe group members are more satisfied underdemocratic leadership. As a result, clear

�

!��.-��

��.'�� !��

&��.-��

��

!��$��

"��

��

"��

Figure 4Formation of customer satisfaction – The role of the tour leader

Page 317

Bowie and Chang

structuring of orientation sessions for travel-lers may be very important at the initial stageof the tour, and may enhance the confidenceof the travellers.

CONCLUSIONWhilst looking at customer satisfaction, mostresearchers use a quantitative research tech-nique of questionnaires to measure the levelof customer dis/satisfaction, using those de-terminants which researchers have assumedwill have an impact on customer satisfaction.In order to look with insight into the realityof customer dis/satisfaction, this study usedparticipant observation to collect first-hand,rich information. It could be argued thatconducting only one participant observationwas not enough to discover the whole pictureof how travellers were satisfied. In addition,the collected data might be biased due to theresearcher’s personal subjectivity even thoughthe researcher took great care to avoid such asituation. Post-tour telephone interviewswere considered in order to overcome thelimitations of participant observation study.However, the researcher faced the challengeof accessibility in engaging in internationaltelephone interviews: the tour participantswere from different countries, and were nottold that they were being observed.

Customer satisfaction is a pivotal concernfor tour operators to generate future busi-ness. This study identified the following im-portant variables, which were related tocustomer satisfaction during a mixed interna-tional guided package tour: expectation, cus-tomer on-tour attitude and behaviour, theperception of equity and the performance ofthe tour leader. The study also developed aframework (see Figure 4) for tour operatorsin providing customer satisfaction. The pro-posed framework suggested the importanceof the tour leader’s leadership skills andemphasized the importance of tour leaders’performance but ignored the service attitudeof tour leaders, such as personal serviceattention.

In fact, international tourists from differ-ent cultural backgrounds might evaluate tourleaders’ service attitude as more important

than their performance skills. Asian touristsdemand much more personalized and custo-mer-oriented service.96 Since culture symbo-lizes patterns of behaviour associated with aparticular group of people,97 different ethnicgroups might require different leadershipstyles and service attention. It was impossibleto specify what kinds of leadership stylesmight be appropriate for a tour leader for amixed international guided package tour. Afurther study would be useful to find out theservice characteristics/leadership styles oftour leaders from different ethnic groups ornationalities, and which style(s) would fitbest in a mixed international guided tour.

This study has hinted at the differentneeds for satisfaction in terms of ethnicgroups. Mixed-culture international grouptours will almost certainly increase in thefuture. To understand better what makestourists dissatisfied or complain about a spe-cific tourist experience, further studiesshould seek to identify the needs of specificethnic groups. Moreover, it seems that com-panionship is a crucial factor in assessingcustomer satisfaction; so the study of solo/couple/family travel segments in the packagetour is also recommended for further re-search.

REFERENCES

(1) Pizam, A., Neumann, Y. and Reichel, A.(1978) ‘Dimensions of Tourist Satisfactionwith a Destination Area’, Annals of TourismResearch, 5(3): 314–22; Beard, J. G. andRagheb, M. G. (1980) ‘Measuring LeisureSatisfaction’, Journal of Leisure Research,12(1): 20–33; Lounsbury, J. W. andHoopes, L. L. (1985) ‘An Investigation ofFactors Associated with Vacation Satisfac-tion’, Journal of Leisure Research, 17(1): 1–13;Duke, C. R. and Persia, M. A. (1996)‘Consumer-Defined Dimensions FemaleEscorted Tour Industry Segment: Expecta-tions, Satisfaction, and Importance’, Journalof Travel and Tourism Marketing, 5(1/2):77–99; Weber, K. (1997) ‘The Assessmentof Tourist Satisfaction Using the Expec-tancy Disconfirmation Theory: A Study ofthe German Travel Marketing in Australia’,Pacific Tourism Review, 1(1): 35–45.

Page 318


(2) Moutinho, L. (ed.) (2000) Strategic Manage-ment in Tourism. New York: CABI Publish-ing.

(3) Harris, E. K. (1996) Customer Service: APractical Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

(4) Jones, T. O. and Sasser, W. E. Jr (1995)‘Why Satisfied Customers Defect’, HarvardBusiness Review, 73(6): 88–99.

(5) Westwood, S. H., Morgan, N., Pritchard,A. and Ineson, E. M. (1999) ‘Branding thePackage Holiday – The Role and Signifi-cance of Brands for UK Air Tour Opera-tors’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5(3):238–52.

(6) Levitt, T. (1981) ‘Marketing IntangibleProducts and Product Intangibles’, HarvardBusiness Review, 59(3): 94–102.

(7) Mancini, M. (1996) Conducting Tours, 2ndedn. New York: Delmar Publishers.

(8) Swarbrooke, J. and Horner, S. (1999) Con-sumer Behaviour in Tourism. Oxford: Butter-worth-Heinemann.

(9) Mancini, ref. 7 above.(10) Pond, K. L. (1993) The Professional Guide:

Dynamics of Tour Guiding. New York: VanNostrand Reinhold.

(11) Mancini, ref. 7 above.(12) Webster, S. (1993) Group Travel Operating

Procedures, 2nd edn. New York: Van Nos-trand Reinhold.

(13) Stevens, L. (1990) Guide to Starting andOperating a Successful Travel Agency, 3rd edn.New York: Delmar Publishers.

(14) Mancini, ref. 7 above.(15) Lopez, E. M. (1980) ‘The Effect of Leader-

ship Style on Satisfaction Levels of TourQuality’, Journal of Travel Research, 18(4):20–3; Quiroga, I. (1990) ‘Characteristics ofPackage Tours in Europe’, Annals of Tour-ism Research, 17(2): 185–207; Geva, A. andGoldman, A. (1991) ‘Satisfaction Measure-ment in Guided Tours’, Annals of TourismResearch, 18(2): 177–212; Mossberg, L. L.(1995) ‘Tour Leaders and Their Importancein Charter Tours’, Tourism Management,16(6): 437–45.

(16) Gronroos, C. (1978) ‘A Service OrientedApproach to Marketing of Services’, Eur-opean Journal of Marketing, 12(3): 588–601.

(17) Mossberg, ref. 15 above.(18) Geva and Goldman, ref. 15 above.(19) Mossberg, ref. 15 above.(20) Shostack, L. (1977) ‘Breaking Free from

Product Marketing’, Journal of Marketing,

41(April): 73–80.(21) Gronroos, C. (1990) Service Management and

Marketing – Managing Moments of Truth inService Competition. Lexington, MA: Lexing-ton Books.

(22) Shostack, G. L. (1985) ‘Planning the Ser-vice Encounter’, in Czepiel, J. A., Solo-mon, M. R., Surprenant, C. F. andGutman, E. G. (eds) The Service Encounter –Managing Employee/Customer Interaction inService Businesses, pp. 243–54. Lexington,MA: Lexington Books.

(23) Bateson, J. (1985) ‘Perceived Control andthe Service Encounter’, in Czepiel, J., Solo-mon, M. R., Surprenant, C. F. and Gut-man, E. G. (eds) The Service Encounter –Managing Employee/Customer Interaction inService Businesses, pp. 67–82. Lexington,MA: Lexington Books.

(24) Gabbott, M. and Hogg, G. (1998) Consu-mers and Services. Chichester: John Wiley &Sons.

(25) Czepiel, J. A., Solomon, M. R., Surpre-nant, C. F. and Gutman, E. G. (eds) (1985)The Service Encounter – Managing Employee/Customer Interaction in Service Businesses. Lex-ington, MA: Lexington Books.

(26) Bitner, M. J., Boons, B. M. and Tetreault,M. (1990) ‘The Service Encounter: Diag-nosing Favourable and Unfavourable Inci-dents’, Journal of Marketing, 54(January):71–84.

(27) Maslow, A. H. and Mintz, N. (1953) ‘Ef-fects of Aesthetic Surroundings’, Journal ofPsychology, 41(1): 247–54.

(28) Gabbott and Hogg, ref. 24 above.(29) Solomon, M., Surprenant, C., Czepiel,

J. A. and Gutman, E. (1985) ‘A Role ofTheory Perspective on Dyadic Interactions:The Service Encounter’, Journal of Market-ing, 49(Winter): 99–111.

(30) Santos, J. (1998) ‘The Role of Tour Opera-tors’ Promotional Material in the Formationof Destination Image and Consumer Ex-pectations: The Case of the People’s Re-public of China’, Journal of VacationMarketing, 4(3): 282–97.

(31) Davidow, W. H. and Uttal, B. (1989) ‘Ser-vice Companies: Focus or Falter’, HarvardBusiness Review, July–August: 77–85.

(32) ‘Miller, J. A. (1977) ‘Studying Satisfaction,Modifying Models, Inciting Expectations,Posing Problems and Making MeaningfulMeasurements’, in Hunt, H. K. (ed.) Con-ceptualization and Measurement of Consumer

Page 319

Bowie and Chang

Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, pp. 72–91.Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Insti-tute.

(33) Miller, ref. 32 above.(34) Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L. and Parasura-

man, A. (1993) ‘The Nature and Determi-nants of Customer Expectations of Service’,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,21(1): 1–12.

(35) Miller, ref. 32 above; Ekinci, Y., Riley, M.and Chen, J. S. (2001) ‘A Review of Com-parison Standards Used in Service Qualityand Customer Satisfaction Studies: SomeEmerging Issues for Hospitality and Tour-ism Research’, in Mazanec, J. A., Crouch,G. I., Brent Ritchie, J. R. and Woodside,A. G. (eds) Consumer Psychology of Tourism,Hospitality and Leisure, pp. 321–32. NewYork: CABI Publishing.

(36) Bluel, B. (1990) ‘Commentary: CustomerDissatisfaction and the Zone of Uncer-tainty’, Journal of Services Marketing, 4(1):49–52.

(37) Woodruff, R. B., Cadotte, E. R. and Jen-kins, R. L. (1983) ‘Modeling ConsumerSatisfaction Processed Using Experience-Based Norms’, Journal of Marketing Research,20(August): 296–304.

(38) Heskett, J. L., Jones, T. O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, W. E. Jr and Schlesinger, L. A.(1994) ‘Putting the Service Profit Chain toWork’, Harvard Business Review: 164–74.

(39) Pizam, A. and Milman, A. (1993) ‘Predict-ing Satisfaction Among First Time Visitorsto a Destination by Using the ExpectancyDisconfirmation Theory’, International Jour-nal of Hospitality Management, 12: 197–209.

(40) Santos, ref. 30 above.(41) Oh, H. and Parks, S. C. (1997) ‘Customer

Satisfaction and Service Quality: A CriticalReview of the Literature and Research Im-plications for the Hospitality Industry’, Hos-pitality Research Journal, 20(3): 35–64.

(42) Oliver, R. L. (1980) ‘A Cognitive Model ofthe Antecedents and Consequences of Satis-faction Decisions’, Journal of Marketing Re-search, 17: 460–9.

(43) Yuksel, A. and Rimmington, M. (1998)‘Customer-Satisfaction Measurement Per-formance Counts’, Cornell Hotel and Restau-rant Administration Quarterly, 39(6): 60–70.

(44) Mazursky, D. (1989) ‘Past Experience andFuture Tourism Decisions’, Annals of Tour-ism Research, 16(3): 333–44.

(45) Bowen, D. (2001) ‘Antecedents of Consu-

mer Satisfaction and Dis-satisfaction (CS/D) on Long-Haul Inclusive Tours A Rea-lity Check on Theoretical Considerations’,Tourism Management, 22(1): 49–61.

(46) Botterill, D. T. (1987) ‘Dissatisfaction witha Construction of Satisfaction’, Annals ofTourism Research, 14(1): 139–40.

(47) Swan, J. E. and Trawick, I. F. (1981)‘Satisfaction Explained by Desired vs Pre-dictive Expectations’, in Bernhardt, K. L.,Dolich, I., Etzel, M., Kehoe, W., Perreault,W. and Roering, K. (eds) The ChangingMarketing Environment: New Theories andApplications, pp. 170–3. Chicago: AmericanMarketing Association.

(48) Olshavsky, R. W. and Miller, J. A. (1972)‘Consumer Expectations, Product Perform-ance, and Perceived Product Quality’, Jour-nal of Marketing Research, 9(February):19–21.

(49) Whipple, T. W. and Thach, S. V. (1988)‘Group Tour Management: Does GoodService Produce Satisfied Customers?’, Jour-nal of Travel Research, 27(2): 16–21.

(50) Bowen, ref. 45 above.(51) Geva and Goldman, ref. 15 above.(52) Westbrook, R. A. and Newman, J. W.

(1978) ‘An Analysis of Shopper Dissatisfac-tion for Major Household Appliances’,Journal of Marketing Research, 15(August):456–66.

(53) Whipple and Thach, ref. 49 above.(54) Woodruff et al., ref. 37 above.(55) Weiermair, K. (2000) ‘Tourists’ Perceptions

Towards and Satisfaction With ServiceQuality in the Cross-Cultural Service En-counter: Implications for Hospitality andTourism Management’, Managing ServiceQuality, 10(6): 397–409.

(56) Zeithaml, V. A. (1988) ‘Consumer Percep-tions of Price, Quality and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence’,Journal of Marketing, 2(2): 2–22.

(57) Carr, N. (2002) ‘The Tourism-Leisure Be-havioural Continuum’, Annals of TourismResearch, 29(4): 972–86.

(58) Leontido, L. (1994) ‘Gender Dimensions ofTourism in Greece: Employment, Sub-Structuring and Restructuring’, in Kin-naird, V. and Hall, D. (eds) Tourism: AGender Analysis, pp. 74–104. Chichester:John Wiley & Sons.

(59) Valentine, G., Skelton, T. and Chambers,D. (1998) ‘Cool Places: An Introduction toYouth and Youth Cultures’, in Skelton, T.

Page 320


and Valentine, C. (eds) Cool Places: Geogra-phies of Youth Cultures, pp. 132. London:Routledge.

(60) Oliver, R. L. and Swan, J. E. (1989) ‘Con-sumer Perceptions of Interpersonal Equityand Satisfaction in Transactions: A FieldSurvey Approach’, Journal of Marketing,53(April): 21–35.

(61) Oliver, R. L. (1997) Satisfaction: A Behav-ioral Perspective on the Consumer. Singapore:McGraw-Hill.

(62) Oliver, ref. 61 above.(63) Francken, D. A. and Van Raaij, W. F.

(1981) ‘Satisfaction with Leisure Time Ac-tivities’, Journal of Leisure Research, 13(4):337–52.

(64) Oliver, R. L. and DeSarbo, W. S. (1988)‘Response Determinants in SatisfactionJudgments’, Journal of Consumer Research,14(March): 496–507.

(65) Webster, ref. 12 above.(66) Hunt, H. K. (1977) ‘CS/D Overview and

Future Research Directions’, in Hunt, H.K. (ed.) Conceptualization and Measurement ofConsumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, pp.455–88. Cambridge, MA: MarketingScience Institute.

(67) Westbrook, R. A. and Oliver, R. L. (1991)‘The Dimensionality of ConsumptionEmotion Patterns and Consumer Satisfac-tion’, Journal of Consumer Research, 18(June):84–91.

(68) Holbrook, M. B., Chestnut, R. W., Oliva,T. A. and Greenleaf, E. A. (1984) ‘Play as aConsumption Experience: The Roles ofEmotions, Performance, and Personality inthe Enjoyment of Games’, Journal of Con-sumer Research, 11(September): 728–39.

(69) Unger, L. S. and Kernan, J. B. (1983) ‘Onthe Meaning of Leisure: An Investigation ofSome Determinants of the Subjective Ex-perience’, Journal of Consumer Research,9(March): 381–92.

(70) Holbrook, M. B. and Hirschman, E. C.(1982) ‘The Experiential Aspects of Con-sumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings,and Fun’, Journal of Consumer Research,9(September): 132–40.

(71) Holbrook et al., ref. 68 above.(72) Bloch, P. H., Sherrell, D. L. and Ridgway,

N. M. (1986) ‘Consumer Search: An Ex-tended Framework’, Journal of Consumer Re-search, 13(June): 119–26.

(73) Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R. and Griffin, M.(1994) ‘Work and/or Fun: Measuring

Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value’,Journal of Consumer Research, 20(March):644–56.

(74) Jorgensen, D. L. (1989) Participant Observa-tion – A Methodology for Human Studies.London: Sage Publications.

(75) Gabbott and Hogg, ref. 24 above.(76) Veal, A. J. (1997) Research Methods for Leisure

and Tourism: A Practical Guide, 2nd edn.London: Pearson.

(77) Holloway, J. C. (1981) ‘The Guided Tour:A Sociological Approach’, Annals of TourismResearch, 8(3): 377–402; Arnould, E. E. andPrice, L. L. (1993) ‘River Magic: Extra-ordinary Experience and the Extended Ser-vice Encounter’, Journal of ConsumerResearch, 20(1): 24–45; Bowen, ref. 45above; Seaton, A. V. (2002) ‘ObservingConducted Tours: The Ethnographic Con-text in Tourist Research’, Journal of VacationMarketing, 8(4): 309–19.

(78) Arnould and Price, ref. 77 above.(79) Ryan, C. (1995) Researching Tourist Satisfac-

tion – Issues, Concepts, Problems. London:Routledge.

(80) Seaton, A. V. (2000) ‘Another WeekendAway Looking for Dead Bodies: BattlefieldTourism on the Somme and in Flanders’,Journal of Tourism and Recreation Research,25(3): 63–79.

(81) Seaton, ref. 80 above.(82) Bowen, D. (2001) ‘Research on Tourist

Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction: Overcom-ing the Limitations of a Positivist andQuantitative Approach’, Journal of VacationMarketing, 7(1): 31–40.

(83) Holloway, ref. 77 above.(84) Rossman, G. B. and Rallis, S. F. (1998)

Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Quali-tative Research. London: Sage Publications.

(85) Judd. C. M., Smith, E. R. and Kidder,L. H. (1991) Research Methods in Social Rela-tions, 6th edn. London: Harcourt BraceJovanovich.

(86) Bowen, ref. 45 above.(87) Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1997) Grounded

Theory in Practice. London: Sage Publica-tions.

(88) Spradley, J. P. (1980) Participant Observation.Orlando: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

(89) Wang, K. C., Hsieh, A. T. and Huan,T. C. (2000) ‘Critical Service Features inGroup Package Tours: An Exploratory Re-search’, Tourism Management, 21(2): 177–89.

(90) Mancini, ref. 7 above.

Page 321

Bowie and Chang

(91) Miller, ref. 32 above.(92) Crompton, J. L. (1979) ‘Motivations for

Pleasure Vacation’, Annals of Tourism Re-search, 6(4): 408–24; Oppermann, M. andChon, K. S. (1997) Tourism in DevelopingCountries. London: International ThomsonBusiness Press; Swarbrooke and Horner,ref. 8 above.

(93) Babin et al., ref. 73 above.(94) Pond, ref. 10 above.

(95) Lopez, ref. 15 above.(96) Reisinger, Y. and Turner, L. W. (2002)

‘Cultural Differences Between Asian Tour-ist Markets and Australian Hosts, Part 1’,Journal of Travel Research, 40(3): 295–315.

(97) Barnlund, D. and Araki, S. (1985) ‘Intercul-tural Encounters: The Management ofCompliments by Japanese and Americans’,Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16(1):9–26.

Page 322


tourist satisfaction: a view from a mixed international ...stefanva/skrar/tourist satisfaction_ a...

Documents