Tourism ReviewThe quality‐value‐satisfaction‐loyalty chain: relationships and impactsMartina G. Gallarza Irene Gil Saura Francisco Arteaga Moreno

Article information:To cite this document:Martina G. Gallarza Irene Gil Saura Francisco Arteaga Moreno, (2013),"The quality#value#satisfaction#loyalty chain: relationships andimpacts", Tourism Review, Vol. 68 Iss 1 pp. 3 - 20Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/16605371311310048

Downloaded on: 19 November 2014, At: 00:14 (PT)References: this document contains references to 80 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1374 times since 2013*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Haydn Ingram, Deborah Grieve, Diana Luck, Geoff Lancaster, (2013),"The significance of CRM to the strategies of hotel companies",Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 55-66Ho Huy Tuu, Svein Ottar Olsen, (2013),"Consideration set size, variety seeking and the satisfaction#repurchase loyalty relationship at aproduct category level", Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 25 Iss 4 pp. 590-613Avital Birna, Kenneth F. Hyde, Tony Johnston, (2013),"Mark Twain and The Innocents Abroad: illuminating the tourist gaze on death",International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 199-213

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information abouthow to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additionalcustomer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) andalso works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nor

th D

akot

a A

t 00:

14 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

The quality-value-satisfaction-loyaltychain: relationships and impacts

Martina G. Gallarza, Irene Gil Saura and Francisco Arteaga Moreno

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the classical topics of services literature in a tourism

experience with a means-end-model on the quality-value-satisfaction-loyalty chain. Within this wide

stream of research, this work has a particular interest on value antecedents and on the sense of the link

between value and satisfaction.

Design/methodology/approach – An overall tourism experience with positive and negative

antecedents (benefits and sacrifices experienced) and classical evaluations (perceived value,

satisfaction and loyalty as behavioral intention) is analyzed through two competing structural models

measured with partial least squares on a sample of 274 students traveling in groups for leisure

purposes.

Findings – The empirical findings show that: the chain of constructs service quality-perceived

value-customer satisfaction-loyalty is once again confirmed in a service setting; affective antecedents

(social value, play and aesthetics) are more important determinants of perceived value and satisfaction

than cognitive antecedents (efficiency, quality and effort spent); and the model performs better when

value is understood as an antecedent of satisfaction than in the opposite case.

Research limitations/implications – The findings illustrate how tourism settings are paradigmatically

useful for researching perceived value within services because of the differences found between

cognitive and affective antecedents. The target chosen (students) and the sampling method used

(convenience) need further replication in order to assure the validity of the results.

Originality/value – Besides the use of PLS (rather than LISREL), the empirical purpose of measuring

with same data a value-satisfaction link and the reverse is interesting for services researchers in order to

progress in the debate on the supremacy of one or another.

Keywords Tourism services, Quality-value-satisfaction-loyalty chain, Partial least squares, Services,Service quality assurance

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Since the 1970s, in services literature there has been an extensive theoretical debate on the

topics of Service Quality and Satisfaction that has been re-launched in 2000 (e.g. Cronin

et al., 2000; Day and Crask, 2000), with an extra interest on the construct of Value in more

recent years (e.g. Brodie et al., 2009; Hu et al., 2009). This debate has had a logical

response on the tourism literature, as a particular service setting for empirical discussion

(e.g. Chen and Chen, 2009; Correia and Miranda, 2008). One capital issue of this stream of

research has been the chain Service Quality-Perceived Value-Customer

Satisfaction-Loyalty. In fact, discussion on the sense of the link between Quality and

Satisfaction has been a major subject during the last two decades in services literature

(e.g. Oliver, 1997; Cronin et al., 2000), in tourism literature the Quality-Satisfaction proposal

has been more common across the years (e.g. Oh, 1999; Tam, 2000; Um et al., 2006).

Between Value and Satisfaction the consensus is harder to find and, thus, the debate is still

open. As Gallarza andGil (2006, p. 438) stated: ‘‘we believe that the discussion of a potential

DOI 10.1108/16605371311310048 VOL. 68 NO. 1 2013, pp. 3-20, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1660-5373 j TOURISM REVIEW j PAGE 3

Martina G. Gallarza is an

Assistant Professor and

Irene Gil Saura is a

Professor, both based in the

Facultad de Economıa,

Universidad de Valencia,

Valencia, Spain.

Francisco Arteaga Moreno

is an Associate Professor,

based in the Facultad de

Estudios de la Empresa,

Universidad Catolica de

Valencia San Vicente Martir,

Valencia, Spain.

The work described in thisarticle was supported by theSpanish Ministry of Educationand Science (Project reference:SEJ2007-66054).

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nor

th D

akot

a A

t 00:

14 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

overlap between these two constructs is still a topic of discussion where more learning is yet

to come’’. Conceptually, the debate on the relative superiority of Value or Satisfaction as

behavioral constructs is often solved considering Value as the best and most complete

antecedent of Satisfaction (e.g. Oliver, 1996, 1997, 1999; Woodruff, 1997). But empirically,

specially within tourism services, the literature is not unanimous: some authors agree on a

link Perceived Value-Customer Satisfaction (e.g. Oh, 1999; Tam, 2000; Babin and Kim, 2001;

Um et al., 2006; Yuan and Wu, 2008; Ryu et al., 2008; Hutchinson et al., 2009) and some

others propose a link Customer Satisfaction-Perceived Value (e.g. Petrick et al., 2001;

Petrick and Backman, 2002a; Duman and Mattilla, 2005). Consequently, we could say that

although all these issues have been examined extensively in tourism literature, findings have

been somewhat inconsistent and contradictory.

In order to shed some light on this perspective, an empirical study on a convenience sample

of 274 students was conducted, where links between Value and Satisfaction were tested in

one sense and in the other. A Structural Model was proposed with the four aforementioned

classical variables (Service Quality, Perceived Value, Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty)

and other antecedent variables both cognitive and affective (Efficiency, Play, Aesthetics,

Social Value and Time Invested). The results from the model testing using Partial Least

Squares methodology are discussed, using alternative sequences between the constructs

Perceived Value and Satisfaction.

Theoretical framework

As aforementioned, the current study aims to contribute to the research stream on

relationships between the main explanatory variables for tourism consumer behavior. The

literature review that supports this study is based on three domains, grounded all of them on

the concepts related to the idiosyncrasy of tourism consumer behavior:

1. the focus on tourism Value trade-offs (benefits minus sacrifices);

2. the need for overall assessments as opposed to focusing in one or two variables; and

3. the need for a better understanding of the causal relationships between Value and

Satisfaction.

Many authors would agree that research on Value has become one of the most salient topics

in recent tourism services literature (e.g. Petrick, 2002a, 2002b; Gallarza and Gil, 2006;

Chen and Tsai, 2008; Chen and Chen, 2009). Among this stream of research, the interest on

Value dimensionality has progressively gained interest both conceptually and empirically: it

is noticeable how single-item Value scales were most common in early stages of research on

tourism Value (e.g. Bojanic, 1996; Murphy and Pritchard, 1997; Oh, 1999; Kashyap and

Bojanic, 2000); and more recently, multi-item scales have emerged (e.g. Petrick, 2003;

Gallarza and Gil, 2006; Sanchez et al., 2006; Sparks et al., 2008; Yuan and Wu, 2008).

Nevertheless, among all approaches to Value dimensionality in tourism, we believe the

trade-off perspective has been somewhat neglected. Since the pioneer work by Valarie

Zeithaml (1988)in Journal of Marketing, this perspective is commonly used for

understanding consumer Value. It is based on the existence of a series of utilities, which

under a principle of compensation and/or balance between positive and negative aspects

are evaluated by the consumer. According to this perspective, which is the one we adopt for

this study, Perceived Value is defined as ‘‘the consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a

product based on the perceptions of what is received and what is given’’ (Zeithaml, 1988,

p. 14).

Despite the large amount of work on Value in tourism and hospitality settings, there is a lack

of research into the consumption trade-off applied to the tourism experience. As Oh stated in

2000: ‘‘By offering new insights into consumer behavior surroundings price-quality

trade-offs, customer valuemay unveil deep-seated driving forces of purchase decisions and

brand loyalty’’ (Oh, 2000, p. 136). The trade-off in tourism is very controversial in some

aspects (Gallarza and Gil, 2006); for instance, the search for socialization (some tourists

avoid socialization and others will search for socializing while traveling) and the time

PAGE 4 jTOURISM REVIEWj VOL. 68 NO. 1 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nor

th D

akot

a A

t 00:

14 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

invested (what is the correct length of a stay?). Some authors have already noted that in

‘‘studies focusing on the relationships between Service Quality, Customer Value and

Satisfaction, few empirical studies take a disaggregated approach and examine the

decomposed effects of Service Quality on Customer value and Customer Satisfaction’’

(Wang et al., 2004, p. 325). Rationale for the present study can be found in such statements.

Second, from the means-end perspective of tourist behavior research, the emphasis has

been on the consequence variables rather than the antecedents. It has been, therefore,

denounced a certain imbalance that favors the measurement of particular experiences

against general studies (Ritchie, 1996; Swarbrooke and Horner, 1999; Tocquer and Zins,

1999): the predominance of studies on Service Quality and Satisfaction was explicitly

criticized by Fick and Ritchie (1991) and Zalatan (1994). The general vision of consumer

behavior appears to have been lost due to the failure to adapt classical global models, and

some authors favor more holistic approaches to explain tourist behavior. In that sense, we

propose to contemplate the dimensionality of the tourism experience as a trade-off in the

form of cognitive and affective antecedents of the most classical variables such as

Satisfaction, Perceived Value and Loyalty, as a better approach to a more integral

understanding of tourist consumer behavior. Satisfaction will then be understood as a

pleasurable fulfillment (Oliver, 1999): it is a cognitive affective post purchase assessment

that, as opposed to value (that can be both pre or post purchase and is usually understood

as a trade-off), makes no necessary reference to the sacrifices made (Oliver, 1999). Loyalty

is considered the behavioral intention of repeating and/or having a positive-word-of-mouth

about the same service and it can be considered as the final outcome of any other

assessment (Cronin et al., 2000). In that sense, with the search of links within these three

variables and other antecedents, we can offer a particular view of the value concept that

emphasizes both the affective commitment to a service provider and the repeat-purchase or

re-patronage intentions, in line with some of the well-known purposes of Relationship

Marketing Theory (Ravald and Gronroos, 1996; Gummesson, 1998).

Third, it is also important to better understand the relationship and sense of the link between

Value and Satisfaction: Perceived Value, seen as an antecedent of Satisfaction, is the most

common empirical proposition. Nevertheless, the conceptual and methodological debate is

still open, according to some opinions. As Chen and Tsai (2007, p. 1121) have remarked

‘‘the moderating role of Perceived Value between Service Quality and Satisfaction has been

debatable but frequently neglected’’, and Gallarza and Gil (2006, p. 450) stated ‘‘The strong

correlation between Satisfaction and Value reveals the need of further research into the

conceptual and methodological links between these constructs’’. This debate has interested

researchers both at the level of theory (e.g. Woodruff, 1997) and empirically, proposing

alternative approaches to the traditional Quality-Value-Satisfaction chain (e.g. Petrick et al.,

2001; Petrick and Backman, 2002a, 2002b; Petrick, 2004). This discussion has aroused

special interest in the tourism literature in the proposals by Duman andMattila (2005) and He

and Song (2009) where both alternatives are tested: Duman and Mattila (2005) found better

results when satisfaction leads to value; however, for He and Song (2009) comparative

models show that satisfaction acts as a mediator between value and behavior intentions. As

the findings on these issues in tourism literature are inconsistent, a third aim of this current

work is to compare the two methodological options in two competing SEM models.

Proposal of a model

Variables, relationships and proposed hypotheses

The variables chosen to explain tourism consumption are based on the structure proposed

by Holbrook (1999) as value dimensionality: this framework provides eight inter-related ways

of understanding Value when combining three dichotomies in a 2*2*2 cross classification:

Value can be either extrinsic vs intrinsic, self-oriented vs other oriented and active vs

reactive. The result of this framework is a typology of eight values:

1. efficiency;

2. excellence (quality);

VOL. 68 NO. 1 2013 jTOURISM REVIEWj PAGE 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nor

th D

akot

a A

t 00:

14 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

3. status;

4. esteem;

5. play;

6. aesthetics;

7. ethics; and

8. spirituality.

This classification, because of its dual cognitive-affective nature (extrinsic vs. intrinsic) and

the individual vs. social distinction allows correspondence with important topics in the

tourism literature (Gallarza and Gil, 2008). Holbrook’s proposal places a key role on the

notion of value as an experiential approach, which is obviously interesting for analysing

tourism services as those are ‘‘individualized experiences’’ (Murphy and Pritchard, 1997,

p. 17).

Within tourism literature, some other studies have proposed means-end models that

measure the impacts of value antecedents on the construct of Perceived Value (e.g. Babin

and Kim, 2001; Petrick, 2003; Duman and Mattila, 2005; Sanchez et al., 2006; Sparks et al.,

2008). In our proposal, some of Holbrook’s value dimensions can be considered as

exogenous variables (antecedents) of an endogenous variable called Perceived Value. Not

all of Holrook’s types of value are considered in this work. At this stage, we followed Smith

(1999, p. 157)’s who proposes: ‘‘a more parsimonious typology might exclude the self-other

oriented dimension, especially if its antecedents are uncertain . . . ’’. Let’s thus explain the

consideration in our model of the so-called self-oriented values (Efficiency, Quality, Play and

Aesthetics), that are more representative of a consumer’s behavior approach (Oliver, 1999)

as ours.

According to this approach, a first positive antecedent of Perceived Value can be Service

Quality, which is inherent in the tourism service provision and a constant in tourism research

(Swarbrooke and Horner, 1999). Service quality is here understood as the positive

assessment of product/service outcomes, reactively experienced by the consumer as an

extrinsic means (Holbrook, 1999). Second, Efficiency can be considered as an additional

fuctional benefit, actively experienced by the consumer (Holbrook, 1999); in tourism

provision, Efficiency can be perceived cognitively, for example in information provision,

which, as is well-known, is of prime importance for tourism.

Third, among affective (intrinsic) antecedents, a natural factor in the tourism experience is

Aesthetics, since it is the tourist’s own perception which grants ‘‘aesthetic value to places’’

(Moulin, 1996, p. 11). Aesthetics refers to an appreciation of some consumption experience

(such as beauty) valued intrinsically, as a self-end, without regard to any further practical

purpose (Holbrook, 1999, pp. 19-20). Finally, the perception of entertainment or ‘‘Play’’ is

ensured, especially in leisure tourism (Babin and Kim, 2001). As Holbrook (1999, p. 18)

stated, ‘‘Play, as a self-oriented experience – actively sought and enjoyed for its own sake –,

play typically involves having fun’’.

Taking into consideration that Holbrook’s other-oriented value dimension is more complex

(Smith, 1999) and less related to consumer behavior (Oliver, 1999), in addition to these four

positive variables (Quality, Efficiency, Aesthetics and Play) the model contemplates an

overall Social Value of the experience. This extra dimension is based first on the necessary

socialization of the tourism experience (Gitelson and Crompton, 1984; Fakeye and

Crompton, 1992) and second, on authors who consider social elements in any consumption

(e.g. Sweeney and Soutar, 2001).

In accordance with the trade-off perspective of value conceptualization (Zeithaml, 1988),

negative inputs of value can also be introduced as sacrifices in the tourism experience.

Given the nature of the sample chosen and the type of tourism experience investigated, we

haven’t considered the most common sacrifice cited in tourism literature (e.g. Oh, 1999,

2000; Kashyap and Bojanic, 2000; Ainscough, 2005), the price paid, because most

University student trips in Spain are financed by diverse student activities (selling T-shirts,

PAGE 6 jTOURISM REVIEWj VOL. 68 NO. 1 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nor

th D

akot

a A

t 00:

14 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

fund-raising events. . .), and thus the sacrifice of paying a price for consuming is not properly

recognized. This was one of the issues stated by most of the students enrolled in focus

groups during the qualitative stage of this work.

Additionally, according to the choice made of Holbrook’s proposal, which is a philosophical

approach, referred to as an axiology (i.e. as a judgment of goodness/badness), no

economic impact should be considered in a value conceptualization. In his own words ‘‘my

own treatment of consumer value . . . implicitly regards consumer value as if it were a

cost-free benefit that might be represented by an input or price-independent preference

function’’ (Holbrook, 1999, p. 187). Nevertheless, Holbrook’s (1999, p. 187) work considers

that ‘‘consumers derive some (dis)utility for time saved (wasted)’’. Thus, only one negative

element in the consumption experience was considered: Time and Effort Spent.

Additionally, the model considers Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Loyalty as endogenous

constructs. As aforementioned, according to previous works on the multidimensional nature

of Value (Babin and Kim, 2001; Diep and Sweeney, 2008), we can assume that positive and

negative value dimensions can have positive and negative effects on the Perceived Value

construct. Thus, relationships among nine research constructs, six exogenous (five positive

and one negative antecedents) and three endogenous – Perceived Value, Satisfaction and

Loyalty– were tested with Partial Least Squares technique. The proposed structure was built

with a series of relations supported by the set of hypotheses.

As in Walker et al. (2001) for tangible elements, Efficiency, a cognitive assessment, is

expected to be directly related to loyalty: the behavioral intention of tourists depends on the

way the organization and/or the destination is able to provide an efficient service. Service

Quality is understood as the main determinant of Perceived Value (e.g. Cronin et al., 2000);

additionally, as it shares Efficiency’s cognitive nature, it is postulated as an antecedent to

loyalty, as in other studies (e.g. Bloemer et al., 1999; Chow et al., 2007).

H1. Efficiency is positively related to Loyalty.

H2a. Service Quality is positively related to Perceived Value.

H2b. Service Quality is positively related to Loyalty.

In tourism, socialization with other tourists and residents is a determining factor for global

Satisfaction in the consumption experience (Gitelson and Crompton, 1984) and generates

positive Perceived Value (Sparks et al., 2008): indeed, emotional aspects of tourist

consumption influence emotional responses such as Satisfaction and Perceived Value (Lee

et al., 2007).

H3a. Social Value is positively related to Satisfaction.

H3b. Social Value is positively related to Perceived Value.

It is well known that there is a need to experience Entertainment in the (leisure) tourism

experience for being satisfactory; furthermore, the value attached to this experience will

depend largely on the perception of a certain amount of Fun and Play (Sparks et al., 2008),

therefore:

H4a. Play is positively related to Satisfaction.

H4b. Play is positively related to Perceived Value.

When the place visited is more ‘‘aesthetical’’, the consumer perceives more benefits (Moulin,

1996) and therefore the experience has greater Perceived Value:

H5. Aesthetics is positively related to Perceived Value.

However, this Perceived Value decreases as more Time and Effort are invested in tourism

service consumption (Babin and Kim, 2001; Brodie et al., 2009):

H6. Time and Effort spent are negatively related to Perceived Value.

VOL. 68 NO. 1 2013 jTOURISM REVIEWj PAGE 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nor

th D

akot

a A

t 00:

14 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Finally, in accordance with a large part of the services literature (e.g. Cronin et al., 2000;

Fornell et al., 1996) and more precisely the tourism services literature (e.g. Oh, 1999; Tam,

2000; Petrick and Backman, 2002a; Yuksel and Yuksel, 2007), relations are postulated

between Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Loyalty so that:

H7. Perceived Value is positively related to Satisfaction.

H8. Satisfaction is positively related to Loyalty.

Measurement scales

Two information sources were used to build scales; literature review and qualitative

techniques. First, four in-depth interviews with experts in tourism research were conducted.

Two of them were with scholars who specialize in consumer behavior, with the aim of

discussing a possible overlap between Efficiency and Quality in Holbrook’s typology, finally

agreeing that Efficiency could be related to anything that can save time as stated by

Holbrook (1999, p. 187) ‘‘the value of using an object or a service consists of the time saved

by means of this object or service’’ but also to the functional value derived from traveling

(quality of the food, lodging facilities, the use of infrastructures. . .). It was also agreed that

Service Quality could be understood as the Quality provided by employees in service

encounters.

Two extra in-depth interviews took place with experts in research for public tourism

institutions in Spain: secondary sources of information on tourist behavior were explored and

relevant issues were discussed in order to plan better research, such as the difficulty of

measuring the ideal length of stay in tourism research (more time doesn’t necessary mean a

better experience) or the need of considering both re-purchasing and recommending when

assessing loyalty.

Second, four focus groups with final year students (with six people in each, equally balanced

male and female) behaving as tourists on their trips with relatives or friends were conducted.

In these focus groups Value dimensionality was explored in order to deepen our

understanding on the various perceptions of value. The results showed that Efficiency could

be related to information, accessibility, timetables . . . Play dimension was also discussed:

how do consumers actively enjoy in fun and entertainment in trips. Another issue that arose

in focus groups was what sort of Social Value do consumers derive from traveling,

differentiating a value from getting along with other students during their trip, on one hand,

and a value derived from connecting with other people at the destinations as residents, on

the other hand. Most of the people enrolled in the focus groups also agreed that they attach

value to the aesthetics of the places they visit and to the quality of the service offered by

tourism employees. Finally, in each focus group a discussion on the sacrifices made when

traveling was settled; most of the students agreed in the cost of time in planning and

preparing the trip, but very few times the topic of risks in traveling arose; the price paid was

also an issue for them when paying on their own, although they often recalled the fact that

activities for fund-raising when traveling in groups is more a source of positive actions than a

sacrifice for them.

As no previous scaling effort was found for Holbrook’s value dimensionality, information

extracted from the focus groups was the main source used to provide scale indicators for

Efficiency (six items), Aesthetics (four items), Social Value (five items), Play (four items) and

Time and Effort (seven items). Although Holbrook’s conceptual framework and the

qualitative stage just undertaken were the most important source for value dimensions’

scales, the literature review also provided some indicators that were adapted for our study.

More precisely, for Efficiency, no previous scale was suitable for assessing Holbrook’s

conceptualization, but Heung and Qu (2000)’s work on tourist satisfaction at the destination

considered an ‘‘overall convenience’’ factor, convenience being one of the examples given

by Holbrook to interpret what efficiency can be. So, indicator s 2 and 3 were adapted from

Heung and Qu (2000, p. 70) and the three others came from in-depth interviews and focus

groups results. In Babin and Kim (2001)’s scale for Play, two indicators clearly matched the

idea of an intrinsic pleasurable value (amusement and fun), as Holbrook understands Play

dimension, so they were adopted (23 and 23) along with two additional items expressing

PAGE 8 jTOURISM REVIEWj VOL. 68 NO. 1 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nor

th D

akot

a A

t 00:

14 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

time for leisure and free time, as stated in focus groups. Related to Social Value scale, all

indicators came from the focus group discussion, except two indicators that were adapted

form Sweeney and Soutar (2001)’s Social Value scale (18 and 20) with a little adaptation to

students’ group travels.

For Time and Effort Spent, work by Marmorstein et al. (1992) was taken into consideration to

make operative the idea of an ‘‘opportunity cost’’ that arose in focus groups, and also Babin

and Kim (2001)’s scale of Planning and Johansson and Mortazavi (1996)’s work on the value

of travel time was considered in the writing of indicators 29 and 30 (return time and time

losses).

Furthermore, Cronin et al. (2000)’s scales of Service Quality (nine items), Satisfaction (three

items) and Perceived Value were adopted. Psychometric properties of these scales have

largely been proved in different service settings. Nevertheless, according to Zeithaml

(1988), an extra indicator for Value (three items) was added: item 36 in (see Table I), that

explicitly details the assessment as a trade-off between get and give elements.

The Loyalty scale (six items) is a regrouping of indicators from several previous studies, with

the aim the aforementioned dual conceptualization (re-purchase and recommend). It

considers revisit intention, both to the same destination (item 40) and to other destinations in

the same area (item 41) as in Murphy et al. (2000), but with an extended period of five

instead of two years, according to what was said in the focus groups. Positive word-of-mouth

indicators (42 and 43) were adapted from Kozak and Rimmington (2000), in order to reflect

loyalty both to the destination and to the organization suggested by Petrick et al. (2001).

Finally, two more indicators were added adapted from Petrick et al. (2001, p. 44) in order to

reflect the loyalty to service in terms of ‘‘same situation, same decision’’, both to the

destination and to the agency.

Finally, a pilot study was conducted among 25 students who had just come back from a

Spring break trip. This allowed additional refining of some wording on the scales (see

Table I). None of the indicators was eliminated, but the Social Value scale needed a

rewording and the initial format of a seven-point likert style (the most common in tourism

value research according to Ghallarza and Gil (2006)’s literature review), was changed into a

format of five-point Likert-type (from strongly disagree with the statement ¼ 1 to strongly

agree with the statement ¼ 5 or from 1 ¼ very low to 5 ¼ very high).

Results and discussion

Respondents’ profile

With an exploratory approach, the population chosen for this case study was a convenience

sample ðn ¼ 274Þ of University students from two universities in two Spanish cities, traveling

in groups for leisure purposes in their Spring break. Students’ leisure trips can be

considered as ideal for exploring the cognitive-affective duality of the consumption

experience (Babin and Kim, 2001); it is additionally a segment in which important

socialization processes are established, and thus permits assessing Holbrook’s duality of

self-oriented vs other oriented values, as it had been noticed in the focus groups previously

conducted. Besides students are an easy target for an academic research, authors such as

Chen and Kerstetter (1999); or Mattilla et al. (2001) have explicitly considered students’

leisure trips as a segment with strong potential for the tourism industry.

The respondents were 48.9 percent male and 51.1 percent female, and average age was

23.16 years. They were coming either from cities of less than 50,000 inhabitants (24.4

percent) or more than one million (44.0 percent). It was a packaged tour in 92.25 percent of

the cases, with a high proportion of a flight-hotel pack (82.72 percent). The destinations

visited were The Caribbean (40.15 percent) the Canary Islands (29.56 percent), European

cities (24.09 percent) and Others (9.38 percent) and the trip was mainly seven days (40.88

percent) or eight days (57.66 percent) long.

The hypotheses were tested using the Partial Least Square technique as an alternative to

LISREL. Partial Least Squares (PLS) is a regression method mainly developed by Herman

VOL. 68 NO. 1 2013 jTOURISM REVIEWj PAGE 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nor

th D

akot

a A

t 00:

14 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Table I Descriptive statistics and reliability analysis

Statistics Reliability analysis

Indicators MeanStandarddeviation Alpha

Alpha if itemeliminated

Efficiency (from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree) 3.43 1.22 0.711. The Information received during the trip (maps, timetables. . .) was

convenient 3.36 1.25 0.702. Infrastructures at destination were appropriate 3.56 1.15 0.623. Gastronomy at destination was good 3.42 1.24 0.614. Shopping facilities at destination were good 3.40 1.11 0.735. Lodging facilities at destination were appropriate 3.43 1.34 0.62

Service quality (from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree) 3.45 1.20 0.946. Generally the employees I found during this trip provide service

reliably, consistently and dependently 3.36 1.21 0.947. Generally, the employees I found during this trip were willing and able

to provide service in a timely manner 3.43 1.19 0.948. Generally, the employees I found during this trip were competent

(i.e. knowledgeable and skilful) 3.43 1.16 0.939. Generally, the employees I found during this trip were approachable

and easy to contact 3.73 1.26 0.9310. Generally, the employees I found during this trip were courteous, polite

and respectful 3.78 1.21 0.9311. Generally, the employees I found during this trip listened to me and we

understood each other 3.39 1.23 0.9312. Generally, the employees I found during this trip were trustworthy,

believable and honest 3.14 1.13 0.9313. Generally, the employees I found during this trip make the effort to

understand my needs 3.21 1.21 0.9314. Generally, the employees I found during this trip were neat and clean 3.58 1.16 0.94

Social value (from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree) 3.76 1.05 0.6915. This trip has allowed me to reinforce my feeling of belonging to the

group 4.21 0.87 0.6116. After this trip I have a better knowledge of my classmates 4.35 0.79 0.6117. This trip has helped me being socially accepted in the group 4.03 0.96 0.6518. During this trip, the relationship with other tourists outside the group

was good 3.11 1.34 0.6619. During this trip, the relationship with residents at destination was good 3.12 1.28 0.68

Play (from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree) 4.50 0.74 0.8420. During this tourism experience, I enjoyed the leasure activities I had

(pubs, sports, bars,. . .) 4.47 0.82 0.8221. During this tourism experience, I enjoyed my free time 4.44 0.81 0.8122. During this tourism experience, the leasure I could take was

pleasurable 4.46 0.72 0.7523. During this tourism experience, I had fun at the destination 4.63 0.62 0.80

Aesthetics (from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree) 3.55 1.14 0.7624. At the main destination, landscapes (mountains, beaches. . .) were

beautiful 4.42 0.80 0.8125. At the main destination, the city, its streets, buildings were nice to look at 3.32 1.27 0.6826. At the main destination, exhibitions, museums, concerts were

interesting 3.17 1.19 0.6327. At the main destination, the beauty of the art (monuments) was

appealing 3.27 1.30 0.63

Time and effort spent (from 1 very low to 5 very high) 2.07 1.03 0.8028. For me, the cost of time planning and preparing for this trip has been 2.21 1.09 0.7729. For me, the cost of time spent in return trip has been 2.48 1.18 0.7930. For me, the cost of time losses during this trip has been 1.92 1.05 0.7831. For me, the cost associated with the time invested in the trip has been 2.14 0.96 0.75

(continued)

PAGE 10 jTOURISM REVIEWj VOL. 68 NO. 1 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nor

th D

akot

a A

t 00:

14 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Wold (1985). It was first applied to the study of consumer behavior and marketing research

in the 1980s, and Professor Fornell was its greatest proponent (Fornell et al., 1996). With

regard to means-end models on value, other authors adopt this methodology, such as Sirohi

et al. (1998) and Wang et al. (2004), and in tourism literature, Murphy et al. (2000), Van

Birgelen et al. (2005), Correia and Miranda (2008) and Hutchinson et al. (2009).

There are three main reasons for the relative goodness of the PLS technique in

comparison to the traditional LISREL (Van Birgelen et al., 2005): no data distribution

limitations (normality or others), robustness against co-linearity problems (such as in the

different dimensions of Perceived value evaluated in this study) and suitability in relation

to the number of parameters to evaluate (nine constructs all with multi-item scales). One

of the advantages of this technique is that the indicators can be conceived of as reflective

when they reflect the latent variable or formative when they produce it (Sirohi et al., 1998).

The present work uses the Lohmoller (1989) algorithm, with mode A for external

estimation of the latent variables and the factor scheme for internal estimation according

to Guinot et al. (2001).

Findings of the structural model

Measurement results were assessed using, sequentially, reliability analysis through

Cronbach’s Alpha and correlation analysis for discriminant validity (with SPSS) and, finally

PLS to assess the causal links between constructs. Table I offers information on scales

reliability and descriptive statistics: all alphas exceeded or were very close to the 0.7 criteria

(Nunnally, 1978).

Figure 1 shows the estimated coefficients for each relationship, with the significance (in

brackets) and the R 2 coefficient. PLS assumes no data distribution and so non-parametric

Table I

Statistics Reliability analysis

Indicators MeanStandarddeviation Alpha

Alpha if itemeliminated

32. For me, the opportunity cost associated with this trip (time that I couldhave spent in something else) has been 2.03 0.97 0.75

33. For me, the effort made for leaving tasks and works to do beforeleaving was 2.12 1.07 0.76

34. For me, the mental effort made for leaving family and friends and havethis experience was 1.58 0.93 0.80

Perceived overall value (from 1 very low to 5 very high) 4.19 0.89 0.8935. Overall, the value of this tourism experience has been 4.23 0.85 0.8536. Compared to what I have to give up, the overall ability of this tourist

experience to satisfy my wants and needs has been 4.16 0.90 0.8237. Comparing the benefits I got and the sacrifices I made to have this

tourist experience I consider it as being 4.18 0.91 0.84

Satisfaction (from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree) 4.2 0.96 0.8738. My choice to purchase this trip was a wise one 4.12 1.00 0.8239. I did the right thing when I purchased this trip 4.41 0.88 0.8040. This experience is exactly what I needed 4.06 1.01 0.82

Loyalty (from 1 very low to 5 very high (40-43) and from 1 strongly disagreeto 5 strongly agree (44 and 45)) 3.58 1.26 0.7940. My likelihood to return to the same destination in next 5 years is 3.36 1.42 0.7541. My likelihood to return to the same area in next 5 years is 3.88 1.18 0.7742. My likelihood to recommend the destination to friends and relatives is 4.14 1.07 0.7443. My likelihood to recommend the travel agency to friends and relatives is 3.08 1.29 0.7644. If I were in the same situation again, I will do the same choice of

organization (travel agency) 3.11 1.44 0.7645. If I were back in the same situation, I will choose this destination for my

trip 3.92 1.20 0.78

VOL. 68 NO. 1 2013 jTOURISM REVIEWj PAGE 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nor

th D

akot

a A

t 00:

14 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

tests are used to study the significance of the estimated coefficients. In this present work the

Bootstrap method (Efrom and Tibshirani, 1986) was used.

Although some significances are rather low, all the hypotheses except one (H2b) have been

proved. The proposed model can be a good approach to a post-purchase evaluation for the

type of tourism experience investigated (students’ trips), but generalization for other

experiences is somehow difficult to extend. The strongest links are established between the

affective antecedents (such as Play and Social Value) with Satisfaction (0.34 and 0.25

respectively) and also between Play and Social Value with Perceived Value (0.33 and 0.30).

This confirms the importance of the affective dimensionality of Satisfaction in tourism (Ryan,

1995; Vitterso et al., 2000) and of course of Perceived Value in any consumption phenomena

(Holbrook, 1999), and more precisely in tourism settings (Duman and Mattilla, 2005). As a

cognitive evaluation, Service Quality present lower loadings (0.17) on Perceived Value, with

much lower significance. Aesthetics is also a weak although significant antecedent of

Perceived Value (0.12): this results sounds remarkable in a tourism experience, but it must

be interpreted according to the particular behavior of the sample chosen in this case study.

Nor is the only negative link proposed in the model highly significant although the hypothesis

that Time and Effort invested is a negative antecedent of Perceived value can be accepted

(negative link of 0.17).

Service Quality also has a positive effect on Loyalty (0.11) but not a significant one; however

Efficiency is a significant antecedent of Loyalty (0.24). This relationship between Service

Quality and Loyalty appears in other empirical works (e.g. Bloemer et al., 1999) although in

Figure 1 Results of the proposed model

PAGE 12 jTOURISM REVIEWj VOL. 68 NO. 1 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nor

th D

akot

a A

t 00:

14 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

this respect, the results for tourism research are disparate: significant in Murphy et al. (2000)

on destinations and not very significant in Kashyap and Bojanic (2000), nor in Hu et al.

(2009) on hotels. More difficult is to compare the results for Efficiency with other studies due

to the lack of interest in studying Efficiency in tourism, compared to Service Quality.

However, Walker et al. (2001)’s study on rafting attractions, tangible attributes (showers,

vehicles, equipment. . .) are related to repurchase intention. Given this variability, links

betweenQuality or Efficiency with Loyalty need further research, as always being interpreted

in the light of the type of setting, both for of the product and the environment.

Relations between the endogenous variables are also significant and they are the highest in

the structure proposed (0.34 between Perceived Value and Satisfaction and 0.55 between

Satisfaction and Loyalty). These results are consistent with the most usual (although not

unanimous) assumption in the academic literature, which proposes Perceived Value as an

antecedent of Satisfaction (e.g. Zeithaml, 1988; Woodruff, 1997; Cronin et al., 2000). In

tourism literature same results can be found in Babin and Kim (2001), Tam (2000), Chen and

Tsai (2007) and Lee et al. (2007). This issue will be addressed in further detail later on as it

corresponds to the third aim of the paper.

The positive and strong relation found between Satisfaction and Loyalty is obviously also

found in many tourism studies (e.g. Oh, 1999; Hutchinson et al., 2009; He and Song, 2009),

although it must be said that same hypothesis is not confirmed in others (e.g. Chen and Tsai,

2008); this is a new evidence of the need for additional research on the sense of the links in

the service Quality-Value-Satisfaction-Loyalty chain.

PLS has a primary objective of minimizing error or maximizing the explained variance of all

the endogenous constructs. The consequence of this approach is that, unlike LISREL

methodology, PLS proposes no global goodness of fit measure: the fulfillment of the primary

aim of maximizing the explained variance must be assessed by observing the R 2 for each

dependent construct (Hulland, 1999). Coefficients are relatively high as shown in Figure 1:

the group of relations proposed between five antecedent variables and Perceived Value

explains 48.1 percent of its variability; therefore said antecedents of Value in the assessment

of the tourism experience can be considered to be correct. We can therefore consider that

R 2. . .59:3 for Satisfaction as high: more than half its variability is explained by the three

antecedent variables (Perceived Value, Play and Social Value). The importance of the

affective dimension of Satisfaction in tourism is thus confirmed, in line with Ryan (1995) and

other authors. Similarly, over half the variability in Loyalty is explained (52.8 percent) by its

three antecedent variables: Satisfaction on one hand and Efficiency and Service Quality on

the other as cognitive assessment.

These results, related to the first and second aim of the study, can be read across the Smith

and Colgate (2007)’s proposal of Customer Value Creation Framework. Among the four

types of value referred in their work and related to previous literature (a.

fuctional/instrumental; b. experiential/hedonic; c. symbolic/expressive and d.

cost/sacrifice) the tourism experience of students traveling in groups has a predominance

of values from category b, first, and then c and a. Consumers have derived more value from

the emotional, social and relational experiences they had had than from the functional

instrumental side of the tourism service provided. This is not an unexpected result,

according to the type of travel investigated here, but symbolic/expressive value (category b)

could also be a source of value for the same type of consumers, if Service Quality (related in

this case to interactions with employees) is understood in a broader way, i.e. with an aim of

providing personal meaning to the customer, with privileged interactions that can give extra

social value when dealing not just with other tourists or residents, but also with employees. A

process of co-creation of value as stated by Vargo and Lusch (2004) and discuss in

Gronroos (2008) can then be provided to this type of tourist, young and middlessness, who

derive value from interactions with people, either tourists, residents or employees.

Focus on the link Perceived Value-Satisfaction

The third objective was undertaken by means of an alternative model based on the same

structure but inverting the constructs Perceived Value and Satisfaction in the chain of

VOL. 68 NO. 1 2013 jTOURISM REVIEWj PAGE 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nor

th D

akot

a A

t 00:

14 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

endogenous variables (Figure 2). With this alternative model, an empirical application of the

controversy on antecedent and/or consequence between Perceived Value and Satisfaction

is sought.

In the new model, the hypotheses for the effects of the antecedent variables on Value,

Satisfaction and Loyalty are not modified (from H1 to H6) because the theoretical rationale is

the same. The alternative model therefore focuses on the chain between endogenous

variables, modifying Hypotheses H7 and H8 as follows:

H7. Satisfaction is positively related to Perceived Value.

H8. Perceived Value is positively related to Loyalty.

The results shown in Figure 2 confirm the goodness of the structure proposed in the first

model as the paths coefficients between constructs from the second model are in both

cases lower: the link between the first endogenous variable in the chain and the second

decreases from 0.34 to 0.29 and the link between the second and the third goes from 0.55 to

0.45. Furthermore, the second model was compared to the initial in terms of fit values: the R 2

for the endogenous variables are mostly lower than those in the initial model. In this new

position in the chain, Satisfaction receives effects for 50.1 percent as against the initial 59.3

percent and Loyalty, the final effect of both chains, goes from explaining 52.8 percent to 46.6

percent. Therefore, in this study, the classical Quality-Value-Satisfaction-Loyalty chain better

explains tourism behavior, as it is in many other studies of tourism. However, these results are

not consistent with previous research by Duman and Mattila (2005) that also tested

Figure 2 Results of an alternative model

PAGE 14 jTOURISM REVIEWj VOL. 68 NO. 1 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nor

th D

akot

a A

t 00:

14 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

directionality between Satisfaction and Value, finding out better path coefficients and better

overall fit measures for the model that proposes that satisfaction leads to value. This

research is conducted on a cruise experience with high levels of social and pleasurable

aspects as the ones find in our proposal: more knowledge, both empirical and theoretical is

thus needed before having a full closure of this issue.

Conclusions

Consumer behavior has been recognized over the years as one of the areas with the most

promising future perspectives for tourism services research. In this context, a relationship

structure was proposed between six antecedent or exogenous variables (Efficiency, Service

Quality, Social Value, Play, Aesthetics and Time and Effort Spent) and three consequence or

endogenous variables (Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Loyalty), with a set of relationships

that have been favorably contrasted, except in one case: affective antecedents such as

Social Value and Play have stronger links with Value and Satisfaction than other classical

assessments such as Service Quality. Time Invested and Aesthetics are respectively

understood as negative and positive antecedents of Value, but in a weaker magnitude than

the socialization and the entertainment.

In order to give an additional answer to the debate on the sense of the Value-Satisfaction link,

another alternative structure tested in an alternative model has confirmed that the Service

Quality-Value-Satisfaction-Loyalty chain fits better the reality of tourism consumption for the

setting chosen: university students’ travels.

The findings confirm the richness and complexity of tourism consumption behavior as

different links and intensities have been found for the experience investigated. More

specifically, the empirical study has confirmed the idea found in the literature about how

Satisfaction, in comparison to Service Quality, offers a richer, more comprehensive approach

to tourism experience, as it is the consequence and antecedent of other variables. Another

important issue of this study is the importance of the emotional significance of tourism

consumption behavior, already pointed out, among others, by Ritchie (1996) and empirically

confirmed by Duman and Mattila (2005). The relative weight of the affective antecedents on

Perceived Value and Satisfaction is very significant. Replicas are needed in other contexts

with similar or different samples to provide stronger confirmation. In any case, the strategic

use of Value for managing the tourism experience is made evident: focusing on the

dimensionality of value for seeking competitive advantage in one or other of its components

is a challenge which has already been highlighted in studies such as those by Bieger et al.

(2007) on air transport and Sparks et al. (2008) on the timeshare industry. But this study can

have managerial implications for tourism companies that aim to target students with packed

travels; promotions need to emphasize the values in term of Fun and Social Value, better

than any other cognitive assessment such as Quality or Efficiency (more desired values for

other segments such as business travelers). Furthermore, a strategic look into the Value

dimensionality can provide tourism organizations with a competitive edge, with regard to

today’s competitive and rapidly changing tourism consumers: a greater understanding of

consumers’ values (cognitive and affective, individual and social) will suggest new ways to

make an overall tourism experience more comprehensive and exciting.

As research implications, with regard to the relationship structure, researchers may include

not only a measurement of overall Perceived Value in conceptual models, but also different

value dimensions to understand the key determinants of customer Satisfaction and Loyalty.

The resulting links between Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Loyalty suggest a clear

sequence in post-purchase evaluations, which invite future contrasts and new comparisons

with other types of structures.

As stated in the introduction, this paper is a progress in the debate on the primacy of the link

Value-Satisfaction rather than Satisfaction-Value. This temporal primacy of Value on

Satisfaction has here been proved, consumers, after assessing benefits and sacrifices, do

derive satisfaction from value. Nevertheless, these are just empirical results based on a

particular theoretical background, that as aforementioned, are not unanimous. Deeper

VOL. 68 NO. 1 2013 jTOURISM REVIEWj PAGE 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nor

th D

akot

a A

t 00:

14 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

knowledge could come form studying theoretical proposals such as the figures by Oliver

(1999, p. 54 and 59) with a network of value-related concepts that have, so far, never been

empirically tested. This type of research could take this issue of the primacy of value on

satisfaction into further debates, because Satisfaction is still a cornerstone for tourism

managers, especially in restaurants and hotels. In that sense, the proposal made by

Woodruff (1997) is still valid: ‘‘Customer Satisfaction Management needs to be backed-up

with in-depth learning about customer value’’ (Woodruff, 1997, p. 139). Academic

researchers must take the responsibility of delivering to companies more easy learning

knowledge on Value and Satisfaction assessments made by services consumers, in terms of

their dimensionality and relationship.

Several limitations of the present study should be mentioned. First, the PLS analysis used in

this study is not necessarily superior to other methods of investigating potential higher-order

and /or interactive effects. Second, the non-consideration of the sum of direct and indirect

effects on some variables should also be mentioned: this issue could increase our

knowledge on the methodological links between Value, Satisfaction and Loyalty as it is done

in recent works (He and Song, 2009). Third, the need to consider other antecedent variables,

especially negative antecedents ought to be addressed. In this regard, the study could be

extended by considering connections between Risk perception and Time invested in line

with Yuksel and Yuksel (2007). Additional positive values from Holbrook’s framework (such

as Spirituality and Ethics, or a real distinction between Esteem and Status) can also be

considered in further research, when assessing cultural experiences or artistic and religious

attractiveness of destinations. Forth, multiple group analyses could be also carried out in a

segmentation perspective, investigating the possible difference in paths across gender or

age, as in Diep and Sweeney (2008). Last but not least, the use of a convenience sampling

approach could have decreased external validity, and the choice of a students’ target,

although they are a potential segment for the tourism industry, may also need replica with

different types of travellers. In line with the methodological challenge recently proposed by

Ritchie and Hudson (2009) the fact of being able to approach all these issues with

probabilistic sampling and more sophisticated and accurate techniques may be

determinant for achieving improved, deeper understanding of consumption behavior in

tourism.

References

Ainscough, T.L. (2005), ‘‘The effect of brand, agent, and price on consumer evaluation of travel

services’’, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 39-48.

Babin, B.J. and Kim, K. (2001), ‘‘International students’ travel behavior: a model of the travel-related

consumer/dissatisfaction process’’, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 93-106.

Beiger, T., Wittmer, A. and Laesser, C. (2007), ‘‘What is driving the continued growth in demand for air

travel? Customer value of air transport’’, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 13, pp. 31-6.

Bloemer, J., de Ruyter, K. andWetzels, M. (1999), ‘‘Linking perceived service quality and service loyalty:

a multi-dimensional perspective’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 Nos 11/12, pp. 1082-106.

Bojanic, D.C. (1996), ‘‘Consumer perceptions of price, value and satisfaction in the hotel industry: an

exploratory study’’, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 5-22.

Brodie, R.J., Whittome, J.R.M. and Brush, G.J. (2009), ‘‘Investigating the service brand: a customer

value perspective’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 345-55.

Chen, C.F. and Chen, F.-S. (2009), ‘‘Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioural

intentions for heritage tourists’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 29-35.

Chen, C.F. and Tsai, D.C. (2007), ‘‘How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioural

intentions?’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 28, pp. 1115-22.

Chen, C.F. and Tsai, M.H. (2008), ‘‘Perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty of TV travel product

shopping: involvement as a moderator’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 29, pp. 1166-71.

PAGE 16 jTOURISM REVIEWj VOL. 68 NO. 1 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nor

th D

akot

a A

t 00:

14 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Chen, P. and Kerstetter, L.D. (1999), ‘‘International students’ image of rural Pennsylvania as a travel

destination’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 37, pp. 256-66.

Chow, I.H., Lau, V.P., Lo, T.W., Sha, Z. and Yun, H. (2007), ‘‘Service quality in restaurant operations in

China: decision- and experiential-oriented perspectives’’,Hospitality Management, Vol. 26, pp. 698-710.

Correia, S. and Miranda, F.J. (2008), ‘‘The importance of quality, satisfaction, trust and image in relation

to rural tourism loyalty’’, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 117-36.

Cronin, J.J. Jr, Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000), ‘‘Assessing the effects of quality, value and customer

satisfaction on consumer behavioural intentions in service environments’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76

No. 2, pp. 193-218.

Diep, V.C.S. and Sweeney, J.C. (2008), ‘‘Shopping trip value: do stores and products matter?’’, Journal

of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 15, pp. 399-409.

Duman, T. and Mattilla, A.S. (2005), ‘‘The role of affective factors on perceived cruise vacation value’’,

Tourism Management, Vol. 26, pp. 311-23.

Efrom, B. and Tibshibirani, R. (1986), ‘‘Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and

other measures of statistical accuracy’’, Statistical Science, Vol. 1, pp. 54-77.

Fakeye, P.C. and Crompton, J.L. (1992), ‘‘Importance of socialization to repeat visitation’’, Annals of

Tourism Research (Research Notes and Reports), Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 364-7.

Fick, G.R. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (1991), ‘‘Measuring service quality in the travel and tourism industry’’,

Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 30, pp. 2-9.

Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J. and Everitt Bryant, B. (1996), ‘‘The American

Customer Satisfaction Index: nature, purpose, and findings’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 7-18.

Gallarza, M.G. and Gil, I. (2006), ‘‘Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: an

investigation of university students’ travel behaviour’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 27, pp. 437-52.

Gallarza, M.G. and Gil, I. (2008), ‘‘The concept of value and its dimensions: a tool for analysing tourism

experiences’’, Tourism Review, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 4-20.

Gitelson, R.J. and Crompton, J.L. (1984), ‘‘Insights into the repeat vacation phenomenon’’, Annals of

Tourism Research, Vol. 11, pp. 199-217.

Gronroos, C. (2008), ‘‘Service logic revisited: who creates value? And who co-creates?’’, European

Business Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 298-314.

Guinot, C., Latreille, J. and Tenenhaus, M. (2001), ‘‘PLS path modelling and multiple table analysis.

Application to the cosmetic habits of women in Ile-de-France’’, Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory

Systems, Vol. 58, pp. 247-59.

Gummesson, E. (1998), ‘‘Implementation requires a relationship marketing paradigm’’, Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26, Summer, pp. 242-9.

He, Y. and Song, H. (2009), ‘‘A mediation model of tourist’s repurchase intentions for packaged tour

services’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 317-31.

Heung, V.C.S. and Qu, H. (2000), ‘‘Hong Kong as a travel destination: an analysis of Japanese tourist

satisfaction levels, and the likelihood of them recommending Hong Kong to others’’, Journal of Travel

and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 9 Nos 1/2, pp. 57-80.

Holbrook, M.B. (1999), Consumer Value. A Framework for Analysis and Research, Routledge, London.

Hu, H.-H., Kandampully, J. and Juwaheer, T.D. (2009), ‘‘Relationships and impacts of service quality,

perceived value, customer satisfaction and image: an empirical study’’, The Service Industries Journal,

Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 111-25.

Hulland, J. (1999), ‘‘Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of

four recent studies’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 195-204.

Hutchinson, J., Lai, F. and Wang, Y. (2009), ‘‘Understanding the relationships of quality, value, equity,

satisfaction andbehavioral intentions amonggolf travellers’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 30, pp. 298-308.

Johansson, P. and Mortazavi, R. (1996), ‘‘The value of travel time: an empirical study using repeated

samples of non-business trips’’, Tourism Economics, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 353-68.

VOL. 68 NO. 1 2013 jTOURISM REVIEWj PAGE 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nor

th D

akot

a A

t 00:

14 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Kashyap, R. and Bojanic, D. (2000), ‘‘A structural analysis of value, quality, and price perceptions of

business and leisure travellers’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39, pp. 45-51.

Kozak, M. and Rimmington, M. (2000), ‘‘Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season

holiday destination’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 260-9.

Lee, C.-K., Yoon, Y.S. and Lee, S.K. (2007), ‘‘Investigating the relationship among perceived value,

satisfaction and recommendations: the case of the Korean DMZ’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 28,

pp. 204-14.

Lohmoller, J.B. (1989), Latent Variables Path Modeling with Partial Least Squares, Physica-Verlag,

Heidelberg.

Marmorstein, H., Grewal, D. and Fishe, R.P.H. (1992), ‘‘The value of time spent in price-comparision

shopping: survey and experimental evidence’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, June, pp. 52-61.

Mattilla, A., Apostolopoulos, Y., Sonmez, S., Yu, L. and Sasidharan, V. (2001), ‘‘The impact of gender and

religion on college students’ spring break behavior’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40, pp. 193-200.

Moulin, C. (1996), ‘‘Appreciating the built environment through cultural tourism: fundamental changes in

values and approaches’’, Revue de Tourisme, Vol. 2, pp. 7-22.

Murphy, P. and Pritchard, M. (1997), ‘‘Destination price- value perceptions: an examination of origin and

seasonal influences’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 16-22.

Murphy, P.E., Pritchard, M.P. and Smith, B. (2000), ‘‘The destination product and its impact on traveller

perceptions’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 21, pp. 43-52.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Oh, H. (1999), ‘‘Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: a holistic perspective’’,

International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 67-82.

Oh, H. (2000), ‘‘The effect of brand class, brand awareness, and price on customer value and behavioral

intentions’’, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 136-62.

Oliver, R.L. (1996), ‘‘Varieties of value in the consumption satisfaction response’’, Advances in

Consumer Research, Vol. 23, pp. 143-7.

Oliver, R.L. (1997), Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Oliver, R.L. (1999), ‘‘Value as excellence in the consumption experience’’, in Holbrook, M.B. (Ed.),

Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research, Routledge, London, pp. 43-62.

Petrick, J.F. (2002a), ‘‘Development of a multi-dimensional scale for measuring the perceived value of a

service’’, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 119-34.

Petrick, J.F. (2002b), ‘‘Experience use history as a segmentation tool to examine golf travellers’

satisfaction, perceived value and repurchase intentions’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 4,

pp. 332-42.

Petrick, J.F. (2003), ‘‘Measuring cruise passengers’ perceived value’’, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 7,

pp. 251-8.

Petrick, J.F. (2004), ‘‘The roles of quality, value and satisfaction in predicting cruise passengers’

behavioural intentions’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42, pp. 397-407.

Petrick, J.F., Morais, D.D. and Norman, W.C. (2001), ‘‘An examination of the determinants of

entertainment vacationers’ intentions to revisit’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40, pp. 41-8.

Petrick, J.R. and Backman, S.J. (2002a), ‘‘An examination of golf travellers’ satisfaction, perceived value,

loyalty, and intentions to revisit’’, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 6 Nos 3-6, pp. 223-37.

Petrick, J.R. and Backman, S.J. (2002b), ‘‘An examination of golf travellers’ satisfaction’’, Journal of

Travel Research, Vol. 40, pp. 252-8.

Ravald, A. and Gronroos, C. (1996), ‘‘The value concept and relationship marketing’’, European Journal

of Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 19-30.

PAGE 18 jTOURISM REVIEWj VOL. 68 NO. 1 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nor

th D

akot

a A

t 00:

14 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Ritchie, J.R.B. (1996), ‘‘Beacons of light in an expanding universe: an assessment of the state-of-the-art

in tourism marketing/marketing research’’, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 4,

pp. 49-84.

Ritchie, J.R.B. and Hudson, S. (2009), ‘‘Understanding and meeting the challenges of consumer/tourist

experience research’’, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 111-26.

Ryan, C. (1995), Researching Tourist Satisfaction. Issues, Concepts and Problems, Routledge, London.

Ryu, K., Han, H. and Kim, T.-H. (2008), ‘‘The relationship among overall quick-casual restaurant image,

perceived value, customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions’’, International Journal of Hospitality

Management, Vol. 27, pp. 459-69.

Sanchez, J., Callarisa, L., Rodriguez, R.M. andMoliner, M.A. (2006), ‘‘Perceived value of the purchase of

a tourism product’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 27, pp. 394-409.

Sirohi, N., McLaughlin, E.W. and Wittink, D.R. (1998), ‘‘A model of consumer perceptions and store

loyalty intentions for a supermarket retailer’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 223-45.

Smith, J.B. and Colgate, M. (2007), ‘‘Customer value creation: a practical framework’’, Journal of

Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 7-23.

Smith, N.C. (1999), ‘‘Ethics and the typology of customer value’’, in Holbrook, M.B. (Ed.), Consumer

Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research, Routledge, London, pp. 147-58.

Sparks, B., Butcher, K. and Bradley, G. (2008), ‘‘Dimensions and correlates of consumer value: an

application of the timeshare industry’’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 27,

pp. 98-108.

Swarbrooke, J. and Horner, S. (1999), Consumer Behaviour in Tourism, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Sweeney, J. and Soutar, G. (2001), ‘‘Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item

scale’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77, pp. 203-7.

Tam, J.L.M. (2000), ‘‘The effects of service quality, perceived value and customer satisfaction on

behavioural intentions’’, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 31-43.

Tocquer, G. and Zins, M. (1999), Marketing du Tourism, 2nd ed., Gaetan Morin Editeur, Levallois- Perret.

Um, S., Chon, K. and Ro, Y. (2006), ‘‘Antecedents of revisit intention’’, Annals of Tourism Research,

Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 1141-58.

Van Birgelen, M., Ghijsen, P. and Semeijn, J. (2005), ‘‘The added value of web innovation for customer

satisfaction. Experiences with a barbeque catering service’’, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 6,

pp. 539-54.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.L. (2004), ‘‘Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing’’, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 68, January, pp. 1-17.

Vitterso, J., Vorkinn, M., Vistand, O.I. and Vaagland, J. (2000), ‘‘Tourist experiences and attractions’’,

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 439-50.

Walker, J.T., Backman, K., Backman, S. and Morais, D. (2001), ‘‘Using performance measurements to

explore the influence of service quality dimensions on customer’s perception of overall value of a nature

based tourism outfitter’’, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 2 Nos 1/2,

pp. 49-68.

Wang, Y., Lo, H.-P. and Yang, Y. (2004), ‘‘An integrated framework for service quality, customer value,

satisfaction: evidence from China’s telecommunication industry’’, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 6

No. 4, pp. 325-40.

Wold, H. (1985), ‘‘Partial least squares’’, in Kotz, S. and Johnson, N.L. (Eds), Encyclopedia of Statistical

Sciences, Vol. 6, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, pp. 581-91.

Woodruff, B.R. (1997), ‘‘Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage’’, Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 139-53.

Yuan, Y.H. and Wu, C.K. (2008), ‘‘Relationship among experiential marketing, experiential value, and

customer satisfaction’’, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 387-410.

VOL. 68 NO. 1 2013 jTOURISM REVIEWj PAGE 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nor

th D

akot

a A

t 00:

14 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Yuksel, A. and Yuksel, F. (2007), ‘‘Shopping risk perceptions: effects on tourists’ emotions, satisfaction

and expressed loyalty intentions’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 28, pp. 703-13.

Zalatan, A. (1994), ‘‘Tourist satisfaction: a predetermined model’’, Revue de Tourisme, Vol. 1, pp. 9-13.

Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), ‘‘Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and

synthesis of evidence’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, pp. 2-22.

About the authors

Martina G. Gallarza is an Assistant Professor at the Marketing Department of Universitat deValencia. Her research interests are consumer behavior and services marketing (mainlytourism, not-for-profit and higher education). Martina G. Gallarza is the corresponding authorand can be contacted at: martina.gallarza@uv.es

Irene Gil Saura is a Professor at the Marketing Department of Universitat de Valencia. Herresearch interests are retailing and service quality.

Francisco Arteaga Moreno is an Associate Professor in Econometrics at Facultad deEstudios de la Empresa of Universidad Catolica de Valencia. His research interests aremultivariate methods applied to industrial settings and to marketing and managementcontexts.

PAGE 20 jTOURISM REVIEWj VOL. 68 NO. 1 2013

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nor

th D

akot

a A

t 00:

14 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

This article has been cited by:

1. Mohammad Reza Jalilvand, Javad Khazaei Pool, Leila Nasrolahi Vosta, Javad Shabani Nafchali. 2014. The effect of marketingconstructs and tourists’ satisfaction on loyalty to a sport destination. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary MiddleEastern Issues 7:4, 316-332. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

2. Dr Fevzi Okumus, Dr Robertico Croes, Dr Joe Hutchinson, Ady Milman. 2013. Guests' perception of staged authenticity ina theme park: an example from Disney's Epcot's World Showcase. Tourism Review 68:4, 71-89. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Nor

th D

akot

a A

t 00:

14 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)