Description
The effect of the antecedents of satisfaction on consumer satisfaction is an issue still under
debate in the academic literature. Thus, the primary goal of this article is to analyze the relationship
between two of the most important antecedents of consumer satisfaction – namely perceived quality
and price
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Exploring non-linear effects of determinants on tourists' satisfaction
Sara Campo María J esús Yagüe
Article information:
To cite this document:
Sara Campo María J esús Yagüe, (2009),"Exploring non-linear effects of determinants on tourists' satisfaction", International J ournal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 3 Iss 2 pp. 127 - 138
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180910962131
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:07 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 44 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1429 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Tanja Dmitrovi#, Ljubica Kneževi#Cvelbar, Tomaž Kolar, Maja Makovec Bren#i#, Irena Ograjenšek, Vesna Žabkar,
(2009),"Conceptualizing tourist satisfaction at the destination level", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research,
Vol. 3 Iss 2 pp. 116-126http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180910962122
Antónia Correia, Metin Kozak, J oão Ferradeira, (2013),"From tourist motivations to tourist satisfaction", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp. 411-424http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0022
Klaus Weiermair, (2000),"Tourists’ perceptions towards and satisfaction with service quality in the cross-cultural service encounter:
implications for hospitality and tourism management", Managing Service Quality: An International J ournal, Vol. 10 Iss 6 pp. 397-409 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520010351220
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how 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.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Exploring non-linear effects of
determinants on tourists’ satisfaction
Sara Campo and Mar? ´a Jesu´ s Yagu¨ e
Abstract
Purpose – The effect of the antecedents of satisfaction on consumer satisfaction is an issue still under
debate in the academic literature. Thus, the primary goal of this article is to analyze the relationship
between two of the most important antecedents of consumer satisfaction – namely perceived quality
and price.
Design/methodology/approach – To analyze the relationship between tourist consumer satisfaction
and its main antecedents, we performed an empirical study on such issues with regard to the purchase
of a package tour.
Findings – The results of this research are that the tourist’s perception of quality has a positive and
signi?cant effect on his or her satisfaction. This effect is of greater magnitude than the effect produced
by perceived price. The present study identi?es two components in the total effect of perceived price on
satisfaction. Those components have opposite signs: the negative effect of the sacri?ce perceived by
the consumer and the positive effect that shows the in?uence of price as a sign of quality. One can
estimate the ?rst effect from the price that the consumer recalls paying, which shows a non-linear
negative effect on satisfaction (following the model of ‘‘decreasing returns’’). One can estimate the
positive effect by the range of minimumand maximumprices that the consumer considers acceptable to
pay for the product.
Originality/value – Entrepreneurs must know how improvement in service quality in?uences customer
satisfaction and what price levels they might consider to increase consumer satisfaction and to in?uence
positively the quality perceived by the consumer.
Keywords Tourism, Customer satisfaction, Prices, Customer service quality, Perception
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The academic literature debates and analyzes the formation of consumer satisfaction, since
research has shown satisfaction to be a good indicator of the ?rm’s economic pro?ts
(Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Fornell, 1992) and a clear antecedent of customer loyalty.
Research that analyzes consumer satisfaction ?nds that the main consequences of
consumer satisfaction are intention to buy again (Yi and La, 2003) and to recommend to
friends and family, or ‘‘word-of-mouth’’ communication (see the review by Soderlund, 1998).
Yu and Dean (2001) and Zins (2001) (see also the review by Hallowell, 1996) obtain this
positive relationship between satisfaction and the indicators of consumer loyalty in the area
of services.
Nevertheless, the academic literature continues to debate the effect of the antecedents of
satisfaction on overall consumer satisfaction. Therefore, the main goal of this article is to
analyze the relationship between the main antecedents of consumer satisfaction in tourist
services – namely perceived quality and price. Understanding how both variables in?uence
the formation of consumer satisfaction is of crucial importance in entrepreneurial
management. Entrepreneurs must know how improvement in service quality in?uences
DOI 10.1108/17506180910962131 VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009, pp. 127-138, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 127
Sara Campo and Mar? ´a
Jesu´ s Yagu¨ e are based at
the Universidad Auto´ noma
of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Received: January 2008
Revised: June 2008
Accepted: September 2008
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
customer satisfaction and what price levels they should determine to increase consumer
satisfaction and to in?uence positively the quality that the consumer perceives.
The concept of satisfaction
Some consensus exists in the academic literature regarding the conceptualization of the
term ‘‘satisfaction’’. This literature de?nes satisfaction as the global evaluation that the
consumer makes after a purchase. However, an in-depth analysis of the different de?nitions
that authors give to the term satisfaction shows that some differences are derived from the
different methodologies applied to estimate and quantify such a term.
An evaluation of the surprise inherent in a product acquisition and/or consumption experience. In
essence, it is the summary psychological state resulting when the emotion surrounding
discon?rmed expectations is coupled with the consumer’s prior feelings about the consumption
experience (Oliver, 1981, p. 27).
This de?nition refers to the consumer’s evaluation of a speci?c purchase. However, the
de?nition adds how the consumer makes the evaluation: by comparing what he or she
receives with what he or she expected:
An outcome of purchase and use resulting from the buyer’s comparison of the rewards and costs
of purchase in relation to the anticipated consequences (Churchill and Surprenant, 1982, p. 493).
This de?nition refers to the consumer’s evaluation of a speci?c purchase but also in?uences
how the consumer evaluates this purchase: by comparing the bene?ts and costs derived
from the purchase. Subsequent de?nitions do not include how consumers make the
evaluation, but rather, what the consumer evaluates:
An overall evaluation based on the total purchase and consumption experience with a good or
service over time (Anderson et al., 1994, p. 54).
Anderson et al. (1994) distinguish between satisfaction with a speci?c transaction and
global satisfaction with the service and de?ne consumer satisfaction as a cumulative
evaluation that depends on all of the purchases that the consumer has made in the past.
These de?nitions focus attention on the cognitive component of satisfaction – that is,
satisfaction as the evaluation of an experience. However, later de?nitions argue that the
emotional is the main factor in the formation of consumer satisfaction. Authors such as
(Baker and Crompton, 2000, p. 787) de?ne satisfaction as ‘‘An emotional state of mind after
exposure to the opportunity’’.
Finally, one line of research maintains that both components, cognitive and emotional, are
key components of satisfaction (Cronin et al., 2000; Yu and Dean, 2001), de?ning
satisfaction as ‘‘an evaluation of an emotion’’ (Hunt, 1977, pp. 459-60).
This last de?nition allows integration of the concepts mentioned above by incorporating the
cognitive and emotional components (evaluation and emotion, respectively); the de?nition
refers to a speci?c purchase and/or a cumulative purchase, since the emotional component
can be the result of a situation of speci?c consumption or of a succession of consumptions.
The de?nition also incorporates the condition of use of the product for the evaluation of
satisfaction implicitly, since in order to evaluate and feel an emotion, one must have an
experience of consuming the product.
Antecedents of satisfaction
Although relative consensus exists in the de?nition of satisfaction, consensus is not suf?cient
regarding the process of the formation and measurement of satisfaction (Fornell, 1992).
Researchers divide along two different research focuses.
One of the pioneering theories af?rms that satisfaction forms from the consumer’s
comparison of expectations before buying with his or her perceptions at the moment of
purchase and/or consumption. Oliver (1980, 1981) understands this comparison as
discon?rmation, as the mental comparison of a current situation with the anticipated
probability. This comparison can be positive (when the perception of the result obtained is
PAGE 128
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
better than that expected), null (when the current perception is the same as that expected)
or negative (when the current perception is worse than that expected).
The theoretical models based on this theory af?rm that the variables that in?uence
satisfaction directly and positively are discon?rmation (Cadotte et al., 1987) (Figure 1A), and
discon?rmation and consumer expectations, where the in?uence of expectations on
satisfaction is less than the in?uence of discon?rmation (Oliver, 1981) (Figure 1B).
Subsequent studies that focus on the analysis of consumer discon?rmation (see reviewby Yi
and La, 2003) show that, in addition to these two variables (discon?rmation and
expectations), consumer perceptions also have a direct effect on satisfaction. And they
show that the consumer’s expectations and perceptions also have an indirect effect on
satisfaction by means of discon?rmation (Figure 1C). Finally, some authors, such as
Anderson and Sullivan (1993), separate the effect of positive and negative discon?rmation
on satisfaction (Figure 1D) and ?nd that the second has a greater effect on consumer
satisfaction.
The alternative models do not reach consensus concerning either the structure or the
intensity of the relationships. Some studies ?nd a signi?cant relationship between
discon?rmation and satisfaction, while others do not (see review by Gotlieb et al., 1994).
The same result emerges for expectations and consumer satisfaction (Cadotte et al., 1987;
Gupta and Stewart, 1996; Westbrook, 1987). These inconsistencies lead some authors to
propose and develop models that explain the formation of satisfaction (Churchill and
Surprenant, 1982) from a different theoretical focus.
A second research focus considers that the consumer evaluates the experience of purchase
and consumption globally, without explicitly comparing the perception of the results to his or
her expectations. This conceptual path belongs to so-called ‘‘satisfaction theory’’, which
originates in the foundations of the economic theory of utility that the consumer perceives
(Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). Utility theory identi?es as determiners of satisfaction the
bene?ts that the consumer perceives (usually measured as perceived quality) and the
sacri?ce made to acquire this product, which includes the monetary and non-monetary
costs (Cronin et al., 2000; Pedraja and Yagu¨ e, 2004). Empirical analyses ?nd that perceived
Figure 1 Alternative models of the formation of satisfaction in discon?rmation theory
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 129
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
quality affects satisfaction positively (Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Cronin and Taylor, 1992)
and the sacri?ce affects satisfaction negatively (Dodds et al., 1991), such that when the
consumer must assume a greater sacri?ce in the purchase of a product, his or her
satisfaction level decreases.
Empirical studies that compare the capacity of theories of discon?rmation and satisfaction to
explain the formation of satisfaction show that the quality that the consumer perceives has a
direct and positive impact on satisfaction. This impact is greater than that of discon?rmation
(Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Churchill and Surprenant, 1982; Oliver and DeSarbo, 1988).
However, these authors do not incorporate the variable of sacri?ce explicitly as a function of
satisfaction, nor do they include price as indicator of monetary sacri?ce. The incorporation of
price as an estimate of monetary sacri?ce that the consumer should make is fundamental to
understanding the formation of consumer satisfaction. Further, from the entrepreneurial
perspective, knowing how price decisions affect consumer satisfaction is crucial for
entrepreneurial decision-making (Chen et al., 1994).
Price in the formation of satisfaction
Studies that analyze the relationship between perceived price and satisfaction in the area of
services do not obtain conclusive results (Chen et al., 1994). For example, Cronin et al.
(2000) ?nd a non-signi?cant relationship between the sacri?ce made and the value assigned
to the service, whereas Andreassen and Lindestand (1998) ?nd a non-signi?cant
relationship between value and satisfaction in applying their study to the tourist market.
According to Voss et al. (1998), the contradictory results in the literature may be due to the
fact that the studies do not analyze in depth the role of price as a variable in the consumer’s
evaluations. Speci?cally, these contradictory results obtained may have several causes.
First, the double effect of price on satisfaction can moderate the relationship. On the one hand,
price is an indicator of the sacri?ce made (Oh, 1999; Teas and Agarwal, 2000) and affects
satisfaction negatively (Dodds et al., 1991). On the other, satisfaction is an external indicator of
quality (Dodds et al., 1991; Rao and Monroe, 1989), such that, at a higher price, the consumer
judges this product to be of greater quality (Zeithaml, 1988). If not controlled, these effects of
opposite sign on satisfaction can create a global effect of lower magnitude or non-signi?cance.
When the consumer considers the purchase of expensive, intangible products with low
purchase frequency and long, complex decision-making processes, as is the case with
some tourist products, the use of price as an external indicator of quality is stronger (Dodds
et al., 1991; Rao and Monroe, 1989). Nevertheless, research can bene?t from learning what
the price actually is that consumers use as an indicator of quality. This question arises
because studies have contrasted different reference elements to determine that both
internal and external elements in?uence the price formation that the consumer perceives
(Campo and Yagu¨ e, 2007; Kumar et al., 1998; Rajendran and Tellis, 1994). The main internal
reference prices that the consumer uses to evaluate price information are the price that the
consumer considers reasonable and the range of acceptability of prices, de?ned as the
maximum and minimum acceptable price threshold (Pedraja and Yagu¨ e, 2000). With this
range of price acceptability, consumers evaluate the information on market prices.
Consumers accept prices within their price range but reject prices outside this range.
Because price range is an internal standard and thus unique for each consumer, the same
price may be acceptable to one consumer and unacceptable to another. The following
economic argument supports acceptance (or rejection) of prices within (or outside) the limits
of the individual range of acceptable prices. A consumer would not be willing to buy a
product whose sale price is lower than his or her minimum acceptable price, because he or
she would feel that this price does not achieve the required standard of quality. In the same
way, a consumer would not acquire a product whose sale price is over the maximum limit he
or she is willing to pay, since the product would be above the maximum limit that the
consumer is willing to pay for the quality of the product provided. Therefore, the range of
price acceptability emerges as the reference price that consumers use as an indicator to
evaluate the range of perceived quality in a product category (minimum limit of
quality-maximum limit of quality).
PAGE 130
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The analysis of the individual effects of perceived price on satisfaction can allowus to isolate
partial effects of price and obtain a negative and signi?cant effect of price as indicator of the
sacri?ce that the consumer makes (H1) and a positive effect of the range of acceptance of
price as an indicator of quality (H2).
Second, although Streukens and de Ruyter (2004) estimate satisfactorily the positive
relationship between perceived quality and satisfaction using a linear form, the negative
relationship between price and satisfaction may be nonlinear (Campo and Yagu¨ e, 2006). In
this case, the models applied most frequently until now and based on linear functions would
not re?ect the real relationship between these variables. This non-linearity could explain the
weak or non-signi?cant results in most of the research. Therefore, this paper seeks to
contrast the nonlinearity of the negative relationship between price and satisfaction (H3).
Speci?cally, the research tries to deepen understanding of the form of the relationship by
proposing two kinds of alternate functions:
1. A non-linear model of ‘‘decreasing returns’’ (Figure 2A): The relationship between price
and satisfaction can be negative with a decreasing growth rate (H3a).
2. A non-linear model in the form of a reversed U (Figure 2B). For this case, low and high
prices will obtain a lower level of satisfaction. In the ?rst case they would transmit a lower
level of quality to the consumer, whereas in the second the level of prices would not justify
the quality obtained. Conversely, middle price levels would obtain higher satisfaction
levels (H3b).
Study method
To analyze the relationship between tourist consumer satisfaction and the main antecedents
of satisfaction – perceived quality and perceived price – the authors performed an
empirical study applied to the purchase of a speci?c package tour, among Spanish tourists
to the destinations of Central America, South America and the Caribbean during 2001-2003.
The authors obtained this information through a personal survey performed mainly in Barajas
Airport (Madrid, Spain), the airport in Spain that sends the largest percentage of tourists to
the destinations analyzed. The survey was performed on tourists who ful?lled the conditions
required for the sample: people over 18 years of age who had acquired and/or consumed a
package tour to the destinations listed above, some time between 2001 and 2003. The size
of the sample was ultimately 358 individuals, obtained through ?eldwork during the months
of November and December 2003.
The questionnaire included different questions: the level of overall satisfaction (using a
bipolar scale of ten points, from totally dissatis?ed to totally satis?ed) (Anderson and
Sullivan, 1993; Hallowell, 1996; Oh, 1999; Soderlund, 1998; Zins, 2001). The questionnaire
Figure 2 Relationship functions between price and satisfaction
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 131
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
measured perceived quality as the consumer’s post-purchase evaluation of the package
tour acquired. Studies by Andreassen and Lindestand (1998), Baker and Crompton (2000)
and Zins (2001) applied to the tourist market consider perceived quality to be a construct
formed of the different elements that make up the package tour. To measure these, the
questionnaire introduces eight questions (on a scale of ten points, from minimum to
maximum quality) that measure the tourist’s evaluation of the service quality of:
B airline company (AQ);
B hotels (HQ);
B meal service (MQ);
B tourist destination (DQ);
B organization of the trip (OQ);
B guarantees offered on the trip (GQ);
B tour operator (TOQ); and
B travel agency (TAQ).
The sacri?ce that the consumer must undergo to acquire a product includes the monetary
and non-monetary cost incurred (Cronin et al., 2000). The questionnaire includes three
questions that analyze the consumer’s sacri?ce:
1. the price (e) that the tourist remembers having paid for the package tour;
2. the non-monetary cost perceived by the tourist before making the decision to buy the
package tour (on a scale of ten points from minimum to maximum sacri?ce); and
3. the global cost incurred by the tourist in the purchase of the package tour (on a scale of
ten points, from very cheap to very expensive).
A previous analysis (Campo, 2004) enables us to identify that for this product category, the
non-monetary cost is a variable that does not contribute to explaining tourist satisfaction.
Therefore, the analysis uses perceived monetary price as an indicator of the consumer’s
sacri?ce. This result supports the arguments of authors like Pedraja and Yagu¨ e (2004), who
argue that when the product has a high purchase price and high perceived risk for the
consumer, monetary sacri?ce has greater weight for the consumer than non-monetary
sacri?ce.
Finally, two questions measure the range of prices acceptable to the consumer:
1. the maximumprice (e) that the consumer considers acceptable to pay for a package tour;
and
2. the minimum price (e) that the consumer considers acceptable to pay for this product.
Results
To de?ne the variables that compose perceived quality (following the recommendations of
Baker and Crompton, 2000), the authors performed a factor analysis (extraction method:
principle components analysis) to purify the scale regarding the quality of the package tour
used and to identify the different components that make up the concept of quality in a
package tour. First, the analysis eliminates the variables that do not obtain values above 0.50
in the explanation of the factors (OQ and GQ), since the questions TAQ and TOQ implicitly
incorporate the concepts of ‘‘organization’’ and ‘‘guarantees’’, and explain why both
variables obtain reduced weight in the formation of the factors.
Second, the results of the Varimax-rotated component factor analysis enable us to identify
that the perceived quality of a package tour has two components:
B F1, which can be called the ‘‘quality of the products offered at the destination’’ and is
formed of HQ, MQ and DQ (F1 loadings: HQ ¼ 0:79, MQ ¼ 0:83, DQ ¼ 0:70); and
PAGE 132
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
B F2, which can be called the ‘‘quality of the distribution channel agents’’ and is formed by
AQ, TOQ and TAQ (F2 loadings: AQ ¼ 0:75, TOQ ¼ 0:78, TAQ ¼ 0:78).
Both factors summarize the information and preserve 65 percent of the variance that the
original variables explain.
To analyze the relationships between perceived quality, perceived price and consumer
satisfaction, the authors performed a regression analysis in which the dependent variable is
consumer satisfaction (SAT) and the independent variables are the main antecedents, i.e.
perceived quality (Q) and perceived price (PP) (equation 1). Two main dimensions obtained
in the factor analysis (F1: DestQ and F2: PlaceQ) compose perceived quality (equations
2-4). Perceived price is formed of two components:
1. perceived monetary price (PMP), which is an indicator of the consumer’s sacri?ce; and
2. the acceptable threshold of acceptable prices (Threshold), which is an indicator of
perceived quality (equation 5).
To calculate the consumer’s price threshold, the authors created a new variable, the result of
subtracting the consumer’s minimum acceptable price (MinP) from the maximum
acceptable price (MaxP) (Equation 6):
SAT ¼ f ðQ; PPÞ; ð1Þ
Q ¼ f ðDestQ; PlaceQÞ; ð2Þ
DestQ ¼ a
1
þ x
1
HQþ x
2
MQ þ x
3
DQ; ð3Þ
PlaceQ ¼ a
2
þ d
1
AQ þ d
2
TOQþ d
3
TAQ; ð4Þ
PP ¼ f ðPMP; ThresholdÞ; ð5Þ
Threshold ¼ ðMaxP 2 MinPÞ: ð6Þ
Con?rming that the model improves in representing the relationship between perceived
quality, price and satisfaction requires estimating four different functions (Table I). Model A is
a linear function whose dependent variable is satisfaction (SAT) and whose independent
variables are perceived quality (Q) and perceived monetary price (PMP). Perceived quality
affects satisfaction positively and signi?cantly by means of the two dimensions of
satisfaction: DestQ (0.542) and PlaceQ (0.36). Perceived monetary price affects satisfaction
negatively but not signi?cantly (20.10). The overall goodness of ?t of the model’s estimate,
measured by corrected R
2
, reaches 0.41.
The non-signi?cant results of the effect of price on satisfaction in the linear model A
constitute another piece of evidence that supports the conjecture that a nonlinear
relationship exists between price and satisfaction. To contrast H3, which argues the
non-linearity of the relationship between price and satisfaction, one can propose two
alternate models, according to whether the nonlinearity corresponds to a function of
‘‘decreasing returns’’ or ?ts a reversed U function. Model B of Table I represents the
Table I Alternative linear regression functions
Model A Model B Model C Model D
VI ¼ (Q,PMP) VI ¼ (Q,PMP) with non-linear
PMP with decreasing returns
VI ¼ (Q,PMP,Threshold) VI ¼ (Q,PMP,Threshold) with non-linear
PMP with decreasing returns
SAT ¼a þ b
1
DestQþb
2
PlaceQ2b
3
PMP
SAT¼a þ c
1
DestQþc
2
PlaceQ2c
3
ln PMP
SAT¼a þ d
1
DestQþd
2
PlaceQ2d
3
PMPþd
4
Threshold
SAT¼a þ e
1
DestQþe
2
PlaceQ2e
3
ln PMPþe
4
Threshold
b
1
¼0.54 (p ¼ 0.00) c
1
¼0.54 (p ¼ 0.00) d
1
¼0.55 (p ¼ 0.00) e
1
¼0.55 (p ¼ 0.00)
b
2
¼0.36 (p ¼ 0.00) c
2
¼0.36 (p ¼ 0.00) d
2
¼0.36 (p ¼ 0.00) e
2
¼0.36 (p ¼ 0.00)
b
3
¼0.10 (p ¼ 0.05) c
3
¼0.10 (p ¼ 0.04) d
3
¼0.14 (p ¼ 0.01) e
3
¼0.15 (p ¼ 0.00)
Corrected R
2
¼0.41 Corrected R
2
¼0.41 d
4
¼0.14 (p ¼ 0.01) e
4
¼0.14 (p ¼ 0.01)
F ¼ 58.05 (p ¼ 0.00) F ¼ 58.34 (p ¼ 0.00 Corrected R
2
¼0.42 Corrected R
2
¼0.43
F ¼ 46.37 (p ¼ 0.00) F ¼ 46.67 (p ¼ 0.00)
Notes: b
1
-e
4
are standardized coef?cients
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 133
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
formulation that offers a better overall goodness of ?t, as a function of ‘‘decreasing returns’’.
The results in the estimation of Model B sustain the positive, linear and signi?cant effect of
the components of perceived quality on satisfaction and show a negative, signi?cant,
non-linear effect of price on overall satisfaction. These results demonstrate the existence of a
decreasing relationship with a decreasing rate of variation between perceived monetary
price and satisfaction. The second model obtained an overall ?t measured by corrected R
2
similar to that obtained in Model A (of 0.41). The effect of price over satisfaction, although
signi?cant, is low in magnitude. This result may be due to the double effect of price on
satisfaction: a negative effect as indicator of sacri?ce and a positive effect as indicator of
quality. Therefore, the authors introduce into the model an indicator of range of acceptable
prices for the consumer, called ‘‘Threshold’’. This variable is the difference between the
maximum acceptable price and the minimum acceptable price. Models C and D include
perceived monetary price as an indicator of the sacri?ce and price threshold as indicator of
quality. Both models compare a linear formalization (Model C) to the nonlinear formulation
contrasted in Model B (Model D). The model that obtains the best ?t (corrected R
2
¼ 0:43) is
Model D. This model con?rms that price exercises a negative (e
3
¼ 20:15) and signi?cant
effect (99 percent con?dence) on satisfaction (con?rming H1), and that this relationship is
nonlinear (con?rming H3), decreasing with a decreasing growth rate (con?rming H3a). The
model does not, however, ?nd indications that the nonlinear relationship has a reversed U
form (not con?rming H3b). Likewise, the results con?rm H2, since price also has a positive
(e
4
¼ 0:14) and signi?cant effect (99 percent con?dence) on satisfaction as an indicator of
quality.
Conclusions
The analysis and estimation of tourist satisfaction are crucial for the different agents involved
in tourist distribution – both providers of tourist services and distributors – in planning their
commercial strategies. Knowing how the antecedents of tourist satisfaction contribute to the
formation of this term is essential, since such knowledge enables the tourist entrepreneur to
con?gure products with optimal quality levels and prices that obtain better levels of
satisfaction.
Therefore, the main objectives of this paper are to deepen understanding of the relationships
between quality, price and the tourist consumer’s satisfaction. The results obtained con?rm
some of those obtained in the academic literature in ?nding that the quality that the
consumer perceives in?uences his or her satisfaction in a positive and signi?cant way. This
relationship is also strong, such that if entrepreneurs wish to improve their customers’
satisfaction, they should try to improve the quality of the service offered.
The quality of package tours analyzed in this study is composed of two main dimensions:
1. perceived quality of the services at the destination, composed of the quality of the hotel
service, meal services, and service at the destination visited; and
2. the quality of service that the agents of tourist distribution, airline company, tour operator
and travel agency offer.
The dimension that has the greatest positive in?uence on tourist satisfaction is the quality of
services at the destination. This result indicates that the agents responsible for con?guring
the package tours – the tour operators and travel agencies – should be careful of the quality
of service offered in each of the products that form part of the package tour. When tour
operators develop package tours, they should choose excellent tourist destinations and
tourist accommodation companies that guarantee the tourist consumer high quality service.
Likewise, travel agencies should try to arrive at commercialization agreements with tour
operators that guarantee the development of package tours that the consumer perceives to
be of high quality.
The quality of service offered by tourist distribution agents also has a positive and signi?cant
in?uence on tourist satisfaction, although one of less relevance than quality at the
destination. Both dimensions, although independent, are related, as the tourist’s evaluation
PAGE 134
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
of the distributors will depend to a large extent on the tourist services at the destination,
which the distributors choose to con?gure the package tour.
The in?uence of price on the formation of satisfaction is more complex. First, price is an
indicator of quality for the consumer, such that the consumer perceives high-priced
products as high in quality and will generate higher levels of satisfaction for the consumer. In
contrast, consumers perceive low-priced products as low quality, which affects consumer
satisfaction negatively. This evaluation of price as an indicator of quality is an individual
process that varies from one individual to another as a function of their range or threshold of
price acceptance. When consumers have a higher price threshold, they are more likely to
accept higher prices and obtain higher levels of satisfaction compared to consumers who
have lower and narrower price thresholds.
Second, price also acts as an indicator of the monetary sacri?ce that the consumer makes to
acquire a product and affects tourist satisfaction negatively and signi?cantly. However, this
relationship is not linear. Rather, it decreases with a decreasing growth rate, meaning that
when the price of the product increases, the decrease in the consumer’s satisfaction occurs
more slowly.
The regression equation estimated in Model D and chosen for its better goodness of ?t
enables calculation of the elasticity of tourist satisfaction against changes in price,
expressed as:
EðSAT 2 PMPÞ ¼
›SAT
›PMP
PMP
SAT
¼
2e
3
PMP
PMP
SAT
¼
2e
3
SAT
:
Figure 3 represents EðSAT 2 PMPÞ for each level of satisfaction obtained. This curve has a
slope that increases initially, up to the in?ection point, after which the slope decreases. For
very low satisfaction levels, decreases in perceived price cause a strong increase in tourist
satisfaction. This result continues until a medium-high level of satisfaction, after which the
decrease in price causes smaller increases in tourist satisfaction.
Finally, the results of this research identify that:
B Perceived quality has a positive and signi?cant effect on consumer satisfaction, an effect
of greater magnitude than that of perceived price.
B In the total effect of perceived price on satisfaction, two components of contrary sign
emerge: a negative effect of the sacri?ce that the consumer perceives, and a positive
effect, which re?ects the action of price as a sign of quality.
One can estimate the former from the price that the consumer remembers having paid, and
this sacri?ce exercises a negative non-linear effect (following the model of ‘‘decreasing
returns’’) on satisfaction. One can estimate the positive effect by the range of minimum and
maximum prices that the consumer considers acceptable to pay for the product. These
variables explain approximately 43 percent of the variance in tourist satisfaction. The
Figure 3 Elasticity curve for Satisfaction-PMP
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 135
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
resulting low R
2
could have two causes. On the one hand, perceived quality has been
introduced into the regression model not through the individual variables that compose
perceived quality, but as two factors obtained in the applied factor analysis. Although the
introduction of these factors enables one to control for multicollinearity between the variables
because the factors ful?ll the condition of being linearly independent, these factors also
cause a loss of information. Speci?cally, applying the factor analysis preserves 65 percent of
the explained variance but loses the other 35 percent.
Second, each individual has individual and behavioral variables that in?uence his or her
level of satisfaction which this paper does not consider. For example, the personal
characteristics of the individual, such as particular needs or level of expectation for service,
cause two individuals to evaluate their satisfaction level with the same product differently.
The consumer’s experience with the product category or level of information available also
in?uences his or her expectations, and thus the evaluation of his or her satisfaction. In order
to understand the formation of consumer satisfaction completely, future research must focus
on understanding how these individual variables in?uence tourist consumer satisfaction.
References
Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993), ‘‘The antecedents and consequences of customer
satisfaction for ?rms’’, Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 125-42.
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Lehmann, D.R. (1994), ‘‘Customer satisfaction, market share and
pro?tability: ?ndings from Sweden’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, July, pp. 53-66.
Andreassen, W. and Lindestand, B. (1998), ‘‘Customer loyalty and complex service. The impact of
corporate image on quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty for customers with varying degrees of
service expertise’’, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Baker, D.A. and Crompton, J.L. (2000), ‘‘Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 785-804.
Cadotte, E.R., Woodruff, R.B. and Jenkins, R.L. (1987), ‘‘Expectations and norms in models of consumer
satisfaction’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, August, pp. 305-14.
Campo, S. (2004), ‘‘Las promociones en precios en el mercado tur? ´stico: Efectos sobre la formacio´ n de
la lealtad del consumidor a la marca y al punto de venta’’, tesis doctoral, Universidad Auto´ noma de
Madrid, Madrid.
Campo, S. and Yagu¨ e, M.J. (2006), ‘‘Effects of price promotion on the tourist’s satisfaction’’,
Proceedings of the 24th Eurochrie Congress: In Search of Excellence for Tomorrow’s Tourism, Travel and
Hospitality, Thessaloniki, October, 25-28.
Campo, S. and Yagu¨ e, M.J. (2007), ‘‘The effect of price promotions on the perceived price’’,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 269-86.
Chen, I.J., Gupta, A. and Rom, W. (1994), ‘‘A study of price and quality in service operations’’,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 23-33.
Churchill, G.A. and Surprenant, C. (1982), ‘‘An investigation into the determinants of customer
satisfaction’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, November, pp. 491-504.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), ‘‘Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension’’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.
Cronin, J.J., Brandy, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000), ‘‘Assessing the effects of quality, value and customer
satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76
No. 2, pp. 193-218.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991), ‘‘Effects of price, brand, and store information on
buyers’ product evaluations’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 307-18.
Fornell, C. (1992), ‘‘A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience’’, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 56, January, pp. 6-21.
Gotlieb, J.B., Grewal, D. and Brown, S.W. (1994), ‘‘Consumer satisfaction and perceived quality:
complementary or divergent constructs?’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 6, pp. 875-85.
PAGE 136
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Gupta, K. and Stewart, D.W. (1996), ‘‘Customer satisfaction and customer behaviour: the differential role
of brand and category expectations’’, Marketing Letters, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 249-63.
Hallowell, R. (1996), ‘‘The relationship of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and pro?tability: an
empirical study’’, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 27-42.
Hunt, H.K. (1977), Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction,
Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), ‘‘Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk’’,
Econometrica, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 263-91.
Kumar, V., Karande, K. and Reinartz, W.J. (1998), ‘‘The impact of internal and external reference prices on
brand choice: the moderating role of contextual variables’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 401-26.
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.
Oliver, R. (1980), ‘‘A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decision’’,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 46-9.
Oliver, R. (1981), ‘‘Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings’’, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 25-48.
Oliver, R. and DeSarbo, W. (1988), ‘‘Response determinants in satisfaction judgments’’, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 14, March, pp. 495-507.
Pedraja, M. and Yagu¨ e, M.J. (2000), ‘‘The role of the internal reference price in the perception of the
sales price: an application to the restaurant’s services’’, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 3-22.
Pedraja, M. and Yagu¨ e, M.J. (2004), ‘‘Perceived quality and price: their impact on the satisfaction of
restaurant customers’’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 16 No. 6,
pp. 373-9.
Rajendran, K.N. and Tellis, G.J. (1994), ‘‘Contextual and temporal components of reference price’’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, January, pp. 22-34.
Rao, A.R. and Monroe, K.B. (1989), ‘‘The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers’
perceptions of product quality: an integrative review’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26, August,
pp. 351-7.
Soderlund, M. (1998), ‘‘Customer satisfaction and its consequences on customer behaviour revisited.
The impact of different levels of satisfaction on word-of-mouth, feedback to the supplier and loyalty’’,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, p. 169.
Streukens, S. and de Ruyter, K. (2004), ‘‘Reconsidering nonlinearity and asymmetry in customer
satisfaction and loyalty models: an empirical study in three retail service setting’’, Marketing Letters,
Vol. 15 Nos 2/3, pp. 99-111.
Teas, R.K. and Agarwal, S. (2000), ‘‘The effects of extrinsic product cues on consumers’ perceptions of
quality, sacri?ce, and value’’, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 278-90.
Voss, G.B., Parasuraman, A. and Grewal, D. (1998), ‘‘The roles of price, performance and expectations
in determining satisfaction in services exchanges’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 46-61.
Westbrook, R.A. (1987), ‘ ‘Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase
processes’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, August, pp. 258-70.
Yi, Y. and La, S. (2003), ‘‘The moderating role of con?dence in expectations and the asymmetric
in?uence of discon?rmation on customer satisfaction’’, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5,
pp. 20-47.
Yu, Y. and Dean, A. (2001), ‘‘The contribution of emotional satisfaction to consumer loyalty’’, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 234-50.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), ‘‘Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, July, pp. 2-22.
Zins, A.H. (2001), ‘‘Relative attitudes and commitment in customer loyalty models’’, International Journal
of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 269-94.
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 137
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Further reading
Gardner, D.M. (1971), ‘‘Is there a generalized price-quality relationship?’’, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 8, May, pp. 241-3.
Middleton, V.T.C. (1994), Marketing in Travel and Tourism, 2nd ed., Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
Rao, A.R. and Monroe, K.B. (1988), ‘‘The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue utilization in
product evaluations’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 253-61.
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., Hofstede, F. and Wedel, M. (1999), ‘‘A cross-national investigation into the
individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63,
April, pp. 55-69.
Venkataraman, V.K. (1981), ‘‘The price-quality relationship in an experimental setting’’, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 21, pp. 49-52.
Westbrook, R.A. (1980), ‘‘A rating scale for measuring product/service satisfaction’’, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 44, Fall, pp. 68-72.
Westbrook, R.A. (1981), ‘‘Source of consumer satisfaction with retail outlets’’, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 57, Fall, pp. 68-75.
Corresponding author
Sara Campo is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
PAGE 138
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Angelo Camillo, Antonio Minguzzi, Angelo Presenza, Svetlana HoltNATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
AND MICROTOURISM DESTINATIONS: THE CASE OF SOUTHERN ITALY 267-298. [CrossRef]
2. Elena Olmedo, Ruth Mateos. 2015. Quantitative characterization of chaordic tourist destination. Tourism Management 47,
115-126. [CrossRef]
3. Francisco Liébana?Cabanillas, Francisco Muñoz?Leiva, Francisco Rejón?Guardia. 2013. The determinants of satisfaction with
e?banking. Industrial Management & Data Systems 113:5, 750-767. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Bob McKercher, Basak Denizci-Guillet, Erica Ng. 2012. Rethinking Loyalty. Annals of Tourism Research 39, 708-734.
[CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_643244969.pdf
The effect of the antecedents of satisfaction on consumer satisfaction is an issue still under
debate in the academic literature. Thus, the primary goal of this article is to analyze the relationship
between two of the most important antecedents of consumer satisfaction – namely perceived quality
and price
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Exploring non-linear effects of determinants on tourists' satisfaction
Sara Campo María J esús Yagüe
Article information:
To cite this document:
Sara Campo María J esús Yagüe, (2009),"Exploring non-linear effects of determinants on tourists' satisfaction", International J ournal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 3 Iss 2 pp. 127 - 138
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180910962131
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:07 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 44 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1429 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Tanja Dmitrovi#, Ljubica Kneževi#Cvelbar, Tomaž Kolar, Maja Makovec Bren#i#, Irena Ograjenšek, Vesna Žabkar,
(2009),"Conceptualizing tourist satisfaction at the destination level", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research,
Vol. 3 Iss 2 pp. 116-126http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180910962122
Antónia Correia, Metin Kozak, J oão Ferradeira, (2013),"From tourist motivations to tourist satisfaction", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp. 411-424http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0022
Klaus Weiermair, (2000),"Tourists’ perceptions towards and satisfaction with service quality in the cross-cultural service encounter:
implications for hospitality and tourism management", Managing Service Quality: An International J ournal, Vol. 10 Iss 6 pp. 397-409 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520010351220
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how 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.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Exploring non-linear effects of
determinants on tourists’ satisfaction
Sara Campo and Mar? ´a Jesu´ s Yagu¨ e
Abstract
Purpose – The effect of the antecedents of satisfaction on consumer satisfaction is an issue still under
debate in the academic literature. Thus, the primary goal of this article is to analyze the relationship
between two of the most important antecedents of consumer satisfaction – namely perceived quality
and price.
Design/methodology/approach – To analyze the relationship between tourist consumer satisfaction
and its main antecedents, we performed an empirical study on such issues with regard to the purchase
of a package tour.
Findings – The results of this research are that the tourist’s perception of quality has a positive and
signi?cant effect on his or her satisfaction. This effect is of greater magnitude than the effect produced
by perceived price. The present study identi?es two components in the total effect of perceived price on
satisfaction. Those components have opposite signs: the negative effect of the sacri?ce perceived by
the consumer and the positive effect that shows the in?uence of price as a sign of quality. One can
estimate the ?rst effect from the price that the consumer recalls paying, which shows a non-linear
negative effect on satisfaction (following the model of ‘‘decreasing returns’’). One can estimate the
positive effect by the range of minimumand maximumprices that the consumer considers acceptable to
pay for the product.
Originality/value – Entrepreneurs must know how improvement in service quality in?uences customer
satisfaction and what price levels they might consider to increase consumer satisfaction and to in?uence
positively the quality perceived by the consumer.
Keywords Tourism, Customer satisfaction, Prices, Customer service quality, Perception
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The academic literature debates and analyzes the formation of consumer satisfaction, since
research has shown satisfaction to be a good indicator of the ?rm’s economic pro?ts
(Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Fornell, 1992) and a clear antecedent of customer loyalty.
Research that analyzes consumer satisfaction ?nds that the main consequences of
consumer satisfaction are intention to buy again (Yi and La, 2003) and to recommend to
friends and family, or ‘‘word-of-mouth’’ communication (see the review by Soderlund, 1998).
Yu and Dean (2001) and Zins (2001) (see also the review by Hallowell, 1996) obtain this
positive relationship between satisfaction and the indicators of consumer loyalty in the area
of services.
Nevertheless, the academic literature continues to debate the effect of the antecedents of
satisfaction on overall consumer satisfaction. Therefore, the main goal of this article is to
analyze the relationship between the main antecedents of consumer satisfaction in tourist
services – namely perceived quality and price. Understanding how both variables in?uence
the formation of consumer satisfaction is of crucial importance in entrepreneurial
management. Entrepreneurs must know how improvement in service quality in?uences
DOI 10.1108/17506180910962131 VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009, pp. 127-138, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 127
Sara Campo and Mar? ´a
Jesu´ s Yagu¨ e are based at
the Universidad Auto´ noma
of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Received: January 2008
Revised: June 2008
Accepted: September 2008
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
customer satisfaction and what price levels they should determine to increase consumer
satisfaction and to in?uence positively the quality that the consumer perceives.
The concept of satisfaction
Some consensus exists in the academic literature regarding the conceptualization of the
term ‘‘satisfaction’’. This literature de?nes satisfaction as the global evaluation that the
consumer makes after a purchase. However, an in-depth analysis of the different de?nitions
that authors give to the term satisfaction shows that some differences are derived from the
different methodologies applied to estimate and quantify such a term.
An evaluation of the surprise inherent in a product acquisition and/or consumption experience. In
essence, it is the summary psychological state resulting when the emotion surrounding
discon?rmed expectations is coupled with the consumer’s prior feelings about the consumption
experience (Oliver, 1981, p. 27).
This de?nition refers to the consumer’s evaluation of a speci?c purchase. However, the
de?nition adds how the consumer makes the evaluation: by comparing what he or she
receives with what he or she expected:
An outcome of purchase and use resulting from the buyer’s comparison of the rewards and costs
of purchase in relation to the anticipated consequences (Churchill and Surprenant, 1982, p. 493).
This de?nition refers to the consumer’s evaluation of a speci?c purchase but also in?uences
how the consumer evaluates this purchase: by comparing the bene?ts and costs derived
from the purchase. Subsequent de?nitions do not include how consumers make the
evaluation, but rather, what the consumer evaluates:
An overall evaluation based on the total purchase and consumption experience with a good or
service over time (Anderson et al., 1994, p. 54).
Anderson et al. (1994) distinguish between satisfaction with a speci?c transaction and
global satisfaction with the service and de?ne consumer satisfaction as a cumulative
evaluation that depends on all of the purchases that the consumer has made in the past.
These de?nitions focus attention on the cognitive component of satisfaction – that is,
satisfaction as the evaluation of an experience. However, later de?nitions argue that the
emotional is the main factor in the formation of consumer satisfaction. Authors such as
(Baker and Crompton, 2000, p. 787) de?ne satisfaction as ‘‘An emotional state of mind after
exposure to the opportunity’’.
Finally, one line of research maintains that both components, cognitive and emotional, are
key components of satisfaction (Cronin et al., 2000; Yu and Dean, 2001), de?ning
satisfaction as ‘‘an evaluation of an emotion’’ (Hunt, 1977, pp. 459-60).
This last de?nition allows integration of the concepts mentioned above by incorporating the
cognitive and emotional components (evaluation and emotion, respectively); the de?nition
refers to a speci?c purchase and/or a cumulative purchase, since the emotional component
can be the result of a situation of speci?c consumption or of a succession of consumptions.
The de?nition also incorporates the condition of use of the product for the evaluation of
satisfaction implicitly, since in order to evaluate and feel an emotion, one must have an
experience of consuming the product.
Antecedents of satisfaction
Although relative consensus exists in the de?nition of satisfaction, consensus is not suf?cient
regarding the process of the formation and measurement of satisfaction (Fornell, 1992).
Researchers divide along two different research focuses.
One of the pioneering theories af?rms that satisfaction forms from the consumer’s
comparison of expectations before buying with his or her perceptions at the moment of
purchase and/or consumption. Oliver (1980, 1981) understands this comparison as
discon?rmation, as the mental comparison of a current situation with the anticipated
probability. This comparison can be positive (when the perception of the result obtained is
PAGE 128
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
better than that expected), null (when the current perception is the same as that expected)
or negative (when the current perception is worse than that expected).
The theoretical models based on this theory af?rm that the variables that in?uence
satisfaction directly and positively are discon?rmation (Cadotte et al., 1987) (Figure 1A), and
discon?rmation and consumer expectations, where the in?uence of expectations on
satisfaction is less than the in?uence of discon?rmation (Oliver, 1981) (Figure 1B).
Subsequent studies that focus on the analysis of consumer discon?rmation (see reviewby Yi
and La, 2003) show that, in addition to these two variables (discon?rmation and
expectations), consumer perceptions also have a direct effect on satisfaction. And they
show that the consumer’s expectations and perceptions also have an indirect effect on
satisfaction by means of discon?rmation (Figure 1C). Finally, some authors, such as
Anderson and Sullivan (1993), separate the effect of positive and negative discon?rmation
on satisfaction (Figure 1D) and ?nd that the second has a greater effect on consumer
satisfaction.
The alternative models do not reach consensus concerning either the structure or the
intensity of the relationships. Some studies ?nd a signi?cant relationship between
discon?rmation and satisfaction, while others do not (see review by Gotlieb et al., 1994).
The same result emerges for expectations and consumer satisfaction (Cadotte et al., 1987;
Gupta and Stewart, 1996; Westbrook, 1987). These inconsistencies lead some authors to
propose and develop models that explain the formation of satisfaction (Churchill and
Surprenant, 1982) from a different theoretical focus.
A second research focus considers that the consumer evaluates the experience of purchase
and consumption globally, without explicitly comparing the perception of the results to his or
her expectations. This conceptual path belongs to so-called ‘‘satisfaction theory’’, which
originates in the foundations of the economic theory of utility that the consumer perceives
(Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). Utility theory identi?es as determiners of satisfaction the
bene?ts that the consumer perceives (usually measured as perceived quality) and the
sacri?ce made to acquire this product, which includes the monetary and non-monetary
costs (Cronin et al., 2000; Pedraja and Yagu¨ e, 2004). Empirical analyses ?nd that perceived
Figure 1 Alternative models of the formation of satisfaction in discon?rmation theory
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 129
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
quality affects satisfaction positively (Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Cronin and Taylor, 1992)
and the sacri?ce affects satisfaction negatively (Dodds et al., 1991), such that when the
consumer must assume a greater sacri?ce in the purchase of a product, his or her
satisfaction level decreases.
Empirical studies that compare the capacity of theories of discon?rmation and satisfaction to
explain the formation of satisfaction show that the quality that the consumer perceives has a
direct and positive impact on satisfaction. This impact is greater than that of discon?rmation
(Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Churchill and Surprenant, 1982; Oliver and DeSarbo, 1988).
However, these authors do not incorporate the variable of sacri?ce explicitly as a function of
satisfaction, nor do they include price as indicator of monetary sacri?ce. The incorporation of
price as an estimate of monetary sacri?ce that the consumer should make is fundamental to
understanding the formation of consumer satisfaction. Further, from the entrepreneurial
perspective, knowing how price decisions affect consumer satisfaction is crucial for
entrepreneurial decision-making (Chen et al., 1994).
Price in the formation of satisfaction
Studies that analyze the relationship between perceived price and satisfaction in the area of
services do not obtain conclusive results (Chen et al., 1994). For example, Cronin et al.
(2000) ?nd a non-signi?cant relationship between the sacri?ce made and the value assigned
to the service, whereas Andreassen and Lindestand (1998) ?nd a non-signi?cant
relationship between value and satisfaction in applying their study to the tourist market.
According to Voss et al. (1998), the contradictory results in the literature may be due to the
fact that the studies do not analyze in depth the role of price as a variable in the consumer’s
evaluations. Speci?cally, these contradictory results obtained may have several causes.
First, the double effect of price on satisfaction can moderate the relationship. On the one hand,
price is an indicator of the sacri?ce made (Oh, 1999; Teas and Agarwal, 2000) and affects
satisfaction negatively (Dodds et al., 1991). On the other, satisfaction is an external indicator of
quality (Dodds et al., 1991; Rao and Monroe, 1989), such that, at a higher price, the consumer
judges this product to be of greater quality (Zeithaml, 1988). If not controlled, these effects of
opposite sign on satisfaction can create a global effect of lower magnitude or non-signi?cance.
When the consumer considers the purchase of expensive, intangible products with low
purchase frequency and long, complex decision-making processes, as is the case with
some tourist products, the use of price as an external indicator of quality is stronger (Dodds
et al., 1991; Rao and Monroe, 1989). Nevertheless, research can bene?t from learning what
the price actually is that consumers use as an indicator of quality. This question arises
because studies have contrasted different reference elements to determine that both
internal and external elements in?uence the price formation that the consumer perceives
(Campo and Yagu¨ e, 2007; Kumar et al., 1998; Rajendran and Tellis, 1994). The main internal
reference prices that the consumer uses to evaluate price information are the price that the
consumer considers reasonable and the range of acceptability of prices, de?ned as the
maximum and minimum acceptable price threshold (Pedraja and Yagu¨ e, 2000). With this
range of price acceptability, consumers evaluate the information on market prices.
Consumers accept prices within their price range but reject prices outside this range.
Because price range is an internal standard and thus unique for each consumer, the same
price may be acceptable to one consumer and unacceptable to another. The following
economic argument supports acceptance (or rejection) of prices within (or outside) the limits
of the individual range of acceptable prices. A consumer would not be willing to buy a
product whose sale price is lower than his or her minimum acceptable price, because he or
she would feel that this price does not achieve the required standard of quality. In the same
way, a consumer would not acquire a product whose sale price is over the maximum limit he
or she is willing to pay, since the product would be above the maximum limit that the
consumer is willing to pay for the quality of the product provided. Therefore, the range of
price acceptability emerges as the reference price that consumers use as an indicator to
evaluate the range of perceived quality in a product category (minimum limit of
quality-maximum limit of quality).
PAGE 130
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The analysis of the individual effects of perceived price on satisfaction can allowus to isolate
partial effects of price and obtain a negative and signi?cant effect of price as indicator of the
sacri?ce that the consumer makes (H1) and a positive effect of the range of acceptance of
price as an indicator of quality (H2).
Second, although Streukens and de Ruyter (2004) estimate satisfactorily the positive
relationship between perceived quality and satisfaction using a linear form, the negative
relationship between price and satisfaction may be nonlinear (Campo and Yagu¨ e, 2006). In
this case, the models applied most frequently until now and based on linear functions would
not re?ect the real relationship between these variables. This non-linearity could explain the
weak or non-signi?cant results in most of the research. Therefore, this paper seeks to
contrast the nonlinearity of the negative relationship between price and satisfaction (H3).
Speci?cally, the research tries to deepen understanding of the form of the relationship by
proposing two kinds of alternate functions:
1. A non-linear model of ‘‘decreasing returns’’ (Figure 2A): The relationship between price
and satisfaction can be negative with a decreasing growth rate (H3a).
2. A non-linear model in the form of a reversed U (Figure 2B). For this case, low and high
prices will obtain a lower level of satisfaction. In the ?rst case they would transmit a lower
level of quality to the consumer, whereas in the second the level of prices would not justify
the quality obtained. Conversely, middle price levels would obtain higher satisfaction
levels (H3b).
Study method
To analyze the relationship between tourist consumer satisfaction and the main antecedents
of satisfaction – perceived quality and perceived price – the authors performed an
empirical study applied to the purchase of a speci?c package tour, among Spanish tourists
to the destinations of Central America, South America and the Caribbean during 2001-2003.
The authors obtained this information through a personal survey performed mainly in Barajas
Airport (Madrid, Spain), the airport in Spain that sends the largest percentage of tourists to
the destinations analyzed. The survey was performed on tourists who ful?lled the conditions
required for the sample: people over 18 years of age who had acquired and/or consumed a
package tour to the destinations listed above, some time between 2001 and 2003. The size
of the sample was ultimately 358 individuals, obtained through ?eldwork during the months
of November and December 2003.
The questionnaire included different questions: the level of overall satisfaction (using a
bipolar scale of ten points, from totally dissatis?ed to totally satis?ed) (Anderson and
Sullivan, 1993; Hallowell, 1996; Oh, 1999; Soderlund, 1998; Zins, 2001). The questionnaire
Figure 2 Relationship functions between price and satisfaction
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 131
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
measured perceived quality as the consumer’s post-purchase evaluation of the package
tour acquired. Studies by Andreassen and Lindestand (1998), Baker and Crompton (2000)
and Zins (2001) applied to the tourist market consider perceived quality to be a construct
formed of the different elements that make up the package tour. To measure these, the
questionnaire introduces eight questions (on a scale of ten points, from minimum to
maximum quality) that measure the tourist’s evaluation of the service quality of:
B airline company (AQ);
B hotels (HQ);
B meal service (MQ);
B tourist destination (DQ);
B organization of the trip (OQ);
B guarantees offered on the trip (GQ);
B tour operator (TOQ); and
B travel agency (TAQ).
The sacri?ce that the consumer must undergo to acquire a product includes the monetary
and non-monetary cost incurred (Cronin et al., 2000). The questionnaire includes three
questions that analyze the consumer’s sacri?ce:
1. the price (e) that the tourist remembers having paid for the package tour;
2. the non-monetary cost perceived by the tourist before making the decision to buy the
package tour (on a scale of ten points from minimum to maximum sacri?ce); and
3. the global cost incurred by the tourist in the purchase of the package tour (on a scale of
ten points, from very cheap to very expensive).
A previous analysis (Campo, 2004) enables us to identify that for this product category, the
non-monetary cost is a variable that does not contribute to explaining tourist satisfaction.
Therefore, the analysis uses perceived monetary price as an indicator of the consumer’s
sacri?ce. This result supports the arguments of authors like Pedraja and Yagu¨ e (2004), who
argue that when the product has a high purchase price and high perceived risk for the
consumer, monetary sacri?ce has greater weight for the consumer than non-monetary
sacri?ce.
Finally, two questions measure the range of prices acceptable to the consumer:
1. the maximumprice (e) that the consumer considers acceptable to pay for a package tour;
and
2. the minimum price (e) that the consumer considers acceptable to pay for this product.
Results
To de?ne the variables that compose perceived quality (following the recommendations of
Baker and Crompton, 2000), the authors performed a factor analysis (extraction method:
principle components analysis) to purify the scale regarding the quality of the package tour
used and to identify the different components that make up the concept of quality in a
package tour. First, the analysis eliminates the variables that do not obtain values above 0.50
in the explanation of the factors (OQ and GQ), since the questions TAQ and TOQ implicitly
incorporate the concepts of ‘‘organization’’ and ‘‘guarantees’’, and explain why both
variables obtain reduced weight in the formation of the factors.
Second, the results of the Varimax-rotated component factor analysis enable us to identify
that the perceived quality of a package tour has two components:
B F1, which can be called the ‘‘quality of the products offered at the destination’’ and is
formed of HQ, MQ and DQ (F1 loadings: HQ ¼ 0:79, MQ ¼ 0:83, DQ ¼ 0:70); and
PAGE 132
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
B F2, which can be called the ‘‘quality of the distribution channel agents’’ and is formed by
AQ, TOQ and TAQ (F2 loadings: AQ ¼ 0:75, TOQ ¼ 0:78, TAQ ¼ 0:78).
Both factors summarize the information and preserve 65 percent of the variance that the
original variables explain.
To analyze the relationships between perceived quality, perceived price and consumer
satisfaction, the authors performed a regression analysis in which the dependent variable is
consumer satisfaction (SAT) and the independent variables are the main antecedents, i.e.
perceived quality (Q) and perceived price (PP) (equation 1). Two main dimensions obtained
in the factor analysis (F1: DestQ and F2: PlaceQ) compose perceived quality (equations
2-4). Perceived price is formed of two components:
1. perceived monetary price (PMP), which is an indicator of the consumer’s sacri?ce; and
2. the acceptable threshold of acceptable prices (Threshold), which is an indicator of
perceived quality (equation 5).
To calculate the consumer’s price threshold, the authors created a new variable, the result of
subtracting the consumer’s minimum acceptable price (MinP) from the maximum
acceptable price (MaxP) (Equation 6):
SAT ¼ f ðQ; PPÞ; ð1Þ
Q ¼ f ðDestQ; PlaceQÞ; ð2Þ
DestQ ¼ a
1
þ x
1
HQþ x
2
MQ þ x
3
DQ; ð3Þ
PlaceQ ¼ a
2
þ d
1
AQ þ d
2
TOQþ d
3
TAQ; ð4Þ
PP ¼ f ðPMP; ThresholdÞ; ð5Þ
Threshold ¼ ðMaxP 2 MinPÞ: ð6Þ
Con?rming that the model improves in representing the relationship between perceived
quality, price and satisfaction requires estimating four different functions (Table I). Model A is
a linear function whose dependent variable is satisfaction (SAT) and whose independent
variables are perceived quality (Q) and perceived monetary price (PMP). Perceived quality
affects satisfaction positively and signi?cantly by means of the two dimensions of
satisfaction: DestQ (0.542) and PlaceQ (0.36). Perceived monetary price affects satisfaction
negatively but not signi?cantly (20.10). The overall goodness of ?t of the model’s estimate,
measured by corrected R
2
, reaches 0.41.
The non-signi?cant results of the effect of price on satisfaction in the linear model A
constitute another piece of evidence that supports the conjecture that a nonlinear
relationship exists between price and satisfaction. To contrast H3, which argues the
non-linearity of the relationship between price and satisfaction, one can propose two
alternate models, according to whether the nonlinearity corresponds to a function of
‘‘decreasing returns’’ or ?ts a reversed U function. Model B of Table I represents the
Table I Alternative linear regression functions
Model A Model B Model C Model D
VI ¼ (Q,PMP) VI ¼ (Q,PMP) with non-linear
PMP with decreasing returns
VI ¼ (Q,PMP,Threshold) VI ¼ (Q,PMP,Threshold) with non-linear
PMP with decreasing returns
SAT ¼a þ b
1
DestQþb
2
PlaceQ2b
3
PMP
SAT¼a þ c
1
DestQþc
2
PlaceQ2c
3
ln PMP
SAT¼a þ d
1
DestQþd
2
PlaceQ2d
3
PMPþd
4
Threshold
SAT¼a þ e
1
DestQþe
2
PlaceQ2e
3
ln PMPþe
4
Threshold
b
1
¼0.54 (p ¼ 0.00) c
1
¼0.54 (p ¼ 0.00) d
1
¼0.55 (p ¼ 0.00) e
1
¼0.55 (p ¼ 0.00)
b
2
¼0.36 (p ¼ 0.00) c
2
¼0.36 (p ¼ 0.00) d
2
¼0.36 (p ¼ 0.00) e
2
¼0.36 (p ¼ 0.00)
b
3
¼0.10 (p ¼ 0.05) c
3
¼0.10 (p ¼ 0.04) d
3
¼0.14 (p ¼ 0.01) e
3
¼0.15 (p ¼ 0.00)
Corrected R
2
¼0.41 Corrected R
2
¼0.41 d
4
¼0.14 (p ¼ 0.01) e
4
¼0.14 (p ¼ 0.01)
F ¼ 58.05 (p ¼ 0.00) F ¼ 58.34 (p ¼ 0.00 Corrected R
2
¼0.42 Corrected R
2
¼0.43
F ¼ 46.37 (p ¼ 0.00) F ¼ 46.67 (p ¼ 0.00)
Notes: b
1
-e
4
are standardized coef?cients
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 133
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
formulation that offers a better overall goodness of ?t, as a function of ‘‘decreasing returns’’.
The results in the estimation of Model B sustain the positive, linear and signi?cant effect of
the components of perceived quality on satisfaction and show a negative, signi?cant,
non-linear effect of price on overall satisfaction. These results demonstrate the existence of a
decreasing relationship with a decreasing rate of variation between perceived monetary
price and satisfaction. The second model obtained an overall ?t measured by corrected R
2
similar to that obtained in Model A (of 0.41). The effect of price over satisfaction, although
signi?cant, is low in magnitude. This result may be due to the double effect of price on
satisfaction: a negative effect as indicator of sacri?ce and a positive effect as indicator of
quality. Therefore, the authors introduce into the model an indicator of range of acceptable
prices for the consumer, called ‘‘Threshold’’. This variable is the difference between the
maximum acceptable price and the minimum acceptable price. Models C and D include
perceived monetary price as an indicator of the sacri?ce and price threshold as indicator of
quality. Both models compare a linear formalization (Model C) to the nonlinear formulation
contrasted in Model B (Model D). The model that obtains the best ?t (corrected R
2
¼ 0:43) is
Model D. This model con?rms that price exercises a negative (e
3
¼ 20:15) and signi?cant
effect (99 percent con?dence) on satisfaction (con?rming H1), and that this relationship is
nonlinear (con?rming H3), decreasing with a decreasing growth rate (con?rming H3a). The
model does not, however, ?nd indications that the nonlinear relationship has a reversed U
form (not con?rming H3b). Likewise, the results con?rm H2, since price also has a positive
(e
4
¼ 0:14) and signi?cant effect (99 percent con?dence) on satisfaction as an indicator of
quality.
Conclusions
The analysis and estimation of tourist satisfaction are crucial for the different agents involved
in tourist distribution – both providers of tourist services and distributors – in planning their
commercial strategies. Knowing how the antecedents of tourist satisfaction contribute to the
formation of this term is essential, since such knowledge enables the tourist entrepreneur to
con?gure products with optimal quality levels and prices that obtain better levels of
satisfaction.
Therefore, the main objectives of this paper are to deepen understanding of the relationships
between quality, price and the tourist consumer’s satisfaction. The results obtained con?rm
some of those obtained in the academic literature in ?nding that the quality that the
consumer perceives in?uences his or her satisfaction in a positive and signi?cant way. This
relationship is also strong, such that if entrepreneurs wish to improve their customers’
satisfaction, they should try to improve the quality of the service offered.
The quality of package tours analyzed in this study is composed of two main dimensions:
1. perceived quality of the services at the destination, composed of the quality of the hotel
service, meal services, and service at the destination visited; and
2. the quality of service that the agents of tourist distribution, airline company, tour operator
and travel agency offer.
The dimension that has the greatest positive in?uence on tourist satisfaction is the quality of
services at the destination. This result indicates that the agents responsible for con?guring
the package tours – the tour operators and travel agencies – should be careful of the quality
of service offered in each of the products that form part of the package tour. When tour
operators develop package tours, they should choose excellent tourist destinations and
tourist accommodation companies that guarantee the tourist consumer high quality service.
Likewise, travel agencies should try to arrive at commercialization agreements with tour
operators that guarantee the development of package tours that the consumer perceives to
be of high quality.
The quality of service offered by tourist distribution agents also has a positive and signi?cant
in?uence on tourist satisfaction, although one of less relevance than quality at the
destination. Both dimensions, although independent, are related, as the tourist’s evaluation
PAGE 134
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
of the distributors will depend to a large extent on the tourist services at the destination,
which the distributors choose to con?gure the package tour.
The in?uence of price on the formation of satisfaction is more complex. First, price is an
indicator of quality for the consumer, such that the consumer perceives high-priced
products as high in quality and will generate higher levels of satisfaction for the consumer. In
contrast, consumers perceive low-priced products as low quality, which affects consumer
satisfaction negatively. This evaluation of price as an indicator of quality is an individual
process that varies from one individual to another as a function of their range or threshold of
price acceptance. When consumers have a higher price threshold, they are more likely to
accept higher prices and obtain higher levels of satisfaction compared to consumers who
have lower and narrower price thresholds.
Second, price also acts as an indicator of the monetary sacri?ce that the consumer makes to
acquire a product and affects tourist satisfaction negatively and signi?cantly. However, this
relationship is not linear. Rather, it decreases with a decreasing growth rate, meaning that
when the price of the product increases, the decrease in the consumer’s satisfaction occurs
more slowly.
The regression equation estimated in Model D and chosen for its better goodness of ?t
enables calculation of the elasticity of tourist satisfaction against changes in price,
expressed as:
EðSAT 2 PMPÞ ¼
›SAT
›PMP
PMP
SAT
¼
2e
3
PMP
PMP
SAT
¼
2e
3
SAT
:
Figure 3 represents EðSAT 2 PMPÞ for each level of satisfaction obtained. This curve has a
slope that increases initially, up to the in?ection point, after which the slope decreases. For
very low satisfaction levels, decreases in perceived price cause a strong increase in tourist
satisfaction. This result continues until a medium-high level of satisfaction, after which the
decrease in price causes smaller increases in tourist satisfaction.
Finally, the results of this research identify that:
B Perceived quality has a positive and signi?cant effect on consumer satisfaction, an effect
of greater magnitude than that of perceived price.
B In the total effect of perceived price on satisfaction, two components of contrary sign
emerge: a negative effect of the sacri?ce that the consumer perceives, and a positive
effect, which re?ects the action of price as a sign of quality.
One can estimate the former from the price that the consumer remembers having paid, and
this sacri?ce exercises a negative non-linear effect (following the model of ‘‘decreasing
returns’’) on satisfaction. One can estimate the positive effect by the range of minimum and
maximum prices that the consumer considers acceptable to pay for the product. These
variables explain approximately 43 percent of the variance in tourist satisfaction. The
Figure 3 Elasticity curve for Satisfaction-PMP
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 135
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
resulting low R
2
could have two causes. On the one hand, perceived quality has been
introduced into the regression model not through the individual variables that compose
perceived quality, but as two factors obtained in the applied factor analysis. Although the
introduction of these factors enables one to control for multicollinearity between the variables
because the factors ful?ll the condition of being linearly independent, these factors also
cause a loss of information. Speci?cally, applying the factor analysis preserves 65 percent of
the explained variance but loses the other 35 percent.
Second, each individual has individual and behavioral variables that in?uence his or her
level of satisfaction which this paper does not consider. For example, the personal
characteristics of the individual, such as particular needs or level of expectation for service,
cause two individuals to evaluate their satisfaction level with the same product differently.
The consumer’s experience with the product category or level of information available also
in?uences his or her expectations, and thus the evaluation of his or her satisfaction. In order
to understand the formation of consumer satisfaction completely, future research must focus
on understanding how these individual variables in?uence tourist consumer satisfaction.
References
Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993), ‘‘The antecedents and consequences of customer
satisfaction for ?rms’’, Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 125-42.
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Lehmann, D.R. (1994), ‘‘Customer satisfaction, market share and
pro?tability: ?ndings from Sweden’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, July, pp. 53-66.
Andreassen, W. and Lindestand, B. (1998), ‘‘Customer loyalty and complex service. The impact of
corporate image on quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty for customers with varying degrees of
service expertise’’, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Baker, D.A. and Crompton, J.L. (2000), ‘‘Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 785-804.
Cadotte, E.R., Woodruff, R.B. and Jenkins, R.L. (1987), ‘‘Expectations and norms in models of consumer
satisfaction’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, August, pp. 305-14.
Campo, S. (2004), ‘‘Las promociones en precios en el mercado tur? ´stico: Efectos sobre la formacio´ n de
la lealtad del consumidor a la marca y al punto de venta’’, tesis doctoral, Universidad Auto´ noma de
Madrid, Madrid.
Campo, S. and Yagu¨ e, M.J. (2006), ‘‘Effects of price promotion on the tourist’s satisfaction’’,
Proceedings of the 24th Eurochrie Congress: In Search of Excellence for Tomorrow’s Tourism, Travel and
Hospitality, Thessaloniki, October, 25-28.
Campo, S. and Yagu¨ e, M.J. (2007), ‘‘The effect of price promotions on the perceived price’’,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 269-86.
Chen, I.J., Gupta, A. and Rom, W. (1994), ‘‘A study of price and quality in service operations’’,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 23-33.
Churchill, G.A. and Surprenant, C. (1982), ‘‘An investigation into the determinants of customer
satisfaction’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, November, pp. 491-504.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), ‘‘Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension’’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.
Cronin, J.J., Brandy, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000), ‘‘Assessing the effects of quality, value and customer
satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76
No. 2, pp. 193-218.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991), ‘‘Effects of price, brand, and store information on
buyers’ product evaluations’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 307-18.
Fornell, C. (1992), ‘‘A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience’’, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 56, January, pp. 6-21.
Gotlieb, J.B., Grewal, D. and Brown, S.W. (1994), ‘‘Consumer satisfaction and perceived quality:
complementary or divergent constructs?’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 6, pp. 875-85.
PAGE 136
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Gupta, K. and Stewart, D.W. (1996), ‘‘Customer satisfaction and customer behaviour: the differential role
of brand and category expectations’’, Marketing Letters, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 249-63.
Hallowell, R. (1996), ‘‘The relationship of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and pro?tability: an
empirical study’’, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 27-42.
Hunt, H.K. (1977), Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction,
Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), ‘‘Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk’’,
Econometrica, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 263-91.
Kumar, V., Karande, K. and Reinartz, W.J. (1998), ‘‘The impact of internal and external reference prices on
brand choice: the moderating role of contextual variables’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 401-26.
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.
Oliver, R. (1980), ‘‘A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decision’’,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 46-9.
Oliver, R. (1981), ‘‘Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings’’, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 25-48.
Oliver, R. and DeSarbo, W. (1988), ‘‘Response determinants in satisfaction judgments’’, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 14, March, pp. 495-507.
Pedraja, M. and Yagu¨ e, M.J. (2000), ‘‘The role of the internal reference price in the perception of the
sales price: an application to the restaurant’s services’’, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 3-22.
Pedraja, M. and Yagu¨ e, M.J. (2004), ‘‘Perceived quality and price: their impact on the satisfaction of
restaurant customers’’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 16 No. 6,
pp. 373-9.
Rajendran, K.N. and Tellis, G.J. (1994), ‘‘Contextual and temporal components of reference price’’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, January, pp. 22-34.
Rao, A.R. and Monroe, K.B. (1989), ‘‘The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers’
perceptions of product quality: an integrative review’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26, August,
pp. 351-7.
Soderlund, M. (1998), ‘‘Customer satisfaction and its consequences on customer behaviour revisited.
The impact of different levels of satisfaction on word-of-mouth, feedback to the supplier and loyalty’’,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, p. 169.
Streukens, S. and de Ruyter, K. (2004), ‘‘Reconsidering nonlinearity and asymmetry in customer
satisfaction and loyalty models: an empirical study in three retail service setting’’, Marketing Letters,
Vol. 15 Nos 2/3, pp. 99-111.
Teas, R.K. and Agarwal, S. (2000), ‘‘The effects of extrinsic product cues on consumers’ perceptions of
quality, sacri?ce, and value’’, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 278-90.
Voss, G.B., Parasuraman, A. and Grewal, D. (1998), ‘‘The roles of price, performance and expectations
in determining satisfaction in services exchanges’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 46-61.
Westbrook, R.A. (1987), ‘ ‘Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase
processes’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, August, pp. 258-70.
Yi, Y. and La, S. (2003), ‘‘The moderating role of con?dence in expectations and the asymmetric
in?uence of discon?rmation on customer satisfaction’’, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5,
pp. 20-47.
Yu, Y. and Dean, A. (2001), ‘‘The contribution of emotional satisfaction to consumer loyalty’’, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 234-50.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), ‘‘Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, July, pp. 2-22.
Zins, A.H. (2001), ‘‘Relative attitudes and commitment in customer loyalty models’’, International Journal
of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 269-94.
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 137
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Further reading
Gardner, D.M. (1971), ‘‘Is there a generalized price-quality relationship?’’, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 8, May, pp. 241-3.
Middleton, V.T.C. (1994), Marketing in Travel and Tourism, 2nd ed., Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
Rao, A.R. and Monroe, K.B. (1988), ‘‘The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue utilization in
product evaluations’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 253-61.
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., Hofstede, F. and Wedel, M. (1999), ‘‘A cross-national investigation into the
individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63,
April, pp. 55-69.
Venkataraman, V.K. (1981), ‘‘The price-quality relationship in an experimental setting’’, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 21, pp. 49-52.
Westbrook, R.A. (1980), ‘‘A rating scale for measuring product/service satisfaction’’, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 44, Fall, pp. 68-72.
Westbrook, R.A. (1981), ‘‘Source of consumer satisfaction with retail outlets’’, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 57, Fall, pp. 68-75.
Corresponding author
Sara Campo is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
PAGE 138
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Angelo Camillo, Antonio Minguzzi, Angelo Presenza, Svetlana HoltNATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
AND MICROTOURISM DESTINATIONS: THE CASE OF SOUTHERN ITALY 267-298. [CrossRef]
2. Elena Olmedo, Ruth Mateos. 2015. Quantitative characterization of chaordic tourist destination. Tourism Management 47,
115-126. [CrossRef]
3. Francisco Liébana?Cabanillas, Francisco Muñoz?Leiva, Francisco Rejón?Guardia. 2013. The determinants of satisfaction with
e?banking. Industrial Management & Data Systems 113:5, 750-767. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Bob McKercher, Basak Denizci-Guillet, Erica Ng. 2012. Rethinking Loyalty. Annals of Tourism Research 39, 708-734.
[CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_643244969.pdf