Determinants of hotel guests’ satisfaction and repeat patronage in

Hospitality Management 20 (2001) 277297

Determinants of hotel guests satisfaction andrepeat patronage in the Hong Kong hotel

industry

Tat Y. Choia,*,1, Raymond Chub

aDepartment of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom,

Kowloon, Hong KongbPerformance and Research Department, Cathay Pacic Airways Ltd., Hong Kong

Abstract

This study examined the relative importance of hotel factors in relation to travelers overallsatisfaction levels with their hotel stays in Hong Kong and the likelihood of returning to thesame hotels in their subsequent trips. Using a factor analysis technique, the study identied

seven hotel factors that were likely to inuence customers choice intentions: Sta ServiceQuality, Room Qualities, General Amenities, Business Services, Value, Security andIDD Facilities. Multiple regression analysis technique was then applied to examine therelative importance of each of these hotel factors in determining travelers overall satisfaction

levels and their likelihood of returning to the same hotels. In order of importance, StaService Quality, Room Qualities and Value were the three most inuential factors indetermining travelers overall satisfaction levels and their likelihood of returning to the same

hotels. # 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Determinants; Hotel attributes; Satisfaction; Repeat patronage

1. Introduction

Research into customer satisfaction in the service industry has increaseddramatically in recent years (Peterson and Wilson, 1992). The increase has beenaggravated by the increasing growth of the service industries (Danaher and Haddrell,1995). Providing high quality service and enhancing customer satisfaction are widely

*Corresponding author. Tel.:+852-2646-9061; fax: +852-2649-8728.

1Tat Y. Choi is a visiting sta member at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and is also the

Director of Chois International Ltd.

E-mail address: [email protected] (T.Y. Choi).

0278-4319/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.PII: S 0 2 7 8 - 4 3 1 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 0 6 - 8

recognized as important factors leading to the success of companies in the hotel,catering and tourism industries (Barsky and Labagh, 1992; LeBlanc, 1992; Stevenset al., 1995; Legoherel, 1998). In order to be successful in the industry and tooutweigh other competitors, hotel providers must provide customers withunmitigated service satisfaction. It is believed that customers, when experiencedwith the services they have had, are more likely to establish loyalty (Croninand Taylor, 1992), resulting in repeat purchases (Fornell, 1992) and favorableword-of-mouth (Halstead and Page, 1992). The upshot is that the hotel withgood service quality will ultimately improve the companys market share andprotability (Oh and Parks, 1997). In a highly competitive hotel industry, whichoers homogenous products and services, individual hoteliers must nd ways tomake their products and services to stand out among the others. In this regard, whathoteliers need to do is to understand their customers needs, and to meet or exceedthese needs.Using the Hong Kong hotel industry as a case study, the purpose of this research

is to explore and identify the determinants that can be translated into customersatisfaction and repeat purchase. Undeniably, customer satisfaction with hotelproperties has been identied as one of the factors leading to the success of a touristdestination (Shih, 1986; Yau and Chan, 1990; Stevens, 1992; Mok et al., 1995). Toinvestigate how travelers had experienced with hotels in Hong Kong, this study inparticular aims to

1. identify the underlying dimensions, or factors extracted from the original 33 hotelattributes, as perceived by travelers during their hotel stays in Hong Kong;

2. examine the relative importance of the derived hotel factors in relation totravelers overall satisfaction levels with their hotel stays in Hong Kong; and,

3. assess the relative importance of the derived hotel factors resulting in travelerslikelihood of returning to the same hotels in their subsequent trips.

2. Literature review

2.1. Perceptions of hotel services and facilities

Because of the intangibility, inseparability, variability, and perishability ofservices, consumers perceptions of satisfaction criteria may include contextual cuesthat they use to evaluate the service quality and to decide future patronage, whetheror not they have experienced the hotels products and services before (Parasuramanet al., 1985). Customers are likely to view the services as a bundle of attributes, whichmay dier in their contributions from the product or service evaluation and choice(Kivela, 1996). Alpert (1971) states that those attributes directly inuencing choicesare termed determinant attributes in that they may arouse consumers purchaseintention and dierentiate from competitors oerings. Applying to the hospitalityindustry, Wuest et al. (1996) dene the perceptions of hotel attributes as the degreeto which the travelers may nd various services and facilities important in promoting

T.Y. Choi, R. Chu / Hospitality Management 20 (2001) 277297278

customer satisfaction for staying in a hotel. There have been numerous studies thatexamine the needs and desires of travelers. Reviews of literature for the hospitalityindustry suggest that hotel attributes such as cleanliness, location, room rate,security, service quality, and reputation of the hotel or chain are regarded asimportant by travelers for evaluating hotel quality of performance (Ananth et al.,1992; Atkinson, 1988; Barsky and Labagh, 1992; Cadotte and Turgeon, 1988;Knutson, 1988; LeBlanc and Nguyen, 1996; Lewis, 1984,1985; Lewis and Chambers,1989; McCleary et al., 1993; Rivers et al., 1991; Wilensky and Buttle, 1988). Lewis(1984, 1985) analyzes 66 hotel attributes to determine how business and leisuretravelers select hotels. The results suggest that location and price are the determinantattributes for hotel selection for both business and leisure travelers. Atkinson (1988)mentions that, in order of importance, cleanliness, security, value for money,courtesy and helpfulness of sta are found to be key attributes for travelers inhotel choice selection. Cadotte and Turgeon (1988) survey on 26 categories ofcompliments, nding attitude of employees, cleanliness and neatness, qualityof service and employee knowledge of service are the most frequent factorsmentioned by travelers. Knutsons study (1988) nds that cleanliness and comfort,convenience of location, promptness and courtesy of service, safety and security,and friendliness of employees are considered important by business and leisuretravelers when selecting a hotel for the rst time or for repeat patronage. Wilenskyand Buttle (1988) mention that travelers signicantly evaluate personalservice, physical attractiveness, opportunities for relaxation, standard of services,appealing image, and value for money. Lewis and Chambers (1989) and McClearyet al. (1993) also nd that location is the most important factor inuencinghotel selection by all business travelers. Rivers et al. (1991) study the hotel selectionfactors of members and non-members of frequent guest programs. Their resultsreveal that convenience of location and overall services draw the highestattention from travelers. Ananth et al. (1992) survey 510 travelers, asking themto rate the importance of 57 hotel attributes in hotel choice decision. Priceand quality are rated as the most important attributes, followed by attributesrelated to security and convenience of location. Barsky and Labagh (1992) statethat employee attitude; location and rooms are the attributes that both businessand leisure travelers consider important in hotel choice selection. LeBlanc andNguyens study shows that physical environment, corporate identity, servicepersonnel, quality of services and accessibility are likely to inuence travelersperceptions towards the hotel image. They suggest that marketing eorts should bedirected to highlight the environmental cues in order to attract new customers(LeBlanc and Nguyen, 1996).

2.2. Customer satisfaction

Customer satisfaction has long been an area of interest in academic research.Hunt (1975) considers satisfaction as an evaluation on which the customershave experienced with the services is at least as good as it is supposed to be.Oliver (1981) denes customer satisfaction as an emotional response to the use of

T.Y. Choi, R. Chu / Hospitality Management 20 (2001) 277297 279

a product or service. It is more conceivable, however, that customer satisfactionis a complex human process, which involves cognitive and aective processes, aswell as other psychological and physiological inuences (Oh and Parks, 1997).A traditional denition of customer satisfaction follows a disconrmation paradigmof consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction (CS/D), which suggests that CS/D mayresult in interaction between a consumers pre-purchase expectation and post-purchase evaluation (Engel et al., 1990). Thus, consumers are likely to compareexpectations to perceived performance in order to make an evaluation (Gronroos,1983). A consumer is considered satised when his weighted sum total of experiencesshows a feeling of gratication when compared with his expectations. On theother hand, a consumer is considered dissatised when his actual experience showsa feeling of displeasure when compared with his expectation. Anton (1996) providesa more contemporary approach in dening satisfaction in that he denes customersatisfaction as a state of mind in which the customers needs, wants, and expectationsthroughout the product or service life have been met or exceeded, resulting inrepurchase and loyalty. Although customer satisfaction has been dened in variousways, the underlying conceptualization is that satisfaction is a post-purchaseevaluative judgment, leading to an overall feeling about a specic transaction(Fornell, 1992).Dierent researchers separated the components of satisfaction. Gronroos (1983)

separates the components of satisfaction into two levels of quality: technicalquality and functional quality; Reuland et al. (1985) suggest three elements ofsatisfaction, including product, behavior and environment; Czepiel et al. (1985)identify functional and performance-delivery elements in customer satisfaction;Davis and Stone (1985) mention direct and indirect services for satisfaction;Lovelock (1985) divides product and service attributes into core and secondarytypes; Lewis (1987) classies essential and subsidiary elements for the serviceencounter attributes. Even though the terminology is dierent, the fundamentalconcept is the same across various research studies. Applying into hospitality andtourism industries, the core product deals exactly with what product the customerreceives from the purchase, i.e., the food and beverage in a restaurant; theaccommodation in a hotel; and an air ticket from Hong Kong to the United States.On the other hand, the side elements deal with how the product the customerreceives from the purchase, i.e., the atmosphere; d!ecor; convenience of location;availability; exibility; and interactions with service providers.Measuring customer satisfaction is an integral part of the eort that improves a

products quality, resulting in a companys competitive advantage (Cravens et al.,1988; Garvin, 1991). The theory of consumer behavior, as discussed by Engel et al.(1990), points out that customers buying behaviors and levels of satisfaction areinuenced by the customers background, characteristics, and external stimuli. Ascustomer satisfaction is inuenced by the availability of customer services, theprovision of quality services has become a major concern of all businesses (Berry andParasuraman, 1991).Recent studies, nevertheless, support the notion that customer satisfaction can be

measured from the perspective of performance evaluations, making the inclusion of


the disconrmation process unnecessary (Olshavsky and Miller, 1972; Churchill andSuprenant, 1982; Cronin and Taylor, 1992). Their studies of consumer behavioremphasize that customer satisfaction remains a concern in the post-purchase period(Westbrook and Oliver, 1991). In our study, we intend to measure customersatisfaction in relation to hotel performance evaluated by travelers actualexperiences.

2.3. Repeat patronage

Customer satisfaction and repurchase intention are regarded as qualitativelydierent constructs. Satisfaction may be merely a judgment with cognitive andaective dimensions, whereas repeat intentions consist of a behavioral component(Mittal et al., 1998). Providing a high-quality service has become an increasinglyimportant issue to service providers. An excellent quality of service and facilityoered to customers is perceived to be the means by which the service organizationcan achieve a competitive advantage, dierentiate itself from competitors, increasecustomer loyalty, enhance corporate image, increase business performance, retainexisting customers, as well as attract new ones (Watson et al., 1992; Lewis, 1993;Smith, 1993). A favorable corporate image is also considered essential as the primecontributor to repeat patronage (Hunt, 1975).The outcome of satisfaction may reinforce a customers decision to use a

particular brand of service on a given occasion (Oliver, 1980; Cronin and Taylor,1992). The assessment of customer satisfaction is, perhaps, too subjective to bemeasured. However, an understanding of this concept is essential for everyorganization, especially for those who are trying to identify the critical elementsaecting customers purchase experience as well as his or her post-purchasebehavior such as subsequent purchase and favorable word-of-mouth publicity(Fornell, 1992; Halstead and Page, 1992; Legoherel, 1998). Hoteliers, therefore,must need to understand fully what hotel attributes are most likely to inuencecustomers choice intentions (Richard and Sundaram, 1993). Sirgy and Tyagi (1986)mentions that a customers repeat purchase and brand loyalty are closely associatedwith his or her satisfaction with an initial purchase. It is therefore essential to gaina better understanding of the desires and needs of customers that correspondto dierent kind of satisfaction (Pizam, 1994). The concept of customer satisfactionis of utmost importance because of its inuence on repeat purchases and word-of-mouth publicity (Berkman and Gilson, 1986). Knutson (1988) mentions thatsatisfaction of consumers aids to word-of-mouth advertising at no cost. Researchinto guest satisfaction, which translates into the more practical considerationof whether or not customers will return to an establishment or recommend it toother travelers, is crucial to the success of the hospitality business. Failure topay attention to those hotel attributes considered most inuential in choice intentionby customers may lead to negative evaluation of the hotel, eventually reducingthe chance of repeat patronage by the customers to the same hotel. Therefore,exploring the relative importance of hotel attributes in hotel selection is consideredessential.


3. Methodology

3.1. The instrument

In this study, a questionnaire instrument comprising 33 hotel attributes wasdesigned to measure the travelers perceptions and satisfaction levels towards theservices and facilities provided by hotels in Hong Kong. The 33 hotel attributes werebelieved to cover some relevant elements considered important to travelers inrelation to hotel evaluation such as: room quality, service providerguest interaction,convenience of location, value for money, familiarity of a hotel, etc. (Parasuramanet al., 1985; Lewis, 1985; Cadotte and Turgeon, 1988; Knutson, 1988; Ananth et al.,1992; Marshall, 1993). To capture a broader data base in relation to the travelersnationalities, we translated the English questionnaire version into two otherlanguages: Chinese, and Japanese.The questionnaire instrument consisted of three sections. The rst section was

designed to extract travelers demographic and traveling characteristics. The secondsection measured travelers perceptions of hotel attributes for a hotel stay. Travelerswere asked to rate their levels of agreement with the 33 attributes for the hotel wherethey stayed, on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree}(7) tostrongly disagree}(1). The third section were designed to ask travelers to rate theiroverall satisfaction levels towards the hotel stay on a seven-point Likert scale rangingfrom strongly satised}(7) to strongly dissatised}(1). Travelers were also askedto rate their likelihood of returning to the same hotel in subsequent trips on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from most likely}(7) to most unlikely}(1).The questionnaire was pre-tested by 63 travelers of various nationalities departing

from the Hong Kong International Airport. On the basis of this prior test, severalitems in the questionnaire were redrafted to improve the presentation of thequestions.

3.2. The sample

The target populations for our study were those international travelersdeparting from the Hong Kong International Airport. Data were gathered, overa 9-day period in August 1996, from travelers in the departure hall of theHong Kong International Airport by a self-administered questionnaire. A traveleris dened as any individual who is a temporary visitor, possessing a xed placeof abode, traveling in the expectation of business or pleasure, staying overnightat a place other than his or her own, and involving an exchange of money (Ananthet al., 1992).Using a systematic sampling approach, every 15th traveler passing through the

airports security checkpoint was approached for interview. With a daily sample sizeof 60 respondents, a total of 540 questionnaires were collected for this study. Ofthese 540 questionnaires, 402 were found usable, representing a 74.4 percentresponse rate.


3.3. Data analysis

A descriptive statistical method, such as distribution analysis, was used to analyzetravelers demographic and traveling characteristics.Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was employed in the

exploratory factor analysis to extract from the 33 hotel attributes into a set ofsimplied composite hotel factors that could be used to describe the originalconstruct for the analysis. The factor analysis was used in the analysis because it canprovide a better understanding of the underlying structure of the data on the onehand, and it also could subsequently provide a simplied regression procedures forfurther analysis (Pitt and Jeantrout, 1994). Factors were considered signicant andretained only if they had an eigenvalue equal to or greater than 1, and variable withfactor loading equals to or greater than 0.50 (Hair et al., 1995).The sole purpose of the regression analysis adopted here is to examine the relative

importance of the orthogonal hotel factors in relation to the travelers overallsatisfaction levels with their hotel stays in Hong Kong and their likelihood ofreturning to the same hotel in subsequent trips. The two dependent variables,travelers overall satisfaction levels with hotel stay and the likelihood of repeatpatronage, were regressed separately against the hotel factors derived from the factoranalysis. The standardized factor scores created for the orthogonal hotel factors wereused as independent variables in explaining travelers overall satisfaction levelstowards hotel stay and their likelihood of repeat patronage. The factors with variousdegree of signicance in the regression analysis were then ranked by the betacoecients in order of importance. The two dependent variables, travelers overallsatisfaction level with the hotels and the likelihood of repeat patronage, aremeasured on a seven-point Likert scale and are used as surrogate indicators of thetravelers overall evaluation of the hotel stay experience (Table 1).

4. Results

4.1. Demographic and traveling characteristics of the respondents

The majority of the respondents interviewed were male (64.9 percent) and the restwere female (35.1 percent). More than 80 percent of the respondents N 330 wereaged between 21 and 50, and only 3.5 percent and 14.4 percent were aged under 21and over 50, respectively. The country of residence is distributed with 19.7 percentEuropean travelers, followed closely by mainland China (16.2 percent), South EastAsia (14.7 percent), Taiwan (13.9 percent), North America (11.4 percent), andAustralia (8.0 percent). Nearly 25 percent of the respondents had an annual incomeof less than US$10,000, 37.1 percent had an annual income between US$10,001 andUS$50,000, 26.2 percent had an annual income between US$50,001 and US$90,000,and 12.9 percent had an annual income over US$90,001.With regard to the traveling characteristics, nearly 46 percent of the respondents

had stayed at Medium-Tari hotels, 42 percent at High-Tari B hotels and 12.2


percent at High-Tari A hotels. Almost all respondents came to Hong Kong forvacation (43 percent) or business/meetings (42.3 percent) purposes. Only 9.2 percentand 4.2 percent respondents interviewed were in transit or visiting friends/relatives,respectively.

4.2. Hotel factors

The perceived importance of the 33 hotel attributes was factor-analyzed, usingprincipal component analysis with orthogonal varimax rotation, to identify theunderlying dimensions, or hotel factors. The exploratory factor analysis hadproduced a seven-factor solution, which captured 29 hotel attributes and appeared toexplain 67.2 percent of the variance in the data. It produced a clear factor structurewith relatively higher loading on the appropriate factors. The higher loading signalthe correlation of the variables with the factors on which they were loaded. Table 2shows the results of the factor analysis with (1) the factor names, (2) the retaineditems, (3) the factor loading, (4) the communalities, (5) the eigenvalues, (6) thevariance and the cumulative variance explained by the factor solution, and (7) theCronbachs a. The seven factors were: Sta Service Quality}F1, Room

Table 1

Demographic and traveling characteristics of travelers

N % N %

Sex Type of hotel stayed

Male 261 64.9 High-Tari A (5-Star) 49 12.2

Female 141 35.1 High-Tari B (4-Star) 169 42.0

Medium-Tari (3-Star) 184 45.8

Age Purpose of visit

20 or below 14 3.5 Business/meetings 170 42.3

2130 95 23.6 Visit friends/relatives 17 4.2

3140 121 30.1 Vacation 173 43.0

4150 114 28.4 En route 37 9.2

5160 45 11.2 Others 5 1.2

61 or above 13 3.2

Country of residence Annual income

China 65 16.2 4US$10,000 96 23.9Taiwan 56 13.9 US$10,001$20,000 26 6.5

Japan 42 10.4 US$20,001$30,000 48 11.9

South East Asia 59 14.7 US$30,001$40,000 41 10.2

North America 46 11.4 US$40,001$50,000 34 8.5

West Europe 79 19.7 US$50,001$60,000 27 6.7

Australia/New Zealand 32 8.0 US$60,001$70,000 30 7.5

Others 23 5.7 US$70,001$80,000 24 6.0

US$80,001$90,000 24 6.0

5US$90,001 52 12.9


Table 2

Factor analysis results with varimax rotation of perceptions of hotel attribute scale

Item statement n 29 Factor loading Communality

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7

Factor-1: Sta Service Quality

Sta are polite and friendly 0.78 0.77

Sta are helpful 0.77 0.81

Sta understand your requests 0.73 0.79

Sta provide ecient service 0.63 0.76

Check-in/check out are ecient 0.61 0.68

Sta have multi-lingual skills 0.58 0.80

Sta have neat appearance 0.55 0.67

Factor-2: Room Quality

Bed/mattress/pillow are comfortable 0.75 0.69

In-room temperature control is of high quality 0.74 0.64

Room is clean 0.68 0.65

Room is quiet 0.63 0.53

Factor-3: General Amenities

Valet/laundry service is ecient 0.72 0.68

Room service is ecient 0.66 0.66

Food & beverage facilities are of great variety 0.57 0.73

Wake-up call is reliable 0.56 0.46

Information desk is available 0.54 0.54

Food & beverages are of high quality 0.54 0.68

Mini-bar is available 0.54 0.67

Factor-4: Business Services

Business-related meeting rooms are available 0.86 0.84

Business-related facilities are available 0.83 0.79

Secretarial service is available 0.82 0.79

Factor-5: Value

Hotel food & beverages are value for money 0.76 0.73

Room is value for money 0.75 0.77

Hotel is part of a reputable chain 0.59 0.62

Hotel provides comfortable ambiance 0.58 0.67

Factor-6: Security

Security personnel are responsible 0.72 0.72

Loud re alarms are reliable 0.71 0.68

Safe box is available 0.64 0.54

Factor-7: IDD Facilities

International direct dial is available 0.78 0.73

Total scale reliability (a) 0.94

Eigenvalue 13.1 2.4 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.0

Variance (%) 39.7 7.3 5.2 4.8 3.9 3.3 3.0

(continued overleaf)


Qualities}F2, General Amenities}F3, Business Services}F4, Value}F5,Security}F6, and IDD Facilities}F7.Table 2 presents the results of the factor loading resulting from our factor analysis

exercise. Following the last paragraphs discussion and justication, the analysisidentied seven hotel factors with which the hotel attributes were associated. ExceptFactor-7 (IDD Facilities), which contained only one attribute, each of the other sixfactors contained three or more than three attributes. Table 2 describes the statisticalresults of the attributes associated with their own factors, and details their respectivestatistical signicance, i.e., the eigenvalue, variance, cumulative variance, andCronbachs a. From the statistical point of view, our analysis is considered reliableand internally consistent as the a coecients, except Factor-7, had values of between0.71 and 0.93. An a coecient of 0.50 is considered the minimum value for acceptingreliability and internal consistency of a factor (Nunnally, 1967).

4.3. Correlation of the travelers perceptions of the 29 hotel attributes with their overallsatisfaction levels and likelihood of returning

Convergent validity was measured to assess the correlation of the mean ratingsbetween the travelers perceptions, computed from the 29 hotel attributes, and theoverall satisfaction level and their likelihood of returning to the same hotel,respectively. The convergent validity between the mean travelers perception score ofthe 29 hotel attributes and their mean satisfaction score was 0.71 (PearsonCorrelation Coecient, signicant at P40:001), whereas the likelihood of returningwas 0.61 (Pearson Correlation Coecient, signicant at P40:001). The resultsindicate that the two correlation coecients between travelers perceptions of the 29hotel attributes and the overall satisfaction levels are fairly, as well as theirperceptions of the hotel attributes with their likelihood of returning, were highly andpositively correlated. The high correlation between the two measures indicates thatconvergent validity exists (Pitt et al., 1995). Therefore, the adoption of regressionanalysis on the 29 hotel attributes (independent variable) and the overall satisfactionlevel and likelihood of returning (dependent variables) was found appropriate.

4.4. Determinants of travelers overall satisfaction levels

Having identied the seven factor-loading, we performed the multiple regressionanalysis to investigate whether and to what extent the independent variables (seven

Table 2 (continued)

Item statement n 29 Factor loading Communality

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7

Cumulative variance (%) 39.7 47.0 52.2 57.0 60.9 64.2 67.2

Cronbachs a 0.93 0.77 0.87 0.90 0.80 0.71 /Number of items (total =29) 7 4 7 3 4 3 1


hotel factors) exert signicant inuence on the dependent variables (travelers overallsatisfaction levels with hotel stays and their likelihood of returning to the samehotels). To investigate the relative impact of the hotel factors in inuencing travelersoverall satisfaction levels, the seven orthogonal factors were used in a multipleregression analysis.Table 3 reports the results of the regression analysis. As shown by the coecient of

determination R2 0:5617, the seven hotel factors gave more than an acceptableresult in predicting the variance of the travelers overall satisfaction levels with hotelsin Hong Kong; an R2 of between 0.50 and 0.60 is considered acceptable (Lewis,1985). Moreover, the analysis also showed that travelers had positive and highoverall satisfaction levels with the seven hotel factors as shown by the multiplecorrelation coecient (R) of 0.7495. The F-ratio, which has a value of 51.99619,suggests that the regression model we have adopted could have not occurred bychance.Each of the beta coecients (b1b7) explained the relative importance of the seven

hotel factors (independent variables) in contributing to the variance in the travelersoverall satisfaction levels (dependent variable). The results revealed that all the sevenfactors remained signicant in the equation with a dierent value of the betacoecients, thus contributing dierent weights to the variance of travelers overallsatisfaction levels. Of the seven hotel factors, Factor 1 (sta service quality,b1 0:4226) carried the heaviest weight in explaining travelers overall satisfaction,

Table 3

Regression results of travelers overall satisfaction levels based on factor scores

Dependent variable Travelers overall satisfaction levels with hotel stay

Independent variables Seven orthogonal factors representing the compo-

nents of perceived quality of services and facilities.

Goodness-of-t

Multiple R 0:7495R2=0.5617

Adjusted R2=0.5509

Standard error =0.9996

F ratio=51.99619

Signicance F=0.0000

Variable in the equation

Independent variable R2 explained Beta, b

Sta Service Quality (Factor 1) 0.1786 0.4226a

Room Qualities (Factor 2) 0.1615 0.4019a

Value (Factor 5) 0.1053 0.3245a

General Amenities (Factor 3) 0.0716 0.2675a

IDD Facilities (Factor 7) 0.238 0.1543a

Business Services (Factor 4) 0.0133 0.1152a

Security (Factor 6) (Constant) 0.0076 0.0873b

aP40:01.bP40:05.


followed by Factor 2 (room qualities, b2 0:4015), Factor 5 (value, b5 0:3245),Factor 3 (general amenities, b3 0:2675), Factor 7 (IDD facilities, b7 0:1543),Factor 4 (business services, b4 0:1152) and Factor 6 (security, b6 0:0873).

4.5. Determinants of travelers likelihood of repeat patronage

Following the same analysis as mentioned in the last section, we used the sameregression model to investigate whether the seven hotel factors (independentvariables) constituted a signicant inuence on the likelihood of a traveler returningto the same hotel in subsequent trips (dependent variable).Table 4 shows the results of the regression analysis in relation to travelers

likelihood of repeat patronage. The regression results produced a multiplecorrelation coecient, R, 0.6127 suggesting that there was a high possibility oftravelers returning to the same hotel in a subsequent trip. Second, the coecient ofdetermination was 0.3754, suggesting that approximately 37.54 percent of thevariation of intention to return was explained by the seven hotel factors. Lastly, the

Table 4

Regression results of travelers likelihood of returning based on factor scoresb

Dependent variable Travelers likelihood of returning to the same hotel in

next trip

Independent variables Seven orthogonal factors representing the components

of perceived quality of services and facilities.

Goodness-of-t

Multiple R=0.6127

R2=0.3755

Adjusted R2=0.3623

Standard error=1.4912

F ratio=28.54858

Signicance F=0.0000

Variable in the equation

Independent Variable R2 explained Beta, b

Sta Service Quality (Factor 1) 0.1172 0.3423a

Room Qualities (Factor 2) 0.0847 0.2911a

Value (Factor 5) 0.0684 0.2615a

Business Services (Factor 4) 0.533 0.2310a

General Amenities (Factor 3) 0.352 0.1875a

IDD Facilities (Factor 7) (Constant) 0.167 0.1291a

Variable not in the equation

Independent variable Beta, b

Security (Factor 6) 0.0856

aP40:01.bP40:05.


fairly high signicant F-ratio (28.54858), indicating that the results of the regressionmodel could hardly have occurred by chance.As far as the relative importance among the seven hotel factors was concerned,

Factor 1 (sta service quality, b1 0:3423) carried the heaviest weight for thetravelers, followed by Factor 2 (room qualities, b2 0:2911), Factor 5 (value,b5 0:2615), Factor 4 (business services, b4 0:2310), Factor 3 (general amenities,b3 0:1875) and Factor 7 (IDD facilities, b7 0:1291). Factor 6, Security,however, appeared not to be statistically signicant in aecting the travelerslikelihood of returning to the same hotel in a subsequent trip. The following sectionprovides more discussions on each of the factors in our analysis.

5. Result discussions

As hotel businesses are long-term investments, those hotels that can attract,maintain, satisfy and retain customers are more likely to survive. It is thereforeessential for hotel managers to understand the relationship between travelers levelsof satisfaction towards services and facilities oered by the hotels they had stayedwith, and their intentions to repurchase. One of the ndings in this study shows thattravelers overall satisfaction levels and their likelihood of returning are highly andpositively correlated (Pearson correlation coecient=0.78, P value 40.001). Ourndings support the notion that customer satisfaction has a strong and consistentcausal relationship with repurchase intention (Cronin and Taylor, 1992), brandloyalty (Sirgy, 1996) and word-of-mouth advertising (Fornell, 1992; Halstead andPage, 1992). Customer satisfaction acts as a reinforcement that leads to theprolonged maintenance of brand attitudes and intentions to use the brand again(Cronin and Taylor, 1992).The ndings reported here showed the relative impacts of the derived seven hotel

factors in contributing travelers overall satisfaction levels and their likelihood ofreturning. The analysis provides hoteliers with valuable marketing and managerialclues. The regression results indicated that, from an empirical perspective, StaService Quality, Room Qualities, and Value, appeared to be the top three hotelfactors that determined travelers overall satisfaction levels and their likelihood ofreturning to the same hotel as well.The following section provides some observations about the determinant hotel

factors in relation to both travelers satisfaction levels and their likelihood ofreturning to the same hotels in their subsequent trips.

5.1. Sta service quality

The nding clearly demonstrates that the service encounter or customeremployeeinteraction is a major determinant aecting travelers perceptions in relation toservice quality, resulting in their overall satisfaction/dissatisfaction with hotels inHong Kong, and their likelihood of returning to the same hotels. The factor appearsto relate to the aspects of customeremployee interaction such as: eciency in


check-in/out, helpfulness of sta , politeness/friendliness of sta , neat appear-ance of sta , eciency of sta , multi-lingual skills of sta and understandabilityof sta . Various research studies show that quality of service is considered to be oneof the top priorities in evaluating service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Cadotteand Turgeon, 1988; Knutson, 1988; Oberoi and Hales, 1990; Barsky and Labagh,1992). Other studies also show that service quality is likely to lead to customersatisfaction and purchase intention. Bitner (1990) mentions that satisfaction mayreinforce the quality perceptions, but only indirectly. She believes that qualityperception is hypothesized as a dimension on which satisfaction is based, and thatsatisfaction is one potential inuence on future quality perception. Teas (1993) alsoreports that a strong relationship between perceived service quality and satisfaction,and concludes that the two concepts have the same meaning. Cronin and Taylor(1992) suggest that service quality is likely to have a signicant eect on purchaseintention, but they also reported that customer satisfaction has a stronger and moreconsistent causal relationship with purchase intention than does service quality.From a managerial perspective, if the determinant factors that have a major

impact on travelers overall satisfaction levels are identied, hotel managers shouldthen address the particular resources related to these factors. As Sta ServiceQuality is the most inuential factor in determining travelers overall satisfactionwith hotels in Hong Kong, hoteliers should therefore devote more eort to humanresources training. For instance, in-house training programs could be arranged toimprove employee courtesy, helpfulness, understandability, language skills, appear-ance, and check-in/out eciency. Furthermore, hoteliers should also ensure that allemployees are required to become involved in setting quality standards, andemployees should realize that maintaining service quality is part of their jobs(LeBlanc and Nguyen, 1996).

5.2. Room qualities

The factor, Room Qualities, includes cleanliness of room, comfort of bed/mattress/pillow, quality of in-room temperature control and quietness of room.Research studies report that room qualities such as cleanliness, quietness andfacilities oered, are important considerations for travelers in lodging selection(Knutson, 1988; Barsky and Labagh, 1992; McCleary and Weaver, 1992; Gilbert andMorris, 1995; Heung et al., 1996). However, Lewis and Nightingale (1991) argue thatwhile lack of cleanliness is a prime reason diverting travelers from a hotel,exceptional cleanliness does not really attract them. Ananth et al. (1992) also ndthat room amenities such as in-room temperature-control mechanisms, soundproofrooms and rm mattresses are less important to travelers. Additional resourcesshould, therefore, be directed to improving the quality of rooms including room set-up, cleanliness, quietness, and room temperature control. In this regard, hoteliersneed to ensure that their hotels reect their positioning statements well, and theyshould place emphasis on environmental cues when designing promotional activities.This will help them to attract new customers and gain market share (LeBlanc andNguyen, 1996).


5.3. Value

The factor, Value, which is associated with the travelers perceptions about thevalue for money, has four items: room value for money, hotel food & beveragevalue for money, comfortable ambiance of the hotel and hotel being part ofreputable chain. Customers are now becoming more practical and taking a cautiousapproach to discretionary spending (Sellers, 1991). They are cutting back andlooking for ways to buy more for less, and are becoming more demanding in thepurchase process. Power (1991) mentions that the marketing watchword for the1990s is value as customers are demanding the right combination of productquality, fair prices, and good services. For example, Ananth et al. (1992) nd thatleisure travelers express more concern with regard to a hotels reputation and namefamiliarity. In addition, since the hotel industry is highly competitive andhomogenous in terms of services and facilities, the availability of alternatives tothe travelers can be regarded as important attributes in a customers future purchasebehavior (Knutson, 1988; Burton, 1990). As Hong Kong has been a place of highaccessibility, hoteliers should pay more attention to enhance the value of theiroerings to achieve a competitive advantage. A positive image is one tactic toachieve a competitive advantage (Porter, 1980) and a corporate image is animportant determinant of service quality (Gronroos, 1982).

5.4. General amenities, business services and IDD Facilities

The other three hotel factors, which exerted less signicance in inuencingtravelers overall satisfaction levels and their likelihood of returning, are GeneralAmenities, Business Services and IDD Facilities.The factor, General Amenities, includes the general services and facilities of

hotels oered to travelers. They are availability of mini bar, variety of food andbeverage facilities, quality of hotel food and beverage, reliability of wake-up call,eciency of valet/laundry service, eciency of room service and availability ofinformation desk. The explanation is that many travelers may not consume or nd itvaluable to have their meals in their hotels, hence pulling down the overallperception scores on General Amenities. Research studies rarely cite hotel-cateringfacilities as an important factor for lodging selection. Instead, Ananth et al. (1992)mention that hotel catering facilities appear to be one of the least important items intravelers hotel choice decisions. Lewis and Chambers (1989) also argue that a hotelscatering facilities are a nice extra, but are not central factors to hotel choice. Theybelieve that there are often numerous alternative dining choices convenient to thehotel location. The 1997 annual report of the Hong Kong Tourist Association(HKTA) reveals that travelers spent almost 30 percent of their total receipts on mealsout (HKTA, 1998). Hong Kong, renowned as a Food Paradise, has long attractedtravelers to spend a considerable sum on dining out.Business Services appears to be applicable only to business travelers. This

factor consists of three business-related attributes, namely, availability of secretarialservice, availability of business-related meeting rooms and availability of


business-related facilities. Review of relevant literature, however, indicates that theprovision of business services and facilities is not a prime factor for hotel selection,regardless of whether or not travelers are business-type or leisure-type travelers.Instead, cleanliness of room and hotel, location, room rates and employee attitudeare rated as the important hotel attributes by both business and leisure travelers(Lewis, 1985; Knutson, 1988; McCleary and Weaver , 1991).IDD Facilities is arguable because it is a single-item factor. It is questionable to

ask whether a single item can represent the whole factor. However, some past studieshave included single-item factor (Yau and Chan, 1990; Oppermann, 1996). Thisfactor reects that travelers, regardless of whether or not they are business-type orleisure-type, perceive the communication networks provided by hotels in Hong Kongto be eective and ecient services. As Hong Kong is an advanced nancial andbusiness center with excellent communication facilities, IDD services should beprovided by hotels in Hong Kong, as expected by most travelers.

5.5. Security

The factor, Security, found to have little importance in inuencing travelersoverall satisfaction levels and have no impact on travelers likelihood of repeatpatronage, is composed of three items: responsibility of security personnel,reliability of loud re alarms and availability of safe box. Guest security inhotels includes those measures required to maintain a sense of well being, to protectlife and property, and to minimize the risk of disasters or crime. For most travelers,safety and security can be regarded as the basis of a trip, including the airline,destination and accommodation. Our study did not suggest that the presence of thisfactor would lead to customer satisfaction. However, it is very likely that the absenceof it may cause customer dissatisfaction, thus reducing the possibility of repeatpatronage and spreading unfavorable word-of-mouth. Hong Kong is a safe place totravel, as denoted by a HKTAs report on visitor and tourism study. The ndingsaddressed that ease and safe travel is what travelers actually experienced in HongKong (HKTA, 1995). Therefore, travelers are likely to place emphasis on otheraspects such as service quality, room quality and value for money, which maydirectly inuence their overall satisfaction levels and likelihood of returning to thesame hotel instead. Most of the hotels in Hong Kong are equipped withsophisticated safety and security system, including electronic key cards, safedeposits, smoke detectors, re exits, 24-h security personnel, etc. Marshall (1993)mentions that safety and security system may dierentiate the property system fromits competitors, hence becoming a winning device for a hotel to gain travelerscondence and trust.It is important to note that even some of the hotel factors are less signicant in

explaining travelers overall satisfaction levels and their likelihood of returning,hoteliers should still maintain high standards in relation to these factors in order tomeet the basic needs of travelers. Each traveler has some basic levels of expectationsregarding these factors, but if the travelers expectations are not met or exceeded, his


or her perception about service quality and satisfaction could be aected (Oliver,1981; LeBlanc, 1992).

6. Conclusion

This study has identied the seven hotel factors, which are deemed important totravelers. The seven hotel factors are: Sta Service Quality, Room Qualities,General Amenities, Business Services, Value, Security and IDD Facilities. Outof these hotel factors, Sta Service Quality, Room Qualities and Value areconsidered to be the inuential factors in determining travelers overall satisfactionlevels and their likelihood of returning to the same hotels.Our ndings are considered useful to the hotel industry as they provide a clear

indication on how to improve their service provisions and delivery channels in theHong Kong hotel industry. This study provides useful and eective ways for hotelmanagers to identify the potential problems that are likely to occur, and tounderstand why. Once the hotel attributes in relation to customers requirements areclearly identied and understood, hotel managers are more likely to be able toanticipate and cater for their customers desires and needs, rather than merelyreacting to their dissatisfaction (Oberoi and Hales, 1990). Hong Kong hotels arecompeting ercely for a larger and more stable market share, the marketing focus forhoteliers is to increase the number of repeat customers and to prolong their lengthof stays by meeting their needs more eectively (Heung et al., 1996). A betterunderstanding of the phenomenon of repeat purchase would help hoteliers todevelop customer loyalty for their products and services. As Sta Service Qualityhas been identied as the most inuential component in determining customersoverall satisfaction levels and their likelihood of returning, it appears that hotelcustomers nowadays are not only looking for basic services and facilities provided bya hotel, but also are expecting a high standard of personal service. Hoteliers shouldensure the quality of hotel services by constantly reviewing their customers needs,and by strengthening customer service training programs for their employees.Internal marketing is also crucial to the quality of hotel services. That is, treatingemployees as internal customers would enhance the employees satisfaction, which isfundamental to the provision of good service to the hotel customers (Heung et al.,1996). Resources should also be spent on promoting the quality of room services aswell as value for money. For example, room features (e.g., qualities of pillows,mattresses and sheets, in-room ventilation, room and bath furnishings) should beaddressed in the promotional messages so as to make these features tangible andappeal to potential travelers. Appealing messages should also be addressed toemphasize special promotional packages such as a hotels familiarity of a reputablechain, convenience to business centers, shopping malls and tourist attractions.Other hotel factors such as General Amenities, Business Services, IDD

Facilities and Security should not be ignored. Although our study nds that thesehotel factors are found to be less important in inuencing travelers overallsatisfaction levels and their likelihood of returning, hoteliers should maintain the


standards of these services and facilities to meet the basic needs of the travelers.Hoteliers should be aware that even though these factors are not the central factorsleading to customer satisfaction and repeat patronage, the absence or failure of thesefactors to meet travelers desires and expectations could result in customersdissatisfaction. As Pizam (1994) puts it: Having more of it will not satisfy anyone,but when it breaks down, suddenly everyone becomes dissatised. On the otherhand, customer satisfaction in relation to anyone or a combination of the hotelfactors (attributes) is likely to result in a favorable image for the hotel enterprise.And more importantly, a good image can mean winning business from thecompetition, and improve market performance (Park et al., 1986).

7. Limitations of the study

Several limitations concerning this study need to be addressed. First, as theresearch was targeted at the Hong Kong hotel industry, this study did not investigatethe impacts on the type of hotels (High-Tari A, High-Tari B and Medium-Tarihotels) of travelers in their hotel stays, their overall satisfaction levels and thelikelihood of returning. Therefore, bias may exist due to the fact that travelers couldhave dierent perceptions towards the dierent categories of hotels. Second, thehotel attributes used in this study were limited to 33 identied attributes. There couldbe some other relevant attributes that may be perceived as important by travelers,but were unintentionally excluded from the instrument. For instance, the Securityfactor obtained from the factor analysis consisted of only three attributes in ourstudy: Security personnel are responsible, loud re alarms are reliable and safebox is available. The mere fact is that these three attributes fell into a single factorthat might not have made this factor representative of the dimension of security andsafety. Other possible attributes, which we have not included, may also be relevantand could be associated with security and safety. The possible attributes are:electronic key cards, smoke detectors, re exits and all other measures required tomaintain a sense of well-being, to protect life and property, and to minimize the riskof disasters or crime (Atkinson, 1988; HKTA, 1995; Marshall, 1993).

8. Uncited Reference

McCleary et al., 1994.

References

Alpert, M.I., 1971. Identication of determinant attributes: a comparison of models. Journal of Marketing

Research 8, 184191.

Ananth, M., DeMicco, F.J., Moreo, P.J., Howey, R.M., 1992. Marketplace lodging needs of mature

travelers. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 33 (4), 1224.


Anton, J., 1996. Customer relationship management. Making Hard Decisions with Soft Numbers.

Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Atkinson, A., 1988. Answering the eternal question: what does the customer want? The Cornell Hotel and

Restaurant Administration Quarterly 29 (2), 1214.

Barsky, J., Labagh, R., 1992. A strategy for customer satisfaction. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant

Administration Quarterly 35 (3), 3240.

Berkman, H.W., Gilson, C., 1986. Consumer Behavior: Concepts and Strategies, 3rd Edition. Kent,

Boston.

Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., 1991. Marketing services: competing through quality. The Free Press, New

York, NY.

Bitner, J.M., 1990. Evaluating service encounters: the eects of physical surroundings and employee

responses. Journal of Marketing 54 (2), 6982.

Cadotte, E.R., Turgeon, N., 1988. Key factors in guest satisfaction. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant

Administration Quarterly 4551.

Churchill Jr., G.A., Suprenant, C., 1982. An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction.

Journal of Marketing Research 19, 491504.

Cravens, D.W., Holland, C.W., Lamb Jr., C.W., Moncrief III, W.C., 1988. Marketings role in product

and service quality. Industrial Marketing Management 17, 285304.

Cronin Jr., J.J., Taylor, S.A., 1992. Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension. Journal of

Marketing 56, 5568.

Czepiel, J.A., Solomon, M.R., Suprenant, C.F., Gutman, E.G., 1985. Service encounters: an overview.

The Service Encounter: Managing Employee Customer Interaction in Service Business. Lexington

Books, Lexington, MA.

Danaher, P.J., Haddrell, V., 1995. A comparison of question scales used for customer satisfaction

measurement. Proceedings of World Marketing Congress VII-I, 118121.

Davis, B., Stone, S., 1985. Food and Beverage Management, 2nd Edition. Butterworth-Heinemann,

Oxford.

Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D., Miniard, P.W., 1990. Consumer Behavior, 6th Edition. Dryden Press,

Hinsdale, IL.

Fornell, C., 1992. A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience. Journal of

Marketing 56, 621.

Garvin, D.A., 1991. How the Baldrige award really works. Harvard Business Review 69 (6), 8095.

Gilbert, D.C., Morris, L., 1995. The relative importance of hotels and airlines to the business traveler.

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 7 (6), 1923.

Gronroos, C., 1982. A service quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal of

Marketing 18 (4), 3644.

Gronroos, C., 1983. Strategic Management in the Service Sector. Marketing Science Institute,

Cambridge, MA.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R., Black, W.C., 1995. Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings. Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Clis, NJ.

Halstead, D., Page Jr., T.J., 1992. The eects of satisfaction and complaining behavior on

consumers repurchase behavior. Journal of Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior

5, 111.

Heung, V.C.S., Mok, C., Kwan, A., 1996. Brand loyalty in hotels: an exploratory study of overseas visitors

to Hong Kong. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management 3 (1), 111.

HKTA, 1995. Visitor and tourism study for Hong Kong: strategy report. Hong Kong Tourist Association.

HKTA, 1998. A statistical review of tourism 1997. Hong Kong Tourist Association.

Hunt, J.D., 1975. Image as a factor in tourism development. Journal of Travel Research 13, 37.

Kivela, J., 1996. Marketing in the restaurant business: a theoretical model for identifying consumers

determinant choice variables and their impact on repeat purchase in the restaurant industry. Australian

Journal of Hospitality Management 3 (1), 1323.

Knutson, B., 1988. Frequent travelers: making them happy and bringing them back. The Cornell Hotel

and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 29 (1), 8387.


LeBlanc, G., 1992. Factors aecting customer evaluation of service quality travel agencies: an

investigation of customer perceptions. Journal of Travel Research 30 (4), 1016.

LeBlanc, G., Nguyen, N., 1996. An examination of the factors that signal hotel image to travelers. Journal

of Vacation Marketing 3 (1), 3242.

Legoherel, P., 1998. Quality of tourist services: the inuence of each participating component on the

consumers overall satisfaction regarding tourist services during a holiday. Proceedings of the Third

International Conference on Tourism and Hotel Industry in Indo-China and Southeast Asia:

Development, Marketing, and Sustainability, Thailand, pp. 4754.

Lewis, B.R., 1993. Service quality measurement. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 11 (4), 412.

Lewis, R.C., 1984. Getting the most from marketing research (Part III): the basis of hotel selection. The

Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 5469.

Lewis, R.C., 1985. Getting the most from marketing research (Part V). Predicting hotel choice: the factors

underlying perception. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 25 (4), 8296.

Lewis, R.C., 1987. The measurement of gaps in the quality of hotel services. International Journal of

Hospitality Management 6 (2), 8388.

Lewis, R.C., Chambers, R.E., 1989. Marketing Leadership in Hospitality. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New

York.

Lewis, R.C., Nightingale, M., 1991. Targeting service to your customer. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant

Administration Quarterly 32 (2), 1827.

Lovelock, C.H., 1985. Developing and managing the customer-service function in the service sector.

In: Czepiel, J.A., Solomon, M.R., Suprenant, C.F., Gutman, E.G. (Eds.), The Service

Encounter: Managing Employee Customer Interaction in Service Business. Lexington Books,

Lexington, MA.

Marshall, A., 1993. Safety top guests priority list: sell security as No. 1 amenity. Hotel and Motel

Management 208, 21.

McCleary, K.W., Weaver, P.A., 1991. Are frequent guest programs eective? The Cornell Hotel and

Restaurant Administration Quarterly 32 (2), 3945.

McCleary, K.W., Weaver, P.A., 1992. Do business travelers who belong to frequent guest programs dier

from those who dont belong? Hospitality Research Journal 15 (3), 5164.

McCleary, K.W., Weaver, P.A., Hutchinson, J.C., 1993. Hotel selection factors as they relate to business

travel situations. Journal of Travel Research 32 (2), 4248.

McCleary, K.W., Weaver, P.A., Lan, L., 1994. Gender-based dierences in business travelers lodging

preferences. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 32 (2), 5158.

Mittal, V., Ross Jr., W.T., Baldasare, P.M., 1998. The asymmetric impact of negative and positive

attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions. Journal of Marketing

62 (1), 3347.

Mok, C., Armstrong, R.W., Go, F.M., 1995. Taiwanese travelers perception of leisure destination

attributes. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management 2 (1), 1722.

Nunnally, J.C., 1967. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Oberoi, U., Hales, C., 1990. Assessing the quality of the conference hotel service product: towards an

empirically based model. The Service Industries Journal 10 (4), 700721.

Oh, H., Parks, S.C., 1997. Customer satisfaction and service quality: a critical review of the literature and

research implications for the hospitality industry. Hospitality Research Journal 20 (3), 3564.

Oliver, R.L., 1980. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions.

Journal of Marketing Research 17, 460469.

Oliver, R.L., 1981. Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings. Journal of

Retailing 57, 2548.

Olshavsky, R.W., Miller, J.A., 1972. Consumer expectations, product performance and perceived product

quality. Journal of Marketing Research 9, 1921.

Oppermann, M., 1996. Convention cities}images and changing fortunes. The Journal of Tourism Studies

7 (1), 1019.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithmal, V., Berry, L., 1985. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications

for future research. Journal of Marketing 48, 4150.


Park, C.W., Jaworski, B., MacInnis, D., 1986. Strategic brand concept-image management. Journal of

Marketing 50, 135146.

Peterson, R.A., Wilson, W.R., 1992. Measuring customer satisfaction: fact and artifact. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science 20, 6171.

Pitt, L.F., Jeantrout, B., 1994. Management of customer expectations in service rms: a study and a

checklist. The Service Industries Journal 14 (2), 170189.

Pitt, L.F., Watson, R.T., Kavan, B., 1995. Service quality: a measure of information systems eectiveness.

MIS Quarterly 19 (2), 173187.

Pizam, A., 1994. Monitoring customer satisfaction. In: Davis, B., Lockwood, A. (Eds.), Food and

Beverage Management: A Selection of Readings. Butterworth-Heinemann, London.

Porter, M.E., 1980. Competitive Strategy. The Free Press, New York.

Power, C., 1991. Value marketing. Business Week 132140.

Reuland, R., Coudrey, J., Fagel, A., 1985. Research in the eld of hospitality. International Journal of

Hospitality Management 4 (4), 141146.

Richard, M.D., Sundaram, D.S., 1993. Lodging choice intentions: a causal modeling approach. Journal of

Hospitality and Leisure Marketing 1 (4), 8198.

Rivers, M.J., Toh, R.S., Alaoui, M., 1991. Frequent-stayer programs: the demographic, behavioral, and

attitudinal characteristics of hotel steady sleepers. Journal of Travel Research 30 (2), 4145.

Sellers, P., 1991. Winning over the new consumer. Fortune 113124.

Shih, D., 1986. VALS as a tool of tourism market research: the Pennsylvania experience. Journal of Travel

Research 24 (4), 211.

Sirgy, M.J., Tyagi, P.K., 1986. An attempt toward an integrated theory of consumer psychology and

decision-making. Systems Research 3 (3), 161175.

Smith, A.M., 1993. Elderly consumers evaluation of service quality. Marketing Intelligence and Planning

11, 1319.

Stevens, B.F., 1992. Price value perceptions of travelers. Journal of Travel Research 31, 4448.

Stevens, P., Knutson, B., Patton, M., 1995. Dineserv: a tool for measuring service quality in restaurants.

The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 5660.

Teas, R.K., 1993. Expectations, performance evaluation, and consumers perceptions of quality. Journal of

Marketing 57, 1834.

Watson, E.H., McKenna, M.A., McLean, G.M., 1992. TQM and services: implementing change in the

NHS. International Journal of Contemporary Management 4, 1720.

Westbrook, R.A., Oliver, R.L., 1991. The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns and consumer

satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research 18, 8491.

Wilensky, L., Buttle, F., 1988. A multivariate analysis of hotel benet bundles and choice trade-os.

International Journal of Hospitality Management 7 (1), 2941.

Wuest, B.E.S., Tas, R.F., Emenheiser, D.A., 1996. What do mature travelers perceive as important hotel/

motel customer service? Hospitality Research Journal 20 (2), 7793.

Yau, O.H.M., Chan, C.F., 1990. Hong Kong as a travel destination in South-East Asia: a

multidimensional approach. Tourism Management 11 (2), 123132.

Tat Y. Choi is currently a teaching sta member of the Hong Kong PolytechnicUniversity and Director of Chois International Ltd. Choi received his Ph.D. in 1995from UCD, the National University of Ireland.

Raymond Chu was previously a researcher with the Department of Hotel andTourism Management at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University; and is nowassociated with the research and marketing department of the Cathay PacicAirways.


Determinants of hotel guests’ satisfaction and repeat patronage in

Documents

Transcript of Determinants of hotel guests’ satisfaction and repeat patronage in