How do international tourists perceive hotel quality an exploratory study of service quality in...

How do international touristsperceive hotel quality?

An exploratory study of service quality inAntalya tourism region

Ibrahim Taylan DortyolDepartment of Marketing, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

Inci VarinliDepartment of Business Management, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey

Olgun KitapciDepartment of Marketing, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

Abstract

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to identify tourists’ perceptions of services provided by hotels inAntalya/Turkey and to explore hotel service quality dimensions. Specifically, the objectives are asfollows: to identify the dimensions of hotel service quality, and to determine the relative impact ofthose dimensions on customer satisfaction levels, on customer value and on customers’ intentions torecommend or revisit a hotel.

Design/methodology/approach – The present study uses the framework which originallyappeared in Juwaheer’s study investigating international tourists’ perceptions of hotels in Mauritius.In this framework ten hotel service quality dimensions were defined by factor analysis and then themost important dimensions for each component were determined using stepwise regression analysis.

Findings – Of the ten hotel service quality dimensions, “tangibles” and “food quality and reliability”influence the customer satisfaction level the most. Customer value is explained by five dimensionswhich generate 37.8 percent of the variance. “Hotel employees and problem solving”, “transportation”,“food quality and reliability”, “climate and hygiene”, “level of price”, “tangibles”, “interaction withTurkish culture” and “friendly, courteous and helpful employees” are the main dimensions whichaffect whether a guest will recommend a hotel. “Tangibles”, “interaction with Turkish culture”, and“level of price” are seen as the most influential dimensions in terms of customers’ intentions to revisit ahotel.

Research limitations/implications – The basic limitation of the study is the unexplainedvariance, which is the result of the regression analysis. Therefore, future research should aim todetermine the factors explaining that variance.

Practical implications – In light of these findings, hotel managers in Antalya can betterunderstand their guests’ priorities and consequently, they can arrange their service encounter processaccordingly to fulfill these priorities.

Originality/value – This study presents potentially valuable information for hotel managers inAntalya with regards to understanding customer value and satisfaction, which are the key elements interms of guests revisiting a hotel and recommending it to others. As providing an opportunity for acomparative study of service quality searches, this study contributes to the field.

Keywords Turkey, Service marketing, Experience marketing, International guest services,International hotel management, Service quality perceptions

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm

IJCHM26,3

470

Received 9 November 2012Revised 15 February 201327 June 201314 October 2013Accepted 2 November 2013

International Journal ofContemporary HospitalityManagementVol. 26 No. 3, 2014pp. 470-495q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0959-6119DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-11-2012-0211

IntroductionWith its history, sea, cultural assets and high quality tourism facilities, Antalya isknown as the capital of Turkish tourism. With Belek, Kemer, Side-Manavgat, Alanya,Lara-Kunda, and Kas tourism centers, Antalya hosts more than 10 million foreignquests every year. Along with a cultural heritage deeply rooted in history, Antalya’scoves and highlands of unique beauty, pristine beaches, comfortable hotels andmarinas, colorful entertainment venues, and art-filled festivals all make it a touristdestination that offers endless possibilities to its guests. These include the pleasure ofsunbathing from sunrise to sunset; the natural thrill of outdoor sports in the grip ofmother nature; the excitement of discovering national parks with their rich flora andfauna, ancient cities, museums and Kaleici; the mystery of the mountains and thepeaceful Mediterranean coves drawing you away; the romance of watching an operaoutdoors under the stars at night; sampling the unique delicacies of Turkish cuisineand enjoying the party scene. Meeting the hospitable people of Antalya is just anotherpart of the pleasant holiday experience (GoTurkey, 2013). Being an eye-catchingdestination (Sarı et al., 2011) and as well as being the most globally connected, denselypopulated and the main tourist destination in Turkey (Erkus-Ozturk, 2009) bringsmany responsibilities for city-managers in general. Specifically, as a tourism capital,hotels in Antalya need to provide services of the highest quality to their guests.

Objectives of the studyThe present paper builds on the framework of Juwaheer’s study which was publishedin 2004 and which investigated the perceptions of international tourists from countriesin Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania. Juwaheer employed a modified SERVQUALapproach on 410 international tourists staying in different categories of beach hotel inMauritius. Using principal component factor analysis, nine hotel factors namedreliability factors, assurance factors, extra room benefits sought, staff communicationskills and additional benefits, room attractiveness and decor, empathy, staff outlookand accuracy factors, food and service related factors, and hotel surroundings andenvironmental factors were identified out of 39 hotel attributes. The results ofregression analysis revealed that the overall level of service quality and likeliness toreturn to the same hotel are primarily derived from the reliability factor, while roomattractiveness and decor was the primary dimension affecting perceptions of hotelguests’ satisfaction and recommendation decisions.

With this in mind, the main purpose of the present study is to identify customerperceptions of services provided by hotels in Antalya and to determine the hotelservice quality dimensions. Specifically, the objectives can be listed as follows:

. to identify the hotel service quality dimensions; and

. to determine the relative impact of those dimensions on customer satisfactionlevels, customer value and on recommending and revisiting intentions.

The paper first presents a review of the literature on service quality in the tourismsector and then it presents the methodology used in the current study. The article endswith a review of the main findings, discussion, implications and limitations of thestudy.

Service qualityin Antalya

471

Literature reviewService qualityThe various attempts to relate the concept of quality to different situations haveprevented the emergence of a common global definition. The concept of quality isdescribed as “zero error – do right first time” in common Japanese philosophy(Parasuraman et al., 1985) and has been highlighted as the most important singlepioneering power on the economic development process of international companies(Reeves and Bednar, 1994). Accordingly, quality is used to describe differentphenomena (Vinagre and Neves, 2008). On the one hand, some authors describe theconcept as usage convenience, while others define it as conformity to specifications(Kara et al., 2005). However, the definition of quality standardized by “AmericanNational Standards Institute” and “American Society for Quality” is as follows: “Thetotality of features and characteristics of a product or service that impact its ability tosatisfy given needs” (Ma et al., 2005, p. 1068).

Therefore, service quality correlates with its own characteristics, and it is describedas an attitude form which includes a global judgment related to the superiority ofservice ( Jun et al., 2004; Stewart et al., 1998). According to the definition that relatesservice quality to behavioral intentions; it is an attitudinal structure which leadsbehavioral intentions (Fullerton, 2005). As an output of the service encounter process,service quality is stated as meeting the consumers’ expectations (Duffy et al., 1997).Among consumer satisfaction theories, some authors including Parasuraman and hiscolleagues identify service quality as the gap between service perceptions andconsumer expectations (Vinagre and Neves, 2008). Accordingly, perceived servicequality, termed “true quality” by Kordupleski (Redman and Mathews, 1998), is thediscrepancy level which emerges as the result of the comparison made betweennormative expectations related to what should happen and perceptions related to whatactually happened (Kelley and Turley, 2001; Sureshchandar et al., 2001). In otherwords, service quality focuses on meeting needs and requirements and the degree towhich the service provided meets customer expectations (Lewis et al., 1994).

Measuring service qualityThe basic characteristics of service, namely variability, inseparability andperishability have caused some difficulties for academics and practitioners withregards to measuring service quality (Espinoza, 1999). In particular, decisivelydetermining the criteria which will be used for the service quality evaluation process isnot very easy because of the complicated structures (Poolthong and Mandhachitara,2009). In spite of those difficulties, true quality cannot be developed unless it ismeasured, thus emphasizing the importance of service quality measurement. Onlyservice providers who know how consumers evaluate the service will also know how tolead these evaluations in the desired direction (Sureshchandar et al., 2001). In addition,basing user experiences related to a service and distinguishing service differentiationcriteria on this ground is another important reason to realize the measurement process(Vinagre and Neves, 2008). However, service marketers understand the need to definethe perceptions of service quality correctly when using it for a competitive advantage(Malhotra et al., 2005).

IJCHM26,3

472

SatisfactionCustomer satisfaction is seen as the most valuable property for businesses in saturatedmarkets (Gundersen et al., 1996). Achieving profits by satisfying consumer demandsand needs reflects the central position of the customer satisfaction marketing concept(Woodside et al., 1989). Companies based on high satisfaction levels receive higheconomic gains (Gilbert and Veloutsou, 2006). Moreover, the satisfied consumer is lesssensitive to price, less affected by competitors’ counter attacks and compared with theunsatisfied consumer, stays loyal to company for longer (Nam et al., 2011). TheAmerican Customer Satisfaction Index (ASCI), a scale which measures the customersatisfaction level of companies, shows that a one-point increase in customersatisfaction causes a boost in market value of on average 1 million $ and 3 percent(Fornell, 2001). Being one of the most commonly studied components in marketingliterature (Philips et al., 2011), there have been various attempts to define the concept ofcustomer satisfaction (Yang and Peterson, 2004), but a generally agreed definition hasnot yet been determined (Tsiotsou, 2006). In light of previous studies, the followingdefinition of customer satisfaction can be given: “As a construct, customer satisfactionhas been noted as a special form of consumer attitude; it is a post-purchasephenomenon reflecting how much the consumer likes or dislikes the service afterexperiencing it” (Woodside et al., 1989, p. 6).

In some instances, the terms quality and satisfaction are used as synonyms and areseen as similar concepts (Iacobucci et al., 1995). Nevertheless, there are significantdifferences between these two notions. While the concept of service quality developsover years and correlates with customer expectations, satisfaction is a short-term andtransaction-based measurement of personal and emotional reaction to a service(Hernon et al., 1999). Cronin and Taylor (1992) provide a popular explanation of thedifference, namely that perceived service quality is a form of attitude; a long-runoverall evaluation, whereas satisfaction is a transaction-specific measure. In addition,whereas quality is a conceptual reaction, customer satisfaction consists of bothconceptual and affective reactions (Ha and Jang, 2010). Investigating the casual orderof the satisfaction-service quality relationship, Lee et al. (2000) suggested that servicequality is an antecedent of customer satisfaction which in turn has a greater influenceon purchase intention. Briggs et al. (2007) handled the discrepancy in question as partof the hotel sector and propounded that customer satisfaction is associated with thethoughts of the customers about their experiences and with the interaction betweenthem and hotel components like employees. In that study, it was also emphasized thatservice quality is shaped by location and value perception.

Service quality in the tourism sectorRecently, the dominant position of the manufacturing sector has been overtaken due tothe rise of the service sector. Accordingly, with its international identity, the tourismand accommodation industry stands among the biggest industries in the world(Ingram and Daskalakis, 1999). Tourism, which has become a supplementarycomponent of lifestyle, is one of the primary players in the economic development ofmany countries (Poon and Low, 2005) and it is seen as an indispensable source forforeign currency inflow (Atılgan et al., 2003). This situation is reflected in the studies inthe service quality field. Referring to previous studies within the scope of servicequality, the tourism field has emerged as the fifth most studied subject (Akıncı et al.,


473

2009). Given that it possesses hedonic, aesthetic and emotional components whichcannot be seen in other services like finance (Johns, 1999), tourism services areaccepted as a unique product due to the tangible and intangible elements it owns aspart of the tourism experience (Poon and Low, 2005). As customers of hotels take partin an experience, the hotel industry is specific. Accordingly, hotel managers andemployees must be able to turn all the interactions with its guests into a positiveexperience ( Juwaheer and Ross, 2003). Purchasing and consuming all sorts of servicesgenerating holiday experience locates tourism consumers in a different place fromother economic activities. In this manner, tourism consumers make their quality andsatisfaction judgments via holiday experiences related to all components of acomplicated tourism system (Weiermair, 2000). The success of any company dependson understanding the basic points influencing consumers’ demands and meeting thesedemands in such a way that guests will be satisfied during their first visit ( Juwaheerand Ross, 2003). As an output of the process in question, customer-focused tourismcompanies should determine their target audience’s needs and develop the serviceencounter process accordingly (Eraqi, 2006).

This study focuses on the quality perceptions of international tourists, as it mightbe considered as a right attempt for hotel managers to determine the primitive servicequality dimensions in the high-quality service delivery process. The concept of qualityhas numerous dimensions changing over time. Here, the question is which dimensionsare the most important ones. Finding the true answer will lead hotel managers to takerelevant steps. With this conscious, an in-depth review of service quality andsatisfaction has been drawn and a content analysis has been made in the scope of theprevious studies on service quality in the tourism sector (Table I).

MethodologyThe survey questionnaire consists of two parts. The first part is to measure hotelguests’ perceptions of service quality in the hotel where they were staying. A five-pointLikert-type rating scale, in which (1) indicates “strongly disagree” and (5) indicates“strongly agree” was used. The second part of the questionnaire pertains to themeasurement of the demographic characteristics of respondents. The adoptedinstrument was in line with previous studies by Tribe and Snaith (1998), Khan (2003),Juwaheer (2004), Laroche et al. (2005), Akbaba (2006), Albacete-Saez et al. (2007), Li et al.(2007), Narayan et al. (2008) and Salazar et al. (2010). A pilot test was conducted with 25instructors at Cumhuriyet University. The results enabled us to gain valuableinformation about the wording of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed inEnglish, German and Russian.

The target population of this study was departing English, German and Russiantourists (n ¼ 307) who had stayed in hotels, motels and holiday-villages. The datagathering process was realized during July, 2012 at ICF Airport, Antalya. Incompletesurveys and the failure to obtain full responses means that after conducting 500face-to-face surveys, just 307 questionnaires were found to be usable. The precise sizeof the target population was difficult to be ascertained accurately. However, accordingto published data, the total number of incoming tourists in 2011, was 4,168,396(Turkish National Statistics, 2011). Probability sampling was implemented due to timeand budget restrictions. Therefore, the sample size was calculated to be 500 with a 5percent sampling error. In the data analysis process, factor analysis and multiple

IJCHM26,3

474

Au

thor

sS

amp

lesi

zeR

elia

bil

ity

Sca

leN

o.of

pro

pos

als

An

aly

sis

tech

niq

ue

Dim

ensi

ons

orfa

ctor

s

Lew

iset

al.

(199

4)1,

279

hot

elg

ues

ts66

Fre

qu

ency

2–

Loc

atio

nan

dp

rice

Atk

inso

n(1

988)

200

gu

ests

Asi

x-p

oin

tL

iker

t-ty

pe

59M

ean

Inor

der

ofp

rior

itie

s;h

yg

ien

e;sa

fety

;goo

dv

alu

efo

rth

em

oney

;an

dfr

ien

dly

,co

urt

eou

san

dh

elp

ful

emp

loy

ees

Kn

uts

on(1

988)

1,85

3v

isit

ors

Fre

qu

ency

5–

Cle

an,

com

fort

able

,w

ell-

mai

nta

ined

room

s;co

nv

enie

nt

loca

tion

;p

rom

pt

and

cou

rteo

us

serv

ice;

safe

and

secu

reen

vir

onm

ent;

and

frie

nd

lyan

dco

urt

eou

sem

plo

yee

sW

ilen

sky

and

Bu

ttle

(198

8)13

0h

otel

gu

ests

Afi

ve-

poi

nt

Lik

ert-

typ

e40

Fac

tor

anal

ysi

s7

–O

pp

ortu

nit

ies

for

rela

xat

ion

;v

alu

efo

rm

oney

;st

and

ard

ofp

erso

nal

serv

ice;

ph

ysi

cal

attr

acti

ven

ess;

app

eali

ng

imag

e;st

and

ard

ofse

rvic

es;

and

suit

abil

ity

for

bu

sin

ess

gu

ests

Riv

ersetal.

(199

1)42

6h

otel

gu

ests

Afi

ve-

poi

nt

Lik

ert-

typ

eM

ean

3–

Loc

atio

n;

gen

eral

serv

ices

and

room

read

ines

sA

nan

thet

al.

(199

2)22

2v

isit

ors

Afi

ve-

poi

nt

Lik

ert-

typ

e57

Mea

n9

–G

ood

val

ue

for

mon

ey;

in-r

oom

tem

per

atu

reco

ntr

olm

ech

anis

m;

con

ven

ien

tlo

cati

onof

hot

el;

pri

ceof

acco

mm

odat

ion

;so

un

dp

roof

room

s;sp

ecia

ld

isco

un

tsav

aila

ble

;lo

ud

fire

alar

ms;

free

par

kin

gse

rvic

es;

and

firm

nes

sof

mat

tres

s(continued

)

Table I.The service quality

studies in tourism andaccommodation sector


475

Au

thor

sS

amp

lesi

zeR

elia

bil

ity

Sca

leN

o.of

pro

pos

als

An

aly

sis

tech

niq

ue

Dim

ensi

ons

orfa

ctor

s

Bar

sky

(199

2)10

0g

ues

tsM

ean

Inor

der

ofp

rior

itie

s;em

plo

yee

atti

tud

e;lo

cati

on;

and

room

sM

cCle

aryet

al.

(199

3)43

3b

usi

nes

sg

ues

tsA

fiv

e-p

oin

tL

iker

t-ty

pe

56F

acto

ran

aly

sis

7–

Bas

icp

rod

uct

;bu

sin

ess

serv

ices

;b

anq

uet

/mee

tin

gfa

cili

ties

;fr

equ

ent

trav

eler

pro

gra

ms;

adv

erti

sin

g/

pu

bli

cre

lati

ons;

con

ven

ien

tlo

cati

on;

and

no-

smok

ing

room

sW

ebst

eran

dH

un

g(1

994)

40em

plo

yee

s,58

gu

ests

Afi

ve-

poi

nt

Lik

ert-

typ

e10

8–

tan

gib

les;

reli

abil

ity

;co

mm

un

icat

ion

;re

spon

siv

enes

s;se

curi

ty;

cou

rtes

y;

un

der

stan

din

g;

and

acce

ssA

kan

(199

5)22

8h

otel

gu

ests

Afo

ur-

poi

nt

Lik

ert-

typ

e30

Fac

tor

anal

ysi

s7

–C

ourt

esy

and

com

pet

ence

ofth

ep

erso

nn

el;

com

mu

nic

atio

nan

dtr

ansa

ctio

n;

tan

gib

les;

kn

owin

gan

du

nd

erst

and

ing

the

cust

omer

;ac

cura

cyan

dsp

eed

ofse

rvic

e;so

luti

ons

top

rob

lem

s;an

dac

cura

cyof

hot

elre

serv

atio

ns

LeB

lan

can

dN

gu

yen

(199

6)40

9tr

avel

ers

0.47

-0,9

1fo

rd

imen

sion

sA

sev

en-

poi

nt

Lik

ert-

typ

e

27F

acto

ran

aly

sis

5–

Con

tact

per

son

nel

;p

hy

sica

len

vir

onm

ent;

qu

alit

yof

serv

ices

;co

rpor

ate

iden

tity

;an

dac

cess

ibil

ity

Ek

incietal.

(199

8)11

5E

ng

lish

vac

atio

nis

ts0,

87fo

rta

ng

ible

s,0,

92fo

rIn

tan

gib

les

Ase

ven

-p

oin

tL

iker

t-ty

pe

18C

onfi

rmat

ive

fact

oran

aly

sis

2–

tan

gib

les

and

inta

ng

ible

s

(continued

)

Table I.

IJCHM26,3

476

Au

thor

sS

amp

lesi

zeR

elia

bil

ity

Sca

leN

o.of

pro

pos

als

An

aly

sis

tech

niq

ue

Dim

ensi

ons

orfa

ctor

s

Tri

be

and

Sn

aith

(199

8)(H

OL

SA

T)

102

hot

elg

ues

tsA

fiv

e-p

oin

tL

iker

t-ty

pe

566

–T

he

ph

ysi

calr

esor

tan

dfa

cili

ties

;am

bia

nce

;re

stau

ran

ts,

bar

s,sh

ops

and

nig

htl

ife;

tran

sfer

s;h

erit

age

and

cult

ure

;ac

com

mod

atio

nM

eiet

al.

(199

9)(H

OL

SE

RV

)15

5p

red

omin

antl

yb

usi

nes

str

avel

ers

0,88

-0,9

3fo

rd

imen

sion

;0,

97fo

rto

tal

scal

e27

Fac

tor

anal

ysi

s3

–E

mp

loy

ees;

tan

gib

les;

and

reli

abil

ity

Heu

ng

and

Ch

eng

(200

0)22

0to

uri

sts

0,78

-0,8

8fo

rd

imen

sion

sA

sev

en-

poi

nt

Lik

ert-

typ

e

15F

acto

ran

aly

sis

4–

tan

gib

les

qu

alit

y;

staf

fse

rvic

eq

ual

ity

;p

rod

uct

val

ue;

and

pro

du

ctre

liab

ilit

yK

ozak

(200

1)1,

872

Bri

tish

and

Ger

man

tou

rist

s0,

56-0

,87

for

dim

ensi

ons

Ase

ven

-p

oin

tL

iker

t-ty

pe

55F

acto

ran

aly

sis

8–

Acc

omm

odat

ion

serv

ices

;lo

cal

tran

spor

tse

rvic

es;

hy

gie

ne,

san

itat

ion

and

clea

nli

nes

s;h

osp

ital

ity

and

cust

omer

care

;fa

cili

ties

and

acti

vit

ies;

lev

elof

pri

ces;

lan

gu

age

com

mu

nic

atio

n;

and

des

tin

atio

nai

rpor

tse

rvic

esC

hoi

and

Ch

u(2

001)

420

inte

rnat

ion

alto

uri

sts

0,71

-0,9

3fo

rd

imen

sion

s;0,

94fo

rto

tal

scal

eA

sev

en-

poi

nt

Lik

ert-

typ

e

29E

xp

lora

tory

fact

oran

aly

sis

7–

Sta

ffse

rvic

eq

ual

ity

;ro

omq

ual

ity

;g

ener

alam

enit

ies;

bu

sin

ess

serv

ices

;v

alu

e;se

curi

ty;

and

IDD

(in

tern

atio

nal

dir

ect

dia

l)fa

cili

ties

(continued

)

Table I.


477

Au

thor

sS

amp

lesi

zeR

elia

bil

ity

Sca

leN

o.of

pro

pos

als

An

aly

sis

tech

niq

ue

Dim

ensi

ons

orfa

ctor

s

Yu

kse

lan

dY

uk

sel

(200

1)34

0to

uri

sts

0,53

-0,9

0fo

rd

imen

sion

s;0,

95fo

rto

tal

scal

eA

sev

en-

poi

nt

Lik

ert-

typ

e

58F

acto

ran

aly

sis

16–

Foo

dq

ual

ity

;se

rvic

eq

ual

ity

;h

yg

ien

ean

dac

com

mod

atio

n;

hos

pit

alit

y;

tou

rist

faci

liti

es;

bea

chan

den

vir

onm

ent;

pri

cean

dv

alu

e;en

tert

ain

men

t;q

uie

tnes

s;co

nv

enie

nce

;co

mm

un

icat

ion

;se

curi

ty;

wat

ersp

orts

;tr

ansp

orta

tion

;ai

rpor

tse

rvic

es;

and

wea

ther

Ek

incietal.

(200

3)12

0B

riti

shtr

avel

ers

0,88

for

tan

gib

les,

0,95

for

inta

ng

ible

s;0,

96fo

rto

tal

scal

e

Ase

ven

-p

oin

tL

iker

t-ty

pe

16E

xp

lora

tory

fact

oran

aly

sis

2–

tan

gib

les

and

inta

ng

ible

s

Get

tyan

dG

etty

(200

3)(L

QI)

222

trav

eler

sfo

rth

efi

rst

dat

ase

t,22

9tr

avel

ers

for

the

seco

nd

dat

ase

t

265

–T

ang

ibil

ity

;re

liab

ilit

y;

resp

onsi

ven

ess;

con

fid

ence

;an

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

Kh

an(2

003)

(EC

OS

ER

V)

324

Eco

tou

rism

Soc

iety

mem

ber

s0,

86-0

,98

for

dim

ensi

ons;

0,97

for

tota

lsc

ale

Ase

ven

-p

oin

tL

iker

t-ty

pe

30F

acto

ran

aly

sis

6–

Eco

tan

gib

les;

assu

ran

ce;

reli

abil

ity

;re

spon

siv

enes

s;em

pat

hy

;an

dta

ng

ible

sM

illa

nan

dE

steb

an(2

004)

368

stu

den

ts0,

71-0

,89

for

dim

ensi

ons;

0,95

for

tota

lsc

ale

Afi

ve-

poi

nt

Lik

ert-

typ

e31

Con

firm

ativ

efa

ctor

anal

ysi

s6

–S

erv

ice

enco

un

ters

;em

pat

hy

;re

liab

ilit

y;

serv

ice

env

iron

men

t;ef

fici

ency

ofad

vic

e;ad

dit

ion

alat

trib

ute

s(continued

)

Table I.

IJCHM26,3

478

Au

thor

sS

amp

lesi

zeR

elia

bil

ity

Sca

leN

o.of

pro

pos

als

An

aly

sis

tech

niq

ue

Dim

ensi

ons

orfa

ctor

s

Juw

ahee

r(2

004)

410

inte

rnat

ion

alto

uri

sts

0,60

-0,7

5fo

rd

imen

sion

sA

sev

en-

poi

nt

Lik

ert-

typ

e

39F

acto

ran

aly

sis

9–

Rel

iab

ilit

y;

assu

ran

ce;

extr

aro

omb

enefi

tsso

ug

ht;

staf

fco

mm

un

icat

ion

and

add

itio

nal

amen

itie

sso

ug

ht;

room

attr

acti

ven

ess

and

dec

or;

emp

ath

y;

staf

fou

tloo

kan

dac

cura

cy;

food

and

serv

ice;

hot

elsu

rrou

nd

ing

san

den

vir

onm

ent

Nad

iri

and

Hu

ssai

n(2

005)

285

Eu

rop

ean

gu

ests

0,95

for

tan

gib

les,

0,81

for

inta

ng

ible

s;0,

96fo

rto

tal

scal

e

Afi

ve-

poi

nt

Lik

ert-

typ

e22

Ex

plo

rato

ryfa

ctor

anal

ysi

s2

–ta

ng

ible

san

din

tan

gib

les

Poo

nan

dL

ow(2

005)

200

Asi

anto

uri

sts

Afi

ve-

poi

nt

Lik

ert-

typ

e48

Fac

tor

anal

ysi

s12

–H

osp

ital

ity

;ac

com

mod

atio

n;

food

and

bev

erag

es;

recr

eati

onan

den

tert

ain

men

t;su

pp

lem

enta

ryse

rvic

es,

secu

rity

and

safe

ty;

inn

ovat

ion

and

val

ue-

add

edse

rvic

es;

tran

spor

tati

on;

loca

tion

;ap

pea

ran

ce;

pri

cin

g;

and

pay

men

tA

kb

aba

(200

6)23

4B

usi

nes

str

avel

ers

0,70

-0,8

5fo

rd

imen

sion

s;0,

93fo

rto

tal

scal

eA

fiv

e-p

oin

tL

iker

t-ty

pe

29F

acto

ran

aly

sis

5–

tan

gib

les;

adeq

uac

yin

serv

ice

sup

ply

;u

nd

erst

and

ing

and

cari

ng

;as

sura

nce

;an

dco

nv

enie

nce

Alb

acet

e-S

aez

etal.

(200

7)17

2to

uri

sts

0,71

-0,9

1fo

rd

imen

sion

s;0,

93fo

rto

tal

scal

eA

sev

en-

poi

nt

Lik

ert-

typ

e

36E

xp

lora

tory

fact

oran

aly

sis

and

con

firm

ativ

efa

ctor

anal

ysi

s

7–

Per

son

nel

resp

onse

;co

mp

lem

ent

offe

r;to

uri

stre

lati

ons;

bas

icd

eman

ds;

tan

gib

leel

emen

ts;

secu

rity

;an

dem

pat

hy

(continued

)

Table I.


479

Au

thor

sS

amp

lesi

zeR

elia

bil

ity

Sca

leN

o.of

pro

pos

als

An

aly

sis

tech

niq

ue

Dim

ensi

ons

orfa

ctor

s

Wil

kin

set

al.

(200

7)66

4h

otel

gu

ests

0,72

-0,9

0fo

rd

imen

sion

s63

Ex

plo

rato

ryfa

ctor

anal

ysi

san

dco

nfi

rmat

ive

fact

oran

aly

sis

3p

rim

ary

;6

seco

nd

ary

–P

hy

sica

lp

rod

uct

(sty

lish

effo

rt;

room

qu

alit

y;

and

add

edex

tras

);se

rvic

eex

per

ien

ce(q

ual

ity

staf

f;p

erso

nal

izat

ion

;an

dsp

eed

yse

rvic

e);a

nd

qu

alit

yfo

odan

db

ever

age

Nar

ayan

etal.

(200

8)32

3to

uri

sts

0,67

-0,9

0fo

rd

imen

sion

sA

sev

en-

poi

nt

Lik

ert-

typ

e

67E

xp

lora

tory

fact

oran

aly

sis

and

con

firm

ativ

efa

ctor

anal

ysi

s

14–

Cor

e-to

uri

smex

per

ien

ce;

cult

ure

;in

form

atio

nce

nte

rs;

per

son

alin

form

atio

n;

hos

pit

alit

y;

fair

nes

sof

pri

ce;h

yg

ien

e;d

istr

acti

ons;

amen

itie

s;p

ub

s;v

alu

efo

rm

oney

;lo

gis

tics

;fo

od;

and

secu

rity

Moh

sin

and

Loc

ky

er(2

010)

271

par

tici

pan

tsB

etw

een

0,99

3an

d1

for

all

qu

esti

ons

Ase

ven

-p

oin

tL

iker

t-ty

pe

23E

xp

lora

tory

fact

oran

aly

sis

5–

Hot

elam

bia

nce

and

staf

fco

urt

esy

;fo

odan

db

ever

age

pro

du

ctan

dse

rvic

eq

ual

ity

;st

aff

pre

sen

tati

onan

dk

now

led

ge;

rese

rvat

ion

serv

ices

;an

dov

eral

lv

alu

efo

rm

oney

Ram

anat

han

and

Ram

anat

han

(201

1)

664

hot

elg

ues

ts–

––

Sta

tist

ical

reg

ress

ion

“Val

ue

for

mon

ey”

asa

crit

ical

attr

ibu

te,

wh

ile

“cu

stom

erse

rvic

e”,

“roo

mq

ual

ity

”an

d“q

ual

ity

offo

od”

are

dis

sati

sfier

s

Table I.

IJCHM26,3

480

regressions were used. Accordingly, 50 service quality variables were factor analyzedto reduce those variables into a smaller set of dimensions. Principal componentanalysis with varimax rotation was conducted and only factors with an Eigenvalueequal to or greater than one were considered significant. Finally, regression analysiswas applied to find out the hotel service quality dimensions which contribute to thecustomer satisfaction level and revisiting and recommending intentions. Accordingly,multiple regression analysis with a stepwise method was used.

FindingsDemographic profile of respondentsTable II shows the demographics of the respondents. The sample included morewomen (57.0 percent), tourists aged between 35 and 44 (28.7 percent), white-collarworkers (36.4 percent) and German tourists (61.2 percent). The majority of tourists hadgraduated from at least high school (86.3 percent). They stayed at 4 þ star hotels (91.6percent) and their trips were for pleasure rather than for business (90.4 percent).

Hotel service quality dimensionsThe results of descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s alpha are illustrated in Table III.Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for the reliability of each factor. Cronbach’s alphas ofindividual factors were 90.5 for “friendly, courteous and helpful employees”, 85.1 for“Room amenities”, 87.9 for “food quality and reliability”, 86.1 for “Interaction withTurkish culture”, 78.2 for “Entertainment opportunities”, 75.5 for “tangibles”, 86.3 for“Level of prices”, 67.4 for “transportation” and 41.8 for “Climate and hygiene”. Themean values, standard deviations, number of items and reliability analysis aresummarized in Table III.

From the varimax-rotated factor matrix, ten factors representing 63.6 percent of theexplained variance were extracted from 50 variables. Reliability analysis was theinternal consistency of each factor. These ten dimensions, represented in Table IV,were identified as follows:

Dimension 1 – friendly, courteous and helpful employees. This dimension,accounting for 30.3 percent of the variation in the data, consists of statements aboutcourteous, friendly, knowledgeable and available service when the guests needed hotelemployees. In addition, according to this dimension the hotel staff should know theirduties. They should perform their duties well and not make mistakes. They should beable to solve complaints. In addition, they should appear neat and tidy and payindividualized attention to their guests to make them feel special. Furthermore, aspectssuch as flexibility, the hotel’s ability to solve guests’ problems, giving informationabout the facilities and compensating for any inconvenience that guests suffer alsoplayed their part in this dimension.

Dimension 2 – room amenities. In this dimension which explains 6.5 percent of thevariance, the room should be quiet and it should have a good view, fine furnishings andit should be very comfortable. In addition, room facilities should function properly andmaterials associated with the service should be adequate.

Dimension 3 – food quality and reliability. This dimension, explaining 4.5 percent ofthe variance, includes statements related to hotel meals and reliability. According tothis dimension, hotel meals should be high quality, hygienic and there should be a widevariety. Reliability means that all areas in the hotel should be well indicated with signs,


481

Frequency %

GenderFemale 172 57,0Male 130 43,0Total 302 100

Age18-24 72 23,825-34 59 19,535-44 87 28,745-54 51 16,8Above 55 34 11,2Total 303 100

EducationNo school education 2 0,7Elementary School 12 3,9Junior High School 42 13,7High School 96 31,3Bachelor’s degree 72 23,5Master’s degree 45 14,7Doctorate degree 15 4,4Total 284 100

Type of accommodationMotel 12 4,2Holiday village 12 4,24 stars hotel 82 28,45 stars hotel 153 52,9þ5 stars hotel 30 10,4Total 289 100

Was it your first visit?Yes 129 43,4No 168 56,6Total 297 100

JobExecutive/manager 54 18,2Self-employed 35 11,8White-collar 108 36,4Blue-collar 16 5,4Retired 11 3,7Housewife 6 2,0Student 37 12,5Others 30 10,1Total 297 100

Marital statusSingle 124 42,8Married 136 46,9Divorced/widowed 30 10,3Total 290 100

(continued )

Table II.Demographics ofrespondents

IJCHM26,3

482

and the hotel should reflect a quality service image; it should provide the services asthey are promised and it should perform the services right first time.

Dimension 4 – interaction with Turkish culture. Explaining 4.2 percent of thevariance, this dimension is about being able to meet and talk to Turkish people, to findout about everyday life in Turkey, to learn more about Turkish history, to visitmuseums and archaeological sites and to visit nearby Turkish towns and countryside.

Dimension 5 – entertainment opportunities. This dimension, which explained 4.1percent of the variation, consists of statements related to the variety of restaurants,bars, shops and nightlife and being a fashionable.

Dimension 6 – tangibles. In this dimension, the visual quality of resort buildings,green spaces, the capacity of the hotel service unit and the crowdedness of the beachare taken into consideration and 3.5 percent of the variance is explained.

Dimension 7 – level of prices. Explaining 3.0 percent of the variance, this dimensionincludes statements related to the cheapness of services in restaurants, bars andnightlife.

Dimension 8 – transportation. Explaining 2.8 percent of the variance, thestatements in this dimension are associated with the airport’s modernity, quality ofin-flight service and access to the hotel’s loading/unloading areas, car parking areas,etc.

Dimension 9 – climate and hygiene. The ninth dimension includes statements fromtwo different sub-dimensions. Explaining 2.3 percent of the variance explained, thisdimension therefore consists of statements which focus on the cleanliness of the resortand fine weather.

Dimension 10 – security. This dimension explains 2.1 percent of the variance andincludes just one statement that explains the safety and security of the resort.

As the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) rate is 0.908, the data gathered from sample areconsidered to be appropriate for factor analysis (Table IV).

Relative importance of hotel service quality dimensions on customer satisfaction,customer value, recommending intentions and revisiting intentionsIn Tables V-VIII the hotel service quality dimensions affecting customer satisfaction,customer value, recommending intentions and revisiting intentions are shown.Stepwise regression analysis was carried out using customer satisfaction, customer

Frequency %

NationalityGerman 188 61,2Russian 71 23,1English 48 15,6Total 307 100

Purpose of visitBusiness 22 7,5Fun/holiday 264 90,4Health 5 1,7For sport 1 0,3Total 292 100 Table II.


483

Dimensions and variables a m s

Friendly, courteous and helpful employees 0,905 4,26 0,881Q19. The hotel staff would be friendly 4,46 0,852Q20. The hotel staff would know their job, do it well and not makemistakes 4,32 0,815Q18. The hotel staff would be courteous 4,49 0,842Q22. The hotel staff would be always available when needed 4,40 0,804Q24. The hotel staff would give guests individualized attention thatmakes them feel special 4,07 0,950Q23. The hotel staff would appear neat and tidy 4,39 0,807Q21. The hotel staff would be responsive to solve the complaints 4,19 0,979Q25. The hotel staff would have knowledge to answer questions 4,24 0,876Q40. The hotel would provide flexibility in service that would beadequate and sufficient 4,07 0,895Q41. Getting information about the facilities and services of the hotelwould be easy 4,19 0,864Q42. The hotel would resolve guest complaints and would compensatefor the inconvenience guests suffer 4,09 1,014

Room amenities 0,851 4,13 0,986Q30. The room would have a high comfort 4,06 0,983Q28. The room would have quality furnishings 4,08 0,965Q29. The size of the room would be enough 4,16 0,953Q27. The room would have a good view 4,03 1,003Q32. Materials associated with the service would be adequate andsufficient 4,22 0,995Q31. Facilities in room would function properly 4,33 0,926Q26. The room would be quiet 4,06 1,080

Food quality and reliability 0,879 4,32 0,909Q34. Hotel meals would be a high variety 4,30 0,963Q33. Hotel meals would be a high quality 4,35 0,928Q35 Hotel meals would be hygienic 4,54 0,809Q36. All areas in the hotel would be well indicated with signs 4,19 0,941Q38. The hotel would provide the services as they were promised 4,37 0,936Q39. The hotel would perform the services right the first time 4,23 0,904Q37. The hotel would project a quality service image 4,26 0,883

Interaction with Turkish culture 0,861 3,79 1,042Q50. I would be able to visit museums and archaeological sights 3,84 1,078Q49. I would be able to learn more about Turkish history 3,78 1,040Q51. I would be able to visit nearby Turkish towns and countryside 3,77 1,083Q48. I would be able to find out about everyday life in Turkey 3,77 1,039Q47. I would be able to mix and talk with Turkish people 3,82 0,970

Entertainment opportunities 0,782 3,83 0,956Q11. The resort would have a variety of bars 4,05 0,912Q10. The resort would have a variety of restaurants 4,12 0,899Q13. The resort would have a variety of nightlife 3,42 1,073Q12. The resort would have a variety of shops 3,97 0,932Q14. The resort would be fashionable 3,62 0,964

Tangibles 0,755 4,31 0,881Q7. The hotel would ensure regular maintenance of hotel lawn and greenspace 4,26 0,902Q6. The resort buildings and layout would be visually pleasing 4,21 0,857Q8. The service units of the hotel have adequate capacity 4,46 0,840Q9. The beach would be uncrowned 4,22 0,964Q1. The beach and sea would be clean 4,42 0,842

(continued )

Table III.Descriptive statistics ofvariables

IJCHM26,3

484

value, recommending intentions and revisiting intentions as the dependent variablesand hotel service quality dimensions as independent variables. From Tables V-VIII, itis understood that “tangibles” ðb ¼ 0:243Þ and “food quality and reliability” ðb ¼

0:190Þ dimensions are the main influential factors of customer satisfaction and thesedimensions explain 14.2 percent of the variance in the customers satisfaction level. Itmeans that 85.8 percent of the variance can be explained by other factors. Furthermore,the tangibles dimension is the most influential dimension on customer satisfaction as itexplains 11.6 percent of the variance. The F-statistic for the regression model was17.228 with a p-value of 0.000.

The customer value is explained by five dimensions generating 37.8 percent of thevariance which are “friendly, courteous and helpful employees” ðb ¼ 0:132Þ;transportation ðb ¼ 0:259Þ; “food quality and reliability” ðb ¼ 0:215Þ; “Climate andhygiene” ðb ¼ 0:151Þ; and “Level of prices” ðb ¼ 0:101Þ: However, it should be notedthat 62.2 percent of the variance can be explained by other factors. Indeed, the“friendly, courteous and helpful employees” dimension is the most influentialdimension on customer value as it explains 25.3 percent of the variance. The F-statisticfor the regression model was 36.567 with a p-value equal to 0.000. “tangibles” ðb ¼

0:158Þ; “Interaction with Turkish culture” ðb ¼ 0:141Þ and “friendly, courteous andhelpful employees” ðb ¼ 0:152Þ are the main dimensions that influence customers torecommend the hotel and 12.6 percent of variance is explained by these dimensions.The F-statistic for the regression model was 14.550 with a p-value equal to 0.000.Finally, “tangibles” ðb ¼ 0:225Þ; “Interaction with Turkish culture” ðb ¼ 0:133Þ and“Level of price” ðb ¼ 0; 121Þ are considered to be the most influential dimensions oncustomers’ revisiting intentions. 12.7 percent of the variance is explained by thesedimensions and in order to explain all the variance, some other factors should be takeninto account. The F-statistic for the regression model was 14.633 with a p-value equalto 0.000.

Dimensions and variables a m s

Level of prices 0,863 3,57 0,979Q16. Bars would be cheap 3,57 1,006Q15. Restaurants would be cheap 3,66 0,968Q17. Nightlife would be cheap 3,48 0,964

Transportation 0,674 4,15 0,926Q45. The arrival airport would be modern and efficient 4,20 0,907Q46. In flight service would be of a high quality 3,97 1,004Q43. It would be easy access to the hotel 4,29 0,868

Climate and hygiene 0,418 4,53 0,752Q5. The climate would be mainly sunny 4,66 0,664Q3. The resort would be clean 4,41 0,841

Security – 4,61 0,712Q4 The resort would be safe and secure 4,61 0,712

Note: Standard Deviation: s; Cronbach’s alpha: a; Mean: m Table III.


485

Dim

ensi

ons

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

D7

D8

D9

D10

Q19

.0,

791

Q20

.0,

752

Q18

.0,

715

Q22

.0,

644

Q24

.0,

591

Q23

.0,

586

Q21

.0,

585

Q25

.0,

501

Q40

.0,

487

Q41

.0,

478

Q42

.0,

457

Q30

.0,

821

Q28

.0,

731

Q29

.0,

700

Q27

.0,

538

Q32

.0,

511

Q31

.0,

495

Q26

.0,

405

Q34

.0,

798

Q33

.0,

762

Q35

.0,

708

Q36

.0,

542

Q38

.0,

535

Q39

.0,

486

Q37

.0,

471

Q50

.0,

843

Q49

.0,

814

Q51

.0,

805

Q48

.0,

757

(continued

)

Table IV.Factor loadings for hotelservice qualitydimensions

IJCHM26,3

486

Dim

ensi

ons

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

D6

D7

D8

D9

D10

Q47

.0,

500

Q11

.0,

822

Q10

.0,

709

Q13

.0,

664

Q12

.0,

555

Q14

.0,

449

Q7.

0,69

2Q

6.0,

630

Q8.

0,57

4Q

9.0,

561

Q1.

0,43

8Q

16.

0,83

7Q

15.

0,83

6Q

17.

0,81

6Q

45.

0,78

9Q

46.

0,71

6Q

43.

0,39

5Q

5.0,

772

Q3.

0,42

7Q

4.0,

465

Eig

env

alu

e14

,857

3,20

22,

219

2,07

62,

008

1,73

11,

501

1,39

51,

131

1,04

6P

erce

nta

ge

ofv

aria

nce

exp

lain

ed30

,321

6,53

54,

528

4,23

74,

098

3,53

23,

063

2,84

72,

307

2,13

4T

otal

var

ian

ceex

pla

ined

63,6

02

Notes:

Kai

ser-

Mey

er-O

lkin

(KM

O):

0,90

8.D

1=fr

ien

dly

,co

urt

eou

san

dh

elp

ful

emp

loy

ees;

D2=

room

amen

itie

s;D

3=fo

odq

ual

ity

and

reli

abil

ity

;D

4=in

tera

ctio

nw

ith

Tu

rkis

hcu

ltu

re;

D5=

ente

rtai

nm

ent

opp

ortu

nit

ies;

D6=

tan

gib

les;

D7=

lev

elof

pri

ces;

D8=

tran

spor

tati

on;

D9=

clim

ate

and

hy

gie

ne;

D10

=se

curi

ty.

Table IV.


487

DiscussionThe results of this study back up the importance of service quality perceptions in thecontext of particular dimensions as it shows such dimensions are related withcustomer satisfaction, customer value and behavioral intentions. From a pragmaticpoint-of-view, the study offers potentially valuable contributions to the hotel industryin Antalya as it provides some insights for hotel managers. Developing a framework

R 2 Sig. Dimensions B b T Sig T

Hotel guests 0,378 0,000 Friendly, courteous and helpful employees 0,189 0,132 1,851 0,065Transportation 0,325 0,259 4,964 0,000Food quality & reliability 0,281 0,215 3,176 0,002Climate & hygiene 0,227 0,151 3,044 0,003Level of prices 0,105 0,101 2,028 0,043

Notes: n=307. Total explained variance (R 2)=0,378; dependent variable: customer value. Value items:The holiday would be good value for money

Table VI.Hotel service qualitydimensions affectingcustomer value


Hotel guests 0,142 0,000 Tangibles 0,345 0,243 3,936 0,000Food quality & reliability 0,243 0,190 3,064 0,002

Notes: n=307. Total explained variance (R 2)=0,142; dependent variable: satisfaction. SatisfactionItems: My general vacation satisfaction level of high, my satisfaction level related with the resort ishigh

Table V.Hotel service qualitydimensions affectingcustomer satisfactionlevel

R 2 Sig Dimensions B b T Sig T

Hotel guests 0,127 0,000 Tangibles 0,391 0,225 3,854 0,000Interaction with Turkish culture 0,174 0,133 2,279 0,023Level of prices 0,152 0,121 2,145 0,033

Notes: n=307. Total explained variance (R 2)=0,127; dependent variable: revisit intentions. Revisitintention items: I would like to revisit Antalya, I would like to stay again at the resort which I havestayed last

Table VIII.Hotel service qualitydimensions affectingrevisit intentions


Hotel guests 0,126 0,000 Tangibles 0,248 0,158 2,355 0,019Interaction with Turkish culture 0,166 0,141 2,404 0,017Friendly, courteous and helpful employees 0,237 0,152 2,277 0,023

Notes: n=307. Total explained variance (R 2)=0,126; dependent variable: recommend intentions.Recommendation Items: I would recommend my friends and relatives to visit Antalya, I wouldrecommend my friends and relatives to stay at the resort which I have stayed last

Table VII.Hotel service qualitydimensions affectingrecommend intentions

IJCHM26,3

488

for conceptualizing the effects of service quality dimensions on customer satisfactionand other behavioral intentions can be considered as the main theoretical implication ofthis study. The present study presents ten hotel service quality dimensions from a listcompiled of 50 items. These dimensions can be listed as:

(1) friendly, courteous and helpful employees;

(2) room amenities;

(3) food quality and reliability;

(4) interaction with Turkish culture;

(5) entertainment opportunities;

(6) tangibles;

(7) level of prices;

(8) transportation;

(9) climate and hygiene; and

(10) security.

In the second stage of the analysis, these dimensions were analyzed using a stepwiseregression analysis technique to find out the dimensions which are used by tourists inAntalya. The aim here was to evaluate satisfaction and value levels of tourists and toexplore the dimensions that have the main influences on their revisiting andrecommending intentions. Accordingly, although there is a large unexplained variance,the “tangibles” and “food quality and reliability” dimensions are the main dimensionsthat should be considered by hotel managers in order to satisfy their guests’ needs. Inthese dimensions, the featured points are providing a pleasing visual appearance ofresort buildings and their layout, ensuring regular maintenance of green spaces,having adequate capacity of dining rooms, meeting rooms, swimming pools, quietnessof the beaches, meals that are high quality, rich in variety and hygienic, indicating allareas in the hotel with signs, representing a quality service image, providing theservices as promised and performing the services right first time. By doing so, thephysical environment may become more attractive.

From the results, it is observed that five dimensions namely, “friendly, courteousand helpful employees”, “transportation”, “food quality and reliability”, “climate andhygiene” and “level of prices” are the dimensions that explain customer valueperceptions as these dimensions generate 37.8 percent of the variance. As the “friendly,courteous and helpful employees” dimension is the best predictor of customer valueperceptions, hotel managers should pay more attention to hotel staff in order to ensurethat they are courteous, friendly, neat and tidy. They should know what to do, and theyshould do it well. They shouldn’t make mistakes. The hotel employee are the ones whoare responsible for dealing with complaints; they should be available whenever needed,show individualized attention to guests and have enough knowledge to answer theirquestions. In recruitment process, the candidates possessing these attributes should befound and hired. Since hotel employees have first-hand knowledge about thecharacteristics of customers, Olorunniwo et al., 2006 state that the employees should beencouraged and rewarded in service quality design and implementation process. Whatis more, hotel managers should focus on the problem-solving process by providingflexible services, giving information to guests easily, resolving guests’ complaints and


489

compensating for any inconveniences that guests suffer. Regarding the other fourdimensions, easy access to the hotel, a modern and efficient airport, high qualityin-flight service, a clean resort, fine weather; and low-priced bars, restaurants andnightlife are the other matters to focus on. The statements of the “food quality andreliability” dimension are expressed in the previous paragraph, so they will not bementioned again here.

The “tangibles” and “interaction with Turkish culture” dimensions emerge as thetwo main influences on both recommending and revisiting intentions. Besides thestatements related to the tangibles dimension presented above, hotel guests who areable to meet and talk to Turkish people, who are able to find out about everyday life inTurkey, who are able to learn more about Turkish history, who are able to visitmuseums and archeological sites and who can visit nearby Turkish towns andcountryside are more likely to recommend and revisit the hotel where they stayed. Theother dimensions influencing recommending and revisiting intentions are “friendly,courteous and helpful employees” and “level of prices”. The statements related to theselast dimensions are not going to be pointed out again as they have been describedabove. The result of the study is on the other side of the discussion, compared withAlexandris et al. (2002) reported that tangible dimension is not among the mostimportant predictor of WOM communications. Accordingly, the tangible dimensionstill stands as an antecedent of recommending and revisiting intention.

Implications and limitationsThe increasing interest in addressing the service quality concept from the consumer’spoint-of-view is accepted as one of the most important developments in the tourismindustry (Nadiri and Hussain, 2005). Explicitly describing and understanding the hotelattributes in light of customer needs allows hotel management to recognize and fulfillcustomer wants and needs in advance instead of subsequently reacting to customerdissatisfaction (Choi and Chu, 2001). Moreover, giving a satisfactory experience to thecustomers, hotel managers should understand how the customers assess the servicequality (Olorunniwo et al., 2006) that is too subjective to evaluate based on specificcharacteristics of service (Alexandris et al., 2002). Thus, this study is believed toprovide useful information about these facts for hotel managers in Antalya. Besides itspractical implications, the study has some theoretical values while it is providinginsights for a comparative study of service quality perceptions.

With the findings of the study, it is understood that international tourists evaluatetheir satisfaction and value perceptions and intend to revisit and recommend inaccordance with the different hotel service quality dimensions. In light of thesefindings, hotel managers in Antalya can understand their guests’ priorities and canarrange their service or encounter process to fulfill these priorities. Recognizing thepriorities will lead the hotels to reposition their quality propositions in order to exceedthe expectations of their guests and shape their hotel experience. By doing so, hotelsmay offer their own service quality pledges. In addition to these implications, thisstudy is also helpful for hotels in Antalya in terms of allocating their resources moreeffectively. The need to identify the key dimensions in gaining customer value,customer satisfaction and in leading the guests to revisit and recommend makes thesefindings more interesting and valuable. The importance of findings for managerialdecision-making processes is evident. Hotel managers seeking to improve their

IJCHM26,3

490

customers’ loyalty levels and making efforts to increase retention rates may benefitfrom information about the effect of dimensions of service quality on customersatisfaction and of the latter on behavioral loyalty.

Presenting information for hotel management in Antalya with regards to gainingcustomer value and customer satisfaction and in leading the guests to revisit andrecommend may be accepted as a reply to the question of how the study contributes tothe literature. In this manner, the study may be used in international industry-specificand comparative research. Hotel managers that aim to offer high quality service shouldpay special attention to having staff that are able to solve problems and who arefully-qualified. It is essential for the staff to have the emotional and esthetic skills asthey are always in touch with customers from different cultures and countries (Crickand Spencer, 2011). It would also be interesting to expand the model to include theeconomic consequences for companies and organizations of the relationships describedin this paper. The Turkish hospitality industry, among others, will have much tobenefit from studying such an extended model.

The basic limitation of the study is perhaps the unexplained variance as the resultof the regression analysis. To settle this matter, future research should aim todetermine the points which explain that variance. With regards to other attempts tomake the findings more valuable, examining the research in different sectors, indifferent cultures, in different service areas of hospitality could be advisable. It shouldbe also mentioned that generalization of the findings to the entire tourism and hotelfield is not possible due to the sampling procedure. Since it is a convenience sample, theapplicability of this work to all hotels in the region and service quality field is quitesuspicious. The other limitation of this study comes from the fact that the field researchwas conducted on tourists who visited Antalya. Owing to the research samplelimitations, it would be useful to analyze data from a greater geographical sample thatwould include other tourist locations and compare the differences.

References

Akan, P. (1995), “Dimensions of service quality: a study in Istanbul”, Managing Service Quality,Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 39-43.

Akbaba, A. (2006), “Measuring service quality in the hotel industry: a study in a business hotel inTurkey”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 25, pp. 170-192.

Akıncı, S., Atılgan Inan, E., Aksoy, S. and Buyukkupcu, A. (2009), “Pazarlama literaturundehizmet kalitesi kavramının dunu ve bugunu”, H.U. Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler FakultesiDergisi, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 61-82.

Albacete-Saez, C.A., Fuentes-Fuentes, M.M. and Llorens-Montes, F.J. (2007), “Service qualitymeasurement in rural accommodation”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 1,pp. 45-65.

Alexandris, K., Dimitriadis, N. and Markata, D. (2002), “Can perceptions of service quality predictbehavioral intentions? An exploratory study in the hotel sector in Greece”, ManagingService Quality, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 224-231.

Ananth, M., DeMicco, F.J., Moreo, P.J. and Howey, R.M. (1992), “Marketplace lodging needs ofmature travelers”, The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 33No. 4, pp. 12-24.

Atılgan, E., Akıncı, S. and Aksoy, S. (2003), “Mapping service quality in the tourism industry”,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 412-422.


491

Atkinson, A. (1988), “Answering the eternal question: what does the customer want”, The CornellHotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 12-14.

Barsky, J.D. (1992), “Customer satisfaction in the hotel industry: meaning and measurement”,Hospitality Research Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 51-73.

Briggs, S., Sutherland, J. and Drummond, S. (2007), “Are hotels serving quality? An exploratorystudy of service quality in the Scottish hotel sector”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28,pp. 1006-1019.

Choi, T.Y. and Chu, R. (2001), “Determinants of hotel guests’ satisfaction and repeat patronage inthe Hong Kong hotel industry”, Hospitality Management, Vol. 20, pp. 277-297.

Crick, A.P. and Spencer, A. (2011), “Hospitality quality: new directions and new challenges”,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 463-478.

Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension”,The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.

Duffy, J.A., Duffy, M. and Kilbourne, W. (1997), “Cross national study of perceived servicequality in long-term care facilities”, Journal of Aging Studies, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 327-336.

Ekinci, Y., Prokopaki, P. and Cobanoglu, C. (2003), “Service quality in Cretan accommodations:marketing strategies for the UK holiday market”, Hospitality Management, Vol. 22,pp. 47-66.

Ekinci, Y., Riley, M. and Fife-Schaw, C. (1998), “Which school of thought? The dimension ofresort quality”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 10No. 2, pp. 63-67.

Eraqi, M.I. (2006), “Tourism service quality (TourServQual) in Egypt: the viewpoints of externaland internal customers”, Benchmarking an International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 469-492.

Erkus-Ozturk, H. (2009), “The role of cluster types and firm size in designing the level of networkrelations: the experience of the Antalya tourism region”, Tourism Management, Vol. 30,pp. 589-597.

Espinoza, M.M. (1999), “Assessing the cross-cultural applicability of a service quality measure: acomparative study between Quebec and Peru”, International Journal of Service IndustryManagement, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 449-468.

Fornell, C. (2001), “The science of satisfaction”, Harvard Business Review, March.

Fullerton, G. (2005), “The service quality-loyalty relationship in retail services: does commitmentmatter?”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 12, pp. 99-111.

Getty, J.M. and Getty, R.L. (2003), “Lodging quality index (LQI): assessing customers’ perceptionsof quality delivery”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 94-104.

Gilbert, G.R. and Veloutsou, C. (2006), “A cross-industry comparison of customer satisfaction”,Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 298-308.

Goturkey.com (2013), Official Tourism Portal of Turkey, available at: www.goturkey.com/en/city/detail/antalya (accessed 8 October 2013).

Gundersen, M.G., Heide, M. and Olsson, U.H. (1996), “Hotel guest satisfaction among businesstravelers: what are the important factors?”, The Cornell Hotel and RestaurantAdministration Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 72-81.

Ha, J. and Jang, S. (2010), “Effects of service quality and food quality: the moderating role ofatmospherics in an ethnic restaurant segment”, International Journal of HospitalityManagement, Vol. 29, pp. 520-529.

IJCHM26,3

492

Hernon, P., Nitecki, D.A. and Altman, E. (1999), “Service quality and customer satisfaction: anassessment and future directions”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 25 No. 1,pp. 9-17.

Heung, V.C.S. and Cheng, E. (2000), “Assessing tourists’ satisfaction with shopping in the HongKong Special Administrative Region of China”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38,pp. 396-404.

Iacobucci, D., Ostrom, A. and Grayson, K. (1995), “Distinguishing service quality and customersatisfaction: the voice of the consumer”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 3,pp. 277-303.

Ingram, H. and Daskalakis, G. (1999), “Measuring quality gaps in hotels: the case of Crete”,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 24-30.

Johns, N. (1999), “What is this thing called service?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33Nos 9/10, pp. 958-973.

Jun, M., Yang, Z. and Kim, D. (2004), “Customers’ perceptions of online retailing service qualityand their satisfaction”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 21No. 8, pp. 817-840.

Juwaheer, T.D. (2004), “Exploring international tourists’ perceptions of hotel operations by usingmodified SERVQUAL approach – a case study of Mauritius”, Managing Service Quality,Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 350-364.

Juwaheer, T.D. and Ross, D.L. (2003), “A study of hotel guest perceptions in Mauritius”,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 105-115.

Kara, A., Lonial, S., Tarım, M. and Zaim, S. (2005), “A paradox of service quality in Turkey: theseemingly contradictory relative importance of tangible and intangible determinants ofservice quality”, European Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 5-20.

Kelley, S.W. and Turley, L.W. (2001), “Consumer perceptions of service quality attributes atsporting events”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54, pp. 161-166.

Khan, M. (2003), “ECOSERV, ecotourists’ quality expectations”, Annals of Tourism Research,Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 109-124.

Knutson, B.J. (1988), “Frequent travelers: making them happy and bringing them back”, TheCornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 83-87.

Kozak, M. (2001), “Comparative assessment of tourist satisfaction with destinations across twonationalities”, Tourism Management, Vol. 22, pp. 391-401.

Laroche, M., Kalamas, M. and Cleveland, M. (2005), “‘I’ versus ‘we’, how individualists andcollectivists use information sources to formulate their service expectations”, InternationalMarketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 279-308.

LeBlanc, G. and Nguyen, N. (1996), “An examination of the factors that signal hotel image totravelers”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 32-42.

Lee, H., Lee, Y. and Yoo, D. (2000), “The determinants of perceived service quality and itsrelationship with satisfaction”, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 217-231.

Lewis, B.R., Orledge, J. and Mitchell, V. (1994), “Service quality: students’ assessment of banksand building societies”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 3-12.

Li, C., Lai, P.C., Chick, G.E., Zinn, H.C. and Graefe, A.R. (2007), “Cross-cultural models ofcustomer service: a case of country park recreation in Hong Kong”, Journal of Park andRecreation Administration, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 41-66.

McCleary, K.W., Weaver, P.A. and Hutchinson, J.C. (1993), “Hotel selection factors as they relateto business travel situations”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 42-48.


493

Ma, Q., Pearson, J.M. and Tadisina, S. (2005), “An exploratory study into factors of serviceproviders”, Information & Management, Vol. 42, pp. 1067-1080.

Malhotra, N.K., Ulgado, F.M., Agarwal, J., Shainesh, G. and Wu, L. (2005), “Dimensions of servicequality in developed and developing economies: multi country cross-culturalcomparisons”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 256-278.

Mei, A.W.O., Dean, A.M. and White, C.J. (1999), “Analysing service quality in the hospitalityindustry”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 136-143.

Millan, A. and Esteban, A. (2004), “Development of a multiple-item scale for measuring customersatisfaction in travel agencies services”, Tourism Management, Vol. 25, pp. 533-546.

Mohsin, A. and Lockyer, T. (2010), “Customer perceptions of service quality in luxury hotels inNew Delphi, India: an exploratory study”, International Journal of ContemporaryHospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 160-173.

Nadiri, H. and Hussain, K. (2005), “Perceptions of service quality in North Cyprus hotels”,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 469-480.

Nam, J., Ekinci, Y. and Whyatt, G. (2011), “Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumersatisfaction”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 1009-1030.

Narayan, B., Rajendran, C. and Sai, L.P. (2008), “Scales to measure and benchmark servicequality in tourism industry”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4,pp. 469-493.

Olorunniwo, F., Hsu, M.K. and Udo, G.J. (2006), “Service quality, customer satisfaction, andbehavioral intentions in the service factory”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1,pp. 59-72.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service qualityand its implications for future research”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50.

Phillips, W.J., Wolfe, K., Hodur, N. and Leistritz, F.L. (2011), “Tourist word of mouth and revisitintentions to rural tourism destinations: a case of North Dakota, USA”, InternationalJournal of Tourism Research, Vol. 14 No. 4.

Poolthong, Y. and Mandhachitara, R. (2009), “Customer expectations of CSR, perceived servicequality and brand effect in Thai retail banking”, International Journal of Bank Marketing,Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 408-427.

Poon, W. and Low, K.L. (2005), “Are travelers satisfied with Malaysian hotels?”, InternationalJournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 217-227.

Ramanathan, U. and Ramanathan, R. (2011), “Guests’ perceptions on factors influencingcustomer loyalty”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 23No. 1, pp. 7-25.

Redman, T. and Mathews, B.P. (1998), “Service quality and human resource management: areview and research agenda”, Personnel Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 57-77.

Reeves, C.A. and Bednar, D.A. (1994), “Defining quality: alternatives and implications”, TheAcademy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 419-445.

Rivers, M.J., Toh, R.S. and Alaoui, M. (1991), “Frequent-stayer programs: the demographic,behavioral, and attitudinal characteristics of hotel steady sleepers”, Journal of TravelResearch, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 41-45.

Salazar, A., Costa, J. and Rita, P. (2010), “A service quality evaluation scale for the hospitalitysector: dimensions, attributes and behavioral intention”, Worldwide Hospitality andTourism Themes, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 383-397.

Sarı, C., Oban, R. and Erdogan, A. (2011), “Ornitho-Tourism and Antalya”, Procedia Social andBehavioral Sciences, Vol. 19, pp. 165-172.

IJCHM26,3

494

Stewart, H., Hope, C. and Muhlemann, A. (1998), “Professional service quality: a step beyondother services?”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 209-222.

Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Kamalanabhan, T.J. (2001), “Customer perceptions ofservice quality: a critique”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 111-124.

Tribe, J. and Snaith, T. (1998), “From SERVQUAL to HOLSAT: holiday satisfaction in Varadero,Cuba”, Tourism Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 25-34.

Tsiotsou, R. (2006), “The role of perceived product quality and overall satisfaction on purchaseintentions”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 207-217.

Turkish National Statistics (2011), Arriving Foreigners 2011, available at: www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTabloArama.do, (accessed 5 May 2010).

Vinagre, M.H. and Neves, J. (2008), “The influence of service quality and patients’ emotions onsatisfaction”, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 21 No. 1,pp. 87-103.

Webster, C. and Hung, L. (1994), “Measuring service quality and promoting decentering”, TheTQM Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 50-55.

Weiermair, K. (2000), “Tourists’ perceptions toward and satisfaction with service quality in thecross-cultural service encounter: implications for hospitality and tourism management”,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 397-409.

Wilensky, L. and Buttle, F. (1988), “A multivariate analysis of hotel benefit bundles and choicetrade-offs”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 29-41.

Wilkins, H., Merrilees, B. and Herington, C. (2007), “Towards an understanding of total servicequality in hotels”, Hospitality Management, Vol. 26, pp. 840-853.

Woodside, A.G., Frey, L.L. and Daly, R.T. (1989), “Linking service quality, customer satisfaction,and behavioral intention”, Journal of Health Care Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 5-17.

Yang, Z. and Peterson, R.T. (2004), “Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: the roleof switching costs”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 799-822.

Yuksel, A. and Yuksel, F. (2001), “Comparative performance analysis: tourists’ perceptions ofTurkey relative to other tourist destinations”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 4,pp. 333-355.

Corresponding authorIbrahim Taylan Dortyol can be contacted at: [email protected]


495

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

How do international tourists perceive hotel quality an exploratory study of service quality in...

Marketing

Transcript of How do international tourists perceive hotel quality an exploratory study of service quality in...