Journal of Hospitality &

Tourism Research http://jht.sagepub.com/

Customer Satisfaction in the Hotel Industry: Meaning and Measurement

Jonathan D. Barsky
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 1992 16: 51
DOI: 10.1177/109634809201600105

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jht.sagepub.com/content/16/1/51

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education

Additional services and information for Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jht.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jht.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jht.sagepub.com/content/16/1/51.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Feb 1, 1992

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014
What is This?
 CUSTOME R SATISFACTION
IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY:
MEANING AND MEASUREMENT

Jonathan D. Barsky
University of Sari Francisco

ABSTRACT
Focusing on the hotel industry, this study builds a functional definition of
customer satisfaction and a practical approach to facilitate its measurement. Field
research conducted in the United States and Japan support these new approaches.
Contributions from the literature provide a theoretical basis for the development of
a customer satisfaction model. The variables of this model were converted into a
survey instrument (customer comment card) and tested at a large urban hotel. Key
Words: customer satisfaction, expectations, discomfirmafion, importance, guest
comment card.

INTRODUCTION
The guest surveys found in most hotels are used in a variety of ways. As a
consequence of these comment cards, managers may be given bonuses, employ-
ees may be rewarded or retrained, resources may be reallocated, mailing lists may
be developed, and guests are given an outlet for their opinions.
The guest surveys used in many hotels present imcomplete or inaccurate
information that cannot help hotel managers with decision making (see for example,
Lewis & Morris, 1987; Lewis & Pizam, 1981).The field research conducted for this
study has revealed the two most critical problems with using hotel customer
comment cards for decision making: (1)poorconstructvalidity(1hesurvey questions
are not based on any established concepts or theories, and do not measure what
they are intended to); and (2) poor statisticalvalidity (caused by the nonrandom self-
selection process used to identify survey participants).This article will address the
issue of construct validity.
No previous study has focused exclusivelyon the constructvalidity issues of the
guest comment card. Industry studies, however, have addressed statistical validity
issues, such as improving response rates by analyzing distribution methods and
changing the length of the survey form (see for example, Trice & Layman, 1984).
The purpose of the guest comment card is primarily to assess guest satisfaction
(Lewis & Piram, 1981)and to find out if the guest will return. (These two concepts
have never been shown to be empirically related.) The typical questions and

Q 1992THE COUNCL ON HOTEL, RESTAURAW AND INSTITUTIONAL EDUCATION

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY: MEANING AND MEASUREMENT

answers provided in hotel guest comment cards do not meet these primary
objectives. Typical objective ratings (e.g., Quality of food: Excellent..l 2 3 4..Poor)
only represent part of a customer's satisfaction or dissatisfactionand do not provide
sufficient data for informed decision-making by the hotel manager at the property
level or for strategic determination at the corporate level.
Developments in the study of customer satisfaction offer insight regarding the
construct validity errors commonly affecting hotel guest surveys. This article will
develop a practical definition of customer satisfaction and a simple method to
facilitate the measurement of customer satisfaction.A major thrust of this study is to
compare these new approaches with traditional industry practices of evaluating
customer satisfaction.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Customer Satisfaction Theory

The concept of customer satisfaction occupies a central position in business
thought and practice. The task of providing and maintaining customersatisfactionis
one of the most important challenges currentlyfacing business leaders,academics
and policy makers (Band, 1978; Bitner, 1990; Oliver & DeSarbo, 1988;
Parasuraman, et al, 1988). This concept, however, is relatively recent. During the
1970s American firms, for a variety of reasons, did not recognize customer
satisfaction as a problem. Leading market research actually supported the notion
that the United States was, "succeeding reasonably well in providing acceptable
levels of satisfactionto the buying public," and that, "consumersfind enjoyment and
satisfaction in their buying experiences...considerably more often than they find
difficulty and discontent"(Westbrook, et al., 1978).
A s a result, the U.S. population's strong demand for service and product
consumption in the last 20 years has been met primarily by technical product
innovations rather than by service improvements or other quality considerations
(Barsky, 1990). There is, however, strong evidence of a growing concern and
awareness of customer satisfaction. It has become a critical issue for many
American industries fighting to remain competitive. For example, the U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce's Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award now places more
weight on applicants' abilitiesto manage and develop customer relations (Fortune,
Aug. 13, '90, p.71).
The amount of research on and public attention to t h e issue of customer
satisfactionhas grown significantly since the early 1970s. The early 1970s marked
the emergence of customer satisfaction as a legitimate field of inquiry. Two studies
during this period established the foundation for subsequent research and experi-
mental application (Anderson, 1973; Olshavsky & Miller, 1972).
The two theories that have best explained customer satisfactionare both widely
accepted theories of consumer behavior. The disconfirmation paradigm and the
expectancy-valueconcept have each (separately)been closely linked to determin-
ing customer satisfaction. This study will draw components from each of these
approaches to develop a model of customer satisfaction for the hotel industry. It is
important to emphasize that neither of these theories addresses the relationship

52 V O L U M E 16 NUMBER 1 1992

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

 JONATHAN 0.BARSUY

between customer satisfactionand actual purchase behavior. These issues are

considered later in this article.

Disconfirmation Theory
Direct measures of satisfaction (for example, 'How satisfied are you with
product X?") wrongly assume that respondents know what gives them satisfaction
and that these can be linkeddirectlyto purchase behavior(Alpert,1971).Also, global
satisfaction measures, by themselves, do not offer any explanation for a single
observation.
The disconfirmation paradigm is widely accepted as a view of the process by
which consumers develop feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction(Cadotte, et al.,
1987). Customerscompare a new service experiencewith some standard that they
have developed. How well it stacks up against this measuring stick will determine
their belief about the service.
The first part of this process presumes that the consumer makes a purchase
decision based on expectations, attitudes, and intentions (Oliver, 1980). Later,
during or after consumption, a perception of the brand's performanceoccurs as the
consumer evaluates his or her experience (service performance).The process is
completed when a consumer compares the service performance with a
preexperiencestandard (Bearden & Teel, 1983;Cardozo, 1965; Day, 1977; Oliver,
1980) or expectation. Confirmation, satisfaction, or dissatisfaction will occur as a
result of this comparison, either matching, exceeding,or not meeting the standard.
The disconfirmation paradigm includes four components: expectations, per-
ceived performance, disconfirmation, and satisfaction. Expectations reflect a
preconsumption perception associated with the product or service. Performance is
the consumer's perception of aservice experience.Disconfirmation will result if there
is a discrepancy (positive. negative) between performance and expectations. If.
however, performance is perceived as meeting expectations, confirmation will
result. Therefore, according to the disconfirmationparadigm, overall satisfaction is
determined by combining the satisfaction outcomes for the various attributesof the
service.
The first three components are generallyaccepted as affecting satisfaction, but
whether these lead directly to satisfaction or dissatisfaction has not been estab-
lished. There is also no consensus regarding how these variables interrelate. For
example, a high quality service may result in aconsumets dissatisfactionif his or her
expectationswere too high (for example, overstated advertising claims). Investiga-
tions focusing on the relative importance of expectations and product performance
as determinants of satisfaction offer conflicting results (Churchill & Surprenant,
1982).
Another shortcoming of the disconfirmation paradigm is that it assumes that
services can be categorized into schematic criteria. Although certain elements of
product classification frameworksdo apply to services (Lovelock, 1991), the contri-
bution of the diconfirmation paradigm to this particular study will be its (modified)
three-point framework:
1. Expectations or other prepurchase standards (if any) brought to the con-

Hospitality Research Journal 53

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN M E HOTEL INDUSTRY: MEANING AND MEASUREMENT

sumption experience;
2. Factors affecting perceived consumption; and
3.Confirmation (or disconfirmation)resulting (duringlafterconsumption)from
(1) and (2).
Accommodations are also made for the individualized and experiential nature
of the hotel productlservice.

Consumer Belief Standards

In the majority of studies using the disconfirmation paradigm, expectationsare
considered the standard that consumersuse to judge their experiencewith a product
or service. This preexperience comparison standard may take various forms, such
as equitable performance, ideal product or service performance, experienced-
based norms, relationship quality, and price.

Equitable Performance
Borrowing from equity theory (Adams, 1963)the equitable performance stan-
dard is formed by the consumer based on the individual's costs or investments and
anticipated rewards. This standard represents the performance level the customer
should receive, or deselve, given a perceived set of costs (Liechy & Churchill, 1979;
Miller, 1979;Woodruff, et al., 1983).

Ideal Product or Service Performance

Derived from the ideal point models of consumer preference and choice
(Holbrook, 1984),this approach represents a consumer's ideal level of product or
service performance (Liechy & Churchill, 1979;Miller, 1979). .

Experience-based Norms
Experience-basednorms account for a desired level of performanceas well as
possible performance levels based on experience with competitors (Cadotte,et al.,
1987).Related constructs,such as "productbased norms" and "best brand norms,"
also attempt to explain the standards of comparison used by consumers. This
process, however, has been primarily associated with tangible products and may
therefore differ when applied to a productlservice mix.

Relationship Quality
Research regardingthe relationshipbetweenthe salespersonand the customer
(Crosby,et al., 1990)suggest that relationship quality leads to satisfaction and will
significantly affect sales. This may be extended to include not only any employee
representing an organization but also to the impact that media and word of mouth
have on the relationship they create with customers.

Price

54 V O L U M E 16 NUhlBER 1 1992

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

 JONATHAND.6ARSKY

Price is often an indicator of quality and can affect people’s perceptions and
behavior. Research has shown that consumers often perceive higher priced items
as having higher quality. Price will play a larger role in determining quality when a
customer is less familiar with a product or service. Retailers have been known to
increase sales frequency and revenue by increasing the price of items (Cialdini,
1990). New or complex services may also benefitfromthis product-based phenom-
ena.

Development of Expectations
It is apparent, therefore, that expectations may be derived from a variety of
sources. It is also likely that consumers use differentsources and process informa-
tion in a variety of ways.
Although the disconfirmation paradigm is generally accepted as the construct
that, thus far, best explains customer satisfaction. the studies done on the
disconfirmation theory raise more questions than they answer. For example, how
does the disconfirmation process actually occur? Do people use other sources or
types of information in developing expectations? What are the most common
sources? Which are the most important? Do sources vary by product or service, by
situation, by consumer? How are these sources selected, and how can business
operations affect the selection process? Can the frustration from a delayed flight
carry over and affect guest expectationsof their hotel?
Other questions suggested but not addressed by the disconfirmationtheory
relate to perceived performance. Because it is not possible to distinguish confirming
and discontiming perception from perceptions, prior experience or lack of expen-
ence may vary among customers.The expectationframeworksdescribed above are
more appropriate for servicesthat are close substitutes. Expectationsabout new or
different services are likely to be revised concurrent to consumption.
What other factors specific to the consumption situation affect a customer’s
perception of product or service performance? One researcher has suggested that
marketing efforts may affect customer perception of service performance (Bitner,
1990). 0ther“personal”variables may also substantiallyaffect a customer‘sproduct
or service experience.
Extensive research could address these complicated issues. However,for the
purpose of this study and its practical application, the task of interpreting the
disconfirmation paradigm will be left up to the consumer. This will provide only one
component of the customer satisfaction model and does not, by itself, imply
satisfaction. Customers will be asked how well their expectations were met. Their
responsewill represent the guests’confirmingordisconfirmingthe product orservice
performance with any preexperience standards they may have. The response will,
if necessary, require guests to combine preexperience standards (expectations)
with their perception of product or service performance (quality, etc.). If for any
reason guests have not formulated any preexperience standards or expectations,
their responses will simply reflect their perception of the product or service experi-
ence.

Hospitality Research Journal 55

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN M E HOTEL INDUSTRY:MEANING AND MEASUREMENT

Figure 1
The “EM” Component of the Customer Satisfaction Model
Factors affecting perceived performance
(situation,marketing mix, attributions,purchase level of productlservice.
and other personalhndividualdifferences)

Perceived performance

Disconfirmation (EM)

Expectations

Other pre-experience standards

(ideal levels, equity, prior experience with same or similar productl
services and other personaMndividual differences)

If expectations affected their overall satisfaction (even if expectations were

affected concurrent to consumption) then this impact will be reflected in the
confirmatioddisconfirmationoutcome. Each guest may define expectations differ-
ently and may tend to be, for example, more optimistic (preferred case) or more
pragmatic (anticipatingreality). These variations are captured within the confirma-
tion process and will affect overall guest satisfaction.
While avoiding most of the difficult and somewhat esoteric research questions
presented above, this approach addresses a very practical research problem. We
may never fully understand the confirmation/disconfirmation process, but we need
to know the result of it. The potential disadvantages of this approach, however, will
also be considered later in this article.
The term,”EM“willbe used to represent howwell acustomer‘sfxpectationsare
Met, and is only the first of a four-part.customersatisfactionmodel proposed in this
study. The factors contributing to EM are presented in Figure 1.
The following are the operational assumptions of the EM variable and are
supported by the literature (Oliver, 1980):
Under high expectations, low performance will result in moderately low EM
ratings due to disappointment,while high performancewill result in moder-
. ately high EM ratings due to confirmation.
Under low expectations, low performance will result in very low EM ratings,
while high performance will result in very high EM ratings due to a surprise
effect.
If expectations match performance at any level, confirmation will result and
EM will represent the value of the expectatiodperformancelevel.

56 V O L U h l E 16 NUhIBER 1 6 1992

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

 JONATHAN D. BARSKY

However, the strength of a customer's belief that a service exhibits a certain

attribute. does not in any way indicate an overall attitude toward the entire service.
For example, guests arriving at a hotel in a taxi may notice the large number of
parking spaces provided by the hotel. Based on their previous experience with other
similar hotels, the price and location of this hotel, and so on, they are impressed by
this hotel's parking facility. Their expectations of this hotel's parking facility are
positively confirmed. This belief, however, may have no impact on overall satisfac-
tion with their hotel experience. Other aspects of this hotel that will contributeto their
satisfaction need to be identified. The evaluation and relative contribution of these
aspects are also likely to influence the customers' satisfaction with their hotel
experience. Exposing a large parking facility to a guest who does not need parking
may also affect overall satisfaction (for example,"Am I paying for other guests'
parking?")
The disconfinnation paradigm measures a customer's belief that a product or
service exhibits certain attributes. It does not indicatethe role these attributes have
in determining overall satisfaction. Other aspects of the customer satisfaction
process (that is, what else, if anything, affects consumer satisfaction) will be
considered next.

Expectancy-Value Theory
According to expectancy theory (Tolman, 1932).customers often make some
estimationabout aproduct,its benefits, and the likely outcomesof using the product.
According to Tolman, people will learn to perform (or increase their probability of
performing) behaviorthat they expect to lead to positive outcomes. Social psycholo-
gists have stressed looking at two dimensions of attitudestoward objects (Fishbein,
1967; Riteer, 1966),and their work has influenced studies in marketing research
(Bass & Talarzyk, 1969;Hansen, 1969).Common to all these is that overall attitude
(satisfactionldissatisfaction)is a function of beliefsabout an object's attributes (that
is, the belief that a product or service possesses a particularattribute;see Figure l ) ,
and the strength of these beliefs (that is, the relative importance of each attribute to
the customer's overall satisfactionwith the product or service).
The impact of attribute importance on consumer decision making is widely
recognized (Heeler, et al., 1979; MacKenzie, 1986; Quelch, 1978).The notion that
a consumer will weigh various attributes associated with a product or service is
based on expectancy theory.
Expectancytheory assumes that people act on the basis ofwhat they value and
what they anticipatewill result from their actions. Rational behavior is also presumed
as a result of acquiring and assimilatingmost product information prior to a decision.
Because of the relatively unknown and experientialnature of services, this may be
more viable for tangible products, such a s toothpaste, than for the combination of
products and services associated with a hotel room purchase.
The first systematicversion of expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) included the
followingvariables: action, outcome, expectancy instrumentality,and valence. The
model predicts a person's motivation to perform an action by assigning subjective
probabilitiesthat various outcomes will occur.

Hospitality Research Journal 57

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY MEANING AND MEASUREMENT

Probably the most well known and widely accepted expectancy model is
Fishbein's expectancy-valueformulation (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975):
A = (b)(e) (11
where A is the attitude toward an object, action, or event; b is the belief about the
object's attributes or about the act's consequences; and e is the evaluation of the
attributesorconsequences.Thus,accordingto this model (Equation I ) , a customers'
attitudestoward a product or service can be estimated by multiplying their evaluation
of each attributeassociated with the product or serviceby their subjectiveprobability
that the product or service has that attribute, and then summing the products for the
total set of beliefs. Stated differently, a person's attitude is related to the strength of
his or her beliefs that link the object to various attributes, multiplied by his or her
evaluation of the attributes. The notion of importance is captured within the belief
variable. Attitudes are therefore predictable from the s u m of the resulting products
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).Following Fishbein and Ajzen, marketing studies focusing
on the variety of attributesassociated with consumer purchasing are all based on the
expectancy attitude model.
Hogarth (1980) presented a similardecision making model and suggested that
people implicitlyvalue each alternative being considered by summing the contribu-
tions of each dimension, weighted by their importance:
Value of alternative = Sum of (Relativeweight x Value) (2)
of all dimensions
This model assumes that people will select the alternative with the highest
value. Hogarth's model has demonstrated strong predictive abilities in a variety of
business situations,including production-scheduling,college admission decisions,
and judgments by auditors (Dawes & Corrigan, 1974; Meehl, 1955).
Originally, weighted expectancy formulaswere meant to predict effort and may
be more applicable (in general) to decisions regarding choices as opposed to the
formation of postconsumption attitudes. The contribution of the expectancy theory
for the development of a customer satisfaction model will, therefore, be limited
primarilyto its focuson attribute utility (value).Theassessmentof attributeutility may
occur by a guest at any time (pre-through postconsumption)and may be revised
concurrentto consumption.Forthe current model, a postconsumption measurement
will be obtained and will identify a net-value utility (representingthe combined effect
of any variations occurring throughout the consumption experience).
The equation that most closely resembles the model presented in this study
was recently introduced by Carmen (1990).
Q = li (Pi - Ei) (3)
Here, Q is overall quality; I is the importanceof serviceattribute i; the sum is over
the number of serviceattributes;Pis perception;and E is expectation.This definition
ofquality includesall the significantcomponentssupported in the customersatisfac-
tionliteratureandresemblestheFishbeinandHogarthattitudemodels.Althoughthis
formula is an expression of quality, Carmen asserts that this labeling (of the
dependent variable) was imposed on the equation and suggests that other names
may be more appropriate. He further maintains that the difficulty of measuring

58 V O L U M E 16 H N U M B E R I W 1992

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

 JONATHAN D. BARSKY

expectations (E) and the errors associated with subtracting these values from
perceptions (P) are a major problem.
The current study will label Carmen's "Quality"term (Q) "CustomerSatisfaction"
(CS). The EM construct (Figure 1) addresses Carmen's measurement problem by
combining expectations (E) with perceptions (P) in a single customer observation,
"Expectations Mer (EM). Thus, Carmen's model of quality serves as a stepping
stone to the customer satisfactionmodel by using the s a m e independent variables
and with the same arithmeticrelationshipsas previous research and common sense
suggest. The contribution of expectancy theory will, therefore, be limited to its
emphasis on attribute utility (importance) and its mathematical association of
importance with perception and expectation.

Rational Choice Theory

The interpretations of the disconfirmation paradigm and expectancy value
theory and their roles in the proposed model of customer satisfaction are supported
by rational choice theory (Little, 1991). This theory is based on the premise that
individual behavior is goal-directedand calculating. Individuals are assumed to have
aset of interestsagainst which they evaluate alternativecoursesofaction (orcurrent
experiences as in the disconfirmation paradigm).An individual's action is explained
by his or her background beliefs and goals and by showing how the action chosen
is a reasonable way to achieve those goals given those beliefs. Rational choice
theory thus provides support for the mode of reasoning suggested by the proposed
model.
The advantage of this approach is explanatory parsimony and power. The
safety of an airline is considered more importantthan the quality of food it serves, no
matter how delicious it may be.
What does the term 'importance" mean? The concept of importancehas been
equated with satisfaction (Rosenberg, 1956). Other words, such as prominence
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), intensity (Katz, 1960), and activelpassive (Organ &
Bateman, 1991), have been used and described in terms comparable to 'impor-
tance." Though not replacing satisfaction,the role of importance has, more recently,
been used in a variety of contexts in psychology (see for example, Anderson,l970)
and marketing research (see for example, Mikes & Hulin, 1968).
Most frequently, the term "importance"has been used to refer to the perceived
importance of an attribute and its effect on product quality (Carmen, 1990),product
satisfaction (Ryan & Holbrook, 1982) and job satisfaction (Mikes & Hulin, 1968).
Each of these applicationsassociate the dimension of importance to the polarity of
the attribute's evaluation. Highly positive or highly negative attributes will likely be
perceived as important.According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975),"attributesthat are
importantare typically evaluated more positively or negatively than attributesthat are
unimportant." Importance is, therefore, related to the polarity of evaluation and may
be indistinguishablefrom the evduationof that attribute. Expectancy-valuetheorists
generally agree that importance is somehow captured within the formula: expect-
ancy multiplied by evaluation (Cohen, et al., 1972).This is probably why a separate
evaluation of importance has not been used more often in marketing research

Hospitality Research Journal 59

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY: MEANING AND MEASUREMENT

applications. This study will demonstrate the theoretical and practical value of
including importance as a separate measure in customer surveys.
Traditional methods of customer feedbackdonot consider attributeimportance.
Researchers have assumed that the weights attached to product or service at-
tributes are based on deep-seated cultural norms and values. Thus, the issue of
importance has been treated as a stable, predetermined, exogenous variable in
most consumer research. Most survey instruments, therefore, consider the impor-
tance levels among all attributes to be equal. Only open-endedquestions, or space
for "comments,"are able to capture any variation in importance among responses.
These, however, are subjective responses and introduce additional questions of
measurement error.
Borrowing from the expectancy-valueequation (Equation 3),a separate term,
'I" representing "importance" will serve as the intervening variable between
disconfirmation and satisfactionin the customer satisfactionmodel to be used in this
study.
This term-related to Fishbein's "evaluation"and Hogarth's "value"terms and
the same as Carmen's expressionof importance-will express the importancelevel
of individual product or serviceattributes. This variable will also be used to compare
importance levels among all salient attributes. The following are the operational
assumptions of the 'I" variable:
* Under conditions of very high or very low evaluation by consumers, higher
importance ratings will result; and under less extreme conditions, lower
importance ratings will be obtained.
*Thevariation in importance ratings will reflect the relative value of the various
service attributes to consumers. Lower importance ratings are likely to play
less of a role in affecting overall satisfaction; whereas higher importance
ratings are likely to play a more critical role in determining customer
satisfaction.
Figure 2
The Customer Satisfaction Model
Factors affecting perceived performance
(situation, marketing mix, attributions,purchase level of productlservice
and other personallindividualdifferences)
Perceived Performance
Customer
Disconfirmation x Importance, e = Satisfaction
(EM) (1) (CS)
Expectations
Other pre-experience standards
(ideal levels, equity, prior experience with same or similar products/
services,and other personal individual differences)
e = error term

60 VOLUhZE 16 NUhZBER 1 1992

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

 JONATHAN D. BARSKY

The purpose of measuring attribute importance"I" is to identify which attributes

(orcombinations)have more of an effect and which attributes(or combinations)have
less of an effect on customer satisfaction. The identification of these determinant
attributes (alone)may offer valuableinformation to managers and may play a critical
role in assessing a customer's overall satisfaction with a product or service.

Proposed Customer Satisfaction Model

Based on Hogarth'sdecision model, the product of each dimension'svalue and
its correspondingweight (value multiplied by importance) are summed to arrive at
an overall value. Fishbein's expectancy-value model asserts that, "Attitudes are
predictable from the s u m of the resulting products" (see Equation 1). And finally,
Carmen's formulation of quality also uses a multiplicative relationship between
importance and the difference between expectation and perception. Transposing
these relationships, a weighted linear model is introduced in Equation 4 .
CS = (EM x I), e (4)
where CS is Customer Satisfaction, EM is Expectations Met, I is Importance,
and e is error term.
In this equation, customer satisfactionis determinedby expectationsand other
preexperience standards, product or service performance and the factors affecting
its perception,disconfirmation,and importance.These determinantcomponents of
customer satisfaction are included in Figure 2.
Listed below is a suggested definition of customer satisfactionand the assump-
tions of the proposed model:
A person's satisfaction level regarding a product or service experience is
related to the strength of his or her beliefs linking the object to various
attributes (I) multiplied by how well these attributes meet their expectations
(EM). Satisfactionis predictable from the sum of the resulting products.
This model does not require a prepurchase evaluation. If no expectations or
other preexperiencestandards are present, then perceived performance(P)
multiplied by importance (I) equals customer satisfaction (CS).
*Theassessmentof attributeimportance mayoccurforaguest at any time (pre-
through postconsumption)and may be revised concurrent to consumption.
The attitude resulting from this process may affect an individual's future
satisfaction experiences. .
Therefore, because it is possible to obtain measures of beliefs (expectations
.met)and attribute evaluations (importance)it is possible to provide a direct
test of the effects of any manipulation on these mediating variables.
Furthermore,withan exogenousmeasurecomparabletosatisfaction,it should
be possible to test the predictive accuracy of the customer satisfaction
model.

Survey
The survey form developed for this study reflects previous academic research
and the practices and preferences of the US. and Japanese hotel industries. It is
based on 20 interviewswith general managers ofleading US. and Japanese hotels

Hospitality Research Journal 61

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY: MEANING AND MEASUREMENT

and on a collection and review of approximately450 comment cards gathered from

around t h e world. The various components of the questionnaire serve to
operationalizethe customer satisfaction model developed above and were refined
by thorough pretesting procedures.
The pretest for the questionnaire was conducted in numerous classes at the
University of San Francisco and representsthe participation of 92students.The test
was designed to measure students' most recent hotel experiences. The feedback
obtained from the executive interviewsand this classroom test provided the pretest
for this study.
The new guest comment card was approved by a large hotel in San Francisco
to replace its comment card during the time periods required for the study. The
purpose of this survey was to collect a high-quality sample to test the customer
satisfactionmodel developed above. The goal was to obtain 100completedsurveys
from the sample population. The sample was obtained by randomlyselectingguests
across market segments, time periods, and with regard to other important guest
dimensions.A 100% return rate was achieved (n=lOO).Thissuperiorreturn rate was
accomplished through the use of a variety of recruitment techniques. The proce-
dures, incentives, and s o on, employed for this survey are discussed elsewhere
(Barsky, 1992b).

Customer Satisfaction Scores

Customersatisfactionscores are the result of multiplying the responses on the
"ExpectationsMet"side of the survey with the corresponding"Importance"measure
marked on the right side of the survey (see Equation 1). However, because of the
nature of this relationship,a special approach had to be developed to capture the full
range of data represented by these EM and I terms. Considerthe following example:
Guest A was treated very well by the hotel's employees but selected the hotel
primarily for its proximity to a business client. Guest B was a foreign traveler who
received poor service from several employees, thus affecting this tourist's overall
vacation experience. One question from each of the two guests' comment cards

Table 1
Customer Satisfaction Scores (CS)
Standard

Mean Deviation Kurtosis Skewedness

Employee attitude 3.74 2.64 1.94 -1.155

Location 3.59 2.63 0.37 -0.794
Room 3.26 2.54 0.43 -0.574
Price 3.1 1 2.03 -1.47 0.625
Facilities 2.95 2.84 0.77 -0.784
Reception 2.66 3.22 0.1 1 -0.816
Services 2.61 2.72 0.60 -0.547
Parking 2.46 2.60 0.57 -0.368
Food & Beverage 2.06 2.63 0.01 -0.061

62 V O L U M E 16 D N U h f B E R 1 W 1992

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

 JONATHAN D. BARSKY

revealed the following...

Did we meet your expectations?
Not
Below Above Important Important
GUEST A: 1234 Employee Attitude 12 3 4
GUEST B: 1234 Employee Attitude 1 2 33
Simply multiplying the number on the left (“ExpectationsMet“)with the number
on the right (“Importance”)would provide equal scores of ”4.” Surely, these
customerswere not safisfiedequallyasthese numbers would indicate. To calculate
customer satisfaction scores that would accurately reflect this information, every
combinationof EM and I scores was assigned a value ranging from -6 to +6. These
customer satisfactionscores were computedfor each of the nine attributesincluded
on the survey. The sum of these provide an overall CS score for each guest that
responded to the survey. CS mean scores were computed by population and for
each attribute (Table 1). Standard deviations for the survey items and kurtosis/
skewedness of the CS scores were also calculated.

Testing the Model

The customer satisfaction scores formed a nonparametricdistribution.These
data were transformedinto ordinal data by establishingthree categories of customer
satisfaction scores: highly satisfied, satisfied, and not satisfied. The objective was
to compare the variable RETURN (thatis, responses from the question,‘Would you
return to this hotel?”)with the three levels of customersatisfactionscores. As a result
of this objective,the nonparametricdistribution,and the data transformation,the chi-
squared evaluation was selected as an appropriate testing procedure.
The hypotheses:
HO: Guests who indicated their willingness to return have lower customer
satisfaction scores than guests who are not willing to return.
H1: Guests who indicated their willingness to return have higher customer
satisfaction scores than guests who are not willing to return.
The number in each cell represents how many guests answered with both
corresponding dimensions. The responses from the 100 returned surveys were
analyzed using the chi-squared analysis. The results were:
Pearson Chi-square = 7.850
Degrees of Freedom = 2
Probability = .020
Significant at .05 level.
The low number of guests (4) responding that they would not return to this hotel
introduces a problem of statisticalsignificance. Therefore,the chi-squared test was
duplicated using a larger sample. This larger sample (N=284)includes the 100
returned surveys as discussed above as well as 184 surveys obtained from the
hotel’scurrent distribution and return procedures.

Hospitality Research Journal 63

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY: MEANING AND MEASUREMENT

The results from this second, chi-squared analysis were:

Pearson Chi-square = 24.210
Degrees of Freedom = 2
Probability = .OOO
Significant at .01 level.
The null hypothesis was rejected at the .01 level of significance.
Acritical measureofthenomologicalvalidityof thiscustomersatisfactionsurvey
is the result of comparingthe willingnessof customers to returnwith their satisfaction
levels. Those guests that the customer satisfaction model identified as satisfied or
highly satisfied also indicated their willingness to return. Therefore, the measure of
customer satisfaction used in this study correlates in the theoretically predicted way
with a measure of a different but related construct (Tull & Hawkins, 1990). Testing
CS scores against stated intention to return may, however, contribute to common
method variance and thus limit the utility of this measurement.
The sample was tested for interscale reliability (measuring independence
among the nine attributes; see Tables 2, 3, and 4) and for interitem reliability
(measuring the construct reliability of the whole survey instrument; see Table 5).
The data in Tables 2,3,and 4 focus on the separate aspects of the customer
satisfaction construct (EM, I, and CS). Each of the 18 attribute evaluations in the
"Neat"samp1e is comparedwith every other attributeevaluationto assess the extent

Table 2
lnterscale Reliability: Matrix of Spearman Correlation Coefficients
EM :EM

E X P E C T A T I O N S M E T
LOC PARK RECEP ROOM SERVS F&B E.ATT FACIL PRICE

E LOC 1.000
X
P PARK .095 1.000
E
C RECEP .270 .250 1.000
T
A ROOM .283 .067 .118 1.000
T
I SERVS .356 .286 .536 .386 1.000
0
N F&B .321 .115 .433 .217 .390 1.000
S
E.AT .263 -133 .455 .126 .448 .381 1 .OOO
M
E FACIL .396 .217 .245 .448 .416 .362 .279 1 .OOO
T
PRICE .386 .239 226 .328 .247 .289 .290 .324 1 .OD0
Note: N = 100

64 V O L U M E 16 NUMBER 1 1992

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

 JONATHAN 0. BARSKY

Table 3
lnterscale Reliability: Matrix of Spearman Correlation Coefficients
I:I

I M P O R T A N C E
LOC PARK RECEP ROOM SERVS F&B E.AlT FAClL PRICE

I
LOC 1.000
M
PARK -.014 1.000
P
RECEP .195 -.011 1.000
0
ROOM -157 .024 317 1.000
R
SERVS .200 .123 A83 .360 1.000
T
F&B .115 .060 .282 .074 .376 1.000
A
E.ATT .121 .098 325 .308 .465 .214 1 .OOO
N
FACIL .136 .062 .340 319 538 .271 .523 1 .OOO
C
PRICE .238 ,258 .140 .197 .352 .119 .220 .348 1 .OOO
E

Note: N = 100

Table 4
lnterscale Reliability: Matrix of Spearman Correlation Coefficients
EM :I

E X P E C T A T I O N S M E T
LOC PARK RECEP ROOM SERVS F&B E.AlT FAClL PRICE

I
LOC -463 -.lo0 .070 -108 .275 .129 .lo7 .193 .070
M
PARK -.lo7 .224 -.033 .024 .113 .On .033 -.126 .037
P
RECEP .120 .050 .210 .241 355 .191 .130 321 .017
0
ROOM -118 -.133 -.049 .296 .159 -079 .092 -207 -.005
R
SERVS .148 -.008 .024 .183 .294 .232 .298 .262 .130
T
F&B -162 -080 .221 -236 .289 -291 .263 .208 .114
A
E.ATT .005 -.194 .081 .076 .198 .083 .440 .188 -.070
N
FACIL .145 -.075 .059 .265 .235 .123 .204 .385 -.002
C
PRICE .lo8 .OOO .092 .021 .I 70 .061 .083 .096 .238
E

Note: N = 100

Hospitality Research Journal 65

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY: MEANING AND MEASUREMENT

of correlation occurring between these measures. For example, did the EM scores
for "Parking" and "Location" measure the same thing? Were these numbers so
similar on each survey that, perhaps, these two attributes were taken to mean the
s a m e thing? Their correlationcoefficientidentifiesthe strength of this relationshipfor
each of the 100 surveys in the "Neat" sample. This particular comparison demon-
strated the lowest correlation (.095;see Table 2).
The highest correlation among the EM scores was between 'Services" and
'Reception" (.536),indicating similar responses for these attributes and quite likely
some overlap in their perception. "Services"was also part of the highest correlation
comparison among the I scores. "Facilities" and 'Services" showed the most
correlation (538)and were also closely ranked in numerical mean scores. While not
statistically significant, this correlation suggests that these two areas performed
similarly and, most likely, that their meanings were also confused. The words
describing these functions should be changed to distinguish and clarify their
meanings.
Table 4 shows the correlationsbetween the EM and I scores and is particularly
importantbecause it reveals how differentthese measures are; thus, it displays low
correlations.
Showing the most similarity were the "Location" scores for EM and 1. This
correlation is smaller than the largest coefficients in Tables 2 and 3. and further
represents the consistently high marks given to this hotel for its location.
The EM scores for "Parking" and the I scores for "Employee Attitude" showed
the least correlation (-.194; Table 4) between these two measures. This demon-
strates the contrast between the considerable importance placed on employee
attitudes and the low evaluations of the available parking.
The low numbers found throughoutthese three tables (especiallynumbers less
than .2) indicate low correlationsbetween the attribute measurements and therefore
support the reliability of the survey data as obtained in this study. Each of the 18
attributes in this survey instrument display independence and t h u s support the
operationalizationof the customer satisfaction model and the conclusions (below).
The other reliability test performed evaluates the overall consistency of the
observations in terms of the construct under consideration. In other words, how
reliablewasthissurveyinmeasuring customersatisfaction?Table5summarizesthe
results of this internal consistency test.
The test for interitem reliability was conducted by separating the odd and even
observationsfrom all the data. These data include the 18 attribute evaluationsand
the answers to the other survey questions (see Figure 2). The high correlation
coefficients (between .8 and 1.0) indicate a strong relationship between the survey
data obtained and the overall measurement of the customer satisfaction construct.
Each of the 18attributes in this survey instrumentdisplay strong independence
and thus support the operationalizationof the customer satisfactionmodel. A strong
relationshipwas also found to exist between thesurvey data obtained and the overall
measurement of the customer satisfaction construct.

66 VOLUhiE 16 I N U M B E R 1 m 1992

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

 JONATHAN D. BARSKY

Table 5
lnteritem Reliability: Split Half Correlation

TEST SCORE STATISTICS

Odd Even

Mean 121.206 91.849

Standard Deviation 33.184 24.585
Standard Error 4.602 3.409
Maximum 179.571 128.088
Minimum -23.106 9.013
N cases 53 53

INTERNAL CONSISTENCY DATA

Split-Half Correlation .a77

Spearman-Brown Coefficient -934
Guttman (Rulon) Coefficient .912

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The customer satisfaction construct developed and implemented in this study
is composed of three different subdimensions relating to a hotel’s products and
services: expectations, perceived performance, and importance. This construct is
derived from the disconfirmation paradigm and expectancy-value theories. Although
the disconfirmation paradigm is generally accepted as the construct that best
explains customer satisfaction (Cadotte, et al., 1987), the impact of attribute
importance on consumer decision making is also widely recognized (Heeler, et al.,
1979).
Elements from each of these research traditions were combined to form the
customer satisfaction model presented in this study.The independent variables from
Carmen’s (1990) quality model a r e the s a m e as those representing the independent
variables in the current model. This also supports the inclusion of these specific
terms as well as their relationship with each other. The current model yields a
customer satisfaction score as a result of the interaction of these terms. This model
was positively evaluated through the results of empirical testing at a large urban
hotel. The customer satisfaction score (CS) was positively assessed for issues of
reliability and validity.
The data generated by this study were analyzed by market segment, compiled
in various formats, and submitted to the hotel’s management for review (Barsky,
1992b).The hotel’s response focused on the attributes related to customer satisfac-
tion and with the associated immediate value for operational and marketing decision
making.

Hospitality Research Journal 67

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN M E HOTEL INDUSTRY: MEANING AND MEASUREMENT

DIRECTIONS FOR CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RESEARCH

This study establishes the foundation for using the survey instrument (the
customer satisfaction report), the customer satisfactionmodel, and components of
the research design for other academic research and trial business applications.
These approaches would be strengthened by proving a direct link between
satisfaction and purchase. This model does not conclude that satisfactionis directly
tied to purchase itself. The chi-squared analysis indicatedthat guest satisfactionis
tied to repeat purchase intention, but not to actual purchase. Testing CS Scores
against stated intention to return may also involve other previously mentioned
limitations.
The relationship between satisfaction and purchase is critical to the value of all
satisfaction research. One way to evaluate this would be to track guests' responses
with their repeat purchase behavior. The analysis would focus on what impact
satisfaction levels have on repeat purchase. Establishing a significant connection
with repeat purchase would add support for continuing to investigate the determi-
nants of satisfaction itself.
This direction of research could also investigate the effect of time on a hotel's
customers.A longitudinal study trackingchanges in repeat customers' expectations,
attribute importance ratings, satisfaction levels, and so forth, may provide critical
information relating to repeat purchase behavior. For example, expectations may
change over time independentof the product or service offered.This research could
address the notion of "managing expectations."
One of the assumptions of the customer satisfactionmodel used in this study
was that "Importance" and "Expectations Met" contribute equally to customer
satisfaction. The multiplicative association and equal weighing between these two
variables used in this model is based on the work of Fishbein and Hogarth. The
current survey results support this association and treatment of the variables. (The
mean score totals for "EM" and "I" were approximately equal: 3.30 and 3.32,
respectively).The relative effect of these two variables on customer satisfaction,
however, has not been sufficiently investigated. Additional empirical research
should consider a wide range of attributes and customers to evaluate the relative
weights of these variables and their long-term effect on customer satisfaction.
Valuable research effortscould find the most efficient process for identifying the
salient attributes affecting customer satisfaction. Surveys and other customer
investigationscould then direct attention to these critical dimensions. The current
study was limited because the survey instrument may not have been comprehensive
in its coverage of factors affecting customer satisfaction.The presentation, format,
and expression of these attributes also needs to be investigated further in order to
maximize the content validity of the survey. Perhaps future research to refine the
scale may include a factor analytic model (based on the current model)that attaches
survey items to other factors, such as cleanliness, timeliness, information, decor,
and so on.
One area needing further study is the role of the survey analysis in hotel
management decision making. This information may be fairly easy to apply to
departmental and even strategic issues, such as marketing, but it may also be

68 V O L U M E 16 H N U M B E R 1 1992

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

 JONATHAN D. BARSKY

appropriatefor avariety of operations management and resourceallocation models.

If the high-quality sample obtained for this study was repeated periodically, the
relative variations in customer satisfaction scores may provide guidelines for
resource distribution. In this way the static measuresobtained may be combined to
form a forecasting approach. Consider the following simple example: if the customer
satisfaction scores for "Room" (one of the attributes determining Willingness to
Return") declined by 30% over a three-monthperiod (with the other attribute scores
remaining constant), additional resources or management attention of like magni-
tude should be considered. Similarly, calculations derived from previous budgets
and associated customer satisfaction scores could be useful for a "what if" analysis
to determine resource allocation.
The responses to the open-ended questions regarding why the hotel was
selected and suggestions for service improvements can serve as the basis for
developing new (more specific) questions for a future survey. These specialized
surveys can expand on attribute evaluations causing management concern, or
specialized surveys may be conducted on all the functional areas of the hotel.
Alternatively, surveys focusing on those attributes that display the strongest interac-
tion with the customer satisfaction score may be the focus of this targeted survey
approach.
The anchor question in which guests were asked how likely they would be to
return may provide additional information if the responses were framed in a 1 to 4
Likert scale (1- Likely to return and 4- Not likely to return). Also, writing out, "How
importantare theseservicestoyou?"abovethe upperrightcolumnof thesurvey may
help to clarify this dimension of questioning.
The relativetiming of the componentsof the model were also not considered in
detail. For example, when does a guest deal with the questions relating to confirma-
tion or disconfirmation? Does the task of answering a survey question (sooner)
compared to considering an actual purchase decision (later) affect the guest's
response?
Another useful but difficult research task would be to find and survey those
guests whodid not return to this hotel and have instead,stayed at a competing hotel.
Their reasons for the change would provide extremely valuable information.

REFERENCES
Adams, S. J. (1963, October). Towards an understandingof inequity. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67,422-36.

Anderson, R. E. (1973, February). Consumer dissatisfaction: The effects of

disconfirmed expectancy on perceived product performance. Journal of
Marketing Research, 10.3844.

Alpert, M.I. (1 971). Identification of determinant attributes: A comparison of meth-

ods. Journal of Marketing Research, Vlll,l84-91.

Hospitality Research Journal 69

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY: MEANING AND MEASUREMENT

Band, W.A. (1978, October).The art of listening to customers. Sales and Marketing
Management in Canada, p. 6.

Barsky, J.D. (1990). THEORY S: Total customer service. The Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, May, 89.

Barsky, J.D. (1992a). The quality sample. The Comell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, February.

Barsky, J.D. (1992b). Customer satisfaction applications. The Comell Hotel and
Restaurant A dministration Quarterw, Apri I.

Bass, F. M., & Talarzyk, W. W. (1969). A study of attitude theory and brand
preference. Journal of the American MarketingAssociation, Fall, 272-9.

Bearden,W. D., &Teel,J. E. (1983). Selected determinantsofcustomersatisfaction

and complaint reports. Journal of Marketing Research, 20,2143.

Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical

surroundings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54,69-82.

Cadotte, E. R., Woodruff, R. B., &Jenkins,R. L. (1987). Expectations and norms in

models of consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, XXlV,
305-1 4.

Cardozo, R. N. (1965). An experimentalstudy of consumer effort,expectationsand

satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 2,244-9.

Carmen, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment

of the SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66,49-50.

Churchill, G. A., & Suprenant, C. (1982). An investigations into the determinants

of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19,491-504.

Cialdini, R. B. (1990). Influence: Science andpractice (2d ed). Boston: Scott

Forsman.

Cohen, J. 8.. Fishbein, M., & Ahtola, 0. T. (1972). The nature and uses of
expectancy-value models in consumer attitude research. Journal of
Marketing Research, 9, 456-60.

Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship quality in services
selling: An interpersonal influence perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54,
68-81.

Dawes, R., & Corrigan, 6. (1974). Linear models in decision making. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 81.95-106.

70 V O L U M E 16 H N U M B E R 1 H 1 9 9 2

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

 JONATHAN D. BARSKY

Day, R. L. (1977). Towards a process model of customer satisfaction, In H. Keith

Hunt (Ed.), Conceptualization and measurement of consumer satisfac-
tion and dissatisfaction (pp.153-83). Cambridge. M A Marketing
Science Institute.

Fishbein, M. A (1967). Behavior theory approach to the relations between beliefs

about an object and the attitude toward the object, and attitude and the
prediction of behavior. In Martin Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude
theory and measurement (pp. 389-99; 477-92). New York: John Wiley
& Sons.

Fortune. (1990, August 13). p. 71.

Hansen, F. (1969). Consumer choice behavior: An experimental approach.

Journal of Marketing Research, 6.463-43.

Heeler, R. M., Okechuku, C., & Reid, S. (1979). Attribute importance: contrasting
measurements. Journal of Marketing Research, 76,60-63.

Hogarth, R.M. (1980). Judgement and choice: The psychology of decision. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.

Holbrook, M. B. (1984). Situation specific ideal points and usage in multiple

dissimilar brands. In Jagdish N. Sheth (Ed.), Research in marketing (pp.
93-1 12). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Pubh Opinion
Quarterly, 24,163-204.

Lewis, R. C., & Morris, S. V. (1987, February). The positive side of guest
complaints. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
pp. 13-15.

Lewis R. C., 8 Pizam, A. (1981, November). Guest surveys: A missed opportu-

nity. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, pp. 37-
44.

Little, D. (1991). Rationalchoice theory in varieties of social explanation. New

York: Westview Press.

Liechy, M., & Churchill, Jr., G. A. (1979). Conceptual insights into consumer
satisfaction with services. in Niel Beckwith (Ed.), Educators Conference
Proceedings (pp. 509-515). (Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Mackenzie, S. B. (1986). The role of attention in mediating the effect of advertis-

ing on attribute importance. Journal of Consumer Research, 73,174-
95.

Hospitality Research Journal 71

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY: MEANINGAND MEASUREMENT

Meehl, P. (1955). Classical versus statistical prediction. Minneapolis: University

of Minnesota Press.

Mikes, P.S., & H u h , C. L. (1968). Use of importance as a weighing component

of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 394-98.

Miller, J. A. (1977). Studying satisfaction,modifying models, elicitingexpecta-

tions, posing problems and making meaningful measurements. In H.
Keith Hunt (Ed.), Conceptualizationand measurement of consumer
satisfaction and dissatisfaction (pp. 72-91). Cambridge, M A Marketing
Science Institute.

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of

satisfactiondecisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17,460-9.

Oliver, R.L., & DeSarbo, W. S. (1988). Response determinants in satisfaction

judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 14,495-507.

Olshavsky, R., & Miller, J. A. (1972). Consumer expectations, product perfor-

mance, and perceived product quality. Journal of Marketinq Research,
9, 19-21.

Organ, D. W., & Bateman, T. S. (1991). OrganizationalBehavior. New York:

Irwin.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml,V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multi-

item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality.
Journal of Retailing, 64, 12-40.

Quelch, J. A. (1978). Behavioral measurement of the relative importance of

product attributes: Process methodology and pilot application. Working
Paper 180R, University of Western Ontario, School of Business
Administration, London, Ontario, Canada.

Riteer. C. B. (1967).What influences purchases of color television? Journal of

Retailing, 42, 25-31; 63-64.

Rosenberg, M.J. (1956). Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53,356-72.

Ryan, M. J.. & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Importance, elicitation order, and expect-
ancy x value. Journal of Business Research, 70.310.

Tolman, E.C. (1932). Purposive behaviorin animals and men. New York:
Appleton-Century.

72 VOLUME 16 NUhlBER I 199;

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014

 JONATHAN D. BARSKY

Trice, A. D., & Layman, H. (1984, November). Improving guest surveys. The
Comell University Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, pp.
10-13.

Vroom, V.H. (1964). Workand motivation. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Westbrook, R. A., Newman, J. W., & Taylor, J. R. (1978). Satisfactionldissatis-

faction in the purchase decision process. Journal of Marketing, October,
59.

Woodruff, R. B., Cadotte, E. R., & Jenkins, R. L. (1983). Modeling consumer

satisfaction processes using experienced based norms. Journal of
Marketing Research, 20,296-304.

Hospitality Research Journal 73

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at St Petersburg State University on February 11, 2014