the symmetric and asymmetric influences of destination attributes on overall visitor satisfaction

This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 10 October 2014, At: 10:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Current Issues in TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcit20

The symmetric and asymmetricinfluences of destination attributes onoverall visitor satisfactionTahir Albayrak a & Meltem Caber ba Tourism Faculty , Akdeniz University , Campus, Antalya , Turkeyb Tourism and Hotel Management Programme , Serik VocationalSchool , Akdeniz University , Antalya , TurkeyPublished online: 30 Apr 2012.

To cite this article: Tahir Albayrak & Meltem Caber (2013) The symmetric and asymmetricinfluences of destination attributes on overall visitor satisfaction, Current Issues in Tourism, 16:2,149-166, DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2012.682978

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2012.682978

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcit20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13683500.2012.682978

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2012.682978

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The symmetric and asymmetric influences of destination attributeson overall visitor satisfaction

Tahir Albayraka and Meltem Caberb∗

aTourism Faculty, Akdeniz University, Campus, Antalya, Turkey; bTourism and Hotel ManagementProgramme, Serik Vocational School, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

(Received 29 November 2011; final version received 30 March 2012)

Visitors are impressed by specific destination attributes, which are sometimes the mainmotivating reasons for the travel selection or sometimes they are just one of the elementsof a whole destination experience. This is because tourism and travel products aregenerally a combination of several different supplier offerings or they are acombination of the natural and artificial attributes of a destination that cannot be fullyknown before the experience of travel. Moreover, the importance and influence ofthese attributes on overall visitor satisfaction may differ considerably, depending onthe market segments. In recent years, some studies have shown that the influences ofdestination attributes on overall visitor satisfaction are not symmetric in every case.For the purposes of this study, the symmetric and asymmetric influences ofdestination attributes are investigated for three major market segments of the Side-Manavgat area, Antalya, Turkey. The results show that the importance and influencesof destination attributes may change according to the analysis technique employedand the market segment examined.

Keywords: destination; attributes; satisfaction; the Three-Factor Theory; marketsegments

Introduction

Destinations need to achieve visitor satisfaction in order to be more successful in a com-petitive marketplace. This is because visitor (customer) satisfaction is recognised as anantecedent of loyalty and repeat purchase behaviour (Yi & La, 2004), which, in turn,positively influence profitability (Mittal & Kamakura, 2001).Visitor satisfaction iscreated by a combination of various attributes of the destinations. The purpose of thelocal tourist authorities is usually to allocate their limited resources to specific destina-tion attributes to improve their qualities because they assume that these attributes havethe most influence on overall visitor satisfaction. This goal is in general operationalisedby multiple-regression models that identify key attributes which the destination auth-orities should invest in to enhance the overall visitor satisfaction. The assumptionunderlying such ‘key driver’ models is that there is a symmetric and linear relationshipbetween attribute performance and dependent constructs such as overall satisfaction andrepurchase intention.

However, recent studies indicate that the relationship between attribute performanceand overall customer satisfaction is asymmetric (Johnston, 1995; Matzler, Bailom,

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

∗Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Current Issues in Tourism, 2013Vol. 16, No. 2, 149–166, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2012.682978

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

01 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hinterhuber, Renzl, & Pichler, 2004; Matzler & Sauerwein, 2002; Mittal, Ross, & Balda-sare, 1998). Therefore, not all efforts to improve attribute performance may lead to mean-ingful results because of this asymmetry (Tontini & Silveira, 2007). Efforts made toimprove service quality can only be effective and efficient if the destination authorities cor-rectly determine which destination attributes should be improved (Mikulic & Prebezac,2008) to increase visitor satisfaction. Researchers (Johnston, 1995; Kano, 1984; Matzler& Sauerwein, 2002) have classified product attributes according to their asymmetric influ-ences on overall satisfaction as basic, performance, and excitement factors (the Three-Factor Theory of customer satisfaction).

Although the asymmetric relationships between product attributes and overall customersatisfaction and the classification of product attributes in terms of these relationships havebeen revealed in many research areas, only very limited research can be found on destina-tion attributes and their influences on overall visitor satisfaction. Besides this, studies thatexamine how this classification changes according to various market segments are verylimited too.

Therefore, the objectives of this study are

(1) to test the differences in the perceptions of destination attributes in terms of marketsegments;

(2) to identify and to compare the symmetric and asymmetric influences of destinationattributes on overall visitor satisfaction; and

(3) to classify destination attributes according to their asymmetric influence on overallvisitor satisfaction in three market segments.

To achieve these objectives, the research was conducted as follows: first, the literatureon destination attributes was examined and summarised, and then the relationshipbetween product attributes and overall customer satisfaction was investigated using theThree-Factor Theory. In this paper, before the research findings are presented, brief infor-mation is given about the Antalya destination where the research was conducted. Thispaper concludes with a discussion of the research findings together with their managerialimplications.

Destination attributes and their importance

A tourism destination is a place where visitors experience a number of natural and/orartificial attributes of that place (Hu & Ritchie, 1993) that are perceived to be itsmajor sources of attraction (Leiper, 2004). Gunn (1994) suggested that every destinationpossesses a varied set of attributes that is particular to itself. According to Dann (1977),destination attributes are the ‘pull’ factors which can draw people to particulardestinations and attractions that the tourist industry supplies. While the ‘pull’ factorsare the exogenous forces that motivate people to travel, such as beaches, cultural attrac-tions, shopping, and natural scenery (Lee, Guillet, Law, & Leung, 2011), endogenousforces such as the desire for escape from a mundane home environment, relaxation, nos-talgia, prestige, experience, and social interaction are the ‘push’ factors and socio-psychological motives of travel demand. Dann’s push–pull framework has beenadopted by many scholars who have attempted to identify the pull and push factorsfor people in order to understand their motives for travel and their criteria for destinationselection (Baloglu & Uysal, 1996; Kozak, 2002; McGehee, Loker-Murphy, & Uysal,1996; Yoon & Uysal, 2005).

150 T. Albayrak and M. Caber

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

01 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

However, for some people, some destination attributes may be perceived as basicnecessities rather than as attractions. Some destination attributes may not be perceived asbeing important and attractive to others, and such attributes might even be seen as disappoint-ing. Therefore, the identification of the most important attributes of a destination in the for-mation of overall visitor satisfaction is a crucial task for the destination authorities andmarketing organisations. In addition to the consideration of global competitiveness issues,the identification of the most important attributes at the time of visitors’ pre-, on-, andpost-trip experiences enable destination authorities to make market segmentations and tocompare visitor needs, expectations, perceptions, and overall satisfaction levels. Forexample, Truong and King (2009) identified the destination attributes which proved satisfy-ing to Chinese tourists in Vietnam; Litvin and Ling (2001) examined the negative, positive,and neutral destination attributes for the potential, prospective, one-time, and repeat visitorsto Bintan Resorts, Indonesia. In Table 1, a summary of the destination attributes reported inthe tourism literature is given. Numerous attributes involved in the whole travel experience ofdestinations have been investigated by researchers, according to the scope of their research.

The relationship between product attribute(s) and overall customer satisfaction

While the overall evaluative measures serve as good indicators of how a service provider isviewed by its customers, they may not reveal why it is viewed so (Brandt, 1988). This isbecause service delivery processes are created by distinct and particular encounters. Tomaintain overall customer satisfaction, each encounter has to reach its own satisfactiontargets for the individual (Danaher & Mattsson, 1994). Therefore, measuring various attri-butes of service provides a better understanding of quality (Parasuraman, ZeithamI, &Berry, 1988). Boulding, Ajay, Richard, and Valarie (1993) defined quality from a similarperspective, ‘quality is multidimensional and different attributes of quality are averagedtogether in some fashion to produce an overall assessment of quality’. The approach ofBoulding et al. (1993) also matches that of Bartikowski and Llosa’s (2004) in its customersatisfaction definition, ‘customer satisfaction is an overall assessment of the performance ofvarious attributes that constitute a product or a service’. For Anderson and Mittal (2000)too, overall customer satisfaction is a function of performance on various attributes. Bymanaging the performance ratings for each of these attributes, companies can increaseoverall customer satisfaction.

Mittal et al. (1998) remarked that there are several reasons for using multi-attributemodels in the context of customer satisfaction studies. First, customers are more likely torender evaluations of their post-purchase experiences of satisfaction at an attribute levelrather than at the product level (Gardial, Demons, Woodruff, & Burns, 1994). Second,an attribute-based approach enables researchers to conceptualise commonly observedphenomena, such as customers experiencing mixed feelings towards a product or aservice. This is because a customer can be both satisfied and dissatisfied with differentaspects of the same product (Vargo, Nagao, He, & Morgan, 2007). It is impossible tomodel this complex situation with the general satisfaction approaches. For example, visitorsto a specific destination can be satisfied with the accommodation facilities, even if they arenot satisfied with the transportation facilities. It is the combination of the perceptions con-cerning these various product attributes that generate the overall visitor satisfaction level.However, many academics found that there was an asymmetric relationship between theperformance of the attribute(s) and overall customer satisfaction (Johnston, 1995;Matzler & Sauerwein, 2002; Mittal et al., 1998; Ting & Chen, 2002). While someproduct attributes (1) increase satisfaction when present, but do not increase dissatisfaction

Current Issues in Tourism 151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

01 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table 1. Destination attributes (literature summary).

Attribute References

Price Yau and Chan (1990), Mok, Armstrong, and Go (1995), Lee,Var, and Blain (1996), Kozak (2001), Gallarza, Saura, andGarcia (2002), Dwyer and Kim (2003), Gooroochurn andSugiyarto (2003), Nicolau and Mas (2004), and Filipovic(2007)

Culture Mok et al. (1995), Baloglu and Uysal (1996), Gallarza et al.(2002), van der Ark and Richards (2006), Enright and Newton(2005), Vassiliadis (2008), and Prayag (2011)

Entertainment Boorstin (1964), Van Raaij (1986), Yau and Chan (1990), Moket al. (1995), Litvin and Ling (2001), Kozak (2001), Richards(2002), Zhang, Qu, and Tang (2004), Enright and Newton(2005), Meng and Uysal (2008), and Vassiliadis (2008)

Activities for children Meng and Uysal (2008)Transportation Van Raaij (1986), Litvin and Ling (2001), Kozak (2001),

Vassiliadis (2008), Moutinho, Albayrak, and Caber (2011),and Prayag (2011)

Signage Prayag (2011)Nightlife Baloglu and Uysal (1996) and Enright and Newton (2005)Shopping Mok et al. (1995), Hudson and Shephard (1998), Enright and

Newton (2005), Meng and Uysal (2008), and Moutinho et al.(2011)

Notable history Van Raaij (1986), Enright and Newton (2005), and Didascalou,Lagos, and Nastos (2009)

Cuisine/food Baloglu and Uysal (1996), Litvin and Ling (2001), Enright andNewton (2005), and Prayag (2011)

Interesting architecture Enright and Newton (2005)Well-known landmarks Litvin and Ling (2001), Enright and Newton (2005), and Kao,

Patterson, Scott, and Li (2008)Local way of life Enright and Newton (2005)Tourism superstructure Van Raaij (1986) and Enright and Newton (2005)Natural beauty Van Raaij (1986), Hu and Ritchie (1993), Mok et al. (1995),

Baloglu and Uysal (1996), Lohmann and Kaim (1999),Formica (2000), Litvin and Ling (2001), Gallarza et al. (2002),Nicolau and Mas (2004); Meng and Uysal (2008), Kao et al.(2008), Campo and Garau (2008), and Didascalou et al.(2009)

Standard of hygiene/cleanliness Baloglu and Uysal (1996), Kozak (2001), Vassiliadis (2008),Prayag (2011), and Moutinho et al. (2011)

Environment Chiang, Lu, and Chang (2003), Filipovic (2007), and Vassiliadis(2008)

Accommodation Van Raaij (1986), Shih (1986), Hudson and Shephard (1998),Kozak (2001), Zhang et al. (2004), Enright and Newton(2005), Filipovic (2007), Campo and Garau (2008),Rodrıguez-Dıaz and Espino-Rodrıguez (2008), Didascalouet al. (2009), Moutinho et al. (2011), and Prayag (2011)

Special events Baloglu and Uysal (1996), Crouch and Ritchie (1999), andZhang et al. (2004)

Beaches and water sports Van Raaij (1986), Litvin and Ling (2001), Zhang et al. (2004),Rodrıguez-Dıaz and Espino-Rodrıguez (2008), and Prayag(2011)

Climate/weather conditions Van Raaij (1986), Yau and Chan (1990), Mok et al. (1995),Baloglu and Uysal (1996), Martin (2005), Enright and

(Continued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

01 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

when absent, (2) some increase dissatisfaction when absent, but do not increase satisfactionwhen present, and (3) some influence both satisfaction and dissatisfaction and negativeevaluations to the extent that they are present or absent (Vargo et al., 2007).

The Three-Factor Theory of customer satisfaction

The Three-Factor Theory is a method which assists researchers in identifying the primaryproduct attributes which should be improved for customer satisfaction. The originality ofthis method is its consideration of the asymmetric relationships between product attributeperformances and overall customer satisfaction. The Three-Factor Theory of customersatisfaction classifies product attributes as basic, performance, and excitement factors (Fuller& Matzler, 2008), according to their asymmetric influences on overall satisfaction (Figure 1).

Basic attributes: These attributes fulfil the basic functions of a product. If they are notpresent or their performance is insufficient, customers would be extremely dissatisfied.On the other hand, if they are present or their performance is sufficient, they do notcreate satisfaction because customers accept these attributes as prerequisites.

Performance attributes: For these attributes, satisfaction is proportional to the perform-ance level – the higher the performance, the higher the customers’ satisfaction and viceversa. Customers usually explicitly demand performance attributes.

Excitement attributes: These attributes are the key factors for customer satisfaction. Ifthey are present or their performance is sufficient, they would create a superior level of sat-isfaction. On the other hand, if they are not present, customers would not be dissatisfied.These attributes are neither demanded nor expected by the customers.

While basic attributes are often obvious, excitement attributes are usually hidden. Thisis because customers may express dissatisfaction with a product, but they rarely take theinitiative to tell what they actually want (Kondo, 2000) from the suppliers. Besides,researchers generally attempt to measure the performance perception of the customers

Table 1. Continued.

Attribute References

Newton (2005), Rodrıguez-Dıaz and Espino-Rodrıguez(2008), Vassiliadis (2008), Didascalou et al. (2009), andPrayag (2011)

Accessibility McKercher (1998), Zhang and Lam (1999), Nicolau and Mas(2004), and Enright and Newton (2005)

Infrastructure Yau and Chan (1990)Safety Shih (1986), Pizam and Mansfeld (1996), Baloglu and Uysal

(1996), Dwyer and Kim (2003), Zhang et al. (2004),Rodrıguez-Dıaz and Espino-Rodrıguez (2008), Kao et al.(2008), and Campo and Garau (2008)

Museums and art galleries Baloglu and Uysal (1996) and Didascalou et al. (2009)Hospitality and friendliness of the

local peopleMok et al. (1995), Baloglu and Uysal (1996), Kozak (2001),

Dwyer and Kim (2003), Campo and Garau (2008), Vassiliadis(2008), and Prayag (2011)

Value Zhang et al. (2004), Meng and Uysal (2008), Kao et al. (2008),and Prayag (2011)

Information Hudson and Shephard (1998), Chiang et al. (2003), Vassiliadis(2008), and Moutinho et al. (2011)

Service quality Yau and Chan (1990), Mok et al. (1995), Chadee and Mattsson(1996), Chiang et al. (2003), Enright and Newton (2005),Meng and Uysal (2008), and Vassiliadis (2008)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

01 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

concerning product attributes using pre-structured questionnaires, which are unable touncover the hidden expectations of the customers. Kondo (2000) labelled these types ofstudies ‘product-out’ and proposed ‘market-in’ studies for the identification of the hiddenexpectations of the customers.

In the Three-Factor Theory, quality attributes display two key characteristics (Matzleret al., 2004). (1) The importance of a basic or an excitement attribute depends on its per-formance. Basic attributes (factors) do not lead to satisfaction, if performance is high. Inthat case, their influence on satisfaction (i.e. their relative importance) would be low.However, if performance on basic factors is lower than expected, they would create highdissatisfaction (i.e. the relative importance is high). The opposite is true for excitementfactors. If they are delivered, customers would be delighted. Hence, they have a stronginfluence on satisfaction. Furthermore, when excitement factors are not delivered, theydo not lead to dissatisfaction. In other words, when attribute performance changes, its rela-tive importance changes too (Matzler, Sauerwein, & Heischmidt, 2003). (2) The relation-ship between attribute-level performance and overall customer satisfaction isasymmetric. Since not all attributes have the same role in satisfying customer needs, itbecomes important as to how their performance influences customer satisfaction (Tontini& Silveira, 2007). Academics generally prefer to use a dummy variable regression analysis(Anderson & Mittal, 2000; Brandt, 1988; Fuller & Matzler, 2008) and the critical incidenttechnique (Johnston, 1995) for analysing the asymmetric influence of attribute performanceon overall customer satisfaction. Asymmetric influences, as proposed by the Three-FactorTheory, have been verified by previous studies in marketing literature on products (Mittalet al., 1998), services (Johnston, 1995), and business-to-business relationships (Matzleret al., 2004). A surprisingly limited amount of research on tourism marketing literature(Litvin & Ling, 2001; Truong & King, 2009) has been conducted on destination attributesand their asymmetric roles in overall visitor satisfaction using the Three-Factor Theory.

The case of Antalya, Turkey

From the 1980s, Turkey began to offer large-scale incentives for tourism investment todomestic and foreign investors. Consequently, tourist arrivals and revenues from tourism

Figure 1. The Three-Factor Theory of customer satisfaction.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

01 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

markedly increased, especially between the 1990s and the 2000s. In recent years, touristarrivals in Turkey have risen, step by step, to 24.9 million in 2008, 25.5 million in 2009,and 27.0 million in 2010. It became the seventh top destination in the world in terms ofannual international tourist arrivals in 2010 and tenth in terms of international tourismreceipts (US$20.8 billion) in 2010 (United Nations World Tourism Organization[UNWTO], 2011).

Antalya, which is a popular summer resort situated on the southern coast of Turkey, isthe top destination for international tourist arrivals in the country. In 2011, the number offoreign tourist arrivals to this city was 10.2 million with a 12.0% increasing ratio(Turkish Republic Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Antalya Directorship, 2012).Between January and December 2011, the first six market segments of Antalya wereGermany (2.786.616; 26.63%), the Russian Federation (2.716.257; 25.96%), the Nether-lands (537.518; 5.14%), the UK (463.647; 4.43%), Sweden (368.035; 3.52%), andUkraine (351.214; 3.36%). Inside the borders of Antalya, Alanya, Side-Manavgat, andKemer are the three famous touristic areas owning to the high quality and volume of theaccommodation facilities. One of these locations is the Side-Manavgat area, which offersboth mass and alternative tourism opportunities to its visitors, and is mostly preferred byGerman, British, and Russian tourists.

Methodology

Materials

The scale used in this study was generated from the ones reported in the literature on des-tination service quality (Heung, Qu, & Chu, 2001; Kau & Lim, 2005; Tosun, Temizkan,Timothy, & Fyall, 2007; Truong & Foster, 2006). The survey participants were asked torate their perceptions of the attributes of Antalya as a destination with 26 statements,using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 5, denoting ‘totally agree’, to 1, denoting‘totally disagree’. In addition, four items measuring overall visitor satisfaction and sixitems related to the demographic characteristics of the respondents were included in thesurvey. The items of the scale were translated from Turkish into three languages(German, Russian, and English) by professional translators and checked by nativespeaker tourist guides from a multinational tour operator.

Sample

A judgement-sampling method was preferred for sampling, in accordance with the sugges-tions of the Touristic Enterprises and Hoteliers Association of Side-Manavgat. Eightholiday villages, 14 five-star hotels, 12 four-star hotels, and 4 three-star hotels were selectedas locations for the survey. The research questionnaires were sent to hotel managers with acover letter which indicated the aims of the study and how the study should be conducted.Hoteliers were asked to distribute one questionnaire to each hotel room to be completed bythe visitors and given back to the hotel receptionists. Of the 8120 questionnaires, 1576 werereturned. A total of 875 usable questionnaires were obtained from German tourists, 350from Russians, 137 from the British, and 214 from tourists of other nationalities. Of the1576 respondents, 47.9% were male. Although the distribution of the respondents, depend-ing on their genders and nationalities, was almost equal in general, the majority of theRussian participants were females (64.0%), and this was exceptional. However, 67.9% ofthe Russian participants were aged 40 years or below, while other participants were agedbetween 41 and 50 years (Table 2).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

01 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Data analysis and results

First, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with the use of principal component analysis andvarimax rotation was conducted to determine the structure of the items. Items that failed toachieve greater than 0.5 communalities were not retained as they did not have sufficientexplanation (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). The results of EFA confirmed thatthere were five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, which explained the 66.59% ofthe total variance. The remaining 21 items were then subjected to reliability analysis toassess the internal consistency of the constructs. All five factors gave Cronbach’s alpha coef-ficients above the 0.7 level suggested by Hair et al. (1998). These factors were named ‘Infor-mation’, ‘Shopping’, ‘Local transportation’, ‘Health & Hygiene’, and ‘Accommodation’,respectively, according to their composing items. In cross-national investigations, Mullen(1995) advised to check the coherence in factor structures and assess factor equivalencefor different samples. Reynolds and Harding (1983) suggested comparing factors acrossindependent samples using EFA for assessing construct equivalence. Similar to Begleyand Tan (2001), Mehta (2001), and Neelankavil (2000), who employed EFA for evaluatingconstruct equivalence, researchers of this study conducted separate factor analyses for eachsub-group. The results of the analyses indicated similar factor structures. Moreover, thegeneral similarity of the factor loadings showed factor equivalence (Table 3).

With the aim of testing the differences in the perceptions of attribute performance forthree major segments for the area, a variance analysis was employed, and the results ofthe analysis are given in Table 4. While the most satisfactory attribute of the destinationwas ‘Accommodation’, the perception of the German visitors was lower. Moreover, theoverall satisfaction of the British participants was higher than that of the German andRussian participants. ‘Shopping’ was the least satisfactory attribute of the destination forthe participants; however, the perception of the Russian participants regarding this washigher.

At the next stage of the analyses, a multiple-regression analysis was performed on theset of data for testing the symmetric relationship between destination attributes and overallsatisfaction. For this purpose, the factor scores of the destination attributes were used asindependent variables and the mean of four overall satisfaction items was used as the depen-dent variable. The overall model (F ¼ 77.264, p ¼ 0.000) and all attribute coefficientswere significant, explaining 19.7% of the overall satisfaction. The results revealed that‘Information’ and ‘Accommodation’ were the most important attributes in determiningoverall satisfaction at the destination (Table 5). On the other hand, ‘Local transportation’had the lowest influence on overall satisfaction.

Table 2. Demographics of the participants by their nationalities.

VariablesTotal sample(n ¼ 1.576)

Germany(n ¼ 875)

UK(n ¼ 137)

The Russian Federation(n ¼ 350)

Gender (%)Male 47.9 51.5 51.8 36.0Female 52.1 48.5 48.2 64.0

Age (%)30 and below 28.7 29.6 12.4 35.231–40 24.6 22.6 18.2 32.741–50 30.2 29.9 44.5 22.151 and above 16.5 17.9 24.9 10.0


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

01 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table 3. Result of the factor analysis.

Factor loadings

Factors Items General Germany UK

TheRussian

FederationRange ofreliability

Health &Hygiene

General environmentalcleaning

0.698 0.628 0.798 0.733 0.79220.875

Cleanliness of the foodand beveragefacilities

0.821 0.809 0.817 0.840

Food quality at the barsand restaurants

0.698 0.693 0.731 0.747

Cleanliness of thepublic toilets

0.701 0.690 0.744 0.663

Shopping Methods of theshopkeepers toattract customers

0.759 0.759 0.715 0.733 0.80220.878

Attitudes of theshopkeepers towardstourists

0.797 0.791 0.735 0.797

Honesty of theshopkeepers

0.828 0.832 0.765 0.804

General price level ofthe products

0.629 0.624 0.674 0.689

Price stickers or labelson the products

0.630 0.622 0.810 0.569

Information Currency exchangefacilities

0.668 0.681 0.540 0.682 0.80120.840

Tourism informationbureau services

0.743 0.723 0.769 0.749

Opportunities to getmaps and brochuresabout the region

0.791 0.773 0.795 0.802

Informative signs andsymbols

0.687 0.689 0.791 0.683

Finding authorities tocomplain or to getinformation

0.601 0.541 0.519 0.646

Localtransportation

Comfort of the localvehicles

0.803 0.805 0.839 0.822 0.816–0.890

Frequency of thetransport services

0.848 0.808 0.828 0.884

Generality of thetransportationsystem

0.861 0.831 0.840 0.876

Attitudes of the localdrivers

0.771 0.786 0.798 0.733

Accommodation General cleanliness ofthe hotel

0.845 0.830 0.851 0.767 0.73020.906

Food and beveragequality at the hotel

0.879 0.869 0.883 0.811

Attitudes of the hotelstaff

0.873 0.851 0.796 0.801

Total varianceexplained (%)

66.59 66.01 71.49 64.98


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

01 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Finally, a regression analysis with a dummy variable was used for testing the asym-metric relationship between attribute performance and overall satisfaction (Anderson &Mittal, 2000; Matzler, Renzl, & Rothenberger, 2006). In order to conduct the analysis,two sets of dummy variables were created to quantify the influence of attributes when sat-isfaction was low and high. Factor scores in the lower quartile were used to form onedummy variable to quantify dissatisfiers. Factor scores in the upper quartile were used toform the other dummy variable to quantify satisfiers. A multiple-regression analysis wasconducted with these dummy variables, and the results are given in Table 5. Thus, two stan-dardised regression coefficients were obtained for each attribute. One coefficient indicatesthe influence of the attribute on overall satisfaction when satisfaction with this attribute ishigh; the other indicates the influence when satisfaction is low.

If the influence of the attribute on overall satisfaction in the case of low performance ishigher than that in the case of high performance, the attribute is classified as a basic factor.Conversely, if the influence of the attribute on overall satisfaction in the case of high per-formance is higher than that in the case of low performance, the attribute is classified as anexcitement factor. If both coefficients are equal, the attribute is classified as a performancefactor (Fuller & Matzler, 2008). For each attribute, a Wald test was used to test the equalityof the low-performance and high-performance coefficients (Alegre & Garau, 2011) where

Table 4. Perceptions of attribute performance (by nationality).

Attributes Germany UK The Russian Federation Sig.

Information 3.58 (0.64) 3.56 (0.67) 3.60 (0.78) 0.855Shopping 3.18 (0.84) 3.17 (0.93) 3.40 (0.79) 0.000∗

Local transportation 3.88 (0.62) 3.72 (0.73) 3.72 (0.73) 0.241Health & Hygiene 3.64 (0.80) 3.94 (0.81) 3.95 (0.78) 0.000∗

Accommodation 4.04 (1.07) 4.50 (0.77) 4.50 (0.58) 0.000∗

Overall satisfaction 4.15 (0.72) 4.29 (0.61) 4.10 (0.84) 0.039∗∗

∗p , 0.01.∗∗p , 0.05.

Table 5. Relationships between attribute performance and overall satisfaction.

Attributeperformance

(SD)

Generalregressioncoefficients

Dummy variable regressioncoefficients

Attributes

Lowperformance

(bj2)

Highperformance

(bj+) Sig.a

Information 3.58 (0.68) 0.265∗ 20.175∗ 0.073∗ 0.011Shopping 3.23 (0.84) 0.164∗ 20.072∗ 0.083∗ 0.790Local

transportation3.68 (0.77) 0.097∗ 20.046∗∗ 0.118∗ 0.072

Health &Hygiene

3.70 (0.76) 0.153∗ 20.111∗ 0.098∗ 0.742

Accommodation 4.22 (0.94) 0.260∗ 20.190∗ 0.174∗ 0.698R2 ¼ 0.197 R2 ¼ 0.185

aH0: bj+ + bj2 ¼ 0.∗p , 0.01.∗∗p , 0.1.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

01 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

null hypotheses (H0: bj+ + bj2 ¼ 0) imply the equality in absolute values of two coeffi-cients. According to this criterion, ‘Information’ can be classified as a basic factor, while‘Local transportation’ is an excitement factor. On the other hand, ‘Health & Hygiene’,‘Accommodation’, and ‘Shopping’ can be classified as the performance factors since nostatistically significant different was observed between their low-performance and high-per-formance values.

In addition, separate dummy variable regression analyses were employed to classify thedestination attributes for three market segments. If the low-performance and high-perform-ance coefficients were both statistically significant, a Wald test was used to test their equal-ity. The results are given in Table 6.

The ratio of the high-performance regression coefficient to the low-performance one(impact ratio (IR)) of each country is shown in Figure 2 in order to reflect the resultsmore clearly. The classification of the attributes and their IRs is also shown in Figure 2.

While ‘Information’ is a basic factor, ‘Local transportation’ is an excitement factor forthe three market segments. But ‘Information’ is an unimportant basic factor for the Britishparticipants because of the insignificant low-performance and high-performance regressioncoefficients. On the other hand, the ‘Health & Hygiene’ and ‘Accommodation’ attributesare performance factors for all participants. Besides this, the results showed that ‘Shopping’is a basic factor for the Russian and British participants, but a performance factor for theGerman participants.

Conclusion and discussion

The purposes of this study were (1) to test the differences in the perceptions of destinationattributes in terms of market segments; (2) to identify the symmetric and asymmetric influ-ences of destination attributes on overall visitor satisfaction; and (3) to classify destinationattributes according to their asymmetric influence on overall visitor satisfaction in threemarket segments. In order to investigate the service attributes and their dimensionality,EFA was employed. The results of the factor analysis provided five dimensions, whichwere named ‘Information’, ‘Shopping’, ‘Local transportation’, ‘Health & Hygiene’, and‘Accommodation’, respectively. Then, to achieve the first objective, a variance analysiswas conducted. Although the perceptions of ‘Accommodation’ of all market segmentswere higher than those of other attributes, the German visitors had relatively lower perceptionvalues. ‘Shopping’ had the lowest perception level for all market segments. However, theRussian visitors were more positive about the ‘Shopping’ attribute than about other attributes.

Ting and Chen (2002) suggested that no consensus exists on how to decide whichquality attributes should be improved for the achievement of customer satisfaction,although it is surely understood that customer satisfaction is an important issue for thesuccess of companies. While traditional methods assume the symmetric relationshipsbetween quality attributes and overall customer satisfaction, contemporary methods paymore attention to the asymmetric relationships. Depending on the methods adapted,various results can be obtained. Therefore, the second aim of this research was to test thevariation of results according to the methods used. The results of the linear regression analy-sis indicated that ‘Information’ and ‘Accommodation’ were the most important attributeswhich affect overall visitor satisfaction. ‘Shopping’ and ‘Health & Hygiene’ followed interms of important destination service attributes. According to the results of this kind oftraditional analysis, destination authorities and managers should allocate their limitedresources mostly to ‘Accommodation’ and ‘Information’ facilities. However, ‘Information’has a priority regarding allocation because ‘Accommodation’ already has high-performance


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

01 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table 6. Influence of attribute performance on overall satisfaction (by nationality).

Germany (R2 ¼ 0.284) UK (R2 ¼ 0.325) The Russian Federation (R2 ¼ 0.282)

Attributes Low performance(bj2)

High performance(bj+)

Sig.a Low performance(bj2)


Sig.a Low performance(bj2)


Sig.a

Information 20.174∗ 0.096∗ 0.083 20.053(n.s.) 0.038(n.s.) 20.248∗ 0.077(n.s.)Shopping 20.101∗ 0.073∗∗ 0.631 20.185∗∗ 0.062(n.s.) 20.100∗∗ 0.082(n.s.)Local

transportation20.051(n.s.) 0.155∗ 20.060(n.s.) 0.140∗∗∗ 20.056(n.s.) 0.146∗

Health & Hygiene 20.114∗ 0.112∗ 0.668 20.170∗∗ 0.259∗ 0.746 20.206∗ 0.146∗ 0.274Accommodation 20.263∗ 0.235∗ 0.919 20.225∗ 0.199∗∗ 0.581 20.188∗ 0.195∗ 0.686

aH0: bj+ + bj2 ¼ 0.∗p , 0.01.∗∗p , 0.05.∗∗∗p , 0.1.

160T.

Albayrak

andM

.C

aber

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

01 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

scores. On the other hand, if the asymmetric relationships between destination attributesand overall visitor satisfaction are taken into account, ‘Information’ should be consideredas a basic factor. This means that the low performance of this attribute may createvisitor dissatisfaction, but it being beyond visitor expectations would not be enough forthe satisfaction of the visitors. According to the results of the regression analysis, whichwas conducted by traditional methods and adapts a symmetric relationship among the attri-butes and visitor satisfaction, ‘Shopping’ was the third important attribute. On the otherhand, it is a performance factor according to the results of the dummy variable regressionanalysis. While the high performance of ‘Shopping’ creates customer satisfaction, its lowperformance creates customer dissatisfaction. Although ‘Local transportation’ was foundto be the least important attribute according to the symmetric relationship, it had becomean excitement factor when the asymmetric relationship was taken into account.

Another aim of this study was to analyse whether the basic, performance, and excite-ment factors change depending on the market segments. So, a dummy variable regressionanalysis was utilised for each country during the research. The classifications of the ‘Infor-mation’, ‘Health & Hygiene’, ‘Local transportation’, and ‘Accommodation’ attributes werethe same for all countries. While ‘Information’ was the basic factor, ‘Local transportation’was the excitement factor for all countries. ‘Accommodation’, ‘Health & Hygiene’ were theperformance factors for all participants. ‘Shopping’ was a basic factor for the Russian andBritish participants, a performance factor for the German participants. ‘Shopping’ isexpected to effect overall visitor satisfaction considerably, since it is a basic and low-performance attribute for the British and German participants. Destination authoritiesshould take prior steps to improve visitor perception regarding this attribute becausebasic factors with low performance may the reason for visitor dissatisfaction. For overcom-ing this problem, training programmes should be organised for the shopkeepers so thattheir attitudes towards to visitors could be refined.

In Figure 2, the IRs (high performance/low performance) of the five attributes that wereidentified for the destination are shown. According to previous studies that have used IRsfor the classification of the attributes, attributes that have IRs between 0.9 and 1.1 are classi-fied as performance factors (+10% cut-off value). If the attributes have IRs greater than1.1, they are classified as excitement factors. The attributes that have IRs less than 0.9are classified as basic factors. Hence, the attributes shown in Figure 2, which had IRsbetween 3.04 and 1.52, would be categorised as excitement factors. Attributes which

Figure 2. The classification of destination attributes.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

01 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

have IRs between 0.89 and 0.31 would be accepted as basic factors. However, the cut-offvalue has no theoretical basis. For this reason, in this study, equality of the high-perform-ance and low-performance coefficients was tested by the Wald test. Although an IR of 1.52indicated that the high-performance coefficient was greater than the low-performance coef-ficient, the difference between the low-performance and the high-performance coefficientswas statistically insignificant. Therefore, subject attribute was classified as a performancefactor.

Managerial implications

Managers of the companies at a destination need to offer high-quality and satisfying goodsor services to their customers. If the managers cannot keep the performance of the basicfactors of their products at appropriate levels, their influences on customer (dis)satisfactionwould be high. Thus, the performance levels of all basic factors should be kept high so as tomeet customer expectations. Nevertheless, eliminating the dissatisfaction does not mean aguarantee of customer satisfaction as pointed out by Kondo (2000). So, managers have toallocate their resources to excitement factors for increasing customer satisfaction and, at thesame time, they should invest in basic factors in order to decrease customer dissatisfaction.Unfortunately, customers rarely tell what they expect or want from the companies, even ifthey make complaints about the goods or services (Ting & Chen, 2002). Matzler, Hinter-huber, Bailom, and Sauerwein (1996) stated that excitement attributes are not expressed bythe customers, as these are the attributes they do not expect. For this reason, detecting exci-tement factors is harder than detecting other factors. Moreover, in tough competitiveenvironments, successful practices are easily copied by rivals. Thus, product attributesthat once were excitement factors may easily become performance and basic factors overtime (Vargo et al., 2007). So, companies need to discover or develop new excitementfactors for their goods or services. However, the scales which are used in marketingresearch mostly ask participants to answer pre-structured questionnaires. For this reason,such type of surveys do not guide managers on which attributes can be subjoined to aproduct to turn it into an excitement factor. They simply allow managers to categorisethe existing attributes. Thus, only the ‘market-in’ studies which are offered by Kondo(2000) may assist researchers in identifying attributes that can lead to ‘real’ customer sat-isfaction. Hence, using qualitative research methods, these attributes should be clarified andoffered to customers. On the other hand, excitement factors can be discovered by customersuggestions. For this reason, customers should be encouraged to share their experienceswith suppliers.

Because expectations may vary from people to people, product attributes which createcustomer satisfaction (excitement factors) or efface customer dissatisfaction (basic factors)should be determined separately for each market segment. An attribute which is found to bea basic factor for a market segment can be a performance or an excitement factor for anothersegment. Besides, customer needs and expectations are not stable and they change over thecourse of time. Therefore, studies which aim to measure customer satisfaction and to deter-mine the factors which have an influence on satisfaction should be regarded as ongoingworks.

ReferencesAlegre, J., & Garau, J. (2011). The factor structure of tourist satisfaction at sun and sand destinations.

Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 78–86.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

01 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Anderson, E.W., & Mittal, V. (2000). Strengthening the satisfaction-profit chain. Journal of ServiceResearch, 3(2), 107–120.

van der Ark, L.A., & Richards, G.(2006). Attractiveness of cultural activities in European cities:A latent class approach. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1408–1413.

Baloglu, S., & Uysal, M. (1996). Market segments of push and pull motivations: A canonical corre-lation approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(3), 32–38.

Bartikowski, B., & Llosa, S. (2004). Customer satisfaction measurement: Comparing four methods ofattribute categorizations. The Service Industries Journal, 24(4), 67–82.

Begley, T.M., & Tan, W. (2001). The socio-cultural environment for entrepreneurship: A comparisonbetween East Asian and Anglo-Saxon countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3),537–553.

Boorstin, D. (1964). The image: A guide to pseudo-events in America. New York: Harper and Row.Boulding, W., Ajay, K., Richard, S., & Valarie, A.Z. (1993). A dynamic process model of service

quality: From expectations to behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 7–27.Brandt, D.R. (1988). How service marketers can identify value-enhancing service elements. The

Journal of Services Marketing, 2(3), 35–41.Campo, S., & Garau, J.B. (2008). The influence of nationality on the generation of tourist satisfaction

with a destination. Tourism Analysis, 13, 81–92.Chadee, D.D. & Mattsson, J. (1996). An empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourism.

The Service Industries Journal, 16 (3), 305–320.Chiang, Y.-S., Lu, J-L., & Chang, H.-C. (2003). Modeling the effect of destination attributes on the

intercity travelers’ mode choice behavior in Taiwan area. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Societyfor Transportation Studies, 4, 717–730.

Crouch, G.I., & Ritchie, J.R.B. (1999). Tourism, competitiveness, and social prosperity. Journal ofBusiness Research, 44, 137–152.

Danaher, P.J., & Mattsson, J. (1994). Customer satisfaction during the service delivery process.European Journal of Marketing, 28(5), 5–16.

Dann, G.M.S. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 4(4),184–194.

Didascalou, E., Lagos, D., & Nastos, P. (2009). Wellness tourism: Evaluating destination attributes fortourism planning in a competitive segment market. Tourismos: An International MultidisciplinaryJournal of Tourism, 4(4), 113–126.

Dwyer, L., & Kim, C. (2003). Destination competitiveness: Determinants and indicators. CurrentIssues in Tourism, 6(5), 369–414.

Enright, M.J., & Newton, J. (2005). Determinants of tourism destination competitiveness in AsiaPacific: Comprehensiveness and universality. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 339–350.

Filipovic, M. (2007). The analytic hierarchy process as a support for decision making. Spatium,15–16, 44–59.

Formica, S. (2000). Destination attractiveness as a function of supply and demand interaction.Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-11142000-15560052/unrestricted/DissertationDefense.pdf

Fuller, J., & Matzler, K. (2008). Customer delight and market segmentation: An application of thethree-factor theory of customer satisfaction on life style groups. Tourism Management, 29,116–126.

Gallarza, M.G., Saura, I.G., & Garcia, H.C. (2002). Destination image – towards a conceptual frame-work. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 56–78.

Gardial, S.F., Demons, D.S., Woodruff, R.B., & Burns, M.J. (1994). Comparing consumers’ recall ofprepurchase and postpurchase product evaluation experiences. Journal of Consumer Research,20, 548–560.

Gooroochurn, N., & Sugiyarto, G. (2005). Competitiveness indicators in the travel and tourismindustry. Tourism Economics, 11(1), 25–43.

Gunn, C. (1994). Tourism planning: Basics, concepts, cases (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Taylor andFrancis.

Hair, J.F., Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5thed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Heung, V.C.S., Qu, H., & Chu, R. (2001). The relationship between vacation factors and socio-demographic and travelling characteristics: The case of Japanese leisure travellers. TourismManagement, 22, 259–269.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

01 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-11142000-15560052/unrestricted/DissertationDefense.pdf

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-11142000-15560052/unrestricted/DissertationDefense.pdf

Hu, Y., & Ritchie, B.J.R. (1993). Measuring destination attractiveness: A contextual approach.Journal of Travel Research, 32(2), 25–34.

Hudson, S., & Shephard, G.W. (1998). Measuring service quality at tourist destinations: An appli-cation of importance-performance analysis to an Alpine ski resort. Journal of Travel andTourism Marketing, 7(3), 61–77.

Johnston, R. (1995). The determinants of service quality: Satisfiers and dissatisfiers. InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management, 6(5), 53–71.

Kano, N. (1984). Attractive quality and must be quality. Hinshitsu, The Journal of the JapaneseSociety for Quality Control, 14(2), 147–156.

Kao, M.C., Patterson, I., Scott, N., & Li, C.K. (2008). Motivations and satisfactions of Taiwanesetourists who visit Australia. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 24(1), 17–33.

Kau, A.K., & Lim, P.S. (2005). Clustering of Chinese tourists to Singapore: An analysis of theirmotivations, values and satisfaction. International Journal of Tourism Research, 7, 231–238.

Kondo, Y. (2000). Attractive quality: Its importance and the points of remark. Total QualityManagement, 11(4/5/6), 647–651.

Kozak, M. (2001). Repeaters’ behaviour at two distinct destinations. Annals of Tourism Research,28(3), 784–807.

Kozak, M. (2002). Comparative analysis of tourist motivations by nationality and destinations.Tourism Management, 23, 221–232.

Lee, C.K., Var, T., & Blain, T. (1996). Determinants of inbound tourism expenditures. Annals ofTourism Research, 23(3), 527–542.

Lee, H.A., Guillet, B.D., Law, R., & Leung, R. (2011). Robustness of distance decay for internationalpleasure travelers: A longitudinal approach. International Journal of Tourism Research,doi:10.1002/jtr.861.

Leiper, N. (2004). Tourism management. Sydney: Pearson Hospitality Press.Litvin, S.W., & Ling, S.N.S. (2001). The destination attribute management model: An empirical

application to Bintan, Indonesia. Tourism Management, 22, 481–492.Lohmann, M., & Kaim, E. (1999). Weather and holiday destination preferences, image, attitude and

experience. The Tourist Review, 2, 54–64.Martin, M.B.G. (2005). Weather, climate and tourism – a geographical perspective. Annals of

Tourism Research, 32(3), 571–591.Matzler, K., Bailom, F., Hinterhuber, H.H., Renzl, B., & Pichler, J. (2004). The asymmetric relation-

ship between attribute-level performance and overall customer satisfaction: A reconsideration ofthe importance-performance analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 33, 271–277.

Matzler, K., Hinterhuber, H.H., Bailom, F., & Sauerwein, E. (1996). How to delight your customers.Journal of Product and Brand Management, 5(2), 6–18.

Matzler, K., Renzl, B., & Rothenberger, S. (2006). Measuring the relative importance of servicedimensions in the formation of price satisfaction and service satisfaction: A case study in thehotel industry. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 6(3), 179–196.

Matzler, K., & Sauerwein, E. (2002). The factor structure of customer satisfaction: An empirical testof the importance grid and penalty-reward-contrast analysis. International Journal of ServiceIndustry Management, 13(4), 314–332.

Matzler, K., Sauerwein, E., & Heischmidt, K.A. (2003). Importance-performance analysis revisited:The role of the factor structure of customer satisfaction. The Service Industries Journal, 23(2),112–129.

McGehee, N.G., Loker-Murphy, L., & Uysal, M. (1996). The Australian international pleasure travelmarket: Motivations from a gendered perspective. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 7(1), 45–57.

McKercher, B. (1998). The effect of market access on destination choice. Journal of Travel Research,37(3), 39–47.

Mehta, R. (2001). Leadership and cooperation in marketing channels: A comparative empiricalanalysis of the USA, Finland and Poland. International Marketing Review, 18(6), 633–666.

Meng, F., & Uysal, M. (2008). Effects of gender differences on perceptions of destination attributes,motivations, and travel values: An examination of a nature-based resort destination. Journal ofSustainable Tourism, 16(4), 445–466.

Mikulic, J., & Prebezac, D. (2008). Prioritizing improvement of service attributes using impactrange-performance analysis and impact-asymmetry analysis. Managing Service Quality, 18(6),559–576.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

01 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W.A. (2001). Satisfaction and repurchase behavior: The moderating influ-ence of customer and market characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 131–142.

Mittal, V., Ross, W.T., & Baldasare, P.M. (1998). The asymmetric impact of negative and positiveattribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions. Journal ofMarketing, 62, 33–47.

Mok, C., Armstrong, R.W., & Go, F.M. (1995). Taiwanese travellers’ perception of leisure destinationattributes. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 2(1), 17–22.

Moutinho, L., Albayrak, T., & Caber, M. (2011). How far does overall service quality of a destinationaffect customers’ post-purchase behaviours? International Journal of Tourism Research,doi:10.1002/jtr.856.

Mullen, M.R. (1995). Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 26(3), 573–596.

Neelankavil, J.P. (2000). Determinants of managerial performance: A cross-cultural comparison of theperceptions of middle-level managers in four countries. Journal of International Business Studies,31(1), 121–140.

Nicolau, J.L., & Mas, F.J. (2004). Stoshastic choice analysis of tourism destinations. Valenciano deInvestigaciones Economicas, 1–34, Retrieved from: http://www.ivie.es/downloads/docs/04/wpad-07.pdf.

Parasuraman, A., ZeithamI, V., & Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale formeasuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64, 12–40.

Pizam, A., & Mansfeld, Y. (1996). Tourism, crime, and international security issues. Chichester: JohnWiley & Sons.

Prayag, G. (2011). Paradise for who? Segmenting visitors’ satisfaction with cognitive image andpredicting behavioural loyalty. International Journal of Tourism Research, doi:10.1002/jtr.837.

Reynolds, C.R., & Harding, R.E. (1983). Outcome in two large sample studies of factorial similarityunder six methods of comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43(3), 723–728.

Richards, G. (2002). Tourism attraction systems: Exploring cultural behavior. Annals of TourismResearch, 29(4), 1048–1064.

Rodrıguez-Dıaz, M., & Espino-Rodrıguez, T.F. (2008). A model of strategic evaluation of a tourismdestination based on internal and relational capabilities. Journal of Travel Research, 46,368–380.

Shih, D. (1986). VALS as a tool of tourism market research: The Pennsylvania experience. Journal ofTravel Research, 24(4), 2–11.

Ting, S., & Chen, C. (2002). The asymmetrical and non-linear effects of store quality attributes oncustomer satisfaction. Total Quality Management, 13(4), 547–569.

Tontini, G., & Silveira, A. (2007). Identification of satisfaction attributes using competitive analysis ofthe improvement gap. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(5),482–500.

Tosun, C., Temizkan, P., Timothy, D.J., & Fyall, A. (2007). Tourist shopping experiences andsatisfaction. International Journal of Tourism Research, 9(2), 87–102.

Truong, T.H., & Foster, D. (2006). Using HOLSAT to evaluate tourist satisfaction at destinations: Thecase of Australian holidaymakers in Vietnam. Tourism Management, 27, 842–855.

Truong, T.H., & King, B. (2009). An evaluation of satisfaction levels among Chinese tourists inVietnam. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11, 521–535.

Turkish Republic Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Antalya Directorship. (2012). Retrieved fromhttp://www.antalyakultur.gov.tr/belge/1-92215/yabanci-ziyaretci-sayilari-ve-milliyet-dagilimi-2008-20-.html

United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2011). Tourism highlights. Retrieved from: http://mkt.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/unwtohighlights11enlr_3.pdf

Van Raaij, W.F. (1986). Consumer research on tourism: Mental and behavioral constructs. Annals ofTourism Research, 13, 1–9.

Vargo, S.L., Nagao, K., He, Y., & Morgan, F.W. (2007). Satisfiers, dissatisfiers, criticals, and neutrals:A review of their relative effects on customer (dis)satisfaction. Academy of Marketing ScienceReview, 11(2), 1–19.

Vassiliadis, C.A. (2008). Destination product characteristics as useful predictors for repeat visiting andrecommendation segmentation variables in tourism: A CHAID exhaustive analysis. InternationalJournal of Tourism Research, 10, 439–452.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

01 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.ivie.es/downloads/docs/04/wpad-07.pdf

http://www.ivie.es/downloads/docs/04/wpad-07.pdf

http://www.antalyakultur.gov.tr/belge/1-92215/yabanci-ziyaretci-sayilari-ve-milliyet-dagilimi-2008-20-.html

http://www.antalyakultur.gov.tr/belge/1-92215/yabanci-ziyaretci-sayilari-ve-milliyet-dagilimi-2008-20-.html

http://mkt.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/unwtohighlights11enlr_3.pdf

http://mkt.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/unwtohighlights11enlr_3.pdf

Yau, O.H.M., & Chan, C.F. (1990). Hong Kong as a travel destination in South-East Asia: A multi-dimensional approach. Tourism Management, 11(2), 123–132.

Yi, Y., & La, S. (2004). What influences the relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchaseintention? Investigating the effects of adjusted expectations and customer loyalty. Psychology andMarketing, 21(5), 351–373.

Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on desti-nation loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1), 45–56.

Zhang, H.Q., & Lam, T. (1999). An analysis of mainland Chinese visitors’ motivations to visit HongKong. Tourism Management, 20(5), 587–594.

Zhang, H.Q., Qu, H., & Tang, V.M.Y. (2004). A case study of Hong Kong residents’ outbound leisuretravel. Tourism Management, 25(2), 267–273.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

01 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

the symmetric and asymmetric influences of destination attributes on overall visitor satisfaction

Documents