lable at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 33 (2012) 592e597

Contents lists avai

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

Working onboard e Job perception, organizational commitment and jobsatisfaction in the cruise sectorq

Svein Larsen a,b,*, Einar Marnburg b, Torvald Øgaard b

aUniversity of Bergen, School of Psychology, Dept. of Psychosocial Science, NorwaybUniversity of Stavanger, Norwegian School of Hotel Management, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 25 September 2010Accepted 27 June 2011

Keywords:Cruise line crewJob perceptionOrganizational commitmentJob satisfactionCrew experiences

q Some preliminary data presented at the CAUTHEFebruary 8e11, 2010.* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ47 55588628; fax: þ

E-mail address: svein.larsen@psysp.uib.no (S. Lars

0261-5177/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.06.014

a b s t r a c t

This paper focuses on the perceived work environment and its influence on organizational commitmentand job satisfaction in the cruise sector. Two focus group interviews were conducted in addition to onesurvey among the crew in an upmarket cruise line. The focus groups elicited responses concerning crewexperiences of working onboard. Based on this information, a questionnaire was constructed to measurejob perceptions among crew members. The results indicate that all of the experience domains wererelated to job commitment and job satisfaction, but that the strongest effects were found to be perceived“Respect”, the “Social atmosphere”, and “Food and living quarters”.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Although the cruise sector is a fast-growing segment of theinternational tourism industry (Gibson, 2006; Hung & Petrick,2010; Murray, 2005), it has received relatively little researchattention (Hosany &Whitham, 2009; Lee-Ross, 2006). Loper (2005)highlights a number of important challenges facing the cruisesegment. These include: (1) The changing demographics of cruisepassengers, (2) the question of how to attract customers, and (3)how to maintain customer loyalty (Dowling & Cowan, 2002;Gibson, 2006; Petrick, Li, & Park, 2007). Another problem is thesustainability issue (Dowling & Cowan, 2002; Johnson, 2002; Klein,2008), including pollution (Klein, 2005, 2008), safety and hygiene(Klein, 2005, 2008), and various problems of the marginaleconomic impact of the industry on destinations (Klein, 2005,2008; Seidl, Guiliano, & Pratt, 2007; Wilkinson, 1999). Thesustainability issue also incorporates some economic implications,for example that cruise passengers in the future will be expected topay more “ecotaxes”, at least in some areas. Still, from the point ofview of the passenger, more immediate issues such as foodpoisoning (e.g. Larsen, Brun, Øgaard, & Selstad, 2007; Swaan,Ouwerkerk, & Roest, 2010) and other salient issues of risk andworry (Larsen, Brun, & Øgaard, 2009) may also prove to beimportant for choice of cruise line and itinerary.

conference, Hobart, Australia,

47 55589897.en).

All rights reserved.

In addition to such external challenges linked to the market(environment and economical impact), the cruise sector also facesseveral internal exertions at an operative level. Such problemsinclude the relatively complicated areas of staffing (Gibson, 2006)and handling of management issues in everyday multiculturalenvironments (Tsoukatos & Rand, 2007) of cruise ships (Testa,2004). This is pivotal in maintaining high service quality, inreducing costs by a decreased demand for recruiting newpersonnel, and through savings made by decreasing the demandfor initial training of newly-recruited crew members.

For any operation in the cruise sector, the staffing questionrepresents at least a two-fold challenge. On the one hand, itconcerns recruiting and selecting staff (Larsen & Rapp, 1993), forexample chefs, sommeliers, waiters, and other highly qualifiedfrontline personnel, who may get better paying jobs in goodrestaurants at home. On the other hand, this problem pertains tothe issue of keeping such crews happy so that they stay onboard formore than one contract. It is well known in the service literaturethat happy service staff tend to produce happy guests (e.g. Nebekeret al., 2001; Brown & Lam, 2008; Yee, Yeung, & Cheng, 2008), and inturn happy guests are more willing to return to the same serviceprovider. In fact, Harter, Schmidt, Asplund, Killham, and Agrawal(2010) documented a causal relationship between employees’work perceptions and the bottom line of organizations Therefore,crew members’ perceptions of their work environment and therelationship of these factors to organizational commitment and jobsatisfaction are areas of fundamental importance for cruise lines(Larsen & Folgerø, 1993; Larsen & Rapp, 1993; Testa, 2001, 2004;Testa & Mueller, 2009).

S. Larsen et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 592e597 593

1.1. Aspects of working onboard

In pinpointing the concept of the “tourist gaze”, Urry (1998)brought some of the problems of management in the hospitalityand tourism industries to the forefront within the framework ofa more general sociological approach. Urry maintained that in thetourism industry, labor itself is part of the service product, whichlogically makes the service worker part of the service. This impliesthat various domains of the service workers’ individualities, such asthe way they speak, their appearances, and their personalitiesbecome matters of management interest e management isexpected to interfere, intervene and control these aspects ofa service worker’s personal behavior. This sort of understanding isin line with Hochschild’s (1983) analysis. She underlined thatservice work is emotional labor inasmuch as the customer procuresthe service workers’ personal demeanors. This aspect of servicework results in a commercialization of human feelings (Urry, 1998,p. 70; Johansson & Näslund, 2009), which in turn is related toparticular experiences of worry (Larsen, Øgaard, & Marnburg,2005), isolation and other negative affects (Larsen & Folgerø,1993), as well as a series of positive affects resulting fromsuccessful service encounters and manager-employee relations.

Looking at the cruise sector specifically, Larsen (1996) under-lined that cruise ships are often staffed by an international crew,which might be one motivator for many to take up work in thissector. He also noted that younger people in particular would workonboard cruise ships because of the opportunity it provides to seethe world, a point also highlighted by Gibson (2006). At the sametime, Larsen and Rapp (1993) alleged that this sector had tradi-tionally been relatively hierarchically organized, and that this couldbe problematic in contemporary societies where “today’s personnelmarkets see themselves as socially equals, not only of their super-visors but also of their passengers” (p. 5). They also maintained thatone important objective of any cruise line would be to lengtheneach employee’s tenure for as long as possible. Johansson andNäslund (2009) argued that onboard cruise ships, emotional laborhelps to create the cruise experience. Larsen and Folgerø (1993)highlighted that cruise ships are distinguished by a certain levelof isolation, inasmuch as the crew is cut off from families andfriends and from various recreational possibilities. De Lange, DeWitte, and Notelaers (2008) reported that low work engagement,low job autonomy, and low departmental resources predicted lowretention. In a recent review, Harter et al. (2010) found thatmanagerial actions and practices impact employees’ perceptions ofwork conditions.

The present research therefore addresses the issue of jobperceptions in cruise line crews within this general framework.The basic research problem is two-fold: The first is to describe theparameters of the job perceptions in cruise line crews, and thesecond is to study how these perceptions are related to outcomes atan individual level in terms of organizational commitment and jobsatisfaction. The overarching research question may therefore beformulated as:Which job perceptions are related to high commitmentand high satisfaction in cruise line crews?

2. Methods and materials

A two-step research process was conducted for an interna-tional cruise line. The first step consisted of two focus groupsconducted predominantly with non-supervising crew within thecurrent fleet. The most important aims of these sessions were tobring out crew members’ experiences of their lives onboard interms of likes and dislikes, relationships with colleagues andmanagers, and what crew members considered to be importantfor organizational commitment and job satisfaction; in short, to

get verbal descriptions of aspects of the psychosocial work settingonboard. Such an elicitation approach is well known in the socialsciences as an initial part of a research process. This kind of caseapproach may often be worthwhile in describing a particulardomain, in an attempt to get an overview of the verbal contents ofpeoples’ experiences in various settings (Howitt & Cramer, 2005;Stanovich, 2010).

The two focus groups were led by one of the researchers, andeach group was attended by 6e8 crew members representingvarious operative and “close-to-customer functions” onboard thevessels of this particular cruise line. Each focus group interviewlasted approximately one hour, and followed standardized recom-mendations as outlined by Howitt and Cramer (2005). Some of thecrew members attending were on their second contract (mostlynovices), while some were long-term employees in the organiza-tion (more than 15 contracts). The hotel manager appointed peopleto participate in these groups, and although an instruction of“randomization” was given, we cannot be sure that the people inthe focus groups were randomly selected.

In step two of the study, the information that emerged duringthe focus group interviews was used as a basis to develop a numberof items for a questionnaire, which was then distributed among thecrew and supervisors for the purpose of measuring the crew’sperceptions of their work environment.

2.1. The questionnaire

In addition to standard socio-demographic background ques-tions (such as age, gender, nationality, department, length of tenure(i.e. how many contracts the informant had been on with thiscompany)), the questionnaire also included items measuringvarious other theoretical constructs such as implicit personalitytheories (Heslin & Vandewalle, 2008; Heslin, Vandewalle, &Latham, 2006) and cultural values (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1981).For the present study, however, the key outcome variables werestandardized measures of organizational commitment (OC) and jobsatisfaction (JS). Job satisfaction, often understood as an emotionalresponse to the individual’s appraisal of his job experiences, wasmeasured using three items adapted from the Michigan Organi-zational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, &Klesh, 1983). Organizational commitment, usually understood asthe relative strength of an individual’s identification with andinvolvement in a particular organization (Mowday, Steers, & Porter,1979), was measured by the short form of the OrganizationalAssessment Questionnaire (Cammann et al., 1983), but in order toavoid word confusion, only the nine (of 15) items that are positivelyworded were used (cf. Mathieu, 1991; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Thejob perception items were developed based on the results from thefocus groups. Initially, we used 23 items to capture job perception.We also developed one item for the purpose of validation of the jobperception items (“Frankly, I just love to work for this company”).

2.2. Respondents

There was a total 216 respondents in the survey, 133 of whomreported that they were “ordinary crew” with no supervisory(leadership) tasks in their job, 58 respondents indicated that theyhad a certain leadership responsibility, and the remaining 18respondents did not answer this question. These respondentsrepresented 30 different nationalities and the mean age was 33years (SD¼ 9). Some 69% of these respondents were men. Thenumber of people working onboard during the week(s) of datacollection was 495, yielding a response rate of approximately 44%.Some 25% of respondents were on their first contract with thiscruise line, while 18% of the respondents had been on 10 contracts

S. Larsen et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 592e597594

or more. All departments were represented, although a majority ofthe respondents came from Housekeeping (22.4%), Restaurant/Bar(22.9%), or from the Galley (14.3%).

3. Results

3.1. Themes emerging in the focus groups

The most prevailing themes were those pertaining to the topicsof “Getting respect for what we do” and “Social support” e beingsupported as a valued member of the service team onboard. Whileseveral crew members indicated that the perception of beingrespected or supported was not at all absent onboard, they simul-taneously indicated that a prevalent experience was that very oftencrew members were just taken for granted. One crew memberexplicitly said that (s)he was only noticed by the supervisor ifsomethingwentwrong; one’s everyday high standard performancewas rarely noticed.

Another important theme concerned “Free time and length ofcontract”. Crew members maintained that they would sometimesnot get permission to go ashore and get free time away fromthe ship. This was seen as a token of lack of flexibility on the part ofthe supervisors. Some, particularly from frontline personnel in theships’maritime sector, also claimed that contracts were too long, oras one informant phrased it, “Working onboard here is Monday.Every day is Monday for 9 months”.

A fourth recurring theme concerned “Physical aspects” of the jobsetting onboard. The first of these physical aspects concernedmoney (“I work here for the money”), while a second theme indi-cated a certain feeling of powerlessness and worry concerning therecruiting office and the required medical tests needed beforegetting a contract. A third issue in this group of aspects was relatedto living quarters onboard. The following is a direct quote from onecrew member, who anonymously left a letter to the researcherwhich said (original grammar and spelling), “.. I just want toinform you the living condition of the other crew member specially

Table 1Factor solution of job experiences.

Item

1 My supervisor appreciates what I do2 My colleagues really respect me3 My supervisor respects the kind of work that I do4 My supervisor understands how important my work is5 My supervisor always remembers to thank me for a job well done6 If I make I mistake, I always feel that I am just as much respected

as a professional7 My colleagues respect the kind of work that I do8 I took the job to see the world9 I took the job because the money is good10 This job gives me a great opportunity to travel the world11 I love being with the guests e so many interesting and fun people12 I like the international atmosphere onboard13 I have many friends onboard, that’s really what keeps me here14 In stressful periods, my supervisors always comment on how

well my job is handled15 My supervisor is flexible and sees to it that I get free time to

go ashore when I dock16 My supervisor is interested in my suggestions17 I am happy about the living quarters onboard18 The crew food is generally very good19 I am being treated fairly by my boss20 When my day’s work is done, I can get a few moments extra to go

ashore when we dock21 I am being treated respectfully by my boss

Initial EigenvalueExplained varianceCronbach’s alpha

their living quarters it’s been discussed before thar some of thesleeping bunks or they are sleeping on are not on the standard someare very close to the ceiling they cannot even seat straight.”

3.2. Results from the survey

All of the original 23 items developed to tap crew perceptionswere factor analyzed using the principal component technique(Varimax rotation). This explorative method yielded a solutionwithfive factors having Eigenvalues above one. One item was excludedfor unclear wording (negative sentence), and one item wasexcluded because it did not fill the inclusion criterion of a factorloading above .5 on any of the factors. This procedure gave a rela-tively unitary solution for the remaining 21 items, with only a fewitems (items 2, 7, & 15; see Table 1) loading> .5 in more than onefactor.

As can be seen from Table 1, approximately 68% of the variancein job experiences was explained with the current factor solution.Factor 1 was labeled “Supervisor respect and fairness” (12 items,a¼ .92), Factor 2 was labeled “Social atmosphere: Guests andfriends” (five items, a¼ .79), Factor 3 was labeled “See the worldand earn money” (three items, a¼ .76), Factor 4 was labeled“physical aspects” (two items, a¼ .63, r¼ .50), and Factor 5 waslabeled “Supervisor flexibility” (two items, a¼ .64, r¼ .47).

In order to inspect the validity of the measures, we included onevalidation question in our questionnaire: “Frankly, I just love towork for this company”. This item is best conceived of as an orga-nizational commitment item (but it is not included in the Mowdayet al. (1979) scale). This item should therefore correlate moststrongly with the OC scale and second highest with the JS scale, butit should also correlate moderately, but positively, with the jobperception scales.

As can be seen from Table 2, the validation item correlatedsignificantly with both JC (r¼ .82, p< .01) and JS (r¼ .63, p< .01). Asexpected, the correlation of this itemwith the job perception scaleswas significantly lower (all rs between .19 and .45, p< .01). This

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

.888

.623 .573

.887

.850

.846

.659

.620 .555.802.717.848

.622

.778

.622.743

.524 .654

.745.795.829

.668.647

.7458,61 2,32 1,53 1,49 1,09

31,26 11,49 10,37 7,66 7,56.92 .79 .76 .63 .70

Table 2Correlation among organizational commitment, job satisfaction, the item “I just loveto work for this company”, and the scales measuring the crew’s job perceptions.

“I just love to workfor this company”

Organizationalcommitment

Jobsatisfaction

Organizationalcommitment

.82**

Job satisfaction .63** .82**Respect .39** .35** .36**Social .39** .40** .35**See the world & money .19** .26** .12Physical .45** .45** .36**Supervisor flexibility .24** .17** .11

Table 3Regression analysis of organizational commitment.

Variable B b t Sig.

Constant 4.383 24.025 .000Get respect .346 .297 5.509 .000Social .445 .393 7.411 .000See the world .268 .236 4,435 .000Physical .260 .351 6.495 .000Sup flexibility .179 .157 2.958 .004

R2¼ .503.

S. Larsen et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 592e597 595

indicates that job perceptions, as they are measured here, reflectaspects of work life onboard other than both job commitment andjob satisfaction do, which in turn can be interpreted as a sign ofthese measures’ content and discriminant validities.

The mean scores on all factors measuring job experiences wereabove four on the seven-point scale, indicating that the crewgenerally judge the job perception factors included in this study tobe relatively positive. As can be seen from Fig. 1, both non-supervising crew and crew members who indicated that they hadsome supervisory tasks onboard obtained relatively high scores.Fig. 1 also shows that the two groups are similar in the structure ofresponses, indicating that they are similar with respect to jobperceptions, except that for the supervising crew, the “See theworld” experience seems less important (F (1,188)¼ 28.72,p¼ .000; all other differences were non significant). Although thesupervising crew (mean age 35.1) were somewhat older than thenon-supervising crew (mean age 31.7) (F (1,180)¼ 5.75, p¼ .018),the correlation between this job perception factor (“See theworld”)and agewas not significant (r¼ 004, p¼ .96), which excludes age asa factor that could account for this difference. There was also aneven distribution of gender in the two groups (c2¼ .0.43, n.s.),which excludes gender as an explanation.

Using a simultaneous entry multiple regression method,a significant model was found for the relationships between jobperceptions and OC (see Table 3), and for the relationships betweenjob perceptions and JC (see Table 4). While all job perception scalescontributed to explaining variance in organizational commitment,only three variables, “Supervisor respect and fairness”, “Socialatmosphere: Guests and friends”, and “Supervisor flexibility”contributed significantly to explaining the variance in job satisfac-tion. The total explained variance was 50% for OC, and 34.4% for JC.

4. Discussion

Themain finding in this study is that job perception in the cruiseindustry incorporates factors such as the crew’s relationship withsupervisors, colleagues, and clients (guests), and encompassesphysical aspects of thework environment. We also found that threeof these dimensions; the experience of “Supervisor respect and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

See World**

Social

Respect

Flexibility

Physical

Crew (n=132)

Supervising crew(n=58)

Fig. 1. Job perceptions in supervising- and non-supervising crew.

fairness”, the positive experience of the “Social atmosphere: Guestsand friends”, and the positive experiences of food and livingquarters, all significantly predicted job satisfaction in cruise linecrews. Job commitment was found to be predicted by the samefactors as well as by the empirical factors of “Getting to see theworld” and the experience of “Supervisors’ flexibility”. Our resultsfurther showed that job perception factors were judged to berelatively positive in the current cruise line. Nonetheless, crewwithsupervisory responsibilities perceived “See the world and earnmoney” to be less important than non-supervising crew perceivedthis factor to be. Neither age nor gender can explain this difference.

Job perceptions are important inasmuch as they are related invarious ways to peoples’ everyday lives (Harter & Arora, 2009).Judge and Ilies (2004) found that moods at work affected moodsafter work, and underlined that attitudes toward work extended toemotions after work. Onboard cruise ships, one may expect theserelationships to be even stronger, since the workplace is not onlythe arena for work but also for much of the crew members’ leisuretime; the cruise ship is both home and work. However, the fact thatmost crew have separate areas for work and leisure time onboarddoes not mean that these are distinctly separated at the psycho-logical level. People may feel that the confines of the cruise ship aretight, and that there is no real possibility for them to get away fromthese confines for leisure purposes. This is one important reasonwhy job perceptions, particularly as they pertain to the social lifeonboard (relationships to superordinates, colleagues, subordinates,and guests) are of particular interest for the cruise sector.

Another reason for approaching this challenging area ofresearch in the cruise sector is that job perceptions have beenshown to be linked with job satisfaction (Testa & Mueller, 2009).Indeed, job perceptions have been causally linked with the bottomline and with customer loyalty in various industries (Harter et al.,2010). This further underlines that job perceptions should be anarea of concern, both for the organization’s strategic managementand for the daily leadership onboard cruise liners. Customer satis-faction is positively related to profitability (Harter et al., 2010;Cronin & Taylor, 1992), and customer satisfaction is, to a largeextent, a function of the service workers’ happiness (Yee et al.,2008). In addition, our data suggest that job experiences influ-ence outcomes such as job satisfaction and organizationalcommitment, and logically an intense focus should be held con-cerning this issue. It is our contention that if the cruise line issuccessful in administering factors that influence job satisfaction

Table 4Regression analysis of job satisfaction.

Variable B b t Sig.

Constant 4.536 19.448 .000Get respect .399 .312 5.130 .000Social .427 .334 5.561 .000See the world .121 .095 1,571 .118Physical .227 .273 4.470 .000Sup flexibility �.132 .103 1.709 .089

R2¼ .344.

S. Larsen et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 592e597596

and organizational commitment, such as the crew’s perception oftheir jobs, they can also develop their internal cultures, their workenvironment as it is, in the direction of promoting positiveoutcomes concerning organizational commitment and jobsatisfaction.

This logically highlights one other area of interest for this kind ofresearch, namely the relationship of job experiences on the oneside and satisfaction with life in general on the other. In an essaypublished almost 20 years ago, Larsen and Rapp (1993) raised theissue of crew tenure, an area which is no less difficult to handletoday (Testa, 2004). Based on the knowledge drawn from thepresent study, we can probably say that Larsen and Rapp’scontention that online management training is pivotal is equallyvalid today, since such training efforts may influence both spheresof crew members’ lives. In addition, we now know that in order toincrease the likelihood of keeping qualified workers within thecruise industry, attention needs to be directed directly toward workenvironment issues, including those that concern perceptions ofmanagers, colleagues, and guests onboard, and those that pertain tothe general social environment of the cruise ship as such.

4.1. Some final remarks

The response rate in the present research is somewhat low. Thiscan be interpreted as fear or resistance in the crew. It may alsoreflect some of the individual ships’ cultures as being protectiveand not open to insight from external individuals. Thirdly, it mayreflect the personnel’s suspicions concerning the organization assuch, or concerning the researchers; they may not have believed inthe assurance of anonymity.

The lack of research into the cruise sector is probably due in partto the difficulties in gathering data from the sector, and to thedifficulties in getting access both to people working in the industryand to cruise line passengers for systematic sampling and datacollection purposes. One may, of course, also speculate that someoperators in the cruise industry would be hesitant to allowresearchers to enter their domain, reluctant to be researched and topay the price for getting systematic knowledge. Along the samelines, one could also speculate that the cruise sector is highlyvulnerable and that operators in the industry tend to keep what isunderstood to be “trade secrets” to themselves for reasons ofcompetition. On the other hand, it maywell be thatmanagers in thesector are skeptical toward academic research because researchresults are viewed at best as “not being practical”, or at worst, asuseless.

Our results stipulate relationships between theoreticalconstructs, but they can also be translated relatively easily intopractical management and leadership skills. Onboard cruise ships,our data could guide training programs for officers and supervisingcrew in basic skills of interaction and of communication of respectand flexibility. Huang and Hsu (2010) showed that contact betweencustomers onboard cruise ships is important for the service qualityexperience of the clients, just as our data show that such contactbetween crew members is important for crew members. It is,therefore, reasonable to expect that communication skills training,highlighting respect and flexibility, could have spillover effectsinasmuch as such abilities are generic and can be applied in manyrelationships, also in relation to customers. Such training effortscould, therefore, easily turn out to be winewin situations.

At the same time, it is imperative to underline that the cruisesector should not be deceived by consultancies offering expensiveprograms with “guaranteed positive effects” (cf. Stanovich, 2010). Ifsuch programs are not based on sound empirical knowledge, theymay prove to be of marginal, if indeed any, value. While Lee-Ross(2006) asserted that there are a lot of “poor management practices”

(p. 48) and inadequate training in the cruise sector, we are confidentthat such practices will not improve unless both selection andonline training of mangers in the cruise sector are based on soundknowledge.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express gratitude to the cruise line forallowing us to gather data and to crewmembers for participating inour focus groups and for filling in questionnaires. We would alsolike to thank the anonymous reviewers, as well as Professor JohnS.A. Edwards of Bournemouth University (UK) for languagesupervision.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, inthe online, version at doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.06.014.

References

Brown, S. P., & Lam, S. K. (2008). A meta analysis of relationships linking employeesatisfaction to customer responses. Journal of Retailing, 84, 243e255.

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., & Klesh, J. R. (1983). Assessing the atti-tudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S. E. Seashore,E. E. Lawler, III, P. H. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizationalchange: A guide to methods, measures and practices (pp. 71e138). New York:Wiley.

Cronin, J. J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a re-examination andextension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55e68.

De Lange, A., De Witte, H., & Notelaers, G. (2008). Should I stay or should I go?Examining longitudinal relations among job resources and work engagementfor stayers versus movers. Work & Stress, 22, 201e223.

Dowling, R. K., & Cowan, E. (2002). Cruise ship tourism. Cabi: Oxfordshire, UK.Gibson, P. (2006). Cruise operations management. Burlington, MA: Elsevier (Butter-

worth-Heinemann).Harter, J. K., & Arora, R. (2009). The impact of time spent working and job fit on

well-being around the world. In E. Diener, J. F. Helliwell, & D. Kahneman (Eds.),International differences in well-being (pp. 398e435). Oxford, UK: OxfordUniversity Press, Inc.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Asplund, J. W., Killham, E., & Agrawal, S. (2010). Causalimpact of employee work perceptions on the bottom line of organizations.Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 378e389.

Heslin, P. A., & Vandewalle, D. (2008). Managers’ implicit assumptions aboutpersonnel. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 219e223.

Heslin, P. A., Vandewalle, D., & Latham, G. P. (2006). Keen to help? Managers’implicit person theories and their subsequent employee coaching. PersonnelPsychology, 59, 871e902.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.Hosany, S., & Witham, M. (2009). ). Dimensions of cruisers’ experiences, satisfaction,

and intention to recommend. Journal of Travel Research, 1e14. doi:10.1177/0047287509346859, Downloaded 20.07.10.

Howitt, D., & Cramer, D. (2005). Introduction to research methods in psychology.Harlow, U.K.: Pearson Education Limited.

Huang, J., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2010). The impact of customer-to-customer interaction oncruise experience and vacation satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 49,79e92.

Hung, K., & Petrick, J. F. (2010). Developing a measurement scale for constraints tocruising. Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 206e208.

Johansson, M., & Näslund, L. (2009). Welcome to paradise. Customer experiencesdesign and emotional labour on a cruise ship. International Journal of Work andEmotion, 3(1), 40e55.

Johnson, D. (2002). Environmentally sustainable cruise tourism: a reality check.Marine Policy, 26, 261e270.

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2004). Affect and job satisfaction: a study of their rela-tionship at work and at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 661e673.

Klein, R. A. (2005). Cruise ship squeeze e The new pirates of the seven seas. GabriolaIsland, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Klein, R. A. (2008). Paradise lost at sea e Rethinking cruise vacations. Halifax, Win-nipeg: Fernwood Publishing.

Larsen, S. (1996). Communication in a multinational service organization. InR. Teare, M. D. Olsen, & E. Gummeson (Eds.), Service quality in hospitalityorganizations (pp. 48e65). London, UK: Cassell.

Larsen, S., Brun, W., & Øgaard, T. (2009). What tourists worry about e constructionof a scale measuring tourist worries. Tourism Management, 30, 260e265.

Larsen, S., Brun, W., Øgaard, T., & Selstad, L. (2007). Subjective food risk judgmentsin tourists. Tourism Management, 28, 1555e1559.

S. Larsen et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 592e597 597

Larsen, S., & Folgerø, I. (1993). Supportive and defensive communication. Interna-tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 5(3), 22e25.

Larsen, S., Øgaard, T., & Marnburg, E. (2005). Worries in restaurant managers.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 91e96.

Larsen, S., & Rapp, L. (1993). Creating the service driven cruise line. InternationalJournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 5(2), ivevi.

Lee-Ross, D. (2006). Cruise tourism and organizational culture: the case for occu-pational communities. In R. K. Dowling (Ed.), Cruise ship tourism (pp. 41e50).Wallingford, UK: CABI.

Loper, C. (2005). Overview of the socio-economic impacts of cruise tourism. InProceedings of the 14th biennial coastal zone conference, New Orleans, Louisiana,July 17e21.

Mathieu, J. E. (1991). A cross-level nonrecursive model of the antecedents oforganizational commitment and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,607e618.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,correlates and consequences of organizational commitment. PsychologicalBulletin, 108, 171e194.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organiza-tional commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224e247.

Murray, J. T. (2005). The impact of cruise ship tourism on local economies. InProceedings of the 14th biennial coastal zone conference, New Orleans, Louisiana,July 17e21.

Nebeker, D., Busso, L., Werenfels, P. D., Diallo, H., Czekajewski, A., & Ferdman, B.(2001). Airline station performance as a function of employee satisfaction.Journal of Quality Management, 6, 29e45.

Petrick, J. F., Li, X., & Park, S.-Y. (2007). Cruise passengers’ decision-makingprocesses. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 23(1), 1e14.

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (June 1981). A competing values approach to organi-zational effectiveness. Public Productivity Review, 122e140.

Seidl, A., Guiliano, F., & Pratt, L. (2007). Cruising for colonies: cruise tourismeconomics in Costa Rica. Tourism Economics, 13, 67e85.

Stanovich, K. E. (2010). How to think straight about psychology (9th ed.). Boston:Pearson.

Swaan, C. M., Ouwerkerk, I. M., & Roest, H. J. (2010). Cluster of botulism amongDutch tourists. Eurosurveillance, 15(14), 4e9.

Testa, M. R. (2001). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and effort in theservice environment. The Journal of Psychology, 132, 226e236.

Testa, M. R. (2004). Cultural similarity and service leadership: a look at the cruiseindustry. Managing Service Quality, 14, 402e413.

Testa, M. R., & Mueller, S. L. (2009). Demographic and cultural predictors ofinternational service worker job satisfaction. Managing Service Quality, 19,195e210.

Tsoukatos, E., & Rand, G. K. (2007). Cultural influence on service quality andcustomer satisfaction: evidence from Greek insurance. Managing ServiceQuality, 17, 467e485.

Urry, J. (1998). The tourist gaze. London: Sage.Wilkinson, P. F. (1999). Caribbean cruise tourism: delusion? illusion? Tourism

Geographics, 1, 261e282.Yee, R. W. Y., Yeung, A. C. L., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2008). The impact of employee

satisfaction on quality and profitability in high-contact service industries.Journal of Operations Management, 26, 651e668.