Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
Ekinci 2003) question the use of a single comparison standard and have instead called for
recognition that tourists might use multiple comparison standards at any point in time.
The basic expectancy disconfi rmation model has undergone various adaptations and it also
forms the basis for the popular SERVQUAL model (Zeithaml
et al
. 1990). This model assumes
that customers have expectations of service quality and any deviations result in disconfi rmations
of expectations. It operates under the assumption that gaps between customers' expected and
perceived service are not only a measure of the quality of the service but also a determinant of
customer (dis)satisfaction (Pizam and Ellis 1999). Therefore, although service quality and (dis)
satisfaction are not the same thing, they are linked in that customers perceiving poor service
quality for example, are unlikely to be satisfi ed. The SERVQUAL scale remains one of the most
popular models in tourism and it has been used in various studies including: alpine resorts
(Weiermair and Fuchs 1999), airlines (Robledo 2001; Gilbert and Wong 2003) and specifi c
destinations (Pawitra and Tan 2003; Lee
et al
. 2004) among many others. Furthermore, Laws
(1991) notes that many more researchers also refer their work to the SERVQUAL model either
by using some of its constructs, or by differentiating their analyses from it.
The disconfi rmations approach also forms the basis of Importance-performance models.
These models stem from decision making models as discussed in
part fi ve
of this volume, and
they recognize that all attributes of the experience may not be of equal value to the consumer
and hence satisfaction levels will vary accordingly. Based on this approach, compensatory models
presume that customers make trade-offs of satisfaction of one attribute for another. Weighted
compensatory models operate in the same way except they assume that each attribute has
an importance weight relative to other attributes. On the other hand, non-compensatory
models posit that tourism products consist of both core (the taken for granted elements) and
peripheral attributes (the secondary features that differentiate the product) and whilst failure in
the core elements is likely to cause dissatisfaction, positive evaluations are not refl ected in a
commensurately positive evaluation overall.
The disconfi rmations approach assumes satisfaction to be mainly based on expectations.
Yet for fi rst time users, expectations are often vague or non-existent (Arnold and Price
1993; Obenour
et al
. 2006; Yuskal and Yuksal 2001) and people may update their expectations
where there are delays between purchase and consumption or where they obtain additional
information (Kozak 2001). Furthermore the most memorable and satisfying experiences
can often be the most unexpected (Botterill 1987; Curtin 2005). These diffi culties with
using expectations as a comparison standard, amongst others, led to the development of
'performance only' approaches, which position evaluative judgements as made solely against the
performance of the product or experience, and thus tourists are likely to be satisfi ed when
performance is at a desired level (see for example Qu and Li 1997; Kozak and Rimmington
2000; Robledo 2001).
Despite numerous variations there remain some common assumptions inherent in process
approaches that are worth highlighting. Regardless of the comparison standard used, process
approaches assume satisfaction to be the outcome of a rational cognitive process and despite the
assumption of an evaluative process the focal point is always the post-consumption assessment.
Satisfaction is treated as an abstract and theoretical phenomenon (Kozak 2001) measurable
through quantifi able methods, using indicators defi ned by the researcher. Tourists are required to
rate their level of satisfaction against the standards determined by the researcher. Furthermore,
there is also an assumption that satisfaction is individually interpreted and independent of other
individuals. However, there are also differences, most specifi cally in relation to the most
appropriate comparative standard, the role of expectations, the relationship between quality and
satisfaction and the relative importance of various attributes. This has resulted in an increasing
