Tourism Management 31 (2010) 29–35
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect at ScienceDirect
Tourism Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman
Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists Ching-Fu Chen a , Fu-Shian Chen b ,
a b
*
Department of Transportation & Communication Management Science, National Cheng Kung University, 1, Ta-Hsueh Rd., Tainan 701, Taiwan, ROC Department of Tourism Management, Nan Hua University, 32, Chung-Kung, Dalin, 622, Taiwan, ROC
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 8 October 2007 Accepted 18 February 2009 Keywords: Experience quality Perceived value Satisfaction Behavioral Behavioral intentions Heritage tourism
a b s t r a c t
This paper examines examines the visitor visitor experien experience ce of heritage heritage tourism tourism and investi investigates gates the relations relationships hips between the quality of those experiences, perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. A total of 447 respondents completed a survey conducted at four main heritage sites in Tainan, Taiwan. Using structural structural equation equation modeling modeling (SEM) techniqu technique, e, the results reveal the direct direct effects effects of the quality of experience on perceived value and satisfaction. However, it is the indirect and not direct effects of the quality quality of experien experience ce that impact on behavior behavioral al intentio intentions ns whe when n mediated mediated by perceive perceived d value value and satisfaction. Overall, the relationship ‘‘experience ‘‘experience quality perceived value satisfaction behavioral intentions’’ appears to be evident. 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Althou Although gh the impor importan tance ce of servic service e qualit quality y has been been highlig highlighte hted d in the touris tourism m litera literatur ture, e, anothe anotherr relate related d and nuance nuanced d factor factor,, that that of the experience of the service, has been relatively relatively neglected. Service experience can be defined as the subjective personal reactions and feeling feelingss that that are felt felt by consu consumer merss whe when n consu consumin ming g or using using a servic service. e. It can be conte contende nded d that that servic service e expe experie rience nce has an important important influence influence on the consumer consumer evaluation evaluation of and satisfacti satisfaction on with a given service (Otto (Otto & Ritchie, 2000). 2000). Hence, a better understanding of experiential phenomena in tourism service is particularly important, and will permit the industry to better perform. Consistent with more general global trends in cultural tourism, heritage heritage tourism has emerged emerged as one popular form of tourism. tourism. Curr Current ently ly a transi transitio tional nal phase phase can be identi identified fied,, namely namely from from product product-led -led developme development nt of heritage heritage attraction attractionss that emphasize emphasize exhibits and education, to a more visitor-oriented development that emphasize emphasizess consumer consumer preferences preferences and quality quality of personal personal experien experience ce (Apo Aposto stolak lakis is & Jaff Jaffry ry,, 2005 2005). ). Herita Heritage ge touris tourism, m, like like oth other er leisure and tourism activities, is viewed to a great extent as an experiential consumption. Hence, the quality visitors perceive is much more associated with their experiences during during the process process of visitation visitation than services services per se provided provided by the heritage. heritage. Unlike service quality, however, there is still little research shedding light
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 886 6 2757575x53230. E-mail address: cfchen99@mai
[email protected] l.ncku.edu.tw w (C.-F. Chen).
0261-5177/$ – see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.008
/
/
/
on the experiential quality of specific tourism participation such as heritage visitation. To increase visitors’ positive behavioral intentions, heritage managers should set their priorities to provide high quality, satisfying experiences that visitors perceive to be a good value (Lee, (Lee, Petrick, & Crompton, 2007). 2007). Among various variables, service quality, perceived value, and satisf satisfact action ion have have been been identi identified fied as three three major major antece anteceden dents ts affecting tourists’ behavioral intentions in past studies (Baker (Baker & Crom Cr ompt pton on,, 2000 2000;; Pe Petr tric ick, k, 200 2004; 4; Pe Petr tric ick k & Ba Back ckma man, n, 200 2002 2). Regarding the relationships among quality, satisfaction, value, and behaviora behaviorall intensions intensions,, four relationsh relationship ip models models from different different perspectives can be identified according to Cronin, to Cronin, Brady, and Hult (2000).. The first (2000) first model, model, based based on the servic service e value value litera literatur ture, e, sugge suggests sts that that value value leads leads direct directly ly to favor favorable able outco outcomes mes.. The second model, driven from the satisfaction literature, assumes that customer satisfaction is the primary and direct link to outcome measur measures. es. The third third model, model, center centering ing on inter inter-re -relat lation ionshi ships ps between variables, suggests service quality influences behavioral intentions only through the mediation of value and satisfaction. The fourth fourth model model assume assumess all three three variab variables les direc directly tly lead lead to favorable behavioral intentions. Apart from the mixed arguments mentio mentioned ned above above,, to the author authors’ s’ best best knowle knowledg dge, e, the there re is no previous study endeavored to the context of heritage tourism. This study focuses on the experience experience quality of heritage tourism perceived by heritage tourists and furthermore explores the relationships between experience quality, intermediary constructs (i.e. perceiv perceived ed value value and satisfactio satisfaction) n) and post-visi post-visitation tation behaviora behaviorall intent intention ions. s. A better better unders understan tandin ding g of the these se relati relations onship hipss can
30
C.-F. Chen, F.-S. Chen / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 29–35
provide heritage managers insights into knowing heritage visitors’ experiences and behavioral intentions, and adjust their services to meet visitors’ needs. 2. Theoretical background and hypotheses 2.1. Experience quality
The service quality model, SERVQUAL based on the expectancy disconfirmation theory (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985, 1988), has been widely applied in the tourism literature. However, Fick and Ritchie (1991) argue that SERVQUAL scale does not adequately address both affective and holistic factors which contribute to the overall quality of ‘service experience’. In Otto and Ritchie’s (1996) study, differences between service quality and experience quality are discussed. For example, experience quality is subjective in terms of measurement while service quality is objective. The evaluation of experience quality tends to be holistic/ gestalt rather than attribute-based, and the focus of evaluation is on self (internal) but not on service environment (external). In addition, the scope of experience is more general than specific, the nature of benefit is experiential/hedonic/symbolic rather than functional/utilitarian, and the psychological representation is affective instead of cognitive/attitudinal. In the tourism context, service quality refers to service performance at the attribute level while experience quality refers to the psychological outcome resulting from customer participation in tourism activities. The former has been defined as the quality of the attributes of a service which are under the control of a supplier, while the later involves not only the attributes provided by a supplier but also the attributes brought to the opportunity by the visitor. Therefore, experience quality can be conceptualized as tourists’ affective responses to their desired social–psychological benefits. It also refers to a specific service transaction, such as contact with people who contribute to the actual experience (Chan & Baum, 2007). Otto and Ritchie (1996) develop an experience quality scale with four factors – i.e. hedonics, peace of mind, involvement, and recognition – using consumer survey data obtained from three tourism service sectors including hotels, airlines, and tours and attractions. Hedonics is associated with the affective responses such as excitement, enjoyment and memorability. Peace of mind is concerned about the need for both physical and psychological safety and comfort. Involvement refers to the desire to have choice and control in the service offering, and the demand to be educated, informed and imbued with a sense of mutual cooperation. Finally, Recognition is linked to feeling important and confident while consumers themselves are being taken seriously. In their study on theme park, Kao, Huang, and Wu (2008) conceptualized experiential quality by four factors – immersion, surprise, participation and fun. Immersion is defined as the involvement of consumers during consumption, which leads them to forget time and emphasize the consumption process instead of consumption results. Surprise refers to the freshness, specialty, or uniqueness perceived. Participation pertains to the interaction between consumers and the product (service), and fun relates to the happiness and enjoyment consumers receive. Their results reveal that experiential quality relates positively to satisfaction and satisfaction furthermore influences visitors’ behavioral intentions positively.
between perceived benefits and perceived costs (Lovelock, 2000). Holbrook (1999) proposes a typology of value based on three dimensions: self-oriented vs. other-oriented, active vs. reactive, and extrinsic vs. intrinsic. Recent research studies suggest that perceived value may be a better predictor of repurchase intentions than either satisfaction or quality (Cronin et al., 2000; Oh, 2000). Perceived value can be analyzed with either a self-reported, unidimensional measure (Gale, 1994) or a multidimensional scale (Petrick & Backman, 2002; Sheth, Newman, & Gross, 1991). However, the validity of unidimensional measure is always criticized due to its assumption that consumers have a shared meaning of value. On the other hand, multidimensional scale can overcome the validity problem by operationalizing perceived value by, for example, a five-dimensional construct consisting of social, emotional, functional, epistemic, and conditional responses (Sheth et al., 1991). SERV-PERVAL scale proposed by Petrick and Backman (2002) is another example which includes five dimensions: i.e. quality, monetary price, non-monetary price, reputation, and emotional response. Past studies have suggested that perceived quality and monetary price are two main antecedents of perceived value of tourism services (Duman & Mattila, 2005), and perceived value is an important antecedent to satisfaction and behavioral intentions (Cronin et al., 2000; Dodds, Monroe, & Grewal, 1991; McDougall & Levesque, 2000).
2.3. Satisfaction
Satisfaction refers to the perceived discrepancy between prior expectation and perceived performance after consumption – when performance differs from expectation, dissatisfaction occurs (Oliver, 1980). It can be defined as the degree to which one believes that an experience evokes positive feelings (Rust & Oliver, 1994). In tourism context, satisfaction is primarily referred to as a function of pre-travel expectations and post-travel experiences. When experiences compared to expectations result in feelings of gratification, the tourist is satisfied. However, when they result in feelings of displeasure, the tourist is dissatisfied (Reisinger & Turner, 2003). Past studies have suggested that perceptions of service quality and value affect satisfaction, and satisfaction furthermore affect loyalty and post-behaviors (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Bignie, Sanchez, & Sanchez, 2001; Chen, 2008; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Choi & Chu 2001; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; De Rojas & Camarero, 2008; Fornell, 1992; Oliver, 1980; Petrick & Backman, 2002; Tam, 2000). For example, the satisfied tourists may revisit a destination,
Perceived value H1
H5 H4
Exp. Quality
H2
2.2. Perceived value
Perceived value is defined as ‘‘the consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product (or service) based on perceptions of what is received and what is given’’ (Zeithaml, 1988), i.e. a trade-off
Behavioral intention
H3
H6 Satisfaction
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
C.-F. Chen, F.-S. Chen / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 29–35
31
Table 1 Inter-correlations among model variables.
EX1 EX2 EX3 PV1 PV2 PV3 PV4 PV5 SAT1 SAT2 SAT3 SAT4 REV REC Mean S.D
EX1
EX2
EX3
PV1
PV2
PV3
PV4
PV5
SAT1
SAT2
SAT3
SAT4
REV
REC
1 .658** .703** .541** .573** .576** .491** .458** .392** .549** .418** .521** .557** .513** 3.84 0.57
1 .615** .426** .390** .399** .307** .327** .301** .427** .418** .413** .432** .372** 3.27 0.63
1 .552** .468** .488** .394** .385** .403** .522** .479** .509** .502** .483** 3.80 0.54
1 .763** .690** .535** .526** .596** .470** .344** .437** .551** .539** 3.88 0.82
1 .825** .590** .604** .408** .435** .266** .480** .528** .529** 4.07 0.71
1 .615** .621** .387** .428** .295** .480** .526** .532** 4.13 0.67
1 .755** .335** .373** .331** .484** .435** .496** 4.29 0.70
1 .358** .358** .327** .474** .478** .489** 4.25 0.72
1 .565** .415** .346** .433** .443** 3.54 0.93
1 .505** .519** .516** .506** 3.86 0.71
1 .459** .397** .362** 3.66 0.91
1 .606** .561** 3.90 0.76
1 .769** 4.01 0.74
1 4.00 0.73
** p < 0.01.
recommend it to others, or express favorable comments about the destination. On the other hand, dissatisfied tourists may not return to the same destination and may not recommend it to other tourists. Even worse, dissatisfied tourists may express negative comments about a destination and damage its market reputation (Reisinger & Turner, 2003)
action loyalty. In practice, action loyalty is difficult to measure and thus most researchers employ behavioral intentions, i.e. conative loyalty as a compromise of action loyalty (Yang & Peterson, 2004). The degree of destination loyalty is frequently reflected in tourists’ intentions to revisit the destination and in their willingness to recommend it (Chen & Tsai, 2007; Oppermann, 2000).
2.4. Behavioral intentions
2.5. Relationships between variables
Favorable behavioral intentions frequently represent customer’s conative loyalty. Customer loyalty is an important goal in the consumer marketing community as it is a key component for a company’s long-term viability or sustainability. Measuring loyalty can provide a better understanding of customer retention. Retaining existing customers usually has a much lower associated cost than winning new ones. Furthermore, loyal customers are more likely to recommend friends, relatives or other potential customers to a product/service by acting as free word-of-mouth advertising agents (Shoemaker & Lewis, 1999). Loyalty can be defined and assessed by both attitudinal and behavioral measures. The attitudinal measure refers to a specific desire to continue a relationship with a service provider while the behavioral perspective refers to the concept of repeat patronage. According to Oliver (1999), customer loyalty can be identified into four stages: cognitive l oyalty, affective loyalty, conative loyalty, and
As mentioned above, understanding the determinants of customer loyalty can facilitate management’s focus on the major factors leading to customer retention. Many studies have examined the antecedents of repeat purchase intentions. Additionally, the causal relationships among customer perceptions of service quality, satisfaction, value, and behavioral intensions have been established by previous studies (Athanassopoulos, 2000; Baker & Crompton, 2000; Chen, 2008; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Cronin et al., 2000; Petrick & Backman, 2002; Rust & Oliver, 1994; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). Quality, perceived value, and satisfaction all have been shown to be good predictors of behavioral intentions (Petrick, 2004). To better understand tourist experiences, however, we argue that the concept of experience quality is more appropriate than service quality in the context of heritage tourism. Hence, experience quality is used to replace service quality in the relationships between quality, value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in this study. Experience quality is therefore assumed to directly and significantly influence satisfaction and perceived value. According to supports in past studies, perceived value has an positive influence
Table 2 Convergent validity.
Constructs
Items Item reliability
Construct reliability
Average variance extracted
Standardized factor loading
Standard t -value errors
Experience EX1 quality EX2 EX3
0.88 0.73 0.82
0.02 0.02 0.02
23.06** 0.94 17.81** 20.79**
0.84
Perceived value
0.85 0.90 0.91 0.66 0.67
0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03
22.36** 0.94 24.69** 25.03** 16.02** 16.10**
0.78
Satisfaction SAT1 SAT2 SAT3 SAT4
0.68 0.76 0.61 0.76
0.04 0.02 0.04 0.03
15.32** 0.84 18.58** 14.04** 17.92**
0.58
Behavioral REV intention REC
0.89 0.86
0.02 0.02
23.34** 0.92 22.32**
0.86
** p < 0.01.
PV1 PV2 PV3 PV4 PV5
Table 3 Goodness of fit.
Criteria
Indicators
c test c2 c2/d.f.
p > 0.05 <5
264.40 ( p < 0.001) 3.8 (264.40/68)
Fit indices GFI AGFI RFI NFI NNFI
0.90 0.90 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90
0.93 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97
0.95 0.08 <0.05
0.98 0.07 0.04
2
Alternative indices CFI RMSEA RMR
> >
> <
32
C.-F. Chen, F.-S. Chen / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 29–35
PV1
PV2
PV3
PV4
PV5
0.85 0.90 0.91 0.66 0.67
Perceived value
γ 1=0.70(14.59) EX1
. β2=0.25(4.37)
β1=0.30(5.02)
REV
0.88 EX2
0.89 Experience quality
0.73
Behavioral intentions
γ 2=0.06(0.82)
0.82
0.86
REC
EX3
γ 3=0.57(8.52)
β3=0.57(6.69) Satisfaction
0.68 0.76 0.61 0.76 SAT1
SAT2
SAT3
SAT4
Fig. 2. Estimated results of the model (t values in parentheses).
on overall satisfaction (Cronin et al. 2000; Petrick & Backman, 2002), and both satisfaction and perceived value appear to be the direct antecedents of behavioral intentions (Cronin et al., 2000; Dodds et al., 1991; McDougall & Levesque, 2000; Petrick & Backman, 2002; Tam, 2000). A conceptual relationship model of this study is proposed (see Fig. 1) and six hypotheses are made as follows. H1 The higher the experience quality that heritage tourists perceive, the higher the perceived value they have. H2 The higher the experience quality that heritage tourists perceive, the higher the level of satisfaction they have. H3 The higher the experience quality that heritage tourists perceive, the more positive the behavioral intentions they have. H4 The higher the value that heritage tourists perceive, the higher the level of satisfaction they have. H5 The higher the value that heritage tourists perceive, the more positive the behavioral intentions they have. H6 The higher the level of satisfaction that heritage tourists have, the more positive the behavioral intentions they have.
Table 4 Hypotheses tests.
Path H1: Experience quality Perceived value (g1) H2: Experience quality Satisfaction (g2) H3: Experience quality Behavioral intentions (g3) H4: Perceived value Satisfaction (b1) H5: Perceived value Behavioral intentions (b2) H6: Satisfaction Behavioral intentions (b3) /
/ /
/ /
/
Structural coefficients
S.E. t
Test result
0.70
0.04 14.59** Support
0.57 0.06
0.06 8.52** Support 0.07 0.82 Reject
0.30 0.25
0.05 5.02 Support 0.05 4.37** Support
0.57
0.08
3. Methodology
A self-administrated questionnaire survey was conducted to collect empirical data from heritage tourists in Tainan, a historical city in Taiwan. The questions in the questionnaire are designed based on a review of the literature and specific characteristics of heritage tourism. The questionnaire was pre-tested and revised to ensure content validity. The questionnaire consists of five parts. Part 1 of the questionnaire deals with the measurement of experience quality with 20 items. Part 2 deals with the measurement of perceived value with 5 items. Part 3 deals with satisfaction measurement with 4 items. Part 4 deals with the measurement of behavioral intentions with 2 items. Finally, Part 5 reports respondent information with 6 items including age, gender, marital status, occupation and monthly income. Apart from respondent information measured by a categorical scale, all items of the first four parts are measured by a 5-point Likert-type scale from ‘strongly disagree (¼1)’ to ‘strongly agree (¼5)’. To delineate underlying factors of experience quality, this research conducts an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal component method with varimax rotation. Three factors are extracted and named based on the underlying items such as involvement, peace of mind and educational experience.1 The means of the delineated factors of experience quality are calculated and used for subsequent analyses. Table 1 reports the inter-correlations among measurement variables in the conceptual model. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is performed to specify the structure between observed indicators and latent constructs, and test the validity of measurement model. Subsequently, structural equations among latent constructs are examined to test the
**
1
6.69** Support
Two items are removed due to their factor loadings being less than the cut-off value, i.e. 0.5. The EFA results of experiential quality are not reported here, but are available from the author upon request.
C.-F. Chen, F.-S. Chen / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 29–35 Table 5 Direct, indirect and total effects of relationships.
Path
Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect
Experience Quality Perceived Value Perceived Value Satisfaction Satisfaction Behavior Intention Experience Quality Satisfaction Perceived Value Behavior Intention Experience Quality Behavior Intention /
/
/
/
/
/
0.70 0.30 0.57 0.57 0.25 –
– – – 0.21 0.17 0.62
0.70 0.30 0.57 0.78 0.42 0.62
conceptual structural equation model (SEM).All of the CFA and SEM procedures are conducted by using maximum likelihood parameter estimates and appropriate correlation matrix with LISREL 8 ( Jo¨ reskog & So¨ rbom, 1996). 4. Empirical results
The questionnaire survey was conducted at four major cultural heritage sites in Tainan City during November and December, 2006. Due to limited time and manpower, a convenience sampling method was adopted. Visitors who finished their visitation at a heritage site were asked their willingness to take part in the questionnaire survey. Given a yes answer, they were then asked to complete the questionnaire. A total of 600 questionnaires were distributed and 477 usable responses were obtained after removing incomplete samples, yielding a response rate of 79.5%. In the respondents’ profile, 53% are female visitors and about 80% are aged between 18 and 30, while 72% respondents are single and around 80% hold a university degree and over. The respondents, who are students or blue collar workers, account for 50% of the sample, and 76% of the sample have a monthly income less than NT$ 40,000.2 A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is first used to confirm the factor loadings of the four constructs (i.e. experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions) and to assess the model fit. The model adequacy was assessed by the fit indices suggested by Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998) and Jo¨ reskog and So¨ rbom (1996). Convergent validity of CFA results should be supported by item reliability, construct reliability, and average variance extracted (Hair et al., 1998).As shown in Table 2, t values for all the standardized factor loadings of items are found to be significant ( p < 0.01). In addition, construct reliability estimates ranging from 0.84 to 0.94, which exceed the critical value of 0.7, indicating a satisfactory estimation. The average extracted variances of all constructs range between 0.58 and 0.86 which are above the suggested value of 0.5. These indicate that the measurement model has good convergent validity. Therefore, the hypothesized measurement model is reliable and meaningful to test the structural relationships among the constructs. The structural model is estimated with a maximum likelihood estimation method and a correlation matrix as input data. Table 3 summarizes the fit indices of the structural model. The overall model indicates that c2 ¼ 264.40, d.f. ¼ 68, and is significant at p < 0.001. Technically, the p -value should be greater than 0.05, i.e. statistically insignificant, to indicate that the model well fits the empirical data. As the c2 value is very sensitive to sample size, however, it frequently results in rejecting a well-fitted model when sample size increases. In practice, the normed c2 (i.e. c2/d.f.) has been recommended as a better goodness of fit than the c2 value. In order to examine the model fit, therefore, this study uses sample size dependent (rather than sample size independent) measures of
33
goodnessof fit.The c2/d.f. ratio of less than 5 is used as the common decision rule of an acceptable overall model fit. The normed c 2 of model is 3.8 (i.e. 264.40/68), indicating an acceptable fit. Furthermore, other indicators of goodness of fit are GFI ¼ 0.93, AGFI ¼ 0.90, RFI ¼ 0.97, NFI ¼ 0.97, NNFI ¼ 0.97, CFI ¼ 0.98, RMSEA ¼ 0.07, and RMR ¼ 0.04. Comparing to the corresponding critical values shown in Table 3, it suggests that the hypothesized model fitsthe empirical data well. Within the overall model, the estimates of the structural coefficients provide the basis for testing the proposed hypotheses. This study examines the structural model with one exogenous construct (i.e. experience quality) and three endogenous constructs (i.e. perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions). Therefore, the proposed structural model is tested to estimate three Gamma parameters and three Beta parameters. Fig. 2 provides details about the parameter estimates for the model, and Table 4 reports the results of the hypothesis tests. Totally, five out of six hypotheses are supported. Experience quality has a significant positive effect on both perceived value and satisfaction (g1 ¼ 0.70, t -value ¼ 14.59 and g2 ¼ 0.57, t -value ¼ 8.52, respectively), but not on behavioral intentions (and g3 ¼ 0.06, t -value ¼ 0.82). Thus, H1 and H2 are supportedwhile H3 is rejected. The perceived value, as hypothesized, has significant positive effects on satisfaction (b1 ¼ 0.30, t -value ¼ 5.02) as well as behavioral intention (b2 ¼ 0.25, t -value ¼ 4.37), thus supporting H4 and H5. Finally, the satisfaction has a significantly positive effect on behavioral intentions (b3 ¼ 0.57, t -value ¼ 6.69), supporting H6. Table 5 reports the measured effects of all relationships. First, the direct effect of experience quality on perceived value (0.70) is greater than it is on satisfaction (0.57), while no direct effect of experience quality on behavioral intentions is found. Second, although both direct effects of perceived value and satisfaction on behavioral intentions are identified, the latter (0.57) is greater than theformer (0.25). With respect to indirect effects, third,the effectof experience quality on behavioral intentions mediated by perceived value and/or satisfaction is 0.62, hence resulting in a total effect of 0.62. Additionally, perceived value has a direct effect (0.25) as well as an indirect effect (0.17) mediated by satisfaction on behavioral intentions. 5. Discussion and conclusions
This study was motivated by the need for research that can lead to a better understanding of the role of experience quality in heritage tourism contexts. This study has discussed the similarities and differences between the concepts of service quality and experience quality,and then follows with testing a structural model of the relationships between experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. A scale of experience quality in tourism industry context which consists of four factors – hedonics, peace of mind, involvement, and recognition has been developed by Otto and Ritchie (2000). Similarly, this study delineates three factors of experience quality, including involvement, peace of mind, and educational experience. Compared to the service quality scale frequently used in tourismrelated studies, the differences in both concept and measure items of the scale of experience quality are identified. To our best knowledge, this study is a pioneer in applying an experience quality concept to the heritage tourism context. Therefore, a well-modified scale of experience quality to better reflect its meaning is needed for future research. This study has also shown that experience quality has a positive effect on perceived value. Based on the ‘‘cognitive emotive’’ causal sequence which reflects the convergent service literature, both experience quality and perceived value are supported as direct /
2
32 NT$ is equivalent to 1 US$.
34
C.-F. Chen, F.-S. Chen / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 29–35
determinants of satisfaction. In addition, both perceived value and satisfaction have significantly direct positive effects on behavioral intentions, while the effect of experience quality on behavioral intentions is insignificant. Nonetheless, an indirect effect of experience quality on behavioral intentions mediated by both perceived value and satisfaction is evident. To sum up, the relationship ‘‘experience quality perceived value satisfaction behavioral intentions’’ can be established. In light of experience quality rather than service quality in heritage tourism, the results are consistent with past studies by Cronin et al. (2000) and Petrick (2004) except for the insignificance of the direct path ‘‘experience quality behavioral intentions’’. These results imply that the importance of experience quality on behavioral intentions is recognized via the mediating effects of perceived value and satisfaction in heritage tourism contexts. Enhancing a visitor’s experience quality of heritage as a management goal as well as ensuring experience quality leading to perceived value and then satisfaction are important issues for heritage managers when designating their heritage sustainability strategies. Customer experience has become a key concept in cultural heritage marketing, because tourist satisfaction is often determined by the global experience obtained. A total experience that visitors seek in the heritage context could be made of leisure, culture, education, and social interaction (De Rojas & Camarero, 2008). To provide a quality total experience, heritage managers should endeavor to meet visitors’ expectations with respect to components of involvement, peace of mind, and educational experience as found by this study. This can be seen as many heritage organizations have been increasingly emphasizing the participation of the public in their policies and programs (Gilmore & Rentschler, 2002). Some practical strategies and attitudes can be adopted by heritage managers in designing and planning their business such as organizing various large-scale events and providing a variety of learning experiences. More specifically, as argued by De Rojas and Camarero (2008), a well-designed way of presenting the cultural product, including location, internal distribution, walkways, lighting, or informative panels, could stimulate and increase visitors’ interest and involvement. In addition, the interpretation and the intangibles surrounding the cultural product could facilitate the visitor to understand, feel, and relive the heritage. As such, through increasing a visitor’s interest and involvement, the experience quality can be created and lead to the visitor’s perceived value and satisfaction. This eventually contributes to visitor loyalty. Although the role of experience quality and its inter-relationships between evaluative variables and behavioral intentions in the heritage context have been addressed in this study, a well-established scale of experience quality still requiresmore research efforts to be generalized and applied to a wider scope of tourism services. /
/
/
/
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank to Pei-Chun Chen for their assistance in this study. The usual disclaimer applies. References Anderson, W., & Sullivan, M. (1993). The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Marketing Science, 12, 125–143. Apostolakis, A., & Jaffry, S. (2005). A choice modeling application for Greek heritage attractions. Journal of Travel Research, 43 (3), 309–318. Athanassopoulos, A. D. (2000). Customer satisfaction cues to support market segmentation and explain switching behavior. Journal of Business Research, 47 , 191–207. Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (3), 785–804.
Bignie, J. E., Sanchez, M. I., & Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables and after-purchase behavior: inter-relationships. Tourism Management, 22(6), 607–616. Chan, J. K. L., & Baum, T. (2007). Ecotourists’ perception of ecotourism experience in lower Kinabatangan, Sabah, Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5), 574–590. Chen, C.-F. (2008). Investigating structural relationships between service quality, perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions for air passengers: evidence from Taiwan. Transportation Research Part A, 42(4), 709–717. Chen, C.-F., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28, 1115–1122. Choi, T. Y., & Chu, R. (2001). Determinants of hotel guests’ satisfaction and repeat patronage in the Hong Kong hotel industry. Hospitality Management, 20, 277–297. Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76 (2), 193–218. Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56 , 55–68. De Rojas, C., & Camarero, C. (2008). Visitors’ experience, mood and satisfaction in a heritage context: evidence from an interpretation center. Tourism Management, 29, 525–537. Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307–319. Duman, T., & Mattila, A. S. (2005). The role of affective factors on perceived cruise vacation value. Tourism Management, 26 , 311–323. Fick, G. R., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991). Measuring service quality in the travel and tourism industry. Journal of Travel Research, 30 (2), 2–9. Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience. Journal of Marketing, 55 , 1–21. Gale, B. T. (1994). Managing customer value: Creating quality and service that customers can see. New York: Free Press. Gilmore, A., & Rentschler, R. (2002). Changes in museum management: a custodial or marketing emphasis? Journal of Management Development, 21(10), 745–760. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall. Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Introduction to customer value. In M. B. Holbrook (Ed.), Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research (pp. 1–29). New York: Routledge. Jo¨reskog, K., & So¨rbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International. Kao, Y.-F., Huang, L.-S., & Wu, C.-H. (2008). Effects of theatrical elements on experiential quality and loyalty intentions for theme parks. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 13(2), 163–174. Lee, S. Y., Petrick, J. F., & Crompton, J. (2007). The roles of quality and intermediary constructs in determining festival attendees’ behavioral intention. Journal of Travel Research, 45 (4), 402–412. Lovelock, C. H. (2000). Service marketing (4th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall International. McDougall, G. H., & Levesque, T. (2000). Customer satisfaction with services: putting perceived value into the equation. Journal of Services Marketing, 14, 392–410. Oh, H. (2000). Diner’s perceptions of quality, value and satisfaction. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quality, 41(3), 58–66. Oliver, R. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17 , 460–469. Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63 , 33–44. Oppermann, M. (200 0). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 78–84. Otto, J. E., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1996). The service experience in tourism. Tourism Management, 17 (3), 165–174. Otto, J. E., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2000). The service experience in tourism. In C. Ryan, & S. Page (Eds.), Tourism management: Towards the new millennium. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40. Petrick, J. F. (2004). The roles of quality, value and satisfaction in predicting cruise passengers’ behavioral intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 42 (4), 397–407. Petrick, J. F., & Backman. (2002). An examination of the construct of perceived value for the prediction of golf travelers’ intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1), 38–45. Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. W. (2003). Cross-cultural behaviour in tourism: Concepts and analysis. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Rust, R. T., & Oliver, R. L. (1994). Service quality: insights and managerial implication from the frontier. In T. RolandRust, & Richard L. Oliver (Eds.), Service quality: New directions in theory and practice (pp. 1–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. I. (1991). Consumption values and market choice. Cincinnati, OH: South Western Publishing Company. Shoemaker, S., & Lewis, R. C. (1999). Customer loyalty: the future of hospitality marketing. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18, 345–370.
C.-F. Chen, F.-S. Chen / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 29–35
Tam, J. L. M. (2000). The effects of service quality, perceived value and customer satisfaction on behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 6 (4), 31–43. Yang, Z., & Peterson, R. T. (2004). Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: the role of switching costs. Psychology & Marketing, 21 (10), 799–822.
35
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2–22. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60 , 31–46.
