Is overall satisfaction broader than the cumulative sum of individual
experiences? An Investigation of Tourism Experience at a Destination
Georgia Zouni
PhD Candidate of Tourism Marketing,
Department of Business Administration,
University of Piraeus, Greece
Contact details:
80, Karaoli & Dimitriou St.
185 34 Piraeus, Greece
Tel: 30 210 4142000
Fax No.: 30 210 4142328
e-mail: gzouni@unipi.gr
Markos Tsogas
Lecturer of International Marketing,
Department of Business Administration,
University of Piraeus, Greece
Contact details:
80, Karaoli & Dimitriou St.
185 34 Piraeus, Greece
Tel: 30 210 4142000
Fax No.: 30 210 4142328
e-mail: mtsogas@unipi.gr
Athanassios Kouremenos
Professor of Marketing,
Department of Business Administration,
University of Piraeus, Greece
Contact details:
80, Karaoli & Dimitriou St.
185 34 Piraeus, Greece

Abstract
The objective of this research is to develop and validate an instrument to examine the
contribution of each service quality attribute (encounter) on tourists’ satisfaction during their
stay at a destination and on overall satisfaction from their destination experience. The scales
resulted from the review of the existing services marketing and tourism literature found to be
valid and the instrument has been tested in Olympia, a major heritage destination in Greece.
This paper can be considered as a first attempt to empirically test the notion that the ultimate
assessment of a destination experience could be represented as a cumulative sum of individual
experiences. Results show that overall satisfaction is a broader concept than the cumulative
sum of individual experiences.
Keywords: Cumulative versus Overall Customer Satisfaction, Service Quality, Destination
Experience, single- and multi-item measurement.
Track: (Eco)Tourism Marketing

1. Introduction
Unarguably, quality management and the measurement of visitors’ quality and satisfaction is
essential for tourism and hospitality practitioners and destinations (Augustyn & Seakhoa-
King, 2004), but little is known about how visitors integrate and extrapolate individual service
perceptions and satisfaction from the entire tourist experience ([Gyimothy, 2000], [Matzler,
2006], and [Alegre & Cladera, 2009]).
The aim of this study is to conduct a holistic, extra-organisational analysis of destination
experience and investigate the contribution of service quality and customer satisfaction from
each tourism service (encounter) on overall satisfaction from destination experience.
2. Literature Review
2.1 The role of Service Quality and Satisfaction on Tourism Experience Measurement
The term experience is not new to understanding human interactions with people, places,
spaces, products, services, organizations, governments and cultures. What is new is the
increased emphasis on experience within tourism, hospitality and leisure sectors ([Jennings &
Nickerson, 2009). Despite the different perspectives and backgrounds ([Urry, 1990, 2002],
[Anderick, Bricker, Kerstetter, & Nickerson 2006], and [Jennings & Nickerson, 2009]), the
majority of the tourism experiences researchers vote for the need to move from a narrow,
single unit perspective to a holistic approach of destination experience ([Jafari & Brent-
Richie, 1981], Getz 1986], and [Aramberri, 2001]) and draw attention on the complex
multidimensionality of the concept (Andriotis, 2009).
The measurement of destination experience adopts generally the assumptions and principles
of perceived service quality and satisfaction measurement, as proposed by Service Marketing
literature. For instance, Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry’s (1985) expectation perception gap
model (Duke and Persia 1996), Oliver’s expectancy disconfirmation theory (Pizam &
Milman, 1993), Sirgy’s congruity model (Chon & Olsen, 1991), performance-only model
(Pizam, Neuman, & Reichel, 1978) have all been used for measuring tourist satisfaction with
specific destinations (Dmitrovic, Knezevic, Kolar, Brencic, Ograjensek & Zabkar 2009).
Generally, the conceptualisation of tourism destination experience assessment can follow two
courses: (1) process-type approaches, dealing with the cognitive antecedents and
consequences of service quality and satisfaction, and (2) outcome-type approaches, which
consider evaluation judgements based on a static framework. Tourism literature votes for
process-based approaches to be particularly appropriate for addressing extended service
experiences in tourism and hospitality, where the summation of all service encounters, rather
than just one interaction, is thought to affect the customer’s evaluation (Danaher & Mattsson,
1994). In conclusion, all these approaches have their conceptual, operational and practical
advantages and drawbacks in tourism destination experience measurement, but in the case of
integrated and extended offerings in tourism and hospitality it seems that a process-based
approach may be most appropriate.
2.2 Does cumulative satisfaction equals overall satisfaction from a destination?
The point of departure of this research is the process-oriented view of visitors’ experience at a
destination, drawn from the studies of Mattsson and his colleagues ([Danaher &
Mattsson, 1994], [Chadee & Mattsson, 1996], and [Williams, 2009]). In marketing literature,
it has been established that customer satisfaction consists of both transaction specific
satisfaction and cumulative satisfaction (Iaccobucci, Ostrom, & Grayson, 1995). Cumulative
satisfaction refers to overall satisfaction with all transactions whether transactional
satisfaction is the result of a specific encounter (Iaccobucci et al., 1995).

In tourism literature, several researchers have theoretically argued that cumulative satisfaction
is the most relevant conceptualisation when the focus is on the tourist’s evaluation of their
overall experience at a destination generally ([Pizam, Neumann, & Reichel, 1978] and
[Foster, 1999]), and in a cultural and heritage destination especially (Al Oun & Al Homoud,
2008). This approach is centred on the idea that a destination offers complex experiences in
the form of many sequential service encounters. During an extended temporal frame,
destination visitors encounter a chain of providers, regularly or occasionally, according to
their recreational motivation and needs. An ongoing experience of encounters during an entire
trip to a certain destination may include different service functions: attractions, transport,
accommodation, catering and other activities available on the destination. Methodologically,
the above sentence means that although visitors regard an area with all its offerings as one
single product before their visit, their overall destination experience evaluation might be
affected by every single service interaction. Indeed, the majority of tourism experience
researchers argue that the ultimate assessment of a destination experience could be
represented as a “cumulative sum of individual experiences” (Danaher & Mattsson,
1994).Consequently, most of the investigations of tourist satisfaction from destinations simply
assessed the impact of individual attributes on overall tourist satisfaction with a particular
destination (e.g., [Chon & Olson 1991], [Danaher & Arweiler 1996], [Huang & Sarigollu,
2008]). However, Spreng, Mackenzie and Olshavsky (1996) assert the importance of
distinguishing between overall satisfaction and culumative satisfaction with individual
destination product components, since overall satisfaction is a broader concept, implying a
holistic impression (Fornell, 1992)
This fragmentary and non-holistic approach in the measurement of the destination experience
is a research gap to be investigated (Gyimothy, 2000). This study aspires to contribute to the
exploration of this inconsistency by adopting a holistic approach to the measurement of the
tourist experience at destinations. It does so by investigating the contribution of service
quality attributes and tourists’ satisfaction with each service (encounter) during their stay at a
destination on overall satisfaction from the destination experience.
3. The Study
3.1 Research Methodology
The study presents results of a much bigger survey and research project. Primary data was
obtained from tourists in Olympia in two separate survey efforts. Olympia is one of the most
famous and visited destinations in Greece. Its cultural significance for humanity in general
stems from the fact that in this spot ancient Olympic Games used to be held.
3.1.1 Sampling procedures
Tourist study population was determined using EUROSTAT and WTO guidelines for
conducting and processing a visitor surveys in destinations. Problems related with the
sampling frame -missing data, clusters of elements and blank foreign elements as mentioned
by Kish (1965) - were identified and treated. In addition, Levine statistical tests of
homogeneity of variance have been carried out with excellent results.
3.1.2 Measures and Measurements
For the purpose of literature review, we have reviewed the scales developed to measure both
service quality (SQ) as well as customer satisfaction (CS) in tourism. This is so because SQ
and CS seem to be conceptually distinct, but closely related constructs ([Parasuraman,
Zeithaml, & Berry, 1994] and [Sureshchandar, Rajendran, & Anantharaman, 2002]).
The SQ multi-item measurement scales for this study were developed based on the literature
review and relevant theories (i.e. [Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988] and [Svensson,
2001]), previous empirical studies and results and observations and experiences of the given

phenomena at destinations. Service evaluation items intend to represent five service quality
dimensions (i.e., tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, access). Some items are
slightly modified as suggested by Parasuraman et al. (1988) and followed by other researchers
([Carman, 1990] and [Vogt, & Fesenmaier, 1995]) to resemble the business operations in
destination under study. This study employs performance only measures due to the
disadvantages of the disconfirmation approach in tourism ([Crompton & Love, 1995] and
[Yuksel & Rimmington, 1998]) and destination studies (Kozak & Rimmington, 2000).
Additionally, a single item measure was used to operationalise the concept of CS, in line with
the approach taken by Voss, Roth, Rosenzweig, Blackmon & Chase (2004).
For the selection of the relevant destination services (encounters) for CS single-item
measurement the present study adapts Buhalis (2000) typology or 6As of a destination:
tourism accessibility, accommodation, attractions, activities, amenities, and ancillary services.
So, the CS study variables are: Satisfaction from Attractions, Satisfaction from
Accommodation, Satisfaction from Food services,Satisfaction from Tourism trade, and
finally, Overall Satisfaction from Destination Experience. Satisfaction from Transportation
was excluded due to the nature of the tourist’s visit at the village and the Archaeological Site.
A symmetrical 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” is
used to rate SQ attributes of tourism services. Only in the case of CS measurement an
asymmetrical 4-scale was used since it is recognized that most respondents are likely to rate
service satisfaction positively (Crompton et al. 1991). There is emerging evidence in the
business and management literature of the detrimental effect that misspecification of the
construct-to-measures relationships of latent variables (LVs) has had in theory development
and testing. The debate revolves mainly around issues related to reflective and/versus
formative conceptualisations of LVs (Diamantopoulos & Winkhofer, 2001; MacKenzie et al.,
2005). Based on guidelines provided by Rossiter (2002), quality and satisfaction measures
are treated as formative latent variables (FLVs).
4. Analysis and Results
A total of 157 usable questionnaires were collected from tourists of destination. The majority
of tourists that visit the study destination is British and French (1 out of 3 visitors), of both
sexes, young people aged from 19 to 29 (32.5%), university graduates and postgraduates
(50.4%) and of the highest monthly income (more than 3000 euros). Analysis reveals that
tourists rate relatively high overall satisfaction from destination (2.94 in a 4scaled Likert
measure), attractions (3.46), accommodation (2.67), food service (2.60), and trade (2.50).
The specification of the model with only formative constructs and the exploratory nature of
the study led to the use of Partial Least Squares (PLS; see [Fornell & Bookstein, 1982], [Chin
& Newsted, 1999], [Haenlein & Kaplan, 2004] and [Tanenhous et al., 2005]). The PLS
GRAPH software developed by Chin (2003), with bootstrap analysis using 500 sub-samples
was employed in the analysis.
Measurement Model
The following represents the approach followed by Barclay et al. (1995). Tests of reliability
are relevant only for RLVs and unlike RLVs there is no need to remove non-significant items
in FLVs; the only potential problem is that of collinearity. Following recommendations by
Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer (2001) and Mathieson et al. (2001) collinearity analysis
revealed no problems. Measures of convergent validity (such as average variance extracted
(AVE; Fornell & Larcker, 1981) or discriminant validity are again only relevant for RLVs, so
we can proceed to test the structural model.
Structural Model
PLS makes no assumptions about the distribution of the variables and consequently traditional
parametric-based approaches cannot be employed. Instead we refer to R2 values of the

dependent variables, (the Stone-Geisser (Q2) index for predictive relevance of dependent
variables is applicable only for RLVs) and employ resampling procedures (e.g., jackknife or
bootstrapping) when testing the significance of estimates. This means that, unlike covariance-
based methodologies, PLS does not provide a single goodness of fit metric for the entire
model, and instead the R2 values of individual dependent variables are examined.
The information in Table 1 indicates that the model possesses average predictive powers.
This is especially the case for the Satisfaction constructs. The model also estimates 4 of the 6
pathways as significant.
Table 1: Regression Coefficients of Hypothesised Pathways and Goodness of Fit Indices
Structural Pathways
Standardised path coefficients (t-values)
Attractions Quality → Attractions Satisfaction .797 (8.57***)
Attractions Satisfaction → Overall Satisfaction -.091 (1.56)
Accommodation Quality → Additive Satisfaction .109 (0.76)
Trade Quality → Additive Satisfaction .236 (1.65*)
Catering Quality → Additive Satisfaction .371 (1.96*)
Additive Satisfaction → Overall Satisfaction .451 (2.17*)
Goodness of Fit R2
Attractions Satisfaction .635
Additive Satisfaction .328
Overall Satisfaction .203
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
Figure 1. Representation of Functional Relationships

5. Discussion
The objective of this work was to develop and validate an instrument to examine the
contribution of service quality attributes and tourists’ satisfaction with each service
(encounter) during their stay at a destination on overall satisfaction from their experience.
Firstly, the relatively weak predictive power of the model for the overall satisfaction (20% of
variance explained) represents a strong argument against the notion that the ultimate
assessment of a destination experience could be represented as a “cumulative sum of
individual experiences” (Danaher & Mattsson, 1994). Indeed, this study indicates that overall
satisfaction is a much broader concept than the cumulative sum of individual experiences and
satisfactions. This implies that the tourist experience is influenced by a wider range of factors
in addition to those under the direct control of the service providers (e.g., service quality,
[Baker & Crompton, 2000] and [Cole, Crompton, & Willson, 2002]). These could include the
social-psychological state that a tourist brings to a site (e.g., mood, disposition, and needs),
extraneous events (e.g., climate and social group interactions), and program or site attributes.
This finding is in line with current experience and tourism literature ([Fornell, 1992], [Jones
& Suh, 2000], and [Dmitrovic et al., 2009]) that implies visitors might not break their
complex experiences down in terms of different services.
The second finding is that even if three out of four destination services (Accommodation,
Catering and Tourism trade) have a significant impact on the overall satisfaction of tourists;
some of them (Satisfaction from Food services and Satisfaction from Tourism trade) were
more important factors that influence overall tourist satisfaction. This finding can be useful to
the planners and marketers of the destination in formulating strategies to maintain or enhance
their competitiveness. In other words, they should focus more on maintaining or improving
factors that contribute the most to the overall satisfaction of tourists.
Finally, a third result of the study reveals that in an established heritage destination
Satisfaction from the Attractions do not influence overall satisfaction from the destination
experience. In detail, even if attractions attributes’ quality lead to the satisfaction of them, it
seems not to affect the overall satisfaction from the destination. Although, this finding might
seem strange, it may be explained by Social Constructivism theory of knowledge (Fairclough,
1992), and the specific historical and cultural context of the destination. Olympia is a globally
famous heritage destination and visitors bear some established expectations and perceptions
about destination’s heritage attractions. Consequently, they seem not to correlate satisfaction
from this attribute with their overall assessment of destination’s services and attributes. This
is in line with researches that reveal that the typical heritage tourist is a “mindful visitor”
(Moscardo, 1996) and seeks more in the type of experience and benefits expected, than other
types of tourists (Apostolakis, 2003).
6. Conclusion and Future Agenda
The highly subjective and individualistic nature of the tourist experience is gaining
appreciation in recent years. This study recognized that tourism experience was not something
that could be “stage-managed” by the service provider (Morgan 2007), but rather that tourists
aided in the production of their own experiences through their personal characteristics, social
identity, and the agendas they brought with them to the tourist encounters (Mcintosh & Siggs
2005). This means that service providers could not sell a preochestrated experience to the
customers. What they can do is set the stage for tourists to create their own experiences
(Morgan 2007). To conclude, in order to create effective marketing strategies for products and
services in a tourism destination, a better understanding of tourists’ patterns of assessment and
satisfaction is necessary.

References
Alegre, J., & Cladera, M. (2009). Analysing the effect of satisfaction and previous visits on
tourist intentions to return. European Journal of Marketing, 43(5-6), 670-685.
Al-Oun, S., & Al-Homoud, M. (2008). The Potential for Developing Community-Based
Tourism among the Bedouins in Badia of Jordan. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 3(1), 36-54.
Apostolakis, A. (2003). The Converge Process in Heritage and Tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 30, 795-812.
Anderick, K., Bricker, K.S., Kerstetter, D., & Nickerson, N.P. (2006). Connecting
Experiences to Quality: Understanding Meanings Behind Visitors’ Experiences. In G. R.
Jennings, and Nickerson, N (2009), (Eds.), Quality Tourism Experiences (pp. 81-98).
Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
Andriotis, K. (2009). Sacred Site Experience: A Phenomenological Study. Annals of Tourism
Research, 36, 64-84.
Aramberri, J. (2001). The Host Should Get Lost: Paradigms in Tourism Theory. Annals of
Tourism Research, 29(3), 738-761.
Augustyn, M. M., & Seakhoa-King, A.(2004). Is the SERVQUAL scale an adequate measure
of quality in leisure, tourism and hospitality? Advances in Hospitality and Leisure, 1, 3-24.
Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, Satisfaction and Behavioural Intentions.
Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (3), 785-804.
Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism
Management, 21(1), 97-116.
Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the
SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66, 33–55.
Chadee, D., & Mattsson, J. (1996). An empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in
tourism. The Service Industries Journal, 16(3), 305-20.
Chin, W.W. & Newsted, P.R (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small
samples using Partial Least Squares. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small
Sample Research (pp.308-341). London: Sage Publications.
Chin, W.W. (2003). PLS GRAPH, Version 3. Department of Decision and Information
Science Ed. USA: University of Houston.
Chon, K. S., & Olsen, M. D., (1991). Functional and symbolic approaches to consumer
satisfaction/dissatisfaction in tourism. Journal of the International Academy of Hospitality
Research, 28, 1-20.
Chon, K.S, & Olsen, M. D.(1991). Functional And Symbolic Congruity Approaches To
Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction in Tourism. Journal Of The International Academy Of
Hospitality Research, May 28, Issue 3: 2-25.
Cole, S. T., Crompton, J. L., & Willson, V. L. (2002). An Empirical Investigation of the
Relationships between Service Quality, Satisfaction and Behavioural Intentions among
Visitors to a Wildlife Refuge. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(1), 1-24.
Crompton, J. L., & Love L. L. (1995). The Predictive Validity of Alternative Approaches to
Evaluating Quality of a Festival. Journal of Travel Research, 34(1), 11-25.
Crompton, J.L., MacKay, K.J., & Fesenmaier, D.R. (1991). Identifying dimensionsof service
quality in public recreation. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 9(3), 15-27.
Danaher, P.J., & Arweiler, N. (1996). Customer Satisfaction in the tourist industry: A case
study of visitors to New Zealand. Journal of Travel Research, 89-93.
Danaher, P.J., & Mattsson, J. (1994). Customer satisfaction during the service delivery
process. European Journal of Marketing, 28(5), 5-16.
Danaher, P.J., Mattsson, J. (1994). Customer satisfaction during the service delivery process.
European Journal of Marketing, 28(5), 5-16.

Diamantopoulos, A. & Winklhofer, H. (2001). Index Construction With Formative Indicators:
An Alternative to Scale Development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269-277.
Dmitrovic, T., Knezevic L.C., Kolar, T., Brencic, M.M., Ograjensek,I., & Zabkar, V. (2009).
Conceptualizing tourist satisfaction at the destination level. International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(2), 116-126.
Duke, C. R., & Persia, M. A. (1996). Consumer-Defined Dimensions for the Escorted Tour
Industry Segment: Expectations, Satisfactions, and Importance. Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing, 5(1/2), 77-100.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience.
Journal of Marketing, 56, 6-21.
Fornell, C. & Bookstein, F. (1982). Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS
Applied to Consumer Exit-voice Theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440-452.
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models With Unobserved
Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Foster, D. (1999). Measuring customer satisfaction in the tourism industry. The Quality
Magazine, 8(5), 23-29.
Getz, D. (1986). Models in tourism planning: Towards integration of theory and practice.
Tourism Management, 7, 21-32.
Gyimóthy, S. (2000). The Quality of Visitor Experience: A Case Study in Peripheral Areas of
Europe. Research Centre of Bornholm, Report 17.
Haenlein, M. & Kaplan, M.A. (2004). A Beginner’s Guide to Partial Least Squares Analysis.
Understanding Statistics, 3(4), 283-297.
Huang, R., & Sarigollu, E. (2008). Assessing Satisfaction with Core and Secondary
Attributes. Journal of Business Research, 61(9), 942-949.
Iaccobucci, D., Ostrom, A., Grayson, K., 1995. Distinguishing service quality and customer
satisfaction: the voice of the consumer. Journal of Consumer Psychology 4 (3), 277–303.
Jafari, J, & Ritchie, J.R.B (1981). Towards a framework for tourism education. Annals of
Tourism Research, 8(1), 13-34.
Jennings G., Lee, Y. S., Ayling, A., Lunny, B., Cater, C., & Ollenburg, C. (2009). Quality
Tourism Experiences: Reviews, Reflections, Research Agendas. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing &Management,18(2),294-310.
Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., & Fornell, C. (1995). Rational and Adaptative Perfomance
Expectations in a. Customer. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(March), 128–140.
Jones, M.A. & Suh, J. (2000). Transaction-specific satisfaction and overall satisfaction: an
empirical analysis. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(2), 147-159.
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-
season holiday destination. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 260-269.
MacKenzie, B.S., Podsakoff, M.P., & Jarvis B.C. (2005). The Problem of Measurement
Model Misspecification in Behavioral and Organizational Research and Some Recommended
Solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 710-730.
Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Rothenberger, S. (2006). Measuring the Relative Importance of
Service Dimensions in the Formation of Price Satisfaction and Service Satisfaction: A Case
Study in the Hotel Industry. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality & Tourism, 6(3), 179-196.
Mcintosh, A. J., & Siggs, A. (2005). An Exploration of the Experiential Nature of Boutique
Accommodation. Journal of Travel Research, 44, 74-81.
Morgan, M. (2007). ‘We’re Not the Barmy Army!’ Reflections on the Sports Tourist
Experience. International Journal of Tourism Research, 9, 361-72.
Moscardo, G. (1996). Mindful visitors: Heritage and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
23(2), 376–397.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale
for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1994). Alternating scales for measuring
service quality: a comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic criteria.
Journal of Retailing, 70(3), 201-30.
Pizam, A., & Milman, A. (1993). Caution in the use of difference scores in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(March), 655-662.
Pizam, A., Neumann, Y., & Reichel, A. (1978). Dimensions of tourist satisfaction with a
destination. Annals of Tourism Research, 5, 314-322
Pizam, A., Neumann, Y., & Reichel, A. (1978). Dimensions of tourist satisfaction with a
destination area. Annals of Tourism Research, 5(3), 314-322.
Rossiter, J. (2002). The C-OAR-SE Procedure for Scale Development in Marketing.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19, 305-335.
Spreng, R.A, MacKenzie, S.B., & Olshavsky, R.W. (1996). A re-examination of the
determinants of consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 60(July), 15-32.
Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C., & Anantharaman, R.N. (2002). The relationship between
quality and customer satisfaction – a factor specific approach. Journal of Services Marketing,
16(4), 363-379.
Svensson, G. (2001). The direction of change in multi-item measures of service quality.
Managing Service Quality, 11(4), 262-271.
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, E.V. Chatelin Y-M., & Lauron, C. (2005). PLS Path Modeling.
Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze, leisure and travel in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Urry, J. (2002). The tourist gaze, (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Williams, A.P., & Soutar, G. N. (2009). Value, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions in an
Adventure Tourism Context. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 413-438.
Vogt, C.A., & Fesenmaier, D.R. (1995). Tourists and Retailers’ Perceptions of Services.
Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4), 763-780.
Voss, C. Roth, A.V. Rosenzweig, E.D. Blackmon, K.& Chase, R.B. (2004). A Tale of Two
Countries’ Conservatism, Service Quality, and Feedback on Customer Satisfaction. Journal of
Service Research, 6(3), 212-223.
Yuksel, A., & Rimmington, M. (1998). Customer-Satisfaction Measurement. Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 39(6), 60-71.