1+1=3 Is overall satisfaction
broader than the
cumulative sum of
individual experiences?
Georgia Zouni , Markos Tsogas,
Athanassios Kouremenos
University of Piraeus
01 Piraeus, Greece

Research Objective
To investigate the contribution of
customer satisfaction from each
tourism service (encounter) on
cumulative* and overall
satisfaction from destination
experience
02 (*) Cumulative satisfaction refers to the summation of satisfaction with all transactions
(Iaccobucci, Ostrom, Grayson 1995)

Tourism destination experience assessment can follow:
Literature Review
(1) process-type approaches, dealing with the
cognitive antecedents and consequences of service
quality and satisfaction,
(2) outcome-type approaches, based on a static
framework.
In tourism and hospitality it seems that a process-based
approach may be most appropriate for addressing
extended service experiences in destinations.
03

Methodologically, when measuring overall
Literature Review
satisfaction with a particular destination most
researchers simply add satisfaction from all
destination individual attributes or services
(Chon & Olson 1991, Huang & Sarigollu,2008)
The ultimate assessment of a destination
overall satisfaction is represented as a
“cumulative sum of individual experiences”
(Danaher & Mattsson, 1994)
04

Research Variables
05
Representation
Overall
Satisfaction

Research Question
But since overall satisfaction is
a broader concept (Fornell, 1992)
should destination research
distinguishes between overall
and cumulative satisfaction?
06

• Primary data was obtained from tourists
in Olympia, one of the most famous and
visited destinations in Greece.
The Study
• The study presents results of a much
bigger survey and research project.
07

• SQ multi-item measurement scales
– Destination attributes (accessibility, accommodation,
attractions, and ancillary services-trade)
Measurement &
– Service quality dimensions (i.e., tangibility, reliability,
responsiveness, assurance, access).
– 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to
“strongly agree”
Measures
• CS single-item measurement scales
– Destination attributes (accessibility, accommodation,
attractions, and ancillary services-trade)
– Overall Satisfaction from destination experience
– An asymmetrical 4-scale Likert (Crompton, MacKay, &
Fesenmaier, 1991)
Based on guidelines provided by Rossiter (2002),
08 SQ & CS are treated as formative latent variables (FLVs).

• Partial Least Squares (PLS)
• Following recommendations by
Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer (2001) and
Measurement
Mathieson et al. (2001) collinearity analysis
revealed no problems.
• Measures of convergent validity (i.e, AVE;
Model
Fornell & Larcker, 1981) or discriminant
validity are only relevant for RLVs.
09

Table 1: Regression Coefficients of HypothesisedPathways andGoodness of Fit Indices
Structural Pathways Standardisedpathcoefficients (t-values)
Attractions Quality →Attractions Satisfaction .797(8.57***)
Attractions Satisfaction →Overall Satisfaction -.091(1.56)
A m
ccom odation Quality→A dditive Satisfaction .109(0.76)
Trade Q uality →AdditiveSatisfaction .236(1.65*)
Catering Quality →A dditive Satisfaction .371(1.96*)
Additive Satisfaction →Overall Satisfaction .451(2.17*)
Goodness of Fit R2
Model
Attractions Satisfaction .635
Additive Satisfaction .328
Overall Satisfaction .203
10

Representation of
11
Functional Relationships

Discussion
• The overall satisfaction from a destination experience could NOT be
represented as a “cumulative sum of individual experiences”.
• Overall satisfaction is a much broader concept: social-
psychological state of tourist (e.g., mood, disposition, and needs),
12 •
extraneous events (e.g., climate, social group interactions).
Visitors might not break their complex experiences down in terms of
different services.

Discussion
• Three out of four destination services have a significant impact on
the overall satisfaction of tourists
• Some of them (Satisfaction from Food services & Tourism trade)
were more important factors that influence overall satisfaction.
13 • This finding can be useful to the planners and marketers of the
destination in formulating strategies to maintain or enhance their
competitiveness.

Discussion
• In an established heritage destination Satisfaction from Attractions
seem not to influence overall satisfaction from the destination.
• This finding might be explained by Social Constructivism theory of
knowledge (Fairclough, 1992), and the specific historical and
14 •
cultural context of the destination.
Typical heritage tourist is a “mindful visitor” (Moscardo, 1996) and
seeks more in the type of experience expected (Apostolakis, 2003).

• Tourism experience is not something that
could be “stage-managed” by the service
provider (Morgan 2007)
• Service providers should not sell a pre-
Conclusion
ochestrated experience to the
customers.
Set the stage for tourists to create their own
experiences
16

The whole is more than the sum of its parts
(Aristotle 350BC).
Last slide
17