ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 788
DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SERVICE QUALITY, PERCEIVED
VALUE, SATISFACTION AND REVISIT INTENTION IN HOTEL
INDUSTRY
Muhammad Ahmad Raza
Service Quality Coordinator
NetSole Technologies
Ahmad Nabeel Siddiquei
Lecturer/Student Advisor,
Air University Multan Campus, Pakistan
Prof. Dr. Hayat M. Awan
Campus Director
Air University Multan Campus
Khurram Bukhari
Lecturer
Bahauddin Zakariya University
Abstract
The work is considered to find the relationship between service quality, perceived value and customer satisfaction
and repurchase intentions in luxury hotel management in Pakistan. The purpose of this studyis to find dimensions of
service quality and perceived value in hotel industry environment. Survey Questionnaires are used to collect data
from 125 luxury hotel customers of Pakistan. After analysis of collected data three dimensions of service quality are
identified which is service consistency, service convenience and customer demand fulfillment. This study also
enabled to identifytwo dimensions of perceived value which are functional and symbolic.We also found that
perceived value and service quality have important and positive relationship with satisfaction and revisit intentions.
The paper is one of the first papers to investigate the thorough relationship among all these important factors in
Pakistani hotel industry context. It has implications for both the managers and owners of hotel as to what is the
quality and satisfaction criterion of customers.
Keywords: SERVQUAL, Perceived Value, Satisfaction, Behavioral intentions, Hotel Industry, Pakistan
INTRODUCTION
In the era of globalization almost every company is facing fierce competition. Customer satisfaction is the one
important tool to capture competitive advantage. There are many ways to create customer satisfaction. But we will
focus on two main variables in this research. One is perceived value which is often used as customer value. Second
factor is quality of product/service. Literature provides solid ground to consider these two variables important in
creating customer satisfaction.(Shemwell, 1988) explained that customer satisfaction can be created through high
services quality.(.According to (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996)providing quality service is considered as an
essential strategy for success in today‟s competitive environment (A. Parasuraman, 1985; Zeithaml, Berry, &
Parasuraman, 1996).They used five dimensions of service quality in there research. Result showed that service
quality can be measured in five dimensions which are tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy.
This study proved as classical tool for research in service quality. Many authors used this tool to test these
dimensions in different environment. Perceived value also act as an important tool in customer satisfaction based on
different studies. (Petric, 2004)emphasizes that perceived value is important factor related with customer satisfaction
and repurchase intention (Zeithaml 1988 p.14)defined perceived value as “the consumer‟s overall assessment of the
utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given”. (Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000) study
show that perceived value is the most significant factor for repurchase intention. Perceived value is often mixed with
customer satisfaction in literature but both are different.Difference of opinion exists among authors. Perceived value
often used as a synonym of customer satisfaction but (Woodruff,1997) explains that perceived value can occur at
any stage of purchase, including repurchase.(Oliver, 1981) belived thatsatisfaction should be considered as post
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 789
DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8
purchase evaluation. Different authors present different dimensions to measure perceived value. (Zeithaml,1988)
defined perceived value in monetary terms and presented four dimension of perceived value. These are low price,
what customer demand, value is quality received for the price paid and final dimension is related with what
customers get reference and how much they paid.
But (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001) presented perceived value as multi-dimensional. They provide four sub dimensions
of perceived value which are quality, emotional, social, functional value. As a matter of fact service quality and
perceived value is very different from each other still widely searched as collectively by many authors in SER-
PERVAL form. (Woodruff & Gardia, 1996) explained that customer perceived value investigates the interaction
between product and service while service quality focused generally on services. Due to the interrelated and
complex relationship among these variables there is need of study which should explore better understanding of
dimensions and relationships of these variables. This study will focus on luxury hotel industry of Pakistan as this
relationship is yet to be discovered in Pakistani environment.
Firstly this study will find out different dimensions of these variables. Secondly study will explore complex
relationship among all these variables.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Services are different from physical products. Because services are intangible, cannot be stored. But the purpose of
both are same, to satisfy human needs and wants. Services are part of our life from long time but difference between
services and commodities are first identified by Fisher in 1935. He used term “tertiary sector” for services and then
it was used by Judd in1965. He named as services “experiential possession. (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985)
defined servicesas multidimensional. These dimensions are intangibility, heterogeneity, and inseparability of
production and consumption.(Crosby, 1979) explains that due to the intangible nature of services we cannot measure
services by durability and number of defects. Due to the heterogeneity service quality measurement become more
challenging. But (Parasuraman & Zeithaml, SERQUAL, 1988) provide multiple frame work to measure service
quality which is called SERQUAL. (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985) found ten dimensions of service quality
which are more explanatory and well defined. These dimensions are reliability, responsiveness, tangibles, security,
competence, creditability, access, communication, access, and understanding of customer. (Parasuraman &
Zeithaml, SERQUAL,1988) conducted another research to clarify the concept of quality in which they had produced
22 items scale to measure service quality. In this scale they minimized dimensions to only five. These were
Assurance, Empathy, Tangibles, reliability and responsiveness. . There scale is the most popular in checking service
quality across many service sectors due to its generic nature. Many authors use SERVQUAL and other approaches
to measure service quality in hotel industry.
. (Saleha & Ryanb, 1992) performed a study and identified five dimensions of service quality in hotel setting. But
these dimensions are different from SERVQUAL instrument. These were reassurance; avoid sarcasm, empathy,
conviviality and tangibles. This study also revealed the fact that hospitality or conviviality has largest variance. (Lee
& Hing, 1995) used SERVQUAL in their research. Sample was taken from Chinese and French restaurants. They
found all dimensions significant with original SERVQUAL model. But in French restaurants scores of
responsiveness, reliability and assurance were high. While Chinese had gave more importance to tangibles,
reliability and assurance respectively.
Till now the authors are using model of (Parasuraman & Zeithaml,1988) work. In which they measure service
quality by using perception minus expectation score. Mean total 44 items are used to check service quality; 22 for
expectation before the service and 22 for perception after the service. This measurement tool is more complex and
required more time of respondent so (Mei, Dean, & White, 1999) argued that single scale is enough for the service
quality check. “(Babakus and Boller, 1992) &(Brown et al., 1993) found single scale more valid and reliable.
(Parasuraman et al., 1991) published their own one-column scale format which cuts the questionnaire size in half
and reduces the time required for completion”. (Mei, Dean, & White, 1999) add some more dimensions in
SERVQUAL in order to create new model for hotel industry called HOLSERV. They used 27 items to measure
service quality. They also include overall service quality question (10 point scale). Result suggested three variables
for measurement of service quality in hotel industry. These are employees, tangibles and reliability. (Akbaba, 2006)
used SERQUAL with modifications in wording .He also used 5 point scales from very low to very high, different
than 7 point scale in original SERVQUAL model. Overall 29 service quality attributes are added related to
SERQUAL model. The E-P gap model is used to measure results. This study identified five service quality
dimensions that represent the evaluative criteria customers use to assess service quality of the business hotels named
as „„tangibles‟‟, „„adequacy in service supply‟‟, „„understanding and caring‟‟, „„assurance‟‟, and „„convenience‟‟
(Akbaba, 2006). The findings of this study indicated that the most important factor in predicting business travelers‟
overall service quality evaluation was „„tangibles‟‟, followed by „„understanding and caring‟‟, „„adequacy in service
supply‟‟, „„assurance‟‟, and „„convenience‟‟ respectively. “. (Wilkins, Merrileesa, & Heringtona, 2007) research
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 790
DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8
explores important aspects of service quality in hotel industry. They used hierarchal model approach to check
service quality attributes relation. They concluded that there are three main types of service quality which are
psychical product, service experience and quality food & beverages. They criticized the applicability of SERQUAL
in hotel industry environment. They advocated that there tool is easy and more practical than SERVQUAL. Hotel
manager can easily Control and Plan service quality using their 3 dimensions. But again SERVQUAL with some
modification can be better tool to implement than other tools. After overall assessment of literature we decided to
use (Akbaba, 2006) model with slight modification according to local enviornment.
Perceived Value
Customer value is becoming important factor in business success. (Woodruff R. , 1997) explained that CV is
considered as basic requirement for long term success. Customer value is very broad topic and every author defind
in different ways. Some popular definitions in history are following.
(Zeithaml, 1988) “Perceived value is a customer‟s overall assessment of the utility of a product
based on perceptions of what is received and what is given.”
(Gale, 1994) “Customer value is market perceived quality adjusted for the relative price of
your product. [It is] your customer‟s opinion of your products (or services) as
compared to that of your competitors.”
(Holbrook,
1994)
Customer value is “a relativistic (comparative, personal, situational)
preference characterizing a subject‟s [consumer‟s] experience of interacting
with some object … i.e., any good, service, person, place, thing, event, or
idea.”
(Woodruff,
1997)
Customer value is a “customer‟s perceived preference for and evaluation of
those products attributes, attribute performance, and consequences arising
from use that facilitate (or block) achieving the customer‟s goals and purposes
in use situations.”
Source: (Albert Graf, 2008)
Customer value can be seen from two perspectives. One from company side and while other is customer perspective
(Albert Graf, 2008). Because our research is considered with customers so we will only focus on customer
perspective. From customer side the value is defined as “Value generated by a company‟s Product or service as
perceived by the customer” (Albert Graf, 2008). Customer value can be divided in to two Broad categories;
Perceived customer value and desired customer Value (Albert Graf, 2008). Perceived Customer value is defined as
tradeoff between benefits and sactifices with reference to performance of product or serivce (Zeithaml V. ,1988;
Gale, 1994).Percived value is one of most important factors to achieve competitive advantage in business
(Parasuraman, 1997). Many authors have done perceived value research in tourism and hospitablity industry (Chang
and Wildt 1994; Bolton and Drew 1991; Jayanti and Ghosh 1996; Oh 1999; Petrick and Backman 2002; Petrick,
Backman, and Bixler 1999)” (Petric, 2004). But focus was not on dimensions of percieved value. (Zeithaml V. ,
1988) presented four dimension of value. These are low price, what customer demand, value is quality received for
the price paid and final dimension is related with what customer get reference and how much they paid. Perceived
value is considered as one-dimensional in past. But actually every person has its own perception of value. One factor
which is defined by Zeithaml related to monetary value is not enough to explain the Perceived value. A more
sophisticated measure is required to measure perceived value of customers. (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001) suggested
five dimensions which are following
Emotional value “the utility derived from the feelings or
affective states that a product generates”
Social value (enhancement of social
self-concept)
“the utility derived from the product‟s ability
to enhance social self-concept”
Functional value (price/value for
Money)
“the utility derived from the product due to
the reduction of its perceived short term and
longer term costs”
Functional value (performance/
quality)
“the utility derived from the perceived quality
and expected performance of the product”
Source: (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001)
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 791
DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8
(Petric J. A., 2002) presented, tested and validated five dimensions of perceived value. These dimensions are
“quality, emotional response, monetary price, behavioral price, reputation”. The difference between (Petric J. A.,
2002) SER-PERVAL and (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001) PERVAL is that Petric use reputation instead of social
dimension and also divide price into two sub components which are moneatery and behavioral price. Other authors
also worked on perceived quality multi dimensions. Some of the examples are following
(Sweeney & Soutar, 2001) found that emotional value is more important as related to functional value in durable
goods. (Mathwick, Malhotra, & Rigdon, 2001) developed EVS to assess consumer experiential value in the catalog
and internet shopping setting. They include Visual appeal, entertainment, escapism, enjoyment, efficiency and
economic value factors. But the most related measurement related to services is provided by (Petric, 2002).(Po-
Tsang Chen, 2009).suggested that perceived value can be divided in to two broad dimensions which are functional
and symbolic. (Rintama¨ki, Kanto, Kuusela, & Spence, 2006) defined three broad constructs of customer perceived
value; “utilitarian, Social and hedonic”. Utilitarian component is like functional value as defined by other authors.
Social value is related with status and self esteem and hedionic is related with emotional value of person.
Customer Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions
(Oliver, 1981) defines Customer satisfaction as an emotional response to the use of a product or service. Satisfaction
is best defined as “an evaluation between what was received and what was expected” (Parker & Mathews, 2001).
There is no single definition of satisfaction. So we should really on basis that satisfaction is some thing related with
Post purchase evaluation. Post- purchase intention means that consumer will purchase your service again (Zeithaml,
Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). There is another dimension of post purchase behavior which is word of mouth given
by (Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000). There are many researches which support relationship between satisfaction and
repurchase intentions (Choia & Chub, 2001) (Gill, Byslma, & Ouschan, 2007) (Paul & Geoffrey N., 2009).
(Eggert & Ulaga, 2002) believes that customer satisfaction is another important construct for the loyality, behavioral
intentions and word of mouth. But the problem is that some authors support value framework to measure
performance but others support satisfaction. Perceived value is often mixed with customer satisfaction in literature
but both are different. The main difference is that perceived value can occur at any stage of purchase, including
repurchase but satisfaction in post purchase behavior (Woodruff, 1997). Perceived value is ancedent of customer
satisfaction (Eggert & Ulaga, 2002) (Kuo, Wub, & Deng, 2009) (Paul & Geoffrey N., 2009) and satisfaction is
ancedent of repurchase intention (Eggert & Ulaga, 2002) (Kuo, Wub, & Deng, 2009). The perceived value have
positive relationship with behavioral intentions (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001) (Gill, Byslma, & Ouschan, 2007) (Kuo,
Wub, & Deng, 2009) (PETRICK, 2004). On the other hand authors also support that Service quality has positive
relationship with behavioral intention (González, Comesaña, & Brea, 2007) (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, The
Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality, 1996) (Ismail, Abdullah, & Francis, 2009) (Kuo, Wub, & Deng,
2009).
(Po-Tsang Chen, 2009) explores relationship between service quality attributes and perceived value in Australian
coffee industry. They used five service quality dimensions to measure service quality but they are different from
SERQUAL. They quoted that “Pettijohn et al. (1997) found that quality, cleanliness and value to be the three most
important attributes in fast food restaurants, while atmosphere and menu variety were relatively unimportant”. These
dimensions are perceived service, coffee quality, beverages, atmosphere, and extra benefit, where perceived service
is most important and extra benefits are least important respectively. (Ismail, Abdullah, & Francis, 2009) study
relationship between service quality, perceived value and satisfaction. They used only three dimensions of
SERQUAL which are empathy, assurance and responsiveness to measure service quality in Malaysian public
institutions of higher learning. This study found that only empathy is significant with perceived value for customer
satisfaction.
Research Methodology
In order to find relationship between service qualities, perceived value, and customer satisfaction and repurchase
intentions, the study investigates the relationship between all variables. First of all we will draw new dimensions of
service quality and perceived value for hotel industry environment. Because still there are no universal dimensions
exist to measure these two variables in hotel industry specifically. We will use factor analysis in order to find these
dimensions. Secondly we will check relationship between each variable with other. Thirdly we will find that
perceived value has any moderating effect on service quality and satisfaction relationship or not. We will use
LISERL 8.8 to find this complex relationship. Finally, we will explore that perceived value is good predictor of
revisit intentions or satisfaction. Because no consensus exist in literature to measure revisit intentions.
Research Hypothesis
H1: There is positive relationship between service quality and perceived value Dimensions
H2: There is positive relationship between perceived value dimensions and satisfaction
H3: There is positive relationship between satisfaction and service quality dimensions
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 792
DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8
H4: There is positive relationship between service quality dimensions and Repurchase Intention
H5: There is positive relationship between perceived value dimensions and Repurchase Intention
H6: Positive relationship exist between customer satisfaction and behavioral intensions
H7: Perceived value dimensions are moderating variable between satisfaction and service quality factor
Research Design and Methodology
This study is exploratory type. In which we will find clear relation between all these variables. First of all we have
studied literature to find theories and dimensions of these variables. After analyzing literature we have found
different dimensions of service quality perceived value and of other variables. After reviewing literature we come on
a point there is no consensus on the relationship of these four variables. Individual relationships are checked in
various studies. Recently some studies focus on the relationship of these variables. Because the complex relationship
between these variables required more research. (Kuo, Wub, & Deng, 2009) has done research on the relationship
of all four variables but the study was in different context. But the problem with this instrument is that it is not of
generic nature and cannot be implement in all sectors.(Ismail, Abdullah, & Francis, 2009) provided excellent tool
for measurement in context of hotel industry envionrnment.These dimensions are more generic in nature and also
widely tested in literature.(Ismail, Abdullah, & Francis, 2009) also found relationship between service quality and
satisfaction. They use percieved value as a moderating variable between service quality dimensions and satisfaction.
We will use modified test model of (Kuo, Wub, & Deng, 2009) in hotel industry context, secondly we will also test
(Ismail, Abdullah, & Francis, 2009). Thirdly this study will also test SERV-PERVAL and SERQUAL in context of
hotel industry of pakistan. This type of relationship is still unexplored in pakistani hotel context. So this study is
important to find relationship of these variables .
The proposed model is:
MODEL 1
MODEL 2
Survey Instrument
The questionnaire was designed according to related literature as discussed in literature review. Questionnaire was
divided into three parts. First part is related to service quality dimensions. SERVQUAL used by (Akbaba, 2006) was
adopted with some modification in text and questions. Further one item is taken from (Sulek and Hensley, 2003) to
measure fairness of wait effect on service quality. 30 items are included in first part to measure service quality
dimensions presented by (Parasuraman, et al., 1988). These dimensions are tangibles, reliability, responsiveness,
assurance and empathy. All items were on 7 point likert scale ranging from strongly agree “1” from strongly
H4
Service Quality
(SQ) H3
Customer Satisfaction
(CS) H1 Behavioral Intentions
(RI) H6
H2
Perceived Value
(PV) H5
H7 Custoer Satisfaction
(CS)
Perceived
Value
Value
(PV)
Service Quality
H2
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 793
DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8
disagree “7”. Second part is related with perceived value measurement. (PETRICK, 2004) SERV-PERVAL with
modification in writing and items were used to measure perceived value. SERV-PERVAL has five sub-dimensions
which are “quality, emotional response, monetary price, behavioral price and reputation.” (PETRICK, 2004). 22
items were used to measure service quality. All items were on 7-point likert scale. Part 3 consist of 8 items. These
items were related with age, occupation, service package availed, monthly income, frequency of visit, overall
satisfaction and revisit intention. Satisfaction, frequency of visit and repurchase intention were also measured on 7-
point likert scale.
Research Design and Sample
Self-administrated Survey Questionnaires were used to conduct research. Pilot testing were done to check
questionnaires. The respondents of pilot testing were luxury hotel customers. After this testing some words and
phrases were modified to create better understanding. Sample of 150 customers was taken from five big cities of
Pakistan.
Data Collection
The questionnaire was given to all luxury hotel customers when they were checking out from hotel. Researcher
assists the respondents in questionnaire completion.. 124 questionnaires data were collected completely. Other
incomplete questionnaires were discarded.
Data Analysis
Statistical Process for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17 and LISREL 8.8 were used for data analysis purpose. First
factor analysis was used to better understand dimensions. Service quality dimensions and perceived value
dimensions were analyzed individually with CFA. Then new factors were used to find relationship between all three
variables. Regression test was used to check relationship of variables. Co-relation test were also used to see
relationship among related variables. LISREL is used to check moderating relationships of variables on satisfaction
and revisit intentions.
Factor analysis
Factor analysis with principal component procedure is used to understand the structure of sub dimensions of service
quality and perceived value with varimax rotation. In CFA of service quality total variance explained by all three
factors is 42 %. Items with greater value from.50 is selected, table 1 shows the new factors. In SERV-PERVAL
analysis total variance explained by two factors is 52 % and item with greater value than .70 are selected. Table 2
shows the result of SERV-PERVAL two factors.
Table 1: SERVQUAL
Factors 1 2 3
Factor 1 : Service Consistency
The service units of the hotel have adequate capacity .715
The hotel has modern looking equipment .783
The atmosphere and equipment are comfortable and appropriate for
purpose of stay
.828
The equipment of the hotel works properly without causing
breakdowns
.786
The hotel performs the services right at the first time .630
The hotel provides the services at the time it promises to do so .735
Factor 2 : Service Convenience
Employees are always willing to serve customers .783
Employees are always available when needed .834
The hotel keeps accurate records .648
The hotel is also convenient for disabled guests .706
It is easy to access to the hotel (transportation, loading and
unloading area, car parking area, etc.)
.650
Factor 3 : Customer Need Fulfillment
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 794
DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8
Materials associated with the hotel are adequate and sufficient .697
Food and beverages served are hygienic, adequate and Sufficient .576
Employees have knowledge to provide information and assistance
to guests in areas they would require
.614
Employees of the hotel understand the specific needs of guests .541
The hotel provides its guests a safe and secure place .588
The hotel has visually appealing buildings and facilities .663
Table 2: PERVAL
Factors
Components
1 2
Functional Value:
Hotel services are worth the money .752
Hotel services are fairly priced .742
Hotel service are reasonably priced .802
Hotel is economical .802
Symbolic Value:
Hotel has good reputation .906
Quality of this hotel is Outstanding. .723
Hotel is well thought of .754
Hotel is reputable .744
Statistical Analysis
Independent 2 tail t-test is used to see the difference among gender on all variables. We see results in accordance
with 3 dimensions of service quality, 2 dimensions of perceived value and with the performance variables. These
variables include frequency of visit, satisfaction and repurchase intentions.
Frequency of visit has no significant difference among males and females. Overall satisfaction also has no
significant difference among groups and equal variance is assumed here. All variables show no significant
difference among groups except service consistency where sig. (0.016). Secondly in symbolic value and service
consistency equal variances are not assumed because Levene's test shows significance level less than 0.05 in both
cases.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 795
DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8
Table 3: Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
One way ANOVA test (table 4) shows that there is significant difference among different age group in perceiving
function value, symbolic value and service consistency. Other variables have no difference among age groups. But
satisfaction has some difference among age groups but not significant enough. There is no significance difference
among all variables in different occupation groups. Satisfaction in only variable which has significant difference in
service availed group. Revisit, convenience and customer need fulfillment is equally important for all income
groups. But in other variables significant difference exist in choices.
On the other hand if we see that frequency of visit, revisit intentions, service convenience and customer need
fulfillment have no difference regardless of age, occupation, package availed and monthly income. Satisfaction
varies only in different income groups and as well in different packages availed groups. Perceived functional value
and service consistency is different in different age and monthly income groups.
Further, post hock LSD test show that the difference in perceived functional and symbolic value as well as in service
consistency exists in 45-54 age groups. In package availed three categories are significantly difference with other
groups. Banquet hall customers are significantly different with Package2 (accommodation+ full meals) and package
3 (all services) in overall satisfaction. Package 1 (accommodation + one meal) are also significantly different from
package 2 and 3 in overall satisfaction. In monthly income all groups are very diverse and different from each other
in overall satisfaction, perceived value dimensions and in service consistency factors.
Table 4: One Way ANOVA
Age Occupation Package/
Services
Availed
Monthly
Income
Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig.
Frequency of visits .477 .705 .071 .087
Overall satisfaction .109 .494 .003 .019
Revisit Intentions .471 .611 .100 .366
Perceived functional Value .021 .633 .065 .008
Perceived symbolic Value .006 .591 .973 .019
Service consistency .009 .290 .066 .011
Service convenience .524 .131 .068 .281
Customer need fulfillment .849 .553 .524 .469
Correlation and Regression Analysis
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Frequency of visits Equal variances assumed .953 .331 1.402 122 .164
Equal variances not assumed 1.498 43.194 .141
Overall satisfaction Equal variances assumed 1.111 .294 .697 122 .487
Equal variances not assumed .630 34.921 .533
Revisit Intentions Equal variances assumed .030 .863 -.008 122 .994
Equal variances not assumed -.007 36.856 .994
Functional Value Equal variances assumed 1.410 .237 1.347 122 .180
Equal variances not assumed 1.436 43.025 .158
Symbolic Value Equal variances assumed 6.179 .014 .660 122 .510
Equal variances not assumed .809 55.259 .422
Service Consistency Equal variances assumed 16.626 .000 1.893 122 .061
Equal variances not assumed 2.474 63.906 .016
Service
Convenience
Equal variances assumed .148 .701 -.309 122 .758
Equal variances not assumed -.310 39.434 .758
Customer Need
Fulfillment
Equal variances assumed .043 .836 -.360 122 .720
Equal variances not assumed -.400 46.136 .691
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 796
DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8
Correlation analysis (table 5) is done to see relationship between all variables. There is significant relationship
between service consistency and service convenience with perceived value factors. But Consistency has positive
relationship with both dimensions while Convenience has negative but significant relationship. Now why there is
negative relationship exist. First of all we have many money related dimensions in functional value. We assume that
more cost mean more convenience. For example, hotels have some special services for disable guests but they
charge some extra money.
Table 5: Correlations
Regression analysis
All dimensions of perceived value are significantly related with service quality dimensions. Perceived value
dimensions were considered as dependent on service quality dimensions. Multivariate test shows the significant
relationship among all variables. Customer need fulfillment had weak relationship with perceived value in
comparison with other service quality factors. Regression is used to see relationship between functional value
dimension with service quality dimensions (table 6).
There is significant relationship exists between these variables with r-square value of .563. But again the
relationship of service convenience, customer need fulfillment with functional value is negative. The reason is same
Frequency
of visits
Overall
satisfaction
revisit
intention
Symbolic
Value
Consistency Convenience functiona
l Value
Customer
need
Fulfillment
Frequency of
visits
Pearson
Correlation
1 .205* .138 .338** .434** -.187* .415** -.106
Sig. (2-tailed) .022 .124 .000 .000 .037 .000 .240
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
Overall
satisfaction
Pearson
Correlation
.205* 1 .672** .433** .553** .019 .418** .089
Sig. (2-tailed) .022 .000 .000 .000 .837 .000 .324
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
Revisit
Intentions
Pearson
Correlation
.138 .672** 1 .281** .434** .067 .261** .191*
Sig. (2-tailed) .124 .000 .002 .000 .456 .003 .033
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
Symbolic
Value
Pearson
Correlation
.338** .433** .281** 1 .552** -.450** .506** -.028
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .002 .000 .000 .000 .754
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
Consistency Pearson
Correlation
.434** .553** .434** .552** 1 -.036 .691** .088
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .688 .000 .332
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
Convenience Pearson
Correlation
-.187* .019 .067 -.450** -.036 1 -.278** .035
Sig. (2-tailed) .037 .837 .456 .000 .688 .002 .699
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
Functional
Value
Pearson
Correlation
.415** .418** .261** .506** .691** -.278** 1 -.095
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .003 .000 .000 .002 .290
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
Customer
Need
Fulfillment
Pearson
Correlation
-.106 .089 .191* -.028 .088 .035 -.095 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .240 .324 .033 .754 .332 .699 .290
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 797
DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8
as described in correlation. Customer need fulfillment is also negative here. The reason behind this result is there is
difference between what customer perceived and what they actually receive. Regression test of symbolic value with
service quality factors have shown same results. The relationship is significant and value of r-square (.493) show
good fit. But the relationship with convenience and demand fulfillment is also negative here. Secondly VIF values
are also lower enough to show that there is no multi linearity issue. So H1 is not supported here because two
dimensions show negative relationship.
Table 6: Relationship between Service quality dimensions and Perceived Value Dimensions
Source Dependent
Variable
Type III
Sum of
Squares
Df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Service
Consistency
Functional
Value
69.845 1 69.845 132.53
7
.000
Symbolic
Value
26.471 1 26.471 69.235 .000
Service
Convenience
Functional
Value
8.961 1 8.961 17.004 .000
Symbolic
Value
16.648 1 16.648 43.542 .000
Customer Need
Fulfillment
Functional
Value
3.151 1 3.151 5.978 .016
Symbolic
Value
.334 1 .334 .873 .352
a. R Squared = .563 (Adjusted R Squared = .552)
b. R Squared = .493 (Adjusted R Squared = .480)
Table 7: Overall Satisfaction
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. Collinearity
Statistics
B Std.
Error
Beta Toleranc
e
VIF
(Constant) 1.001 .302 3.31
6
.001
Functional
Value
.305 .104 .268 2.92
7
.004 .744 1.344
Symbolic
Value
.429 .132 .297 3.24
8
.002 .744 1.344
a. Dependent Variable: Overall satisfaction after availing hotels of specified hotel
Regression test of satisfaction with perceived value factors showed significant and positive relationship (table 7).
Secondly value of r-square is good enough to show fair model fit. So H2 is true.
Service consistency only shows significant relationship with satisfaction but there is positive relationship with all
variables. H3 is also found true here that there is positive relationship between satisfaction and service quality.
Next the relationship between service quality and repurchase intentions also shows same result like satisfaction.
Results shows that only one dimension has a significant result which is service consistency but again the positive
relationship proved our H4. Another variable is customer need fulfillment which is important but still insignificant.
Result of regression test show that symbolic value is more important for revisit intentions then functional one. Also
significant relationship is found with symbolic value. There is positive relationship exists between perceived value
and revisit intention. So we can accept the H5.
Regression results shows relationship between satisfaction and revisit intentions are strongly significant and positive
(sig= 0.000, beta =10.007). The value of r-square is .453 and there is only one independent variable which is
satisfactions. So, model shows good fit and prove our hypothesis that there is significant relationship exist in revisit
intention and satisfaction. If people are satisfied then they would likely to have revisit intentions.
Model 2
Now we will check model 2. For the model 2 we use special technique to analyze results. After conducting
hierarchical analysis we found that in fixed factors package is significant and have positive relationship (b=.210
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 798
DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8
p<.05). Table 8 is used to explore comprehensive relationship between service quality, satisfaction. Secondly we
will also analyze moderating effect of perceived value in this relation. These are beta value of regression analysis.
The significant values are highlighted.
First of all we analyzed all controlling variables with satisfaction. Only package availed is the significant factor
which has impact on satisfaction. With the change is package availed the satisfaction varies
In M2 service consistency and symbolic value are significant with customer satisfaction. Consistency is very
important aspect of every service environment and also proved here. Secondly in our case which is luxuries hotel
symbolic value is important contributor of satisfaction which is quite true. Our dissertation suggests that people want
symbolic value after visiting luxuries hotels.
M3 column analyze moderating relationship of perceived value. Overall model show good fit but no variable show
significance in this model. We have used LISREL to thoroughly analyze relationship between these variables.
Table 8: Moderating Relationship of Perceived Value on satisfaction
Variables Satisfaction
M 1 M 2 M 3
Controlling Variables
Gender .015 .032 .025
Age .119 .007 -.027
Occupation -.092 -.078 -.077
Package .210* .152 .156
Monthly income .108 .149 .129
Independent Variable
Service Consistency (s1) .289* -.389
Service Convenience (s2) .146 -.060
Customer Need Fulfillment (s3) .082 .023
Perceived Functional Value (p1) .045 -.540
Perceived Symbolic Value (p2) .319* -.035
Moderating Variables
Perceived functional x service consistency .057
Perceived functional x service convenience .100
Perceived functional x customer need fulfillment .030
Perceived symbolic x customer need fulfillment .001
Perceived symbolic x service consistency .296
Perceived symbolic x service convenience .025
R2 .109 .395 .419
R2 Adjusted .070 .340 .330
F 2.807 7.19 4.686
R2 change .109 .395 .419
LISREL Analysis
Service Quality (S.Q)
Service quality is our broad construct and important part of dissertation. We have taken many variables to measure
service quality in hotel environment. After applying factor analysis we are able to find three dimensions of service
quality which are important in luxury hotel environment. These three variables are shown in the figure.
Service Consistency (s.Consis)
Service Convenience (s.conven)
Customer Need Fulfillment (s.need)
All three variables are further divided into some measurable questions. These questions can be found in appendix
along with questions in survey questionnaire.
Perceived Value (P.V)
Perceived value is another important variable involved in our dissertation. 22 questions are asked to measure
perceived value. After factor analysis we are able to find two dimension of perceived value which is important in
luxury hotel environment. These are symbolic and Functional Value. Functional Value is related with monetary
aspect while symbolic means social and emotional value here.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 799
DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8
Functional Value (P.fun)
Symbolic Value (P.sym)
Satisfaction (O.S)
Satisfaction is measured by only one variable which is overall satisfaction. 7 scale Semantic scale is used to
measure satisfaction.
Behavioral Intentions (B.I)
Behavioral intentions are also measured with single item. We use 7 scale likert scales to measure satisfaction. Scale
ranges from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
Figure 2 (LISREL Analysis Model 1)
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 800
DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8
The following diagram Figure 2 is showing different variables and their relationship. We will summarize all
variables and these relationships one by one.
Figure 3 is same like figure 2 but few relationship are added in this figure. As shown in there. The new relations are
in different colors.
The new relations are actually measuring effect of perceived value and service quality dimensions on satisfaction
and behavioral intentions individually. It means effect of service consistency, service convenience and Customer
demand fulfillment on satisfaction and behavioral intentions. It also measure effect of Symbolic and functional value
on satisfaction and behavioral intentions separately.
Figure 3 (LISREL Analysis Model 2)
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 801
DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8
Relationship between Service Quality and Perceived Value
The results shows highly significant and strong relationship between these two variables (sig= .00025 beta=
5873.46).
Relationship between Satisfaction, Service Quality and Perceived Value
If we see the overall effect of all variables (Dimensions of both Service quality and perceived value) on satisfaction.
Service consistency is the most important and significant dimension which has indirect effect on satisfaction. In
other words consistency effect on perceived value and ultimately this effect convert into satisfaction. These results
are match with our previous results.
On the other side if we see combine relationship of service quality and perceived value with satisfaction without
sub-dimensions as shown in figure 2( i.e Consistency etc) then perceived value (sig= .034 beta= 980.10) and service
quality (sig= .061 beta= 583) both has significant and positive relationship with satisfaction.
Relationship between Behavioral intentions, Satisfaction, Service Quality and Perceived Value
In overall relationship of other three variables (including sub-dimensions) with Behavioral intentions (figure 3).
There is no variable which have significant indirect effect on behavioral intentions.
But when we see individual relationship of each variable with behavioral intentions still there is weak relationship
exist. But when we see independent relationship of each variable with behavioral intentions then almost all
variables have significant relationship. Satisfaction has strongest relationship among all variables.
Critical Indices
Critical indices are also used to see impact of different factors on service quality and perceived Value both.
Table 9: SERQUAL Critical Indices
Tier I Critical
0.298666667 Food and beverages served are hygienic, adequate and Sufficient
0.317333333 The hotel provide accurate record
0.317333333 The material associated with hotel is adequate
0.354666667 The hotel provides its guests a safe and secure place
0.354666667 The hotel provides consistent services
0.364 Employees have knowledge to provide information and assistance to
guests in areas they would require
0.373333333 Getting information about the facilities and services of the hotel is easy
(reaching information via phone, internet, etc
Tier II Supporting
0.429333333 Modern looking Equipment
0.429333333 Atmosphere and equipment
0.438666667 Adequate Capacity
0.438666667 the hotel have visually appealing building
0.457333333 Employees of the hotel understand the specific needs of guests
0.513333333 Employees are willing to serve customer
0.522666667 Employees are always there when required
0.569333333 The course material is modern and updated
0.588 services right at first time
0.588 services provided on promise time
Tier III Maintaining
0.634666667 The hotel and its facilities have operating hours
0.784 The hotel is also convenient for disable guests
0.802666667 It is easy to access hotel transport, parking etc
0.877333333 Hotel provides proper control to you in selection
Table 9 shows that 21 factors which are extracted from factor analysis and also important for service quality of
luxury hotels in Pakistan. There are three types of tiers here. Tier I as name shows that most critical for success.
Tier II factors are important in nature but not critical. Controlling these factors can give you extra advantage in
managing service quality.
Tier III factors are least important but still these factors have impact on success of any hotel.
Service Quality
Critical
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 802
DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8
First of all hygienic food and adequate food is most important factor in luxury hotels. Without providing hygienic
food no restaurant can become successful in fact cannot even run their operations. So its very logical and important
thing in this industry. Secondly accurate records are another important factor, because mostly people booked their
room in advance. Let suppose that you go to hotel and they refuse to accommodate you due to loss of record then
you would surely not visit that hotel again. Safety and security is burning issue in Pakistan especially in luxury
hotels. People count security as critical factor in any hotel environment. Now moving towards other critical factors,
consistency is the critical factor in any service environment regardless of industry. Consistency is challenges as well
as important factor for success in all service environments. Last factors are related to information and assistance. If
you provide your customer right information at right time then you can only maintain your service quality level.
Simple point is that without known to any service how customer can avail it.
Supporting
Supporting factors are also important for any business success. These factors are related with Physical facilities like
environment, capacity. These factors also include employee interaction that there are able to guide customer and
can understand need of customer or not. They are always willing to serve customer or not. Last thing included in tier
II is timing of service which is very important factor. Now day‟s people want their service on time. This factor may
be critical in other environment but due to cultural aspects this comes in supporting factors.
Maintaining
This Tier include factors which are least important for example as shown in table that hotel should be provide
services in all operating hours, convenient for disable guest. We all know that transportation is not big issue for
luxury customers that why its weight age is low. Last factor which is proper control is important factor but every
hotel has its restriction so it is least important factor.
Table 10: Perceived Value Critical Indices
TIER I Critical
0.1960 Hotel is well thought of
0.2800 Hotel is reputable
0.3080 Hotel services are easy to buy
0.3453 Hotel has good reputation
0.3733 Hotel is well respected
0.4480 Hotel is very dependable
0.4760 Quality of this hotel is Outstanding.
0.4853 Hotel is very consistent
0.4947 Hotel is very reliable
TIER II Supporting
0.5413 Hotel service are reasonably priced
0.5693 Hotel is economical
0.5787 Hotel services are fairly priced
0.5880 I feel good by visiting this hotel.
0.5880 Hotel services appears to be a good bargain
TIER III Maintaining
0.6347 Hotel services gives me pleasure
0.7000 Hotel services required little effort to buy
0.7093 Hotel gives me a sense of joy
0.7373 By using services of this hotel I feel delighted
0.7373 Hotel services are worth the money
0.7373 Hotel services required little energy to be availed
0.8307 Hotel services gives me happiness
Perceived Value
Critical
There are total 21 factors to measure perceived value. Social values along with overall aspects of service quality are
critical factors in luxury hotel environment. Customer of luxury hotels usually believe in social and emotional value
then monetary one.
Supporting
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 803
DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8
Tier II include all factors related to monetary benefit. People want good bargain. In other words they want service
what they paid for.
Maintaining
Tier III is related with emotional value factors. It shows that it is not essential that people want pleasure every time
they visit hotel. The reason can be that many people visit hotel for many reasons for example meeting, dinner ,just
stay etc or we can say that every customer not visit for entertainment purpose or to spend their holidays.
Discussion and Conclusion
We used SPSS 17, LISREL 8.8 and Critical indices for data analysis. All tools are used for different purpose. First
of all we have done factor analysis in SPSS to reduce factors. Factor analysis reveals3 dimensions of service quality
and 2 dimensions of perceived value.Then correlation, regression analysis are used to see relationship between these
variables. The findings of the research show that there is relationship between all these variables. But the
relationship is very complex. First of all three dimensions of service quality discovered from this study. These
dimensions are service consistency, service convenience and customer demand fulfillment. Service consistency is
not new one because this dimension is explored by many authors including Parasuman et al. This dimension is also
not new but very rare in literature. This study explores Service convenience as new dimension of service quality.
Customer need fulfillment is new dimension discovered from this research. More researches in different industries
and environments are required to prove importance of these dimensions. In perceived value, we find only two
dimensions. These two dimensions are functional which is related with monetary value and other is symbolic which
is related with social and emotional value. Our results confirmed the research of (Po-Tsang Chen, 2009).
Secondly, this research finds relationship among service quality, perceived value, satisfaction and revisit intention in
hotel industry. First of all the relationship between service quality dimensions and perceived value dimensions is
significant. But only one dimension (service consistency) has positive relationship. Regression and LISREL both
shows same result that there is significant relationship between these two variables. . Then we find that perceived
value is important and has positive relationship with satisfaction and revisit intentions individually..Further,
symbolic value is more important than functional one in revisit intentions, if analyzed individually. Our hypothesis
(H2,H5) are proved true.
Service quality has positive and significant relationship with both satisfaction and revisit intentions. But one
dimension has strong influence which is service consistency. It is very obvious that due to consistent services people
are more satisfied and likely to visit again and again. But if we see indirect or moderating effect with LISREL then
only service consistency has effect on satisfaction among all service quality and perceived value factorsso our
hypothesis H4, H5 also find true.
But still there are many limitations exist. More service quality dimensions may reveal different and improved
results. New service dimensions are required to find this complex relationship. Satisfaction and revisit positive
relationship proved true. Another important thing is that satisfaction and perceived value both have strong and
positive relationship with revisit intentions. But satisfaction has more intense relationship than perceived value.
The conclusions drawn from study must consider following limitations. First thing is that sample is only collected
from luxuries hotels of Pakistan. So preferences of other hotels can change results. Another thing is that sample is
only collected from urban areas of Pakistan. Result may vary in other countries as well in rural areas. Another
limitation can be that we have only used uni- dimensional SERQUAL. Multi-dimensional may provide different
results.
For future research, we suggest that more research is required to find relationship among all four variables.
Secondly, new dimensions are required in the field of hotel industry to see service quality, perceived value and
satisfaction.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 804
DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8
References
Akbaba, A. (2006). Measuring service quality in the hotel industry:A study in a business hotel in Turkey. Hospitality
Management , 25, 170-192.
Albert Graf, P. M. (2008). 58 (1).
Choia, T. Y., & Chub, 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. (2000). Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer
Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments. Journal of Retailing, 76 (2), 193-218.
Crosby, P. (1979). Quality Is Free. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Donald J. Shemwell, U. Y. (1988). Customer-service provider relationships: an empirical test of a model of service
quality, satisfaction and relationship-oriented outcomes. Vol. 9 (Iss: 2, pp.155 - 168).
Eggert, A., & Ulaga, W. (2002). Customer perceived value: a substitute for satisfaction in business markets? Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17 (2/3), 107-118.
Gale, B. T. (1994). Managing Customer Value: Creating quality and service that. Gill, D., Byslma, B., & Ouschan,
R. (2007). Customer perceived value in a cellar door visit: the impact on behavioural intentions (Vol. 19).
González, M. E., Comesaña, L. R., & Brea, J. A. (2007). Assessing tourist behavioral intentions through perceived
service quality and customer satisfaction. Journal of Business Research , 60, 153-160.
Holbrook, M. (1994). The Nature of Customer Value. In: Service Quality.
Ismail, A., Abdullah, M. M., & Francis, S. K. (2009). Exploring the relationships among service quality
features,perceived value and customer satisfaction. Journal of industrial Engineering and Management , 2 (1), 230-
250.
Kuo, Y.-F., Wub, C.-M., & Deng, W.-J. (2009). The relationships among service quality, perceived value, customer
satisfaction,and post-purchase intention in mobile value-added services. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 887-
896.
Lee, Y. L., & Hing, N. (1995). Measuring quality in restaurant operations: an application of the SERVQUAL
instrument. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 14 (3-4), 293-310.
Lin, C.-H., Sher, P. J., & Sher, P. J. (2005). Past progress and future. International Journal of Service, 16 (4), 318-
336
Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N., & Rigdon, E. (2001). Experiential value: conceptualization,measurement and
application in the catalog and internet shopping environment. Journal of Retailing, 77 (1), 39-56.
Mei, A. W., Dean, A. M., & White, C. J. (1999). Analysing service quality in the hospitality industry. Managing
Service Quality, 9 (2), 136 – 143
Oliver, R. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings. Journal of retailing, 57,
25-48.
Parasuraman, A. (1997). Reflections on gaining competitive advantage through customer value. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (2).
Parasuraman, A., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). SERQUAL- A multi item scale to measure consumer perception of
service Quality. Journal of Retailing , 64 (1).
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its
Implications for Future Research. The Journal of Marketing, 49 (4), 41-50.
Parker, C., & Mathews, B. P. (2001). Customer satisfaction: contrasting academic and consumers' interpretations.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning , 19 (1), 38-44
Paul, W., & Geoffrey N., S. (2009). VALUE, SATISFACTION AND BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS IN AN
ADVENTURE TOURISM CONTEXT. Annals of Tourism Research, 36 (3), 413-438.
Petric, J. A. (2002). Development of a multi-dimensional scale for measuring the perceived. Journal of Leisure
Research, 34 (2).
Petric, J. F. (2004). First Timers‟ and Repeaters‟ Perceived Value. 43 (29-38).
PETRICK, J. F. (2004). First Timers‟ and Repeaters‟ Perceived Value. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 29-83.
Po-Tsang Chen, H.-H. H. (2009). How determinant attributes of service quality influence customer perceived value:
An empirical investigation of the Australian coffee outlet industry.
Rintama¨ki, T., Kanto, A., Kuusela, H., & Spence, M. T. (2006). Decomposing the value of department store
shopping into utilitarian, hedonic and social dimensions. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 34 (1), 6-24.
Saleha, F., & Ryanb, C. (1992). Client perceptions of hotels: A multi-attribute approach. Tourism Management, 13
(2), 163-168.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 805
DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple scale Item.
Journal of Retailing, 77 (2)
Wilkins, H., Merrileesa, B., & Heringtona, C. (2007). Towards an understanding of total service quality in hotels.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26 (4), 840-853
Woodruff, R. B., & Gardia, S. (1996). Know Your Customer: New Approaches to Customer Value and Satisfaction.
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. .
Woodruff, R. (1997). Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. 25 (2).
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality. The
Journal of Marketing, 60 (2), 31-46.
Zeithaml, V. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value. 55 (2-22)