Comparing satisfaction levels of Asian and western travellers using Malaysian hotels.

This research pa per looks into the factors that account for the differences between the Asian and western travellers when it comes to satisfaction with their stay in Malaysian hotels. The paper goes on to review the literature on the concept of customer satisfaction as its relationship with

hotel service attributes. Customer satisfaction and its relation to service quality, search and experience qualities and the disconfirmation paradigm, which includes expectation and performance concepts, are rigorously reviewed. The review analyses the importance of the tangible and intangible in the overall service encounter. A questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale was applied to measure the differences between their perceptions of hotel attributes and customer satisfaction. Data were analysed using factor analysis, multiple regressions and the independent sample t test. Results indicated that differences between Asian and western evaluations of hotel quality did exist. The limitations of this research were discussed and suggestions for future research were also put forward.

**********

Walker (1996) defined tourism as a dynamic, evolving, customer-driven force. It is a science and a business, attracting and transporting visitors, accommodating them, and graciously catering to their needs and wants. In another perspective, Kandampully (2000) defined tourism as a unique product in that it is composite in nature, an amalgam of the tangible and intangible that includes everything those tourists experience. Tourism is no longer considered a luxury confined to economically developed countries. It has become an integral component of lifestyle, and it has become a major component of the economy of almost all countries.

The Tourism and Hotel Industry in Malaysia

Overall, the tourism industry in Malaysia showed an upward trend until the onset of financial crisis in 1997. The Tourism Development Corporation (TDC) was established in 1972 to further expand tourism through its marketing program and publicity campaigns both locally and abroad. The TDC was later replaced by the Malaysian Tourism Promotion Board with the main objective to stimulate and entice the number of tourist arrivals into the country.

By 1990, with the launching of the first Visit Malaysia Year (VMY) campaign, the tourism industry had become the third major foreign exchange earner. Unfortunately, there was a downturn in worldwide travel in 1991 following the Gulf War. Thus, the number of tourist arrivals decreased moderately. The second VMY campaign was launched in 1994. Despite an increase in tourist arrivals by 10.7% in 1994, the growth rate remained far behind the first campaign. In 1995, tourism receipts amounting to Ringgit Malaysia (RM) 9.2 billion surpassed the target of RM8.36 billion for the year 2000 in the National Tourism Plan. To spur the growth in the tourism industry, investment approved for hotel and tourism-related projects has increased more than threefold from RM8.801 billion during the Sixth Malaysian Plan period to RM18.2 billion during the Seventh Malaysia Plan period (Economic Planning Unit, 2001). The proliferate growth of the tourism industry led to the growth of other related activities via industry linkages.

Research Problem

The purpose of this study is to identify the needs of Asian and western travellers based on their levels of satisfaction in hotel stays in Malaysia. The cultures of Asian travellers are different from their western counterparts. Understanding the differences between Asian and western travellers, in terms of their evaluation of Malaysia's hotel services and facilities is tactically important for hotel operators.

Specifically, the study aims to address the following objectives:

* to develop the underlying profile of hotel attributes that are important to tourists visiting Malaysia

* to examine the relative impact of the different hotel attributes in influencing the satisfaction levels of both Asian and western travellers

* to identify the similarities and the differences in Asian and western travellers' levels of satisfaction with hotel attributes.

Literature Review

Customer Satisfaction

The concept of customer satisfaction has a long history in the marketing school of thought. Since Cardozo's (1965) initial study of customer effort, expectations and satisfaction, the body of work in this field has expanded greatly, with numerous researchers focusing on customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction and complaining behavior in the 1982-1990 period particularly (Perkins, 1991). Satisfaction is theorised to be the result of a subjective comparison between expectation and received product attribute levels (Andreason 1977; Day 1977; Oliver 1977, 1981). Customer satisfaction is the leading criterion for determining the quality of a product or service (Vavra, 1997). As defined by Oh and Park (1997), customer satisfaction is a complex human process that involves cognitive and affective processes, as well as other psychological and physiological influences. Hayes (1997) stated that knowledge of customer expectations and requirements is essential because it provides understanding of how customers define quality of services and products, and facilitates the development of customer satisfaction questionnaires.

The disconfirmation paradigm of consumer satisfaction level is the result of interaction between the consumer's prepurchase expectations and postpurchase evaluation (Berkman & Gilson, 1986; Czepiel & Rosenberg, 1977; Engel, Blackwell, & Miniard, 1990; Handy, 1977). Studies of consumer behavior emphasise customer satisfaction as the core of the postpurchase period (Westbrook & Oliver, 1991).

Shostack (1977) suggested a molecular model framework for the structure of satisfaction decisions of hotel operations. A hotel-entity, according to this model, consists of both tangible and intangible elements that are all-important to the guest's experience when visiting the hotel. The services marketing literature suggests that services are complex offerings, because they are intangible and are often delivered by several different service providers (Lovelock, 1983). It is not easy to evaluate the product prior to experience services.

The impact of loyal customers is considerable. Kirwin (1992) emphasised guest satisfaction as a means of increasing sales and profits. The profitability of a firm increases proportionally with the number of loyal customers, and up to 60% of sales to new customers can be attributed to word-of-mouth referrals (Reichheld & Sasser, 1990). Studies have found that it costs about five times as much in time, money and resources to attract a new customer as it does to retain an existing customer (Naumann, 1995). Failure to pay attention to influential attributes in choice intention may result in a customer's negative evaluation (Chon, Christianson, & Lee, 1995). Hence, customer satisfaction presumably leads to repeat purchases and favorable word-of-mouth publicity. It serves as an exit barrier, thereby helping the firm to retain its customers (Cardozo, 1965; Fornell, 1992; Halstead & Page, 1992; Berkman & Gilson, 1986). In fact, word-of-mouth publicity (at zero cost) is the most powerful competitive weapon that a firm possesses and has serious positive and negative consequences at the macro level of the industry.

Measuring Customer Satisfaction

Measuring customer satisfaction is an integral part of the effort of improving a product or service quality that would increase business's competitive advantage (Cravens, Holland, Lamb, & Moncrieff, 1988; Garvin, 1991). The theory of consumer behavior, as discussed by Engel, Blackwell and Miniard (1990) and Williams (1982), points out that the customer's background, characteristics and external stimuli influence the customers' buying behavior and levels of satisfaction. Since a customer's satisfaction is influenced by the availability of customer services, the provision of quality customer service has become a major concern for all businesses (Berry & Parasuraman, 1991). Brown and Swartz (1989) found that both customers' and employees' expectations and perceptions of the service encounter play an important role in determining the customer's evaluation of the service encounter. Apart from that, Gronroos (1982; 1984) proposed that corporate image was an important determinant of service quality and establishes a distinction between functional quality, or what was received by customers, and technical quality, or the manner in which the service was provided. On the other hand, Reid and Sandier (1992) examined the use of technology to improve service quality in the hotel industry.

Managing quality is difficult without knowing the key aspects the guests consider to be important when evaluating the hotel experience. Nelson (1974) proposes two categories of properties that customers use in their evaluative process: search qualities and experience qualities. Search qualities, such as colour, price and smell, are attributes that can be determined prior to purchase. Experience qualities, such as courtesy, wearability and purchase satisfaction, can only be detected after use. In addition, Darby and Karni (1973) introduced credence qualities, which the customer may find impossible to evaluate even after purchase.

Hotel Attributes

Alpert (1971) and Kivela (1996) viewed consumer products and services as a bundle of attributes in determining consumers' intentions regarding future purchases. From past studies, hotel attributes that would be considered when choosing a hotel include cleanliness (Atkinson, 1988; Cadotte & Turgeon, 1988; Knutson, 1988; Saleh & Ryan, 1992), comfortable and well-maintained rooms (Cadotte & Turgeon, 1988; Knutson, 1988; Saleh & Ryan, 1992), convenient location and accessibility (Ananth, DeMicco, Moreo, & Howey, 1992; Cadotte & Turgeon, 1988; Knutson, 1988; LeBlanc & Nguyen, 1996; Rivers, Toh, & Alaoui, 1991), safety and security (Ananth et al., 1992; Atkinson, 1988; Cadotte & Turgeon, 1988; Knutson, 1988) and room facilities (Ruys & Wei, 1998).

Apart from that, prompt and courteous service quality (Ananth et al., 1992; Atkinson, 1988; Cadotte & Turgeon, 1988; Knutson, 1988; LeBlanc & Nguyen, 1996; Rivers et al., 1991; Saleh & Ryan, 1992), food and beverage quality, convenient parking, as well as aesthetics (Saleh & Ryan, 1992), are major concerns. Value for money is another factor strongly associated with high customer loyalty and hotel revenue (Atkinson, 1988; Shifflet & Bhatia, 1997).

Older people are often price-sensitive, and very responsive to price inducements (Metz, 1990; Wheatcroft and Seekings, 1992). For older customers, additional tangible aspects of safety-related physical design features in the hotel room or public areas may signal a hotel's positive image to travellers (Ananth et al., 1992; LeBlanc & Nguyen, 1996; Murray & Sproats, 1990).

In addition, Weaver and Oh (1993) looked at differences between frequent and infrequent business travellers. They found that good quality towels, free newspapers, in-room safety, and fax machines were amenities that were significantly more important to frequent business travellers. Meanwhile, Wilensky and Buttle (1998) gave support to findings that travellers evaluated significantly higher loadings on the standard of personal services, physical attractiveness, opportunities for relaxation, standard of services, appealing image, value for money and suitability for business guests. Finally, Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985; 1988) try to fit the criteria used in assessing service quality into 10 dimensions: reliability, responsiveness, competence, access, courtesy, communication, credibility, security, understanding and knowing the customer, and tangibles.

Cultural Differences in Customer Satisfaction

Customers possess different needs, objectives and past experiences that influence their expectations. Thus, segmentation of the market is essential as no service can give everyone the same degree of satisfaction. To be of strategic value, the segmentation must be measurable, accessible, substantial and sufficiently differentiated (Ahmed, Barber, & d'Astous, 1998; Kotler 1989). Such segmentation assists marketers in identifying lucrative target groups, facilitates cost-effective marketing through the design, promotion and correct positioning of purpose-designed products aimed at satisfying the identified needs of those groups (Court & Lupton, 1997; Middleton, 1994). Differentiated advertising campaigns or specifically tailored tourism experiences become increasingly important to a consumer marketplace in its travel expectations. Recent research suggests that marketers must appreciate the influence of ethnic group, age, culture, background, gender and other classifications and construct their marketing strategies accordingly (Oppermann, 1993; Iverson, 1997; Sussmann & Rashcovsky, 1997).

The ability to determine the proper target audience and its travel needs is crucial to an efficient marketing campaign, with properly designed strategies for more receptive segments (McQueen & Miller, 1985). When designing global customer satisfaction measurements, regional and cultural aspects must be taken into account. Studies conducted by Chadee and Mattsson (1995) and Scott and Shieff (1993) found significant cross-cultural differences when measuring customer satisfaction. Culture has an impact on perceptions, problem-solving and cognition and often leads to differences in satisfaction levels between different global customers for a single product.

On the other hand, economic factors come into play where culture is concerned. More than 70% of travellers coming to Malaysia are of Asian origin, and many of them are short-haul destination travellers who prefer to stay in midrange, moderately priced hotels (Baldwin & Brodess, 1993).

Cultural Differences in Perceptions of Hotel Attributes

Lewis (1984a; 1985), Cadotte and Turgeon (1988), Taninecz (1990) Ananth et al. (1992), Barsky and Labagh (1992), Clow, Garretson and Kurtz, (1994), Gilbert and Morris (1995), and Gundersen, Heide and Olsson (1996) compared the perception of hotel attributes of business and leisure travellers. Meanwhile, Dahl (1989), McCleary and Weaver (1992), Rivers et al. (1991), and Heung, Mok and Kwan (1996) compared the hotel attributes for frequent and infrequent travelers, while Knutson (1988), Knutson, Stevens, Patton and Thompson (1992) and Griffin, Shea and Weaver (1996) compared the hotel attributes for luxury and economy hotels. According to Hoon (1992), there exists a cross-cultural difference in terms of expectations of hotel facilities and services. Nearly 70% of travellers to Asia come from within the region. Travellers in the Asia-Pacific region are now more content with midrange, moderately priced hotels than the exclusivity of 5-star hotel accommodation.

Meanwhile, Bauer, Jago and Wise (1993) examined the differences between Asian and non-Asian travellers in relation to their demand for a range of hotel facilities. They found that a major difference between Asian and non-Asian travellers was that Asian travellers appeared to demand additional entertainment facilities, while non-Asian counterparts appeared to be more concerned with hotels' health facilities. The increasing importance of quality in service industries has also created a proliferation of research in this area of study. According to Oliver and DeSarbo (1988), with regards to consumer satisfaction, most research has focused on process aspects, that is, antecedents and consequences. There is minimal empirical work with emphasis on the structure or content of customer satisfaction. Considering the size and importance of the tourism industry, surprisingly little customer satisfaction research has been conducted in this industry (Chaddee & Mattsson, 1995).

The lack of attention is even more surprising considering the demand for comparative studies in the customer satisfaction literature (Cronin & Taylor, 1992). However, there are a few studies that have considered nationality in relation to travellers' perceptions about hotel attributes. Some differences in Asian and western traveller's needs were found, but in studies made in western contexts and with reference to western hotels. Few, if any, studied these differences from the Asian point of view. This is the focus point of this study of customer satisfaction with the hotel industry in Malaysia.

Methodology

The primary data was collected by a self-administered questionnaire to determine the differences between Asian and western travellers' evaluation of the quality of the hotel services in Malaysia, of hotel attributes and of the relative importance of the various attributes.

The Instrument

The questionnaire was adapted according to the strengths of the methods of Aaker, Kumar and Day (1998) and Ruys and Wei (1998). The questionnaire comprised two sections. The first section measured travellers' perceptions of 34 hotel attributes throughout their hotel stay in Malaysia while the second captured the demographic profile of the respondents. Respondents were asked to rate the hotel attributes on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good). On the other hand, respondents' overall satisfaction level was measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied).

Sampling Procedure

The sample consisted of international travellers who were departing via Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA). A 'traveller' is any individual who is a temporary visitor possessing a fixed place of abode travelling in the expectation of business or pleasure, and staying overnight at a place other than his or her own, involving an exchange of money (Ananth et al., 1992). For this study, the definition of 'Asian travellers' are those coming from all the Asian regions, including East Asia, South Asia, South-East Asia and Central Asia; others are referred to 'western travellers'. A total of 200 local and international travellers were interviewed at the departure hall of KLIA, with every 10th traveller passing through the security checkpoint being chosen for the sample.

The choice of the sample group was the travellers in the departure hall of the airport, who were expected to be already reflecting on their stay and keen to answer questions about their vacation, having time to spare while waiting for their departure flights (Danaher & Arweiler, 1996). Two screening questions were asked before the issue of the questionnaire, the first to identify whether the respondents were travellers from the countries identified in our definition of an 'Asian' and 'western' traveller and the second to identify if they stayed in a 3-, 4-or 5-star hotel during their visit to Malaysia. The questionnaire was only administered to travellers who answered in the affirmative to both questions as refusals to answer the survey on the part of the respondents increase the degree of error in the data collection stage (Aaker, Kumar, & Day, 1998).

Profile of Respondents

Of the 200 travellers who were interviewed during the survey period, the responses of 191 were found to be usable in this study, a response rate of 95.5%. The rest were incomplete. Of the 191 respondents, 105 (55%) were of Asian origin, and 86 (45%) of western origin. Male respondents numbered 58.1%, and a major segment of 75% was aged between 21 and 50. Respondents were mostly on holiday (62%) followed by 13.6% who were traveling on business. Most of the respondents (83.2%) possessed tertiary education.

The results also indicated that 38.2% of the respondents held professional positions, 26.7% held administration-related positions, 2.6% were self-employed, and 31.4% were retirees, housewives or students. More than 40% of the respondents had an annual income of less than US$10,000, 42.4% had an annual income of between US$10,001 and US$50,000, 13.1% were in the income range of US$50,001 to US$100,000, and 3.6% had an annual income of over US$100,000. A summary of the results can be found in Table 1.

Identification of Hotel Factors

A factor analysis with orthogonal VARIMAX rotation was conducted to allow the grouping of the 34 hotel attributes variables related to travellers' perceptions into smaller sets of newly correlated composite dimensions that attempt to identify the underlying factors explaining the variance in the attributes (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). The VARIMAX method has proved very successful as an analytical approach to obtaining an orthogonal rotation of factors. VARIMAX rotation ensures that each factor is independent of all other factors, that is when factors are orthogonal, the factor axes are at 90[degrees] and not correlated with each other. From the VARIMAX rotated factor matrix, nine hotel factors representing 67.05% of the explained variance were extracted from the original 34 variables.

A total of 30 variables as defined by the original 34 variables were loaded significantly. Factor loading greater than 0.50, and all factors whose eigenvalue was greater than 1, were retained in the factor solution (Lewis, 1984b). The variables with higher loadings signaled the correlation of the variables with the factors on which they were loaded (Kaiser, 1974). To assess the internal reliability of the factor identified, a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index was used. Kaiser characterises the measure in the 0.9s as 'marvelous', in the 0.8s as 'meritorious', in the 0.7s as 'middling', 0.6s as 'mediocre', in the 0.5s as 'miserable' and below 0.5s as 'unacceptable' (Kaiser, 1974). Results showed a KMO of 0.905 that indicated an extremely high measure of sampling adequacy.

Discussion of Factor Analysis Results

Table 2 shows the results of the factor analysis that reveals the hotel attributes loaded on each factor, the factor name, factor loadings, eigenvalues, the variance explained by each factor, factor mean, and the Kaise-Meyer-Olkin value. The details of orthogonal factors are as follows:

Factor 1 (service quality) contained eight items and explained 33.54% of the variance in the data with an Eigen value of 11.4. The items associated with this factor deal with the hotel employee customer interactions. Factor 2 (food and beverage quality) accounted for 6.17% of the variance with an Eigen value of 2.1. This factor was loaded with three items related to food and beverage quality. Factor 3 (supplementary facilities), with a loading of four items, accounted for 5.72% of the variance with an Eigen value of 1.9, and factor 4 (core product quality) with an Eigen value of 1.6, explained 4.69% of the variance. Factor 5 (value-added services) contained three items dealing primarily with the provision of value-added services and peripheral services by the hotel. It accounted for 3.89% of the variance with an Eigen value of 1.3. Meanwhile, factor 6 (aesthetics) explained 3.43% of the variance with an Eigen value of 1.2; and factor 7 (supplementary services) loaded with three items, accounted for 3.38% of the variance with an Eigen value of 1.1. Factor 8 (security) contained two items concerning hotel safety and security as perceived by travellers. It explained 3.19% of the variance with an Eigen value of 1.1. Finally, factor 9 (location) explained 3.04% of the variance with an Eigen value of 1.0. Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of various attributes from a mean scale of 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good). Results indicated that all the nine factors are important attributes for satisfaction level as shown by the factor mean of at least 3.22.

Traveller's Overall Satisfaction Levels

The relationship between the satisfaction levels and the independent variables of the nine orthogonal factors were then entered into a regression analysis to determine the relative levels of satisfaction for Asian and western travellers. Table 3 shows the results of the regression analysis on the overall satisfaction level for Asian and western travellers. Specifically, factors listed in the order of importance based on beta coefficients explained the relative impact of the nine hotel factors on the variance in travellers' satisfaction levels.

Comparatively, the correlation coefficient (R) for western travellers of 0.862 indicated that they had higher positive overall satisfaction levels with the nine independent hotel factors relative to Asian travellers of 0.800. This implied that the nine factors explained 86.2% for western travellers, while 80% of the overall satisfaction levels are explained by the nine factors for Asian travellers. From the nine orthogonal factors, satisfaction levels with Malaysian hotels were better among western travellers as compared to Asian travellers. Meanwhile, the adjusted coefficient of determination (adjusted [R.sup.2]) at 0.713 for western travellers is higher than that of the Asian travellers at 0.606, suggesting 71% of the variation of the western travellers' overall satisfaction was explained by the nine factors, while slightly lower, at 61%, was the variation from Asian travellers. The F-ratio value of 24.438 and 18.767 for western and Asian traveller respectively, significantly revealed that the regression model could hardly have occurred by chance. Results showed the relative impact of the hotel factors in terms of their contribution to the variance in western travellers' overall satisfaction levels. Hence, the regression model is said to have achieved goodness-of-fit in predicting the variance of both Asian and western travellers' overall satisfaction in relation to the nine hotel factors.

The derived factor scores generated for the nine factors were used as independent variables. Results showed that all the nine factors remained significant in the equation with a different value of the beta coefficients, contributing different weights to the variance of Asian travellers' overall satisfaction level.

For Asian travellers, of the nine hotel factors, factor 1 (service quality), with beta = 0.448 carried the heaviest weight in explaining travellers' overall satisfaction level, which indicated that a one-unit increase in satisfaction with service quality factor would lead to a 44.8% increase in the Asian travellers' overall satisfaction with their hotel stay, ceteris paribus. This was followed by factor 3 (supplementary facilities) with beta = 0.295, factor 6 (aesthetics), beta = 0.258, factor 7 (supplementary services), beta = 0.230, factor 2 (food and beverage quality), beta = 0.200, factor 4 (core product quality), beta = 0.186, and factor 5 (value-added services), beta = 0.142. Factor 8 (security) and factor 9 (location), however, were of no statistical significance in influencing the overall satisfaction levels of Asian travellers.

For western travellers, of the nine hotel factors, factor 1 (service quality), with beta = 0.409 also appeared to carry the heaviest weight in explaining overall satisfaction, followed by factor 2 (food and beverage) with beta = 0.353, factor 4 (core product quality), beta = 0.315, factor 3 (supplementary facilities), beta = 0.290, and factor 7 (supplementary services), beta = 0.148. The regression results, however, indicated that factor 8 (security), factor 9 (location), factor 6 (aesthetics), and factor 5 (value-added services) were not statistically significant in influencing western travellers' overall satisfaction levels.

Results of the Hypothesis Tests

The two-tailed t test, with a 0.05 level of significance was used to test the hypotheses using the SPSS software. The first hypothesis tested if there was a significant difference between Asian and western travellers' customer satisfaction in their evaluation of hotel service quality. Results in Table 4 showed that the p value was less than .05. We reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is a significant difference between Asian and western travellers' customer satisfaction in their evaluation of hotel service quality. Meanwhile, the hypotheses also test whether there is a significant difference between travellers' group evaluation of hotel food and beverage quality, and hotel value-added services. Results indicated the p values of .008 and .035 respectively were significant at 5%, and therefore concluded that there was a significant difference between Asian and western travellers' customer satisfaction in their evaluation of hotel food and beverage quality, and hotel value-added services.

The p values of .361, .766, .110, .320, .480, .090 were at a higher than 5% significance level than for the other hypothesis test. Therefore, we conclude that there were no significant difference between Asian and western travellers' customer satisfaction in their evaluation with respect to hotel supplementary facilities, core product quality, aesthetics, supplementary services, security and location.

Nevertheless, as the p value of .011 is statistically significant at the 5% level of significance, we therefore conclude that there is a significant difference between Asian and western travellers' evaluation of overall customer satisfaction with Malaysian hotels.

Based on the composite mean score for overall customer satisfaction, it was revealed that the western travellers indicated a higher level of satisfaction (with a mean of 3.624) compared to the Asians (with a mean of 3.270). The result again indicated that there was a significant difference between Asian and western overall satisfaction with hotels at the 5% level of significance. Higher value of composite mean score for western travellers implied that the satisfaction level of western travellers is significantly greater than that of Asian travellers.

The results showed that there was a significant difference between the Asian and western travelers, where factor 1 (service quality), factor 2 (food and beverage quality), and factor 5 (value-added services) were concerned (refer to Table 4).

These results were consistent with the findings of the multiple regression analysis. The t test from the multiple regression analysis showed that both Asian and western travellers had Factor 1 (service quality) as the factor that carried the most weight in their evaluation. However, western travellers, with the mean of 0.373, placed more emphasis on service quality than their Asian counterparts, with a mean of-0.306. For factor 2 (food and beverage quality), in consistency with the t-test results, it was indicated that western travellers, with a higher t-test mean of 0.210, were more particular about their food and beverage quality and denoted this as the second highest weight-age in their customer satisfaction survey. As for factor 5 (value-added services), Asians, with a mean of 0.138, were more critical in their customer satisfaction evaluation. Nonetheless, the multiple regression results seem to deviate from the t test where factor 5 (value-added services) was concerned. The r test indicated that Asians placed greater importance on factor 5 (value-added services) whereas the multiple regression analysis made no such indication.

Discussion of Findings

For both groups of travellers, service quality is the most influential factor in determining the overall satisfaction levels. This finding is consistent with various research studies that consider quality of services as a top priority; offering high quality service has been identified as the most important challenge facing businesses in the 1990s (Barsky & Labagh, 1992; Cadotte & Turgeon, 1988; Wilensky & Buttle, 1988). Furthermore, other studies show that service quality is likely to lead to customer satisfaction and repurchase intention (Bitner, 1990; Cronin & Taylor, 1992). Hence, hoteliers should bring awareness to all employees that maintaining service quality is part of their job. To do this, internal marketing is crucial to the quality of the hotel services. Management should treat employees well, make them feel they are part of the business and nourish them with team spirit. All these would enhance the employees' satisfaction, which is fundamental to the provision of quality services to travellers.

Results reveal that after service quality, the factor of food and beverage plays an important role in determining the overall satisfaction levels for western travellers. Westerners travel to Malaysia in the hope of experiencing something different; the variety and freshness of food they try in a foreign country could be of great importance to them.

This is then followed by core product quality. Hoteliers need to recognise that Asian travellers tend not to spend much on core product quality compared to their western counterparts. The domestic hotel industry should consider additional resources to maintain the quality of hotel rooms. Resources should be directed at improving the quality of rooms, including room set-up, cleanliness, quietness, and room temperature control. In this regard, hoteliers need to ensure that their hotels reflect their positioning statements well, and they should place emphasis on environmental cues when designing advertising and promotional activities. As the hotel industry is highly competitive and homogeneous in terms of service and facilities, the availability of alternatives for travellers can be regarded as an important attribute in a customer's future purchase behavior (Burton, 1990; Knutson, 1988). Situated in a region of high accessibility, hoteliers in Malaysia should enhance the value of their offerings to achieve competitive advantage.

Comparatively, western travellers are more concerned with the security attribute, while Asian travellers are more concerned with aesthetics. As more than 70% of travellers coming to Malaysia are of Asian origin, and many of them prefer to stay in midrange, moderately priced hotels (as indicated by Baldwin and Brodess [1993]), the hotel industry should focus on satisfying the needs of most of the Asian travellers to capture this key potential market, for instance, by developing more budget hotels to meet their needs. Apart from that, it is noteworthy that Asian travellers emphasise value for money, that is, look for ways to buy more for less or pay less for more. This is understandable since the majority of Asian countries are developing.

Other hotel attributes, such as general amenities, business services, value-added services and location, seem to be comparatively less influential in determining the overall satisfaction levels of both Asian and western travellers. Nevertheless, hoteliers should ensure that the qualities of these hotel attributes are maintained to an acceptable level by constantly reviewing customers' needs. According to LeBlanc (1992), if a customer's expectations are not met or exceeded, his or her perceptions of service quality and satisfaction will be affected.

Limitations of the Study

Ideally, the entire population for the study should consist of every western and Asian traveller who has traveled to Malaysia and stayed at at least one hotel here. Travellers in the sample should also have come into and departed Malaysia using any mode of transportation. However, due to time and cost constraints, our sample was only travellers who were leaving Malaysia by plane. Furthermore, only those respondents who were comfortable with the English language, or at least read English well enough to eliminate the possibility of sampling error, were interviewed. As the segmenting of Asian and western markets is tenuous given the size and diversity of cultures and ethnic groups, the use of questionnaires in English would skew the results. Hence, future research could minimise these negative impacts by setting questionnaires in other major languages, such as Dutch, Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese and Spanish.

Conclusion

Various differences and similarities in hotel attributes evaluation and customer satisfaction evaluation between the two groups of travellers have been discussed. Overall, the data analysis showed that the results were reliable and indicated a good measure of sampling adequacy, as evident from the KMO and adjusted R square values. The satisfaction level of western travellers was significantly greater than Asian travellers in terms of service quality. While the quality of food and beverage and core product quality were of more concern to western travellers, Asian travellers were more concerned with supplementary facilities and aesthetics. Meanwhile, other attributes under the study were less significant for both groups.

Whether the hotel attributes exceeded customers' expectations is the key to success for hoteliers. As Malaysian hotels continue to compete fiercely for larger and more stable market shares, the logical marketing focus for hoteliers is to increase the number of repeat customers/travellers, and to prolong the length of their stays by meeting their needs more effectively. Effective marketing strategies need to be planned by hoteliers to target both Asian and western travellers, satisfying them during their first visit, and then developing customer loyalty for Malaysian hotel services and facilities thereafter.

Table 1
Demographic and Travelling Data of the
Respondents, n = 191

Variable                            Percentage

Gender
  Male                                 58.1
  Female                               41.9

Age
  20 and below                         13.1
  21-35                                42.9
  36-50                                31.9
  52-65                                11.0
  65 and over                           1.0

Purpose of visit
  Holiday                              61.8
  Studies                               8.9
  Shopping                              0.5
  Business                             13.6
  Transit                              11.5
  Visiting friends                      3.7

Education level
  Primary school or below               0.5
  Secondary school                     16.2
  Tertiary education or above          83.2

Profession
  Skilled worker                        1.0
  Office worker                         7.9
  Management                           18.8
  Professional                         38.2
  Trader                                2.6
  Retired                               3.7
  Student                              20.4
  Housewife                             7.3

Annual income range
  Less than USD 10,000                 40.8
  USD 10,001-50,000                    42.4
  USD 50,001-100,000                   13.1
  USD 100,001-150,000                   2.6
  Above USD 150,001                     1.0

Note: Numbers may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Table 2
Factor Analysis Grouping Using VARIMAX Orthogonal Rotation of
Travellers' Perceptions of Hotel Attributes

Hotel factor (a)                            Factor    Eigenvalue
                                           loading

Factor 1 (service quality)                               11.4
  Efficient front desk                      0.755
  Friendliness of staff                     0.717
  Helpfulness of information desk           0.709
  Staff language skill                      0.664
  Convenient reservation system             0.599
  Staff prompt service                      0.587
  Room service efficiency                   0.566
  Reasonable room price                     0.512

Factor 2 (food and beverage quality)                     2.1
 Freshness food and beverage                0.798
  Hygiene of food and beverage              0.770
  Food and beverage variety                 0.658

Factor 3 (supplementary facilities)                      1.9
  In-room safety box                        0.701
  In-room audiovisual equipment             0.675
  Swimming and gymnasium facilities         0.650
  Recreation facilities                     0.617

Factor 4 (core product quality)                          1.6
  Comfort of beds                           0.797
  Quietness of the room                     0.740
  Cleanliness of the hotel                  0.635
  Tidiness of the hotel                     0.572

Factor 5 (value-added services)                          1.3
  Meeting facilities                        0.729
  Reliable wake-up call                     0.690
  Business center                           0.626

Factor 6 (aesthetics)                                    1.2
  View of hotel surrounding area            0.799
  Physical appearance of hotel              0.695

Factor 7 (supplementary services)                        1.1
  Availability of personal care amenities   0.680
  Efficiency of laundry service             0.644
  Availability of complimentary amenities   0.535

Factor 8 (security)                                      1.1
  Responsible security personnel            0.816
  Good fire prevention system               0.702

Factor 9 (location)                                      1.0
  Location of hotel                         0.645

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of               0.905
sampling adequacy

Hotel factor (a)                           Variance     Factor
                                           (%) (b)     mean (c)

Factor 1 (service quality)                  33.54        3.51
  Efficient front desk
  Friendliness of staff
  Helpfulness of information desk
  Staff language skill
  Convenient reservation system
  Staff prompt service
  Room service efficiency
  Reasonable room price

Factor 2 (food and beverage quality)         6.17        3.47
 Freshness food and beverage
  Hygiene of food and beverage
  Food and beverage variety

Factor 3 (supplementary facilities)          5.72        3.22
  In-room safety box
  In-room audiovisual equipment
  Swimming and gymnasium facilities
  Recreation facilities

Factor 4 (core product quality)              4.69        3.82
  Comfort of beds
  Quietness of the room
  Cleanliness of the hotel
  Tidiness of the hotel

Factor 5 (value-added services)              3.89        3.40
  Meeting facilities
  Reliable wake-up call
  Business center

Factor 6 (aesthetics)                        3.43        3.37
  View of hotel surrounding area
  Physical appearance of hotel

Factor 7 (supplementary services)            3.38        3.26
  Availability of personal care amenities
  Efficiency of laundry service
  Availability of complimentary amenities

Factor 8 (security)                          3.19        3.23
  Responsible security personnel
  Good fire prevention system

Factor 9 (location)                          3.04        3.57
  Location of hotel

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of
sampling adequacy

Note:

(a) 30 hotel attributes captured in nine factors

(b) 67.06% of cumulative variance explained

(c) Mean scale: 5 = very good 1 = very poor.

Table 3
Regression Analysis Results of Hotel Factors According to Asian and
Western Travellers' Overall Satisfaction Levels

(The factors are shown in order of importance based on the beta
coefficients.)

ASIAN TRAVELLERS
Goodness-of-fit:                   Multiple R   R square   Adjusted
                                                           R square

                                     0.800        0.640     0.606

                                                 Sum of      Mean
Analysis of variance                   df        Square     Square

Regression                              9        43.241     4.805
Residual                               95        24.321     0.256

                                       Variables in the equation

Independent variables                  B          SE B       Beta

(F1) Service quality                 0.448       0.058      0.532
(F3) Supplementary facilities        0.295       0.057      0.337
(F6) Aesthetics                      0.258       0.058      0.312
(F7) Supplementary services          0.230       0.058      0.251
(F2) Food and beverage quality       0.200       0.055      0.236
(F4) Core product quality            0.186       0.052      0.226
(F5) Value-added services            0.142       0.062      0.151
(F8) Security                        0.009       0.063      0.103
(F9) Location                        0.000       0.056     -0.001

WESTERN TRAVELLERS

Goodness-of-fit:                   Multiple R   R square   Adjusted
                                                           R square

                                     0.862       0.743      0.713

                                                 Sum of      Mean
Analysis of variance                   df        Square     Square

Regression                              9        53.303     5.923
Residual                               76        18.321     0.256

                                       Variables in the equation

Independent variables                  B          SE B       Beta

(F1) Service quality                 0.409       0.062      0.413
(F2) Food and beverage quality       0.353       0.054      0.393
(F4) Core product quality            0.315       0.053      0.354
(F3) Supplementary facilities        0.290       0.051      0.344
(F7) Supplementary services          0.148       0.049      0.182
(F8) Security                        0.008       0.048      0.112
(F9) Location                        0.008       0.060      0.091
(F6) Aesthetics                      0.007       0.059      0.087
(F5) Value-added services            0.006       0.048      0.086

ASIAN TRAVELLERS
Goodness-of-fit:                    Standard
                                     error

                                     0.510

 Analysis of variance                   F         Sig. F

Regression                           18.767      0.000
Residual

                                  Variables in the equation

Independent variables                  T         Sig. T

(F1) Service quality                 8.141       0.000
(F3) Supplementary facilities        5.185       0.000
(F6) Aesthetics                      4.444       0.000
(F7) Supplementary services          3.956       0.000
(F2) Food and beverage quality       3.566       0.001
(F4) Core product quality            3.608       0.001
(F5) Value-added services            2.306       0.023
(F8) Security                        1.547       0.125
(F9) Location                       -0.011       0.991

WESTERN TRAVELLERS

Goodness-of-fit:                    Standard
                                     error

                                     0.490

Analysis of variance                   F         Sig. F

Regression                           24.438      0.000
Residual

                                  Variables in the equation

Independent variables                  T         Sig. T

(F1) Service quality                 6.627       0.000
(F2) Food and beverage quality       6.560       0.000
(F4) Core product quality            5.927       0.000
(F3) Supplementary facilities        5.646       0.000
(F7) Supplementary services          3.019       0.003
(F8) Security                        1.841       0.070
(F9) Location                        1.417       0.161
(F6) Aesthetics                      1.327       0.188
(F5) Value-added services            1.445       0.153

Note: Dependent variable: travellers' degree of overall satisfaction
with services and facilities provided by the hotels. Independent
variables: nine orthogonal factors representing the components of
perceived quality of services and facilities.

Table 4
Results on the Independent t test Between Asian and Western Travellers'
Evaluation of Malaysian Hotel Stay

                                                             Mean
Hotel factors                                   Mean (a)  differences

(F1) Service quality    Asian                    -0.306
                        Western                   0.373
                        Equal variance assumed               0.679
(F2) Food and           Asian                    -0.0172
     beverage quality   Western                   0.210
                        Equal variance assumed               0.382
(F3) Supplementary      Asian                    -0.006
     facilities         Western                   0.007
                        Equal variance assumed               0.133
(F4) Core product       Asian                     0.002
     quality            Western                  -0.002
                        Equal variance assumed              -0.004
(F5) Value added        Asian                     0.138
     services           Western                  -0.168
                        Equal variance assumed              -0.306
(F6) Aesthetics         Asian                     0.105
                        Western                  -0.128
                        Equal variance assumed              -0.233
(F7) Supplementary      Asian                    -0.007
     services           Western                   0.008
                        Equal variance assumed               0.145
(F8) Security           Asian                     0.005
                        Western                  -0.006
                        Equal variance assumed              -0.103
(F9) Location           Asian                    -0.111
                        Western                   0.136
                        Equal variance assumed               0.249

                                                Mean (b)

Overall satisfaction    Asian                     3.270
                        Western                   3.624
                        Equal variance assumed               0.354

                                                             Sig.
Hotel factors                                   t value   (2-tailed)

(F1) Service quality    Asian
                        Western
                        Equal variance assumed    4.946      0.000
(F2) Food and           Asian
     beverage quality   Western
                        Equal variance assumed    2.667      0.008
(F3) Supplementary      Asian
     facilities         Western
                        Equal variance assumed    0.916      0.361
(F4) Core product       Asian
     quality            Western
                        Equal variance assumed   -0.298      0.766
(F5) Value added        Asian
     services           Western
                        Equal variance assumed   -2.126      0.035
(F6) Aesthetics         Asian
                        Western
                        Equal variance assumed   -1.607      0.110
(F7) Supplementary      Asian
     services           Western
                        Equal variance assumed    0.997      0.320
(F8) Security           Asian
                        Western
                        Equal variance assumed   -0.707      0.480
(F9) Location           Asian
                        Western
                        Equal variance assumed    1.706      0.090

Overall satisfaction    Asian
                        Western
                        Equal variance assumed    2.580      0.011

Note: Total 9 factors

N: 191 (Asian = 105, western = 86)

Significant at 0.05 level

(a) Means are calculated from factor scores derived from factor
analysis.

(b) Overall satisfaction is the dependent variable, mean scale:
5 = very good, 1 = very poor.

References

Aaker, D.A., Kumar, V., & Day, G.S. (1998). Marketing research. New York: John Wiley.

Ahmed, S., Barber, M., & d'Astous, A. (1998). Segmentation of the Nordic winter sun seekers market. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 7(1), 39-63.

Alpert, M.I. (1971). Identification of determinant attributes: A comparison of models, Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 184-191.

Ananth, M., DeMicco, F.J., Moreo, P.J., & Howey, R.M. (1992). Marketplace lodging needs of mature travelers. The Cornell Hotel Restaurant Administration Quarterly, August, 12-24.

Andreason, A. (1977). A taxonomy of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction measures. In H.K. Hunt (Ed.), Conceptualization and measurement of consumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction (pp. 11-35). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Atkinson, A. (1988). Answering the eternal question: What does the customer want?. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, August, 12-14.

Baldwin, P., & Brodess, D. (1993). Asia's new age travelers (Part II), Asia Travel Trade, June, 38-42.

Barsky, J., & Labagh, R. (1992). A strategy for customer satisfaction. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, October, 32-40.

Bauer, T., Jago, L., & Wise, B. (1993). The changing demand for hotel facilities in the Asia Pacific Region. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 12(4), 313-322.

Berkman, H.W., & Gilson, C. (1986). Consumer behavior: Concepts and strategies (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Kent.

Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1991). Marketing services: Competing through quality. New York: The Free Press

Bitner, M. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical surroundings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54, 69-82.

Brown, S.W., & Swartz, T. A. (19890. A gap analysis of professional service quality. Journal of Marketing, 53, 92-98.

Burton, S. (1990). The framing of purchase for services, The Journal of Services Marketing, 4, 55 67.

Cadotte, E.R., & Turgeon, N. (1988). Key factors in guest satisfaction. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 29, 45-51.

Cardozo, R.N. (1965). An experimental study of customer effort, expectation, and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 2, 244-249.

Chadee, D., & Mattsson, J. (1995). Customer satisfaction in tourist service encounters. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 4(4), 97-107.

Chon, K.S., Christianson, D.J., & Lee, C.L. (1995). Modeling tourist satisfaction: Japanese tourists' evaluation of hotel stay experience in Taiwan. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 2(1), 1-6.

Clow, K.E., Garretson, J.A., & Kurtz, D.L. (1994). An exploratory study into the purchase decision process used by leisure travelers in hotel selection. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 2(4), 53-72.

Court, B., & R. Lupton (1997). Customer portfolio development: Modeling destination adopters, inactives and rejecters. Journal of Travel Research, 36, 35-43.

Cravens, D.W., Holland, C.W., Lamb, C.W., Jr, & Moncrief, W.C., III (1988), Marketing's role in product and service quality. Industrial Marketing Management, 17, 285-304.

Cronin, J.J., Jr, & Taylor, S.A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55-68.

Czepiel, J.A., & Rosenberg, L.J. (1977). The study of consumer satisfaction: Addressing the 'so what' question'. In K.H. Hunt (Ed.), Conceptualization and measurement of consumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Dahl, J. (1989, November 30). Giving people what they don't want. The Wall Street Journal, B1, B7.

Danaher, P.J., & Arweiler, N. (1996). Customer satisfaction in the tourist industry: A case of visitors to New Zealand. Journal of Travel Research, 35(1), 89-97.

Darby, M.R., & Karni, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, April, 67-86.

Day, R. (1977). Toward a process model of consumer satisfaction. In H.K. Hunt (Ed.), Conceptualization and measurement of consumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction (pp. 153-183). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Economic Planning Unit. (2001). Eighth Malaysia Plan 2001-2005. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Government Printers.

Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D., & Miniard, EW. (1990). Consumer behavior (6th ed.). Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.

Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish experience. Journal of Marketing, 56, 6-21.

Garvin, D.A. (1991). How the Baldrige award really works. Harvard Business Review, November-December, 80-95.

Gilbert, D.C., & Morris, L. (1995). The relative importance of hotels and airlines to the business traveler. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 7(6), 19-23.

Griffin, R.K., Shea, L., & Weaver, P. (1996). How business travelers discriminate between mid-priced and luxury hotels: An analysis using a longitudinal sample. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 4(2), 63-75.

Gronroos, C. (1982). A service quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36-44.

Gronroos, C. (1984). An applied service marketing theory. European Journal of Marketing, 16(17), 30-41.

Gundersen, M.G., Heide, M., & Olsson, U.H. (1996). Hotel guest satisfaction among business travelers. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37, 72-81.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.

Halstead, D., & Page, T.J., Jr (1992). The effects of satisfaction and complaining behavior on consumers' repurchase behavior. Journal of Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 5, 1-11.

Handy, C.R. (1977). Monitoring consumer satisfaction with food products. In K.H. Hunt (Ed.), Conceptualization and measurement of consumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction (pp. 215-239). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Hayes, B.E. (1997). Measuring customer satisfaction: Survey design, use, and statistical analysis methods (2nd ed.) Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality, Press.

Heung, V.C.S., Mok, C., & Kwan, A. (1996). Brand loyalty in hotels: An exploratory study of overseas visitors to Hong Kong. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 3(1), 1-11.

Hoon, Y. (1992). Honey, I shrunk the budget! PATA Travel News, October.

Iverson, T.J. (1997). Japanese visitors to Guam: Lessons from experience. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 6(1), 41-45.

Kaiser, H.F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.

Kandampully, J. (2000). The impact of demand fluctuation on the quality' of service: A tourism industry example. Managing Service Quality, 10(1), 10-19.

Kirwin, P. (1992). Increasing sales and profits through guest satisfaction. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 33, 38-39.

Kivela, J. (1996). Marketing in the restaurant business: A theoretical model for identifying consumers' determinant choice variables and their impact on repeat purchase in the restaurant industry. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 3(1), 13-23.

Knutson, B. (1988). Frequent travelers: Making them happy and bringing them back. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 29, 83-87.

Knutson, B., Stevens, P., Patton, M., & Thompson, C. (1992). Consumers' expectations for service quality in economy, mid-price and luxury hotels, Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 1(2), 27-43.

Kotler, P. (1989). Principles of marketing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

LeBlanc, G. (1992). Factors affecting customer evaluation of service quality in travel agencies: An investigation of customer perceptions. Journal of Travel Research, 30(4), 10-16.

LeBlanc, G., & Nguyen, N. (1996). An examination of the factors that signal hotel image to travelers. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 3(1), 32-42.

Lewis, R.C. (1984a). Isolating differences in hotel attributes. Cornell Hotel Restaurant Quarterly, 25, 99-104.

Lewis, R.C. (1984b). Getting the most from marketing research: The basis of hotel selection. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 25, 54-59.

Lewis, R.C. (1985). Getting the most from marketing research. Predicting hotel choice: The factors underlying perception. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 26, 82-96.

Lovelock, C.H. (1983). Classifying services to gain strategic marketing insights. Journal of Marketing, 47, 9-20.

McCleary, K.W., & Weaver, P.A. (1992). Do business travelers who belong to frequent guest programs differ from those who don't belong? Hospitality Research Journal, 15(3), 51-64.

McQueen, J., & Miller, K. (1985). Target market selection of tourists: A comparison of approaches. Journal of Travel Research, 23, 2-6.

Metz, C.L. (1990). For mature appetites only. Lodging Hospitality, November, 67-70.

Middleton, V.T.C. (1994). Segmentation. In V.T.C. Middleton (Ed.), Marketing in travel and tourism (5th ed.; pp. 71-83) Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Murray, M., & Sproats, J. (1990). The disabled traveler, tourism and disability, in Australia. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 1 (1), 9-14.

Naumann, E. (1995). Customer satisfaction measurement and management: Using the voice of the customer. Cincinnati, OH: Thomson Executives Press.

Nelson, P. (1974). Advertising and information. Journal of Political Economy,, April, 67-86.

Oh, H., & Park, S.C. (1997). Customer satisfaction and service quality: A critical review of the literature and research implications for the hospitality industry. Hospitality Research Journal, 20(3), 25-48.

Oliver, R., & DeSarbo, W.S. (1988). Response determinants in satisfaction judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 495-507.

Oliver, R. (1977). Effect of expectation and disconfirmarion on post-exposure product evaluations: An alternative interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology, August, 480-486.

Oliver, R. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings. Journal of Retailing, Fall, 25-46.

Oppermann, M. (1993). Regional market segmentation analysis in Australia. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2(4), 59-74.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50.

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.

Perkins, D.S. (1991). A consumer satisfaction, dissatisfaction and complaining behavior bibliography: 1982-1990. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 4, 194-228.

Reichheld, F.F., & Sasser, W.E. (1990). Zero defections: Quality conies to services. Harvard Business Review, 68, 105-111.

Reid, R.D., & Sandler, M. (1992). The use of technology to improve service quality. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 33, 68-73.

Rivers, M.J., Toh, R.S., & Alaoui, M. (1991). Frequent-stayer programs: The demographic, behavioral, and attitudinal characteristics of hotel steady sleepers. Journal of Travel Research, 30(2), 41-45.

Ruys, H.F.M., & Wei, S. (1998). Accommodation needs of mature Australian travelers. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 5(1), 51-60.

Saleh, F., & Ryan, C. (1992). Client perceptions of hotels, a multi-attribute approach. Tourism Management, 13(2), 163-168.

Scott, D., & Shieil; D. (1993). Service quality components and group criteria in local government. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 4(2), 18-25.

Shifflet, D.K., & Bhatia, P. (1997). Perception of value often leads to loyalty. Hotel & Motel Management, 211(16), 22.

Shostack, L. (1977). Breaking free from product marketing. Journal of Marketing, April, 73-80.

Sussmann, S., & Rashcovsky, C. (1997). A cross-cultural analysis of English and French Canadians' vacation travel patterns. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 16(2), 19l-208.

Taninecz, G. (1990). 1990 business traveler survey. Hotel and Motel Management, 205(57), 29-32.

Tourism Malaysia (2000). Accommodation guide 2000. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Tourism Malaysia, Ministry of Culture, Arts and Tourism.

Vavra, T.G. (1997). Improving Your measurement of customer satisfaction: A guide to creating, conducting, analyzing and reporting customer satisfaction measurement programs. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.

Walker, J.R. (1996). Introduction to hospitality. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Weaver, P.A., & Oh, H.C. (1993). Do American business travelers have different hotel service requirements? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 5(3), 16-21.

Westbrook, R.A., & Oliver, R.L. (1991). The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 84-91.

Wilensky, L., & Buttle, F. (1988). A multivariate analysis of hotel benefit bundles and choice tradeoffs. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 7(1), 29-41.

Williams, T.G. (1982). Consumer behavior." Fundamentals and strategies. St Paul, MN: West.

Correspondence

Wai-Ohing Poon, Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Jalan Multimedia, 63100 Cyberjaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia. E-mail: wcpoon@mmu.edu.my