The concept of value and its dimensions: a tool for analysing tourism experiences

Martina G. Gallarza and Irene Gil

Martina G.Gallarza is Associate Professor of Marketing, Facultad de Estudios de la Empresa Catholic University of Valencia San Vicente Matir, Valencia, Spain. Irene Gil is Professor of Marketing, Marketing Department, ` Universitat de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.

Abstract Purpose This work aims to introduce the usefulness of the concept of value for tourism research both conceptually and empirically. Destination and tourism services can be better understood if analysed through the multidimensionality of value, as the tourist can simultaneously experience several factors: affective and cognitive, social and personal, active and reactive. Design/methodology/approach From literature review, Holbrooks conceptual framework (denition and typology) is chosen to investigate the dimensionality of consumer value in a travel-related context (students tourism behaviour). An empirical investigation on one of his conceptual axes the relativistic character of consumer value is presented. Findings Several research questions are proposed regarding the relativity of value, using the t-test contrast of hypothesis: dimensions of value (efciency, quality, play, aesthetics and social value) and a measure of overall perceived value are tested as being personal (they vary across people), comparative (with differences among objects) and situational (specic to the context). Research limitations/implications The results presented can fully conrm the relativistic character of value dimensions; hence, the value concept is useful for analysing tourism experiences. Nevertheless, the analysis is made interpersonally. Real intrapersonal measurements on these variations with longitudinal studies are recommended for further research. The scope of this work could be broadened by testing additional axes of Holbrooks typology. Practical implications Tourism managers should regard the helpfulness of perceived value as a segmentation tool. Because of its multidimensionality, different facets of services value can be enhanced for different consumers, reinforcing in this way the strategic usefulness of value. Originality/value Although Holbrooks types of value have been the subject of several conceptual debates there are very few empirical works on it. Any multidimensional approach to value shows the richness and complexity of the value concept, but Holbrooks dimensionality is particularly interesting because it encompasses and interrelates all relevant facets of the tourism experience. Keywords Consumers, Value analysis, Tourism, Individual perception Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Grounded on fundamental marketing principles, the concept of customer value has been revisited and rened by academicians and practitioners over the last 30 years. As occurred in the literature on quality or customer satisfaction during the 1980s and 1990s, the services literature has tried to achieve a consistent theoretical and conceptual development of the value-concept. In addition, for practitioners, value has far-reaching implications for marketing management. Consequently, what rst attracts the attention of any marketing researcher interested in the concept of value is its increasingly unanimous recognition as an imperative focus for both practitioners and researchers (Cronin et al. 2000; Day, 1999; Heskett et al. 1997; Parasuraman, 1997; Woodruff and Gardial, 1996). As many others, Lai (1995, p. 381) considers that creating superior customer value is a necessary condition for a company securing a niche in a competitive environment, not to mention a leadership

The authors are grateful to the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology for nancial support for this work (I D Plan Nacional SEJ2007-66054).

PAGE 4

TOURISM REVIEW

VOL. 63 NO. 3 2008, pp. 4-20, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1660-5373

DOI 10.1108/16605370810901553

position in the market. Similar statements can be heard among tourism researchers and professionals (e.g. Gabott and Hogg, 1998; Stevens, 1992; Oh, 2003; Petrick, 2003): value has been seen, for instance, as a denitive option to improve (way of improving) a destinations competitive edge (Pechlaner et al., 2002). In the present work we wish to introduce the usefulness of the concept of value for tourism research both conceptually and empirically. Tourism marketing can be better understood if analysed through the multidimensionality of value as the tourist can experience simultaneously several factors: affective and cognitive, social and personal, active and reactive. The present work is an attempt to use the conceptual framework on consumer value presented by Morris Holbrook as a very comprehensive view of this multidimensionality. To this end, the paper is organised into four sections. A review on previous research on value in tourism settings is provided in the rst section, as an introduction. The second section outlines, within other value typologies, Holbrooks dimensionality of value as a key tool for analysing the tourism experience. An empirical investigation on one of the conceptual axes of Holbrooks framework the relativistic character of consumer value is addressed in the next section, where dimensions of value are tested as being personal, comparative and situational. The nal section includes conclusions and recommendations for readers and researchers.

2. Value research and tourism

The recognition of the relevance of value in tourism markets can be based, on one hand, on the utility of value as a strategic tool for the management of tourism services and on the other hand, on its importance as a key variable for analysing consumer behaviour. To illustrate this dual reality, we shall introduce two references: Oh (2000, p. 136) considers that the concept of value has drawn increasing attention from both industry executives and marketing academics as a barometer of long-term business performance and Jayanti and Ghosh (1996, p. 5) for whom perceived value for price paid has been recognised in the literature as one of the most salient determinants of repurchase intentions and repeat purchase behaviour. Both areas (long-term performance and repurchase intentions) are key aspects of a modern and competitive approach to tourism markets. More precisely, previous research suggests that the study of perceived value in tourism is relatively recent and compared to other evaluations (service quality or satisfaction), is still not very widespread. Authors such as Oh (1999) and Tam (2000) explicitly regret that interest in value as a consumer evaluation tool has been scarce in tourism and leisure studies. The rst studies into customer value in tourism appear in the 1990s (e.g. Stevens, 1992; Jayanti and Ghosh, 1996; Bojanic, 1996; Murphy and Pritchard, 1997), but these are unrelated studies which cannot be considered a true line of research. Nevertheless, from 1999, we can nd interesting and robust approaches to the concept of value and its measurement (e.g. Oh, 1999, 2000; Kashyap and Bojanic, 2000; Murphy et al., 2000; Tam, 2000; Babin and Kim, 2001; Petrick et al., 2001; Walker et al., 2001; Petrick and Backman, 2002a; Petrick, 2003; Oh, 2003; Al-Sabbahy et al., 2004; Gallarza and Gil, 2004, 2006). The study of perceived value covers all types of tourism products, although there is predominance for the evaluation of the destination and accommodation. Furthermore, value tends to be studied together with either the quality in the rst years (e.g. Fornell et al., 1996; Jayanti and Ghosh, 1996; Bojanic, 1996) or with satisfaction and loyalty in more recent studies (e.g. Petrick et al., 2001; Babin and Kim, 2001; Petrick and Backman, 2002). Two different approaches have been identied within value research (Gallarza and Gil, 2006). First, there is an important interest on the dimensionality of consumer value, combining, for instance, positive and negative inputs of value (intravariable approach). Second, the aim of exploring the relations between perceived value and other consumer perceptual constructs, such as satisfaction and loyalty (intervariable approach) is also relevant in tourism literature. The present work must be considered within the intravariable approach as an attempt to explore the richness of the tourism experience through the concept of value, which is reviewed in the following section.

VOL. 63 NO. 3 2008 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 5

3. The concept of value (denition and typologies) and the tourism experience
3.1 Value: denition and typologies The literature reviewed very often refers to conceptual difculties in the study of consumer value: value is an abstract concept, with different meanings that turns out to be highly polysemic (Zeithaml, 1988; Rao and Monroe, 1989; Dodds et al., 1991; Lai, 1995; Woodruff, 1997). Thus, any empirically technical effort on value assessment should be preceded by theory-driven value conceptualisation (Lin et al., 2005). The following paragraphs are included with this in mind. One potential source of misunderstanding comes from the discrepant meanings of the word value in the marketing literature, especially in two domains: consumer behaviour and marketing strategy (Lai, 1995). Consumer value refers to the possession and consumption of products and services and it is more commonly referred to as perceived value. For marketing strategy, value focuses on the assessment made by the customer of his/her purchase; it is obviously a way of achieving product differentiation (commonly named customer value). But one meaning can not be separated from the other, because understanding the salient antecedents and consequences of consumer value can probably be considered as the most fundamental prerequisite for sustainable competitive advantage (Jensen, 1996, p. 60). In that sense, the approach followed in this study corresponds to what is understood as perceived or consumer value, although the practical implications of the empirical study can throw some light on managing customer value in tourism service settings. There are myriad existing denitions of value (see, among others, Woodruff (1997, p. 140)). For a clearer view of previous value research, we present Table I, with a chronological selection of value denitions. The relatively early proposal made by Zeithaml (1988) has stood as one of the most universally accepted denitions of customer value: perceived value is the consumer overall assessment of the utility of a product based on the perceptions of what is received and what is given. This conceptualisation has inuenced a stream of literature based on the get-versus-give trade-off: see for instance denitions by Doddset al.(1991), Fornell et al. (1996) and Oliver (1999) in Table I, or the strategic purposes of authors such as Gale (1994), Lovelock (1996), Monroe (2003) or Zeithaml and Bitner (1996). This line of research has also received great attention in the tourism literature Table I A selection of denitions of value
Conceptual proposal Zeithaml (1988, p. 14) Perceived value is the consumer overall assessment of the utility of a product based on the perceptions of what is received and what is given A cognitive trade-off between perceived quality and sacrice Perceived level of product quality relative to the price paid Value is a positive function of what is received and a negative function of what is sacriced The mental estimate that consumers make of the travel product, where perceptions of value are drawn from a personal cost/benet assessment The notion of value for money refers primarily to the relationship between price, quality and quantity Value can be seen as a combination of a products (destinations) perceived quality and associated price which a visitor will summarise as the value received

Doddset al. (1991, p. 316) Fornellet al. (1996, p. 9) Oliver (1999, p. 45) Morrison (1989) quoted in Murphy et al. (2000, p. 46)

Stevens (1992, p. 44)

Chang and Wildt (1994 quoted in Murphy et al. 2000)

PAGE 6 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 63 NO. 3 2008

(e.g. Bojanic, 1996; Kashyap and Bojanic, 2000; Tam, 2000). The last three authors from Table I are examples of denitions adapting the get-versus-give trade-off to tourism experience. On further examination of the literature, it is clear that the concept of consumer value needs to be tackled both in its denition and typologies, because one can understand a given type of value only by considering its relationship to other types of value (Holbrook, 1999, p. 4; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001, p. 205). With this in mind, Table II is presented with a selection of value typologies, either conceptual or empirical. When considering the need for a multidimensional approach, two classical typologies emerge: the transaction versus acquisition values from Monroe and Chapman (1987) and the conceptualisation proposed by Holbrook and Corfman in 1985: both of them are often referred to by other authors: see among others Parasuraman and Grewal (2000) for the former and Babin et al. (1994), de Ruyter et al. (1997) and Mathwick et al. (2002) for the latter. In tourism literature, authors interested in the value composite nature (i.e. intravariable approach) have also adopted these classical value typologies: Petrick and Backman (2002) use Grewal et al.s (1998) scale of transaction versus acquisition value and Babin and Kim (2001) adopt Babin et al.s (1994) dimensions of hedonic and utilitarian value. More recently, several attempts at developing a multidimensional value scale have been proposed and empirically tested in leisure and tourism experiences: Al-Sabbahy et al. (2004) study applies to hotels and restaurants services the Grewal et al.s (1998) two-dimensional value scale, with inconsistent results for the transaction value dimension; Petricks (2002, 2003) work proposes a value structure of ve dimensions (behavioural price, monetary price, emotional response, quality and reputation) that is meant to work for all services categories. Any of Table II A selection of typologies of value
Authors Holbrook and Corfman (1985) Monroe and Chapman (1987) Zeithaml (1988) Conceptual or empirical proposal Conceptual Conceptual Empirical (focus groups of juice consumers) Values 1) Hedonic value; 2) Utilitarian value 1) Acquisition value; 2) Transaction value 1) Value is low price; 2) Value is whatever I want in a product or service; 3) Value is the quality I get for the price I paid; 4) Value is what I get for all that I give 1) Functional value; 2) Social value; 3) Emotional value; 4) Epistemic value; 5) Conditional value 1) Tangibles values; 2) Intangibles values 1) Hedonic value; 2) Utilitarian value 1) Expected value; 2) Received value 1) Pre-use value; 2) Post-use value 1) Benets (quality, satisfaction and specic benets) 2) Costs (money, time and effort) 1) Desired Value; 2) Received value 1) Emotional or intrinsic value; 2) Functional or extrinsic value; 3) Logical or value for money 1) Consumption value; 2) Extended value 1) Efciency; 2) Excellence; 3) Play 4) Aesthetics; 5) Status; 6) Esteem; 7) Ethics; 8) Spirituality 1) Adquisition value; 2) Transaction value; 3) Value in-use 4) Redemption value 1) Functional (price/value for money); 2) Functional (performance/quality); 3) Emotional value; 4) Social value 1) Active values (efciency; economic value and enjoyment); 2) Reactive values (visual attraction; entertainment value and service excellence) 1) Non monetary costs; 2) Monetary price; 3) Emotional response; 4) Quality; 5) Reputation

Sheth et al. (1991) Nilson (1992) Babin et al. (1994) Kotleret al. (1995) Lovelock (1996) Zeithaml and Bitner (1996) Woodruff (1997) de Ruyter et al. (1997) Oliver (1999) Holbrook (1999) Parasuraman and Grewal (2000) Sweeney and Soutar (2001)

Conceptual Conceptual (managerial approach) Empirical Conceptual Conceptual Conceptual (for services) Conceptual (managerial approach) Conceptual Conceptual Conceptual Conceptual Empirical (durable goods) based on Sheth et al. (1991) Empirical (electronic purchases)

Mathwicket al.(2002)

Petrick (2002, 2003)

Empirical (leisure services)

VOL. 63 NO. 3 2008 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 7

these multidimensional approaches to value indicates the richness and complexity of the value concept. The classical distinction between hedonic and utilitarian value has been used in tourism literature as mentioned before, but, very few empirical studies have adopted Holbrooks extended typology published in 1999. In that work the author pursues a philosophical approach that encompasses both a denition of consumer value (viewed as an interactive relativistic preference experience) and a typology of values. First, the denition is referred to as an axiology (that is, as a judgment of goodness/badness). Value is understood as interactive because it entails an interaction between some subject (a consumer) and some object (a product); it is also preferential because it embodies a preference judgment, very often related to words such as attitude or evaluation. By experience it is understood that value resides not in the product purchased or in the brand chosen, but rather in the consumption experience derived therefore. The last characteristic of this denition, value is relativistic, will be explained in more detail in the empirical study. Second, the typology is based on a three-dimensional paradigm: extrinsic versus intrinsic value; self-oriented versus other-oriented value; and active versus reactive value. When combined, these three distinctions create a typology that denes eight inter-related primary categories of consumer value (according to the resulting 2 2 2 cross-classication namely, efciency (e.g., convenience); excellence (e.g., quality); status (e.g., fashion); esteem (e.g., materialism); play (e.g., fun); aesthetics (e.g., beauty); ethics (e.g., justice, virtue, morality); and spirituality (e.g., ecstasy, rapture). With the aforementioned need to focus simultaneously on the concept and the types of value, the present study is an attempt to use Holbrooks framework, both in its denition (in one of its characters: relativistic) and in its typology (considering and assessing some of the eight values) for presenting the value concept as a tool for understanding and assessing tourism experiences. The multidimensional nature of tourism can be retraced through the multidimensional nature of value. The issue of experiences is a dominant focus of tourism research. Both ideas (experience and composite nature) can be studied through Holbrooks (1999, p. 5) conceptual framework, that recognised value as an experience offering different dimensions. In order to better illustrate this reality, we now note how the Holbrook paradigm of consumer value is an exceptional prism for analysing tourism as a service experience. 3.2 Holbrooks value framework and the tourism experience First, value is a capital concept for the understanding of services marketing. In fact, three waves of conceptual research in the services literature have been recognised (Cronin et al., 2000, p. 194): the study of service quality, and then the satisfaction research which has more recently given way to the study of service value. Indeed, Holbrooks framework on consumer value believes strongly in the conceptualisation of product offerings as performing services that provide consumer experiences to create customer value. Consequently, he proposes that all products are services and that all marketing should be considered services marketing (Holbrook, 1999, p. 9). This perspective is consistent with much of the conceptual literature on tourism services (Middleton, 1994; Gabott and Hogg, 1998). Second, some of the most common topics of services marketing literature that enable us to describe the tourism experience can easily be analysed through the light of Holbrooks value conceptualisation: for instance, services characteristics (intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability and perishability), the product-service continuum (Shostack, 1977), the service encounter (Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996) and tourism services multidimensionality. Let us consider for example, that an inseparable service cannot produce anything other than an experiential value to which we could add the interactive nature of value, because tourism is a service of maximum subjectivity. In that sense, does a hotel exist without guests or a destination without visitors? Intangibility and the continuum product-service are also ways of

PAGE 8 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 63 NO. 3 2008

understanding that the constant play between tangible and intangible, concrete and abstract, functional and psychological elements, exists in consumer tourism, and these elements help to create extrinsic and intrinsic values. We believe that the multidimensionality of tourism allows us to understand all the expressions of Holbrooks typological axis as types or expressions of tourism. The virtue and opportunity of those responsible for tourist services is in the provision of strategic combinations of these values. For those responsible for tourist destinations, there is a need to understand these as an umbrella under which the tourist may accomplish multiple and varied social, hedonistic, aesthetic or other experiences. An analysis of the advantages of their service-offering through the dimensions of value of Holbrooks paradigm is a recommendable exercise in analysis and differentiation.

4. Research questions, data analysis and discussion

4.1 Research questions We now present an empirical study with a view to contrasting the relativistic nature (personal, comparative and situational) of the concept of value within a tourism experience. The research questions presented are based mostly on Holbrooks (1999, p. 5) conceptualisation of value as an interactive relativistic preference experience. But in order to reinforce this conceptualisation, additional references are introduced. According to this denition, the Holbrook (1999) paradigm establishes that value is relativistic, which means being simultaneously subjective, comparative and situational. These three conceptual axes are closely interrelated because consumers compare the value of products and services with awed information. In short, the heterogeneous nature and circumstantialities of perceived value is sought: these are inter- and intra-subjective valuations, between different objects evaluated in different contexts. 4.1.1 Perceived value varies between subjects (it is personal). There is a predominance of subjective orientation in the denitions of value (see Table I), which allows us to state that value is personal. Zeithaml (1988, p.13) recognises that perceived value, even within the same category of products, is highly personal and idiosyncratic. This is also proved empirically by Bolton and Drew (1991). Nevertheless, it is important that the perception of value by the consumer corresponds to a real value of the product, and not merely an image of the product (Nilson, 1992; Gale, 1994; Day, 1999). As far as the objectives of our study are concerned, this axis allows us to establish the following research questions: RQ1. RQ2. There are signicant differences between tourists perceptions of value according to their personal variables (age, sex, habitat . . .). There are signicant differences between consumers perceptions of value according to their consumer habits.

4.1.2 Perceived value varies between objects (it is comparative). The perception of value must always be comparative (Gale, 1994; Nilson, 1992; Holbrook, 1999; Oliver, 1999; Lovelock, 1996). Indeed, value is a comparative axis, but not exclusively between similar products or services (such as comparison between trade marks or models), but also between the alternatives a consumer has, bearing in mind the cost of opportunity. However, the consumer cannot take into account all the positive and negative aspects of consumer evaluation all at once (Nilson, 1992), neither can the perception of many objects be compared simultaneously (Siracaya et al., 1996). In this way, this conceptual axis gives rise to the following research question: RQ3. There are signicant differences between consumers perceptions of value according to the product consumed. 4.1.3 Perceived value varies with the dimensions of space and time (it is situational). The space and time variables are determinant in the evaluation of the value of products and services (Zeithaml, 1988; Nilson, 1992; Gabott and Hogg, 1998; Holbrook, 1999; Oliver, 1999; Day and Crask, 2000). This circumstantial meaning of value is a question of widespread and old consensus: Thalers (1985) conceptualisation of value already made

VOL. 63 NO. 3 2008 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 9

explicit consideration of a reference framework in value (Hempel and Daniel, 1993, p. 273). Circumstantialities of the notion of value should be understood together with its consideration as subjective and comparative. In this way, Gabott and Hogg (1998) establish that the nature of value depends on the products themselves, on the individual who buys them and on the situation or context. Nilson (1992, p. 30) recognises that perceived value of a product is not constant: it varies with each consumer and even with each relative change in the time of the day or the year. Parasuraman and Grewal (2000, p. 169) consider a double dynamic of the concept: on the one hand the components of value evolve with time, and on the other, the value changes in the different stages of the relationship of a client with the company. Consequently, strategic planning should constantly review consumers perception of value (Nilson, 1992, p. 43; Parasuraman, 1997, p. 156). The situational character of perceived value gives place to the following research question: RQ4. There are signicant differences between consumers perceptions of value according to the temporal circumstances of the consumption. 4.2 Data analysis and discussion 4.2.1 Sample selection and questionnaire construction. Six variables are considered in our study. First, in accordance with Holbrooks typology of value (see Table III), we choose the rst four types of value (efciency, quality, aesthetics and play) as expressions of the different value dimensions on which to test their relativistic character. These are the dimensions that are closest to a consumer behaviour approach (Oliver, 1999). Second, a social dimension of value is included, considering the other oriented and extrinsic values of Holbrooks typology (i.e. status and esteem). As the distinction between these two categories is recognised as the fuzziest (Holbrook, 1999, p. 16) we consider a single social dimension in our study. This social dimension of value is also considered in the value typology of Sheth et al. (1991) and consequently, in Sweeney and Soutars (2001) study. Furthermore, a social dimension is obviously of special importance in the tourist experience (Blazey, 2000). Third, according to Zeithamls (1988) value denition, a global assessment of the perceived value of the experience is also considered as a sixth variable in order to gain better insight into the richness of value concept. A combination of sources has been used to build the questionnaire: review of empirical studies on tourism services value (e.g. Babin and Kim, 2001), four in-depth interviews with tourism researchers and practitioners and four focus groups with higher education students. During the focus groups, questions about tourism experiences for students were explored, trying to identify Holbrooks value dimensions. As there were no previous scaling efforts on most of value dimensions, we chose single-item scales for efciency, quality, social value, play and aesthetics. For the overall assessment of value, we also chose mono-item scale: one of Cronin et al.s (2000) two-item perceived value scale, Comparing what I gave up, the experience has satised my needs and wants (see Table IV). This indicator is also in accordance with the trade-off idea from Zeithaml (1988)s denition of value. All scales considered were ve-point Likert style. Given the exploratory nature of this investigation, a convenience sample of 229 university students has been chosen from two large Spanish cities. University students usually travel in groups at different stages of their time at university: halfway (third year) and end of studies (fth year). The use of samples of students for experimental research on value has been Table III Holbrooks typology of consumer value
Extrinsic Self-oriented Other-oriented Active Reactive Active Reactive Efciency (convenience) Excellence (quality) Status (success) Esteem (reputation, materialism) Intrinsic Play (amusement) Aesthetics (beauty) Ethics (virtue, justice) Spirituality (faith)

Source: Holbrook (1999)

PAGE 10 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 63 NO. 3 2008

Table IV
Efciency Service quality Social value Play Aesthetics Perceived value Overall, I have perceived the tourism service at destination as efcient In general, the service quality offered by employees at tourism destination was With this experience the social value and relationship with others that I obtained was In general, I had fun and entertainment with this experience Overall, I found beauty and aesthetics in the destination I visited Comparing what I gave up, the experience has satised my needs and wants

widely criticised (Sweeney et al., 1999). However, in travel and tourism research, several authors have recently chosen students as a tourism segment (e.g. Litvin, 2003; Babin and Kim, 2001; Field, 1999; Chen and Kerstetter, 1999). Some reasons could be given: rst, the growing number of university students engaging in some form of vacation break (Mattila et al., 2001); second, students enjoy long and regular holidays (Field, 1999), thereby forming a lucrative segment of the pleasure travel market (Chen and Kerstetter, 1999); third, in most cases, there is an intercultural exchange between hosts and guests that provides a richer tourism experience (Babin and Kim, 2001; Litvin, 2003). The sample description for this study is shown in Table V. 4.2.2 Data analysis and discussion. To support the research questions put forward regarding the relativity of value we have used the t-test contrast of hypothesis according to Aaker and Day (1989). T-test contrast allows us to explore the simple assumption that signicant differences do not exist between the sample groups. Rejecting this said assumption allows us to support the personal, comparative and situational nature of the perceptions of value. In our case, the t-test analysis is made on independent samples (Santesmases, 1997, p. 171). The subjective or personal nature is measured with variables in age, sex, habitat and frequency of travel (see Tables VI and VII). The comparative nature is contrasted with the variables of type of trip, mode of travel, type of destination and duration of the trip (see Table VIII). The situational nature was checked against the year and season of travel (see Table IX). As far as the personal nature of value (RQ1 and RQ2) is concerned, in our study only dimensions of social and aesthetics show signicant differences regarding sex, showing higher perceptions in women (see Table VI). These differences are also signicant for the perceived value measure, always being more favorable in women than in men. Age is also relevant in all value dimensions, except for quality. Consumers showed more similarities between each other in their evaluation of quality than in the assessment of value. This can be interpreted as value being a measurement more akin to the nature of the consumer, and the changes which he/she undergoes. Generally speaking, the value dimensions are better perceived by older tourists, except in aesthetics, as are the scores of value. All these results, as well as supporting question RQ1 are interesting for a segmentation approach. New analyses on the said differences in perceptions by sex, carried out before and after the trip, can also be a guide to communicating tourism offers towards one or other benet. Regarding other personal variables, habitat turned out to be a discriminating factor in the perception of the value dimensions (see Table VII): social value is signicantly greater for tourists from small towns or villages and these also have a better perception of efciency. Regarding the frequency of trips (see Table VII) we can say that the interviewees showed signicant differences in the measurement of some of the value dimensions, but we cannot conclude that there is a clear tendency. However, perceived value is signicantly greater for those that travel more, and this allows us to accept RQ2, considering the frequency of travel as a reference of a consumer habit. This result is in connection with the analysis proposed by Pearce (1988, quoted in Ryan, 1995) named the tourist career because the greater the experience, the better the perception of value. But more indicators of the traveling habits would be necessary (destination visited, duration of the trips, frequency in repeated visits to

VOL. 63 NO. 3 2008 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 11

Table V Sample prole

ni Subjects (n 229) Sex Male Female Age (date of birth) 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Frequency of travel , 1 a year 1 a year 2 a year 3-5 a year . 5 a year Habitat , 150,000 inhab. 150,000-500,000 inhab. 500,000-1,000,000 inhab. . 1,000,000 in hab. Type of experience (n 274) Year of the trip 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 University course of the trip 3rd year 5th year Season of the trip Winter Spring Summer Fall Transport Cruise Flight and hotel Train and hotel Car and hotel Other Duration of the trip 7 days 8 days Other Destinations visited Caribbean Islands Canary Islands European Cities Other %

110 115 19 25 28 53 28 39 26 65 60 54 24 89 18 19 99

48.9 51.1 9.9 13.0 14.6 27.6 14.6 20.3 11.4 28.4 26.2 23.6 10.5 39.6 8.0 8.4 44.0

1 15 26 72 55 85 195 79 93 143 19 1 25 225 4 3 15 112 158 4 110 81 66 17

0.40 5.93 10.28 28.46 21.74 33.60 71.2 28.8 36.33 55.86 7.42 0.39 9.19 82.72 1.47 1.10 5.51 40.88 57.66 1.46 40.15 29.56 24.09 6.20

Note: Among the 229 respondents, 45 answered two questionnaires: one related to their 3rd year trip and the other to their 5th year. Hence, 274 different experiences were analysed

the same destination and means of transport, . . .) in order to better evaluate the variations in the perceived value of tourism experiences throughout this tourist career. Regarding the comparability of value (see Table VIII), in the two types of trip (third year or halfway and fth year or end of studies), there are differences for efciency, quality, social value and play, as well as for the overall value; however, aesthetics does not show these

PAGE 12 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 63 NO. 3 2008

Table VI Subjectivity of value: t-test on age and sex

Male Value dimensions Efciency Quality Social value Play Aesthetics 3.60 3.50 3.86 4.55 3.75 4.07 Sex Female 3.42 3.41 4.11** 4.52 4.04** 4.27* 1976 4.04** 3.37 4.14* 4.78** 3.87 4.73** 1977 3.44 3.65 4.26** 4.36 3.67 4.21 Age (date of birth) 1978 1979 3.27 3.37 4.11** 4.59 3.92 4.14 3.83** 3.61 3.96 4.46 3.80 4.09 1980 3.26 3.30 3.94 4.58 4.23** 4.16 1981 3.29 3.31 3.75 4. 56 4.03* 4.02

Perceived value

Notes: * Signicance level 0.05; ** signicance level 0.01

differences. Regarding the destinations visited, there are also differences for perceived value, although less than with regard to type of trip. Nevertheless, social value does not differ by destination visited, whereas all the other value dimensions do differ, with increased perception (except in aesthetics) for Caribbean destinations. Similar comments are applicable to the differences according to means of transport, except for efciency. Finally, the duration of the trip also presents similar differences: in this case, there are differences in the social and aesthetic dimensions, as well as for the overall value, with the perceptions for longer trips always being greater. But they are not however in the dimensions of efciency, quality and play. Finally, the circumstantiality of value is tested. We know Holbrooks conceptual framework points towards situational perceived value as a variation of value in the dimensions of space and time (RQ4). In our study the results are shown for the year and season in which the trip was taken. Just as in the previous tests, we assume that samples are independent (we did not measure therefore the intrapersonal perceptions). Besides, in this case, we should assume that the variability of time as an inuence on the perceptions takes a pseudo-longitudinal form, when comparing experiences between different individuals. The results of this analysis (see Table IX) show that value is situational (Zeithaml, 1988) and dependent on temporal contexts (Gabott and Hogg, 1998; Nilson, 1992; Day and Crask, 2000). We can accept RQ4, because signicant differences are found in the measurements according to the season and the year. The valuation of the tourist experience in summer is different and more positive than in other seasons, except for aesthetics; students who travel when they have nished their academic course value their experience more signicantly than those that travel during their courses. It is also interesting that the evaluation of the benets of the experience is signicantly greater for trips taken in summer. This is possibly connected to the mindlessness according to Ryan (1995) which inuences many of the tourists perceptions, due to the passiveness of some tourist activities. Mindlessness must be greater when the academic course is over, and so is the perception of value. Nevertheless, true intrapersonal measurements on these variations with longitudinal studies would be necessary. Regarding the different value dimensions, play does not present signicant differences by years. Nevertheless, these differences exist for efciency, quality, social value and aesthetics. All this proves the interest in multidimensional value, since some dimensions are more sensitive to time than others. It could then be concluded that Holbrooks dimensions of value are in effect sensitive to the contexts.

5. Conclusions, future orientations and managerial implications

Within an intravariable approach, the present study contains an examination of the dimensions of value provided by Holbrooks framework, applied to the tourism experience. From the consumer behaviour perspective, the multidimensionality of the tourism experience can be viewed and analysed through value multidimensionality. Efciency, quality, play, aesthetics and social value are different aspects of the tourism service experienced by the traveler. Those responsible for tourist services should look for the provision of strategic combinations of these values: the tourist may accomplish multiple and

VOL. 63 NO. 3 2008 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 13

PAGE 14 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 63 NO. 3 2008

j
, 50,000 Habitat (number of inhabitants) from 50 to from 150 to from 500,000 to 150,000 500,000 1 mill. . 1 mill. , 1 a year Frequency of travel From 3 to 1 a year 2 a year 5 a year , from 5 a year 3.64* 3.57 4.17** 4.54 3.92 4.30** 3.82** 3.50 4.02 4.53 3.80 4.14 3.47 3.88** 4.00 4.63* 4.16* 4.26 3.15 3.19 3.80 4.35 3.70 3.95 3.35 3.31 3.87 4.53 3.89 4.12 3.41 3.57 4.13* 4.53 3.84 4.19 3.34 3.36 4.04* 4.44 4.06** 4.10 3.59 3.63 3.81 4.50 3.69 3.94 3.64 3.34 4.12** 4.67** 3.95 4.48** 3.56 4.12** 3.89 4.56 3.89 4.33*

Table VII Subjectivity of value: t-test on habitat and frequency of travel

Value dimensions

Efciency Quality Social value Play Aesthetics

Perceived value

Notes: * Signicance level 0.05; ** signicance level 0.01

Table VIII Comparability of value: t-test on type of trip, destinations visited, means of transport and duration
Type of trip 3rd year 5th year Caribbean Europe Destinations visited Canary islands Cruise Transport Flight and hotel Duration , a 7 days 7 to 15 days

Value dimensions

Efciency Quality Social value Play Aesthetics

Perceived value

3.29 3.20 3.89 4.46 3.87 4.06

4.03** 4.07** 4.26** 4.71** 3.96 4.47**

3.78** 3.72* 3.98 4.63* 3.87** 4.25*

3.12 3.04 4.04 4.49 3.51 4.02

3.42 3.43* 3.97 4.39 4.55** 4.12

4.40 4.5** 4.20 4.72** 4.68** 4.36

4.42 3.34 3.99 4.51 3.84 4.15

3.14 3.09 3.93 4.42 3.60 4.00

3.76** 3.75** 4.06 4.61** 3.95 4.26*

Notes: * Signicance level 0.05; ** signicance level 0.01

VOL. 63 NO. 3 2008 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 15

Table IX Situationality of value: t-test on year and season of the trip

1999 Value dimensions Efciency Quality Social value Play Aesthetics 3.31** 3.38* 4.19** 4.65 3.50 4.00 Year 2000 2001 3.68** 3.38** 3.63 4.46 3.56 4.11 2.95** 2.95 4.07* 4.47 4.16** 4.16 2002 3.97** 3.97** 4.04 4.62 4.13** 4.26 Winter 3.63** 3.43 3.78 4.57 3.75 4.15 Season Spring Summer 3.32 3.42 4.15** 4.50 4.00* 4.16 4.42** 4.06** 4.24** 4.74* 3.84 4.56**

Perceived value

Notes: * Signicance level 0.05; ** signicance level 0.01

varied social, hedonistic, aesthetic or functional experiences while visiting a destination or becoming involved in any tourism related activity. Form a strategic perspective, as previously backed up by several authors (e.g. Gale, 1994; Woodruff and Gardial, 1996; Woodruff, 1997; Day, 1999), this study shows that value is a key for gaining competitive advantage: value varies across people and situations, and it triggers comparisons between different objects; it is therefore useful for segmentation, differentiation and product positioning. In that sense, regarding the personal nature of value and its dimensions, some differences have been found across sex and age, reinforcing the idea of using value as a segmentation tool. However, there is a certain disparity in the results, especially for social value. The exploratory nature of our questions invites future contrasting which supports this subjectivity and allows analysis on which personal qualities exert a greater variation on perceived value and its dimensions, in one way or another; this should allow, as noted by Woodruff (1997) and Parasuraman (1997), greater understanding of the mechanisms for evaluating products and services for each consumer prole and could serve as a guide for marketing products and services. As a guide for differentiation and positioning, the object relativity of perceived value in the tourist context investigated has also been proved. The most signicant result of this analysis is probably linked to the social dimension: the non signicance of the object differences (except in type of trip) should perhaps be interpreted as an increased universality in social interaction which occurs in tourism independently of the type of trip or destination chosen. Finally, the dimensions of value and the perceived value itself are situational, because they are sensitive to time (season and year of the trip). Nevertheless, real intrapersonal measurements on these variations with longitudinal studies would be necessary. We could not end this study without recognising several clear limitations of the methodological approach. First, the empirical contrasting of the triple nature of perceived value as personal, comparative and situational creates methodological difculties. Holbrook (1999, p. 6) advises that legitimate judgments of value involve intrapersonal comparisons between different objects evaluated by the same individual. Methodologically speaking, this would mean that only two tourist experiences by the same person could be compared. Given the limitations of our studys approach, the intrapersonal measurement of the relativity in value has not been possible: the number of individuals who made two trips (45) is clearly an insufcient sample size. We assume therefore that the analysis carried out is interpersonal. Second, the circumstantialities of value should be tested with longitudinal studies, which combined with cluster analyses would take us to a more robust conclusion regarding the relativity of the value. Consequently, the helpfulness of the perceived value as a segmentation tool could be focused, reinforcing in this way the strategic usefulness of this notion. Third, the ndings are very context specic (related to students travel behaviour); new approaches of value types, mostly with multidimensional scales, are needed to broaden the conclusions of the empirical study. Moreover, in order to combine the two approaches existing in tourism value literature (inter and intravariable), further research could focus on relationships between different types of

PAGE 16 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 63 NO. 3 2008

value, interrelated into a structural model with other constructs such as satisfaction or loyalty, assessed with PLS or LISREL. Future orientations for this research should focus on these and other directions to improve academic and professional knowledge around the complexity of attributing value to tourism market offerings.

References
Aaker, D.A. and Day, G.S. (1989), Investigacion de mercados, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, Santa Fe. Al-Sabbahy, H., Ekinci, Y. and Riley, M. (2004), An investigation of perceived value dimensions: implications for hospitality research, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42, February, pp. 226-34. Babin, B.J. and Kim, K. (2001), International students travel behavior: a model of the travel-related consumer/dissatisfaction process, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 93-106. Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Grifn, M. (1994), Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, March, pp. 644-56. Blazey, M.A. (2000), Social interaction in Jafar, Jafari Tourism Encyclopedia of Tourism, Routledge, London, pp. 540-1. Bojanic, D.C. (1996), Consumer perceptions of price, value and satisfaction in the hotel industry: an exploratory study, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 5-22. Bolton, R. and Drew, J. (1991), A multistage model of customers assessments of service quality and value, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 375-84. Chen, P. and Kerstetter, L.D. (1999), International students image of rural Pennsylvania as a travel destination, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 256-66. Cronin, J.J. Jr, Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000), Assessing the effects of quality, value and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 193-218. Day, E. and Crask, M.R. (2000), Value assessment: the antecedent of customer satisfaction, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 13, pp. 42-50. Day, G.S. (1999), Market Driven Strategy. Processes for Creating Value, 2nd ed., The Free Press, New York, NY. de Ruyter, J.K., Wetzels, M., Lemmink, J. and Mattson, J. (1997), The dynamics of the service delivery process, a value-based approach, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 231-43. Dodds, W., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991), Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers product evaluations, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, August, pp. 307-19. Field, A.M. (1999), The college student market segment: a comparative study of travel behaviours of international and domestic students at a south-eastern university, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 375-81. Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J. and Everitt Bryant, B. (1996), The American Customer Satisfaction Index: nature, purpose, and ndings, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 7-18. Gabott, M. and Hogg, G. (1998), Consumer and Services, Wiley, Chichester. Gale, B.T. (1994), Managing Customer Value; Creating Quality and Service that Customers Can See, The Free Press, New York, NY. Gallarza, M.G. and Gil, I. (2004), Developing a model for assessing the effects of types of value on perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty, paper presented at the 33rd EMAC Conference, Murcia University, Mayo. Gallarza, M.G. and Gil, I. (2006), Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: an investigation of university students travel behaviour, Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 437-52. Grewal, D., Monroe, K.B. and Krishnan, R. (1998), The effects of price-comparison advertising on buyers perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioural intentions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 46-59.

VOL. 63 NO. 3 2008 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 17

Hempel, D.J. and Daniel, H.Z. (1993), Framing dynamics: measurement issues and perspectives, Advances Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp. 273-9. Heskett, J.L., Sasser, W.E. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1997), The Service Prot Chain: How Leading Companies Link Prot and Growth to Loyalty, Satisfaction, and Value, The Free Press, New York, NY. Holbrook, M.B. (1999), Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research, Routledge, London. Holbrook, M.B. and Corfman, K.P. (1985), Quality and value in the consumption experience: Phaedrus rides again, in Jacoby, J. and Olson, J.C. (Eds), Perceived Quality: How Consumers View Stores and Merchandise, D.C. Health and Company, Lexington, MA, pp. 31-57. Jayanti, R. and Ghosh, A. (1996), Service value determination: an integrative perspective, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 5-25. Jensen, H.R. (1996), The interrelationship between customer and consumer value, Asia Pacic Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 2, pp. 60-3. Kashyap, R. and Bojanic, D. (2000), A structural analysis of value, quality and price perceptions of business and leisure travelers, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39, August, pp. 45-51. Lai, A.W. (1995), Consumer values, products benets and customer value: a consumption behaviour approach, in Kardes, F.R. and Mita, S. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22, Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 381-8. Lin, C.H., Sher, P.J. and Shih, H.-Y. (2005), Past progress and future directions in conceptualizing customer perceived value, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 318-36. Litvin, S.W. (2003), Tourism and understanding: the MBA study mission, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 77-93. Lovelock, C.H. (1996), Services Marketing, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N. and Rigdon, E. (2002), The effect of dynamic retail experiences on experiential perceptions of value: an internet and catalogue comparison, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 51-60. Mattila, A., Apostolopoulos, A., Sonmez, S., Yu, L. and Sasidharan, V. (2001), The impact of gender and religion on college students spring break behaviour, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 193-200. Middleton, V.T.C. (1994), Marketing in Travel and Tourism, 2nd ed., Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford. Monroe, K.B. (2003), Pricing: Making Protable Decisions, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill Irwin, Burr Ridge, IL. Monroe, K. and Chapman, J. (1987), Framing effects on buyers subjective product evaluations, in Wallendorf, M. and Anderson, P. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 193-7. Murphy, P.E. and Pritchard, M.P. (1997), Destination price-value perceptions: an examination of origin and seasonal inuences, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 16-22. Murphy, P.E., Pritchard, M.P. and Smith, B. (2000), The destination product and its impact on traveller perceptions, Tourism Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 43-52. Nilson, T.H. (1992), Value-added Marketing: Marketing Management for Superior Results, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead. Oh, H. (1999), Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: a holistic perspective, Hospitality Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 67-82. Oh, H. (2000), Diners perceptions of quality, value and satisfaction, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 58-66. Oh, H. (2003), Price fairness and its asymmetric effects on overall price, quality, and value judgements: the case of an upscale hotel, Tourism Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 397-9. Oliver, R.L. (1999), Value as excellence in the consumption experience, in Holbrook, M.B. (Ed.), Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research, Routledge, London, pp. 43-62.

PAGE 18 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 63 NO. 3 2008

Parasuraman, A. (1997), Reections on gaining competitive advantage through customer value, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 154-61. Parasuraman, A. and Grewal, D. (2000), The impact of technology on the quality-value-loyalty chain: a research agenda, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 168-74. Pearce, D. (1988), The Ulysses Factor: Evaluating Visitors in Tourist Settings, Springer Verlag, New York, NY. Pechlaner, H., Smeral, E. and Matzler, K. (2002), Customer value management as a determinant of the competitive position of tourism destinations, Tourism Review, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 15-22. Petrick, J.F. (2002), Development of a multi-dimensional scale for measuring the perceived value of a service, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 119-34. Petrick, J.F. (2003), Measuring cruise passengers perceived value, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 7 Nos 3-4, pp. 251-8. Petrick, J.R. and Backman, S.J. (2002), An examination of golf travelers satisfaction, perceived value, loyalty, and intentions to revisit, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 6 Nos 3-4, pp. 223-37. Petrick, J., Morais, D.D. and Norman, W.C. (2001), An examination of the determinants of entertainment vacationers intentions to revisit, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40, August, pp. 41-8. Rao, R.A. and Monroe, K.B. (1989), The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers perceptions of product quality: an integrative review, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26, August, pp. 351-7. Ryan, C. (1995), Researching Tourist Satisfaction: Issues, Concepts and Problems, Routledge, London. Santesmases, M. (1997), Dyane. Diseno y analisis de encuestas en investigacion social y de mercados, Ediciones Piramide, Madrid. Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.I. (1991), Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption values, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 159-70. Shostack, G.L. (1977), Breaking free from product marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 2, April, pp. 73-80. Siracaya, E., McLelan, R.W. and Uysal, M. (1996), Modelling vacation destination decisions: a behavioral approach, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 5 Nos 1/2, pp. 57-75. Stevens, B. (1992), Research notes and communications: price value perceptions of travellers, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 44-8. Sweeney, J. and Soutar, G. (2001), Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item scale, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 203-7. Sweeney, J., Soutar, G. and Johnson, L.W. (1999), The role of perceived risk in the quality-value relationship: a study in a retail environment, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 77-105. Tam, J.L.M. (2000), The effects of service quality, perceived value and customer satisfaction on behavioural intentions, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 31-43. Thaler, R. (1985), Mental accounting and consumer choices, Marketing Science, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 199-214. Walker, J.T., Backman, K., Backman, S. and Morais, D. (2001), Using a performance measurements to explore the inuence of service quality dimensions on customers perception of overall value of a nature based tourism outtter, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 2 Nos 1/2, pp. 49-68. Woodruff, B.R. (1997), Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 139-53. Woodruff, B.R. and Gardial, F.S. (1996), Know Your Customer: New Approaches to Understanding Customer Value and Satisfaction, Blackwell Business, Malden, MA. Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22. Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (1996), Services Marketing, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

VOL. 63 NO. 3 2008 TOURISM REVIEW PAGE 19

Further reading
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), Customer loyalty: towards an integrated conceptual framework, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113. Gallarza, M.G., Gil, I. and Calderon, H. (2000), Le marketing des services comme approche analytique du marche touristique, Revue du Tourisme (Tourist Review), Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 54-65. Yucelt, U. and Marcella, M. (1995), Perception of service quality in the US lodging industry, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 45-64.

Corresponding author
Martina G.Gallarza can be contacted at: mggallarza@ucv.es

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

PAGE 20 TOURISM REVIEW VOL. 63 NO. 3 2008