E-mail address: metin

}
kozak@hotmail.com (M. Kozak).
Tourism Management 22 (2001) 391} 401
Comparative assessment of tourist satisfaction with destinations
across two nationalities
M. Kozak
P.K. 27, 48000 Mugla, Turkey
Received 3 November 1999; accepted 20 October 2000
Abstract
This study attempts to present the "ndings of a self-administered survey carried out among 1872 British and German tourists
visiting Mallorca and Turkey in the summer of 1998. The prime objective of the study is to determine whether there are di!erences
between satisfaction levels of two nationalities visiting the same destination. In order to test whether "ndings vary between locations,
the survey was administered in two destinations. The analysis of "ndings indicated that British tourists were more likely to be satis"ed
with almost all individual attributes than German tourists. In the light of empirical "ndings and observations, theoretical and
practical implications are discussed and obstacles of comparative research dealing with the measurement of tourist satisfaction
presented. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Tourist satisfaction; Comparative research; German tourists; British tourists; Spain; Turkey
1. Introduction
Although customer satisfaction literature has been
dominated by measurement of guest satisfaction with
tourism and hospitality services (Barsky, 1992; Bojanic,
1996; Bojanic & Rosen, 1994; Chadee & Mattsson, 1995,
1996; Saleh & Ryan, 1992), little has been done with
regard to the assessment of cultural di!erences. Tourist
destinations attract visitors from di!erent cultures and
countries, it is not reasonable to examine the satisfaction
level of only one speci"c group of customers. A com-
parative analysis between groups is required to better
understand the importance of an understanding of
di!erent languages, food consumption and other nation-
al di!erences.
In parallel with other areas of tourism, travel, hospital-
ity and recreation studies, there has also been an increase
in the number of empirical investigations of tourist satis-
faction with domestic or international destinations over
the last decade (Chon & Olsen, 1991; Danaher &
Arweiler, 1996; Kozak & Rimmington, 2000; Pizam,
Neumann, & Reichel, 1978; Pizam & Milman, 1993; Qu
& Li, 1997; Tribe & Snaith, 1998; Weber, 1997). The
objectives of this study are therefore to ascertain (1) the
similarities and di!erences in the satisfaction levels of
tourists visiting Turkey and (2) the extent to which these
"ndings correspond with those of another piece of re-
search carried out in Mallorca.
2. Literature review
Pizam (1999) suggests using two methods when carry-
ing out cross-cultural research in the "eld of consumer
behavior. The "rst is &the indirect method of cross-
cultural research', that is how &outsiders' such as local
residents or tour guides see tourists or how they perceive
di!erences in the behavior of tourists across various
nationalities. The next, &the direct method of cross-
cultural research', aims at exploring whether any di!er-
ences exist in the behavior, values or satisfaction levels of
tourists representing di!erent nationalities and speculat-
ing as to their possible reasons. The main di!erence
between these methods is that the latter re#ects tourists'
opinions about themselves or their experiences. Both
methods have been previously employed by researchers.
Some research projects have focused on the examina-
tion of cross-cultural di!erences from the perspective of
tour operators and tour guides (indirect methods of
0261-5177/01/$- see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 5 1 7 7 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 6 4 - 9
cross-cultural comparison research). Thus, McLellan and
Fousher (1983) compared the image of the US by tour
operators representing nine countries. Pizam and
Sussmann (1995) investigated the tour guides' percep-
tions of similarities and di!erences between tourists from
four countries. The same survey was repeated among
Israeli tour guides (Pizam & Reichel, 1996). In both
studies, tour guides perceived that di!erent tourists from
di!erent nationalities had di!erent behavioral character-
istics. Other research attempted to consider the assess-
ment of di!erences between tourists from di!erent
countries visiting the same destination, utilizing direct
methods of cross-cultural comparison research. For
example, Richardson and Crompton (1988) examined the
similarities and di!erences between two customer groups
in respect of several vacation travel characteristics. Sus-
smann and Rashcovsky (1997) attempted to explore the
similarities and di!erences between two groups in rela-
tion to vacation travel patterns and attitude towards the
selected destinations. Finally, using importance}perfor-
mance analysis, Kozak and Nield (1998) carried out an
empirical study to highlight the importance and perfor-
mance levels of major destination attributes of Romanian
resorts with respect to cross-cultural di!erences between
European and Romanian visitors.
The "ndings of the past research con"rmed that tourist
perceptions of a destination or hospitality businesses
may vary according to countries of origin (Armstrong,
Mok, Go, & Chan, 1997; Calantone, di Benedetto,
Halam, & Bojanic, 1989; Huang, Huang, & Wu, 1996;
Luk, deLeon, Leong, & Li, 1993; Richardson &
Crompton, 1988). With their small sample size, Danaher
and Arweiler (1996) found di!erences in only one item
(outdoor activities) between the satisfaction level of four
nationalities visiting New Zealand. Using beta coe$cient
values in regression analysis, Chadee and Mattsson
(1996) explored di!erences between European and Asian
student groups on eating out, rent-a-car services and
sightseeing tours. Performing both t-tests and regression
analysis procedures, Lee and Ulgado (1997) found di!er-
ences between US and Korean sample populations on
their perceptions of service quality in a fast-food restaur-
ant chain. In respect of tourist and service provider
comparison, Reisinger and Turner (1998) found cultural
di!erences in communication style, expressing feelings,
establishing relationships and attitudes between Korean
tourists and Australian service providers. In a recent
study, Choi and Chu (2000) found di!erences in factors
determining the overall satisfaction levels of Asian and
Western tourists. It seems obvious that nationality might
have a signi"cant e!ect on consumer or tourist behavior.
Therefore, such di!erences in attitudes and behavior fo-
cus on the importance of destination management in
exploring the feature of each customer group, segmenting
tourism markets and releasing new marketing strategies
which are appropriate for each market.
A cross-cultural analysis requires a systematic com-
parison of similarities and di!erences in values, ideas,
attitudes and symbols (Engel & Blackwell, 1982). Tourist
satisfaction could also be considered among these ele-
ments. A number of research studies have been conduc-
ted in order to measure tourist satisfaction in di!erent
areas of the tourism and travel industry. Some re-
searchers measured tourist satisfaction with dining
experiences in restaurants (Chadee & Mattsson, 1995,
1996). Others investigated tourist satisfaction with day or
package tours (Hughes, 1991; Pizam & Milman, 1993).
Several researchers reported tourist satisfaction with
hotels (Barsky, 1992; Bojanic, 1996; Saleh & Ryan, 1992).
The number of empirical investigations to measure tour-
ist satisfaction with destinations has also increased over
the past decade (Bramwell, 1998; Chon & Olsen, 1991;
Danaher & Arweiler, 1996; Kozak & Rimmington, 2000;
Pizam et al., 1978; Qu & Li, 1997). Despite this, much
past destination satisfaction research is limited to homo-
geneous sample populations and sample destinations.
Yet any cross-cultural di!erences between tourists' per-
ceived satisfaction levels with their holiday experiences at
the same destination is important to the decision-making
process of destination management regarding destina-
tion positioning and market segmentation strategies.
3. Methodology
The marketing literature suggests several customer
satisfaction measurement approaches such as &expecta-
tion}performance', &importance}performance', &discon"r-
mation' and &performance-only'. This study uses the
performance-only approach since it avoids the use
of expectations within the measurement of customer
satisfaction due to the limitations of the discon"rmation
approach and its variants (Churchill & Suprenant,
1982; Cronin & Taylor, 1992). It is proposed that regard-
less of the existence of any prior expectations, the cus-
tomer is likely to be satis"ed when a product or service
performs at a desired level (Czepiel, Rosenberg,
& Akerele, 1974). There is empirical support for the idea
that the performance-only approach had higher reliabil-
ity and validity values than other approaches (Crompton
& Love, 1995) and the approach has already been em-
ployed by several researchers for the measurement of
tourist satisfaction with destinations (Pizam et al., 1978;
Qu & Li, 1997).
3.1. Questionnaire design
A pool of destination attributes was generated through
both primary and secondary sources to identify items for
the questionnaire. Primary sources included open-ended
questionnaires distributed to university sta!, personal
experience and informal discussions with several
392 M. Kozak / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 391}401
researchers. Several secondary sources were used to
enhance the list of items, e.g. brochures about Mallorca
and Turkey and the review of the literature focused on
destination image, choice and satisfaction (e.g. Danaher
& Arweiler, 1996; Dorfman, 1979; Goodrich, 1977, 1978;
Loundsbury & Hoopes, 1985; Pizam et al., 1978;
Whipple & Thach, 1988).
The questionnaire was structured with satisfaction
items based on a seven-point scale ranging from
&delighted' to &terrible' to indicate the extent to which
tourists were satis"ed or dissatis"ed with pre-identi"ed
destination attributes. The structure of the scale was
based on the following categories: terrible (1), unhappy (2),
mostly unsatisxed (3), neither satisxed nor unsatisxed (4),
mostly satisxed (5), pleased (6) and delighted (7). The
delighted}terrible scale is believed to be suitable for the
measurement of customer satisfaction as it reduces
the skewness of satisfaction responses (Maddox, 1985;
Westbrook, 1980). The use of the delighted}terrible scale,
developed by Andrews and Withey (1976), was modi"ed
and applied to measuring customer satisfaction by
Westbrook (1979, 1980) and Bitner and Hubbert (1994).
It has been used in studies of tourist satisfaction with
destinations (Chon & Olsen, 1991; Maddox, 1985).
The "rst draft of the questionnaire was piloted among
220 British tourists travelling to Mallorca in 1998. In the
light of practical observations and empirical "ndings
from the pilot surveys, the "nal questionnaire was de-
veloped with 55 questions in total. The draft was
screened by a team of four academics. The survey instru-
ment was originally in English and later translated into
German. The survey instrument was developed in one
setting (e.g. the British sample in Mallorca) and repeated
in another setting (repetitive}successive design).
3.2. Data collection
Although there is no consensus on how to measure
customer satisfaction, the literature suggests that satis-
faction is an overall postpurchase evaluation (Fornell,
1992). Literature further emphasizes the measurement of
satisfaction immediately after purchase (Peterson &
Wilson, 1992). This study approached randomly selected
tourists at the departure airport of each destination just
before the end of their holiday, during the pre-#ight time,
and questionnaires were collected before they boarded
the aircraft. In so doing, tourists may have available time
and the bene"t of the entire holiday to assess their satis-
faction perceptions of destination facilities, attractions
and customer services.
Surveys were restricted to a three-week period in each
destination during the peak season in the summer of
1998, as mass tourism is signi"cant for Mallorca and
Turkey. The surveys were completed in the presence of
the researcher. Passengers from the UK and Germany
were asked if they would like to participate in the survey.
As a result of the nature of the information sought
(personal opinions), tourists completed questionnaires
while waiting to #y home. Self-completion questionnaires
are believed to get the most reliable responses (Hurst,
1994), as respondents have an opportunity to review the
completed questionnaire or revisit questions that are not
answered initially. Once the researchers had identi"ed
themselves, the respondents were given information
about the intent and content of the survey. Respondents
were assured that the survey was anonymous, con"den-
tial and voluntary. Those who consented were given
a copy of the questionnaire on a clipboard and a pencil.
All questionnaires, whether completed or not, were re-
turned before passengers embarked.
Respondents who stayed in private accommodation or
with their relatives or friends or were on cruises were
excluded as this research was focused solely on the hol-
iday experiences of tourists visiting any destination in
Mallorca or Turkey. It is important to note that, with the
purpose of obtaining di!erent views and avoiding repeti-
tion and imitation, the questionnaire was delivered to
only one person in each family or group. Tourists who
had stayed at least one week on holiday were included in
the survey. It is expected that the length of holiday or
length of experience with a destination may in#uence the
tourist perceptions of that destination and may also help
collect reliable data. Those who were over 15 years old
were asked to complete the survey.
4. Analysis of 5ndings
A total of 1961 usable questionnaires was collected
from passengers over the course of three weeks. Of those
returned, 89 questionnaires were eliminated. These ques-
tionnaires were incomplete or had an excessive amount
of missing data. After elimination, 1872 questionnaires
were coded for data analysis representing a response rate
of 95.4 per cent. The distribution of questionnaires ana-
lyzed by nationality and country is as follows: British
in Mallorca (465), British in Turkey (511), German in
Mallorca (467) and German in Turkey (429).
4.1. Comparison between proxles of British and German
tourists in Turkey
There was a great di!erence between the type of
holiday taken by British and German tourists visiting
Turkey. German tourists were more likely to choose
all-inclusive holidays (23.1 per cent) and half-board (64.3
per cent) than their British counterparts (4.3 and 14.1 per
cent, respectively). Conversely, the percentage of British
tourists who tended to choose bed and breakfast (45.6 per
cent) and self-catering (33.1 per cent) was much higher
than that of German tourists (4.7 and 2.3 per cent, respec-
tively). The majority of British tourists chose hotels (83.9
M. Kozak / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 391}401 393
Table 1
Results of factor analysis
Factors Factor labels E.value Variance Mean Alpha P
Factor 1 Accommodation services 15.7 35.8 5.73 0.8789 0.000
Factor 2 Local transport services 2.7 6.1 5.42 0.8558 0.000
Factor 3 Hygiene and cleanliness 1.9 4.5 5.55 0.7863 0.000
Factor 4 Hospitality and customer care 1.8 4.3 5.61 0.8710 0.000
Factor 5 Facilities and activities 1.6 3.8 5.32 0.7906 0.000
Factor 6 Level of prices 1.5 3.5 5.42 0.8521 0.000
Factor 7 Language communication 1.4 3.2 5.59 0.8653 0.000
Factor 8 Destination airport services 1.2 2.8 5.49 0.5634 0.000
per cent). This ratio is greater than that of British
tourists (58.8 per cent). The percentage of the sample
that chose apartments was biased to British tourists (35.9
per cent). Nearly 8 per cent of German tourists preferred
to stay at holiday villages (or club hotels), which was
slightly higher than for British tourists (3.5 per cent).
German tourists were more likely than British tourists to
stay two weeks or longer. In terms of repeat visits,
approximately 60 per cent of German tourists and 42.5
per cent of British tourists had been to Turkey on holiday
at least once before. The last di!erence was based on
gender. The proportion of German male tourists in Tur-
key was greater than that of British male tourists. As
a consequence, there were more British female tourists
than German female tourists. No signi"cant di!erence
was observed between the two groups for the &age'
variable.
4.2. Comparison between proxles of British and German
tourists in Mallorca
Di!erences were recorded between age, the number of
repeat visits, length of holiday, type of holiday and ac-
commodation and the number of people in the party. No
di!erence was recorded for gender. There were more
young individuals within the German tourists' age range
than its counterpart within British tourists. There is little
di!erence in the length of holidays, both groups having
primarily chosen two-week holidays. The majority
of German people preferred a half-board vacation in
Mallorca (82.3 per cent), British tourists were more likely
to prefer self-catering (37.1 per cent) than German people
(7.1 per cent). The great proportion of both samples
stayed in hotels, but Germans had a greater proportion
(73.2 per cent). The apartments were more attractive to
British tourists (38.7 per cent) than Germans (24.5 per
cent). British tourists had a higher number of repeat visits
to Mallorca overall than did their German counterparts.
About 71 per cent of the British sample population had
previously been on holiday to Mallorca at least once, as
opposed to nearly 59 per cent of the German sample.
German tourists were more likely to be alone while on
vacation to Mallorca. In contrast, British tourists tended
to be in a group, accompanied by one, two or three
persons.
4.3. Comparison between satisfaction levels of British and
German tourists
The examination of the reliability of the data shows
that the alpha values ranged from 0.95 to 0.96. This
exceeds the minimum standard (0.80) suggested by Nun-
naly (1978) and were much greater than those presented
in some other surveys (Oh & Parks, 1997). The values of
the correlation coe$cient matrix were taken into account
in this section to avoid those variables with high correla-
tion (with 0.65 and over). Based upon this criterion, 11
items were excluded. The analysis of "ndings refers to 44
variables.
Table 1 summarizes the "ndings produced by principal
component factor analysis and subsequent varimax rota-
tions. Eight factors were extracted, explaining 64 per cent
of the total variance. Bartlett's test of sphericity with
a value of 2306.3 (p(0.001) and the calculation of
Kaiser}Meyer}Olkin statistics of 0.94 [which can be
described as &marvelous' (Norusis, 1985)], indicated that
data seemed suitable to identify factor dimensions. The
factor labels are &accommodation services', &local trans-
port services', &hygiene and cleanliness', &hospitality and
customer care', &availability of facilities and activities',
&level of prices', &language communication' and &destina-
tion airport services'.
Table 2 shows the rank of each factor grouping by each
nationality and each destination based on satisfaction
levels out of a seven-point scale. There is no consistency
between the two nationalities in terms of the rank order
of destination attributes although both had almost the
same mean score for one speci"c attribute. For example,
the level of accommodation services was ranked the "rst
most satisfactory item by German tourists (mean"5.74)
and the "fth by British tourists in Turkey (mean"5.87).
For those in Mallorca, the availability of facilities and
activities was ranked the "fth by German tourists
(mean"5.22) and the seventh by British tourists
(mean"5.25) although mean scores are close. These
"ndings may suggest that each nation is satis"ed with the
394 M. Kozak / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 391}401
Table 2
Ranking of factor groupings
Attributes Turkey Mallorca
British German British German
Hospitality and customer
care
1 (6.01) 3 (5.54) 6 (5.45) 4 (5.29)
Language communication 2 (5.99) 7 (5.08) 3 (5.75) 2 (5.38)
Level of prices 3 (5.92) 8 (5.07) 5 (5.62) 8 (4.66)
Local transport services 4 (5.88) 4 (5.41) 8 (5.15) 7 (4.96)
Accommodation services 5 (5.87) 1 (5.74) 1 (5.81) 3 (5.42)
Hygiene and cleanliness 6 (5.78) 2 (5.54) 4 (5.62) 6 (5.13)
Facilities and activities 7 (5.57) 6 (5.26) 7 (5.25) 5 (5.22)
Destination airport services 8 (5.42) 5 (5.27) 2 (5.77) 1 (5.58)
Mean scores for each factor grouping are shown in parentheses.
same attribute of a particular destination at a di!erent
level.
The analysis of comparison refers to the di!erences
between German and British tourists' satisfaction levels
with their summer holiday experiences in Turkey. Similar
analysis is also applied to the di!erences between British
and German sample populations' satisfaction levels in
Mallorca. A series of independent t-statistical tests were
applied to investigate if there had been any di!erence
between mean scores of the two sample populations.
Findings are assessed separately for each factor item and
reported in Tables 3 and 4.
4.3.1. Accommodation services
Except for the quality of food at the accommodation
facilities and the adequacy of water and electricity supply
at the accommodation facilities, British tourists found
the remaining attributes to be more satisfactory in the
case of Turkey (p(0.001). These are the level of services,
cleanliness, speed of check-in and check-out, security and
signposting. German tourists were more likely to be
satis"ed with the variety and the quality of food at the
accommodation facilities than their British counterparts
(p(0.001). No signi"cant di!erence was recorded for the
adequacy of water and electricity supply at the accom-
modation facilities. Overall the factor attribute is not
signi"cant. Similarly, British tourists were more likely
to be satis"ed with all accommodation attributes than
German tourists in Mallorca (p(0.001). Exceptions
were the adequacy of water and electricity supply and the
speed of check-in and -out services due to their insigni"c-
ant statistical results. Overall, accommodation services
were found to be more satisfactory by British tourists
(p(0.001).
4.3.2. Availability of facilities and activities
British tourists in Turkey were more likely to be satis-
"ed with the availability of shopping facilities, suitability
of nightlife and entertainment, availability of daily tour
services to other destinations and main tourist attrac-
tions at the 0.001 probability level and with the availabil-
ity of health services at the 0.05 level than German
tourists. No signi"cant di!erences were recorded for the
availability of sports facilities and activities, facilities on
beaches and facilities for children nor for grand mean
score. The largest gap among the availability of facilities
and activities in Mallorca was that the availability of
daily tour services to other destinations and attractions
was found to be more satisfactory by German tourists
than British tourists (p(0.001). The next attribute, the
availability of shopping facilities, was found to be more
satisfactory by British tourists than German tourists
(p(0.05). No signi"cant result was provided for the
suitability of nightlife and entertainment, the availability
of health services, facilities for children and sports facili-
ties and activities. Overall, British tourists had slightly
higher satisfaction scores with the availability of facilities
and activities in Mallorca than did German tourists
(p(0.01).
4.3.3. Local transport services
All attributes related to the availability of local trans-
port services in Turkey were found to be more satisfac-
tory by British tourists than German tourists (p(0.05).
The "ndings were signi"cant at the 0.001 probability
level for the frequency of local transport services, level of
local transport prices, variety of attractions, network
(accessibility) and comfort of local transport services. The
attitude of local drivers was signi"cant at the 0.05 prob-
ability level. Except for the level of local transport prices
(p(0.001), comfort of local transport services (p(0.05)
and variety of tourist attractions (p(0.05) all other
attributes remained insigni"cant which indicates that
there is no signi"cant di!erence between the two popula-
tions' perceived satisfaction levels of such local transport
services in Mallorca.
4.3.4. Hospitality and customer care
British tourists were more likely to be satis"ed with all
attributes related to hospitality and customer care in
Turkey than German tourists albeit not at statistically
signi"cant levels. Attitude of local people and sta! to-
wards female tourists was signi"cant at the 0.05 probabil-
ity level whereas the rest of other attributes were at the
0.001 level. In comparison with German tourists, British
tourists had the highest score with cleanliness of the
destination's bars and restaurants (p(0.001) and atti-
tude of sta! overall in tourism (p(0.05) in Mallorca.
Other attributes were found to be insigni"cant to explain
any di!erence between British and German tourists'
satisfaction levels with.
4.3.5. Facilities and services at the destination airport
Travelling time between the destination airport and
the destination (p(0.05) and vice versa was found to
be more satisfactory by British tourists than German
M. Kozak / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 391}401 395
Table 3
Comparison between British and German tourists visiting Turkey (t-test)
Destination Attributes British German t value Sig. t
Accommodation services 5.87 5.74 1.79 0.073
Cleanliness of accommodation 6.18 5.80 5.96 0.000
Level of services at accommodation 5.99 5.64 5.02 0.000
Quality of food at accommodation 5.48 5.83 !4.04 0.000
Speed of check-in and check-out at accommodation 6.07 5.80 3.91 0.000
Security of rooms at accommodation 5.99 5.80 2.87 0.004
Sign posting to bedrooms and public places at accommodation 5.60 5.42 2.23 0.026
Adequacy of water and electricity supply at accommodation 5.80 5.88 !1.06 0.290
Local transport services 5.88 5.41 2.17 0.030
Frequency of local transport services 6.32 5.67 9.90 0.000
Level of local transport prices 6.26 5.62 9.07 0.000
Variety of attractions 5.65 5.08 7.67 0.000
Network (accessibility) of local transport services 5.94 5.43 7.09 0.000
Comfort of local transport services 5.56 5.23 4.58 0.000
Attitude of local drivers 5.60 5.44 2.18 0.030
Hygiene}sanitation}cleanliness 5.78 5.54 0.110 0.912
Overall cleanliness of the destination 5.76 5.34 6.06 0.000
Level of hygiene and sanitation overall 5.56 5.11 5.67 0.000
Cleanliness of beaches and sea 5.86 5.54 4.15 0.000
Feelings of personal safety and security 5.99 5.77 3.40 0.001
Attractiveness of natural environment 6.00 5.80 2.83 0.005
Availability of space on beaches 5.72 5.69 0.45 0.652
Availability of facilities on beaches 5.63 5.59 0.26 0.795
Hospitality and customer care 6.01 5.54 0.440 0.659
Cleanliness of destination's bars and restaurants 6.04 5.45 9.50 0.000
Attitude of local shopkeepers 5.90 5.12 8.67 0.000
Friendliness of local people 6.49 6.06 7.81 0.000
Attitude of sta! in tourism overall 6.01 5.60 5.61 0.000
Attitude of sta! at bars and restaurants 6.11 5.70 4.97 0.000
Attitude of local people and sta! towards female tourists 5.52 5.31 2.17 0.030
Facilities and activities 5.57 5.26 0.380 0.702
Availability of shopping facilities 6.08 5.34 10.74 0.000
Suitability of nightlife and entertainment 5.94 5.20 9.29 0.000
Availability of daily tour services to other destinations and attractions 5.93 5.71 3.57 0.000
Availability of health services 5.29 5.11 2.13 0.033
Availability of sports facilities and activities 5.29 5.36 !0.92 0.358
Availability of facilities for children 4.90 4.88 0.19 0.849
Level of prices 5.92 5.07 12.17 0.000
Level of souvenir and gift prices 5.95 4.57 19.51 0.000
Overall value for money 6.34 5.16 19.00 0.000
Level of food and beverage prices 5.93 4.75 15.87 0.000
Quality of food at the destination's bars and restaurants 5.48 5.83 !4.04 0.000
Language communication 5.99 5.08 9.53 0.000
Level of German-English at destination's bars and restaurants 6.17 5.06 16.08 0.000
Level of German-English in the destination overall 6.18 5.15 14.41 0.000
Spoken language in German-English at accommodation 6.04 5.09 11.06 0.000
Sign posting to attractions and facilities 5.57 4.97 7.54 0.000
Adequacy of written information in German}English 5.95 5.14 10.58 0.000
Destination airport services 5.42 5.27 0.010 0.990
Travelling time between the destination airport and the destination 5.23 5.05 2.28 0.023
Availability of facilities and services at the destination airport 5.49 5.30 1.47 0.142
Speed of check-in and check-out at the destination airport 5.56 5.46 1.11 0.269
tourists visiting Turkey. No signi"cant di!erences were
recorded for the availability of facilities and services at
the destination airport and the speed of check-in and -out
procedures at the destination airport in Turkey. Overall,
both sample groups were likely to be equally satis"ed
with the facilities and services at the destination airport
396 M. Kozak / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 391}401
Table 4
Comparison between British and German tourists visiting Mallorca (t-test)
Destination attributes British German t value Sig. t
Accommodation services 5.81 5.42 3.73 0.000
Level of services at accommodation 5.66 5.22 5.18 0.000
Cleanliness of accommodation 5.93 5.35 6.96 0.000
Security of rooms at accommodation 5.87 5.33 6.71 0.000
Sign posting to bedrooms and public places at accommodation 5.70 5.20 6.24 0.000
Quality of food at accommodation 5.56 5.20 3.40 0.001
Adequacy of water and electricity supply at accommodation 6.02 5.87 1.96 0.051
Speed of check-in and check-out at accommodation 5.94 5.82 1.71 0.088
Local transport services 5.15 4.96 0.430 0.668
Level of local transport prices 5.45 4.94 6.55 0.000
Comfort of local transport services 5.09 4.89 2.54 0.011
Variety of attractions 4.93 4.72 2.48 0.013
Frequency of local transport services 5.31 5.16 1.83 0.068
Network (accessibility) of local transport services 5.19 5.10 1.08 0.282
Attitude of local drivers 4.94 4.96 !0.26 0.798
Hygiene * sanitation}cleanliness 5.62 5.13 4.96 0.000
Level of hygiene and sanitation overall 5.63 4.90 9.66 0.000
Overall cleanliness of the destination 5.66 5.09 8.08 0.000
Cleanliness of beaches and sea 5.67 5.01 7.88 0.000
Availability of space on beaches 5.63 5.17 5.43 0.000
Availability of facilities on beaches 5.45 5.08 4.42 0.000
Attractiveness of natural environment 5.47 5.27 2.49 0.013
Feelings of personal safety and security 5.86 5.45 6.17 0.000
Hospitality and customer care 5.45 5.29 1.52 0.128
Cleanliness of destination's bars and restaurants 5.71 5.22 7.15 0.000
Attitude of sta! in tourism 5.48 5.24 2.95 0.003
Attitude of sta! at bars and restaurants 5.59 5.45 1.63 0.103
Friendliness of local people 5.50 5.41 1.16 0.247
Attitude of local people and sta! towards female tourists 5.27 5.26 0.18 0.859
Attitude of local shopkeepers 5.17 5.16 0.15 0.879
Facilities and activities 5.25 5.22 2.95 0.003
Availability of daily tour services to other destinations and attractions 5.12 5.43 !4.07 0.000
Availability of shopping facilities 5.53 5.36 2.32 0.021
Suitability of nightlife and entertainment 5.38 5.22 1.86 0.064
Availability of health services 5.29 5.18 1.43 0.153
Availability of facilities for children 5.22 5.09 1.33 0.184
Availability of sports facilities and activities 5.01 5.09 !0.97 0.332
Level of prices 5.62 4.66 13.72 0.000
Overall value for money 5.89 4.75 16.46 0.000
Level of souvenir and gift prices 5.37 4.19 15.58 0.000
Level of food and beverage prices 5.51 4.43 14.07 0.000
Quality of food at destination's restaurants and bars 5.72 5.29 5.75 0.000
Language communication 5.75 5.38 2.15 0.032
Level of German}English at destination's bars and restaurants 5.77 5.28 7.02 0.000
Spoken language in German}English at accommodation 5.99 5.50 6.23 0.000
Sign posting to attractions and facilities 5.57 5.16 5.82 0.000
Level of German}English in the destination overall 5.82 5.45 5.49 0.000
Adequacy of written information in English}German 5.63 5.51 1.80 0.071
Destination airport services 5.77 5.58 1.13 0.261
Availability of facilities and services at the destination airport 5.79 5.62 2.57 0.010
Travelling time between the destination airport and the destination 5.55 5.50 0.57 0.570
Speed of check-in and check-out at the destination airport 5.64 5.61 0.39 0.694
in Turkey. A slight di!erence was found between British
and German tourists' satisfaction perceptions of the
availability of facilities and services at the destination
airport in Mallorca (p(0.05); British tourists were more
likely to be satis"ed. The statistically insigni"cant "nd-
ings were the travelling time between the destination
M. Kozak / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 391}401 397
airport and the destination and the speed of check in and
out at the destination airport in Mallorca. As in Turkey,
both sample groups were likely to be satis"ed overall
with the facilities and services related to the destination
airport in Mallorca at the same level.
4.3.6. Level of hygiene * sanitation and cleanliness
British tourists were more likely to be satis"ed with all
individual attributes found to be signi"cant such as the
overall cleanliness of the destination, the level of hygiene
and sanitation overall, cleanliness of beaches and the sea,
feelings of personal safety and security and the attractive-
ness of the natural environment. The "rst three attributes
were signi"cant at the 0.001 probability level and the last
two attributes at the 0.01 level. British and German
tourists were equally satis"ed with the availability of
space and facilities on beaches in Turkey. The grand
mean score of the factor demonstrates that there is
not much di!erence between both sample groups. In
Mallorca, all attributes related to the level of hygiene,
sanitation and cleanliness were found to be signi"cant at
the 0.001 (the "rst six attributes) and the 0.05 (the last
attribute) probability levels. This indicates that British
tourists found all these attributes more satisfactory than
did German tourists. It is also important to note that the
level of overall hygiene, sanitation and cleanliness in
Mallorca showed the largest gap between mean scores of
British and German tourists and, as a result, the largest
t values.
4.3.7. Level of language communication
British tourists recorded higher levels of satisfaction
with their hosts' command of English whereas Germans
expressed more dissatisfaction with hosts' understanding
of German. This &communication gap' was signi"cant
between German and British evaluations at the 0.001
probability level.
4.3.8. Level of prices
The level of prices resulted in the second largest gap
between mean scores of British and German tourists'
perceptions of satisfaction with Turkey (p(0.001). Thus,
it is important to note that the level of prices factor in
Turkey was perceived to be highly satisfactory by British
tourists. The level of prices in Mallorca showed the
largest gap between mean scores of British and German
tourists (p(0.001). As a consequence, one could suggest
that the larger the gap between two sample populations,
the more British tourists were likely to be satis"ed with
the level of prices compared to German tourists. The
level of prices had the lowest mean scores among all
attributes for German tourists. This "nding suggests that
these attributes were perceived to be less satisfactory by
German tourists not only in comparison with British
tourists but also among all attributes in Mallorca.
5. Discussion and implications
The analysis demonstrated that British tourists were
more likely to be satis"ed with almost all individual
attributes than German tourists visiting both Mallorca
and Turkey. Exceptions were the quality of food at the
accommodation facilities and at the destination's bars
and restaurants in Turkey, and the availability of day
tours to other destinations and main tourist attractions
in Mallorca. These are the individual attributes more
favored by German tourists. Interestingly, German tour-
ists had no higher satisfaction levels on the basis of factor
variables.
Generally speaking, the largest gaps between German
and British tourists' satisfaction levels appeared for the
level of language communication, availability of local
transport services and level of prices in Turkey and for
the level of prices, level of hygiene, sanitation and clean-
liness, availability of facilities and activities, level of
language communication and level of accommodation
services in Mallorca, where, in each case, the British
tourists responded more favorably. Perhaps these are
potential areas where destination authorities should in-
vestigate the causes of such di!erences.
The "ndings showed that three of the factor variables
in Turkey and Mallorca failed to demonstrate any signi"-
cant di!erences between the two nationalities. These are
the availability of facilities and activities in the resort, the
availability of facilities and services at the resort airport
and the level of hygiene, sanitation and cleanliness in
Turkey. Those in Mallorca encompassed the level of
local transport services, hospitality and customer care,
and the availability of facilities and services at the resort
airport.
To date, there has been no empirical study undertaken
in the tourism literature focusing upon these two speci"c
markets with which the "ndings of this research could be
compared. However, in the development of an econo-
metric model to explore impacts of both supply and
demand factors on holiday-taking behavior, Witt (1980)
undertook a comparison study between British and
German tourism demand. He found that the income
elasticity of British tourists had been higher than that for
German tourists. Thus, British tourists were more sensi-
tive to changes in their income levels while deciding to go
on holidays abroad. Based upon these "ndings, Witt
(1980) claims that British tourists tend to consider foreign
holidays as luxuries while German tourists tend to view
them as basic activities (necessities). In view of this argu-
ment, one could suggest that that is why British tourists
might have higher satisfaction levels with their holidays.
The data may be subject to several caveats. First, the
destinations were ones that primarily sought to attract
the British market. This might explain the language re-
sults. Second, the survey was undertaken during a period
when the sterling was &strong' against other currencies,
398 M. Kozak / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 391}401
and the Turkish Lira particularly weak. Past research
indicated that tourism demand from the UK market
("3.419) is much more sensitive than that from the
German market ("1.188) towards changes in the value
of its own currency against the TL (Icoz, Var, & Kozak,
1998).
Whiting (1968) notes that considering more than
one organization or customer group in empirical studies
may make the generalization of the "ndings possible.
In line with this statement, one could suggest that
British tourists are likely to have higher satisfaction out-
comes than their German counterparts regardless of the
destinations they both visit. This supports Pizam's (1994)
prediction stating that tourist satisfaction is not a univer-
sal issue and not everyone gets the same satisfaction from
the same service experience. Yi (1990) classi"es the
product or service performance into two categories,
namely objective and perceived performance. The former
re#ects the actual level of the product or the service
performance and is believed to be constant across cus-
tomers. The latter is assumed to be changeable from one
customer group to another. As a result, this study sug-
gests that some destination-based tourism products and
services fall into the category of the perceived perfor-
mance, e.g. the level of prices, the level of language
communication, and the level of hygiene, sanitation and
cleanliness.
However, there still appear to be limitations in carry-
ing out comparative research in the "eld of consumer
behavior because cultural di!erences in values, percep-
tions and tourists' holiday-taking patterns might have
a!ected the outcome. Tourism demand through a desti-
nation is multi-motivational and multi-national. Each
customer group might have a di!erent set of expecta-
tions, needs and wants as a re#ection of either its culture
or personality. A number of conclusions could therefore
be drawn from customer-based comparative research
(Deutscher, 1973; Mayo & Jarvis, 1981; Smelser, 1973;
Warwick & Osherson, 1973). Attitude scales including
satisfaction and image measurement may not be evalu-
ated by playing with the scores as numbers are just
symbols indicating the direction of scales for each item
(from negative to positive or vice versa). It may be im-
possible to reach a conclusion by multiplying or dividing
scale values (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995;
Moser & Kalton, 1971). The strength of a scale, for
example &terrible', could vary from one type of tourist to
another. One's feeling could be weaker or stronger than
another. In a reference to the di$culty of comparison
research, Deutscher (1973) claims that the structure of
language and the meaning of words in two di!erent
cultures or nationalities could be di!erent. Warwick and
Osherson (1973) further suggests that what is important
to one nationality may not be important to another.
Thus, results obtained and assessed by using methods
such as gap analysis and using the same set of questions
in the survey instrument could still be problematic or
super"cial in a comparative research activity.
Next, the di!erent holiday-taking behavior of two na-
tionalities could have an in#uence on the "ndings of
comparative surveys. In other words, measuring the
extent of tourists' "rst-hand experiences with several fa-
cilities, activities and services is limited in a cross-cul-
tural, positivistic comparison study. One group stays in
a full-board hotel while another stays in a self-catering
apartment. One has to use the hotel restaurant; another
has to choose a restaurant outside or prepare something
themselves. Or the two groups take holidays of di!erent
lengths. Or one group has more repeat visits than
another. One might speculate that the level of tourists'
satisfaction may be colored by their past experiences and,
as a result, either higher or lower satisfaction scores
might appear in comparison with those of "rst-time tour-
ists (Crompton & Love, 1995). Past research con"rmed
that repeat customers are more likely than "rst-time
customers to be satis"ed (Westbrook & Newman, 1978).
Therefore, it is not reasonable to expect that both groups
in this study had experiences of the same depth or extent.
This point therefore needs a considerable amount of
attention in future research.
5.1. Limitations
The survey instrument used in this study was originally
designed in English and tested undertaking a pilot study
among British tourists. The survey administered among
German tourists was a direct translation of this without
further modi"cation. Future research has the potential to
increase the number of nationalities and destinations.
Finally, in terms of methodological procedures in a com-
parative tourist satisfaction study, the literature suggests
that separate factor analysis should be performed for
each group when the sample is heterogeneous, i.e.
a sample of British and German tourists in this research.
Nevertheless, here, for practical reasons, it was di$cult to
process a separate analysis for each group and compare
the "ndings; thus both groups of respondents in one
destination were counted in the same pooled data (ag-
gregated data) set of satisfaction items. For these reasons,
caution should be taken in generalizing the "ndings to
other destinations and populations.
6. Conclusion
This study attempted to explore if there were any
di!erences between satisfaction levels of two nationali-
ties, British and German, visiting Turkey and Mallorca
and if they were culture-oriented. Culture was measured
by asking respondents their country of origin. This study
therefore referred to broad national culture rather than
the individual culture or the subcultures of many ethnic
M. Kozak / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 391}401 399
groups living in those countries. Findings demonstrated
that British tourists were more satis"ed with almost all
individual destination attributes than their German
counterparts. The repetition of the similar survey in
a second destination con"rmed the reliability of these
"ndings. Despite this, this study suggests that it appears
to be di$cult to justify whether such di!erences are
culture-based or other factors could have in#uenced re-
sults. Cross-cultural customer satisfaction measurement
is a new subject in the "eld of tourism and therefore
seems worthy of further investigation. It is also an area
which indicates limitations to quantitative methods; if
generalization is to be achieved such methods may yet
still have their role in cultural studies.
References
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being.
New York: Plenum Press.
Armstrong, R. W., Mok, C., Go, F., & Chan, G. (1997). The importance
of cross-cultural expectations in the measurement of service quality
perceptions in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 16(2), 181}190.
Barksy, J. D. (1992). Customer satisfaction in the hotel industry: Mean-
ing and measurement. Hospitality Research Journal, 16(1), 51}73.
Bitner, M. J., & Hubbert, A. R. (1994). Encounter satisfaction versus
overall satisfaction versus QUALITY. In R. T. Rust, & R. L. Oliver
(Eds.), Service quality: New directions in theory and practice
(pp. 72}93). CA: Sage.
Bojanic, D. C. (1996). Consumer perceptions of price, value and satisfac-
tion in the hotel industry: An exploratory study. Journal of Hospital-
ity and Leisure Marketing, 14(1), 5}22.
Bojanic, D. C., & Rosen, L. D. (1994). Measuring service quality in
Restaurants: An application of the servqual instrument. Hospitality
Research Journal, 18(1), 3}14.
Bramwell, B. (1998). User satisfaction and product development in
urban tourism. Tourism Management, 19(1), 35}47.
Calantone, R. J., di Benedetto, C. A., Halam, A., & Bojanic, D. C. (1989).
Multiple multinational tourism positioning using correspondence
analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 28, 25}32.
Chadee, D., & Mattsson, J. (1995). Measuring customer satisfaction
with tourist service encounters. Journal of Travel and Tourism Mar-
keting, 4(4), 97}107.
Chadee, D., & Mattsson, J. (1996). An empirical assessment of customer
satisfaction in tourism. The Service Industries Journal, 16(3),
305}320.
Choi, T. Y., & Chu, R. (2000). Levels of satisfaction among Asian and
Western travellers. International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, 17(2), 116}131.
Chon, K. S., & Olsen, M. D. (1991). Functional and symbolic ap-
proaches to consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction in tourism. Jour-
nal of the International Academy of Hospitality Research, 28, 1}20.
Churchill, G. A., & Suprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the
determinants of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 29, 491}504.
Crompton, J. L., & Love, L. L. (1995). The predictive validity of
alternative approaches to evaluating quality of a festival. Journal of
Travel Research, 34(1), 11}25.
Cronin, J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality:
A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55}68.
Czepiel, J. A., Rosenberg, & L. J., Akerele, A. (1974). Perspectives on
Consumer Satisfaction. In R. C. Curhan (Ed.), 1974 Combined Pro-
ceedings Series No: 36. American Marketing Association
(pp. 119}123).
Danaher, P. J., & Arweiler, N. (1996). Customer satisfaction in the
tourist industry: A case study of visitors to New Zealand. Journal of
Travel Research, 89}93.
Deutscher, I. (1973). Asking questions cross-culturally: Some problems
of linguistic comparability. In D. P. Warwick, & S. Osherson (Eds.),
Comparative research methods (pp. 163}185). NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dorfman, P. W. (1979). Measurement and meaning of recreation satis-
faction: A case study in camping. Environment and Behavior, 11(4),
483}510.
Engel, J. F., & Blackwell, R. D. (1982). Consumer behavior, (4th ed.).
New York: The Dryden Press.
Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barometer: The
Swedish experience. Journal of Marketing, 56, 6}21.
Goodrich, J. N. (1977). Di!erences in perceived similarity of tourism
regions: A spatial analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 16, 10}13.
Goodrich, J. N. (1978). The relationship between preferences for and
perceptions of vacation destinations: Application of a choice model.
Journal of ravel Research, 17, 8}13.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995).
Multivariate data analysis with readings (4th ed.). NJ: Prentice-Hall
International.
Huang, J., Huang, C. T., & Wu, S. (1996). National character and
response to unsatisfactory hotel service. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 15(3), 229}243.
Hughes, K. (1991). Tourist satisfaction: A guided cultural tour in North
Queensland. Australian Psychologist, 26(3), 166}171.
Hurst, F. (1994). En route surveys, In J. R. B. Ritchie, & C. R. Goeldner
(Eds.), Travel and hospitality research: A handbook for managers and
researchers (2nd ed.) (pp. 453}471). New York: Waley.
Icoz, O., Var, T., & Kozak, M. (1998). Tourism demand in Turkey.
Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), 236}239.
Kozak, M., & Nield, K. (1998). Importance}performance analysis and
cultural perspectives in Romanian Black Sea resorts. Anatolia: An
International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9(2),
99}116.
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist Satisfaction with Mal-
lorca, Spain, as an o!-season holiday destination. Journal of Travel
Research, 39, 260}269.
Lee, M., & Ulgado, F. M. (1997). Consumer evaluations of fast-food
services: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Services Marketing,
11(1), 39}52.
Loundsbury, J. W., & Hoopes, L. L. (1985). An investigation of factors
associated with vacation satisfaction. Journal of Leisure Research,
17, 1}13.
Luk, S. T. K., deLeon, C. T., Leong, F. W., & Li, E. L. (1993). Value
segmentation of tourists' expectations of service quality. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2(4), 23}38.
Maddox, R. N. (1985). Measuring satisfaction with tourism. Journal of
Travel Research, 2}5.
Mayo, E. J., & Jarvis, L. P. (1981). The psychology of leisure travel:
ewective marketing and selling of travel services. MA: CBI Publishing
Company.
McLellan, R. W., & Fousher, K. D. (1983). Negative images of the
United States as expressed by tour operators from other countries.
Journal of Travel Research. 22, 2}5.
Moser, C. A., & Kalton, G. (1971). Survey methods in social investigation,
(2nd ed.). England: Gower.
Norusis, M. J. (1985). Advanced statistics guide: SPSS X. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Nunnaly, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Oh, H., & Parks, 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),
35}64.
400 M. Kozak / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 391}401
Peterson, R. A., & Wilson, W. R. (1992). Measuring customer satisfac-
tion: Fact and artefact. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
20(1), 61}71.
Pizam, A. (1994). monitoring customer satisfaction. In B. David, &
A. Lockwood (Eds.), Food and beverage management: A selection of
readings (pp. 231}247). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Pizam, A. (1999). Cross-cultural tourist behavior. In A. Pizam, &
Y. Mansfeld (Eds.), Consumer behavior in travel and tourism
(pp. 393}411). New York: Haworth Press.
Pizam, A., & Milman, A. (1993). Predicting satisfaction among "rst time
visitors to a destination by using the expectancy discon"rmation
theory. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 12(2), 197}209.
Pizam, A., Neumann, Y., & Reichel, A. (1978). Dimensions of tourist
satisfaction area. Annals of Tourism Research, 5, 314}322.
Pizam, A., & Sussmann, S. (1995). Does nationality a!ect tourism
behavior?. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4), 901}917.
Qu, H., & Li, I. (1997). The characteristics and satisfaction of mainland:
Chinese visitors to Hong Kong. Journal of Travel Research, Spring,
37}41.
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. (1998). Cross-cultural di!erences in tourism:
A strategy for tourism marketers. Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing, 7(4), 79}106.
Richardson, S. L., & Crompton, J. (1988). Vacation patterns of French
and English Canadians. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(4), 430}448.
Saleh, F., & Ryan, C. (1992). Client perceptions of hotels. Tourism
Management, 163}168.
Smelser, N. J. (1973). The methodology of comparative analysis. In
D. P. Warwick, & S. Osherson (Eds.), Comparative research methods
(pp. 42}86). NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sussmann, S., & Rashcovsky, C. (1997). A cross-cultural analysis of
English and French Canadians' vacation travel patterns. Interna-
tional Journal of Hospitality Management, 16(2), 191}208.
Tribe, J., & Snaith, T. (1998). From servqual to holsat: Holiday satisfac-
tion in Varadero, Cuba. Tourism Management, 19(1), 25}34.
Warwick, D. P., & Osherson, S. (1973). Comparative analysis in the
social sciences. In D. P. Warwick, & S. Osherson (Eds.), Comparative
Research Methods (pp. 3}41). NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Weber, K. (1997). Assessment of tourist satisfaction using the expect-
ancy discon"rmation theory: A study of German travel market in
Australia. Pacixc Tourism Review, 1, 35}45.
Westbrook, R. A. (1979). Prepurchase information search and post-
purchase product satisfaction. In K. Hunt, & R. L. Day (Eds.),
Rexning concepts and measures of consumer satisfaction and com-
plaining behavior. Fourth annual conference on consumer satisfaction,
dissatisfaction and complaining behavior (pp. 68}73). Indiana:
Bloomington.
Westbrook, R. A. (1980). A rating scale for measuring product/service
satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 68}72.
Westbrook, R. A., & Newman, J. W. (1978). An analysis of shopper
dissatisfaction for major household appliances. Journal of Marketing
Research, 15, 456}466.
Whipple, T. W., & Thach, S. V. (1988). Group tour management: Does
good service produce satis"ed customers? Journal of Travel
Research, 16}21.
Whiting, J. W. M. (1968). Methods and problems in cross-
cultural research. In G. Lindzey, E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook
of psychology, (2nd ed.) (pp. 693}727). Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Witt, S. F. (1980). An econometric comparison of UK and German
foreign holiday behavior. Managerial and Decision Economics, 1(3),
123}131.
Yi, Y. (1990). A critical review of consumer satisfaction. In V. A.
Zeithaml (Ed.), Review of marketing (pp. 68}123). USA: American
Marketing Association.
M. Kozak / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 391}401 401