International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477–488

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

Hospitality marketing research: Recent trends and future directions

Nathaniel D. Line a,∗ , Rodney C. Runyan b,1
a
The University of Tennessee – Knoxville (USA), Retail, Hospitality, and Tourism Management, 220a Jessie Harris Building, 1215 West Cumberland, Knoxville, TN 37996-1911, United
States
b
The University of Tennessee – Knoxville (USA), Retail, Hospitality, and Tourism Management, 245 Jessie Harris Building, 1215 West Cumberland, Knoxville, TN 37996-1911, United
States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: This article reviews the hospitality marketing research published in four top hospitality journals from
Hospitality marketing 2008 to 2010 for the purposes of identifying significant trends and gaps in the literature. A total of
Literature review 274 articles are reviewed and classified based on research topic, industry focus, and analysis technique
Synthesis
as well as on a number of other methodological criteria. Significant topical and methodological trends
Content analysis
are discussed. Important topical trends are synthesized and specific directions for future research are
Research directions
proposed. We conclude with the presentation and discussion of an organizational framework for future
hospitality marketing research.
© 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction This study reviews the research published in selected hospitality

Periodically, it is necessary for scholars to review their field in
terms of an overall progression of the literature. Since 1992, three
published studies have analyzed the hospitality marketing litera-
ture in an effort to capture temporal trends in subject/focus and
methodology. Crawford-Welch and McCleary (1992) were the first
to undertake such a task, reviewing articles from 1983 to 1989.
Bowen and Sparks (1998) updated this study, reviewing hospitality
journals from 1990 to 1997. Most recently, Oh et al. (2004) reviewed
the literature for the period of 2002–2003. Thus, since 1992, the
trend within the hospitality literature has been to review and
synthesize relevant articles approximately once every six years.
Because the most recent review appeared in 2004, we suggest an
update. More importantly we assert that, due to time needed to
conduct research and navigate the journal review process, the syn-
thesis conducted by Oh and colleagues was likely based on research
conducted during the last millennium. That is, manuscripts pub-
lished in 2002–2003 were likely based on research designed and
executed prior to the year 2000. Since that time, we have seen dra-
matic changes in world markets (e.g., the growth of e-commerce,
attacks of September 11, 2001, and increased globalization). Thus,
in addition to an updated review of the literature, there is also need
for an assessment of how hospitality scholars have adapted to the
extensive market changes impacting the field.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 865 974 6243/363 7895; fax: +1 865 974 5236.
E-mail addresses: nline@utk.edu (N.D. Line), rrunyan@utk.edu (R.C. Runyan).
1
Tel.: +1 865 974 4594; fax: +1 865 974 5236.
journals from the years 2008–2010. We limit the articles selected to
those with a focus on hospitality marketing. As did Oh et al. (2004),
we define the scope of hospitality marketing as inclusive of any
research relating to marketing’s function and/or its environment.
Marketing research articles are also included. Articles meeting one
or more of these criteria are categorized according to research focus
and target industry. Additionally, six methodological dimensions
are identified and categorized.
The purpose of this research is twofold. First, we review the lit-
erature and compare our results to the findings of Oh et al. (2004)
to bring the literature current. Relevant similarities and distinc-
tions among trends are discussed, and future research directions
are proposed. Second, we synthesize this research emphasizing the
most popular topics and trends. From these analyses, we present an
overall state of the literature and propose potential directions for
future research. It is our hope that readers of this article will better
understand the current state of hospitality marketing research and
begin to conceptualize studies that will advance the literature for
scholars and practitioners alike.
2. Methods
We first identified the leading journals in the hospitality field.
To this end, we selected the top four journals per McKercher et al.’s
(2006) rankings; Cornell Hospitality Quarterly (CHQ), International
Journal of Hospitality Management (IJHM), Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research (JHTR), and International Journal of Contempo-
rary Hospitality Management (IJCHM). According to McKercher et al.
(2006), only these four journals rated 50% or higher in terms

0278-4319/$ – see front matter © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.006
478 N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477–488

of aggregate importance. Additionally, these journals are mostly Table 1

Hospitality marketing literature: topical focus analysis.
consistent with the journals reviewed by Oh et al. (2004). The
only difference is our use of IJCHM instead of Journal of Hospi- n %
tality and Leisure Marketing. From these journals, we identified a Marketing environment 101 36.9
total of 496 articles published between January 2008 and May Consumer perceptions 77 28.1
2010. Of this total, 274 (55%) were deemed relevant to hospitality Perceived value 11 4.0
marketing. Perceived risk/safety 2 0.7
Satisfaction 24 8.8
The next step was to identify the topical focus of each arti-
Expectations 4 1.5
cle. Before coding the articles, a coding scheme was developed Service quality 12 4.4
to ensure that (1) a comprehensive list of marketing topics was Performance evaluation/service encounter 9 3.3
selected and (2) our results could be meaningfully compared to Employee–customer relationships 9 3.3
Experiential value 6 2.2
those of Oh et al. (2004). The coding scheme was largely based
Persuasion 0 0.0
on Oh et al.’s (2004) instrument, although some categories were Dissonance 0 0.0
further broken down to allow for a more fine-grained assess- Consumer characteristics 24 8.8
ment. In general, these changes reflect macro-shifts in the focus Decision making 12 4.4
of the hospitality marketing environment as suggested by jour- Motivation 6 2.2
Information search 0 0.0
nal content. Use of post hoc analyses for the purposes of category
Novelty/variety seeking 1 0.4
generation are commonly reported in literature review endeav- Attitude 5 1.8
ors (e.g., Oh et al., 2004; Runyan and Droge, 2008; Werner, 2002). Marketing functions 170 62.0
In approaching the coding schematic in this way, we were able Management, planning, and strategy 54 19.7
Market segmentation/positioning/targeting 11 4.0
to define the topical focus more narrowly for synthesizing pur-
Consumer relationship marketing/loyalty 10 3.6
poses, while keeping intact the most recent metric for comparison General marketing strategies 10 3.6
purposes. Business relationship management 5 1.8
In order to ensure a valid instrument, we sent a copy to an Physical distribution/franchising 7 2.6
expert in the field of hospitality and tourism marketing for further Branding/brand extensions 11 4.0
Electronic marketing 19 6.9
review. Based on the expert’s feedback and the post hoc identifica-
Website 6 2.2
tion of emergent trends, several changes were made to Oh et al.’s E-distribution/travel websites 6 2.2
(2004) codebook. For example, whereas Oh et al. (2004) had only Technology adoption 7 2.6
one category for e-commerce topics, our codebook incorporates an Social media/networking 0 0.0
Public relations 20 7.3
electronic marketing subcategory with four distinct topical foci:
Crisis management 3 1.1
corporate website design, e-distribution, technology adoption, and Green initiatives 8 2.9
social media/networking. A similar process was followed for the CSR 9 3.3
PR/crisis management, demand/pricing/selling, and internal mar- Internal marketing 47 17.2
keting categories (see Table 1). Empowerment/training 7 2.6
Employee relationships 2 0.7
Both authors were involved in each step of the process for select-
Employee behavior/satisfaction 35 12.8
ing relevant articles (i.e., identification and inclusion/exclusion) as Hiring 3 1.1
well as in all decisions pertaining to category modifications. Any Demand, pricing, and selling 30 10.9
disagreement was discussed and ultimately agreed upon by both Personal selling 1 0.4
Forecasting 5 1.8
authors. In the subsequent coding process, articles were coded into
Pricing/revenue management 18 6.6
the selected categories based on keywords and title/abstract con- Sales promotions 2 0.7
tent. In cases where this information was not sufficient for the Advertising 4 1.5
assignment of an article to one (and only one) category, the article Marketing research 3 1.1
in question was discussed until agreement was reached as to its Research methodology 1 0.4
Information technology 2 0.7
appropriate classification.
Theory/philosophy of science 0 0.0
After the topical review, we reviewed the context in which the
research was applied. Such an analysis is important, as market-
ing applications are not homogenous across industries. While some 3. Topical review
marketing topics may be highly pursued within a certain industry,
the same topic may be under-researched in others. The industry- Oh et al. (2004) used the classification scheme employed by
focus analysis is intended to document such instances as well as to the Journal of Marketing for its published studies. Using a simi-
identify under-researched industries. lar three-tiered coding schema, we first classified each study as
The methodological review includes an analysis of six com- relevant to marketing’s environment, function, or research. These
ponents. We coded each article based on the type of research categories were then organized into subcategories and, finally, by
(empirical or conceptual), study design, sampling frame, sample topic. Table 1 shows the number of studies coded into each cate-
size, response rate, and the main analysis used for each study. gory, subcategory, and topic as well as the percentage of the total
Using Oh et al. (2004) as a framework, we added several cate- that each component respectively occupies. Readers should note
gories to the study design and sample type analyses. For example, that, for the purposes of appropriately comparing our results to pre-
we created separate categories for interview/focus group and case vious findings, percentages (and percent changes) are reported in
study/content methodologies. Similarly, we expanded the sam- terms of the total number of hospitality marketing articles included
pling frame category to include several groups that were not used in the pertinent time period, not the total number of articles pub-
by Oh et al. (2004) and added a “not applicable” code for the sam- lished within the selected timeframe.
ple size and response rate categories. Finally, rather than omitting Our findings for the overall classification of articles published
studies that, by design, do not necessitate sampling, we created a between 2008 and 2010 are almost identical to the findings of Oh
separate category to keep track of such occurrences. Additionally, et al. (2004). Current topics relating to the marketing environment
quota samples and non-random convenience samples were coded and the marketing function comprised 36.9% and 62% of the total,
separately. respectively. Marketing research topics accounted for only 1.1% of
 N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477–488
the total. Oh et al. (2004) noted a similar pattern of 35.1%, 62.9%,
and 2%, respectively, suggesting that the overall composition of the
literature has remained unchanged in the time elapsed between the
two studies. We discuss the contents of each topic in the following
sections.
3.1. Marketing environment
Regarding the marketing environment, Oh et al. (2004) and
Bowen and Sparks (1998) allowed for one subcategory of the
marketing environment, consumer behavior. Our analysis sepa-
rates this category into two dimensions, consumer perceptions
and consumer characteristics. Although the overall topical compo-
sition remains similar, we added categories for decision-making,
employee-customer relationships, and experiential value (as
necessitated by post hoc analysis). Comparing their results for con-
sumer behavior literature to the findings of Bowen and Sparks
(1998), Oh et al. (2004) found that such literature had experienced
“vibrant growth” (p. 428) in the period between their respective
analyses (+14.4%). Because consumer behavior research has only
increased 1.8% in the years since, our analysis indicates that this
growth has stabilized.
However, while the growth of consumer behavior research
appears to have leveled out, its topical composition has shifted
in several important ways. While customer satisfaction is still the
most widely pursued topic in the marketing environment literature
(8.8%), the percentage of articles dealing with satisfaction issues has
declined by 4.6%, the greatest decrease for any topic in the category.
Similarly, research on performance evaluations/service encounters
(3.3%) decreased by 2.9%. These decreases were offset by growth
in other categories that received comparatively less attention in
2002–2003. Most notably, perceived value and attitude/motivation
research each appears a total of 11 times. Neither of these topics was
represented in the previous review, indicating a growth in interest
in each. Research on decision making (4.4%) also increased by 2.3%.
Finally, we note that, similar to the previously reviewed period,
the study of novelty/variety seeking behavior, information search,
and persuasion (n = 1, n = 0, and n = 0, respectively) were under-
represented in our review. Given that these topics have not been
extensively studied over the last decade, future research should
assess the degree to which these areas are still relevant to hospi-
tality marketers.
3.2. Marketing functions
Studies on the function of marketing were separated into
five subcategories: management/planning/strategy; elec-
tronic marketing; public relations; internal marketing; and
demand/pricing/selling. Although this sub-categorization scheme
is more specifically defined than that of Oh et al. (2004), the
component categories are still largely the same. While the amount
of research on marketing functions (62%) has remained virtually
unchanged since the previous analysis, the internal composition
of the category has shifted. Oh et al. (2004) determined that topics
making up management, planning, and strategy accounted for
35.3% of the sampled articles. Our analysis indicates that this
percentage has decreased by one half to 17.6%. This decrease
can primarily be attributed to decreases in the segmentation,
positioning, and targeting literature (−11.1%) and CRM/loyalty
literature (−6.7%). Thus, research seems to be shifting away from
the management/planning/strategy domain in favor of topics such
as PR (+5.2%), internal marketing (+14.1%), and pricing/revenue
management (+4.5%).
The most notable of these shifts is the increase in internal
marketing (IM) literature. Because this topic occupies a broad con-
ceptual domain, a brief discussion of our conceptualization of IM is
479
Table 2
Hospitality marketing literature: target industry analysis.
Target industry n %
Tour/recreation services 4 1.5
Hotel/lodging 110 40.1
Cruise lines 0 0.0
Restaurant/foodservice 87 31.8
Private club 2 0.7
Festival/event 18 6.6
Spa 2 0.7
Resort/timeshare 2 0.7
Convention/conference 5 1.8
Hospital 2 0.7
Theme park 2 0.7
Casino 12 4.4
Airline 4 1.5
General/multiple industries 24 8.8
warranted. Depending on the research focus, IM-related literature
could be classified as either a management or marketing issue. Thus,
care was taken to include in our review only those studies that con-
sider IM within a marketing context. Specifically, we adopt George’s
(1990) definition of IM as “a strategic weapon to help achieve high
quality service delivery and thereby achieve greater customer sat-
isfaction” (p. 63). Thus, all of the literature classified as IM-focused
was determined to have some bearing on customer satisfaction.
Following this definition, we identified 47 articles as having an
IM focus, an increase of 14.1% from 2002–2003. Of these 47 arti-
cles, a majority (n = 35) focused on employee behavior/satisfaction.
The remaining three classifications, empowerment/training (n = 7),
employee relationships (n = 2), and hiring (n = 3), account for the
other 12 IM-focused articles. In their review, Bowen and Sparks
(1998) note a lack of “empirically based” studies that address inter-
nal marketing (p. 134) and called for an increase in their pursuit.
Because Oh et al. (2004) subsequently found only one occurrence
of IM research, our findings suggest that it has taken some time
to heed this call. Presently, however, IM appears to be one of the
fastest growing topical areas in hospitality marketing research.
Other notable findings include a 5.2% increase in PR literature
(fueled by the growing interest in green marketing initiatives) and
the topical shift among the demand, pricing and selling literature.
Of the five topics in the latter category, all but one, pricing/revenue
management, were characterized by decreases. Pricing and rev-
enue management literature, however, increased 4.5% due mainly
to increased interest in revenue management outside its traditional
application in the hotel industry. Finally, it is worth noting that mar-
keting research was again pursued less vigorously. We mention this
finding here for two reasons: first, it was one of three categories
used by Oh et al. (2004); second, research on methods and theory
are important to any scholarly field. The distinct absence of such
articles is a noteworthy phenomenon, a point to which we return
in the conclusion.
3.3. Target industry review
Table 2 summarizes the results of the target industry anal-
ysis. We define the target industry as the industry for which
the major implications of a study are intended. In addition to
the categories identified by Oh et al. (2004), we expanded our
analysis to include an additional six industries that were either
categorized more generally or were not specifically targeted dur-
ing the period 2002–2003: tour/recreation services, private clubs,
festivals/events, spas, resorts/timeshares, and hospitals. Perhaps
naturally, hotel/lodging (40.1%) and restaurant/foodservice (31.8%)
accounted for a majority of the industries targeted from 2008 to
2010. Research on festivals and other events (6.6%) were the third
most commonly targeted industry (although it should be noted that
480 N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477–488

Table 3 Table 4
Selected results from cross-tabulation of topic and dominant industry. Hospitality marketing literature: methodological analysis.

Topic Dominant industries n/total % n %

Perceived value Foodservice 6/11 55 Type of study

Service quality Foodservice 9/12 75 Empirical 257 93.8
Performance Foodservice 7/9 78 Conceptual 17 6.2
evaluation/service Study design
encounter Primary field survey 183 66.8
Satisfaction Foodservice/lodging 21/24 88 Interviews focus group 25 9.1
Market segmenta- Foodservice/lodging 7/11 64 Secondary data 25 9.1
tion/positioning Experiment 8 2.9
strategy Content analysis/literature review 11 4.0
Pricing/revenue Foodservice/lodging 15/18 83 case study/commentary 11 4.0
management Delphi 0 0.0
Decision making Foodservice/lodging/event 8/12 67 Other 11 4.0
Green initiatives Lodging 5/8a 63 Sampling frame
Technology adoption Lodging 4/7a 57 Hotels/lodging
Employee Lodging 23/35 66 Guests 21 7.7
behavior/satisfaction Employees 32 11.7
Empowerment/training Lodging 4/7a 57 Managers/owners 15 5.5
a
Properties 24 8.8
None in restaurant/foodservice.
Total hotel/lodging 93 33.9
Restaurant/foodservice
a majority of this literature (n = 16) came from a single 2010 issue of Guests 32 11.7
Employees 18 6.6
IJHM). Other than these three industries, only casinos (4.4%) were Managers/owners 1 0.4
targeted nine times or more. The other nine industries combined Properties 11 4.0
accounted for the remaining 8.3% of the total literature. Despite
Total restaurant/foodservice 62 22.6
the relatively low incidence of occurrence, however, the presence Casinos
of research targeting these industries in top hospitality journals Guests 5 1.8
suggests their relevance to the field. Research targeting relatively Employees 4 1.5
less-understood industries represents a potential area for future Total casinos 9 3.3
inquiry. Airports
Next, we examined the cross-tabulations of research topic and Guests 5 1.8
industry focus. While we concede that not all topics are relevant to Employees 1 0.4

all industries, our analysis suggests that some topics are pursued Total airports 6 2.2
more extensively in some industries than in others. For example, we Tour organizers/meeting planners 5 1.8
found that 21 of the 24 published studies on customer satisfaction Club members 2 0.7
Event/show attendees 18 6.6
and 11 of the 12 on service quality targeted the hotel or restaurant
Students/university employees 27 9.9
industries. However, issues relating to satisfaction and service qual- Experts 2 0.7
ity are not unique to these industries, but rather to all hospitality General/cross-industries/others 27 9.9
industries, and thus should be explored more broadly. Additionally, N/A 24 8.8
Sample size
we found that issues relating to website marketing (n = 4), technol-
Smaller than 100 54 19.7
ogy adoption (n = 4), and green initiatives (n = 5) mainly targeted 100–350 105 38.3
the hotel/lodging industry while ignoring potential applications in 351–600 40 14.6
the restaurant industry (n = 0 combined). Other disproportionate 601–850 7 2.6
topic/industry research trends are illustrated in Table 3. These find- Larger than 850 32 11.7
N/A 36 13.1
ings suggest that even among relatively well-studied topics and
Response rate
industries, gaps in the literature still exist. Future research should Lower than 10% 14 5.1
attempt to identify and fill these gaps to prevent theoretical con- 10–20% 21 7.7
finement. 21–30% 16 5.8
31–40% 15 5.5
41–50% 14 5.1
4. Methodological review Higher than 50% 46 16.8
Quota/convenience 56 20.4
N/A 88 32.1
Table 4 summarizes the results of the methodological analy- Main analysis methods
sis. In general, hospitality marketing research is overwhelmingly Descriptive 33 12.0
empirical in nature. In total, 93.8% of the reviewed literature was Factor/cluster 22 8.0
empirical, up from the 91% reported by Oh et al. (2004) and the Regression/logit-logistic regression 66 24.1
Analysis of (co)variance 48 17.5
66% reported by Bowen and Sparks (1998). Thus, despite calls
SEM/path 61 22.3
in both studies for theory building via increases in conceptually Time series/simulation 13 4.7
based research, empirical study remains dominant. Additionally, Qualitative 58 21.2
although the incidence of longitudinal data collection was not Other 10 3.6
specifically coded, our review indicated that longitudinal methods Horizontal lines indicate a summation of subcategory results.
are conspicuously absent in hospitality marketing research.
Concerning study design, the field survey was most prevalent methodology is unknown, as this category was not explicitly iden-
(66.8%), increasing 2.9% since 2002–2003. Use of secondary data tified in previous research.
and interview/focus group methodologies were employed 25 times We next reviewed the sample type of each study. Our discus-
(9.1%) each. Use of secondary sources increased 5% over the previ- sion of sample type should not be confused with the industry focus
ous period. The change in the incidence of interview/focus group analysis. We characterized a study’s sample type based on the
 N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477–488
population from which the sample was taken. Although there is
some overlap with the industry focus coding in some categories, the
sample type analysis is differentiated by the specific attention paid
to the attributes of the respondents. For example, the sample taken
for a study targeting the hotel industry may not necessarily come
from a population of hotel customers. Data for these studies could
also come from frontline employees and managers. Additionally,
students are often used as a sampling frame for studies target-
ing a wide variety of industries. In these cases, it is erroneous to
assume that the target industry and the sample type coincide. Given
this distinction, we found that approximately one-third of samples
were taken from the hotel industry, and slightly less than one quar-
ter were taken from the restaurant industry (specific subgroups
sampled within these industries can be seen in Table 4).
Of note in the above analysis is the finding that less than
10% of the reviewed articles collected data from multiple sources.
Cross-sectional data collection is potentially troubling given
that single-source data are commonly associated with measure-
ment error attributable to common method biases (Podsakoff
et al., 2003). In order to enhance methodological rigor, as well
as generalizability, we suggest that hospitality scholars should
more frequently obtain data from multiple industry sources
when possible. For situations in which study conditions and/or
objectives prohibit data collection from multiple sources, other
bias-correcting methods such as temporally separating variable
measurements (Podsakoff et al., 2003) should be considered.
Concerning sample size, most studies utilized a sample size of
100–350 observations. Sample sizes smaller than 100 were gener-
ally taken for studies using interview/focus group methodologies.
Samples larger than 850 typically came from previously established
consumption panels or from corporate database information. In
general, response rates were reported more frequently than in the
previous period. Only 19.5% of the studies reviewed from 2002 to
2003 reported response rates, compared to 46% from 2008 to 2010.
Despite this increase, however, we conclude, as did Oh et al. (2004)
that “the general lack of reports on exact response rates in many
studies prohibits detecting significant trends” (p. 429).
Finally, we analyzed analysis methods for each study. We only
counted methods that were used to test hypotheses or present
the general arguments of the research. Thus, we did not code fac-
tor analyses used to validate constructs in a structural model, nor
did we code for methods used as manipulation checks. Addition-
ally, because more than one analytical tool is often used in the
research found in top-tier journals, this was the only category in
which multiple counts of the same study were allowed. Our analy-
sis shows that regression, specifically multiple regression, was the
most frequently employed method of analysis, present in almost
one quarter of the reviewed literature. The next most frequently
used analysis method was structural equation modeling/path anal-
ysis (22.3%), an increase of 13.6% over the previous period. Use
of ANOVA/ANCOVA increased almost 5% while the use of descrip-
tive and factor/cluster/discriminant methods decreased by 17.1%
and 8.5%, respectively. Such shifts are encouraging as they indicate
that hospitality scholars are employing more rigorous analytical
techniques in their analyses.
5. Synthesis of significant topical trends
In this section, we discuss significant trends emergent from the
topical analysis. Due to space limitations, it is not possible to dis-
cuss all 274 articles. We limit our synthesis to articles following
trends identified for the period of review. Within each topic, we
give preferential treatment to the most important findings based on
the number of citations per GoogleScholar’s citation count. While
we recognize that this approach may bias our discussion in favor
481
of articles published earlier in the period of analysis (i.e., articles
published in 2008 are more likely to be cited than those published
in 2010), the reader should note that this approach was merely
intended to ensure that important research was not omitted from
review.
5.1. Consumer behavior
5.1.1. Emotion and satisfaction
Within the study of the marketing environment, issues pertain-
ing to customer satisfaction were the most widely pursued. The
most noticeable trend in this category is the role of emotion as a
contributor to satisfaction, especially in the restaurant industry.
Examples include: the role of negative emotions in complain-
ing/switching/negative WOM (Mattila and Ro, 2008); satisfaction
and revisit intention (Han et al., 2009); and pre-consumption mood
states (Weber and Sparks, 2009), as well as the identification of
positive and negative emotions tied to customer satisfaction as
mediated by service quality (Ladhari et al., 2008).
In addition to emotion, several other key drivers of satisfac-
tion were identified including positive relationships between the
institutional factors of Stevens and Knutson’s (1995) DINESERV
scale (Kim et al., 2009d) and restaurant atmospherics and service
(Namkung and Jang, 2008). Hyun (2009) supports these findings
within the chain-restaurant industry, while Heide and Gronhaug’s
(2009) research of key hotel atmospheric elements extend this
discussion to the hotel industry. Hanai et al. (2008), however,
demonstrated that, at least in the hotel industry, these relation-
ships might be moderated by whether one is travelling alone or in
a group. Future studies should continue to identify moderators of
these relationships.
Additionally, four studies were conducted with specific empha-
sis on satisfaction within the domain of Chinese culture. These
include perceptions of hotel attributes (Gu and Ryan, 2008); the
concept of “face” and food appeal (Kim et al., 2009d; Namkung
and Jang, 2008); collectivism and complaint behavior (Cheng and
Lam, 2008); and American customers’ perceptions of U.S.-based
Chinese restaurants (Liu and Jang, 2009). The results of these stud-
ies indicate that, while satisfaction is still a widely surveyed topic
in the hospitality marketing literature, a unifying theory of satis-
faction with definitive antecedents and outcomes remains elusive.
Oh et al. (2004) came to similar conclusions noting that the study
of satisfaction is complicated by the presence of numerous moder-
ating variables. Our analysis suggests that, although some progress
has been made, research on satisfaction becomes more complex as
various cultural and industry-specific parameters are introduced.
5.1.2. Perceived value and satisfaction
A second stream of literature explored the role of perceived
value in the generation of satisfaction, especially in the restau-
rant/foodservice industry. Findings include a positive relationship
between perceived value and satisfaction (Ryu et al., 2008); envi-
ronmental antecedents of perceived value (Han and Ryu, 2009);
and the influence of poor service quality on perceived value (Chen
and Hu, 2009). A number of related studies related perceived value
to revisit intentions and/or loyalty. Notable findings include the
mediating effect of customer satisfaction on perceived value and
re-patronage intentions (Ryu et al., 2008); the partial mediation
of satisfaction and customer loyalty (Han and Ryu, 2009); and the
mediating effect of hedonic versus utilitarian aspects of value (Ryu
et al., 2010).
While a majority of the research concerning perceived value was
conducted within a restaurant/foodservice setting, several studies
report similar findings in other industries. In the hotel industry, Kim
et al. (2008) found that perceived value mediates the relationship
between perceived quality and revisit intention. Similarly, Yoon
482 N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477–488
et al. (2010) found a relationship between quality, value, and sat-
isfaction among festival attendees (see also Kim et al., 2010b for
an extension to food-centered events). Our findings suggest that,
although perceived value has been widely studied, applications
outside the restaurant industry have not kept pace and should thus
be further explored.
5.1.3. Service quality
Service quality literature appears to be less focused on debate
and application of the SERVQUAL model than in previous years. In
order to better understand the role that quality service plays in
the customer experience, researchers have turned to examinations
of employee interactions with customers and the delivery of what
is increasingly termed “emotional labor.” For example, instead of
measuring service quality via the SERVQUAL scale, Gazzoli et al.
(2010) used a hierarchical approach model, finding that employee
empowerment and job satisfaction lead to significant increases in
customer perceptions of service quality. And although Nasution and
Mavondo (2008) found differences between service values among
managers and customers, Clark et al. (2009) found that empowering
leadership styles can facilitate the type of employee satisfac-
tion that leads to service quality commitment among employees.
Extending these concepts further, Kim and Ok (2010) explicitly
focused on the customer orientation of service employees (COSE) in
order to better understand the customer-related outcome variables
associated with employee satisfaction. It should be noted, how-
ever, that Chi and Gursoy (2009) found that employee satisfaction
does not necessarily directly impact a firm’s financial performance.
Rather, this relationship is mediated by customer satisfaction, a
further indication of the importance of employee-customer inter-
action.
5.1.4. Performance evaluation
A recurring theme in the performance evaluation literature is
the study of tipping behavior. The contention that tip sizes are cor-
related with service quality is still a topic of debate. Mayward and
Mupandawana (2009), for example, found that previous tipping
behavior was the dominant factor influencing tipping rates. The
impact of service quality on tipping behavior was not identified in
this study. However, Lynn and Sturman (2010) found that tip sizes
are, in fact, reliably correlated with service ratings and that other
dispositional differences should be viewed as confounding. These
results conflict to a certain degree with the results from an ear-
lier study (Lynn, 2009) that dispositional tendencies actually can
influence individual motives for tipping. Specifically, Lynn (2009)
found that intrinsic motives are associated with larger tips, while
self-preservational motives are more closely linked to smaller tips.
Other studies on tipping found that server behavior can influence
tip size. Lynn and McCall (2009) present a number of such behav-
iors that can be generalized to a variety of restaurants. Interestingly,
only one study examined tipping from the perception of the server:
in an extensive survey of restaurant servers, McCall and Lynn (2009)
studied server perceptions of customers’ tipping based on age, gen-
der, and ethnicity.
5.2. Management, planning, and strategy
5.2.1. Segmentation, targeting, and positioning
Although the segmentation, targeting, and positioning litera-
ture was limited compared to the previous period, recent research
appears to be more diverse, spanning four industries. Three studies
each were conducted in the foodservice and hotel industries. In the
foodservice industry, Tan and Lo (2008) pursued a benefit-based
approach, identifying four distinct segments of patrons for a spe-
cialty coffeehouse chain. The other two restaurant-focused articles
studied issues relating to the creation of wine lists (Berenguer et al.,
2009; Gil et al., 2009). Concerning hotels, Victorino et al. (2009)
demonstrated the applicability of the technology readiness index as
a segmentation tool for hotel demand. Another two studies sought
to better clarify the definitions of specific hotel sectors, English bou-
tique hotels (Lim and Endean, 2009) and Taiwanese “love motels”
(Alexander et al., 2010). Similar research was conducted in the
casino industry regarding the late life gambler market (Chhabra,
2009) and the development of the casino industry in Macao (Loi
and Kim, 2010).
5.2.2. Relationship marketing
Two kinds of relationship marketing research were prevalent,
business relationship marketing (BRM) and customer relationship
marketing (CRM). BRM was less extensively pursued than CRM,
perhaps because such issues are often addressed outside the hos-
pitality literature. Additionally, BRM research lacked a unifying
theme. Within the CRM literature, specific attention was given to
measuring the success of loyalty programs in varying industries.
These studies addressed various topics including the factors char-
acterizing successful loyalty programs across industries (McCall
and Voorhies, 2010); loyalty within the casino industry (Hendler
and LaTour, 2008); loyalty programs within the hotel industry (Hu
et al., 2010); and a comparison of loyalty programs in the airline
and hotel industries (DeKay et al., 2009). More general studies on
CRM were conducted in the hotel industry (Lo et al., 2010) and in
the restaurant industry (Asatryan and Oh, 2008), the latter with an
interesting application of psychological ownership theory.
5.2.3. Branding
A final trend within the management, planning, and strategy lit-
erature is the incidence and nature of branding research. Although
branding was directly addressed, the subject was also indirectly
addressed within the franchising literature. In general, franchis-
ing research appears to be more unified than research explicitly
focused on branding. The franchising literature was primarily con-
cerned with international diversification (e.g., Tang and Jang, 2010
on hotel franchising). Issues explicitly relating to domestic fran-
chising, especially within the U.S. were largely ignored. A notable
exception is the work of Roh and Choi’s (2010) analysis of efficiency
among multiple brands within the same franchise.
Research explicitly focusing on branding was loosely unified by
brand management topics. Specific applications, however, were
varied. Topics ranged from general internal brand management
(King, 2010) to the specific application of customer equity in the
convention industry (Severt and Palakurthi, 2008). Although vari-
ous branding topics were explored, several unique studies provide
promising avenues for future research. For example, in a rare con-
ceptual piece on hospitality-specific branding, Xu and Chan (2010)
unified the hotel branding literature, identifying several critical
issues that have yet to be investigated. Additionally, research on
co-branding (Guillet and Tasci, 2010) and rebranding (Hanson et al.,
2009) received only one publication each. Given the increasing
practice of both, especially in the hotel industry, these two areas
have significant potential for future research.
5.3. Electronic marketing
In their discussion of electronic marketing and e-commerce
research, Oh et al. (2004) noted that such research was in its incep-
tion phase, and that as time progresses, new marketing theories
must advance in accordance with new technological developments.
In some areas such as technology adoption in hotels, scholars
have kept pace. Four studies of the hotel industry addressed this
subject from several different perspectives. Noting an absence of
adoption literature in the hotel industry, Lim (2009) identified
factors that lead to general technology adoption as well as the
 N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477–488
intensity of adoption. Other research was more specific in the type
of technology adoption that was measured. Specific technological
domains represented were website and e-mail adoption (Hashim
et al., 2010), biometric adoption (Murphy and Rottet, 2009), and
information system acceptance (Huh et al., 2009). Nisbet (2009)
analyzed technology adoption at the consumer level in a study on
new gaming machine payment technologies at casinos. Noticeably
absent were studies on technology adoption in other technology-
heavy industries such as restaurants.
Research on various facets of Internet marketing made up a
majority of the rest of the e-marketing literature. Half of the stud-
ies for this category explored subject matter relevant to electronic
distribution from a variety of perspectives. Given the recent pro-
liferation of the sale of travel products, especially hotel rooms,
via third party intermediaries, the attention paid to this issue is
perhaps not surprising. Taking a theory-building approach, Wen
(2009) reviewed the literature concerning the purchase intentions
of customers for online travel products, conceptualizing a much-
needed framework for the topic in general. Empirical study of
this topic was generally focused on consumer perceptions of e-
distribution practices and/or website specific practices. Morosan
and Jeong (2008) examined user perceptions of reservation web
sites, finding that consumers favor intermediary websites over
hotel-owned websites for reservation bookings, and Carvell and
Quan (2008) demonstrated the ineffectiveness of current rate guar-
antees. Future research should address the value of such metrics not
only to the firm, but also to the consumer.
Despite the increase in technology adoption and e-distribution
research, other e-marketing issues were relatively under-
researched. Research on general website design appears be
declining in favor of better understanding specific website users
such as buyers/browsers (Rong et al., 2009) and the visually
impaired (Mills et al., 2008). Additional e-marketing research
included an analysis of the impact of online user reviews on hotel
room sales (Ye et al., 2009) and a study on the extent to which hotels
exploit search engine marketing (Murphy and Kielgast, 2008).
While such research marks progress, several important aspects
of e-marketing have been largely ignored. For example, despite the
explosion of social media and the emergent Web 2.0 phenomenon
in recent years, very little attention has been given to the market-
ing applications of these phenomena within the hospitality field.
Additionally, a majority of the e-marketing literature targets the
hotel/lodging industry. Because research on technology is often
quite specific, especially with respect to industry application, it is
often difficult to generalize findings across industries. We suggest
that future research expand discussions of e-marketing to include
other industries, especially the restaurant/foodservice industry.
5.4. Public relations
Public relations issues such as green marketing and corporate
social responsibility appear to have experienced growth, perhaps
owing to the recent shift in the overall business climate towards
more sustainable (Chabowski et al., 2010) and socially responsi-
ble (Wagner et al., 2009) behavior. As many of these issues are
still in the early stages of research development, most studies
were exploratory in nature. Research in this category was mainly
focused on issues related the development of green and/or socially
responsible goals and how the implementation of policy may affect
corporate goals. In general, results suggest that such practices can
be attributed to favorable firm-level outcomes across industries.
Increased CSR in general was found to have positive impacts on the
hotel industry (Kang et al., 2010; Lee and Park, 2009), the restau-
rant industry (Kang et al., 2010), the airline industry (Lee and Park,
2010), and the casino industry (Lee and Park, 2009).
483
Despite the increase in such research, opportunities for growth
exist. First, future research should address green/CSR-related issues
not only from industry implementation and performance perspec-
tives but also from a customer perspective. Relatively little is known
regarding the effect of such practices on customer satisfaction,
brand image, etc. (see Lee and Heo, 2009). Second, while PR lit-
erature was more contextually diverse than other emerging topics
such as e-marketing, specific study of PR in restaurant/foodservice
industry has lagged behind. Finally, very little attention has been
paid to marketing issues related to strategy and crisis manage-
ment policy shifts in response to the events of September 11, 2001.
Indeed, only two such studies appear: Vassilikopoulou et al. (2009)
on crisis management in the hotel industry, and Eisendrath et al.
(2008) on the effects of the attacks on the Las Vegas gaming indus-
try.
5.5. Demand, pricing, and selling
The study of demand, pricing, and selling largely decreased
across the component categories. Personal selling, advertising,
sales promotion, and forecasting topics combined accounted for
4.4% of the total literature and 40% of the literature specific to
demand, pricing, and selling. By contrast, pricing and revenue
management, due to the growth of revenue management as an
academic pursuit (Anderson and Xie, 2009) accounted for 6.6%
of the total literature and 60% of the category. Traditionally, rev-
enue management has been practiced in the hotel and airline
industries (Cross et al., 2009), though recently its application has
spread to restaurants (Thompson, 2009), spas (Kimes and Singh,
2008), and even theme parks (Heo and Lee, 2009). The extension
of revenue management to industries other than hotels and air-
lines is a positive trend in the literature. Key questions still exist,
however, such as whether its practice is even beneficial in all indus-
tries (Thompson, 2009). Additionally, issues of fairness perception
regarding specific revenue management tactics should continue to
be explored, with particular attention paid to moderating factors
(e.g., Beldona and Kwansa, 2008).
Although only one study on revenue management explicitly tar-
geted the hotel industry (Noone and Mattila, 2009), general pricing
research concerning hotels was more common. For example, noting
the skewed distribution of hotel prices, Hung et al. (2010) con-
ducted a study on pricing determinants using quantile regression
analysis. Yang et al. (2009) modified the model of Kano et al. (1984)
in an analysis of strategic pricing policy, while Van der Rest and
Harris (2008) modified Nash’s (1975) decision rule in a study on
imperfect pricing. More generally, Enz et al. (2009) conducted a 6-
year analysis of the hotel industry, investigating the dynamics of
price in relation to demand and revenue. As with revenue man-
agement, we suggest that pricing research not be limited to the
hotel industry. The unique pricing structures of spas, casinos, theme
parks, etc. present interesting avenues for future research.
5.6. Internal marketing
5.6.1. Job satisfaction
The study of internal marketing represented the largest increase
of any marketing subcategory, with growth largely due to the
proliferation of research on topics relating to employee behav-
ior and satisfaction. Indeed, most of the research in this category
that did not specifically operationalize job satisfaction focused on
the idea indirectly via considerations of stress, work–family con-
flict, motivations, performance, turnover, etc. The growth of this
research stream indicates an increased belief that internal issues
of employee satisfaction and quality of work life (e.g., Kandasamy
and Ancheri, 2009) have a direct impact on customer satisfaction
and retention.
484 N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477–488
A relatively large amount of attention was given to the roles
of stress and conflict as antecedents of job satisfaction. This issue
was approached from several angles, providing a relatively thor-
ough discussion of the topic. Kim et al.’s (2009b) research on the
moderating role of gender and organizational levels in the stress-
satisfaction relationship found that the effect of role stress on job
satisfaction is greater for female and supervisory employees than
for male and non-supervisory employees. General personality fac-
tors were also found to influence the stressor–strain relationship
(Young and Corsun, 2009) while work–family/family–work con-
flict perceptions were found to subsequently increase turnover
intentions (Karatepe and Uludag, 2008). Chiang et al. (2010),
however, demonstrated that job-related demands need not be
inherently stressful, especially when the employee receives suf-
ficient work–life balance support from his or her organization.
Studying the other side of this relationship, Karatepe and Bekteshi
(2008) similarly demonstrated the positive role of family social
support. Rounding out this research stream, Wong and Ko (2009)
used qualitative methods to outline the critical factors necessary
for the implementation of a successful work–life balance program.
Thus, over the course of our relatively short analytical period,
antecedents and outcomes of stress/conflict–satisfaction relation-
ships were studied empirically, and an organizational approach
to work–life balance was proposed. In the future, this stream of
research would benefit from further exploration of moderating fac-
tors that affect the relationship between employee stress/strain
and performance. A better understanding of the role that per-
sonality and other work- or non-work related variables play in
mitigating the effects of stressors and strains on employee behav-
ior/performance is a key area for future empirical research.
5.6.2. Organizational citizenship behavior
A second stream of internal marketing research focused on
issues of commitment and organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB). As with stress and conflict, a number of nomological rela-
tionships were examined with at least the implicit assumption
that such constructs affect job satisfaction. OCB was generally con-
sidered within the context of organizational attributes, beginning
with Raub’s (2008) demonstration of the negative impacts of a cen-
tralized organizational structure on OCB. Subsequently, Kim et al.
(2009c) and Kim et al. (2010a) both studied OCB within the context
of leader-member exchange (LMX) relationships and came to sim-
ilar conclusions as did Raub (2008). Likewise, Kim et al. (2010a)
demonstrated the mediating role of envy in LMX relationships.
In addition to managerial relationships, Cho and Johanson (2008)
demonstrated the impact of employee/organizational commitment
on OCB. Other studies considered OCB and/or commitment in an
exogenous role. For example, Fisher et al. (2010) found that hotel
financial performance levels differed based on organizational levels
of commitment, job satisfaction, and OCB.
Research conducted at the individual level emphasized
employee motivation and empowerment. Issues related to the
global economic downturn (Cheng-Hua et al., 2009) and service
delivery as a competitive advantage (Chiang and Jang, 2008; Wong
and Ko, 2009) raised several questions concerning the unique
nature of employment within the hospitality industry, particularly
hotels. Although many of these studies continue to be problem-
based in terms of connecting employment practices with outcome
variables such as satisfaction and productivity, Chiang and Jang
(2008) undertook a unique endeavor to build a theory of motivation
specific to hotel employees. Using an expectancy theory of moti-
vation, they established a five-component theory explaining the
process of motivating hotel employees. We suggest future research
address the issue of theory building for all areas of hospitality mar-
keting, a topic to which we return in the conclusion.
Practice
Marketing
Environment
Theory
P ra c ti c e P r a cti ce
Fig. 1. Structure of hospitality marketing research.
5.6.3. Emotional labor
Finally, we turn to the emerging field of emotional labor. Com-
pared to previously discussed topics, this area represents one of
the newest fields of inquiry within the hospitality literature (Kim,
2008). The impacts of emotional labor, typically defined as “the
effort, planning, and control needed to express organizationally
desired emotion during interpersonal transactions” (Morris and
Feldman, 1996), are particularly relevant to the hospitality indus-
try where many individuals are paid to deliver “service with a
smile” (e.g., Karatepe and Aleshinloye, 2009; Kim, 2008). As such,
researchers are increasingly studying the effects of emotional labor
on employee engagement and burnout. Until recently, these two
constructs were perceived to be on opposite ends of a contin-
uum. Recent research, however, suggests that the two may be
conceptually distinct (Kim et al., 2009a) and supports the con-
tention that these constructs are unique entities with distinct
antecedents (e.g., DiPietro and Pizam, 2008 on employee alienation
and burnout; Karatepe and Olugbade, 2009 on job and personal
resources and engagement; Shani and Pizam, 2009 on work-related
depression and burnout). Future research should continue to probe
the nature of these constructs and their nomological relationships
with performance- and satisfaction-based constructs.
6. Conclusion
The emergent research trends reveal that a vast majority of
recent hospitality marketing research is geared towards either the
function of marketing or to its environment. Such findings vali-
date the schema proposed by Oh et al. (2004) that includes as its
three research foci marketing function, marketing environment,
and marketing research. Based on the observation that these foci
represent the three streams of hospitality marketing research at
the macro-level, we propose an organizing framework that links
each of these three foci to theory and practice. Fig. 1 represents the
structure of hospitality marketing research in a fractal-like illus-
tration with theory proposed as an integrative component – from
theory comes the empirical research that leads to practical appli-
cation. In concluding our work, we discuss Fig. 1 in terms of (1) the
absence of marketing research and how this should be addressed
and (2) the nature of the relationships proposed within the frame-
work and why these relationships should be considered as the field
of hospitality marketing moves forward.
6.1. Marketing research
The dearth of domain-specific hospitality marketing theory is
both evidence and cause of an increasing disconnect between
 N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477–488
marketing research and the overall framework of hospitality mar-
keting research. We found, as did Oh et al. (2004), that marketing
research was grossly underrepresented (>2%) compared to the
other two foci. Because the topical makeup of this stream includes
methodological and theory/philosophy of science research, such
disconnect is troubling. Although we are not advocating that hos-
pitality scholars attempt to drive the growth of new methodologies,
there are methodological issues that are germane to all episte-
mologies, two of which come readily to mind. First is the goal of
building a body of knowledge about a domain, and the second is
cross-cultural applications of key measurement scales used in that
domain.
6.1.1. Building knowledge
Categorizing and synthesizing extant research is the first step
towards integrating related research endeavors and allowing bod-
ies of research to be constructed (Runyan and Droge, 2008).
The next step in constructing a body of knowledge is a formal
meta-analysis, requiring a well-defined topic, numerous empiri-
cal studies, and common constructs across studies. Our study is an
example of such a categorization, as are the syntheses that pre-
ceded. In Table 1, we identify several such topics that may warrant
meta-analysis. In order for research to be included in a meta-
analysis, however, scholars must report the appropriate statistical
information (i.e., p, d, r, f, and/or t-statistics) (Runyan and Droge,
2008). Unfortunately, it is not uncommon that this information is
excluded from final publication drafts. Thus, as a corollary to our call
for meta-analytic research in hospitality marketing, we addition-
ally suggest that scholars be diligent in their statistical reporting
and that reviewers and editors insist that such information be
included in published material.
6.1.2. Cross-cultural application
The methodological goal of most domains has recently moved
towards the examination of the cross-cultural validity of scales
commonly used within the domain. For example, entrepreneurial
orientation is a frequently utilized scale in the management liter-
ature. Recently, it has been used in cross-cultural settings to test
its predictive ability in non-Western settings (e.g., Marino et al.,
2002). Utilizing such scales cross-culturally is important, but ensur-
ing that the scales are cross-culturally valid is an equally important
methodology issue, often ignored in research (Runyan et al., 2010).
The proper method of establishing cross-cultural validity is to test
for measurement invariance (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998).
Unfortunately, such tests are rarely enacted. Indeed, although pop-
ular measurement scales of hospitality phenomena are employed
cross-culturally, invariance research is absent in top hospitality
journals. As such, we suggest that future studies address invari-
ance as it relates to the cross-cultural employment of hospitality
marketing constructs.
6.2. Theory building
Marketing has long been accused of a failure to develop its
own unique body of theoretical knowledge. Based on such indict-
ments, Hutchinson (1952) argued that marketing is not a science,
but rather a “practice” and that, by implication, marketing schol-
ars are “practitioners” rather than true scientists. Similarly, Buzzell
(1963) suggested that marketing should not be considered a science
because it is not organized around a body of theories and princi-
ples. In the years since, scholars have refuted these claims arguing
that the question for marketing is not whether such theories and
principles currently exist but whether the conditions exist for their
development (e.g., Hunt, 1991). We agree that such conditions are
characteristic of marketing phenomena, and that it is the role of
485
scholars to develop and establish theories unique to the field of
hospitality marketing.
In addition to general marketing theory, hospitality schol-
ars also rely heavily on theories drawn from psychology and/or
economics. We argue that each of the three research foci identi-
fied above should stem not from only from tangential fields but
also from hospitality-specific marketing theories. By exploring the
unique characteristics of the hospitality industry, hospitality schol-
ars may be able to uncover theoretical frameworks particular to this
domain. In order for hospitality marketing to be viewed in the cohe-
sive manner presented in Fig. 1, hospitality scholars must ensure
that, as topical trends change and evolve over time, the subject
matter is grounded (when possible) in domain-specific theories
of phenomena under consideration. Because the hospitality indus-
try is characterized by a number of unique attributes, we suggest
that, in addition to availing theories “borrowed” from marketing,
psychology, sociology, etc., hospitality marketing scholars begin to
develop domain-specific theories as well.
Because many areas of hospitality marketing research are still
problem-based in nature, it is in these areas that we most strongly
advocate increased theory-building endeavors. As an example, we
cite the literature from the marketing environment stream con-
cerning tipping behavior: Tipping exists almost exclusively in the
hospitality domain. More importantly, it is both contextually and
culturally driven. Because the degree to which tipping is expected
varies depending on aspects of service delivery and culture, a num-
ber of questions emerge. For example, why do we tip someone who
brings our food to us while we are seated, but do not tip for the same
food delivered across a counter while we are standing? Tipping is
the norm in the U.S.A., but why is it not the same in other countries?
Are there tipping differences within regions of the U.S.A.? That
these problems are still poorly understood may suggest tipping is
a phenomenon in need of theoretical explanation.
The internal marketing literature would also benefit from
an increased attention to domain-specific theory building. As
discussed, while empirical research on topics such as work engage-
ment and job embeddedness has increased in recent years, much
of this research remains focused on the problem of turnover, rather
than its theoretical nature. Although such research is valuable,
we suggest future research should focus on the advancement of
a specific theory of hospitality employee embeddedness. Such an
approach would ensure that scholars do not emphasize the prob-
lem of turnover to the point that an explication of the theoretical
nature of hospitality employee retention becomes secondary.
In addition to necessitating domain-specific theory, the unique
conditions inherent in the hospitality industry present opportuni-
ties for hospitality scholars to contribute to theory development
in other disciplines. Using borrowed theory primarily to address
industry-specific problems has the potential to stifle interdisci-
plinary progress. As such, we also call for an increase in research
that utilizes the distinctive circumstances inherent in the hospi-
tality industry to contribute to theoretical advancement in those
broader disciplines from which theory is so often “borrowed”. We
suggest that hospitality research has the potential to make such
contributions in a number of areas such as branding, e-marketing,
service provision, and management to name only a few. An increase
in such contributions by hospitality scholars would enhance the
interdisciplinary relationship between hospitality marketing and
the broader disciplines to which it is related.
Finally, we identify a need for an increase in qualitative method-
ologies, especially for the purposes of construct development. We
suggest that the dearth of qualitative study in hospitality research,
combined with the previously noted lack of longitudinal data
collection, has impeded the task of hospitality-specific theory con-
struction. Theory flows from sound constructs (Summers, 2001)
that serve as descriptors of observed phenomena, and qualitative
486 N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477–488
methodology is most often called for when building theory. Exam-
ples of industries that have under-utilized qualitative research are
cruise lines and private clubs. Both are settings ripe for ethno-
graphic study. For example, because passengers on cruise lines are
a “captive audience” for a set but finite period of time, ethnogra-
phers could conceivably observe consumers in multiple settings
(bar, restaurant, gambling, exercising, etc.). To gain such access
to consumers in other settings would require multiple days, loca-
tions, and travel by the researcher. On a cruise line, the researcher
could observe behaviors in a single location, thus painting a more
in-depth picture for the purposes of construct development.
These are but four examples of important methodological and
theoretical issues/trends that are addressed extensively within
the marketing and management domains but have been slow to
develop in the sub-domain of hospitality-specific research. Indeed,
as discussed, much of the current hospitality marketing research is
indebted to marketing, psychology, and economics for its theoret-
ical and methodological frameworks. However, when hospitality
researchers ignore domain-specific theoretical and methodological
issues, they cede the direction of the field to scholars from outside
the discipline. The development of unique frameworks is essential
for the field of hospitality marketing to move forward profession-
ally.
6.3. Future research
Our research synthesizes hospitality marketing research from
the years 2008 to 2010 for the purposes of continuing the research
trend started by Crawford-Welch and McCleary (1992). Although a
number of issues have been addressed, several important issues
not within the scope of the present research warrant future
research attention. First, because our research focused specifically
on hospitality marketing, space considerations limited our ability
to compare the incidence of hospitality marketing topics rela-
tive to other topics published in the selected journals. Thus, it is
left to future researchers to determine the extent to which topi-
cal emphasis has changed across previous syntheses. Moreover, a
worthwhile addition to our research would be to analyze articles
published in top-ranked services marketing journals that use the
hospitality industry as a research setting. In that way, rather than
taking an inward view, a broader perspective may be gained on
research trends that are currently not adequately considered in the
hospitality-specific literature.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Muzaffer Uysal for his help in
validating the research topic coding schematic.
References
Alexander, M., Chen, C.C., MacLauren, A., O’Gorman, K.D., 2010. Love motels: ori-
ental phenomenon or emergent sector? International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 22 (2), 194–208.
Anderson, C.K., Xie, X., 2009. Room-risk management at Sunquest Vacations. Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly 50 (3), 314–324.
Asatryan, V.S., Oh, H., 2008. Psychological ownership theory: an exploratory appli-
cation in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 32
(3), 363–386.
Beldona, S., Kwansa, F., 2008. The impact of cultural orientation on perceived fairness
over demand-based pricing. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27
(4), 594–603.
Berenguer, G., Gil, I., Ruiz, M.E., 2009. Do upscale restaurant owners use wine lists
as a differentiation strategy? International Journal of Hospitality Management
28 (1), 86–95.
Bowen, J., Sparks, B., 1998. Hospitality marketing research: a content analysis and
implications for future research. International Journal of Hospitality Manage-
ment 17 (2), 125–144.
Buzzell, R.D., 1963. Is marketing a science? Harvard Business Review 41, 32–40,
166–170.
Carvell, S.A., Quan, D.C., 2008. Exotic reservations—low-price guarantees. Interna-
tional Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 162–169.
Chabowski, B.R., Mena, J.A., Gonzalez-Padron, T.L., 2010. The structure of sustainabil-
ity research in marketing, 1958–2008: a basis for future research opportunities.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0212-7
(Online FirstTM ).
Chen, P.-T., Hu, H.-H., 2009. How determinant attributes of service quality influence
customer-perceived value: an empirical investigation of the Australian coffee
outlet industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
22 (4), 535–551.
Cheng, S., Lam, T., 2008. The role of customer–seller relationship in the intention
of the customer to complain: a study of Chinese restaurateurs. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (4), 552–562.
Cheng-Hua, T., Shyh-Jer, C., Shih-Chien, F., 2009. Employment modes, high-
performance work practices, and organizational performance in the hospitality
industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (4), 413–431.
Chhabra, D., 2009. Are late life gamblers a lucrative market in gambling tourism?
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 33 (2), 245–254.
Chi, C.G., Gursoy, D., 2009. Employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction, and finan-
cial performance: an empirical examination. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 28 (2), 245–253.
Chiang, C.-F., Jang, S., 2008. An expectancy theory model for employee motivation.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 313–322.
Chiang, F.F.T., Birtch, T.A., Kwan, H.K., 2010. The moderating roles of job control and
work life balance practices on employee stress in the hotel and catering industry.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (1), 25–32.
Cho, S., Johanson, M.M., 2008. Organizational citizenship behavior and employee
performance: a moderating effect of work status in restaurant employees. Jour-
nal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 32 (3), 307–326.
Clark, D.A., Hartline, M.D., Jones, K.C., 2009. The effects of leadership style on hotel
employees’ commitment to service quality. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (2),
209–231.
Crawford-Welch, S., McCleary, K.W., 1992. An identification of the subject areas
and research techniques used in five hospitality-related journals. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 11 (2), 155–167.
Cross, R.G., Higbie, J.A., Cross, D.Q., 2009. Revenue management’s renaissance: a
rebirth of the art and science of profitable revenue generation. Cornell Hospi-
tality Quarterly 50 (1), 56–81.
DeKay, F., Toh, R.S., Raven, P., 2009. Loyalty programs: airlines outdo hotels. Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly 50 (3), 371–382.
DiPietro, R.B., Pizam, A., 2008. Employee alienation in the quick service restaurant
industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 32 (1), 22–39.
Eisendrath, D., Bernhard, B.J., Lucas, A.F., Murphy, D.J., 2008. Fear and managing in
Las Vegas: an analysis of the effects of September 11, 2001, on Las Vegas Strip
gaming volume. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 49 (2), 145–162.
Enz, C.A., Canina, L., Lomanno, M., 2009. Competitive pricing decisions in uncertain
times. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (3), 325–341.
Fisher, R., McPhail, R., Menghetti, G., 2010. Linking employee attitudes and behav-
iors with business performance: a comparative analysis of hotels in Mexico
and China. International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (3), 397–
404.
Gazzoli, G., Hancer, M., Park, Y., 2010. The role and effect of job satisfaction and
empowerment on customers’ perception of service quality: a study in the restau-
rant industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 43 (1), 56–77.
George, W., 1990. Internal marketing and organizational behavior: a partnership in
developing customer-conscious employees at every level. Journal of Business
Research 20 (1), 63–70.
Gil, I., Berenguer, G., Ruiz, M.E., 2009. Wine list engineering: categorization of food
and beverage outlets. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Man-
agement 21 (1), 60–84.
Gu, H., Ryan, C., 2008. Chinese clientele at Chinese hotels—preferences and satisfac-
tion. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (3), 337–345.
Guillet, B.D., Tasci, A.D.A., 2010. Travelers’ takes on hotel-restaurant co-branding:
insights for China. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 34 (2),
143–163.
Han, H., Back, K.-J., Barrett, B., 2009. Influencing factors on restaurant customers’
revisit intention: the roles of emotions and switching barriers. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4), 563–572.
Han, H., Ryu, K., 2009. The roles of the physical environment, price perception, and
customer satisfaction in determining loyalty in the restaurant industry. Journal
of Hospitality & Tourism Research 33 (4), 487–510.
Hanai, T., Oguchi, T., Ando, K., Yamaguchi, K., 2008. Important attributes of lodgings
to gain repeat business: a comparison between individual travels and group
travels. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 268–275.
Hanson, B., Mattila, A.S., O’Neill, J.W., Kim, Y., 2009. Hotel rebranding and rescaling:
effects on financial performance. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (3), 360–370.
Hashim, N.H., Murphy, J., Purchase, S., O’Connor, P., 2010. Website and e-mail adop-
tion by Malaysian hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management 29
(1), 194–196.
Heide, M., Gronhaug, K., 2009. Key factors in guests’ perception of hotel atmosphere.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (1), 29–43.
Hendler, F., LaTour, K.A., 2008. A qualitative analysis of slot clubs as drivers of casino
loyalty. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 49 (2), 105–121.
Heo, C.Y., Lee, S., 2009. Application of revenue management practices to the
theme park industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (3),
446–453.
 N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477–488
Hu, H.-H., Huang, C.-T., Chen, P.-T., 2010. Do reward programs truly build loyalty
for lodging industry? International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (1),
128–135.
Huh, H.J., Kim, T., Law, R., 2009. A comparison of competing theoretical models for
understanding acceptance behavior of information systems in upscale hotels.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (1), 121–134.
Hung, W.-T., Shang, J.-K., Wang, F.-C., 2010. Pricing determinants in the hotel
industry: quantile regression analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Man-
agement 29 (3), 378–384.
Hunt, S.D., 1991. Modern Marketing Theory: Critical Issues in the Philosophy of
Marketing Science. South-Western, Cincinatti, OH.
Hutchinson, K.D., 1952. Marketing as science: an appraisal. Journal of Marketing 16,
286–293.
Hyun, S.S., 2009. Creating a model of customer equity for chain restaurant
brand formation. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4),
529–539.
Kandasamy, I., Ancheri, S., 2009. Hotel employees’ expectations of QWL: a qual-
itative study. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (3), 328–
337.
Kang, K.H., Lee, S., Huh, C., 2010. Impacts of positive and negative corporate social
responsibility activities on company performance in the hospitality industry.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (1), 72–82.
Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., Tsuji, S., 1984. Attractive quality and must-be
quality. Journal of Japanese Society for Quality Control 14 (2), 39–48.
Karatepe, O.M., Aleshinloye, K.D., 2009. Emotional dissonance and emotional
exhaustion among hotel employees in Nigeria. International Journal of Hospi-
tality Management 28 (3), 349–358.
Karatepe, O.M., Bekteshi, L., 2008. Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
facilitation and family-work facilitation among frontline hotel employees. Inter-
national Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (4), 517–528.
Karatepe, O.M., Olugbade, O.A., 2009. The effects of job and personal resources on
hotel employees’ work engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Man-
agement 28 (4), 504–512.
Karatepe, O.M., Uludag, O., 2008. Affectivity, conflicts in the work-family interface,
and hotel employee outcomes. International Journal of Hospitality Management
27 (1), 30–41.
Kim, H.J., 2008. Hotel service providers’ emotional labor: the antecedents and effects
of burnout. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 151–161.
Kim, H.J., Shin, K.H., Swanger, N., 2009a. Burnout and engagement: a compara-
tive analysis using the Big Five personality dimensions. International Journal
of Hospitality Management 28 (1), 96–104.
Kim, P.B., Murrmann, S.K., Lee, G., 2009b. Moderating effects of gender and organi-
zational level between role stress and job satisfaction among hotel employees.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4), 612–619.
Kim, S., O’Neill, J.W., Cho, H.-M., 2010a. When does an employee not help coworkers?
The effect of leader-member exchange on employee envy and organizational
citizenship behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (3),
530–537.
Kim, W., Ok, C., 2010. Customer orientation of service employees and rapport:
influences on service-outcome variables in full-service restaurants. Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research 34 (1), 34–55.
Kim, W., Ok, C., Lee, M.J., 2009c. Antecedents of service employees’ organizational
citizenship behaviors in full-service restaurants in Korea. Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly 50 (2), 180–197.
Kim, W.G., Jin-Sun, B., Kim, H.J., 2008. Multidimensional customer-based brand
equity and its consequences in midpriced hotels. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research 32 (2), 235–254.
Kim, W.G., Ng, C.Y.N., Kim, Y.-S., 2009d. Influence of institutional DINESERV on cus-
tomer satisfaction, return intention, and word-of-mouth. International Journal
of Hospitality Management 28 (1), 10–17.
Kim, Y.G., Suh, B.W., Eves, A., 2010b. The relationships between food-related per-
sonality traits, satisfaction, and loyalty among visitors attending food events
and festivals. International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (2), 216–
226.
Kimes, S.E., Singh, S., 2008. Spa revenue management. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly
50 (1), 82–95.
King, C., 2010. “One size doesn’t fit all”: tourism and hospitality employees’ response
to internal brand management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospi-
tality Management 22 (4), 517–534.
Ladhari, R., Brun, I., Morales, M., 2008. Determinants of dining satisfaction and post-
dining behavioral intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management
27 (4), 563–573.
Lee, S., Heo, C.Y., 2009. Corporate social responsibility and customer satisfaction
among US publicly traded hotels and restaurants. International Journal of Hos-
pitality Management 28 (4), 635–637.
Lee, S., Park, S.-Y., 2009. Do socially responsible activities help hotels and casinos
achieve their financial goals? International Journal of Hospitality Management
28 (1), 105–112.
Lee, S., Park, S.-Y., 2010. Financial impacts of socially responsible activities on airline
companies. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 34 (2), 185–203.
Lim, W.M., 2009. Alternate models framing UK independent hoteliers’ adoption of
technology. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 21
(5), 610–618.
Lim, W.M., Endean, M., 2009. Elucidating the aesthetic and operational character-
istics of UK boutique hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 21 (1), 38–51.
487
Liu, Y., Jang, S., 2009. Perceptions of Chinese restaurants in the U.S.: what affects
customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions? International Journal of Hos-
pitality Management 28 (3), 338–348.
Lo, A.S., Stalcup, L.D., Lee, A., 2010. Customer relationship management for hotels in
Hong Kong. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22
(2), 139–159.
Loi, K.-I., Kim, W.G., 2010. Macao’s casino industry: reinventing Las Vegas in Asia.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51 (2), 268–283.
Lynn, M., 2009. Individual differences in self-attributed motives for tipping:
antecedents, consequences, and implications. International Journal of Hospi-
tality Management 28 (3), 432–438.
Lynn, M., McCall, M., 2009. Techniques for increasing servers’ tips: how generalizable
are they? Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (2), 198–208.
Lynn, M., Sturman, M., 2010. Tipping and service quality: a within-subjects analysis.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 34 (2), 269–275.
Marino, L., Strandholm, K., Steensma, H.K., Weaver, K.M., 2002. The moderating effect
of national culture on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and
strategic alliance portfolio effectiveness. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 26
(4), 145–161.
Mattila, A.S., Ro, H., 2008. Discrete negative emotions and customer dissatisfac-
tion responses in a casual restaurant setting. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research 32 (1), 89–107.
Mayward, L.J., Mupandawana, M., 2009. Tipping behavior in Canadian restaurants.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4), 597–603.
McCall, M., Lynn, A., 2009. Restaurant servers’ perceptions of customer tipping inten-
tions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4), 594–596.
McCall, M., Voorhies, C., 2010. The drivers of loyalty program success: an organizing
framework and research agenda. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51 (1), 35–52.
McKercher, B., Law, R., Lam, T., 2006. Rating tourism and hospitality journals.
Tourism Management 27 (6), 1235–1252.
Mills, J.E., Han, J.-H., Clay, J.M., 2008. Accessibility of hospitality and tourism web-
sites. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 49 (1), 28–41.
Morosan, C., Jeong, M., 2008. Users perceptions of two types of hotel reserva-
tion Web sites. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 284–
292.
Morris, J.A., Feldman, D.C., 1996. The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of
emotional labor. Academy of Management Review 21 (4), 986–1010.
Murphy, H.C., Kielgast, C.D., 2008. Do small and medium-sized hotels exploit search
engine marketing? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Manage-
ment 20 (1), 90–97.
Murphy, H.C., Rottet, D., 2009. An exploration of the key hotel processes impli-
cated in biometric adoption. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 21 (2), 201–212.
Namkung, Y., Jang, S., 2008. Are highly satisfied restaurant customers really differ-
ent? A quality perception perspective. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 20 (2), 142–155.
Nash, J.F., 1975. A note on cost-volume-profit analysis and price elasticity. The
Accounting Review 50 (2), 384–386.
Nasution, H.N., Mavondo, F.T., 2008. Customer value in the hotel industry: what
managers believe they deliver and what customer experience. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 204–213.
Nisbet, S., 2009. The role of employees in encouraging customer adoption of new
gaming machine payment technologies. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 21 (4), 422–436.
Noone, B.M., Mattila, A.S., 2009. Hotel revenue management and the Internet: the
effect of price presentation strategies on customers’ willingness to book. Inter-
national Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (2), 272–279.
Oh, H., Kim, B.-Y., Shin, J.-H., 2004. Hospitality and tourism marketing: recent devel-
opments in research and future directions. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 23 (5), 425–447.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recom-
mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5), 879–903.
Raub, S., 2008. Does bureaucracy kill individual initiative? The impact of structure
on organizational citizenship behavior in the hospitality industry. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 179–186.
Roh, E.Y., Choi, K., 2010. Efficiency comparison of multiple brands within the same
franchise: data envelopment analysis approach. International Journal of Hospi-
tality Management 29 (1), 92–98.
Rong, J., Li, G., Law, R., 2009. A contrast analysis of online hotel web service pur-
chasers and browsers. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (3),
466–478.
Runyan, R.C., Ge, B., Dong, B., Swinney, J.L., 2010. Entrepreneurial orienta-
tion in cross-cultural research: assessing measurement invariance in the
construct. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice (January), doi:10.1111/j.1540-
6520.2010.00436.x.
Runyan, R.C., Droge, C., 2008. Small store research streams: what does it portend for
the future? Journal of Retailing 84 (1), 77–94.
Ryu, K., Han, H., Jang, S., 2010. Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values,
satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant indus-
try. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22 (3),
416–432.
Ryu, K., Han, H., Kim, T.-H., 2008. The relationships among overall quick-casual
restaurant image, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral
intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 2 (3), 459–
469.
488 N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477–488
Severt, K.S., Palakurthi, R., 2008. Applying customer equity to the convention indus-
try. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 20 (6),
631–646.
Shani, A., Pizam, A., 2009. Work-related depression among hotel employees. Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly 50 (4), 446–459.
Steenkamp, J-B.E.M., Baumgartner, H., 1998. Assessing measurement invariance in
cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 25, 78–90.
Stevens, P., Knutson, B., 1995. DINESERV: a tool for measuring service quality in
restaurants. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly 36 (6), 56–61.
Summers, J.O., 2001. Guidelines for conducting research and publishing in market-
ing: from conceptualization through the review process. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science 29 (4), 405–415.
Tan, A.Y.F., Lo, A.S.Y., 2008. A benefit based approach to market segmentation: a
case study of an American specialty coffeehouse chain in Hong Kong. Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research 32 (3), 342–362.
Tang, C.-H., Jang, S., 2010. Does international diversification discount exist in the
hotel industry? Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 34 (2), 225–246.
Thompson, G.M., 2009. (Mythical) revenue benefits of reducing dining duration.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (1), 96–112.
Van der Rest, J-P.I., Harris, P.J., 2008. Optimal imperfect pricing decision-making:
modifying and applying Nash’s rule in a service sector context. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 170–178.
Vassilikopoulou, A., Siomkos, G., Chatzipanagioutou, K., Triantafillidou, A., 2009.
Hotels on fire: investigating consumers’ responses and perceptions. Interna-
tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 21 (7), 791–815.
Victorino, L., Karniouchina, E., Verma, R., 2009. Exploring the use of the technology
readiness index for customer segmentation. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (3),
342–359.
Wagner, T., Lutz, R.J., Weitz, B.A., 2009. Corporate hypocrisy: overcoming the threat
of inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing
73 (6), 77–91.
Weber, K., Sparks, B., 2009. The effect of preconsumption mood and service recovery
measures on customer evaluations and behavior in a strategic alliance setting.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 33 (1), 106–125.
Wen, I., 2009. Factors affecting the online travel buying decision: a review. Interna-
tional Journal of Hospitality Management 21 (6), 752–765.
Werner, S., 2002. Recent developments in international management: a review
of 20 top management journals. Journal of Management 28 (3), 277–
305.
Wong, S.C-K., Ko, A., 2009. Exploratory study of understanding hotel employees’
perception on work–life balance issues. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 28 (2), 195–203.
Xu, J.B., Chan, A., 2010. A conceptual framework of hotel experience and customer
based brand equity: some research questions and implications. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22 (2), 174–193.
Yang, C.-C., Cheng, L.-Y., Sung, D., Withiam, G., 2009. Strategic-pricing policy
based on analysis of service attributes. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (4),
498–509.
Ye, Q., Law, R., Gu, B., 2009. The impact of online user reviews on hotel room sales.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (1), 180–182.
Yoon, Y.-S., Lee, J.-S., Lee, C.-K., 2010. Measuring festival quality and value affect-
ing visitors’ satisfaction and loyalty using a structural approach. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (2), 335–342.
Young, C.A., Corsun, D.L., 2009. What a nuisance: controlling for negative affec-
tivity versus personality in hospitality stress research. International Journal of
Hospitality Management 28 (2), 280–288.