The Role of Satisfaction with Leisure Travel/

Tourism Services and Experience in Satisfaction

with Leisure Life and Overall Life
Janet D. Neal
RADFORD UNIVERSITY
M. Joseph Sirgy
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY
Muzaffer Uysal
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY

We attempt to develop a measure of satisfaction with leisure travel/
tourism services that is related to life satisfaction. The hypothesized model
of the study is based on the hierarchy of life satisfaction model. The model
postulates that overall life satisfaction can be determined by satisfaction
with major life domains (e.g., leisure life). The affect within the leisure
life domain spills over vertically to the most superordinate domain (life
in general), thus contributing to life satisfaction or dissatisfaction. A survey
of 373 consumers of travel/tourism services employed in a major state
university was conducted. A LISREL analysis was performed to test the
goodness of fit of the model. The LISREL analysis suggested modification
of the original model. The findings of the study reveal that travel/tourism
trip experiences have a direct impact on the overall life satisfaction of
leisure travelers. J BUSN RES 1999. 44.153–163.  1999 Elsevier
Science Inc. All rights reserved.
mance of the travel/tourism industry in enhancing the leisure
experience of tourists.
Leisure Satisfaction
in Travel/Tourism
Much of the research in leisure satisfaction in travel and tour-
ism has focused on two programs of research: (1) the distinc-
tion between instrumental and expressive indicators of leisure
satisfaction and (2) the measurement of the leisure experience
as a component of QOL.
Distinction between Instrumental and
Expressive Indicators of Leisure Satisfaction
Swan and Combs (1976) defined instrumental performance
as the means to an end or the evaluation of the physical
product, whereas they defined expressive performance as the

M
any quality-of-life (QOL) studies have examined the
contribution of marketing to life satisfaction (e.g.,
Meadow and Sirgy, 1990; Samli, 1986; Sirgy, 1991a,
1991b; Sirgy et al., 1992; Sirgy and Samli, 1995). The issue
of life satisfaction has also been addressed in leisure and
travel/tourism studies (e.g., Allen and Beattie, 1984; Allen and
Donnelly, 1985; Allen et al., 1988; Andrews and Withey,
1976; Neal, Uysal, and Sirgy, 1995). This study focuses on
QOL issues in relation to leisure travel/tourism marketing.
Specifically, this study reports an attempt to design a first-
time measure of QOL/leisure to periodically gauge the perfor-
Address correspondence to Janet D. Neal, Department of Management and
Marketing, P.O. Box 6954, Radford University, Radford, VA 24142. e-mail:
jfneal@runet.edu
end in itself of the psychological interpretation of a product.
Both concepts are goal directed with the instrumental being
more cognitive oriented and the expressive being more emo-
tional or feeling oriented. Swan and Combs asserted that satis-
faction is determined more from expressive attributes than
from instrumental attributes. Similarly, Noe (1987) found that
expressive indicators of satisfaction forming core recreational
experiences are more salient in explaining general satisfaction.
Furthermore, Noe and Uysal (1996) found that expressive
and instrumental factors may be stronger predictors of overall
satisfaction than are the expectations factors or past-use expe-
rience in outdoor recreational settings. They also indicated
that the relative importance of instrumental and expressive
factors may reveal site-specific variation. Czepiel and Rosen-
berg (1974) argued that expressive factors mostly determine

Journal of Business Research 44, 153–163 (1999)

 1999 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN 0148-2963/99/$–see front matter
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010 PII S0148-2963(97)00197-5
154 J Busn Res
1999:44:153–163
positive feelings of “satisfaction,” whereas instrumental factors
can be viewed as maintenance factors that, if absent, create
“dissatisfaction.”
This concept of instrumental versus expressive factors was
illustrated in a study by Kelly, Langenau, and Levine (1990),
which identified dimensions of turkey hunting. Examples of
instrumental dimensions identified by Kelly and his colleagues
include satisfaction derived from activities related to prepara-
tion and search (locating and calling turkeys). Conversely,
satisfaction derived from harvest activities was found to be
expressive, i.e., feeling oriented.
The distinction between the instrumental and expressive
attributes determining leisure satisfaction was also evident in
a study conducted by Lieber and Fesenmaier (1985). The
Lieber and Fesenmaier study focused on visitor satisfaction
with respect to a walking trail within a Chicago preserve. The
instrumental trail attributes that were studied are: surface,
length, terrain, and proximity to residence. These instrumental
attributes were found to contribute less to visitor satisfaction
than expressive attributes related to visual perspective and
preference. The visual and emotionally positive experience of
sightseeing was found to be more important than the access
or trailway that afforded the experience.
Whipple and Thach (1988) discovered a mix between in-
strumental and expressive attributes affecting levels of satisfac-
tion. Two instrumental service features, the tour escort service
and point of departure, and the more expressive attribute,
sightseeing, were singled out as significantly contributing to
the satisfaction of the trip.
Still another recreational study focused on camper satisfac-
tion in the Adirondack Mountains. The study measured satis-
faction with solitude of the place and nature appreciation
(expressive attributes) and satisfaction with the facility condi-
tions (instrumental attributes) (Connely, 1987). The study
found the most critical attribute of leisure satisfaction to be
the solitude of the place.
The aforementioned studies all measured leisure satisfac-
tion using both instrumental and expressive attributes. Some
studies have measured leisure satisfaction using either set, but
not both. For example, a study conducted by Lounsbury and
Polik (1992) measured leisure satisfaction strictly in terms of
expressive attributes. The expressive attributes deliberated by
Lounsbury and Polik were: intellectual, social, competence,
mastery, and stimulus avoidance.
Others, such as Burnstein et al. (1985) measured the satis-
faction of residents living in close proximity to tourism desti-
nations. Burnstein et al. studied residents whose properties
were adjacent to Moore Park in metropolitan Toronto to deter-
mine the visual appreciation and sense of refuge symbolized
in the landscape typography.
Some studies have focused exclusively on instrumental
attributes such as lighting, fencing, restrooms, shade, or facil-
ity conditions to measure leisure satisfaction (e.g., Bartlett and
Einert, 1992; Vaske, Donnelly, and Williamson, 1991).
J. D. Neal et al.
The distinction between instrumental and expressive attri-
butes in leisure satisfaction will be used in the development
of our theoretical model of leisure satisfaction. Specifically,
our distinction between trip services and the trip experience
of leisure satisfaction (the micro components of our model)
correspond highly to the distinction between instrumental
and expressive determinants of satisfaction. Thus, we use this
literature relating to instrumental and expressive attributes in
leisure satisfaction to help us build the theoretical basis of
our model. In addition to the micro dimensions and measures
included in the model, we aspire to develop a measure of
leisure satisfaction that captures the leisure experience across
a variety of situations over a period of time, and thus includes
a macro dimension and measures as well. Hence, our discus-
sion of the macro components included in the model turns
to the leisure studies in relation to QOL studies.
Leisure Experience as a Component of QOL
Previous research in this area has suggested that leisure experi-
ences can play a significant role in enhancing QOL. QOL
researchers have measured leisure experiences through objec-
tive and subjective measures. Examples of objective measures
of leisure experiences include participation aggregates and
facility counts (Connely, 1987; Kelly, 1982). Examples of
subjective measures include asking respondents to indicate
satisfaction with how much fun they are having (Andrews and
Withey, 1976), tapping leisure experience through intrinsic
satisfaction and perceived freedom (Iso-Ahola, 1979; Kelly,
1978), and through a combination of affective states such as
intrinsic satisfaction (Fielding, Pearce, and Hughes, 1992),
perceived freedom, involvement, arousal, mastery, and spon-
taneity (Unger and Kernan, 1983).
Our effort to develop a measure of leisure satisfaction is
based on the latter program of research that focuses on leisure
as a component of QOL. In that vein, we will propose a model
that forms the theoretical basis for a comprehensive measure
of leisure satisfaction that can be used by the travel/tourism
industry to assess the industry’s performance periodically.
Theoretical Foundation
We use the hierarchy model shown in Figure 1 to explain
the relationships that exist between leisure satisfaction and
QOL (Meadow, 1988). The model is suggested by research
in consumer satisfaction (Aiello, Czepiel, and Rosenberg,
1977) and life satisfaction (Andrews and Withey, 1976; Camp-
bell, Converse, and Rodgers, 1976) as well as inferred from
social gerontological research (Neugarten, Havighurst, and
Tobin, 1961). The basic premise is that life satisfaction is
functionally related to satisfaction with all of life’s domains
and subdomains. Figure 1 shows that life satisfaction is influ-
enced by lower levels of life concerns. This argument is sup-
ported by Andrews and Withey (1976), who maintain that
satisfaction occurs at various levels of specificity. Specifically,
Satisfaction with Leisure Travel/Tourism Services
Figure 1. The hierarchy model of life satisfaction.
life satisfaction is influenced by evaluations of individual life
domains. Thus, the greater the satisfaction with such domains
as personal health, work, family, and leisure, the greater the
satisfaction with life in general.
The hierarchy model “postulates that overall life satisfaction
is determined by satisfaction with major life domains. The
affect within a life domain spills over vertically to the most
superordinate domain (life in general), thus determining life
satisfaction” (Neal, Uysal, and Sirgy, 1995, p. 145).
Most multiattribute attitude models use the same logic in
predicting and explaining attitude. For example, most market-
ing researchers are familiar with brand attitude formulations,
such as Fishbein’s attitude model (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975).
That is, a consumer’s attitude toward a product, such as a
car, is a direct function of the consumer’s evaluations of the
various attributes of the car (moderated by the belief strength
associated with each attribute). Satisfaction researchers have
used the same logic to conceptualize the determinants of
consumer satisfaction (Aiello, Czepiel, and Rosenberg, 1977).
Evaluation of each attribute is viewed as satisfaction, and
overall life satisfaction is conceptualized to be determined by
satisfaction with each life domain (job, family, personal health,
leisure, and so forth) (see Figure 2). Hence, we expect to find
the following relationship:
H1: Satisfaction with life in general is a positive function
of satisfaction with leisure life and satisfaction with
nonleisure life (i.e., satisfaction with job, family,
health, relationships, community, financial situation).
J Busn Res 155
1999:44:153–163
We also hypothesize that satisfaction with a given life do-
main is determined by satisfaction with the life conditions/
concerns making up that domain. For example, we believe
that satisfaction with the leisure life domain is determined by
satisfaction with the leisure travel/tourism trip experience and
satisfaction with leisure activities at home (see Figure 2). Ex-
amples of leisure travel/trip experiences include going for a
vacation to the beach, going on an ocean cruise, going on a
site-seeing trip to Europe, and so on. Examples of leisure
activities at home include engaging in one’s favorite sport such
as playing tennis, or simply enjoying the outdoors by taking
a walk in one’s neighborhood. Therefore, the following rela-
tionship is expected:
H2: Satisfaction with leisure life is a positive function of
satisfaction with leisure experiences at home and satis-
faction with travel/tourism trip experiences.
Satisfaction with the Service
Aspects of Travel/Tourism
Phases and Trip Reflections
The specific dimensions of satisfaction with pretrip, en route,
destination, and return trip travel/tourism services, and trip
reflections are based on Clawson and Knetsch’s (1971) five-
phase model of travel. During the first four phases of travel,
the traveler is likely to experience a high level of interac-
tion with travel/tourism service providers. Thus, satisfaction
with the aspects of leisure travel/tourism services can be cap-
tured through pretrip, en route, destination, and return trip
dimensions.
Six subjective conditions of leisure identified by Unger and
Kernan (1983) were used to measure trip reflections. These
were perceived freedom from control, perceived freedom from
work, involvement, arousal, mastery, and spontaneity. Unger
and Kernan (1983) included intrinsic satisfaction as an addi-
tional condition of leisure in their research; however, as we
operationalized the constructs, the other six conditions identi-
fied above appeared to be forms of intrinsic satisfaction. There-
fore, intrinsic satisfaction was not included as an independent
measure of trip reflections.
Figure 2 shows that leisure satisfaction with travel/tourism
trip experiences is likely to be determined by two major fac-
tors: (1) leisure satisfaction with travel/tourism services and
(2) leisure satisfaction derived from leisure trip reflections.
The trip reflections that have the potential of providing long-
term satisfaction for travelers include having experienced the
perceived freedom from control, perceived freedom from
work, involvement, arousal, mastery, and spontaneity during
the leisure travel experience. From the vantage point of the
travel/tourism industry, the satisfaction with travel/tourism
services and its determinants should be of utmost importance.
The model as shown in Figure 2 depicts that this construct is
156 J Busn Res
1999:44:153–163
determined by satisfaction originating from four different
sources: (1) leisure satisfaction with pretrip travel/tourism ser-
vices, (2) leisure satisfaction with trip en route travel/tourism
services, (3) leisure satisfaction with destination travel/tourism
services, and (4) leisure satisfaction with return trip travel/
tourism services. These determinants will be discussed in some
detail next. Accordingly, the following relationships are antici-
pated:
H3: Satisfaction with travel/tourism trip experiences is a
positive function of satisfaction with trip reflections
and satisfaction with travel/tourism trip services.
H4: Satisfaction with travel/tourism trip services is a posi-
tive function of satisfaction with the service aspects of
travel/tourism phases (i.e., pretrip, en route, destina-
tion, and return trip services).
Aspects of Travel Tourism Services
This segment of the model explicates that four traveler roles
and corresponding interaction with various facets of the travel/
tourism industry may occur with each phase of travel. During
J. D. Neal et al.
Figure 2. The role of satisfaction with leisure
travel/tourism services and experience in satisfac-
tion with leisure life and overall life.
the first phase of travel, pretrip activities transpire that include
forming the motivation for the trip, searching for trip-relevant
information, making pretrip arrangements, and so forth. An
example of a measurement for this subconstruct is: “I was
pleased with the quality of the service provided by travel and
tourism professionals (e.g., travel agents, ticket agents, hotel
reservation clerks) while planning the trip.”
Next, tourists use some form of transportation en route to
the travel destination. Often, tourists turn to the travel/tourism
service providers (e.g., airlines, buslines) to help them reach
their destination site. An example of a measurement item for
this subconstruct is: “I was pleased with the quality of the
services provided in transit to the vacation site.”
Subsequently, tourists reach their destinations whereby
they often rely on travel/tourism service providers to supply
the accommodations, restaurants, entertainment, and encoun-
ters of the traveler at the final destination. An example of a
measurement item for this subconstruct is: “Tourist services at
the vacation site (e.g., regarding activities, tourist attractions,
restaurants, hotels) were comprehensive and of high quality.”
Finally, tourists make the return trip home from the leisure
Satisfaction with Leisure Travel/Tourism Services
trip. During this travel phase, tourists may interact with travel
carriers and personnel. An example of a measurement item
for this subconstruct is: “My return travels were basically
problem-free.”
Trip Reflections
After the travel experience is over and the travelers have returned
to their homes, they are likely to reflect upon their trip experi-
ences. This is often done by remembering the conditions of
leisure that were present during the trip (i.e., freedom from
control, freedom from work, involvement, arousal, mastery,
and spontaneity). Therefore, Unger and Kernan’s (1983) con-
ditions of leisure form the basis of analysis for this dimension.
FREEDOM. Freedom in leisure and tourism studies is often
categorized as either “freedom from control” or “freedom from
work.” Freedom from control refers to “something one per-
ceives as voluntary, without coercion or obligation” (Unger
and Kernan, 1983, p. 383). On the other hand, freedom from
work refers to the ability to rest, relax, and not be obligated
to perform tasks (de Grazia, 1962; Iso-Ahola, 1982). Two
types of freedom may contribute to overall life satisfaction in
different ways. For instance, some personality types would
enjoy utilizing the services of a travel agency when planning
a trip to avoid having to “work” on the plans themselves,
whereas others would enjoy the freedom from the control of
others making their own plans (or, perhaps, not planning at
all) brings. An example of a measurement item for the per-
ceived freedom from control subconstract is: “On this trip, I
felt free to do the kinds of things that I can’t do at home.”
An example of a measurement item for the perceived freedom
from work subconstruct is: “On this trip, I felt far away from
the drudgery of work.”
INVOLVEMENT. Involvement may be defined as “the level of
consumption or absorption in an activity” (Neal, Uysal, and
Sirgy, 1995, p. 146)—the higher the level of consumption or
absorption, the higher the level of involvement. Travelers
with high levels of involvement could, for example, become
extremely active in researching the trip or very participative
in activities at the destination site. An example of a measure-
ment item for this subconstruct is: “On this trip, I became
emotionally involved and engaged with people and things.”
AROUSAL. Arousal refers to internal excitement, stimulation,
exhilaration, or inspiration. Arousal may occur from the antici-
pation of planning a trip (Hammitt, 1980), from the excite-
ment of drawing near to the destination site (Hammitt, 1980),
or from meeting people and experiencing new things during
the trip, for instance. An example of a measurement item for
this subconstruct is: “On this trip, I got involved with an
exciting activity.”
MASTERY. Mastery is often experienced if one feels as though
he/she has achieved great things by conquering circumstances
or the environment (Murphy et al., 1973). Experiencing the
feelings of mastery could occur at any or all phases of the
J Busn Res 157
1999:44:153–163
trip. For instance, travelers could feel mastery if they actually
accomplished the purpose of the trip (e.g., to rest and relax).
Further, many individuals who engage in sports activities
during leisure travel have experienced feelings of mastery
(London, Crandall, and Fitzgibbons, 1977). An example of a
measurement of this subconstruct is: “On this trip, I was able
to sharpen my skills on a passionate hobby or sport.”
SPONTANEITY. Spontaneity is defined by Unger and Kernan
as “not routine, planned, or anticipated” (1983, p. 383). Spon-
taneity could include changing travel plans on the spur of the
moment, exploring along the way, or asking the opinion of
“locals” and doing something based on the information re-
ceived. An example of a measurement item for this subcon-
struct is: “On this trip, I got to feel spontaneous. . . .”
Methodology
A survey questionnaire was distributed to 2,700 faculty and
graduate students at a large university in the Southeast. Partici-
pants were asked to respond to a series of questions in relation
to the most recent leisure trip they had taken. The response
rate was 14% (n 5 373). The response rate likely would have
been greater had the survey not been administered during
the summer, when a large portion of the population was off
campus. Since the objective of this study was to develop and
test a theory-based QOL satisfaction model with associated
hypotheses in relation to leisure travel, a convenient sampling
was deemed acceptable.
Three items were used to measure each construct. Well-
tested measurements were not available for some of the con-
structs; therefore, some items were selected based on concep-
tual definitions derived from the literature. All items were
measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly
agree” to “strongly disagree.” A “not applicable” choice was
made available for most of the constructs. Appendix A shows
the individual items of the constructs with mean scores and
standard deviations.
The service aspects of travel/tourism phases were measured
by asking questions related to satisfaction with the quality of
the travel industry professionals, the quality of the services,
and the cost of services in relation to each phase of the trip
(see Table 1). The alpha reliability for these measures was:
0.85 (pretrip), 0.85 (en route), 0.86 (destination), and 0.83
(return trip).
Satisfaction with travel/trip services was measured using
questions related to satisfaction with the quality of the travel
industry professionals, the quality of the services, and the cost
of services related to the overall trip. The Cronbach alpha
reliability for this measure was 0.88 (see Table 1).
Past research was consulted to assist with the development
of questions used to measure trip reflections based on the six
conditions of leisure identified by Unger and Kernan (1983).
Most of the questions in this section were adapted from previ-
ous studies in the area of leisure travel (see Table 1). The
reliability coefficients for these measures were: 0.81 (perceived
158 J Busn Res J. D. Neal et al.
1999:44:153–163

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities for Variables of Study

Cronbach’s
Study Variables Mean Score SD Alpha

Aspects of travel/tourism phases

• Pretrip services 4.1 0.81 0.85
• En route services 4.0 0.86 0.85
• Destination services 3.9 0.84 0.86
• Return trip services 3.8 0.93 0.83
Trip Reflections
• Perceived freedom from control 3.9 0.93 0.81
• Perceived freedom from work 4.1 0.94 0.86
• Involvement 3.7 0.86 0.69
• Arousal 3.5 0.93 0.77
• Mastery 3.0 1.11 0.87
• Spontaneity 3.3 1.11 0.85
Leisure experiences at home 3.8 0.74 0.73
Nonleisure life domains 3.9 0.70 NA
Travel/tourism trip services 3.9 0.78 0.88
Travel/tourism trip experience 4.1 0.81 0.89
Leisure life 3.3 0.93 0.66
Life in general 4.1 0.75 0.91

Note: At least three items were used to measure each construct and items were measured using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 being ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to 5 being ‘‘strongly
agree’’.

freedom from control), 0.86 (perceived freedom from work),
0.69 (involvement), 0.77 (arousal), 0.87 (mastery), and 0.85
(spontaneity).
Satisfaction with leisure travel/tourism experiences was
measured by asking questions related to the respondents’ gen-
eral feelings toward the vacation trip (see Table 1). The reliabil-
ity alpha for this measure was 0.89.
Satisfaction with leisure experiences at home was measured
by asking questions in regard to time spent away from work
(see Table 1). The reliability alpha for this measure was 0.73.
Satisfaction with leisure life was measured by questions
that asked if leisure time at home as well as away from home
has recently been spent in meaningful, fulfilling ways (see
Table 1). The reliability alpha for this construct was originally
0.42 (see Table 1). One measurement item that was not highly
correlated with the others was removed from the study. This
item deletion improved the reliability alpha to 0.66.
Satisfaction with six nonleisure life domains (e.g., job, fam-
ily, health, relationship, community, and financial situation)
was measured with a single item each, which had been well
tested in prior research studies (see Table 1).
Satisfaction with life in general was measured using the
following questions: (1) I am generally happy with my life,
(2) Although I have my ups and downs, in general I feel good
about my life, and (3) I lead a meaningful and fulfilling life.
The reliability alpha for this construct was 0.91.
Results
A LISREL analysis was conducted to test the goodness of fit
of the model. The results indicated that the proposed model
(Figure 2) was not fully supported and needed adjustment
(chi-square with 15 df 5 103.94, p 5 .00; RMR 5 0.06;
standardized RMR 5 0.10; GFI 5 0.92; adjusted GFI 5 0.81;
parsimony GFI 5 0.38; CFI 5 0.92). LISREL output suggested
several modification indices to enhance the goodness of fit.
These are shown in Figure 3.
The modified model generated more acceptable goodness-
of-fit figures (chi-square with 8 df 5 11.94, p 5 .15; RMR 5
0.02; standardized RMR 5 0.03; GFI 5 0.99; adjusted GFI 5
0.96; parsimony GFI 5 0.22; CFI 5 1.00). The only indicator
that didn’t improve is the parsimony GFI (original model 0.38
versus 0.22 for the modified model). That is, although the
data are more consistent with the modified model, they are
also less parsimonious because of the addition of several rela-
tionships.
Satisfaction with Life in General
It was hypothesized that life satisfaction is a positive function
of satisfaction with leisure life and satisfaction with nonleisure
life (i.e., satisfaction with job, family, health, relationships, com-
munity, financial situation). The results of the first run LISREL
provided support for this hypothesis. Life satisfaction was found
to be significantly predicted by leisure satisfaction (beta 5 0.09,
p , .05) and nonleisure satisfaction (beta 5 0.58, p , .01). Both
predictors accounted for 34% of the variance in life satisfaction.
However, the modified LISREL model indicated a diminishing
effect for leisure satisfaction (beta 5 20.05, p . .05) on life
satisfaction. Nonleisure satisfaction maintained its significant
impact on life satisfaction (beta 5 0.53, p , .01). Furthermore,
life satisfaction was also significantly predicted by satisfaction
Satisfaction with Leisure Travel/Tourism Services
Figure 3. Modified model. The “thicker”
arrows denote originally hypothesized re-
lationships, whereas the “thinner” arrows
indicate relationships derived from the
data.
with leisure experiences at home (beta 5 0.20, p , .01) and
satisfaction with travel/tourism trip experiences (beta 5 0.19,
p , .01). The combined predictors in the modified LISREL
model accounted for 47% of the variance in life satisfaction
scores (compared with 34% in the original model—an increase
of 13% in the multiple R square).
These results indicate that the impact of satisfaction with
travel/tourism trip experiences on life satisfaction is more direct
than originally hypothesized, and therefore more important.
Satisfaction with Leisure Life
It was hypothesized that leisure satisfaction is a positive func-
tion of satisfaction with leisure experiences at home and satis-
faction with travel/tourism trip experiences. The results of the
first run LISREL provided only moderate or partial support
for this hypothesis. Leisure satisfaction was found to be signifi-
cantly predicted by only satisfaction with leisure experiences
at home (beta 5 0.83, p , .01), not satisfaction with travel/
tourism trip experiences (beta 5 0.04, p . .05). Both predictors
accounted for 45% of the variance in leisure satisfaction.
J Busn Res 159
1999:44:153–163
The modified LISREL model was mostly consistent with the
results of the original LISREL model. The impact of satisfaction
with travel/tourism trip experiences remained nonsignificant
(beta 5 20.03, p . .05). The impact of satisfaction with leisure
experiences at home remained high (beta 5 0.76, p , .01).
Furthermore, leisure satisfaction was also significantly pre-
dicted by satisfaction with nonleisure life domains, e.g., family,
job, health (beta 5 0.22, p , .01). The combined predictors
in the modified LISREL model accounted for 47% of the vari-
ance in leisure satisfaction scores (compared with 45% in the
original model—an increase of 2% in the multiple R square).
These results reinforce the observation that the impact of
satisfaction with travel/tourism trip experiences on life satis-
faction may be more direct than mediated by leisure satisfac-
tion as originally hypothesized.
Satisfaction with Travel/Tourism Trip Experiences
It was hypothesized that satisfaction with travel/tourism trip
experiences is a positive function of satisfaction with trip
reflections and satisfaction with travel/tourism trip services.
160 J Busn Res
1999:44:153–163
The results of the first run LISREL provided strong support
for this hypothesis. Satisfaction with travel/tourism trip experi-
ences was found to be significantly predicted by satisfaction
with trip reflections (beta 5 0.60, p , .01) and satisfaction
with travel/tourism trip services (beta 5 0.25, p , .01). Both
predictors accounted for 44% of the variance in satisfaction
with travel/tourism trip experiences.
The modified LISREL model was highly consistent with the
results of the original LISREL model. The impact of satisfaction
with trip reflections remained strong and significant (beta 5
0.60, p , .01). Also, the impact of satisfaction with travel/
tourism trip services remained high (beta 5 0.25, p , .01).
The combined predictors in the modified LISREL model ac-
counted for 46% of the variance in leisure satisfaction scores
(compared with 44% in the original model—an increase of
2% in the multiple R square).
Satisfaction with Travel/Tourism Trip Services
It was hypothesized that satisfaction with travel/tourism trip
services is a positive function of satisfaction with the service
aspects of travel tourism phases (i.e., pretrip, en route, destina-
tion, and return trip services). The results of the first run
LISREL provided strong support for this hypothesis. Satisfac-
tion with travel/tourism trip services was found to be signifi-
cantly predicted by satisfaction with the service aspects of
travel tourism phases (pretrip, en route, destination, and re-
turn trip services) (beta 5 1.01, p , .01). This predictor
alone accounted for 76% of the variance in satisfaction with
travel/tourism trip services.
The modified LISREL model was highly consistent with the
results of the original LISREL model. The impact of satisfaction
with the service aspects of travel tourism phases (i.e., pretrip,
en route, destination, and return trip services) remained strong
and significant (beta 5 0.97, p , .01). However, the modified
model also revealed that satisfaction with trip reflections is a
significant predictor of satisfaction with travel/tourism trip
services (beta 5 0.12, p , .01), which was not hypothesized.
The combined predictors in the modified LISREL model ac-
counted for 77% of the variance in satisfaction with travel/
tourism trip services (compared with 76% in the original
model—an increase of 1% in the multiple R square). This
very marginal increase in the multiple R square does not
make a case for satisfaction with trip reflections as playing an
important role in satisfaction with travel/tourism trip services.
Whatever little effect exists may account for a bias effect. That
is, it is very likely that strong or intense positive or negative
trip reflections may bias the respondent’s judgment of the
travel/tourism trip services.
The last point of the revised LISREL model deals with the
link between satisfaction with life in general and satisfaction
with the service aspects of travel/tourism phases and satisfac-
tion with travel/tourism trip services. It was found that al-
though a link existed between these two independent variables
and the dependent variable of satisfaction with life in general,
the strengths of the link were rather negligible.
J. D. Neal et al.
Conclusion
In the modified QOL model, satisfaction with leisure life be-
came insignificant, suggesting that respondents may perceive
the travel and tourism experience as “substitute” (synony-
mous) with leisure life. This result indicates that travel/tourism
trip experiences have a direct impact on the overall life satisfac-
tion of leisure travelers. In the absence of the leisure life
construct, nonleisure life domains (e.g., family, job, health)
had a direct effect on satisfaction with life in general. However,
satisfaction with leisure experiences at home seems to influ-
ence satisfaction with both leisure life and life in general.
Although the study did not hypothesize that trip reflections
would affect satisfaction with travel/tourism trip services, it
was found that a positive significant relationship existed be-
tween the two. This finding supports the notion that all phases
of a travel experience affect satisfaction with travel/tourism
services. This suggests that regardless of how satisfied travelers
may be with their pretrip, en route, destination and return
trip–related services, their overall reflection on the trip itself
would be important in reporting their satisfaction with the
overall travel/tourism services.
Managerial Implications
The managerial implications of this study are paramount to
travel/tourism industry managers. The results show that in-
deed travel/tourism industry performance can be measured not
only through profitability but also through the kind of customer
satisfaction that is enduring and contributing to QOL.
We recommend that industry leaders use the following
constructs and measures to monitor the health of the industry
on a regular basis: satisfaction with the service aspects of
travel/tourism phases, satisfaction with travel/tourism services,
trip reflections and satisfaction with travel/tourism experi-
ences. The health of the industry can be monitored on an
annual basis by using a national survey selected from the
traveling population. We recommend that the data be col-
lected using a mail survey.
Future Research
Future research should focus on further validating the mea-
sures of the model’s constructs. Validation studies should be
conducted using a variety of traveling populations in different
settings in different geographic areas.
Also further research should attempt to develop a better
measure of satisfaction with leisure life. The reliability of the
measure was not adequate, and perhaps this problem played
a role in the nonsignificant relationship between satisfaction
with leisure life and satisfaction with life in general. This
relationship has been evidenced through much research in
QOL (e.g. Andrews and Withey, 1976; Campbell, Converse,
and Rodgers, 1976). Perhaps a more reliable measure of satis-
faction with leisure life would show the expected relationships
with life satisfaction.
Satisfaction with Leisure Travel/Tourism Services
References
Aiello, Jr., A., Czepiel, J. A., and Rosenberg, L. J.: Scaling the Heights
of Consumer Satisfaction: An Evaluation of Alternative Measures,
in Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaint Behavior,
R. Day, ed., Indiana University School of Business, Bloomington,
IN. 1977, pp. 43–50.
Allen, L. R., and Beattie, R.: The Role of Leisure as an Indicator
of Overall Satisfaction with Community Life. Journal of Leisure
Research 16 (1984): 99–109.
Allen, Lawrence R., and Donnelly, Mary Ann: An Analysis of the
Social Unit of Participation and the Perceived Psychological Out-
comes Associated with Most Enjoyable Recreational Activities.
Leisure Sciences 7 (1985): 421–441.
Allen, L. R., Long, P. T., Perdue, R. R., and Kieselback, S.: The
Impact of Tourism Development on Residents’ Perceptions of
Community Life. Journal of Travel Research 27 (1988): 16–21.
Andrews, F. M., and Withey, S. B.: Social Indicators of Well-being:
America’s Perception of Life Quality, Plenum Press, New York.
1976.
Bartlett, P., and Einert, A. E.: Analysis of the Design Function of an
Adult Softball Complex in a New Public Recreation Park. Journal
of Park and Recreation Administration 10 (1992): 71–81.
Burnstein, G., Freeman, H. E., Sirontic, K. A., Delanshere, G., and
Holis, H.: Data Collection: The Achilles Heel of Evaluation Re-
search. Sociological Methods and Research 14 (1985): 65–80.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., and Rodgers, W. L.: The Quality of
American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations, and Satisfactions, Russell
Sage Foundation, New York. 1976.
Clawson, M., and Knetsch, J. L.: Economics of Outdoor Recreation,
The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore and London. 1971.
Connely, N. A.: Critical Factors and their Threshold for Camper
Satisfaction at Two Campgrounds. Journal of Leisure Research 19
(1987): 59–173.
Czepiel, J. A., and Rosenberg, L. J.: The Study of Consumer Satisfac-
tion, in AMA Educators’ Proceedings, American Marketing Associa-
tion, Chicago. 1974, pp. 119–123.
de Grazia, Sebastian: Of Time, Work, and Leisure, The Twentieth
Century Fund, New York. 1962.
Ellis, M. J.: Why People Play, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
1973.
Fielding, K. A., Pearce, P. L., and Hughes, K.: Climbing Rock: Relating
Visitor Motivation, Time Perception and Enjoyment. Journal of
Tourism Studies 3 (1992): 49–57.
Fishbein, Martin, and Ajzen, Icek: Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behav-
ior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Bos-
ton, MA. 1975.
Hammitt, William E.: Outdoor Recreation: Is It a Multi-phase Experi-
ence? Journal of Leisure Research 12 (1980): 107–115.
Iso-Ahola, S.: Basic Dimensions of Definitions of Leisure. Journal of
Leisure Research 11 (1979): 28–39.
Kelly, H. L., Langenau, E. E., and Levine, R. L.: Dimensions of
Hunting Satisfaction: Multiple-Satisfactions of Wild Turkey Hunt-
ing. Leisure Sciences 12 (1990): 383–393.
Kelly, John R.: A Revised Paradigm of Leisure Choices. Leisure Sciences
1 (1978): 345–363.
Kelly, John R.: Leisure, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1982.
Langer, E., and Newman, H.: The Role of Mindlessness in a Typical
J Busn Res 161
1999:44:153–163
Social Psychological Experiment. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 5 (1979): 295–298.
Lieber, S. R., and Fesenmaier, D. R.: Physical and Social Conditions
Affecting Recreation Site Preferences. Environment and Planning
17 (1985): 1613–1625.
London, Manuel, Crandall, Rick, and Fitzgibbons, Dale: The Psycho-
logical Structure of Leisure: Activities, Needs, People. Journal of
Leisure Research 9 (1977): 252–263.
Lounsbury, J. W., and Polik, J. R.: Leisure Needs and Vacation
Satisfaction, Leisure Sciences 14 (1992): 105–119.
Meadow, H. Lee: The Satisfaction Attitude Hierarchy: Does Marketing
Contribute? in Proceedings 1988, American Marketing Association
Winters’ Conference, S. Shapiro et al., eds. American Marketing
Association, Chicago, IL. 1988, pp. 482–483.
Meadow, H. Lee, and Sirgy, M. Joseph, eds.: Quality-of-Life Studies
in Marketing and Management: Proceedings of the Third Confer-
ence on Quality-of-Life and Marketing, 1990.
Murphy, James F., Williams, John G., Niepoth, F. William, and
Brown, Paul D.: Leisure Service Delivery System: A Modern Perspec-
tive, Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, PA. 1973.
Neal, Janet D., Uysal, Muzaffer, and Sirgy, M. Joseph: Developing a
Macro measure of QOL/Leisure Satisfaction with Travel/Tourism
Services: Stage One (Conceptualization), in Developments in Qual-
ity-of-Life Studies in Marketing, Vol. 6 (Proceedings of the Fifth
Quality-of-Life/Marketing Conference), H. Lee Meadow, M. Jo-
seph Sirgy, and Don Rahtz, eds., Academy of Marketing Science,
Coral Gables, FL. 1995, pp. 145–149.
Neugarten, B. L., Havighurst, R. J., and Tobin, S. S.: Measurement
of Life Satisfaction. Journal of Gerontology 16 (1961): 134–143.
Noe, F.: Measurement Specification and Leisure Satisfaction. Leisure
Sciences 9 (1987): 163–172.
Noe, F., and Uysal, M.: Evaluation of Outdoor Recreational Settings:
A Problem of Measuring User Satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services Behavior (in press).
Samli, A. C.: Marketing and the Quality-of-Life Interface, Greenwood
Press, Bridgeport, CT. 1986.
Sirgy, M. J., ed.: Special Issue: Quality-of-Life Studies in Marketing
and Management. Journal of Business and Psychology 6 (Fall 1991a).
Sirgy, M. J., ed.: Special Issue: Quality of Life. Journal of Business
Research 23 (August 1991b).
Sirgy, M. J., Meadow, H. L., Rahtz, D., and Samli, A. C., eds.:
Developments in Quality-of-Life Studies in Marketing, Vol. 4, Acad-
emy of Marketing Science, Blacksburg, VA. 1992.
Sirgy, M. J., and Samli, A. C.: New Dimensions in Marketing and
Quality-of-Life Research, Greenwood Press, Bridgeport, CT. 1995.
Swan, J., and Combs, L.: Product Performance and Consumer Satis-
faction. Journal of Marketing Research 40 (April 1976): 25–33.
Unger, Lynette S., and Kernan, Jerome B.: On the Meaning of Leisure:
An Investigation on Some Determinants of the Subjective Leisure
Experience. Journal of Consumer Research 9 (1983): 381–392.
Vaske, J., Donnelly, M., and Williamson, B. N.: Monitoring for Qual-
ity Control in State Park Management. Journal of Park and Recre-
ation Administration 9 (1991): 59–72.
Whipple, T. W., and Thach, S. V.: Group Tour Management: Does
Good Service Produce Satisfied Customers? Journal of Travel Re-
search 27 (1988): 16–21.
162 J Busn Res J. D. Neal et al.
1999:44:153–163

Appendix A. Individual Items of the Constructs with Mean Scores and Standard Deviation
Constructs Mean Score SD

Satisfaction with travel/tourism services related to the pretrip

• I was satisfied with the quality of the services provided by travel and tourism professionals
(e.g., travel agents, ticket agents, hotel reservation clerks) while planning the trip. 4.1 0.87
• Making travel and accommodation arrangements for this trip was basically problem-free. 4.0 0.95
• The cost of the services provided by travel and tourism professionals in helping me with the travel
logistics was reasonable and well worth it. 4.1 1.00
Satisfaction with travel/tourism services related to the en route trip
• I was pleased with the quality of the services provided in transit to the vacation site. 4.0 0.93
• My travels to the vacation site were basically problem free. 4.0 1.04
• The cost of travel to the vacation site was reasonable and well worth it. 4.0 0.95
Satisfaction with travel/tourism services at the destination site
• Tourist services at the vacation site (e.g., regarding activities, tourist attractions, restaurants, hotels)
were comprehensive and of high quality. These services made the trip a richer experience. 4.1 0.91
• Tourist services provided at the vacation site were basically problem-free. 4.0 0.96
• The cost of tourist services at the vacation site were reasonable and well worth it. 3.8 1.00
Satisfaction with travel/tourism services related to return trip
• I was satisfied with the quality of the services provided by those who assisted me on the way home
(e.g., flight attendant, cabin steward, bus driver, ticket agents). 3.8 1.00
• My return travels were basically problem-free. 3.6 1.37
• The cost of travel home from the vacation site was reasonable and well worth it. 3.8 1.01
Satisfaction with travel/tourism services related to the trip in general
• In general, I was pleased with the quality of the travel and tourism services related to this trip. 4.1 0.79
• The travel and tourism services related to this vacation trip were basically problem-free. 3.9 0.92
• The costs of the travel and tourism services related to this vacation trip were reasonable and well 3.9 0.92
worth it.
Trip reflections
• On this trip, I felt free to do the kinds of things that I can’t do at home 4.0 0.97
• On this trip, I felt free from the controls of other people. I felt in control of my movements and
actions. 3.7 1.15
• On this trip, I felt free from the pressures of life. 3.9 1.09
• On this trip, I felt far away from the drudgery of work. 4.2 1.00
• I needed to get away from work and relax. This trip helped me to rejuvenate. 4.1 1.04
• I was feeling overworked and emotionally exhausted. This trip helped me to get away from the stress
and strains of work. 3.8 1.13
• On this trip, I became emotionally involved and engaged with people and things. This experience was
very pleasant for me. 3.7 1.07
• This trip allowed me to get close to my spouse, children, relatives, and/or friends. It was very much
worthwhile. 4.2 0.92
• On this trip, I was able to reestablish a relationship with people I care a lot for. 3.1 1.14
• On this trip, I managed to do exciting things. I experienced a lot of thrills. This experience has been
enriching. 3.8 1.06
• On this trip, I established friendships with one or more new people. This was exciting. I needed to
make new friends. 3.1 1.16
• On this trip, I got involved with an exciting activity, I felt alive. 3.6 1.03
• On this trip, I was able to pursue a passionate interest. This experience was thrilling. 3.2 1.20
• On this trip, I had a chance to master a hobby or sport. I had wanted to do this for a long time
but never had the chance. 2.6 1.04
• On this trip, I was able to sharpen my skills on a passionate hobby or sport. This was very rewarding
to me. 2.8 1.19

(continued)
Satisfaction with Leisure Travel/Tourism Services J Busn Res 163
1999:44:153–163

Appendix A Continued
Constructs Mean Score SD

• On this trip, I got to feel spontaneous. This experience has enriched me in ways I never expected. 3.3 1.16
• One cannot afford to be spontaneous in everyday life. But one needs to be spontaneous once in a
while. This trip allowed me to do just that—be spontaneous. 3.2 1.19
Satisfaction with the general trip experience
• All in all, I feel that this trip has enriched my life. I’m really glad I went on this trip. 4.1 0.91
• On this trip, I accomplished the purpose of the vacation. This experience has enriched me in some
ways. 4.2 0.82
• This trip was rewarding to me in many ways. I felt much better about things and myself after this
trip. 4.0 0.96
Satisfaction with leisure experiences at home
• I do things that are fulfilling when I’m off work. 3.9 0.90
• Lately, I have been feeling very good about the way I spend my leisure time after work. 3.3 1.06
• Leisure time after work is very important to me. 4.3 0.77
Satisfaction with leisure experiences at large
• Recently, I have been spending quality leisure time in general—after work as well as going on
vacations. 3.3 1.06
• I am the kind of person who knows how to enjoy leisure time anytime and anywhere. 3.3 1.06
• Leisure time after work and going away on vacation trips are very important to me. My life becomes
very stressful without leisure. 4.1 0.88
Satisfaction with nonleisure life domains
• I am generally happy with my job. 3.8 1.00
• I am generally happy with my family situation. 4.0 0.99
• I am generally happy with my personal health. 4.0 0.91
• I am generally happy with the relationships I have with people such as relatives. 4.1 0.78
• I am generally happy with my community and neighborhood. 3.9 0.88
• I am generally happy with my standard of living and financial situation. 3.6 1.10
Satisfaction with life in general
• I am generally happy with my life. 4.1 0.77
• Although I have my ups and downs, in general, I feel good about life. 4.2 0.78
• I lead a meaningful and fulfilling life. 4.1 0.88

Note: Respondents utilized a 5-point Likert type scale to indicate the level of agreement/disagreement with individual items. The scale ranged from 1 being ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to
5 being ‘‘strongly agree.’’