MAY 2004 OF TRAVEL RESEARCH
10.1177/0047287504263037
JOURNAL
The Roles of Quality, Value, and
Satisfaction in Predicting Cruise
Passengers’ Behavioral Intentions
JAMES F. PETRICK
The purpose of the current study was to examine the rela-
tionships between satisfaction, perceived value, and quality
in their prediction of intentions to repurchase and positive
word of mouth publicity. These constructs have been exam-
ined from three distinctly different perspectives, resulting in
three competing models. Thus, the satisfaction model, per-
ceived value model, and quality model were utilized to assess
which one best explains cruise passengers’ behavioral inten-
tions. Results revealed that the quality model most accurately
fit the data and that quality was the best predictor of inten-
tions to repurchase. Quality was found to have both a moder-
ated and direct effect on behavioral intentions. Specific
theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.
Keywords: quality; perceived value; SERV-PERVAL;
satisfaction; intention to repurchase; cruise; word of mouth
Most tourism managers would acknowledge that they
strive to provide quality and satisfying and valuable experi-
ences to their clientele in hopes that visitors will desire to
repurchase the experience. Past research has suggested that
each of these constructs (value, satisfaction, and quality)
should be measured to understand more thoroughly why
tourists decide to return and/or provide positive word of
mouth publicity regarding their experiences (Baker and
Crompton 2000; Getty and Thompson 1994; Petrick and
Backman 2002a; Petrick, Morais, and Norman 2001; Tam
2000). Yet, tourism managers often use these conceptually
different constructs interchangeably, thus utilizing only one
measure (or worse yet, none) to represent the antecedents of
repurchase. By understanding the relationships among the
antecedents of repurchase, and their determinants, tourism
managers would be better equipped to alter their provisions
and marketing efforts to maximize their use of resources.
Perceived value (Jayanti and Ghosh 1996; Petrick and
Backman 2002b), satisfaction (Spreng, Mackenzie, and
Olshavsky 1996; Petrick and Backman 2002c), and quality
(Baker and Crompton 2000; Oh 1999) all have been shown to
be good predictors of repurchase intentions. Research has
also shown that these concepts are quite distinct (Caruana,
Money, and Berthon 2000). According to Cronin and Taylor
(1994),
service quality perceptions reflect a consumer’s
evaluative perception of a service encounter at a spe-
cific point in time. In contrast, consumer satisfaction
judgments are experiential in nature, involving both
an end state and a process, and reflecting both emo-
tional and cognitive elements. (P. 127)
In contrast, value has been argued to be more individual-
istic than satisfaction and quality (Oh 2000) and involves the
benefits received for the price paid (Zeithaml 1988). Further-
more, quality and perceived value are cognitive responses to
a service experience, while satisfaction is an affective re-
sponse (Baker and Crompton 2000; Cronin, Brady, and Hult
2000).
This article provides a review of the literature on satisfac-
tion, perceived value, and quality, including empirically
tested relationships among these constructs, and seeks to test
the most prevalent models. Thus, the purpose of the study is
to examine the relationships between satisfaction, perceived
value, and quality in their prediction of intentions to repur-
chase and positive word-of-mouth publicity.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Consumer Satisfaction
Past research has suggested that satisfaction is an excel-
lent predictor of repurchase intentions (Choi and Chu 2001;
Petrick 2002; Tam 2000). One of the most often cited defini-
tions of satisfaction is that of Rust and Oliver (1994) who
state that satisfaction reflects the degree to which one
believes that an experience evokes positive feelings (Rust
and Oliver 1994). Thus, satisfaction is an overall affective
response due to the use of a product or service (Oliver 1981).
Due to its ability to predict future purchase behavior, the
understanding of what causes one to be satisfied has been
argued to be one of the most important challenges facing
businesses (Oliver 1997). Barsky and Labagh (1992) suggest
that by knowing how the components of a product or service
affect consumers’ satisfaction, planning for the future could
be limited to adapting product or service offerings to
James F. Petrick, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Depart-
ment of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences at Texas A&M Uni-
versity, College Station.
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42, May 2004, 397-407
DOI: 10.1177/0047287504263037
© 2004 Sage Publications
398 MAY 2004
maximize current customers’ service ratings. To this end,
researchers have examined the influence of numerous ante-
cedents on consumers’ postpurchase satisfaction judgments
(Barsky 1992; Madrigal 1995; Petrick, Backman, and Bixler
1999; Spreng, Mackenzie, and Olshavsky 1996). This body
of research has generally found that antecedents that are most
highly related to satisfaction (either negatively or positively)
are the most important variables to monitor.
According to Baker and Crompton (2000), the majority
of both marketing and tourism research on satisfaction has
built upon the disconfirmation of expectations paradigm
(Weber 1997). A recent meta-analysis of customer satisfac-
tion research found disconfirmation to be the best predictor
of satisfaction (Szymanski and Henard 2001). The disconfir-
mation paradigm suggests that consumer satisfaction/dissat-
isfaction is the result of the comparison of a consumer’s
prepurchase expectations and their postpurchase evaluation
(Engel, Blackwell, and Miniard 1990). Therefore, if consum-
ers feel that the performance of a service is better than they
had expected (termed a positive disconfirmation), they are
satisfied. Conversely, if one believes the perceived perfor-
mance of a service is less than one’s expectations, negative
disconfirmation occurs.
While central to the disconfirmation paradigm, the use of
expectations to measure satisfaction has been argued
(Armstrong, Mok, and Go 1997; Barsky 1992; Johnson
1998; Petrick and Backman 2002c; Spreng, Mackenzie, and
Olshavsky 1996; Williams 1989). According to Barsky
(1992), expectations have been frequently accepted as affect-
ing satisfaction, yet there is inconclusive evidence that they
directly lead to satisfaction or dissatisfaction. One problem
with the disconfirmation of expectations model is that if
one’s expectations are decreased, their satisfaction must
inevitably increase. Thus, the model would suggest that con-
sumers who expect and receive poor performance will be sat-
isfied (LaTour and Peat 1979).
This relationship may also be hindered according to the
context of delivery. Johnson (1998) proposes that the effects
of expectations on satisfaction are weaker in a service con-
text because the intangible nature of services makes informa-
tion on expectations less concrete and less useful. For this
reason, several researchers suggest that a leisure service’s
performance may be the crucial determinant of future pur-
chase intentions and good word of mouth instead of expecta-
tions or disconfirmation (Olshavsky and Miller 1972;
Spreng, Mackenzie, and Olshavsky 1996; Whipple and
Thatch 1988).
Thus, while expectations may assist in the understanding
of satisfaction formation, they have been found to be detri-
mental in trying to predict repurchase intentions (Petrick and
Backman 2002c; Tam 2000). Therefore, for the purpose of
the current study, satisfaction will be measured as perfor-
mance, without a measure of disconfirmation.
Perceived Value
Past research has revealed that the measurement of con-
sumer satisfaction should be used in conjunction with the
measurement of perceived value (Oh 2000; Woodruff 1997).
According to Woodruff (1997, p. 139), if “consumer satis-
faction measurement is not backed up with in-depth learning
about customer value and related problems that underlie their
evaluations, it may not provide enough of the customer’s
voice to guide managers in how to respond.” It has further
been revealed that satisfaction measures do not always corre-
late highly with repurchase intentions, as customers often
state that they are satisfied yet purchase elsewhere (Jones and
Sasser 1995). Thus, satisfaction measures may be easier to
interpret and more informative if backed up with perceived
value measurement.
Empirical research also has revealed that high levels of
perceived value result in both future purchase intentions and
behavior (Baker et al. 2002; Bojanic 1996; Grewal, Monroe,
and Krishnan 1998). Thus, it is possible that satisfaction is an
antecedent to the outcome of perceived value and perceived
value is what leads to repeat purchase and brand loyalty over
time.
One of the most widely used definitions of perceived
value is that it is “the consumer’s overall assessment of the
utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received
and what is given” (Zeithaml, 1988, p. 14). Zeithaml (1988)
identified four patterns of responses in an exploratory study,
resulting in four potential definitions of value:
1. Value is low price.
2. Value is whatever one wants in a product.
3. Value is the quality that the consumer receives for the
price paid.
4. Value is what consumers get for what they give.
While each of these definitions has merit, the vast majority of
past research has focused on the fourth meaning of value
(Bojanic 1996; Caruana, Money, and Berthon 2000; Tam
2000; Zeithaml 1985).
Buzzell and Gale (1987) argue that perceived value of the
total package of products and services is what influences
consumer behavior and is the best predictor of competitive
success. According to Bojanic (1996), this notion of relative
perceived value results in three possible value positions:
offering comparable quality at a comparable price, offering
superior quality at a premium price, or offering inferior qual-
ity at a discounted price. Thus, service providers’ relative
value will change if they modify what they are doing, if com-
petitors modify what they are doing, or if a customer’s needs
and/or preferences change.
Recent research has suggested that perceived value may
be a better predictor of repurchase intentions, than either sat-
isfaction or quality (Cronin, Brady, and Hult 2000; Oh 2000).
Oh (2000) measured fine-dining patrons’ perceptions of
quality, value, and satisfaction both prior to and after their
dining experience. Results found that value was a superior
predictor of repurchase intentions, both pre- and
postexperience.
While the role of perceived value in consumer behavior
has received far less attention than service quality and cus-
tomer satisfaction (Tam 2000), this may be due to a lack of
good perceived value measures. According to Semon (1998),
measures of perceived value historically have been poor. Fur-
thermore, measurement of perceived value has been cited as
a main cause for problems in drawing conclusive relation-
ships between satisfaction, perceived value, and repurchase
intentions (Jayanti and Ghosh 1996; Petrick and Backman
2002b).
Perceived value is most commonly analyzed with a self-
reported, unidimensional measure (Gale 1994). The problem
with a single item measure is that it assumes that consumers

have a shared meaning of value. According to Zeithaml
(1988, p. 471), “quality and value are not well differentiated
from each other and from similar constructs such as per-
ceived worth and utility.” It has therefore been argued that
single-item measures of perceived value lack validity
(Woodruff and Gardial 1996). Another inherent problem is
that unidimensional measures result in the knowledge of how
well one is rated for value but give no specific direction on
how to improve value.
Recent research has produced a multidimensional scale
(SERV-PERVAL) for measuring perceived value (Petrick
2002). The SERV-PERVAL scale operationalizes perceived
value as a five-dimensional construct consisting of quality,
monetary price, non-monetary price, reputation, and
emotional response.
In developing the SERV-PERVAL scale, quality was
defined as a consumer’s judgment about a product or ser-
vice’s overall excellence or superiority (Zeithaml 1988).
Emotional response was defined as a descriptive judgment
regarding the pleasure that a product or service gives the pur-
chaser (Sweeney et al. 1998). Thus, emotional response dif-
fers from satisfaction in that it is an affective response to the
purchase of a service, while satisfaction is an affective
response to experiencing a service. The definition utilized for
monetary price was the price of a service as encoded by the
consumer (Jacoby and Olson 1977). Behavioral price was
defined as the price (nonmonetary) of obtaining a service that
included the time and effort used to search for the service
(Zeithaml 1988). Finally, reputation was defined as the pres-
tige or status of a product or service, as perceived by the pur-
chaser, based on the image of the supplier (Dodds et al.
1991).
The scale has been found to be both reliable and valid,
with all items significantly (p < .05) assisting in the predic-
tion of their assigned factor, and each of the factors of per-
ceived value reliably measuring their respective construct
(Petrick 2002). Hence, the current study postulates that over-
all perceived value consists of a five-dimensional construct
including quality, monetary price, nonmonetary price, repu-
tation, and emotional response.
Quality
Quality has been shown to be an antecedent of both satis-
faction (Caruana, Money, and Berthon 2000; Baker and
Crompton 2000) and perceived value (Baker et al. 2002;
Petrick 2002) and to be a good predictor of repurchase inten-
tions (Baker and Crompton 2000; Getty and Thompson
1994). According to Ruyter, Wetzels, and Bloemer (1998, p.
449), “quality has an impact on customer preference and the
willingness to recommend the service to other consumers”
and “leads to a more favourable disposition towards the ser-
vice providor and the commitment to repatronage increases.”
Whereas satisfaction is an emotional state of mind cre-
ated by exposure to a service experience, quality refers to an
evaluation of “the attributes of a service which are primarily
controlled by a supplier” (Baker and Crompton 2000, p.
787). Thus, quality is conceptualized as a measure of the pro-
vider’s performance, while satisfaction is a global measure
of how the provider’s performance (the service experience)
makes the tourist feel.
There is extensive research that discusses the relationship
between quality and perceived value (Baker et al. 2002;
Cronin, Brady, and Hult 2000; Grewal, Monroe, and
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 399
Krishnan 1998; Parasuraman and Grewal 2000; Zeithaml
1988). This research reveals that quality is not embedded in
perceived value, but it is a direct antecedent and is generally
the best predictor of perceived value.
One of the most extensively used measures of service
quality is SERVQUAL (Cronin and Taylor 1992; Oh 1999).
The SERVQUAL questionnaire was developed by
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) and conceptual-
izes service quality as the difference between consumers’
expectations and their assessments of service performance.
Thus, if service performance meets expectations, the
expectation is confirmed.
From their research in a number of service industries,
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) determined that
customers base their assessment of service quality on five
distinct dimensions, namely, tangibles, reliability, respon-
siveness, assurance, and empathy. Tangibles refer to physical
facilities, equipment, and appearance of personnel. Reliabil-
ity is defined as the ability to perform the promised service
dependably and accurately. Responsiveness is the willing-
ness to help customers and provide prompt service. Assur-
ance refers to the knowledge and courtesy of employees and
their ability to inspire trust and confidence. Empathy is the
caring, individualized attention the firm provides its
customers.
Even though the SERVQUAL questionnaire has been
extensively used to measure service quality, many research-
ers have criticized its applicability. Research suggests that
the SERVQUAL conceptualization of service quality
(Cronin and Taylor 1992) and the relevance of the
disconfirmation of expectations as the basis for measuring
service quality are inadequate (Carman 1990). In the market-
ing literature, it has been suggested that a simple perfor-
mance-based measure of service quality is superior (Wood-
ruff, Cadotte, and Jenkins 1983) and that the current
conceptualization (SERVQUAL) confounds satisfaction and
attitude (Cronin and Taylor 1992).
Cronin and Taylor (1992) proposed that service quality
should be conceptualized and measured as an attitude. They
further suggested that the SERVQUAL questionnaire is a
better measure of service quality if used as a performance-
based measure, without a comparison of expectations. They
empirically examined the performance-only model
(SERVPERF) to SERVQUAL in four industries (banking,
pest control, dry cleaning, and fast food) (Cronin and Taylor
1992). Results found that the structural model of
SERVPERF was superior in all four industries, while reduc-
ing the number of items from 44 to 22 (50%). Crompton and
Love (1995) and Petrick and Backman (2002a) also found
that performance-only measures are superior to contrast
measures utilizing expectations.
Recent conceptualizations suggest alternative measures
of service quality are more appropriate than utilizing
SERVQUAL (Baker and Crompton 2000; Hartline and
Ferrell 1996; Oh 1999). Petrick’s (2002) SERV-PERVAL
scale measures quality based on the Zeithaml (1988) defini-
tion stating that quality is a consumer’s judgment about a
product’s or service’s overall excellence or superiority. Uti-
lizing this definition, the resultant items that measure quality
are related to the reliability of a service. Given that reliability
has consistently been found to be the most important dimen-
sion of quality for recreation and tourism managers
(Asubonteng, McCleary, and Swan 1996; Backman and
400 MAY 2004

Veldkamp 1995; Howat, Crilley, and Milne 1995; Knutson, FIGURE 1

Stevens, and Patton 1995; Ostrowski, O’Brien, and Gordon COMPETING MODELS FOR PREDICTING
BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS
1994) and that performance-only measures have been found
to be superior to expectation disconfirmation measures
(Crompton and Love 1995; Petrick and Backman 2002c), the
current study will operationalize quality with the use of the
quality dimension of Petrick’s (2002) SERV-PERVAL scale.

Relationships between the Variables

Rust and Oliver (1994, p. 14) suggested the importance of
empirically assessing the “antecedent, mediating and conse-
quent relationships” among satisfaction, perceived value,
and quality. Since then, numerous studies have attempted to
model these relationships (e.g., Athanassopoulos 2000;
Baker and Crompton 2000; Cronin, Brady, and Hult 2000;
Oh 1999; Petrick and Backman 2002a; Zeithaml, Berry, and
Parasuraman 1996). While consensus seems to exist that all
three variables are related to behavioral intentions, conflict-
ing arguments have been made related to (a) which variables
are most important to measure, (b) which variables are mod-
erating and which have direct effects on behavioral inten-
tions, and (c) the causal order of these relationships.
Research has shown consistently that quality leads to
both satisfaction (Caruana, Money, and Berthon 2000; Baker
and Crompton 2000) and perceived value (Petrick 2002;
Zeithaml 1988) and that both satisfaction and perceived
value are direct antecedents of behavioral intentions (Cronin,
Brady, and Hult 2000; Petrick and Backman 2002a; Tam
2000). Yet, in some studies, satisfaction has been found to
lead to perceived value (Chang and Wildt 1994; Petrick and
Backman 2002a) while in others perceived value has been
found to lead to satisfaction (Cronin, Brady, and Hult 2000;
Tam 2000). Furthermore, it has been argued that quality is
not only moderated by perceived value and satisfaction in the
prediction of behavioral intentions, but also has a direct rela-
tionship to behavioral intentions (Cronin, Brady, and Hult
2000).
These differences suggest that at least three potential
models exist for explaining the relationships between per-
ceived value, satisfaction, and quality in the prediction of
behavioral intentions (Figure 1). Derived from the consumer
satisfaction literature, the first model (Satisfaction) argues
that perceived value and quality lead to satisfaction, while
both satisfaction and perceived value are direct antecedents
of behavioral intentions (e.g., Oh 1999; Tam 2000). The sec-
ond model is based on the service value literature (Value),
and suggests that satisfaction and quality lead to perceived
value, while both satisfaction and perceived value are direct
antecedents of behavioral intentions (e.g., Chang and Wildt
1994; Petrick and Backman 2002a). The third model (Qual-
ity) is based on the service quality literature that suggests that
quality has both a moderated role (through both perceived
value and satisfaction) and a direct role in predicting behav-
ioral intentions (Baker and Crompton 2000; Cronin, Brady,
and Hult 2000; Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman 1996). A
question mark is placed between the satisfaction, perceived
value relationship (in Model 3 of Figure 1), as the quality
literature depicting this relationship is inconclusive.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
According to Cronin, Brady, and Hult (2000, p. 193),
“service quality, service value and satisfaction issues have
dominated the services literature, yet few studies have simul-
taneously analyzed their relationships in predicting behav-
ioral intentions. Understanding these relationships should
render destination managers better equipped to retain clien-
tele by knowing which variables are most important in cus-
tomer retention. Furthermore, resources could be utilized
more efficiently and managers may be better prepared to
alter their services to retain and/or attract clientele.”
One industry in need of retaining and/or attracting clien-
tele is the cruise industry. While the cruise industry has seen
an annual growth rate of almost 8% since 1980, which is
twice as large as the tourism industry overall (Wood 2000),
recent changes in the market suggest that this rate has leveled
off. According to ShipPax (2002), 2001 was the first year
that the cruise industry registered a decline in the total num-
ber of passengers, and they suggest that this decline may be
due to a saturation of the market. While September 11th may
have had some effect, historically the vast majority of book-
ings in the industry occur well before the beginning of Sep-
tember. ShipPax (2002, p. 1) further suggests that this
decline “emphasizes the shift of volumes to the ‘Big Four’
operators, with fewer and fewer small operators.”
Subsequently, the purpose of the current study is to exam-
ine the relationships between satisfaction, perceived value,
and quality in their prediction of intentions to repurchase and
positive word of mouth publicity. More specifically, the
objective of the current study is to examine which of the
potential models in Figure 1 best fits the data.
While a few studies have found that satisfaction leads to
perceived value (Chang and Wildt 1994; Petrick and
Backman 2002a), the majority have found that perceived

value leads to satisfaction (Cronin, Brady, and Hult 2000; Oh
1999; Tam 2000) in the prediction of behavioral intentions.
Furthermore, it has been argued that quality and perceived
value are cognitive responses to a service experience, while
satisfaction is an emotional response (Cronin, Brady, and
Hult 2000), and that cognitive responses precede emotional
responses (Bagozzi 1992). Thus, it is believed that model 1
will fit the data better than model 2. Therefore, the first
hypothesis of the current study is
Hypothesis 1. Model 1 (perceived value as an antecedent
to satisfaction) will fit the data better than model 2
(satisfaction as an antecedent to perceived value).
Recent literature has suggested that quality has both a
moderated effect on behavioral intentions through perceived
value (Petrick and Backman 2002b; Jayanti and Ghosh 1996)
and satisfaction (Caruana, Money, and Berthon 2000; Baker
and Crompton 2000), and may also have a direct effect
(Cronin, Brady, and Hult 2000). Thus, it is believed that
model 3 will be a better fit of the data than either model 1 or
model 2, and it is hypothesized that
Hypothesis 2. Quality will have a moderated effect
(through both perceived value and satisfaction) and a
direct effect on cruise passengers’ behavioral inten-
tions (model 3 will be a better fit of the data than both
model 1 and model 2).
While perceived value (Jayanti and Ghosh 1996; Petrick
and Backman 2002b), satisfaction (Spreng, Mackenzie, and
Olshavsky 1996; Petrick and Backman 2002c), and quality
(Baker and Crompton 2000; Oh 1999) each have been shown
to be good predictors of repurchase intentions, few studies
have analyzed the simultaneous effect of all three variables.
Oh (1999) analyzed the effects of all three but did not con-
ceptualize a direct effect of quality on behavioral intentions.
Results of the study found that perceived value was a better
predictor than satisfaction. The most inclusive model was ex-
amined by Cronin, Brady, and Hult (2000) who found that all
three variables had a direct effect on repurchase intentions,
and perceived value was the best predictor, followed by qual-
ity and satisfaction. Therefore, the third and fourth
hypotheses are
Hypothesis 3a. Perceived value will assist in the predic-
tion of intentions to repurchase.
Hypothesis 3b. Satisfaction will assist in the prediction of
intentions to repurchase.
Hypothesis 3c. Quality will assist in the prediction of in-
tentions to repurchase.
Hypothesis 4a. Perceived value will be a better predictor
of intentions to repurchase than satisfaction.
Hypothesis 4b. Perceived value will be a better predictor
of intentions to repurchase than quality.
Research also has found that vacationers’ repurchase in-
tentions are good predictors of word of mouth (WOM) pub-
licity (Oh 2000; Oh and Parks 1997). Thus, the final hypoth-
esis is
Hypothesis 5. Cruise passengers’ repurchase intentions
will positively predict their WOM behavioral inten-
tions in all three models.
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 401
RESEARCH METHODS
Participants were sampled on two separate 7-day Carib-
bean voyages, onboard the same ship. To ensure that cruise
passengers taking back-to-back cruises were not sampled
twice, the two samples were taken three weeks apart. On the
second to the last evening of the cruise, one questionnaire
was distributed to each cabin on board the vessel accommo-
dated by a paying cruiser. A total of 591 questionnaires were
distributed during the first cruise, and 592 during the second.
Of these, 394 (66.7%) and 398 (67.2%) completed question-
naires were returned from the first and second cruises,
respectively (N = 792). Among passengers who participated,
the average age was 51.6, the median household income was
$75,000 to $99,999, 58.7% were female, and, on average,
respondents had taken 8.1 cruises in their lifetime. An exami-
nation of all demographic variables and tripographic vari-
ables found no significant differences (p < .05) between the
passengers on the two cruises.
The six-page questionnaire was composed of four sec-
tions. The first section measured participants’ cruising his-
tory (i.e., number of cruises taken, frequency of cruises,
motives for cruising), while the second section measured
variables related to the participant’s current cruise vacation
(i.e., travel party composition, purpose of vacation, miles
traveled, etc.) and behavioral intentions (intentions to repur-
chase and word of mouth). Similar to Grewal, Monroe, and
Krishnan (1998), intentions to repurchase was
operationalized with a two-item, 5-point scale anchored by 1,
very low, and 5, very high. The first item was stated, “If I
were to purchase another cruise, the probability that the vaca-
tion would be with XYZ Cruise Line is.” The second item
was stated, “The likelihood that I would consider purchasing
a XYZ cruise again is.” The respondent’s score for intention
to repurchase was the sum of both items.
WOM was measured with one item, stating, “When dis-
cussing this week’s cruise with other people, which of the
following best describes how positively or negatively you
will talk to others about XYZ cruise line?” Potential response
items were extremely negatively, mostly negatively, some-
what negatively, neutral, somewhat positively, mostly posi-
tively, and extremely positively.
Section 3 measured participants’ satisfaction with their
cruise vacation, overall perceived value of their vacation, and
the five dimensions inherent in the SERV-PERVAL scale.
Overall satisfaction was measured with a single-item, 10-
point scale anchored by very dissatisfied and very satisfied.
As recommended by Petrick (2002), all 25 items of the
SERV-PERVAL scale were utilized to measure the five
dimensions of perceived value. Respondents were asked to
rate the value they felt they received from their cruise vaca-
tion. The 25 items were measured on 5-point scales anchored
by definitely false and definitely true. Quality, Monetary
Price, Behavioral Price, Emotional Response, and Reputa-
tion were measured with four, five, six, five, and five items,
respectively. Overall perceived value was measured sepa-
rately, with a single-item 10-point scale anchored by
extremely poor value and extremely good value. The final
section measured demographic information. Demographic
questions included gender, age, education, ethnicity, and
income.
402 MAY 2004

RESULTS TABLE 1
STANDARDIZED PATH COEFFICIENTS OF CFA
PREDICTING FACTORS OF PERCEIVED VALUE
To examine the reliability of the 25-item SERV-PERVAL
scale, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) utilizing maximum Composite Path
likelihood estimation was employed. The analysis was con- Factor/Item Reliability Coefficient
ducted with the EQS software and followed guidelines sug-
gested by Hatcher (1996). Fit indices were chosen following Quality .92
recommendations by Hu and Bentler (1998). Fit indices 1. is outstanding quality .83
2. is very reliable .86
included in the current investigation are the Bentler (1989)
3. is very dependable .88
comparative fit index, or CFI, the Bentler and Bonett (1980) 4. is very consistent .88
normed fit index, or NFI, and Jöreskog and Sörbom (1981)
root-mean-square residual, or RMSR. Emotional response .96
Both the CFI and NFI may range in value from 1.0 to 0.0. 5. makes me feel good .87
According to Bentler (1989), a fit index of 0.0 is associated 6. gives me pleasure .89
with a “null” model (one specifying that all items are 7. gives me a sense of joy .93
uncorrelated), while a fit index of 1.0 represents a “satu- 8. makes me feel delighted .90
rated” model (a model with zero degrees of freedom that per- 9. gives me happiness .91
fectly reproduces the original covariance matrix). Values
Monetary price .94
greater than 0.9 indicate a good fit of the data, while values
10. is a good buy .80
higher than 0.95 indicate an excellent fit of the data (Hu and 11. is worth the money .85
Bentler 1998). Conversely, An RMSR of less than 1.0 sug- 12. is fairly priced .90
gests a good fit of the data (Joreskog and Sorbom 1981). 13. is reasonably priced .90
Results of the model (CFA) reveal that both the CFI 14. is economical .80
(.915) and NFI (.905) are greater than 0.90, and the RMSR 15. appears to be a good bargain .83
(.034) is less than 1.0, suggesting that the model is a good fit
of the data. This finding further suggests that each item is Behavioral price .95
uniquely related to the factor to which it was assigned. A re- 16. is easy to buy .84
view of the resultant Wald and Lagrange tests did not suggest 17. required little energy to purchase .87
18. is easy to shop for .86
any conceptually sound changes to the model. Therefore, the
19. required little effort to buy .95
proposed model was tentatively accepted, pending further 20. is easily bought .94
tests to examine its reliability and validity.
The resultant standardized path coefficients are displayed Reputation .92
in Table 1. The t tests investigating the null hypothesis that 21. has good reputation .86
each of the coefficients are equal to zero were all significant 22. is well respected .89
(p < .01), suggesting that all paths were assisting in the pre- 23. is well thought of .86
diction of their assigned factors. These results provided evi- 24. has status .77
dence supporting the convergent validity of the indicators 25. is reputable .89
(Anderson and Gerbing 1988). Note: All paths significant, p < .01.
Table 1 also displays the composite reliability scores for
each of the five factors. Composite reliability is analogous to
coefficient alpha (Cronbach) and reflects the internal consis- for the variables hypothesized to be related to behavioral
tency of the indicators measuring each CFA factor (Fornell intentions. Results of the initial model (Figure 1, model 1)
and Larcker 1981). Results show that all five factors have
are reported in Table 3. The CFI was greater than 0.90, and
composite reliability scores greater than .70. Utilizing the
the RMSR was less than 0.10, but the NFI was less than 0.90
criteria set for the current analysis, this suggests that each of
(.898). Results of the Wald test indicated that the path from
the factors are reliably measuring their respective constructs.
Combined, these findings support the reliability and reputation to perceived value was deleterious to the overall
internal validity of the hypothesized model (Hatcher 1996). model. The Wald test identifies paths and covariances that
Since the model was found to be a good fit of the data and all should possibly be deleted from the model (Hatcher 1996).
paths were found to be significant (p < .05), it is suggested It also was revealed that the path from reputation to per-
that the proposed scale effectively measured subjects’ per- ceived value was not significant (p > .05). Examination of the
ceived value. five items used to measure reputation revealed that the items
To examine the reliability of the two-item Grewal, Mon- had the lowest standard deviation (less than 0.5) and had the
roe, and Krishnan (1998) intentions to repurchase scale, a highest overall mean (4.5), of all five factors. This reveals
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated. The resultant that as a whole the visitors felt that the cruise line had a very
alpha was .94 and was deemed acceptable for the current good reputation, with little variance between responses.
study. According to Tabachnick and Fidell (1996), items that do not
differ between respondents should not be used in prediction.
Due to these findings, reputation was dropped from the
Hypothesis Testing
model.
The hypotheses were analyzed with the use of structural Results of the new model are shown in Table 3 also and
equation modeling utilizing EQS and the aforementioned fit suggest that the model is a good fit of the data (indices >
indices. Table 2 reports the results of the correlation analysis 0.90). By analyzing the change in the value of chi square for
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 403

TABLE 2
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT
VARIABLES PREDICTING BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Emotional response 1.00 0.72 0.79 0.51 0.68 0.71 0.74 0.70 0.72
2. Monetary price 1.00 0.77 0.56 0.66 0.74 0.64 0.67 0.62
3. Quality 1.00 0.56 0.78 0.74 0.75 0.74 0.72
4. Behavioral price 1.00 0.56 0.42 0.37 0.35 0.42
5. Reputation 1.00 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.56
6. Perceived value 1.00 0.77 0.74 0.74
7. Satisfaction 1.00 0.73 0.77
8. Repurchase intentions 1.00 0.80
9. Word of mouth 1.00
Note: N = 792. Correlations above 0.15 are significant at the .01 level.

TABLE 3
GOODNESS OF FIT INDICES: INTENTION TO REPURCHASE MODELS

Model N χ2 df p NFI CFI RMSR

Initial satisfaction model 792 2559.1 361 < .01 .898 .911 .071
Final satisfaction model (model 1) 792 1983.4 219 < .01 .901 .911 .083
Value model (model 2) 792 1994.1 219 < .01 .901 .910 .086
Quality model (model 3) 792 1918.2 218 < 0.01 .904 .914 .066

TABLE 4
STANDARDIZED PATH COEFFICIENTS OF VARIABLES RELATED TO BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS

Initial Final
Variables Satisfaction Model Satisfaction Model Value Model Quality Model
Repurchase → WOM 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
Value → Repurchase 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.31
Satisfaction → Repurchase 0.38 0..38 0.38 0.23
Quality → Repurchase NA NA NA 0.33
Value → Satisfaction 0.43 0.42 NA 0.41
Satisfaction → Value NA NA 0.39 NA
Quality → Satisfaction 0.43 0.44 0.77 0.45
Quality → Value 0.38 0.30 0.12* 0.31
Emotion → Value 0.15 0.11 –0.03* 0.10
Monetary Price → Value 0.43 0.49 0.46 0.49
Behavioral Price → Value –0.10 –0.10 –0.05* –0.10
Reputation → Value 0.08* NA NA NA
*Denotes paths are not significant, p > .05.

the two proposed models, it is possible to determine if the
new model is significantly better than the first. The critical
value of chi-square for 142 degrees of freedom (change in
degrees of freedom between the models) is 545.28 (3.84
times 142). Since the change in chi-square between models
was 664.1, it was determined that the second model is signifi-
cantly better than the first. The model was tentatively
accepted, pending further tests to examine its reliability and
validity.
Standardized path coefficients (measurement equations)
are displayed in Table 4. Analysis of the t values associated
with the null hypothesis that each of the coefficients are equal
to zero revealed that all paths were significant (p < .05), sug-
gesting that all paths are assisting in the prediction of inten-
tion to repurchase. These results provide evidence support-
ing the convergent validity of the indicators (Anderson and
Gerbing 1988).
Table 5 shows the amount of variance explained by each
of the endogenous variables. A considerable amount of vari-
ance was explained for perceived value (63.7%), satisfaction
(64.6%), repurchase intentions (59.6%), and WOM (64.0%).
Furthermore, the second model explains more of the variance
in each of the endogenous variables than the first model.
Since the variance explained in all of the endogenous vari-
ables is considerably high (> 40%), the model demonstrates
acceptable reliability (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Combined,
these findings support the reliability and convergent validity
of the hypothesized model (Hatcher 1996). Thus, the second
model will be used to represent the satisfaction model (model
1 in Figure 1), and reputation will be deleted from all
subsequent models.
Results of the value model (model 2) are also revealed in
Tables 3, 4, and 5. While the resultant model fits the data
(NFI and CFI > 0.90 and RMSR < 0.10), the paths from
404 MAY 2004

TABLE 5
EXPLAINED VARIANCE OF ENDOGENOUS VARIABLES

Initial Satisfaction Final Satisfaction

Variable Model Model Value Model Quality Model
Word of mouth 0.640 0.640 0.639 0.640
Repurchase intentions 0.596 0.596 0.594 0.635
Satisfaction 0.642 0.646 0.593 0.648
Perceived value 0.625 0.637 0.693 0.637

quality to value, emotional response to value, and behavioral

price to value were not significant (p > .05). Furthermore, FIGURE 2
FINAL MODEL OF THE VARIABLES
model 2 explained less of the variance in repurchase inten- RELATED TO BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS
tions and word of mouth than model 1. Thus, the first hypoth-
esis was confirmed, and it is proposed that the satisfaction
model explains cruise passengers’ behavioral intentions Emotional
Response
better than the value model. .10
Since the satisfaction model was deemed superior to the (2.06)
.45 Satisf. .23
value model, the second hypothesis was examined by com- (6.05)
(12.32)
paring the satisfaction model to the quality model. Results of .33 .80
the quality model are displayed in Table 3 and Figure 2 and Quality (8.12) Repurch WOM
.31 .41 (37.51)
(12.00)
reveal that the model is a good fit of the data (NFI and CFI > (4.88) .31
0.90 and RMSR < 0.10) (Table 3) and that all hypothesized Value (8.47)
paths are significant (p < .05) (Table 4). It was also revealed Monetary .49
that the quality model explained more of the variance in Price (9.28)

repurchase intentions than the satisfaction model (Table 5).

To further determine whether the satisfaction model or
the quality model fit the data better, a chi-square difference
test was computed. The critical value of chi-square for 1 de-
gree of freedom (change in degrees of freedom between the
models) is 3.84 (3.84 times 1). Since the change in chi-square
between models was 65.2, it was determined that the quality
model is significantly (p < .05) better than the first. Thus, the
second hypothesis was validated, and it is proposed that the
quality model explains cruise passengers’ behavioral inten-
tions better than both the satisfaction and perceived value
models. Therefore, quality has both a moderated effect
(through both perceived value and satisfaction) and a direct
effect on cruise passengers’ behavioral intentions.
Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c stated that satisfaction, per-
ceived value, and quality would, respectively, be good pre-
dictors of cruise passengers’ repurchase intentions. Since
results of the quality model revealed that all three variables
significantly (p < .05) predicted repurchase intentions, these
hypotheses were accepted. Thus, to maximize the ability to
explain cruise passengers’ behavioral intentions, cruise man-
agement should measure all three variables.
Hypotheses 4a and 4b proposed that perceived value
would be a better predictor of cruise passengers’ intentions to
repurchase than satisfaction and quality, respectively. Results
revealed that quality (.33) had the highest standardized path
coefficient, followed by perceived value (.31) and satisfac-
tion (.23) (Figure 2 and Table 4). Thus, hypothesis 4a is
accepted, while hypothesis 4b is rejected. Therefore, results
of the current study suggest that quality is a better predictor
of cruise passengers’ repurchase intentions than perceived
value, and perceived value is a better predictor than
satisfaction.
The final hypothesis was that cruise passengers’ repur-
chase intentions would positively predict their WOM behav-
ioral intentions in all three models. In all three models, repur-
chase intention was positively and significantly (p < .05)
-.10
(3.39)
Behavioral
Price
related to WOM. Thus, this hypothesis is accepted, suggest-
ing that cruise passengers who intend to repurchase are more
likely to speak positively about their cruising experiences to
others than those who are less likely to repurchase.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
It has been suggested that the variables of quality, satis-
faction, and perceived value “have dominated the services
literature” (Cronin, Brady, and Hult 2000, p. 193). Past
research has revealed a multitude of relationships between
these variables and has proposed that they are all necessary
for effectively understanding the decision-making processes
of visitors (Cronin, Brady, and Hult 2000; Oh 1999; Tam
2000). Yet, tourism management often uses these conceptu-
ally different constructs interchangeably and fails to differ-
entiate between their measures. Furthermore, research ana-
lyzing these relationships has come from three different
paradigms. Thus, the current study analyzed behavioral
intentions models from each of these paradigms to better
understand the relationships between cruise passengers’ sat-
isfaction, perceived value, and quality, and their behavioral
intentions.
Similar to past results, it was revealed that both perceived
value (Oh 1999; Tam 2000) and quality (Caruana, Money,
and Berthon 2000; Baker and Crompton 2000) are anteced-
ents of cruise passengers’ satisfaction in the prediction of
behavioral intentions. Utilized in conjunction with Bagozzi’s

(1992) proposition that cognitive responses precede emo-
tional responses, these findings lend further credence to
Cronin, Brady, and Hult’s (2000) proposal that quality and
value are cognitive responses to a service experience while
satisfaction is an emotional response. Thus, quality and per-
ceived value lead to satisfaction, which inevitably leads to
behavioral intentions.
Another theoretical implication is that quality was found
to have both a moderated effect and a direct effect on cruise
passengers’ repurchase intentions, while being a better pre-
dictor of intentions to repurchase than both perceived value
and satisfaction. This finding suggests that if managers are
only able to use one variable for predicting intentions to
repurchase, quality may be the preferred variable. However,
since both satisfaction and perceived value were found to be
good predictors, it is suggested that managers should use all
three if possible. By knowing how a cruising experience
affects the satisfaction, perceived value, and quality, cruise
management will be better prepared to alter their provisions
to most positively affect passengers’ behavioral intentions.
One reason that satisfaction may have been found to be
the least predictive was the way it was operationalized. Satis-
faction was operationalized as a single measure, which
makes it more likely than a measure with more items to have
error variance (Tabachnick and Fidell 1996). Thus, further
research utilizing multi-item measures of satisfaction is nec-
essary to better understand the overall predictability of
satisfaction.
Another measurement limitation of the current study was
how quality was operationalized. While the five dimensions
of SERVQUAL have often inadequately explained tourists’
perceptions of quality (Childress and Crompton 1997), it is
believed that a more holistic (multidimensional) measure of
quality would provide a better understanding of the determi-
nants of behavioral intentions. Future research should assess
the utility of different measures of quality within the
proposed model.
The current study also revealed that cruise passengers
with higher intentions to repurchase are more likely to speak
positively about their experiences (WOM) than those with
lower intentions to repurchase. This finding is analogous to
the findings of Shoemaker and Lewis (1999) who found that
loyal customers create a potential for WOM publicity at no
extra cost to the service provider, and Thomas (2001) who
found that it is more desirable, and much less expensive, to
retain current participants than it is to seek new ones. Thus,
providing a quality experience that is perceived to have value
and to be satisfying not only leads to repeat clientele but also
elicits free publicity for the business.
It was also found that reputation was not a good predictor
of cruise passengers’ perceived value. This finding appears to
be due to little to no deviation in the scores given by respon-
dents. Future research is necessary to determine if reputation
is related to perceived value for other cruises, cruise lines, or
service sectors.
While the current study offers more theoretical implica-
tions than managerial implications, it does provide a frame-
work for assisting management in making decisions. By
understanding the antecedents of perceived value, quality,
and satisfaction, management could be given specific direc-
tion on how to alter tourists’ experiences to retain clientele
and to receive WOM publicity. Thus, if cruise management
were able to determine which attributes (i.e., food service or
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 405
entertainment) are best at predicting quality, they would be
best served by moving resources to these areas. Furthermore,
if areas are poor predictors of the antecedents (satisfaction,
quality, and value) of behavioral intentions, management
might be able to reduce the resources allocated to these areas.
Thus, further research is necessary to determine the
antecedents of satisfaction, quality, and value.
Since the current study was limited to one cruise ship,
during one time of the year, future research should determine
the generalizability of the current results. More research is
necessary to determine if similar results would be derived
from different samples. Future studies should analyze how
well the proposed model explains the behavioral intentions
of cruise passengers during different times of the year, travel-
ing on different cruise lines, and for varying sectors of the
service industry (i.e., resort visitors, amusement park
patrons, museum visitors, etc.).
According to Baloglu and Erickson (1998), visitation to
one destination influences the probability of revisiting the
same destination or visiting other destinations. Thus, the
addition of at least one other cruise ship would have
increased the study’s external validity. The measurement of
cruise passengers during all four seasons would also have
increased the generalizability of the results.
Furthermore, the overall model utilized only the mea-
sures of overall satisfaction, perceived value, and quality as
independent variables in the prediction of intention to repur-
chase. Past research has shown that perceptions (Oh 1999),
past behavior (Petrick, Morais, and Norman 2001), and
attributional importance (Spreng and Olshavsky 1993) can
be utilized as predictors of future purchase intentions. Future
research should therefore include other independent vari-
ables to aid in the determination of what combination of vari-
ables most accurately and parsimoniously predicts intentions
to repurchase.
Finally, the overall model presented in the current study
could be beneficial in the prediction of repurchase intentions
beyond that of cruise passengers. It is posited that the model
may aid in the prediction of behavioral intentions for a multi-
tude of services and products. To further determine the
potential of the model proposed, additional research is
needed to investigate the model’s effectiveness in other
environments.
In conclusion, the current research examined three differ-
ent theoretical foundations for understanding the determi-
nants of cruise passengers’ behavioral intentions. The current
analysis provides a more thorough understanding of the rela-
tionships between quality, satisfaction, and value, which may
be utilized by destination managers to better understand the
derivatives of potential repurchase behavior. This knowledge
could be useful in determining the most important variables
to measure, and how to alter visitors’ experiences, to
maximize the probability of repurchase intentions.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. C. and D.W. Gerbing (1988). “Structural Equation Modeling in
Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-step Approach. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 103: 411-23.
Armstrong, R., C. Mok, and F. Go (1997). “The Importance of Cross-Cul-
tural Expectations in the Measurement of Service Quality Perceptions
in the Hotel Industry.” International Journal of Hospitality Manage-
ment, 16 (2): 181-90.
406 MAY 2004
Asubonteng, P., K. J. McCleary, and J. E. Swan (1996). “SERVQUAL Revis-
ited: A Critical Review of Service Quality.” The Journal of Services
Marketing, 10 (6): 62-81.
Athanassopoulos, A. D. (2000). “Customer Satisfaction Cues to Support
Market Segmentation and Explain Switching Behavior.” Journal of
Business Research, 47: 191-207.
Backman, S. J., and C. Veldkamp (1995). “Examination of the Relationship
between Service Quality and User Loyalty.” Journal of Park and Rec-
reation Administration, 13 (2): 29-42.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). “The Self Regulation of Attitudes, Intentions and Be-
havior.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 55: 178-204.
Baker, D. A., and J. L. Crompton (2000). “Quality, Satisfaction and Behav-
ioral Intentions.” Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (3): 785-804.
Baker, J., A. Parasuraman, D. Grewal, and G. B. Voss (2002). “The Influence
of Multiple Store Environment Cues on Perceived Merchandise Value
and Patronage Intentions.” Journal of Marketing, 66 (April): 120-41.
Baloglu, S., and R. E. Erickson (1998). “Destination Loyalty and Switch-
ing Behavior of Travelers: A Markov Analysis.” Tourism Analysis, 2:
119-27.
Barsky, J. D. (1992). “Customer Satisfaction in the Hotel Industry: Meaning
and Measurement.” Hospitality Research Journal, 16 (1): 51-73.
Barsky, J. D., and R. Labagh (1992). “A Strategy for Customer Satisfaction.”
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 33 (5): 32-40.
Bentler, P. M. (1989). Eqs Structural Equations Program Manual. Los An-
geles: BMDP Statistical Software.
Bentler, P. M., and D. G. Bonett (1980). “Significance Tests and Goodness-
of-Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures.” Psychological Bulle-
tin, 88: 588-606.
Bojanic, D. C. (1996). “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Value and Satisfac-
tion in the Hotel Industry: An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Hospital-
ity and Leisure Marketing, 4 (1): 5-22.
Buzzell, R. D., and B. T. Gale (1987). The Pims Principles: Linking Strategy
to Performance. New York: Free Press.
Carman, J. M. (1990). “Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality: An As-
sessment of the SERVQUAL Dimensions.” Journal of Retailing, 66
(1): 33-55.
Caruana, A., A. H. Money, and P. R. Berthon (2000). “Service Quality and
Satisfaction: The Moderating Role of Value.” European Journal of
Marketing, 34 (11/12): 1338-52.
Chang, T. Z., and A. R. Wildt (1994). “Price, Product Information, and Pur-
chase Intention: An Empirical Study.” Journal of the Academy of Mar-
keting Science, 22 (1): 16-27.
Childress, R. D., and J. L. Crompton (1997). “A Comparison of Alternative
Direct and Discrepancy Approaches to Measuring Quality of Perfor-
mance at a Festival.” Journal of Travel Research, 36 (2): 43-57.
Choi, T. Y., and R. Chu (2001). “Determinants of Hotel Guests’ Satisfaction
and Repeat Patronage in the Hong Kong Hotel Industry.” Hospitality
Management, 20: 277-97.
Crompton, J. L., and L. L. Love (1995). “The Predictive Validity of Alterna-
tive Approaches to Evaluating Quality of a Festival.” Journal of Travel
Research, 34 (1): 11-24.
Cronin, J. J., M. K. Brady, and G. T. M. Hult (2000). “Assessing the Effects
of Quality, Value and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral
Intentions in Service Environments.” Journal of Retailing, 76(2):
193-218.
Cronin, J. J., and S. A. Taylor (1992). “Measuring Service Quality: A Reex-
amination and Extension.” Journal of Marketing, 56: 55-68.
 (1994). “SERVPERF vs. SERVQUAL: Reconciling Performance
Based and Perceptions-Minus-Expectations Measurement of Service
Quality.” Journal of Marketing, 58: 125-31.
Dodds, W.B., K.B. Monroe, and D. Grewal (1991). “The Effects of Price,
Brand and Store Information on Buyers’ Product Evaluations.” Journal
of Marketing Research, 28: 307-319.
Engel, J. F., R. D. Blackwell, and P. W. Miniard (1990). Consumer Behavior,
6th ed. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker (1981). “Evaluating Structural Equation Mod-
els with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of
Marketing Research, 18: 39-50.
Gale, B. T. (1994). Managing Customer Value: Creating Quality and Service
That Customers Can See. New York: Free Press.
Getty, J. M., and K. N. Thompson (1994). “The Relationship between Qual-
ity, Satisfaction, and Recommending Behavior in Lodging Decisions.”
Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 2 (3): 3-22.
Grewal, D., K. B. Monroe, and R. Krishnan (1998). “The Effects of Price-
comparison Advertising on Buyers’ Perceptions of Acquisition Value,
Transaction Value and Behavioral Intentions.” Journal of Marketing,
62 (April): 46-59.
Hartline, M. D., and O. C. Ferrell (1996). “The Management of Customer-
Contact Service Employees.” Journal of Marketing, 60 (October):
52-70.
Hatcher, L. H. (1996). A Step by Step Approach to Using the SAS System for
Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Cary, NC: SAS In-
stitute.
Howat, G., G. Crilley, and L. Milne (1995). “Measuring Customer Service
Quality in Recreation and Parks.” Australian Parks & Recreation,
(Summer): 37-43.
Hu, L., and P. Bentler (1998). “Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling:
Sensitivity to Underparameterized Model Misspecification.” Psycho-
logical Methods, 3 (4): 424-53.
Jacoby, J. and J.C. Olson (1977). “Consumer Response to Price: An Attitudi-
nal, Information Processing Perspective,” in Y.Wind and P. Greenberg
(Eds.), Moving Ahead With Attitude Research, 73-86. Chicago: Ameri-
can Marketing Association.
Jayanti, R. K., and A. Ghosh (1996). “Service Value Determination: An Inte-
grative Perspective.” Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 34
(4): 5-25.
Johnson, M. D. (1998). Customer Orientation and Market Action. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jones, T. O., and E. Sasser (1995). “Why Satisfied Customers Defect.” Har-
vard Business Review, 73 (November): 88-99.
Jöreskog, K. G., and D. Sörbom (1981). LISREL V: Analysis of Linear Struc-
tural Relationships by the Method of Maximum Likelihood. Chicago:
National Educational Resources.
Knutson, B., P. Stevens, and M. Patton (1995). “DINESERV: Measuring Ser-
vice Quality in Quick Service, Casual/Theme and Fine Dining Restau-
rants.” Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 3 (2): 35-44.
LaTour, S. A., and N. Peat (1979). “Conceptual and Methodological Issues
in Consumer Satisfaction Research.” Advances in Consumer Research,
6: 431-7.
Madrigal, R. (1995). “Cognitive and Affective Determinants of Fan Satisfac-
tion with Sporting Event Attendance.” Journal of Leisure Research, 27
(3): 205-27.
Oh, H. (1999). “Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, and Customer
Value: A Holistic Perspective.” Hospitality Management, 18: 67-82.
 (2000). “Diners’ Perceptions of Quality, Value and Satisfaction.”
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41 (3): 58-66.
Oh, H., and S. C. Parks (1997). “Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality:
A Critical Review of the Literature and Research Implications for the
Hospitality Industry.” Hospitality Research Journal, 20 (3): 35-64.
 (1981). “Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfaction Processes in
Retail Settings.” Journal of Retailing, 57: 25-48.
 (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer.
Boston, MA: Irwin, McGraw-Hill.
Olshavsky, R. W., and J. Miller (1972). “Consumer Expectations, Product
Performance and Perceived Product Quality.” Journal of Marketing
Research, 9 (February): 19-21.
Ostrowski, P. L., T. V. O’Brien, and G. L. Gordon (1994). “Determinants of
Service Quality in the Commercial Airline Industry: Differences be-
tween Business and Leisure Travelers.” Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing, 3 (1): 19-47.
Parasuraman, A., and D. Grewal (2000). “The Impact of Technology on the
Quality-Value-Loyalty Chain: A Research Agenda.” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 168-74.
Parasuraman, A., V. Zeithaml, and L. Berry (1988). “SERVQUAL: A Multi-
item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality.”
Journal of Retailing, 64 (Spring): 12-40.
 (2002). “Development of a Multi-dimensional Scale for Measuring
the Perceived Value of a Service.” Journal of Leisure Research, 34 (2):
119-34.
Petrick, J. F., and S. J. Backman (2002a). “An Examination of Golf Travel-
ers’ Satisfaction, Perceived Value, Loyalty and Intentions to Revisit.”
Tourism Analysis, 6: (in press).
 (2002b). “An Examination of the Construct of Perceived Value for
the Prediction of Golf Travelers’ Intentions to Revisit.” Journal of
Travel Research, 41 (1), 38-45.
 (2002c). “An Examination of the Determinants of Golf Travelers’
Satisfaction.” Journal of Travel Research, 40 (3): 252-8.
Petrick, J. F., S. J. Backman, and R. Bixler (1999). “An Investigation of Se-
lected Factors’ Impact on Golfer Satisfaction and Perceived Value.”
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 17 (1): 40-59.
Petrick, J. F., D. D. Morais, and W. C. Norman (2001). “An Examination of
the Determinants of Entertainment Vacationers’ Intentions to Revisit.”
Journal of Travel Research, 40 (1): 41-8.
Rust, R. T., and R. L. Oliver (1994). “Service Quality: Insights and Manage-
rial Implication from the Frontier.” In Service Quality: New Directions
in Theory and Practice, edited by Roland T. Rust and Richard L. Oli-
ver. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 1-19.
Ruyter, K. D., M. Wetzels, and J. Bloemer (1998). “On the Relationship be-
tween Perceived Service Quality, Service Loyalty and Switching
Costs.” International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9 (5):
436-53.
Semon, T. T. (1998). “Existing Measures Make Value Hard to Quantify.”
Marketing News, 32 (11). Retrieved from www.ama.org/pubs/arti-
cle.asp?id=1058
ShipPax (2002). Number of Cruise Passengers Down in 2001. Retrieved
from www.shippax.se/. In Tutto Crociere, www. Cybercruises.com/
nucrpado01may02.htm, pp. 1-2.
Shoemaker, S., and R. C. Lewis (1999). “Customer Loyalty: The Future of
Hospitality Marketing.” Hospitality Management, 18: 345-70.
Spreng, R. A., S. B. Mackenzie, and R. W. Olshavsky (1996). “A Reexami-
nation of the Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction.” Journal of Mar-
keting, 60: 15-32.

Spreng, R. A., and R. W. Olshavsky (1993). “A Desires Congruency Model
of Consumer Satisfaction.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-
ence, 21 (3): 169-77.
Sweeney, J.C., G.N. Soutar, and L.W. Johnson (1998). “Consumer Perceived
Value: Development of a Multiple Item Scale.” American Marketing
Association Conference Proceedings, 9: 138.
Szymanski, D. M., and D. J. Henard (2001). “Customer Satisfaction: A
Meta-analysis of the Empirical Evidence.” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 29 (1): 16-35.
Tabachnick, B. G., and L. S. Fidell (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics (3d
ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Tam, J. L. M. (2000). “The Effects of Service Quality, Perceived Value and
Customer Satisfaction on Behavioral Intentions.” Journal of Hospital-
ity and Leisure Marketing, 6 (4): 31-43.
Thomas, J. S. (2001). “A Methodology for Linking Customer Acquisition
to Customer Retention.” Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (May):
262-8.
Weber, K. (1997). “The Assessment of Tourist Satisfaction Using the Expec-
tancy Disconfirmation Theory: A Study of the German Travel Market
in Australia.” Pacific Tourism Review, 1: 35-45.
Whipple, T. W., and S. V. Thatch (1988). “Group Tour Management: Does
Good Service Produce Satisfied Customers?” Journal of Travel Re-
search, 27 (2): 16-21.
Williams, D. R. (1989). Great Expectations and the Limits to Satisfaction: A
Review of Recreation and Consumer Satisfaction Research. In Out-
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 407
door Recreation Benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the National Out-
door Recreation Forum, compiled by A. E. Watson [USDA Forest
Service Gen. Tech. Report. Se-52:422-438], Tampa, FL.
Wood, R. E. (2000). “Caribbean Cruise Tourism: Globalization at Sea.” An-
nals of Tourism Research, 27: 345-70.
Woodruff, R. B. (1997). “Customer Value: The Next Source for Competitive
Edge.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (2): 139-53.
Woodruff, R. R., E. R. Cadotte, and R. I. Jenkins (1983). “Modeling Con-
sumer Satisfaction Processes Using Experience-Based Norms.” Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 20: 296-304.
Woodruff, R. R., and S. F. Gardial (1996). Know Your Customer: New Ap-
proaches to Understanding Customer Value and Satisfaction. Cam-
bridge, MA: Blackwell.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1985). “The New Demographics and Market Fragmenta-
tion.” Journal of Marketing, 49 (Summer): 64-75.
 (1988). “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A
Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence.” Journal of Marketing,
52 (July): 2-22.
Zeithaml, V. A., L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman (1996). “The Behavioral
Consequences of Service Quality.” Journal of Marketing, 60 (April):
31-46.