ijcrb.webs.com

DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SERVICE QUALITY, PERCEIVED VALUE, SATISFACTION AND REVISIT INTENTION IN HOTEL INDUSTRY
Muhammad Ahmad Raza Service Quality Coordinator NetSole Technologies Ahmad Nabeel Siddiquei Lecturer/Student Advisor, Air University Multan Campus, Pakistan Prof. Dr. Hayat M. Awan Campus Director Air University Multan Campus Khurram Bukhari Lecturer Bahauddin Zakariya University
Abstract The work is considered to find the relationship between service quality, perceived value and customer satisfaction and repurchase intentions in luxury hotel management in Pakistan. The purpose of this studyis to find dimensions of service quality and perceived value in hotel industry environment. Survey Questionnaires are used to collect data from 125 luxury hotel customers of Pakistan. After analysis of collected data three dimensions of service quality are identified which is service consistency, service convenience and customer demand fulfillment. This study also enabled to identifytwo dimensions of perceived value which are functional and symbolic.We also found that perceived value and service quality have important and positive relationship with satisfaction and revisit intentions. The paper is one of the first papers to investigate the thorough relationship among all these important factors in Pakistani hotel industry context. It has implications for both the managers and owners of hotel as to what is the quality and satisfaction criterion of customers. Keywords: SERVQUAL, Perceived Value, Satisfaction, Behavioral intentions, Hotel Industry, Pakistan INTRODUCTION In the era of globalization almost every company is facing fierce competition. Customer satisfaction is the one important tool to capture competitive advantage. There are many ways to create customer satisfaction. But we will focus on two main variables in this research. One is perceived value which is often used as customer value. Second factor is quality of product/service. Literature provides solid ground to consider these two variables important in creating customer satisfaction.(Shemwell, 1988) explained that customer satisfaction can be created through high services quality.(.According to (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996)providing quality service is considered as an essential strategy for success in today‟s competitive environment (A. Parasuraman, 1985; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996).They used five dimensions of service quality in there research. Result showed that service quality can be measured in five dimensions which are tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy. This study proved as classical tool for research in service quality. Many authors used this tool to test these dimensions in different environment. Perceived value also act as an important tool in customer satisfaction based on different studies. (Petric, 2004)emphasizes that perceived value is important factor related with customer satisfaction and repurchase intention (Zeithaml 1988 p.14)defined perceived value as “the consumer‟s overall assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given”. (Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000) study show that perceived value is the most significant factor for repurchase intention. Perceived value is often mixed with customer satisfaction in literature but both are different.Difference of opinion exists among authors. Perceived value often used as a synonym of customer satisfaction but (Woodruff,1997) explains that perceived value can occur at any stage of purchase, including repurchase.(Oliver, 1981) belived thatsatisfaction should be considered as post

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

788

ijcrb.webs.com

DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

purchase evaluation. Different authors present different dimensions to measure perceived value. (Zeithaml,1988) defined perceived value in monetary terms and presented four dimension of perceived value. These are low price, what customer demand, value is quality received for the price paid and final dimension is related with what customers get reference and how much they paid. But (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001) presented perceived value as multi-dimensional. They provide four sub dimensions of perceived value which are quality, emotional, social, functional value. As a matter of fact service quality and perceived value is very different from each other still widely searched as collectively by many authors in SERPERVAL form. (Woodruff & Gardia, 1996) explained that customer perceived value investigates the interaction between product and service while service quality focused generally on services. Due to the interrelated and complex relationship among these variables there is need of study which should explore better understanding of dimensions and relationships of these variables. This study will focus on luxury hotel industry of Pakistan as this relationship is yet to be discovered in Pakistani environment. Firstly this study will find out different dimensions of these variables. Secondly study will explore complex relationship among all these variables. LITERATURE REVIEW Services are different from physical products. Because services are intangible, cannot be stored. But the purpose of both are same, to satisfy human needs and wants. Services are part of our life from long time but difference between services and commodities are first identified by Fisher in 1935. He used term “tertiary sector” for services and then it was used by Judd in1965. He named as services “experiential possession. (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985) defined servicesas multidimensional. These dimensions are intangibility, heterogeneity, and inseparability of production and consumption.(Crosby, 1979) explains that due to the intangible nature of services we cannot measure services by durability and number of defects. Due to the heterogeneity service quality measurement become more challenging. But (Parasuraman & Zeithaml, SERQUAL, 1988) provide multiple frame work to measure service quality which is called SERQUAL. (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985) found ten dimensions of service quality which are more explanatory and well defined. These dimensions are reliability, responsiveness, tangibles, security, competence, creditability, access, communication, access, and understanding of customer. (Parasuraman & Zeithaml, SERQUAL,1988) conducted another research to clarify the concept of quality in which they had produced 22 items scale to measure service quality. In this scale they minimized dimensions to only five. These were Assurance, Empathy, Tangibles, reliability and responsiveness. . There scale is the most popular in checking service quality across many service sectors due to its generic nature. Many authors use SERVQUAL and other approaches to measure service quality in hotel industry. . (Saleha & Ryanb, 1992) performed a study and identified five dimensions of service quality in hotel setting. But these dimensions are different from SERVQUAL instrument. These were reassurance; avoid sarcasm, empathy, conviviality and tangibles. This study also revealed the fact that hospitality or conviviality has largest variance. (Lee & Hing, 1995) used SERVQUAL in their research. Sample was taken from Chinese and French restaurants. They found all dimensions significant with original SERVQUAL model. But in French restaurants scores of responsiveness, reliability and assurance were high. While Chinese had gave more importance to tangibles, reliability and assurance respectively. Till now the authors are using model of (Parasuraman & Zeithaml,1988) work. In which they measure service quality by using perception minus expectation score. Mean total 44 items are used to check service quality; 22 for expectation before the service and 22 for perception after the service. This measurement tool is more complex and required more time of respondent so (Mei, Dean, & White, 1999) argued that single scale is enough for the service quality check. “(Babakus and Boller, 1992) &(Brown et al., 1993) found single scale more valid and reliable. (Parasuraman et al., 1991) published their own one-column scale format which cuts the questionnaire size in half and reduces the time required for completion”. (Mei, Dean, & White, 1999) add some more dimensions in SERVQUAL in order to create new model for hotel industry called HOLSERV. They used 27 items to measure service quality. They also include overall service quality question (10 point scale). Result suggested three variables for measurement of service quality in hotel industry. These are employees, tangibles and reliability. (Akbaba, 2006) used SERQUAL with modifications in wording .He also used 5 point scales from very low to very high, different than 7 point scale in original SERVQUAL model. Overall 29 service quality attributes are added related to SERQUAL model. The E-P gap model is used to measure results. This study identified five service quality dimensions that represent the evaluative criteria customers use to assess service quality of the business hotels named as „„tangibles‟‟, „„adequacy in service supply‟‟, „„understanding and caring‟‟, „„assurance‟‟, and „„convenience‟‟ (Akbaba, 2006). The findings of this study indicated that the most important factor in predicting business travelers‟ overall service quality evaluation was „„tangibles‟‟, followed by „„understanding and caring‟‟, „„adequacy in service supply‟‟, „„assurance‟‟, and „„convenience‟‟ respectively. “. (Wilkins, Merrileesa, & Heringtona, 2007) research

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

789

ijcrb.webs.com

DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

explores important aspects of service quality in hotel industry. They used hierarchal model approach to check service quality attributes relation. They concluded that there are three main types of service quality which are psychical product, service experience and quality food & beverages. They criticized the applicability of SERQUAL in hotel industry environment. They advocated that there tool is easy and more practical than SERVQUAL. Hotel manager can easily Control and Plan service quality using their 3 dimensions. But again SERVQUAL with some modification can be better tool to implement than other tools. After overall assessment of literature we decided to use (Akbaba, 2006) model with slight modification according to local enviornment. Perceived Value Customer value is becoming important factor in business success. (Woodruff R. , 1997) explained that CV is considered as basic requirement for long term success. Customer value is very broad topic and every author defind in different ways. Some popular definitions in history are following. (Zeithaml, 1988) “Perceived value is a customer‟s overall assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given.” (Gale, 1994) “Customer value is market perceived quality adjusted for the relative price of your product. [It is] your customer‟s opinion of your products (or services) as compared to that of your competitors.” (Holbrook, Customer value is “a relativistic (comparative, personal, situational) 1994) preference characterizing a subject‟s [consumer‟s] experience of interacting with some object … i.e., any good, service, person, place, thing, event, or idea.” (Woodruff, Customer value is a “customer‟s perceived preference for and evaluation of 1997) those products attributes, attribute performance, and consequences arising from use that facilitate (or block) achieving the customer‟s goals and purposes in use situations.” Source: (Albert Graf, 2008) Customer value can be seen from two perspectives. One from company side and while other is customer perspective (Albert Graf, 2008). Because our research is considered with customers so we will only focus on customer perspective. From customer side the value is defined as “Value generated by a company‟s Product or service as perceived by the customer” (Albert Graf, 2008). Customer value can be divided in to two Broad categories; Perceived customer value and desired customer Value (Albert Graf, 2008). Perceived Customer value is defined as tradeoff between benefits and sactifices with reference to performance of product or serivce (Zeithaml V. ,1988; Gale, 1994).Percived value is one of most important factors to achieve competitive advantage in business (Parasuraman, 1997). Many authors have done perceived value research in tourism and hospitablity industry (Chang and Wildt 1994; Bolton and Drew 1991; Jayanti and Ghosh 1996; Oh 1999; Petrick and Backman 2002; Petrick, Backman, and Bixler 1999)” (Petric, 2004). But focus was not on dimensions of percieved value. (Zeithaml V. , 1988) presented four dimension of value. These are low price, what customer demand, value is quality received for the price paid and final dimension is related with what customer get reference and how much they paid. Perceived value is considered as one-dimensional in past. But actually every person has its own perception of value. One factor which is defined by Zeithaml related to monetary value is not enough to explain the Perceived value. A more sophisticated measure is required to measure perceived value of customers. (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001) suggested five dimensions which are following Emotional value “the utility derived from the feelings or affective states that a product generates” “the utility derived from the product‟s ability to enhance social self-concept”

Social value (enhancement of social self-concept)

Functional value (price/value for Money) Functional value (performance/ quality) Source: (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001)

“the utility derived from the product due to the reduction of its perceived short term and longer term costs” “the utility derived from the perceived quality and expected performance of the product”

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

790

ijcrb.webs.com

DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

(Petric J. A., 2002) presented, tested and validated five dimensions of perceived value. These dimensions are “quality, emotional response, monetary price, behavioral price, reputation”. The difference between (Petric J. A., 2002) SER-PERVAL and (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001) PERVAL is that Petric use reputation instead of social dimension and also divide price into two sub components which are moneatery and behavioral price. Other authors also worked on perceived quality multi dimensions. Some of the examples are following (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001) found that emotional value is more important as related to functional value in durable goods. (Mathwick, Malhotra, & Rigdon, 2001) developed EVS to assess consumer experiential value in the catalog and internet shopping setting. They include Visual appeal, entertainment, escapism, enjoyment, efficiency and economic value factors. But the most related measurement related to services is provided by (Petric, 2002).(PoTsang Chen, 2009).suggested that perceived value can be divided in to two broad dimensions which are functional and symbolic. (Rintama¨ki, Kanto, Kuusela, & Spence, 2006) defined three broad constructs of customer perceived value; “utilitarian, Social and hedonic”. Utilitarian component is like functional value as defined by other authors. Social value is related with status and self esteem and hedionic is related with emotional value of person. Customer Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions (Oliver, 1981) defines Customer satisfaction as an emotional response to the use of a product or service. Satisfaction is best defined as “an evaluation between what was received and what was expected” (Parker & Mathews, 2001). There is no single definition of satisfaction. So we should really on basis that satisfaction is some thing related with Post purchase evaluation. Post- purchase intention means that consumer will purchase your service again (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). There is another dimension of post purchase behavior which is word of mouth given by (Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000). There are many researches which support relationship between satisfaction and repurchase intentions (Choia & Chub, 2001) (Gill, Byslma, & Ouschan, 2007) (Paul & Geoffrey N., 2009). (Eggert & Ulaga, 2002) believes that customer satisfaction is another important construct for the loyality, behavioral intentions and word of mouth. But the problem is that some authors support value framework to measure performance but others support satisfaction. Perceived value is often mixed with customer satisfaction in literature but both are different. The main difference is that perceived value can occur at any stage of purchase, including repurchase but satisfaction in post purchase behavior (Woodruff, 1997). Perceived value is ancedent of customer satisfaction (Eggert & Ulaga, 2002) (Kuo, Wub, & Deng, 2009) (Paul & Geoffrey N., 2009) and satisfaction is ancedent of repurchase intention (Eggert & Ulaga, 2002) (Kuo, Wub, & Deng, 2009). The perceived value have positive relationship with behavioral intentions (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001) (Gill, Byslma, & Ouschan, 2007) (Kuo, Wub, & Deng, 2009) (PETRICK, 2004). On the other hand authors also support that Service quality has positive relationship with behavioral intention (González, Comesaña, & Brea, 2007) (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality, 1996) (Ismail, Abdullah, & Francis, 2009) (Kuo, Wub, & Deng, 2009). (Po-Tsang Chen, 2009) explores relationship between service quality attributes and perceived value in Australian coffee industry. They used five service quality dimensions to measure service quality but they are different from SERQUAL. They quoted that “Pettijohn et al. (1997) found that quality, cleanliness and value to be the three most important attributes in fast food restaurants, while atmosphere and menu variety were relatively unimportant”. These dimensions are perceived service, coffee quality, beverages, atmosphere, and extra benefit, where perceived service is most important and extra benefits are least important respectively. (Ismail, Abdullah, & Francis, 2009) study relationship between service quality, perceived value and satisfaction. They used only three dimensions of SERQUAL which are empathy, assurance and responsiveness to measure service quality in Malaysian public institutions of higher learning. This study found that only empathy is significant with perceived value for customer satisfaction. Research Methodology In order to find relationship between service qualities, perceived value, and customer satisfaction and repurchase intentions, the study investigates the relationship between all variables. First of all we will draw new dimensions of service quality and perceived value for hotel industry environment. Because still there are no universal dimensions exist to measure these two variables in hotel industry specifically. We will use factor analysis in order to find these dimensions. Secondly we will check relationship between each variable with other. Thirdly we will find that perceived value has any moderating effect on service quality and satisfaction relationship or not. We will use LISERL 8.8 to find this complex relationship. Finally, we will explore that perceived value is good predictor of revisit intentions or satisfaction. Because no consensus exist in literature to measure revisit intentions. Research Hypothesis H1: There is positive relationship between service quality and perceived value Dimensions H2: There is positive relationship between perceived value dimensions and satisfaction H3: There is positive relationship between satisfaction and service quality dimensions

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

791

ijcrb.webs.com

DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

H4: There is positive relationship between service quality dimensions and Repurchase Intention H5: There is positive relationship between perceived value dimensions and Repurchase Intention H6: Positive relationship exist between customer satisfaction and behavioral intensions H7: Perceived value dimensions are moderating variable between satisfaction and service quality factor Research Design and Methodology This study is exploratory type. In which we will find clear relation between all these variables. First of all we have studied literature to find theories and dimensions of these variables. After analyzing literature we have found different dimensions of service quality perceived value and of other variables. After reviewing literature we come on a point there is no consensus on the relationship of these four variables. Individual relationships are checked in various studies. Recently some studies focus on the relationship of these variables. Because the complex relationship between these variables required more research. (Kuo, Wub, & Deng, 2009) has done research on the relationship of all four variables but the study was in different context. But the problem with this instrument is that it is not of generic nature and cannot be implement in all sectors.(Ismail, Abdullah, & Francis, 2009) provided excellent tool for measurement in context of hotel industry envionrnment.These dimensions are more generic in nature and also widely tested in literature.(Ismail, Abdullah, & Francis, 2009) also found relationship between service quality and satisfaction. They use percieved value as a moderating variable between service quality dimensions and satisfaction. We will use modified test model of (Kuo, Wub, & Deng, 2009) in hotel industry context, secondly we will also test (Ismail, Abdullah, & Francis, 2009). Thirdly this study will also test SERV-PERVAL and SERQUAL in context of hotel industry of pakistan. This type of relationship is still unexplored in pakistani hotel context. So this study is important to find relationship of these variables . The proposed model is: MODEL 1

Service Quality

(SQ)
H1
Perceived Value

H3 H2

H4
Customer Satisfaction

(CS)

H6

Behavioral Intentions

(RI)

(PV) H2

H5

MODEL 2 Service Quality H7 Custoer Satisfaction

(CS)
Perceived Value Value (PV)

Survey Instrument The questionnaire was designed according to related literature as discussed in literature review. Questionnaire was divided into three parts. First part is related to service quality dimensions. SERVQUAL used by (Akbaba, 2006) was adopted with some modification in text and questions. Further one item is taken from (Sulek and Hensley, 2003) to measure fairness of wait effect on service quality. 30 items are included in first part to measure service quality dimensions presented by (Parasuraman, et al., 1988). These dimensions are tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. All items were on 7 point likert scale ranging from strongly agree “1” from strongly

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

792

ijcrb.webs.com

DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

disagree “7”. Second part is related with perceived value measurement. (PETRICK, 2004) SERV-PERVAL with modification in writing and items were used to measure perceived value. SERV-PERVAL has five sub-dimensions which are “quality, emotional response, monetary price, behavioral price and reputation.” (PETRICK, 2004). 22 items were used to measure service quality. All items were on 7-point likert scale. Part 3 consist of 8 items. These items were related with age, occupation, service package availed, monthly income, frequency of visit, overall satisfaction and revisit intention. Satisfaction, frequency of visit and repurchase intention were also measured on 7point likert scale. Research Design and Sample Self-administrated Survey Questionnaires were used to conduct research. Pilot testing were done to check questionnaires. The respondents of pilot testing were luxury hotel customers. After this testing some words and phrases were modified to create better understanding. Sample of 150 customers was taken from five big cities of Pakistan. Data Collection The questionnaire was given to all luxury hotel customers when they were checking out from hotel. Researcher assists the respondents in questionnaire completion.. 124 questionnaires data were collected completely. Other incomplete questionnaires were discarded. Data Analysis Statistical Process for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17 and LISREL 8.8 were used for data analysis purpose. First factor analysis was used to better understand dimensions. Service quality dimensions and perceived value dimensions were analyzed individually with CFA. Then new factors were used to find relationship between all three variables. Regression test was used to check relationship of variables. Co-relation test were also used to see relationship among related variables. LISREL is used to check moderating relationships of variables on satisfaction and revisit intentions. Factor analysis Factor analysis with principal component procedure is used to understand the structure of sub dimensions of service quality and perceived value with varimax rotation. In CFA of service quality total variance explained by all three factors is 42 %. Items with greater value from.50 is selected, table 1 shows the new factors. In SERV-PERVAL analysis total variance explained by two factors is 52 % and item with greater value than .70 are selected. Table 2 shows the result of SERV-PERVAL two factors. Table 1: SERVQUAL Factors Factor 1 : Service Consistency The service units of the hotel have adequate capacity The hotel has modern looking equipment The atmosphere and equipment are comfortable and appropriate for purpose of stay The equipment of the hotel works properly without causing breakdowns The hotel performs the services right at the first time The hotel provides the services at the time it promises to do so Factor 2 : Service Convenience Employees are always willing to serve customers Employees are always available when needed The hotel keeps accurate records The hotel is also convenient for disabled guests It is easy to access to the hotel (transportation, loading and unloading area, car parking area, etc.) Factor 3 : Customer Need Fulfillment .783 .834 .648 .706 .650 1 .715 .783 .828 .786 .630 .735 2 3

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

793

ijcrb.webs.com

DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8 .697 .576 .614 .541 .588 .663

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
Materials associated with the hotel are adequate and sufficient Food and beverages served are hygienic, adequate and Sufficient Employees have knowledge to provide information and assistance to guests in areas they would require Employees of the hotel understand the specific needs of guests The hotel provides its guests a safe and secure place The hotel has visually appealing buildings and facilities Table 2: PERVAL Components Factors Functional Value: Hotel services are worth the money Hotel services are fairly priced Hotel service are reasonably priced Hotel is economical Symbolic Value: Hotel has good reputation Quality of this hotel is Outstanding. Hotel is well thought of Hotel is reputable .906 .723 .754 .744 .752 .742 .802 .802 1 2

Statistical Analysis Independent 2 tail t-test is used to see the difference among gender on all variables. We see results in accordance with 3 dimensions of service quality, 2 dimensions of perceived value and with the performance variables. These variables include frequency of visit, satisfaction and repurchase intentions. Frequency of visit has no significant difference among males and females. Overall satisfaction also has no significant difference among groups and equal variance is assumed here. All variables show no significant difference among groups except service consistency where sig. (0.016). Secondly in symbolic value and service consistency equal variances are not assumed because Levene's test shows significance level less than 0.05 in both cases.

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

794

ijcrb.webs.com

DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
Table 3: Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Frequency of visits Overall satisfaction Revisit Intentions Functional Value Symbolic Value Service Consistency Service Convenience Customer Fulfillment Need Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed .953 1.111 .030 1.410 6.179 16.626 .148 .043 Sig. .331 .294 .863 .237 .014 .000 .701 .836 t 1.402 1.498 .697 .630 -.008 -.007 1.347 1.436 .660 .809 1.893 2.474 -.309 -.310 -.360 df 122 43.194 122 34.921 122 36.856 122 43.025 122 55.259 122 63.906 122 39.434 122

Sig. (2tailed) .164 .141 .487 .533 .994 .994 .180 .158 .510 .422 .061 .016 .758 .758 .720

Equal variances not assumed -.400 46.136 .691 One way ANOVA test (table 4) shows that there is significant difference among different age group in perceiving function value, symbolic value and service consistency. Other variables have no difference among age groups. But satisfaction has some difference among age groups but not significant enough. There is no significance difference among all variables in different occupation groups. Satisfaction in only variable which has significant difference in service availed group. Revisit, convenience and customer need fulfillment is equally important for all income groups. But in other variables significant difference exist in choices. On the other hand if we see that frequency of visit, revisit intentions, service convenience and customer need fulfillment have no difference regardless of age, occupation, package availed and monthly income. Satisfaction varies only in different income groups and as well in different packages availed groups. Perceived functional value and service consistency is different in different age and monthly income groups. Further, post hock LSD test show that the difference in perceived functional and symbolic value as well as in service consistency exists in 45-54 age groups. In package availed three categories are significantly difference with other groups. Banquet hall customers are significantly different with Package2 (accommodation+ full meals) and package 3 (all services) in overall satisfaction. Package 1 (accommodation + one meal) are also significantly different from package 2 and 3 in overall satisfaction. In monthly income all groups are very diverse and different from each other in overall satisfaction, perceived value dimensions and in service consistency factors. Table 4: One Way ANOVA Age Occupation Package/ Monthly Services Income Availed Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Frequency of visits .477 .705 .071 .087 Overall satisfaction .109 .494 .003 .019 Revisit Intentions .471 .611 .100 .366 Perceived functional Value .021 .633 .065 .008 Perceived symbolic Value .006 .591 .973 .019 Service consistency .009 .290 .066 .011 Service convenience .524 .131 .068 .281 Customer need fulfillment .849 .553 .524 .469 Correlation and Regression Analysis

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

795

ijcrb.webs.com

DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

Correlation analysis (table 5) is done to see relationship between all variables. There is significant relationship between service consistency and service convenience with perceived value factors. But Consistency has positive relationship with both dimensions while Convenience has negative but significant relationship. Now why there is negative relationship exist. First of all we have many money related dimensions in functional value. We assume that more cost mean more convenience. For example, hotels have some special services for disable guests but they charge some extra money. Table 5: Correlations

Frequency of visits

Overall satisfaction

revisit intention

Symbolic Value

Consistency

Convenience

functiona l Value

Customer need Fulfillment

Frequency of visits

Overall satisfaction

Revisit Intentions

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

1

.205* .022 125 1

.138 .124 125 .672** .000 125 1

.338** .000 125 .433** .000 125 .281** .002 125 1

.434** .000 125 .553** .000 125 .434** .000 125 .552** .000 125 1

-.187* .037 125 .019 .837 125 .067 .456 125 -.450** .000 125 -.036 .688 125 1

.415** .000 125 .418** .000 125 .261** .003 125 .506** .000 125 .691** .000 125 -.278** .002 125 1

-.106 .240 125 .089 .324 125 .191* .033 125 -.028 .754 125 .088 .332 125 .035 .699 125 -.095 .290 125 1

125 .205* .022 125 .138 .124 125

125 .672** .000 125

125 .281** .002 125 .434** .000 125 .067 .456 125 .261** .003 125 .191* .033 125

Pearson .338** .433** Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 N 125 125 Consistency Pearson .434** .553** Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 N 125 125 Convenience Pearson -.187* .019 Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .037 .837 N 125 125 Functional Pearson .415** .418** Value Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 N 125 125 Customer Pearson -.106 .089 Need Correlation Fulfillment Sig. (2-tailed) .240 .324 N 125 125 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Symbolic Value **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

125 .552** .000 125 -.450** .000 125 .506** .000 125 -.028 .754 125

125 -.036 .688 125 .691** .000 125 .088 .332 125

125 -.278** .002 125 .035 .699 125

125 -.095 .290 125

125

Regression analysis All dimensions of perceived value are significantly related with service quality dimensions. Perceived value dimensions were considered as dependent on service quality dimensions. Multivariate test shows the significant relationship among all variables. Customer need fulfillment had weak relationship with perceived value in comparison with other service quality factors. Regression is used to see relationship between functional value dimension with service quality dimensions (table 6). There is significant relationship exists between these variables with r-square value of .563. But again the relationship of service convenience, customer need fulfillment with functional value is negative. The reason is same

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

796

ijcrb.webs.com

DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

as described in correlation. Customer need fulfillment is also negative here. The reason behind this result is there is difference between what customer perceived and what they actually receive. Regression test of symbolic value with service quality factors have shown same results. The relationship is significant and value of r-square (.493) show good fit. But the relationship with convenience and demand fulfillment is also negative here. Secondly VIF values are also lower enough to show that there is no multi linearity issue. So H1 is not supported here because two dimensions show negative relationship. Table 6: Relationship between Service quality dimensions and Perceived Value Dimensions Source Dependent Type III Df Mean F Sig. Variable Sum of Square Squares Service Functional 69.845 1 69.845 132.53 .000 Consistency Value 7 Symbolic Value Functional Value Symbolic Value Functional Value 26.471 8.961 16.648 3.151 1 1 1 1 26.471 8.961 16.648 3.151 .334 69.235 17.004 43.542 5.978 .873 .000 .000 .000 .016 .352

Service Convenience

Customer Need Fulfillment

Symbolic .334 1 Value a. R Squared = .563 (Adjusted R Squared = .552) b. R Squared = .493 (Adjusted R Squared = .480) Table 7: Overall Satisfaction Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B (Constant) 1.001 Std. Error .302 Beta

t

Sig.

Collinearity Statistics Toleranc e VIF

3.31 .001 6 Functional .305 .104 .268 2.92 .004 .744 1.344 Value 7 Symbolic .429 .132 .297 3.24 .002 .744 1.344 Value 8 a. Dependent Variable: Overall satisfaction after availing hotels of specified hotel Regression test of satisfaction with perceived value factors showed significant and positive relationship (table 7). Secondly value of r-square is good enough to show fair model fit. So H2 is true. Service consistency only shows significant relationship with satisfaction but there is positive relationship with all variables. H3 is also found true here that there is positive relationship between satisfaction and service quality. Next the relationship between service quality and repurchase intentions also shows same result like satisfaction. Results shows that only one dimension has a significant result which is service consistency but again the positive relationship proved our H4. Another variable is customer need fulfillment which is important but still insignificant. Result of regression test show that symbolic value is more important for revisit intentions then functional one. Also significant relationship is found with symbolic value. There is positive relationship exists between perceived value and revisit intention. So we can accept the H5. Regression results shows relationship between satisfaction and revisit intentions are strongly significant and positive (sig= 0.000, beta =10.007). The value of r-square is .453 and there is only one independent variable which is satisfactions. So, model shows good fit and prove our hypothesis that there is significant relationship exist in revisit intention and satisfaction. If people are satisfied then they would likely to have revisit intentions. Model 2 Now we will check model 2. For the model 2 we use special technique to analyze results. After conducting hierarchical analysis we found that in fixed factors package is significant and have positive relationship (b=.210

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

797

ijcrb.webs.com

DECEMBER 2012
VOL 4, NO 8

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

p