How Cultural Differences Cause Dimensions of Tourism Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper develops a conceptual model of the relationship between different cultural values and how they influence consumer satisfaction in the tourism industry. It is hypothesized that cultural differences manifest themselves in different levels of importance being placed upon different aspects of service, and the differences between the levels of importance and the actual service received cause differences in the levels of satisfaction. These hypotheses are tested using 269 independent samples of levels of importance and 411 independent samples of satisfaction of tourists from four cultural groups (Australian, USA/Canadian, Japanese, Mandarin speakers) who visited Melbourne, Australia in the period May-September, 1996. The analysis develops dimensions of importance and satisfaction separately for each cultural grouping, and uses structural equation modeling (Amos 3.6) to develop the causal model measuring the way in which importance of service dimensions cause dimensions of satisfaction. Conclusions from the analysis show little evidence of a causal relationship between importance of service quality attributes and satisfaction. However, significant differences are found between cultures for different levels of satisfaction resulting indirectly from differences in the importance and actual levels of service received. The implications for cultural differences affecting tourism satisfaction are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".