Customer satisfaction in tourism

The search for the Holy Grail

Clare Foster

Introduction

In some respects, the concept of customer satisfaction in tourism can be likened to the search for the Holy Grail. It is highly revered and sought after by the industry, but remains an elusive concept methodologically. There is in fact little consensus as to ‘what’ satisfaction actually is despite exhaustive attention given to the subject over recent decades. To provide a comprehensive review of the literature on the subject, therefore, is not an easy task as one is immediately faced with a plethora of research from different approaches, spanning decades. And yet despite all this research, and despite customer satisfaction being the ultimate goal of tourism marketing, it seems we are still no closer to understanding what satisfaction actually means to people.

The quest to understand customer satisfaction from a marketing perspective has so far been led by approaches taking a psychological perspective. Satisfaction is perceived as a cognitive process and as the outcome of a ‘post consumption evaluative judgement’. Although there have been numerous iterations and variations, Kozak (2001) argues these approaches are in fact a family of mini-theories and conceptual schemes, which share a number of theoretical and methodological assumptions. Based on this understanding in the fi rst section of the chapter an overview of these approaches is provided rather than a review of specifi c models and subsequent variants. The studies that are featured in this section are representative examples from within this tradition.

Partly as a result of increasing criticism of the cognitive approaches but also partly due to the evolution of tourism studies generally, a number of alternative approaches to customer satisfac-tion have emerged. For convenience, rather than any unifying theoretical basis or conceptual scheme, these approaches have been grouped together and are reviewed in the second section of the chapter. They include studies, which aim to understand satisfaction within the totality of tourist experience rather than specifi c attributes. These approaches often recognize the impor-tance of consumers’ emotional responses and the meanings of experience. Tourism is understood as an embodied experience, whereby tourists are contributors or co-producers of the experience and therefore have an input into satisfactory outcomes. These approaches often also highlight the importance of the social aspects of tourist experiences and recognize the infl uence and contribution of other people to satisfactory experiences.

The fi nal section will turn to more emergent approaches to understanding satisfaction. These build on approaches which position the tourist as an active agent ‘doing tourism’ (Crouch et al.

2001). However, further evidence is drawn from ethnomethodology and discursive psycho-logy, which places greater emphasis on the interactions of tourists, conceives evaluations as constitutive actions and thus satisfaction as something that is constructed in and through social interaction.

The process of satisfaction

Pearce (2005) argues satisfaction is simply a post-experience attitude, a cognitive process and the outcome of a ‘post-consumption evaluative judgment’. Research in this tradition has attempted to understand this individual cognitive process and the ways that tourists process experiences into subjective evaluations (Decrop 1999: 103). By looking at satisfaction as a process, these approaches concentrate on the antecedents to satisfaction rather than the construction of satisfaction itself.

At the core of this approach is the assumption that tourists make a rational cognitive evaluation by comparing the evaluative object or experience with some absolute or relative standard.

Evaluations, for the most part, are treated as part of the individual cognitive process; they are the internal assessment procedure that individuals undertake to judge their levels of (dis)satisfaction.

Customers use these evaluative judgments to inform future purchases. Satisfi ed consumers will engage in positive word-of-mouth behaviour and may remain loyal to the company. Dissatisfi ed consumers may engage in negative word-of-mouth, they may complain to the company and may ultimately choose not to use that company again. The link between attitudes and behavioural intentions is in the treatment of (dis)satisfaction as an attitude on the assumption that by understanding (dis)satisfaction, predictions can be made about future behaviour. Customer satisfaction is therefore a relative concept, which is always judged in relation to a standard.

However, as Ekinci (2003) notes, although the use of a comparison standard is central to the measurement of customer satisfaction the choice of standard remains a key issue.

Historically, amongst the ‘process’ approaches to satisfaction, the ‘disconfi rmations approach’

prevails and it forms the basis for numerous models used in tourism studies. Expectancy disconfi rmation models assume that consumers purchase services with pre-purchase expectations about anticipated performance. Tourists evaluate their current experience based on these prior expectations and thus, the expectation level becomes a standard against which the service is judged. The theory works on the premise that confi rmation occurs where customer percep-tions of performance match expectapercep-tions. Disconfi rmation occurs where perceppercep-tions of performance deviate from expectations and this can be positive (perception of performance better than expectations), or negative (perception of performance worse than expectations). By measuring the difference between expectations and perceptions of performance, a ‘gap-analysis’

can be taken to judge the levels of satisfaction. Thus, satisfaction is related to the size of the disconfi rmation experience, where disconfi rmation is related to the person’s initial expectations (Johnson 1995).

Despite on-going debate in relation to whether expectations are based on what consumers believe will happen or should happen, and whether consumers compare performance to expectations or norms, researchers generally agree that unfulfi lled expectations can be an important source of consumer dissatisfaction. Alternative comparison standards also based on the

‘disconfi rmations approach’ include ‘experience based norms’ where comparisons are made against previous experience. Similarly, ‘equity theory’ is posited as a comparison standard where satisfaction is judged in terms of the costs associated with the purchase (price, time, effort) and the rewards or benefi ts anticipated. If the rewards exceed the costs then tourists will be satisfi ed.

However, some researchers (see for example Spreng et al. 1996; Bowen 2001; Decrop 2001;

Customer satisfaction in tourism Ekinci 2003) question the use of a single comparison standard and have instead called for recognition that tourists might use multiple comparison standards at any point in time.

The basic expectancy disconfi rmation model has undergone various adaptations and it also forms the basis for the popular SERVQUAL model (Zeithaml et al. 1990). This model assumes that customers have expectations of service quality and any deviations result in disconfi rmations of expectations. It operates under the assumption that gaps between customers’ expected and perceived service are not only a measure of the quality of the service but also a determinant of customer (dis)satisfaction (Pizam and Ellis 1999). Therefore, although service quality and (dis) satisfaction are not the same thing, they are linked in that customers perceiving poor service quality for example, are unlikely to be satisfi ed. The SERVQUAL scale remains one of the most popular models in tourism and it has been used in various studies including: alpine resorts (Weiermair and Fuchs 1999), airlines (Robledo 2001; Gilbert and Wong 2003) and specifi c destinations (Pawitra and Tan 2003; Lee et al. 2004) among many others. Furthermore, Laws (1991) notes that many more researchers also refer their work to the SERVQUAL model either by using some of its constructs, or by differentiating their analyses from it.

The disconfi rmations approach also forms the basis of Importance-performance models.

These models stem from decision making models as discussed in part fi ve of this volume, and they recognize that all attributes of the experience may not be of equal value to the consumer and hence satisfaction levels will vary accordingly. Based on this approach, compensatory models presume that customers make trade-offs of satisfaction of one attribute for another. Weighted compensatory models operate in the same way except they assume that each attribute has an importance weight relative to other attributes. On the other hand, non-compensatory models posit that tourism products consist of both core (the taken for granted elements) and peripheral attributes (the secondary features that differentiate the product) and whilst failure in the core elements is likely to cause dissatisfaction, positive evaluations are not refl ected in a commensurately positive evaluation overall.

The disconfi rmations approach assumes satisfaction to be mainly based on expectations.

Yet for fi rst time users, expectations are often vague or non-existent (Arnold and Price 1993; Obenour et al. 2006; Yuskal and Yuksal 2001) and people may update their expectations where there are delays between purchase and consumption or where they obtain additional information (Kozak 2001). Furthermore the most memorable and satisfying experiences can often be the most unexpected (Botterill 1987; Curtin 2005). These diffi culties with using expectations as a comparison standard, amongst others, led to the development of

‘performance only’ approaches, which position evaluative judgements as made solely against the performance of the product or experience, and thus tourists are likely to be satisfi ed when performance is at a desired level (see for example Qu and Li 1997; Kozak and Rimmington 2000; Robledo 2001).

Despite numerous variations there remain some common assumptions inherent in process approaches that are worth highlighting. Regardless of the comparison standard used, process approaches assume satisfaction to be the outcome of a rational cognitive process and despite the assumption of an evaluative process the focal point is always the post-consumption assessment.

Satisfaction is treated as an abstract and theoretical phenomenon (Kozak 2001) measurable through quantifi able methods, using indicators defi ned by the researcher. Tourists are required to rate their level of satisfaction against the standards determined by the researcher. Furthermore, there is also an assumption that satisfaction is individually interpreted and independent of other individuals. However, there are also differences, most specifi cally in relation to the most appropriate comparative standard, the role of expectations, the relationship between quality and satisfaction and the relative importance of various attributes. This has resulted in an increasing

level of complexity in process models and context-dependency of fi ndings of studies in an attempt to overcome shortcomings (Callahan and Elliott 1996).

Despite their continued popularity, process approaches using quantitative methods are not without criticism. Stewart and Hull (1996) highlight the growing body of literature which has begun to question the degree of cognitive processing implicit in these models. They argue that they characterise ‘the human mind as having memory and computational abilities similar to the processing of a computer’ (1996: 10). Others argue against the treatment of tourists as ‘information processors’ (Obenour et al. 2006; Callahan and Elliott 1996) whilst Otto and Ritchie (1996: 169) note that ‘rational information processing schemes which focus on functional or purely attribute-based elements are incommensurate with tourism’ (Otto and Ritchie 1996: 168). Additionally, Yi (1990 cited in Boote 1998) argues that dissatisfaction is an affective or emotional state, which can bypass any cognitive process of evaluation. Also, the emphasis in process approaches is on the individual cognitive judgement which leads Swan and Bowers (1998) to argue against individuals being treated as though they are in ‘solitary confi nement’, in that they assume a complete absence of consumer interactions with other tourists or service delivery personnel in attempts to understand satisfaction (1998: 60). As Carey and Gountas argue ‘satisfaction levels and perception of a situation are likely to be infl uenced not only by our personal evaluation but also by those who are closely participating in our experience’ (2000: 65).

When satisfaction is calculated using specifi c attributes, the outcome depends on the choice of attributes included. Changing the selection of attributes affects the level of satisfaction accordingly, even though the level of overall satisfaction of the individual may not alter (Dmitrovic´ et al. 2009). Similarly, Obenour et al. (2006) argue that disconfi rmation models measure satisfaction with narrowly defi ned functions and attributes which ultimately creates a fragmented rather than holistic characterisation of the service experience. Yet as Palmer (2011) notes in the context of theatre performance evaluations, a musical cannot be assessed by judging each individual chord, but only by the way that they are performed together. Criticism is also directed to the fact that whilst outcomes (satisfaction) may be similar, the meanings of satisfactory experience are likely to be fundamentally different. As Ryan warns, ‘the apparent ease of satisfaction measurement makes us blind to the real nature of the experience tourists seek and often fi nd’ (1999: 267).

Danaher and Hadrell (1996: 11) note ‘the emerging consensus appears to be that perfor-mance drives disconfi rmation, which in turn drives satisfaction’. However, Ryan (1995b: 52) argues that holidays are chosen with a goal in mind and any model of tourist behaviour must thus include consideration of tourists’ predisposition to certain actions. Holidays ought to be successful since they are generally carefully chosen by individuals, who work towards them with considerable anticipation all year, investing in substantial time, effort and expense, and to admit that they were less than wonderful would be tantamount to social failure (Krippendorf 1987).

Concepts such as cognitive dissonance and behaviour adaptation whereby tourists re-evaluate the sources of disappointment as being unimportant, in order to achieve ‘a fulfi lling and satisfactory holiday’ have been highlighted (Pearce 1988), which ‘casts a shadow on the tradi-tional method of tourism research’ (Stewart and Hull 1996: 11). Tourists may be predisposed towards satisfaction, which in turn positively affects disconfi rmation evaluations and thus, the perception of the overall experience or performance. In such a reverse causal sequence, a predisposition toward satisfaction may drive tourists to perform in such a way so as to achieve satisfaction. Essentially therefore, whilst satisfaction is posited as an outcome of an evaluative process, by focusing on the outcome, the process through which the outcome is achieved is often overlooked.

Customer satisfaction in tourism

Alternative approaches

The experience of satisfaction

In cognitive models satisfaction is defi ned by the degree the experience has met expected outcomes, rather than on the actual experience itself. In alternative approaches the focus is on understanding tourism as an experience and thus attention is placed on the experiential benefi ts of tourism as an important factor in tourist satisfaction and in understanding the contribution of consumption experiences. They advocate that understanding customer experiences and benefi ts is critical for suppliers since customers perceive these experiences to be the core product (the bundle of memories they take away with them) (Slatten et al. 2011).

Focusing on experiences leads to an emphasis on the emotional aspects of consumers’ evalua-tions rather than rational cognition for as Otto and Ritchie (1996: 168) observe ‘perhaps more than any other service, tourism holds the potential to elicit strong emotional and experiential reactions’. Emotional reactions and subjective responses are therefore seen as fundamental determinants of tourist satisfaction and post-consumption behaviour (McIntosh and Siggs 2005: 74).

In most cases, priority is given to a contextual understanding of the experience and to reconstructing the actor’s own world-view in a way that is faithful to their everyday life (Rock 2001). The practical knowledge that people employ to guide their own actions is also important since individuals are interpretive beings that construct their lives purposefully and practically, creating meaning from their interactions with their environment (Rock ibid.). From an experiential perspective, focus is shifted away from the product to the perceptions or the meaning that the experience has for the individual. Tourists constantly construct their experiences in relation to their cultural context and the meaning of the experience to them as members of their culture. They are active agents and co-producers and to some extent ‘responsible for creating their own satisfaction’ (Slatten et al. 2011: 87).

By adopting an experiential, meaning-based approach, in-depth insights of the wider factors which contribute to satisfaction can be gleaned. For example Otto and Ritchie (1996) identifi ed six dimensions in the tourism experience: hedonic, novelty, comfort, safety, stimulation and interaction, whilst Obenour et al. (2006) highlighted the importance of social interaction, independence and the symbols of distinctive accommodation for backpackers. Bitner (1992) and Swan and Trawick (1999) have shown that elements of the physical environment elicit strong emotional and subjective reactions and, as a consequence, infl uence satisfaction. Through gaining insights pertaining to the holistic perspective, suggestions can be made to improve satisfaction most notably through improvements in service design.

Others have noted the important contribution of service personnel such as tour leaders (Swan and Bowers 1998) and guides (Arnould et al. 1999) to satisfaction. Similarly Jennings and Weiler (2006) refer to the role of both formal (guides, representatives, service personnel) and informal (other tourists, host population) ‘brokers’ in mediating the experience. Arnould and Price (1993) found that the interaction with others sharing the journey had a profound effect upon tourists’ satisfaction with the trip and the importance of this social aspect is a theme which recurs in a number of studies (Obenour et al. 2006; Murphy 2001; Andereck et al. 2006; Yarnal and Kerstetter 2005). However, such is the importance of social interaction to certain tourists that a service provider and/or product may be judged on the degree to which the provider/

product offers a suitable venue or ‘space’ to facilitate social interaction (Obenour et al. 2006;

Murphy 2001; Yarnal and Kerstetter 2005). Furthermore Gainer (1995) argues that by shifting the focus of inquiry to the relationship among consumers, a company may be evaluated not only

in terms of its own performance but also in terms of its ability to provide a venue for the enactment of consumers’ own performances.

The social experience of satisfaction

The importance of the social aspect of the tourism experience has been highlighted by experiential approaches. However, there are differences between studies and approaches in terms of how such social aspects are framed. At the fundamental level, the ‘presence’ of others has been identifi ed as a factor contributing to the satisfaction of the experience (see for example Quiroga 1990). Tourism is, after all, largely an activity that people experience together. This is the

‘collective gaze’ (Urry 1990) where social sharing of tourist experiences with like-minded others is an enhancer of satisfaction.

At another level, is the ‘infl uence’ of others in producing satisfactory outcomes. Research gathered over several decades indicates that individuals can frequently be induced to alter their attitudes, feelings, or behaviour as a result of social infl uences (Baron 1977) and ‘it is known that interpersonal infl uence on the evaluation of a product can stem from the beliefs one person conveys to another’ (Howard and Gengler 2001: 12). For example, some researchers suggest that emotional contagion infl uences other customers’ emotional states (Howard and Gengler 2001;

Gountas and Gountas 2004) resulting in a convergence of emotions and, where the emotion is positive, more favourable product evaluations result. Conversely, Kowalski (1996) highlights the

‘contagion of complaints’, whereby the hearers of complaints often respond with complaints of their own. Research has also found that customer-to-customer relationships increase perceptions of satisfaction (Arnould and Price 1993; Harris and Baron 2004; Guenzi and Pelloni 2004; Wu 2007) and may positively contribute to the development of long-term relations with the company.

In the context of service encounters it is common to see people doing things together and so

‘recognition of the simple fact of the group as the service user could be an important sensitising concept for many services’ (Swan and Bowers 1998: 62). Yet tourists not only do things together, they also have ample opportunity to discuss their experiences throughout the holiday, and such discussions may potentially infl uence their subsequent evaluations (Laws 1991; Ryan 1995;

Kozak 2001). From this perspective research on group interactions could be signifi cant to understanding tourist satisfaction. Baron et al. (1992) note that in experimental situations individuals can be strongly infl uenced by the opinions of others. Furthermore, opinions are maintained for subsequent judgements even in the absence of a group. Ekinci and Riley (1998) argue that our social identity leads us to affi liate with groups and consequently towards consensual judgements.

Furthermore, the more intangible the object to be evaluated, the more the individual relies on consensus. The need for consensual judgements which affect evaluations can have a powerful infl uence even in the absence of other members of the group (Friedman and Fireworker 1977).

Understanding satisfaction from a group, rather than an individual perspective remains under-researched in tourism. Exceptions include Swan and Bowers’ (1998: 67) study of tourists of a bird-watching trip where they concluded that satisfaction was determined by factors other than product attributes and ‘the concept of social norms may prove to be a signifi cant determinant of service satisfaction because services take place in a social context’. Others call for tourists to be treated as a type of ‘visitor community’ (Levy and Hassay 2005) as members of a ‘short-lived society’ (Foster 1986), or as ‘co-tourists’ (Cheyenne Harvey and Lorenzen 2006), whilst Brown (2007) argues for the collaborative nature of tourist experience to be more widely recognized.

Customer satisfaction in tourism

The performance of satisfaction

Performative approaches are predicated on the ‘social’ aspects of experiences, the co-production perspective. Drawing on the work of Goffman (1959) and the idea that social life can be likened to drama, performative approaches acknowledge that tourist experiences are carried out upon particular stages or settings. Edensor (2001) notes these settings are distinguished by bounded-ness, whether physical or symbolic, and although these do not determine the kinds of perfor-mance which occur, they provide and sustain common-sense understandings about what activities should take place. Within these settings we acquire the competence to reproduce rec-ognizable performative conventions (Goffman 1959) and hence a key component of performa-tive approaches is the concept of ‘roles’. Rather than tourists holding expectations merely of the product, Goossens (2000) suggests they also have expectations of the ‘role’ they anticipate per-forming; an ‘enactive imagery’, which is described as ‘a kind of imagined action or role play . . . an anticipating and motivating force that mediates emotional experiences, affective appraisals, evaluations, and behavioural intentions’ (2000: 308). Bowen (2001a) found the performance of the individual was deemed more important than that of the product to long-haul passengers.

Similarly Gyimothy’s (2000) study of island visitors suggested that people interpret events according to the role perspective in which they identify themselves and, furthermore, that service providers were assessed according to the supporting or adversary role they occupied in tourists’

personal discourses.

Another element is the concept of scripts. These are not rigid rules that limit behaviour but a set of guiding principles. Scripts denote what ‘should’ happen in the enactment of any performance: the form that the drama should take, what should be seen, what should be done and what actions are inappropriate (Edensor 2001). On a similar note MacCannell (1999: 25) argues ‘each production (of tourism) is assembled from available cultural elements and it remains somewhat faithful to the other cultural models for the same experience’. Tourists may hold expectations of the overall script and as George and Mekoth (2004) found in a study of international tourists to India, an important source of dissatisfaction was when the expected scripts and events could not be observed. Unscripted events were similarly found to be a cause for complaint. According to Shoemaker (1996) satisfaction can best be achieved when companies possess an understanding of their customers’ scripts.

Performative approaches recognize that tourists produce the experience through the practice of tourism and a degree of ‘work’ is involved for the experience to be realized. Tourism work is seen ‘not in terms of paid employment but in the form of the organized purposeful activities which are part of tourism’ (Brown 2007: 365). Yet, ‘work’ may also be undertaken by tourists in how experiences and activities are evaluated. Kennedy (2005) argues that there is a societal obligation to provide an assessment of the on-going experience, and Bowen (2001) found evaluations were made throughout the experience and with ‘unanticipated frequency’ (2001: 55).

Evaluative work may therefore form a crucial part of the overall ‘work’ of ‘being a tourist’. In this case, satisfaction is not simply realized, it is ‘worked at’ and actively achieved within the overall process and performance of being a tourist.

Performative approaches are useful in that they simultaneously acknowledge the importance of the context of the experience, the ‘role’ of the individual, the ‘role’ of others, and the role that both play in the overall production of the experience. It is possible therefore to understand satisfaction from a performative approach not as an outcome of the evaluation of an experience but as a performance enacted in the role of a tourist. Each experience is produced and reproduced in an ongoing interactive process and the success of the performance is determined according to the skill of the actors (Edensor 2001). In the co-constructed and interactional setting where

there is concern for ‘impression management’ (Goffman 1959), tourists have to be accountable for their performances and they need to enact them in such a way that they will be acceptable to the recipient audiences. In other words, the audience needs to recognize and understand what is being performed. The way in which evaluations and satisfaction are socially constructed, negotiated and performed within the interaction with other members forms the focus of the fi nal section of this chapter.

The evaluative process and the social construction of satisfaction

The most recent and emergent approaches present the possibility of understanding satisfaction as a social construction. Building on the understanding of tourists ‘doing tourism’ (Crouch et al.

2001:254) and on the importance of understanding the ‘social’ aspect of the experience these approaches do not necessarily attempt to question the psychological notion of satisfaction itself, but rather its treatment as readily accessible and measurable through quantitative approaches.

Instead an alternative frame is presented where psychological concepts are considered in sociological terms and particular attention is placed on the social context in which people attach meaning to experiences. This perspective aims to understand tourists as members of society and therefore tourism experiences are not differentiated from the everyday context which shapes the way tourists associate meaning from their experiences.

Tourists are viewed as actively constructing their experiences through interactions with other people they encounter (Moore 2002) and these approaches seek to understand how the meaning of satisfaction is accomplished collectively and socially through a continuous process of social interaction. From this perspective expressing an evaluation is a social action (rather than an internal cognitive process) with an emphasis on the construction of evaluations as interactional practices (Wiggins 2001). Although evaluative expressions are a common feature of interaction (Pomerantz 1984) and the process of evaluation forms the basis for understanding satisfaction, evaluations per se have rarely been studied (Wiggins and Potter 2003).

However, drawing on ethnomethodology and discursive psychology Foster (2010) explored tourists’ evaluations of their package holiday experiences. The study highlighted the strategies used in the accomplishment of evaluations and thus in part, how tourists negotiate the task of being a tourist. This study demonstrated the way in which evaluations and (dis)satisfaction are locally occasioned, managed and accomplished and highlighted the methods and procedures through which descriptions of good and bad holiday experiences are made sensible and understandable. In this type of approach (dis)satisfaction becomes a social accomplishment which is achieved through evaluative practices. The study presented the possibility that (dis)satisfaction can be treated as a culturally constructed phenomenon that cannot be separated from its social and interactional context.

Tourists were found to use devices such as ‘scenic framing’ and ‘breach formulations’ in evaluative talk of experiences. These devices draw on the ‘known in common’ spatial and social organization of the experience and become a resource to justify positive and negative evaluations and a way to communicate the shared meaning of good and bad experiences.

The meaning of good and bad holidays and (dis)satisfaction with such is therefore a participants’ concern that is produced, formulated and negotiated in interaction. The social and local orientation to the meaning of evaluations and (dis)satisfaction was further demonstrated in tourists’ frequent use of ‘one-up-man-ship’ strategies in response to other’s negative evaluations.

By responding to negative evaluations with descriptions of more extreme circumstances tourists display an intersubjectively shared understanding of the meaning of the evaluation. However, by positing alternative situations as being worse, the initial negative evaluation is downgraded.

Customer satisfaction in tourism Dissatisfaction, or at least the degree of dissatisfaction, can therefore be understood as socially constructed and negotiated within interactional practices.

Where satisfaction is understood as possessing an affective component, then the relevance of the social construction of emotions and the appropriate socially sanctioned response is also pertinent. Laurier (1999: 204) argues that ‘leisure is constructed around notions of appropriate emotions, having a bad time is the ultimate failure of precious investment given over to leisure’

and in his study of yacht cruising he noted the considerable amount of effort required to keep up the appearance of having a good time, to maintain a sense of a defi ned situation and to ‘fi t’

within the constructed boundaries of appropriate behaviour. Similarly, from a constructionist perspective Stearns (1995: 37) argues that emotional reactions change according to cultural requirements and in relation to anger, ‘people to an extent select how angry they will become and certainly how much anger they will display, not in spontaneous response to the magnitude of the stimulus but in keeping with the social setting’.

Stemming from the seminal work of Hochschild (1983) the concept of ‘emotional labour’ has increasingly become an area of interest. The work of exotic dancers (Montemurro 2001; Wood 2000), restaurant servers (Paules 1991) and adventure guides (Holyfi eld 1999; Sharpe 2005) has been explored, all of whom must display good cheer even when they are otherwise frustrated, bored, or angry. Sharpe argues that adventure provides a setting for a character contest and central to displaying the appropriate style of conduct is maintaining control over one’s emotions.

As a consequence, being able to control one’s emotions in adventure has become a valued trait in our culture. Laurier’s study is important in terms of highlighting the ‘emotional work’

involved in leisure experiences. Yet, the study refers to the work that he himself undertook as a participant. With the exception of Foster (2010) the work that tourists in general undertake is as yet unknown.

However, Foster demonstrated the way in which tourists work to readjust their evaluations in order to maintain a positive response to the experience and how notions of dissatisfaction are

‘worked up’ in negative accounts of holiday experiences. Sources of dissatisfaction were routinely re-evaluated as being unimportant or presented in a way to limit their impact on satisfaction.

Additionally tourists also worked to demonstrate their ability to cope with negative elements of the experience and they presented themselves as competent, discerning customers. In the same way that emotional control is code for being ‘professional’ for airline stewards (Hochchild 1983), appropriate control of one’s emotions is a key element of the performance in the role of a tourist.

Conclusion

Customer satisfaction remains an important element of any organization’s strategy and in a competitive market the ability to assess levels of customer satisfaction is crucial to survival. This situation has led to a quest to fi nd ‘instrumentally useful’ frameworks for the measurement of customer satisfaction and it is these approaches which currently dominate the fi eld. From these perspectives tourists are considered rational consumers that undertake a ‘post consumption evaluative judgement’ frequently in relation to some standard. As yet, there remains no agreement as to which standard should be used, nor of the attributes against which the experience should be assessed. The product is placed at the centre of these approaches and concern turns to the methods to measure tourist satisfaction as it pertains to performance of the product. These approaches may be useful in terms of assessing specifi c elements of the experience, yet they also attract much criticism.

Whilst the focus of process approaches tends to be either transactional or attribute based, experiential approaches explore the more holistic, dynamic and less tangible features (Pearce