Influence of environmental stimuli on hotel customer emotional loyalty response: Testing the moderating effect of the big five personality factors

International Journal of Hospitality Management 44 (2015) 48–57

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

Influence of environmental stimuli on hotel customer emotional loyalty response: Testing the moderating effect of the big five personality factors Dev Jani a,1 , Heesup Han b,∗ a b

University of Dar-es-Salaam Business School, P.O. Box 35046, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania College of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Sejong University, 98 Gunja-Dong, Gwanjin-Gu, Seoul 143-747, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Keywords: Hotel Stimuli–organism–response (S–O–R) Big five factors (BFF) of personality Loyalty

a b s t r a c t The aim of this research was to test the moderation effects of the Big Five Factors (BFF) of personality on hotel ambience-guests’ consumption emotions–loyalty relationship. This was an attempt to extend the Stimuli–Organism–Response (S–O–R) that has been widely used in consumer studies without integrating personality factors that may exert effects on the relationships. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to hotel guests; 563 responses were used in data analysis. The results of the structural model affirm the effect of hotel ambience on guests’ consumption emotions, with those emotions having significant effects on loyalty. Among the personality factors, extraversion, openness to experience and agreeableness significantly moderated the relationships, with groups scoring high in traits having stronger relationships than those lower in traits. Overall, the study supports the extension of the S-O-R with the inclusion of personality. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The importance of loyalty in generating profit for the hospitality business has attracted many researchers into elucidating the factors that influence loyalty (Jani and Han, 2014a). The noted influential factors include Bitner (1992) three dimensions of servicescape (ambience, space, and sign/artifacts; Han and Ryu, 2009; Kim and Moon, 2009; Siu et al., 2012), personal factors like demographics (Han and Ryu, 2006) and personality variables (Hansen et al., 2013), and interactional factors like trust (Martinez and Bosque, 2013), perceived benefits (Chen and Hu, 2010) and other myriad of factors. These factors converge into the two broader factors of environmental and personal that influence consumer behavior (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2005). Few studies (e.g. Gountas and Gountas, 2007; Han and Ryu, 2009; Hansen et al., 2013) have considered either the environmental or personal factor to be an antecedent of loyalty through mediators like consumption emotions, cognition, and satisfaction. Such an approach appears to provide a limited understanding of consumer loyalty which have

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 3408 4462; fax: +82 2 3408 4314. E-mail addresses: yogi [email protected] (D. Jani), [email protected] (H. Han). 1 Tel.: +255 22 2410006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.10.006 0278-4319/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

been noted to be influenced by environmental factors (Han and Ryu, 2009) as well as personal factors (Bove and Mitzifiris, 2007; Lin, 2010). This study attempted to fill in the knowledge gap by integrating environmental, specifically hotel ambience that is easily and cheaply manageable by managers (Heung and Gu, 2012) and personal factors to better understand hotel guest loyalty. In adapting the Stimuli–Organism–Response (S–O–R) model (Mehrabian and Russel, 1974) and Bitner’s servicescape framework (1992), a model was developed and tested with hotel ambience as an antecedent to hotel guests’ loyalty through the mediation effect of consumption emotions (positive and negative). Personality that refers to the stable, enduring individual characteristics pertaining to cognitive, emotion, and behavioral responses (Pervin and Cervone, 2010) was treated as a moderating variable in ambience-consumption emotion–loyalty relationships reflecting suggestions and findings from previous research (Hansen et al., 2013; Walsh et al., 2008). The S-O-R implies that environmental stimuli may be used to elicit responses in an organism, including emotional reactions that lead to a particular behavior. Unlike Bitner’s (1992) servicescape framework that borrows elements from the S-O-R, the latter did not include personal variables while the former incorporates personal variables as moderators. Ambient factors perceived via the senses have been found to influence hospitality guests’ consumption-related emotional

D. Jani, H. Han / International Journal of Hospitality Management 44 (2015) 48–57

reactions (Jang and Namkung, 2009; Jani and Han, 2014b; Ryu and Jang, 2008; Walsh et al., 2011), with these emotions leading to loyalty or positive revisit intentions. Moreover, other researchers have tested the influence of ambience on behavioral intentions, including loyalty (Heung and Gu, 2012) with noted significance. In line with the S-O-R model, this study complements the work of those that have treated consumption emotions as mediators for the effect of hotel ambience on guests’ loyalty or behavior intentions (Jang and Namkung, 2009; Lee et al., 2008). The Big Five Factors (BFF) of personality, including openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism, are believed to factor in most personality psychological variables and have been widely tested to affirm their universality (Mowen, 2000). With recent studies affirming the utility of the BFF within leisure context (e.g. Huang et al., 2014; Jani and Han, 2013, 2014b), this study used the BFF to test the moderation effects of personality on proposed relationships emanating from the S-O-R model. Recent conceptual (e.g., Fiore and Kim, 2007) and empirical studies (e.g., Skandrani et al., 2011) have proposed and noted, respectively, the moderating influences of individual factors, including personality, on the S-O-R model. While these studies provide evidence of the moderation effects of personality on consumer behavior, little research has employed the BFF within the hotel context thus denying hotelier additional variable(s) that they can use in their marketing initiatives especially in the current competitive environment where service personalization is seen as the next competitive strategy (Ball et al., 2006). With the S-O-R paradigm (Mehrabian and Russel, 1974) having stimuli (hotel ambience), organism (emotions), and response (hotel loyalty) it can be speculated that the relationships vary depending on the personality of those experiencing the hotel. An insight into the effect of personality on the S-O-R model may reveal alternative strategies to hoteliers as they work on hotel design, marketing, and management for particular market segments with different personalities. In seeking to fill the knowledge gap this study was guided by the following research questions: What is the impact of hotel environmental stimuli on hotel guests’ emotional responses while in the hotel? To what extent do guests’ emotional responses influence their loyalty? Does the personality (Big Five Factors) of the hotel guest moderate the relationship between hotel environmental stimuli and emotional responses? Does the personality of the hotel guest have an effect on the emotional responses of the guest and their loyalty?

2. Conceptual foundation and hypotheses development 2.1. The S-O-R model The S-O-R model (Mehrabian and Russel, 1974) offers an explanatory perspective on consumer behavior with regard to environmental effects. The model asserts that when an organism is exposed to an environmental stimulus, its internal processes, including its emotional state (Jang and Namkung, 2009), are altered, leading it to either approach or avoid the environment offering that stimulus. Thus, emotional responses mediate the effects of environmental stimuli on the behavior. Within the hotel setting the stimuli include ambience; the organism’s internal responses include consumption emotions, among other internal responses (e.g. cognitive) that can influence guests’ behavioral responses, including loyalty in the business context. The S-O-R model was adopted to test the relationship in this study. The S-O-R has enjoyed a wider attention by hospitality researchers (e.g. Heung and Gu, 2012; Jang and Namkung, 2009; Kim and Moon, 2009; Ryu and Jang, 2008); albeit being widely researched the S-O-R model has barely been subjected to the moderation effect of personality factors. The uptake of

49

personality into the S-O-R model in this study emanated from the fact that despite personality being conceptually related to organism responses (Bitner, 1992) as the moderator, few studies have empirically tested the relationships (Orth et al., 2010) thus the decision to include the BFF of personality into the S-O-R model thus avails possible use of personality factors in managing and marketing hotels. 2.2. Hotel ambience Many service organizations have embraced the continual shift from a service to experiential economy (Pine and Gilmore, 1999), and the acknowledged importance of the intangible aspects of service offerings in attracting and satisfying customers. In differentiating experiences from services, Pine and Gilmore (1999) indicated that experiences could be more differentiated compared to services as well as having those intangible elements that leave unforgettable memories in the minds of consumers. Experience occurs when a service organization intentionally uses services as the stage and goods as props in delivering those ‘unforgettable experiences’ (Pine and Gilmore, 1999). Hotels as providers of services not necessary to ordinary life can be considered as leisure facilities where guests look for an ‘experience’ rather than a service. Thus hotels, especially those catering to visitors and tourists, need to create experiences that utilize their hotel environments, among other factors. This study zeroed in on testing the influence of the hotel environment on hotel guests’ emotional responses. Bitner’s (1992) classical work categorizes service environment into ambient conditions, space or function, and sign/symbols/artifacts as the three main dimensions. Ambient conditions include temperature, lighting, noise, music, and scent are those that have an effect on the five sense organs, while space refers to the arrangement of facilities in the service environment in a particular order for the attainment of a particular function (Bitner, 1992). Sign, symbols, and artifacts are those elements in the service environment that serve to direct the behavior of the customers in that environment. According to Turley and Milliman (2000), research on the effects of servicescape on consumer behavior abounds, with those done within the hospitality context including restaurant and hotel being on the increase side (Heung and Gu, 2012; Jang and Namkung, 2009; Ryu and Jang, 2008; Walsh et al., 2011). Among the three service environment or servicescape dimensions, ambience appears to be a cheaply, easily and quickly changeable component in a hospitality environment (Heung and Gu, 2012), thus offering hoteliers a lucrative management option. Moreover, ambience has been noted to be significantly important in hospitality services (Ryu and Jang, 2008) like upscale/luxury hotels where the guest are likely to consume the hotel for hedonic reasons. Thus this study focused on hotel ambience rather than the other servicescape dimensions. d’Astous (2000) defined ambience as those background conditions that exist in an environment that are below the level of immediate consciousness. These conditions include temperature, air quality, noise, music, and odor (Bitner, 1992). Other authors have included other conditions such as humidity and cleanliness (d’Astous, 2000); since cleanliness is an observable element within the space it does not fit in the definition of ambience (d’Astous, 2000) and thus was not considered in this study. 2.3. Customer emotional response Despite examinations of emotions as influences on human behavior since time immemorial, this concept in consumer behavior, particularly customer satisfaction, began to receive researchers’ attention in the 1990s (e.g. Liljander and Strandvik, 1997; Bagozzi et al., 1999). Research on consumer emotions or emotional

50

D. Jani, H. Han / International Journal of Hospitality Management 44 (2015) 48–57

responses elicited during consumption experiences (Westbrook and Oliver, 1991) have gained impetus particularly for hedonic products/services (Kempf, 1999) consumed for not only their utilitarian value but the pleasure and feeling derived from the consumption process. As a hedonic service (Lashley, 2008), hotels are logically included on the list of entities being studied to understand guests’ emotional responses. Emotional responses in the hospitality industry have been bifurcated into positive and negative emotions (Han et al., 2010; Laros and Steenkamp, 2005) where the former relates to pleasantness and the latter to non pleasantness. This study adopted two categories of consumptive emotions. Further justification for relying on two emotions rather than those propounded by Mehrabian and Russel (1974) (pleasurable, arousal, and dominance) emanates from study findings that show their insignificance to consumer behavior (Donovan et al., 1994), leading lead some researchers (e.g., Walsh et al., 2011) to disregard them. 2.4. Big five personality traits Personality refers to psychological qualities that contribute to an individual’s enduring and distinctive patterns of feeling, thinking, and behaving (Pervin and Cervone, 2010). Among diverse personality perspectives, the trait perspective has been dominant in behavioral studies, particularly the BFF (McCrae and Costa, 1999). The five factors of the BFF model include neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, and conscientiousness. Since personality relates to emotion and cognition, the operational variables of personality in the BFF relate to emotions. Studies that relate to personality and consumer emotional responses are on the increase yet incomprehensive. Mooradian and Olver (1994), for instance, opted to test the effect of neuroticism on negative emotions, with affirmative results. Faullant et al. (2011) tested the effect of extraversion and neuroticism on joy and fear emotional responses, respectively, and noted a statistically significant effect. Fossum and Barrett (2000), taking evaluation as a mediator for the influence of neuroticism and extraversion on negative and positive consumption emotions, respectively, obtained mixed results, with the former relationship being fully mediated while the latter was partly mediated. In wine-tasting environments, Orth et al. (2010) noted extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, neuroticism, and conscientiousness as moderators of the effect of store-evoked affect and store attachment. All in all, these studies offer mixed findings about the actual relationship among consumer personality, ambience, and emotional responses. 2.5. Customer loyalty The ever increasing number of hotels and other types of accommodation facilities worldwide necessitate hotel to step up their offering in order to compete as well as ensuring their current customers remain loyal to the hotel. The importance of customer loyalty in hotel is attested by continuing research (Han and Hyun, 2013; Han et al., 2011; Kandampully and Hu, 2007; Kandampully et al., 2011; Kandampully and Suhartanto, 2000) and ever booming loyalty programs in the hotel industry (Xiong et al., 2014). Loyalty is perceived to be a hierarchical concept, with cognitive loyalty being the first stage that connotes beliefs held by customers about aspects like price and quality (Evanschitzky and Wunderlich, 2006). When customers hold positive beliefs or good perceptions toward a product they will tend to favor that product according to their beliefs only. Affective loyalty, which pertains to liking and disliking a product, is seen as a better measure than the cognitive since the affective loyalty reflects a positive inclination toward the product rather than only the product attributes (Evanschitzky and Wunderlich, 2006). The behavioral component indicates customer intention to repurchase as determined by either the cognitive component or

affective component (Back, 2005). Since the behavioral dimension of loyalty can evolve from either cognitive or affective dimension of loyalty (Evanschitzky and Wunderlich, 2006; Han and Back, 2008) that might not necessarily reflect the liking of the product but rather the mere intentions, it cannot be relied on as a measure of true loyalty toward a product (Han and Ryu, 2009). Thus, this study took the affective approach to loyalty in line with Han and Ryu (2009) recommendation. 2.6. Research hypotheses Researchers have embarked on efforts to elucidate the influence of service ambience on customer emotion (Liu and Jang, 2009; Jang and Namkung, 2009). Liu and Jang (2009), for instance, noted that restaurant ambience has a significant influence on customers’ positive and negative emotional responses. Kim and Moon (2009), who looked at utilizing the S-O-R model, noted that servicescape including restaurant ambience to exert a significant influence on customers’ pleasure-feeling and thus serves as a customer response factor. Upon correlating restaurant ambience and pleasure-feeling, Kim and Moon (2009) noted a positive significant correlation (.50 at p value .01). Jang and Namkung (2009), despite providing information on the relationship between ambience and customer emotional state, only factored in lighting and background music among other ambience factors. Walsh et al. (2011) research on environmental cues in coffee shops found that music and, in part, aroma had significant effects on consequential customers’ emotions. With these previous studies indicating ambience factors to have effects on customer emotional reactions, there are few studies done using hotel context (e.g. Countryman and Jang, 2006). Given the fact that hotel guest spends most of his/her time inside the hotel environs (Wakefield and Blodgett, 1999) within a single purchase, a test of the influence of hotel ambience on hotel guests’ emotions seems important. Consequently we hypothesized that: H1. Hotel ambience exerts a significant positive impact on hotel guests’ positive emotional response. H2. Hotel ambience has a significant negative influence on hotel guests’ negative emotional response. The latter part of the S-O-R model (Mehrabian and Russel, 1974) indicates organism responses including emotions that influence the behavior of the organism by either avoiding or approaching that particular environment. A number of studies have tried to relate emotions and behavior intention as a proxy of actual behavior in leisure contexts (Jang and Namkung, 2009; Lee et al., 2008; Kim and Moon, 2009). Jang and Namkung (2009), in testing the relationship among restaurant atmospherics, consumption emotions and future behavior, pointed to emotions as a mediator between the influences of atmospherics on patron’s future behavior. Kim and Moon (2009), focusing on restaurant customers, noted that feelings of pleasure had a significant positive effect on customer revisit intentions; such findings are echoed in Ryu and Jang (2008) findings in restaurant settings. Since no studies have tested this relationship in hotel settings, it is logical to test it through the following hypothesis. H3. Hotel guests’ positive emotion has a positive significant influence on hotel guest loyalty. H4. Hotel guests’ negative emotion has a negative significant influence on hotel guest loyalty. Personality as a variable in understanding consumer behavior is gaining prominence (e.g., Gountas and Gountas, 2007) as it appears to offer more insights into the understanding of consumer behavior on top of conventional environmental factors. Recent studies have tried to integrate individual differences, including

D. Jani, H. Han / International Journal of Hospitality Management 44 (2015) 48–57

51

Fig. 1. Conceptual model. (1) Five personality factors (i.e., neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) were used as moderators (Hypothesis 5). (2) Two identical models were proposed for high and low groups on neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, respectively.

personality as moderator of different relationships in consumer behavior. For instance, Walsh et al. (2008) tested the moderating effects of several demographic variables (age, gender, income) on the satisfaction–loyalty link; results indicated that only income influenced the strength of the relationship. In studies reviewed by Hansen et al. (2013), the majority indicate that demographics offered fewer explanations compared to psychological factors as moderators on the effects of loyalty antecedents to loyalty. On using need for cognition as a moderator on the satisfaction–loyalty relationship, Hansen et al. (2013) noted that the variable significantly moderates the relationship. Orth et al. (2010), using wine tasting as a context for their experimental design, observed that the effect of store-evoked affect (affect emanating from environmental stimuli) varied considerably with variations in the BFF of personality. On the other hand, other studies have failed to indicate the moderation effect of personality. Using fast food as a context, Bove and Mitzifiris (2007) failed to uphold the moderation effect of the BFF in relationship formation. Ha and Jang (2013) in studying the effect of dining frequency, recency, satisfaction, hedonic, and utilitarian value on variety seeking intention, noted personality measured through allocentricity to moderate the relationships between hedonic/utilitarian value and variety seeking intention. Skandrani et al. (2011), using a qualitative approach, further provided insights into the moderating role of personality on the S-O-R path with their findings indicating personal variables to have a moderating effect on the way employees react to store atmosphere. With the BFF being considered as a universal model of personality (Mowen, 2000), coupled with the presence of conceptual models extending the S-O-R model (Fiore and Kim, 2007) framework that included individual factors like personality as a moderator to the S-O-R path, it is logical to empirically test its moderating influence in hotel settings where the relationship has yet to be tested, looking specifically at consumption emotions as an organism variable.

3. Methods 3.1. Data collection procedure

H5. The BFF significantly moderates the relationships among ambience, emotional responses, and loyalty.

Data for this study were collected through a self-administered questionnaire distributed to five-star hotel guests in a metropolitan city in South Korea. This data collection was for five weekdays in May. Due to the impracticability of getting a sampling frame of the hotel guests, a convenience sampling approach was used. This approach is regarded to be one of the most common sampling techniques in hospitality/tourism research and consumer–behavior studies in that it is not achievable to test the total customer population and to use an independent random sampling technique that completely represents the whole population in such fields (Han, 2013). The guests were approached by trained research assistants during day time while they were in the hotel environs, particularly the lobby when they were waiting to be served by the hotel staff or waiting for transport or for other reasons. In general, guests can experience diverse aspects of servicescape in the lobby area of a hotel (Countryman and Jang, 2006). After introducing themselves and the study objectives, the research assistants asked the potential respondents whether they were staying in the hotel, the potential respondent’s affirmation of staying in the hotel and their consent in participating in the study led to the research assistants handing the guest a questionnaire to be filled. It was deemed necessary for the guests to fill out the questionnaire inside the hotel environs where they could experience the ambience to capture the actual experience rather than relying on memory if the respondents were accessed in other places after leaving the hotel. While filling it out the research assistants stood near the guest in case they needed clarification of the questions. No gift was given to the participants. To minimize the differential influence of ambience conditions available in different categories of hotels (Roubi and Littlejohn, 2006), only five-star hotels were included in the sampling for data collection as. A total of 563 valid questionnaires were used for data analysis after removing incomplete and unusable responses from 583 questionnaires that were collected.

2.7. Proposed model

3.2. Survey instrument

The proposed theoretical framework is displayed in Fig. 1. The model includes ambience, positive and negative emotional responses, and loyalty. Five personality factors were employed as moderators. To test the moderating impact of these personality factors, two identical models were proposed for high and low groups of each personality component, namely neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.

The questionnaire captured personality traits, hotel consumption emotions, hotel ambience, hotel guest loyalty towards the hotel, and demographic variables. All items with the exception of the demographic items were framed in a 5-point Likert-type scale with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 5, strong agreement. A shorter modified version of the BFF items (Yoo and Gretzel, 2011) with 25 items (5 for each BFF) was utilized in capturing the guests

52

D. Jani, H. Han / International Journal of Hospitality Management 44 (2015) 48–57

personality. Yoo and Gretzel (2011) version was adopted since it is shorter than the original 44-item version (John and Srivastava, 1999) and is in a simple narrative form that can be easily filled in by respondents. The hotel consumption emotion items were borrowed from Han and Back (2008) and Laros and Steenkamp (2005). The two consumption emotional dimensions (i.e., positive and negative emotions) were captured by 8 and 4 items, respectively. Items for hotel ambience were adapted and adopted from previous research (Morrison et al., 2011; d’Astous, 2000; Kim and Moon, 2009). Hotel guest loyalty involved 2 items adopted from Han et al. (2011). All measurement items used in this research are presented in Appendix. The questionnaire items that were originally in English were translated into Korean by professional translators and then backtranslated into English by another translator to countercheck loss of meaning in the translation process. Prior to conducting the final survey, the developed questionnaire underwent two pre/pilottests. The first pre-test was aimed at content validity and involved review by 20 experts who were either academics or hotel professionals. Next, a pilot test was undertaken to assess question wording and to test item validity and reliability. The pilot test was administered to 190 undergraduate students who had previously stayed in a hotel; they were required to fill in the questionnaire based on their very recent hotel stay. Few questions that were ambiguous were deleted from the original version of the questionnaire; moreover, some grammatical modifications were done to some questions after the pre/pilot tests. 3.3. Sample characteristics The analysis of respondents’ demographics indicated 54.2% to be female. With respect to marital status, 53.2% were single, 44.5% were married while 2.3% were other categories (separated, divorced). As for education achievement, only 15.9% had attained an education of less than a university college degree; 57% had obtained a college degree; and 27.1% had a postgraduate qualification. In terms of monthly personal income, 52% earned a personal income of less than US$ 3000 per month; 27.1%, between US$ 3001 and US$ 5000; 20.6%, more than US$ 5000 per month. Age-wise, the sample had a mean age of 34.62 years—standard deviation of 11.186 years with a minimum of 19 years and a maximum of 79 years.

Table 1 Mean, SD, and reliability. Construct name

No. item

Mean

SD

˛

Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Ambience PER NER Loyalty

5 5 5 5 5 6 8 4 2

2.54 3.50 3.80 3.81 3.60 3.55 3.49 1.79 3.54

.80 .72 .63 .51 .70 .53 .57 .70 .80

.847 .829 .799 .708 .839 .751 .861 .896 .816

Note: PER = positive emotional response; NER = negative emotional response.

between a pair of variables was less than the AVE values of each variable. Accordingly, convergent and discriminant validity were established. 4.2. Hypotheses test The hypothesized associations among ambience, emotions, and loyalty were tested using a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with a maximum likelihood estimation method. Findings from the SEM verified the appropriate fitness of the study model to the data (2 = 557.09, df = 164, p < .01, RMSEA = .065, CFI = .93, NFI = .90, RMR = .049). The results of the structural model are presented in Table 3. Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported in that ambience was found to have a significant impact on positive (ˇ = .72, p < .01) and negative emotional responses (ˇ = −.44, p < .01). Ambience explained about 52% and 19% of the total variance in positive and negative emotional responses, respectively. Our results also showed that positive (ˇ = .63, p < .01) and negative emotional responses (ˇ = −.09, p < .05) exerted a significant influence on loyalty. Thus, hypotheses 3 and 4 were supported. These variables along with ambience accounted for 44% of the total variance for loyalty. Lastly, our findings revealed that ambience significantly affected loyalty through positive and negative emotional responses (ˇ = .49) at the .01 level. A Sobel test based on the output of the structural model was used to get this result. In other words, emotional responses mediated the impact of ambiences on loyalty. This finding informs researchers and practitioners that efficiently dealing guests’ emotional experiences is vital to take a full advantage of hotel ambience.

4. Results 4.3. Test of the hypothesized moderating impact 4.1. Reliability and validity test Prior to analyzing the data, data screening was conducted to determine if there is any violation of the assumptions. Several items with significant skewness problems were transformed. An investigation of normal-probability plots, residual scatterplots, and scatterplot matrices showed no violations of multivariate normality and linearity. SPSS and AMOS were used to test reliability and validity. Means for study variables ranged from 1.79 to 3.81 (see Table 1). Cronbach’s alpha values for study variables were all above the suggested cut-off of .70 (Nunnally, 1978). That is, multi-items used to measure each study variable were internally consistent. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted. As shown in Table 2, the measurement model closely fit the data (2 = 1853.69, df = 905, p <.01, RMSEA = .043, CFI = .91, NFI = .84, RMR = .039), and standardized loadings were all significant at the .01 level. Composite–reliability values for the multiple items of each construct ranged from .60 to .73. These values exceeded the minimum criterion of .60 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). In addition, all of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values surpassed the cutoff of .50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The squared correlation

Before testing the moderating impact of personality, grouping was first conducted. The respondents were divided into high and low neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness based on their scores for each personality component using a K-means cluster analysis. The number of cases in clusters for each personality component was 227 cases (high neuroticism group) and 336 cases (low neuroticism group); 279 cases (high extraversion group) and 284 cases (low extraversion group); 326 cases (high openness group) and 237 cases (low openness group); 336 cases (high agreeableness group) and 227 cases (low agreeableness group); and 328 cases (high conscientiousness group) and 235 cases (low conscientiousness group), respectively. As a next step, an invariance test for a measurement model was conducted to identify whether a measurement structure was invariant across high and low groups for each personality component. As displayed in Table 4, non-restricted models for all personality components showed an excellent fit to the data (neuroticism: 2 = 761.42, df = 324, p < .01, RMSEA = .049, CFI = .92, NFI = .87, RMR = .045; extraversion: 2 = 740.85, df = 324, p < .01, RMSEA = .048, CFI = .92, NFI = .87, RMR = .044;

D. Jani, H. Han / International Journal of Hospitality Management 44 (2015) 48–57

53

Table 2 Results of the measurement model.

Ambience PER NER N E O A C Loyalty AVE

Ambience

PER

NER

N

E

O

A

C

Loyalty

.63a .57b (.32c ) −.31 (.10) −.15 (.02) .21 (.04) .14 (.02) .23 (.05) .11 (.01) .50 (.25)

.61 −.35 (.12) −.09 (.01) .27 (.07) .12 (.01) .25 (.06) .11 (.01) .56 (.31)

.73 .27 (.07) −.18 (.03) −.13 (.02) −.19 (.04) −.13 (.02) −.31 (.10)

.60 −.27 (.07) −.16 (.03) −.10 (.01) −.14 (.02) −.07 (.01)

.61 .38 (.14) .31 (.10) .15 (.02) .08 (.01)

.60 .35 (.12) .27 (.07) .05 (.00)

.63 .25 (.06) .21 (.04)

.62 .13 (.02)

.73

.53

.52

.54

.55

.70

.56

.53

.69

.52

Model measurement fit:  = 1853.69 (df = 905, p < .01), RMSEA = .043, CFI = 0.91, NFI = 0.84, SRMR = .039. Note: N = neuroticism, E = extraversion, O = openness, A = agreeableness, C = conscientiousness, PER = positive emotional response, NER = negative emotional response. a Composite reliabilities are along the diagonal. b Correlations between constructs. c Squared correlations between constructs. 2

Table 3 Results of the structural model. Paths

Coefficients

t-values

Ambience → PER Ambience → NER PER → loyalty NER → loyalty

.72 −.44 .63 −.09

9.39** −7.31** 12.35** −2.16*

Goodness-of-fit statistics: 2 = 557.09 (df = 164, p < .01), RMSEA = .065, CFI = .93, NFI = .90, SRMR = .049

Indirect effect of ambience on loyalty = .49**

Variance explained R2 (PER) = .52 R2 (NER) = .19 R2 (loyalty) = .44

Note: PER = positive emotional response, NER = negative emotional response. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

openness: 2 = 705.79, df = 324, p < .01, RMSEA = .046, CFI = .93, NFI = .88, RMR = .044; agreeableness: 2 = 736.55, df = 324, p < .01, RMSEA = .048, CFI = .92, NFI = .87, RMR = .047; and conscientiousness: 2 = 741.81, df = 324, p < .01, RMSEA = .047, CFI = .92, NFI = .87, RMR = .044). As suggested by Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998), these models were compared with full-metric invariance models in which all factor loadings were fixed to be equal. Findings from the chi-square difference test revealed that the full-metric invariance was supported for high and low neuroticism (2 (16) = 21.62,

p > .01), extraversion (2 (16) = 24.20, p > .01), openness (2 (16) = 20.72, p > .01), agreeableness (2 (16) = 20.85, p > .01), and conscientiousness groups (2 (16) = 19.01, p > .01). Thus, these models were utilized in subsequent analyses. Finally, to test the moderating role of personality components, a series of structural invariance tests were conducted. A total of five baseline models were generated by adding paths among study variables rooted in full-metric invariance models. As shown in Table 5, all baseline models demonstrated the adequate fitness of the model to the data (neuroticism: 2 = 842.22, df = 344, p < .01, RMSEA = .051, CFI = 0.91, NFI = 0.85, RMR = .052; extraversion: 2 = 823.47, df = 344, p < .01, RMSEA = 0.050, CFI = .91, NFI = .85, RMR = .051; openness: 2 = 793.90, df = 344, p < .01, RMSEA = 0.048, CFI = .91, NFI = .86, RMR = .051; agreeableness: 2 = 820.44, df = 344, p < .01, RMSEA = 0.050, CFI = .91, NFI = .85, RMR = .053; and conscientiousness: 2 = 825.42, df = 344, p < .01, RMSEA = 0.050, CFI = .91, NFI = .86, RMR = .050). These models were compared with the constrained models in which all paths were constrained to be invariant. Our findings showed that full-structural invariance was not supported for extraversion (2 (4) = 9.57, p < .05), openness (2 (4) = 13.67, p < .01), and agreeableness (2 (4) = 10.86, p < .05). However, full-structural invariance was supported for neuroticism (2 (4) = 5.43, p > .05) and conscientiousness (2 (4) = .61, p > .05). This result indicated that paths between high and low groups for extraversion, openness, and agreeableness significantly

Table 4 Results of the measurement invariance. Models

2

df

RMSEA

CFI

NFI

SRMR

Measurement invariance for neuroticism groups (3.32 , 2.01 )

Nonrestricted model full metric invariance of CFA modela

761.42 783.04

324 340

.049 .048

.92 .92

.87 .86

.045 .048

Measurement invariance for extraversion groups (4.07, 2.93)

Nonrestricted model Full metric invariance of CFA modelb

740.85 765.05

324 340

.048 .047

.92 .92

.87 .86

.044 .048

Measurement invariance for openness groups (4.23, 3.21)

Nonrestricted model Full metric invariance of CFA modelc

705.79 726.51

324 340

.046 .045

.93 .93

.88 .87

.044 .046

Measurement invariance for agreeableness groups (4.13, 3.33)

Nonrestricted model full metric invariance of CFA modeld

736.55 757.40

324 340

.048 .047

.92 .92

.87 .86

.047 .050

Measurement invariance for conscientiousness groups (4.07, 2.92)

Nonrestricted model full metric invariance of CFA modele

741.81 760.82

324 340

.048 .047

.92 .92

.87 .87

.044 .046

f

a b c d e f g

Chi-square difference test: 2 Chi-square difference test: 2 Chi-square difference test: 2 Chi-square difference test: 2 Chi-square difference test: 2 Mean values for high group. Mean values for low group.

g

(16) = 21.62, p > .01 (insignificant) (full metric invariance is supported). (16) = 24.20, p > .01 (insignificant) (full metric invariance is supported). (16) = 20.72, p > .01 (insignificant) (full metric invariance is supported). (16) = 20.85, p > .01 (insignificant) (full metric invariance is supported). (16) = 19.01, p > .01 (insignificant) (full metric invariance is supported).

54

Table 5 Results of the structural invariance. 2

df

RMSEA

CFI

NFI

SRMR

Structural Invariance for Neuroticism Groups

Full Metric Invariance of Structural Model Full Path Invariancea Ambience → PER Ambience → NER PER → Loyalty NER → Loyalty

842.22 847.65 High Group .77 (7.74)** −.35 (−4.31)** .65 (9.05)** −.14 (−2.15)**

344 348

.051 .051

.91 .91 Low Group .68 (8.15)** −.48 (−6.52)** .61 (9.83)** −.06 (1.13)

.85 .85

.052 .055

Structural Invariance for Extraversion Groups

Full Metric Invariance of Structural Model Full Path Invarianceb Ambience → PER Ambience → NER PER → Loyalty NER → Loyalty

823.47 833.04 High Group .73 (8.18)** −.39 (−5.27)** .64 (9.37)** −.05 (−.83)

344 348

.050 .049

.91 .91 Low Group .67 (7.65)** −.44 (−5.68)** .59 (9.12)** −.15 (−2.48)*

.85 .85

.051 .051

Structural Invariance for Openness Groups

Partial Metric Invariance of Structural Model Full Path Invariancec Ambience → PER Ambience → NER PER → Loyalty NER → Loyalty

793.90 807.57 High Group .73 (8.47)** −.41 (−5.87)** .67 (10.76)** −.07 (−1.22)

344 348

.048 .048

.91 .91 Low Group .68 (7.04)** −.45 (−5.32)** .56 (7.65)** −.14 (−1.99)*

.86 .86

.051 .052

Structural Invariance for Agreeableness Groups

Full Metric Invariance of Structural Model Full Path Invarianced Ambience → PER Ambience → NER PER → Loyalty NER → Loyalty

820.44 831.30 High Group .74 (8.44)** −.41 (−5.83)** .64 (10.28)** −.03 (−.53)

.344 348

.050 .049

.91 .91 Low Group .67 (7.12)** −.42 (−5.02)** .60 (8.06)** −.16 (−2.38)*

.85 .85

.053 .055

Structural Invariance for Conscientiousness Groups

Full Metric Invariance of Structural Model Full Path Invariancee Ambience → PER Ambience → NER PER → Loyalty NER → Loyalty

825.42 826.03 High Group .73 (8.58)** −.43 (−6.07)** .63 (10.07)** −.12 (−2.11)*

344 348

.050 .049

.91 .91 Low Group .69 (7.60)** −.43 (−5.27)** .62 (8.74)** −.07 (−1.10)

.86 .86

.050 .050

a b c d e * **

Chi-square difference test: 2 Chi-square difference test: 2 Chi-square difference test: 2 Chi-square difference test: 2 Chi-square difference test: 2 p < .05. p < .01.

(4) = 5.43, p > .05 (insignificant) (paths across two groups were not significantly different). (4) = 9.57, p < .05 (significant) (paths across two groups were significantly different). (4) = 13.67, p < .01 (significant) (paths across two groups are significantly different). (4) = 10.86, p < .05 (significant) (paths across two groups are significantly different). (4) = .61, p > .05 (insignificant) (paths across two groups were not significantly different).

D. Jani, H. Han / International Journal of Hospitality Management 44 (2015) 48–57

Models

D. Jani, H. Han / International Journal of Hospitality Management 44 (2015) 48–57

differed. In contrast, links across groups for neuroticism and conscientiousness were not significantly different. This finding verified that such personality components as extraversion, openness, and agreeableness moderate relationships among ambience, emotions, and loyalty. Yet, neuroticism and conscientiousness did not moderate the associations. Accordingly, hypothesis 5 was partially supported.

5. Conclusion and implications The study sought to test relationships among hotel ambience, consumption emotions, and loyalty, with the BFF of personality moderating the relationships. The results indicated that hotel ambience had significant positive effects on the positive consumption emotion and a significant negative effect on negative consumption emotion. Positive and negative consumption emotion had positive and negative effects, respectively, on hotel guest loyalty. Among personality factors, extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness were observed to strengthen relationships, with higher scores for the traits indicating stronger ambience-consumption emotions–loyalty relationships. This study offers several theoretical insights. First the study theoretically affirms the utility of the extended S-O-R model with the inclusion of personality as a moderator within hotel settings. This implies that the S-O-R model is not influenced by environmental factors like type of service (Kim and Moon, 2009) but also by individual personality factors. In conjunction with previous studies that treated personality factors to be antecedents to consumer emotional responses (e.g. Jani and Han, 2013), findings from this study indicates personality can be considered as moderator for the S-O-R model. In fact, personality should preferably be considered as moderator rather than a direct independent variable affecting consumer emotional responses in line with the S-O-R model with stimuli (e.g. service ambience) being the initiator of the model. Secondly, the significant moderation effects of extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness in the SO-R model among the five personality factors, might be due to the nature of hotel consumption that can be considered to be more of hedonic (Miao et al., 2014). Research findings from other context like fast food (Bove and Mitzifiris, 2007) that are more of utilitarian in nature, found no evidence to support the moderation effect in the relationships between on store loyalty and its antecedents. Thirdly, the effect of hotel ambience on consumption emotion complements previous findings (Kim and Moon, 2009) by specifically noting the positive and negative effects of hotel ambience on positive and negative consumption emotions, respectively, as compared to previous studies that lumped all emotions into a single variable (Lin and Liang, 2011), or by focusing on one dimension of emotion (Ryu and Jang, 2008; Walsh et al., 2011). The uniqueness of this study is the concomitant use of ambience and personality factors with both factors being noted to have a significant influence on hotel guests’ emotional responses and loyalty. Thus the environment-personality interaction perspective (Mischel and Shoda, 1999) is upheld within hotel setting. Managerially, study results offered several actionable implications. The contribution of ambience to positive consumption emotion implies that hoteliers who work on ambience can substantially elevate their guests’ positive emotions, which will have consequential effects on their loyalty. On the other hand, the negative effect of ambience on negative consumption emotions (cf. Jang and Namkung, 2009, who noted a negative insignificant effect) tells hoteliers that ambience needs to be handled delicately in order to evoke positive rather than negative emotion responses.

55

Such an initiative can be operationalized by setting the appropriate ambience with respect to weather and occasion. For instance, with temperature and moisture having synergetic effects on human body (Shia et al., 2013), it is logical for hoteliers to decrease the moisture (humidity) during summer and vice versa during winter. Alternatively, the hoteliers can simultaneously manipulate temperature and moisture to suit winter and summers accordingly. During winter, hoteliers can play uplifting background music as compared to calming background music during summer. The positive moderating effects of extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness noted in the current study can be directly and indirectly actionable by hoteliers. Hoteliers can identify methods to ascertain the personality traits of their current and potential guests and develop marketing strategies to attract those high in extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness. An innovative way to do so might be through the use of data mining from marketing research organizations; such methods will provide hoteliers with demographic variables and possible personality traits of potential guests that can be used to market their hotel directly to potential guests and enhance their relationships with current guests. Indirectly, hoteliers can use personality in their marketing strategies and communications. For instance, hoteliers can segment their markets using personality variables in addition to other variables in identifying the most lucrative market segments—those most likely to experience more positive consumption emotions and ultimately be more loyal, given their personality characteristics. During their marketing communications (e.g., advertisements), hoteliers can use pictorial cues that will entice those with higher scores for extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness traits, and thus increase guest loyalty. An examination of indirect impact in the proposed theoretical framework revealed that emotional responses significantly mediated the effect of hotel ambience on customer loyalty. This finding implies that hoteliers must efficiently deal with positive and negative affective factors in order to take full advantage of the role of ambience. Practitioners in the hotel industry should understand the criticality of this mediating nature of hotel guests’ emotional responses to environmental stimuli, and put maximum efforts into simultaneously enhancing the level of ambient conditions and emotional factors to generate guest loyalty. In addition to extending our knowledge of ambience, consumption emotions, loyalty, and personality, extrapolations from study findings should be done with care due to its intrinsic limitations. Conceptually, the study took the BFF of personality among myriad conceptualizations that call for a test of this conceptualization for comparison purposes. The fact that the study used data collected from guests in five-star hotels in one country (South Korea) means that the findings may not completely apply to other categories of hotels in different countries. The study did not consider guest status—whether guests were frequent visitors or first time visitors—which might impact their perception of hotel image as well as their emotional responses. Studies have indicated that loyalty goes through stages and evolves (Evanschitzky and Wunderlich, 2006); this study considered only one phase of evolution. As a means of having a focus, this study considered hotel ambience among the two servicescape variables (Bitner, 1992) that might provide less rich understanding of the S-O-R relationships under different hotel guest personality levels. As with many studies using survey methodology in behavioral research, this research is not completely free from a common method bias in that all variables within the proposed research framework are measured by one common method (e.g., survey questionnaire). Since a nonprobability convenience sampling was used, this study is also not perfectly exempted from response bias. Future studies can further contribute to the body of knowledge by considering these limitations in their endeavors.

56

D. Jani, H. Han / International Journal of Hospitality Management 44 (2015) 48–57

Appendix. Ambience The air quality in this hotel is appropriate (.77)* . The temperature in this hotel is comfortable (.79). It is not too dry in this hotel (.78). The odor in this hotel is pleasant (.73). The background music played overhead makes the hotel a more enjoyable place (.69). The sound level in this hotel is not too loud (.73). Positive emotional response I feel happy staying in this hotel (.77). I feel proud that I am staying in this hotel (.69). I am pleased that I am staying in this hotel (.84). I am contented that I am staying in this hotel (.83). Staying in this hotel makes one feel peaceful (.69). Staying in this hotel makes one feel romantic (.67). Staying in this hotel makes one feel excited (.65). This hotel is full of surprises (.65). Negative emotional response I feel angry staying in this hotel (.73). Staying in this hotel makes one feel ashamed (.86). This hotel makes one feel upset (.92). I feel worried staying in this hotel (.81). Loyalty This hotel will be my first choice whenever it comes to choosing a hotel in this area (.85). I will recommend this hotel to my friends and associates (.82). Neuroticism I get stressed out easily (.62). I worry about things (.65). I fear the worst (.81). I am filled with doubts (.84). I panic easily (.64). Extraversion I talk to a lot of different people at parties (.67). I feel comfortable around people (.71). I start conversations (.79). I make friends easily (.79). I do not mind being the center of attention (.67). Openness I get excited by new ideas (.70). I enjoy thinking about things (.72). I enjoy hearing new ideas (.75). I enjoy looking for a deeper meaning (.76). I have a vivid imagination (.68). Agreeableness I sympathize with others’ feelings (.78). I am concerned about others (.79). I respect others (.79). I believe that others have good intentions (.75). I trust what people say to me (.75). Conscientiousness I carry out my plans (.69). I pay attention to detail (.66). I am always prepared (.78). I make plans and stick to them (.92). I am exact in my work (.62). *

Standardized loadings in parentheses were all significant at the .01 level.

References Back, K., 2005. The effects of image congruency on customers’ brand loyalty in the upper middle-class hotel industry. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 29 (4), 448–467. Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 16, 74–94. Bagozzi, R.P., Gopinath, M., Nyer, P., 1999. The role of emotions in marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 27 (2), 184–206. Ball, D., Coelho, P.S., Vilares, M.J., 2006. Service personalization and loyalty. J. Serv. Mark. 20 (6), 391–403.

Bitner, M.J., 1992. Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. J. Mark. 56, 57–71. Bove, L., Mitzifiris, B., 2007. Personality traits and the process of store loyalty in a transactional prone context. J. Serv. Mark. 21 (7), 507–519. Chen, P.T., Hu, H.H., 2010. The effect of relational benefits on perceived value in relation to customer loyalty: an empirical study of the Australian coffee outlets industry. IJHM 29 (3), 405–412. Countryman, C.C., Jang, S., 2006. The effects of atmospheric elements on customer impression: the case of hotel lobbies. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 18 (7), 534–545. d’Astous, A., 2000. Irritating aspects of the shopping environment. J. Bus. Res. 49, 149–156. Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., Marcoolyn, G., Nesdale, A., 1994. Store atmosphere and purchasing behavior. J. Retail. 70 (3), 283–294. Evanschitzky, H., Wunderlich, M., 2006. An examination of moderator effects in the four-stage loyalty model. J. Serv. Res. 8 (4), 330–345. Faullant, R., Matzler, K., Mooradian, T.A., 2011. Personality, basic emotions, and satisfaction: primary emotions in the mountaineering experience. Tour. Manag. 32 (6), 1423–1430. Fiore, A.M., Kim, J., 2007. An integrative framework capturing experiential and utilitarian shopping experience. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 35 (6), 42–442. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 39–50. Fossum, T.A., Barrett, L.F., 2000. Distinguishing evaluation from description in the personality–emotion relationship. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26 (6), 669–678. Gountas, J., Gountas, S., 2007. Personality orientations, emotional states, customer satisfaction, and intention to repurchase. J. Bus. Res. 60, 72–75. Ha, J., Jang, S., 2013. Determinants of diners’ variety seeking intentions. J. Serv. Mark. 27 (2), 155–165. Han, H., 2013. The healthcare hotel: distinctive attributes for international medical travelers. Tour. Manag. 36, 257–268. Han, H., Back, K., 2008. Relationships among image congruency, consumption emotions, and customer loyalty in the lodging industry. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 32 (4), 467–490. Han, H., Back, K.J., Barrett, B., 2010. A consumption emotion measurement development: a full-service restaurant setting. Serv. Ind. J. 30 (2), 299–320. Han, H., Hyun, S., 2013. Image congruence and relationship quality in predicting switching intention: Conspicuousness of product use as a moderator variable. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 37 (3), 303–329. Han, H., Kim, Y., Kim, E.K., 2011. Cognitive, affective, conative, and action loyalty: testing the impact of inertia. IJHM 30, 1008–1019. Han, H., Ryu, K., 2006. Moderating role of personal characteristics in forming restaurant customers’ behavioral intentions – an upscale restaurant setting. J. Hosp. Leis. Mark. 15 (4), 25–54. Han, H., Ryu, K., 2009. The roles of the physical environment, price perception, and customer satisfaction in determining customer loyalty in the restaurant industry. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 33 (4), 487–510. Hansen, H., Samuelsen, B.M., Sallis, J.E., 2013. The moderating effects of need for cognition on drivers of customer loyalty. Eur. J. Mark. 47 (8), 1157–1176. Heung, V.C.S., Gu, T., 2012. Influence of restaurant atmospherics on patron satisfaction and behavioral intentions. IJHM 31 (4), 1167–1177. Huang, L., Gursoy, D., Xu, H., 2014. Impact of personality traits and involvement on prior knowledge. Ann. Tour. Res. 48, 42–57. Jang, S.C., Namkung, Y., 2009. Perceived quality, emotions, and behavioral intentions: application of an extended Mehrabian–Russell model to restaurants. J. Bus. Res. 62, 451–460. Jani, D., Han, H., 2013. Personality, social comparison, consumption emotions, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: how do these and other factors relate in a hotel setting? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 25 (7), 970–993. Jani, D., Han, H., 2014a. Personality, satisfaction, image, ambience, and loyalty: Testing their relationships in the hotel industry. IJHM 37, 11–20. Jani, D., Han, H., 2014b. Testing the moderating effect of hotel ambience on the relationships among social comparison, affect, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. J. Travel. Tour. Mark. 31 (6), 731–746. John, O.P., Srivastava, S., 1999. Big five trait taxonomy. In: Pervin, L., John, O.P. (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. , 2nd ed. Guilford Publications, New York, NY, pp. 102–138. Kandampully, J., Hu, H.H., 2007. Do hoteliers need to manage image to retain loyal customers? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 19 (6), 435–443. Kandampully, J., Juwaheer, T.D., Hu, H.H., 2011. The influence of a hotel firm’s quality of service and image and its effect on tourism customer loyalty. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 12, 21–42. Kandampully, J., Suhartanto, D., 2000. Customer loyalty in the hotel industry: the role of customer satisfaction and image. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 12 (6), 346–351. Kempf, D.S., 1999. Attitude formation from product trial: distinct roles of cognition and affect for hedonic and functional products. Psychol. Mark. 16 (1), 35–50. Kim, W.G., Moon, Y.J., 2009. Customers’ cognitive, emotional, and actionable response to the servicescape: a test of the moderation effect of the restaurant type. IJHM 28, 144–156. Laros, F.J.M., Steenkamp, J.B.E.M., 2005. Emotions in consumer behavior: a hierarchical approach. J. Bus. Res. 58, 1437–1445. Lashley, C., 2008. Marketing hospitality and tourism experiences. In: Oh, H., Pizam, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Hospitality Marketing Management. Elservier, Waltham, MA, pp. 3–31.

D. Jani, H. Han / International Journal of Hospitality Management 44 (2015) 48–57 Lee, Y.K., Lee, C.K., Lee, S.K., Babin, B.J., 2008. Festivalscape and patrons’ emotions, satisfaction, and loyalty. J. Bus. Res. 61, 56–64. Liljander, V., Strandvik, T., 1997. Emotions in service satisfaction. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 8 (2), 148–169. Lin, L.Y., 2010. The relationship of consumer personality trait, brand personality and brand loyalty: an empirical study of toys and video games buyers. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 19 (1), 4–17. Liu, Y., Jang, S.C., 2009. The effects of dining atmospherics: an extended Mehrabian–Russell model. IJHM 28 (4), 494–503. Lin, J.S., Liang, H.Y., 2011. The influence of service environments on customer emotion and service outcomes. Manag. Serv. Qual. 21 (4), 350–372. Martinez, P., Bosque, I.R., 2013. CSR and customer loyalty: the roles of trust, customer identification with the company and satisfaction. IJHM 35, 89–99. McCrae, R.R., Costa Jr., P.T., 1999. A five factor theory of personality. In: Pervin, L.A., John, O.P. (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. , 2nd ed. The Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 139–153. Mehrabian, A., Russel, J.A., 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Miao, L., Lehto, X., Wei, W., 2014. The hedonic value of hospitality consumption: evidence from spring break experiences. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 23 (2), 99–121. Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., 1999. Integrating dispositions and processing dynamics within a unified theory of personality: the cognitive-affective personality system. In: Pervin, L.A., John, O.P. (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. , 2nd ed. The Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 197–218. Mooradian, T.A., Olver, J.M., 1994. Neuroticism, affect and post purchase processes. Adv. Consum. Res. 21, 595–600. Morrison, M., Gan, S., Dubelaar, C., Oppewal, H., 2011. In-store music and aroma influences on shopper behavior and satisfaction. J. Bus. Res. 64, 558–564. Mowen, J.C., 2000. The 3M Model of Motivation and Personality: Theory and Empirical Applications to Consumer Behavior. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, NY. Nunnally, J., 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Orth, U.R., Limon, Y., Rose, G., 2010. Store-evoked affect, personalities, and consumer emotional attachments to brands. J. Bus. Res. 63, 1202–1208. Pervin, L.A., Cervone, D., 2010. Personality: Theory and Research, 11th ed. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

57

Pine, B.J., Gilmore, J.H., 1999. The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every Business a Stage. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Roubi, S., Littlejohn, D., 2006. The accommodation subsector. In: Beech, J., Chadwick, S. (Eds.), The Business of Tourism Management. Prentice Hall-Financial Times, Essex, England, pp. 377–396. Ryu, K., Jang, S., 2008. Influence of restaurant’s physical environments on emotion and behavioral intention. Serv. Ind. J. 28 (8), 1151–1165. Shia, X., Zhu, N., Zheng, G., 2013. The combined effect of temperature, relative humidity and work intensity on human strain in hot and humid environments. Build. Environ. 69, 72–80. Siu, N.Y.M., Wan, P.Y.K., Dong, P., 2012. The impact of servicescape on the desire to stay in convention and exhibition centers: the case of Macao. IJHM 31 (1), 236–246. Schiffman, L.G., Kanuk, L.L., 2005. Consumer Behavior, 8th ed. Prentice-Hall of India Private Ltd., New Delhi, India. Skandrani, H., Mouelhi, N.B.D., Malek, F., 2011. Effect of store atmospheric on employees’ reaction. IJRDM 39 (1), 51–67. Steenkamp, J.M., Baumgartner, H., 1998. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 25, 78–90. Turley, L.W., Milliman, R.E., 2000. Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a review of the experimental evidence. J. Bus. Res. 49, 193–211. Wakefield, K.L., Blodgett, J.G., 1999. Customer response to intangible and tangible service factors. Psychol. Mark. 16 (1), 51–68. Walsh, G., Shiu, E., Hassan, L.M., Michaelidou, N., Beatty, S.E., 2011. Emotions, storeenvironmental cues, store-choice criteria, and marketing outcomes. J. Bus. Res. 64 (7), 737–744. Walsh, G., Evanschitzky, H., Wunderlich, M., 2008. Identification and analysis of moderator variables: investigating the customer satisfaction loyalty link. Eu. J. Mark. 42 (9/10), 977–1004. Westbrook, R.A., Oliver, R.L., 1991. The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction. J. Consum. Res. 18, 84–91. Xiong, L., King, C., Hu, C., 2014. Where is the love? Investigating multiple membership and hotel customer loyalty. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 26 (4), 572–592. Yoo, K.H., Gretzel, U., 2011. Influence of personality on travel related consumergenerated media creation. CHB 27, 609–621.