Moderacion Del Humor en La Satisfacción

8/15/2019 Moderacion Del Humor en La Satisfacción

1/14


2/14

Tourism Management 29 (2008) 525–537

Visitors’ experience, mood and satisfaction in a heritage context:

Evidence from an interpretation center

Carmen de Rojas, Carmen Camarero

Department of Business and Marketing, University of Valladolid, Avenida Valle de Esgueva, 6, 47011 Valladolid, Spain

Received 18 June 2006; accepted 8 June 2007

Abstract

The study examines how expectations, experiences, and satisfaction are related in the context of cultural tourism and the services

provided by cultural organizations. A model is proposed that combines two complementary approaches in the analysis of satisfaction: a

cognitive approach based on quality and disconfirmation and an affective approach based on emotions. The empirical analysis carried

out on a sample of visitors to an interpretation center allows us to confirm that the perceived quality is a direct determinant of

satisfaction, as are emotions. The results also reveal that there is a significant relationship between quality and emotion. Finally, the way

in which mood state moderates the cognitive path is studied, as generator of visitor satisfaction.

r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Satisfaction; Expectations; Disconfirmation; Quality; Emotions

1. Introduction

The application of marketing in heritage, cultural

tourism and cultural services is becoming more and more

crucial. An example is the interest indicated by many

cultural organizations, such as museums, exhibitions or art

collections in visitors’ opinions and experience evaluation

and perceptions’ link to satisfaction. In fact, customer

experience becomes a key concept in artistic and cultural

heritage marketing as tourist satisfaction is often deter-

mined by the global experience obtained. Visitors seek a

total experience, including leisure, culture, education, and

social interaction. For this reason, business-oriented

museums and heritage organizations are increasinglyemphasizing the participation of the public in their policies

and programs (Gilmore & Rentschler, 2002), specifically

those individuals not usually attracted to traditional

museums. To create positive experiences for visitors,

museums organize an increasing number of large-scale

events and provide a variety of learning experiences. The

visiting experience becomes more than simply an inspection

of exhibits, but an opportunity for further elaboration of visitors’ understanding (Colbert, 2003). In this sense, it is

necessary to note that museums provide more than just

exhibition. The museum service, i.e., the global product,

comprises of the exhibition and the other tangible or

intangible services. These services include the organization

of courses and seminars, bookshops, restaurants and cafe ´ s,

brochures and other facilities for better accessibility and

interpretation, and even the attitudes and values trans-

mitted to the visitor.

Consumer satisfaction has been widely debated in

marketing literature (Bowen, 2001; Oliver, 1980, 1993;

Yuksel & Yuksel, 2001), even though there is no clearconsensus as to what the determinant variables are. While

past literature has concentrated on describing satisfaction

by the evaluation consumers make of perceived quality

(confirmation/disconfirmation theories) from their expec-

tations, more recent trends have perceived the emotions

consumers experienced as the determinant factors in

creating satisfaction.

Within this theoretical framework, this study is con-

cerned with an analysis of the explanatory factors of

visitor satisfaction in heritage and cultural expositions

ARTICLE IN PRESS

www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.004

Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 98342 33 32; fax: +34 98342 38 99.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. de Rojas),

[email protected] (C. Camarero).

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tourmanhttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.004mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.004http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tourmanhttp://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


3/14

(as promoters of cultural and patrimonial goods) and the

integration of disparate theoretical approaches. Even if the

relationship between perceived quality and expectations

appear essential to evaluate visitor satisfaction, emotions

and experiences are fundamental to cultural activities. In

the range of services provided by museums, the inclusion of

emotions in the concept of satisfaction is particularlyrelevant given that the majority of services are based upon

consumers’ participation and experiences (Szymanski &

Henard, 2001; Wirtz, Mattila, & Tan, 2000). In the study of

museum visitors’ satisfaction, previous works have empha-

sized the effect of service quality on satisfaction (Caldwell,

2002; De Ruyter, Wetzels, Lemmink, & Mattsson, 1997;

Harrison & Shaw, 2004), but do not consider emotion.

There has been little research on the experience of

museums’ visitors (Rowley, 1999), and the effect of this

experience on satisfaction. For instance, Goulding (2000)

observes the behavior of museum visitors in order to

evaluate the impact of exhibitions and experience on visitor

satisfaction.

In this research, a model is proposed to explain the

formation of visitor satisfaction from the relationship

between their evaluation or cognitive opinion ( perceived

quality/disconfirmation) and visitor evaluation or affective

opinion ( positive emotions). Homburg, Koschate, and Hoyer

(2006) indicate that few studies have investigated cognitive

and affective antecedents of customer satisfaction simulta-

neously. Furthermore, we introduce the moderator ‘visitor’s

mood’ in order to evaluate how the visitor’s state of mind

enhances or lessens the effect of their experience on

satisfaction. Analyzing ‘‘post-purchase’’ visitor behavior com-

pletes the model. All proposed relationships are tested jointlyby a structural equation model. Empirical analysis performed

in the Queen Isabel Interpretation Center allows us to make

conclusions and determine managerial implications.

2. Cognitive and affective determinants of visitor

satisfaction

On a theoretical level, visitor satisfaction is widely

debated in literature. Satisfaction has been defined

repeatedly (Oliver, 1997; Vanhamme, 2000) in forms that

diverge significantly from one another (Babin & Griffin,

1998; Szymanski & Henard, 2001). This suggests that the

nature of satisfaction is ambiguous. Traditionally satisfac-

tion was considered to be (i) a cognitive state, (ii) influ-

enced by previous cognition, and (iii) has relative character

(the result of the comparison between a subjective

experience and a previous base of reference) (Bearden &

Teel, 1983; Churchill & Surprenant, 1982; Oliver, 1980;

Oliver & Desarbo, 1988). Recently, however, there has

been an increasing recognition amongst researchers of

satisfaction that a purely cognitive approach may be

inadequate in modeling satisfaction evaluations. The need

to understand satisfaction from a more affective perspec-

tive has been underlined, although always in connection

with cognitive influence (Oliver, Rust, & Varki, 1997;

Phillips & Baumgartner, 2002; Wirtz & Bateson, 1999). The

inclusion of affect into the conceptualization of consumer

satisfaction is particularly important with services, due to

their experiential nature (Wirtz et al., 2000). In most recent

definitions, this dual character of satisfaction has been

recognized (i.e. both cognitive and affective character), as

well as its relative nature (the comparison between asubjective experience and a previous base of reference). For

the purposes of this research we will consider that

satisfaction is reached when visitors attain or transcend

their relative expectations. Satisfaction is the sensations or

feelings generated both by cognitive and emotional aspects

of the goods and services, as well as an accumulated

evaluation of various components and features.

Regarding theories and explanatory models of satisfac-

tion, there are, as already noted, two approaches: cognitive

and emotional. In following a cognitive approach to explain

satisfaction formation, the model most widely recognized is

the disconfirmation model of expectations (Churchill &

Surprenant, 1982; Oliver, 1980; Oliver & Swan, 1989;

Prakash, 1984), whereby satisfaction is a function of

disconfirmation and disconfirmation is a function of

expectations and of fulfillment (Oliver, 1997). The con-

firmation/disconfirmation theory predicts that satisfaction

is reached when expectations are met, and that negative

disconfirmation of expectations will cause dissatisfaction

while positive disconfirmation will increase satisfaction.

After a long period of assuming that consumer decisions

were based on the product quality, use, and benefits, in the

last two decades market research has begun to study the

emotions evoked by the stimuli of marketing (Laros &

Steenkamp, 2005) from an emotional approach. Despite thisemerging body of research, the study of emotions (theory

of emotions) in consumer behavior has encountered

obstacles because of emotions’ ambiguity in structure and

content (Bagozzi, Gopinath, & Nyer, 1999). Regarding

structure, some researchers examine all emotions from the

same level of generality, while others specify a hierarchy in

which specific emotions exemplify other basic emotions

below the general level (Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, &

O’Connor, 1987; Storm & Storm, 1987). Secondly, we

encounter a debate concerning the content of emotions.

Russell and Pratt (1980) defend the existence of two

independent dimensions within the emotions: pleasure and

arousal.

In an attempt to combine these two theoretical

approaches (the cognitive and the emotional), we propose

two complementary paths to develop visitor satisfaction

with cultural expositions. The cognitive path consists of an

evaluation of the exhibition quality, a comparison between

perceived quality and expectations, and a confirmation/

disconfirmation process that determines the degree of

satisfaction achieved. On the other hand, the affective or

emotional path begins when cultural exhibitions reach and

even exceed expectations. This provokes pleasure which

directly influences satisfaction. In the following sections

this model is developed.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

C. de Rojas, C. Camarero / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 525–537 526

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


4/14

2.1. The cognitive approach: expectations, perceived quality,

and disconfirmation

Service quality, from the perspective of Gro ¨ nroos (2000),

is defined from two dimensions: technical quality (what is

delivered to the consumer) and the functional service

quality (how it is delivered). In contrast, Brady and Cronin(2001) state that the perception of service quality is

determined by three dimensions: outcome quality, interac-

tion quality, and physical environment quality. Outcome

quality is what the customer obtains when the productive

process ends; interaction quality refers to the interaction

that takes place while the service is being delivered; and

environment quality refers to the ambient conditions where

the service is delivered or the product is sold.

Oliver (1997) states that each interpretation consumers

make are related to different types of expectations.

Expectations can be defined as previous predictions or

beliefs that the consumer makes about the results or the

performance of the product in the future (Higgs, Polonsky,

& Hollick, 2005; Olson & Dover, 1979; Woodruff et al.,

1983). These expectations are formed using several sources

of information: advertising and commercial communica-

tion, word of mouth referrals, or prior experiences.

Although visitors cannot realistically form expectations

about a service of which they have little knowledge,

empirical research suggests that even customers without

any prior experience do form expectations (McGill &

Iacobucci, 1992). According to Oliver (1997), the quality of

service is based on perceptions of excellence, so it is logical

to believe that perceived quality is influenced by the

expectations of the consumer. Consumers use theirexpectations to evaluate performance. Past research has

identified the effect of expectations on perceived perfor-

mance, in that the perceptions are assimilated toward

expectations (Churchill & Surprenant, 1982; Mattila,

1998; Olson & Dover, 1979; Spreng & Page, 2001).

Also Boulding, Kalra, Staelin, and Zeithaml (1993) argue

that the expectations are a precursor to perceptions and

that they are dynamic. Therefore, we propose the first

hypothesis:

H1. Visitors’ expectations positively influence perceived

quality.

Perceived quality is considered to be the global judgment

made by the consumer, by estimating the excellence of a

service. Therefore, satisfaction and perceived quality will

be highly interrelated. The majority of market research

accepts a theoretical framework in which quality leads to

satisfaction (Dabholkar, Shepherd, & Thorpe, 2000;

Oliver, 1997; Olsen, 2002), which in turn influences post-

purchase behavior (De Ruyter, Wetzels, & Bloemer, 1998;

Oliver, 1999). It has been empirically confirmed that

satisfaction is preceded by perceived quality, especially

when quality is formulated as a specific evaluative belief

and satisfaction as a more general evaluation (Olsen, 2002).

This quality–satisfaction relationship follows the same

reasoning as classical models of attitude, which suggest

that attitudes are preceded by beliefs (Fishbein & Ajzen,

1975). Also, in the field of tourist marketing, there are

authors (Appiah-Adu, Fyall, & Singh, 2000; Bigne ´ ,

Sa ´ nchez, & Sa ´ nchez, 2001) who suggest that perceived

quality occurs prior to satisfaction. On this basis we

propose the second hypothesis:

H2. Perceived quality positively influences visitor satisfaction.

Disconfirmation exists when service is inferior or super-

ior to that which the consumer expected when he/she made

the decision to buy (Oliver, 1997), thus creating negative or

positive implications for the experience of service and its

evaluation. Consumers choose services with the hope that

what they choose will offer a range of benefits. According

to the expectation–disconfirmation paradigm (LaBarbera

& Mazursky, 1983; Oliver, 1980; Spreng, Mackenzie, &

Olshavsky, 1996; Tse & Wilton, 1988), consumers calculate

satisfaction of a product by comparing prior expectations

against the perceived performance. If the performance is

superior (inferior) to expectations, a positive (negative)

disconfirmation is produced and an increase (decrease) in

satisfaction will be expected. Also, consumer satisfaction is

a function of expectations and disconfirmation, and prior

expectations are used as the comparable standard.

Past empirical research has shown that expectations have

a significant effect on disconfirmation (Cadotte, Woodruff,

& Jenkins, 1987; Churchill & Surprenant, 1982; Patterson,

1993; Spreng et al., 1996; Tse & Wilton, 1988). This

relationship is negative. Therefore it is more likely thathigh expectations are not confirmed (negative disconfirma-

tion), and that low expectations are. Also, a direct causal

relationship has been empirically confirmed between

disconfirmation and satisfaction (Bowen, 2001; Cadotte

et al., 1987; Szymanski & Henard, 2001). While some

authors consider disconfirmation to be the closest ante-

cedent to satisfaction, and most research illustrates a

significant effect of disconfirmation on satisfaction (Pat-

terson, 1993), there are also studies which indicate that this

relationship is not so clear (Churchill & Surprenant, 1982;

Spreng & Page, 2001). A possible explanation for this

discrepancy is the existence of moderator variables, a

factor we will consider later. Other authors argue that the

process is more complicated, including Churchill and

Surprenant (1982) who deem that perception affects

satisfaction in two ways: by disconfirmation and by direct

experience (quality). According to this, we formulate the

following hypotheses:

H3. Visitor expectations and perceived quality determine

the level of (dis)confirmation.

H4. The level of (dis)confirmation determines the level of

visitor satisfaction.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


5/14

2.2. The emotional approach: emotions and pleasure

According to our discussion, satisfaction research has

recognized the need to incorporate emotional and affective

components in the model of consumer satisfaction

(Liljander & Strandvik, 1997; Oliver et al., 1997; Wirtz &

Bateson, 1999; Wirtz et al., 2000). More specifically (and asa single example), in the sphere of tourist experiences there

is a clear need to integrate cognitive and emotional

concepts to explain satisfaction intentions and behavior

(Zins, 2002).

Emotions consist of two independent dimensions:

pleasure and arousal (Russell & Pratt, 1980). Pleasure

refers to the level at which a person feels well, happy or

content in a situation, while arousal refers to the extent to

which a person feels stimulated and active. In the area of

marketing applied to cultural tourism and cultural

organizations, concretely to museums and art expositions,

we understand that arousal results to be of little relevance

as stimulating visitors’ activities do not form part of the

objectives of the organization. Rather, the objectives are

fundamentally awakening visitors’ interest and increasing

his/her knowledge about a specific matter so that the visitor

will experience pleasure.

Several authors highlight the existing relationship

between the pleasure felt during the consumer experience

and the satisfaction obtained. The more pleasure subjects

experience during the visit, the higher their satisfaction

(Mano & Oliver, 1993; Oliver, 1993; Westbrook, 1987;

Westbrook & Oliver, 1991; Wirtz & Bateson, 1999).

Previous studies have also tested the relationship

between disconfirmation and emotions (Menon & Dube ´ ,2000; Oliver et al., 1997; Wirtz & Bateson, 1999),

corroborating the positive relationship between disconfir-

mation and the intensity of emotion in order to explain

consumer satisfaction (Woodruff et al., 1983). However,

the path between disconfirmation and pleasure has not

always been confirmed. Bigne ´ , Andreu, and Gnoth (2005)

do not find a significant relationship between disconfirma-

tion and pleasure in a tourist context. In the context of

museums and exhibitions, the expectations are more ideal

than predictive. Higgs et al. (2005) also note that art

museums and art exhibitions attract large numbers of

novice patrons who are without prior experience but hold

ideal expectations, which are altered during their first (and

perhaps only) visit. Therefore, disconfirmation is more

determined by the perceived quality than by expectations.

In this situation it is the perceived quality and not the

disconfirmation of expectations that is the real determinant

of visitors’ emotions and pleasure. Therefore, we hypothe-

size a positive relationship between the cognitive experience

(the perceived quality), and the emotional experience (the

intensity of emotions and pleasure). A shortfall in service

performance can cause displeasure, whereas a high

performance can cause pleasure. In this sense, Chebat

and Michon (2003) identify a significant relationship

between product quality and pleasure. Then,

H5. Perceived quality positively influences the pleasure

dimension of emotions.

H6. The pleasure dimension of emotions positively influ-

ences visitor satisfaction.

2.3. Consequences of satisfaction in cultural tourism:

intensification

Research on satisfaction and services suggests that

satisfaction is an important antecedent to the post-

purchase attitude and the intentions to repeat the purchase,

as well as in many other cases of good intentions for

behavior (Anderson, 1994; Anderson & Sullivan, 1993;

Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Fornell, 1992; Keaveney, 1995;

Oliver, 1980; Oliver & Swan, 1989; White & Yu, 2005;

Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). In this sense, it

has been suggested that tourist satisfaction affects the

intensification of the visit, this being understood as an

interest or motivation on the part of the visitor. Moreconcretely in the context of cultural tourism, it may be

described as the intention to purchase guides, publications,

and souvenirs and presents (Kim & Littrell, 1999).

Although a variable not widely considered in literature,

Bigné and Andreu (2004) propose—although do not

confirm—a direct influence of satisfaction on the intensi-

fication experience, measured as visitor interest in buying

different products and souvenirs related to the location or

event. It is expected that satisfied visitors will, prolong their

stay, and take more interest in any of the collected aspects

within the cultural exposition. This is transformed into

acquisition, including specific materials relative to the visit

(renting of audio-guides or commemorative coins), as well

as miscellaneous souvenirs (key chains, pens). Therefore,

H7. The higher the level of visitor satisfaction, the higher

the level of visitor intensification.

3. The moderator role of moods

Moods occur ‘‘when the cognitive system is maintained

in an emotion mode for a period’’ (Oatley, 1992, p. 64,

taken from Bagozzi et al., 1999). Moods can be caused by

the human system (such as sickness, fatigue, previous

exercise, and good health), or pharmacological agents,

general conditions of the environment, and side effects of

activities (heat, noise, changes in surroundings, stress)

(Frijda, 1986).

According to Bagozzi et al. (1999), the line between an

emotion and mood is frequently difficult to draw. They

propose that mood is a longer lasting state (from a few

hours to days), and lower in intensity than an emotion.

A secondary difference is that emotion is intentional (it has

an object or reference object), while mood is unintentional

and global or diffused (Frijda, 1993). Lastly, moods are not

as directly connected to intentions of action or explicit

actions, as are many emotions. Bagozzi et al. (1999) suggest

that mood can affect the cognitive and affective process of

ARTICLE IN PRESS


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


6/14

the consumer, therefore directly influencing processes such

as: (a) the recovery of information, i.e., people in a good

mood have a better memory of material learned while in a

positive mental state than in a negative or neutral one;

(b) encoding of information, i.e., happy people spend more

time examining positive information than negative and,

therefore, remember it more effectively (Forgas & Bower,1987); (c) the state of learning; when the survey subjects are

in a good mood the average level of memory can be higher;

and (d) asymmetric effects of mood, i.e., a good mood

favors positive memories and inhibits negative. In the same

way, people who are in a good mood evaluate stimuli more

positively than those in a bad or neutral mood. Moods do

not interrupt ongoing thought processes and behaviors, but

they do color our day-to-day events (Luong, 2005).

On this basis we can suggest that a better initial mood on

the part of visitors will have repercussions on their

reactions to stimuli presented to them and to the emotions

provoked. Specifically, a good mood will strengthen the

following relationships: quality–satisfaction, disconfirma-

tion–satisfaction, and emotion–satisfaction. Consequently,

H8. Mood acts as a moderator in the process of formation

of visitor satisfaction.

H8a. Favourable mood strengthens the effect of quality on

satisfaction.

H8b. Favourable mood strengthens the effect of discon-

firmation on satisfaction.

H8c. Favourable mood strengthens the effect of pleasure

on satisfaction.

The proposed hypotheses are represented in Fig. 1.

4. Methodology

4.1. Sample and data collection

In order to test the proposed hypotheses, the empirical

study performed is based on information collected by means

of a questionnaire presented to visitors of the cultural centercalled the Queen Isabel Interpretation Center. The center is

located in the Royal and Testamentary Palace in Valladolid,

Spain. The Royal and Testamentary Palace, in which Queen

Isabel I of Castile (1451–1504) lived, made her will, and

died, was restored and converted into a historical inter-

pretation center. In this center visitors discover the life, the

reign, and the personality of Isabel the Catholic by means of

museographic and exhibitory resources. Moreover, two

rooms are devoted to the Queen’s will.

We have selected an interpretation center of History for

one main reason. This museum is one where the quality of

resources and museographic materials are essential to

involve and energize the visitor and to achieve a

satisfactory experience. Moreover, in this case, the location

is significant. Valladolid, the chief town of Castile, is where

Queen Isabel I was born, lived, reigned, and died. It was an

historical period marked by the influential role of Castile in

history, such as the birth of Spain as a nation, and the

discovery of America. This context creates a feeling of

affection in local visitors; therefore, emotions can be

aroused, and have an important influence on overall

satisfaction.

The choice of a single center for the collection of data

was an attempt to place the research in a similar context for

all visitors, so that any possible influence of contextualfactors (cultural and tourist factors and adjacent services)

on variables studied (satisfaction, perceived quality, emo-

tion) could be avoided.

Before proceeding to the quantitative study, some

interviews with the museum manager and employees were

ARTICLE IN PRESS

MOOD

EXPECTATIONS

DISCONFIRMATION

PLEASURE

SATISFACTION

INTENSIFICATION

H6

H3H1

H5

H8a

H2

H3

H8c

H8b

H4

H7

PERCEIVED

QUALITY

Fig. 1. Proposed model.


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


7/14

performed in order to know tourists’ reactions and

emotions during their visits. They explained that in the

Queen Isabel I Interpretation Center, the main resource

of the exhibition is the Royal Palace itself. The building

is the leading protagonist, given that it was where the

Queen wrote her last wishes, and died. Therefore the

Royal Palace has been declared as a historical site of great cultural interest. The whole exhibition and its

resources are structured around this event; the Palace

remains the primary tourist attraction, while the inter-

pretation center is the secondary element of attraction.

We must point out that this Center organizes guided visits.

The rooms dedicated to the Queen’s Death and Testament

are of special importance. The reproductions of her last

will and the stage design of the bedroom where she died

attract beyond all doubt. One unexpected aspect is the

study of the Queen’s physical appearance (blond hair and

bright eyes compared to the stereotypical Castilian looks).

Equally surprising is the Palace’s area today (barely

10% of what it was during the period of its greatest

splendor). Finally, with regard to the level of implication

and concentration, the guided tour design facilitates not

only these aspects, but also the visitor’s interaction at

certain moments (group dynamics students and theatrical

re-enactments).

We developed a questionnaire to test the aforementioned

hypotheses. The questionnaire was divided into two parts.

The first part covered the mood and the expectations

before the visit. The second part referred to the perceived

quality, the disconfirmation of expectations, the pleasure

and the satisfaction after the visit. A preliminary draft of

the questionnaire was developed and administered to thecenter’s manager and to some employees (who have

contact with the visitors) and who helped us make minor

adjustments.

The first survey was performed during the months of

March and April 2005 and the total number of ques-

tionnaires collected was 180. A second set of data was

collected during June, July, and August 2006, providing

104 valid questionnaires. In order to test non-response bias

we compared the former and the later responses along all

response items for each of the scales. No significant

difference between the two groups was found. Every fourth

visitor who entered the center was surveyed. We employed

survey takers who were instructed to collect data by

presenting the questionnaire before the visitor entered the

attraction. Those surveyed were asked to answer the first

part of the questionnaire, (i.e. the questions referring to

their mood and expectations). After answering these

questions, the visitor held onto the questionnaire during

the visit, and the second part of the questionnaire was

completed upon exit. Another was employed to collect the

questionnaires upon visitors’ exit.

Concerning the representativeness of the sample, it is

relevant to note that although we performed a convenience

sample the total number of visitors in museums of History

in Spain during 2004 was 3,086,662, 6.5% of total

visitation to museums and collections (data provided

by the Spanish Ministry of Culture). In our case, the

reduced dimensions and the specialization of this center

are the reasons it can receive only a few visitors per day.

The number of visitors during 2005 was 14,839, and

during 2006 it (until July) was 7442. The questionnaire

was offered to approximately 1600 visitors and 284valid answers were obtained, corresponding to a response

rate of 17.7%. The final sample consisted of 48% men

and 52% women. By age groups, 3.2% of respondents

were under 18, 43.3% between 18 and 35, 47% between 35

and 60, and 12.4% over 60. By education, 3.2% of the

sample had none, 10.1% had finished primary school,

29.5% secondary school, and 57.1% had attended higher

education. As we have aforementioned, few works have

analyzed the satisfaction of museums’ visitors and of those

that did, most adopted a qualitative approach. In any case,

if we compare the demographic characteristics of our

sample with those of Harrison and Shaw (2004), we can

conclude that they are very similar.

4.2. Measurement of variables

The scale of expectations is constructed of seven items

adapted from the scale proposed by Higgs et al. (2005)

and also applied to the case of museums and exhibition

centers. The scale of perceived quality (six items) was

prepared from the proposal of Brady and Cronin (2001),

and considers the three dimensions of quality: outcome

quality, interaction quality, and physical environment

quality. All of the included items contain a parallel

with the proposals as a measure of expectations. Theseitems were adapted to reflect the context of a museum.

Outcome quality was measured as the educational

and instructive experience and the excellence of the objects

and materials exposed; interaction quality focused on

the treatment received and the employees’ willingness to

look after the visitor; and physical environment quality

referred to the center’s installations, informative panels and

atmosphere. In a similar way, expectations were measured

in terms of service provided by the employees, the quality

of the installations (panels, lighting, spaces), uniqueness

of the exhibition and historical interest, and educational

experience. The variable disconfirmation was measured

based on an item that reflects the general level of

confirmation-disconfirmation. To measure confirmation-

disconfirmation, a 5 point Likert scale was employed

in which the question ‘‘in comparison with what in

general you expected from the visit to the interpretation

center, it has been’’ was evaluated by the following

rankings; [1] much worsey [5] much better than expected.

Pleasure (six items) was measured based on the scale of

Russell and Pratt (1980), and to measure satisfaction

(five items) the Oliver (1997) scale was used and inclu-

ded two additional that measured the intention of

word-of-mouth recommendation. The scale to measure

the variable intensification (2 items) was prepared by

ARTICLE IN PRESS


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


8/14

the authors, adapting it to the objectives of this study.

Finally, the scale used to measure mood was prepared

based on three indicators (scale of differential semantics) to

reflect the level of enthusiasm or excitement felt by the

tourist before beginning the visit. The group of scales

proposed and the corresponding descriptions are shown in

Appendix A.Even though some of the scales proposed had already

been validated by literature, they were all submitted to a

process of validation by means of an exploratory factorial

analysis followed by a confirmatory analysis (Lisrel 8.7).

To validate the scale of quality two items measuring

interaction quality had to be eliminated because of the

scarce variability of these items (the normality could not be

warranted). With the rest of items a confirmatory factor

analysis was performed. The results indicate that there is

no divergence between the dimensions outcome quality and

physical environment quality; therefore they were inte-

grated into the same dimension. The scales on expectations

and pleasure were also validated by two confirmatory

factor analysis and the scales of satisfaction and intensi-

fication were validated jointly by the reduced number of

items. The values of goodness of fit for each scale or group

of scales and the parameters lambda for each variable are

shown in Appendix A.

Once the convergence of the scales was validated the

values of reliability were calculated by the Cronbach alpha

and AVE in each case (see Appendix A). In all cases the

reliability was above the recommended values. To obtain a

guarantee of discriminate validity, we used the confidence

intervals. The correlations between latent variables

and their confidence intervals were calculated and thevalue 1 did not appear in any case between these

intervals. Correlations are shown in Table 1. In all cases

the variance extracted of each variable exceeds the value of

its squared correlation with the other variables, which also

justifies the discriminant validity of the scales (Anderson &

Gerbing, 1988).

5. Analysis and results

The following step of the analysis consisted of the

evaluation of the proposed model by means of a path

analysis. First, each of the scales was reduced to onlyone indicator or index (extracted factor for each latent

variable based on CFA). With these values, and after

calculating the error measurement of each indicator

based on the values of reliability, the proposed model

was evaluated. The result of the evaluation is shown in

Fig. 2. The indicators of goodness of fit (w2(7) ¼ 19.28,

p ¼ 0.007; GFI ¼ 0.976; AGFI¼ 0.927; CFI ¼ 0.981;

RMSEA ¼ 0.082; PNFI¼ 0.453; PGFI¼ 0.325) are

clearly placed within the recommended limits and areconsidered as proof of good fit.

In order to analyze the moderating effect of mood, the

scale created is reduced to one single factor that indicates

the level of enthusiasm, animation or excitement which the

visitor finds him or herself in before beginning the visit.

Following the procedure proposed by Ping (1995), and

after centering the variables to attenuate error caused by

multicolineality (Aiken & West, 1991), we proceeded to

analyze the proposed model again, this time introducing

the interaction of mood with perceived quality, disconfir-

mation and pleasure. The result of the evaluation is shown

in Fig. 3. The indicators of goodness of fit (w2(19) ¼ 80.96,

p ¼ 0.000; GFI ¼ 0.937; AGFI¼ 0.850; CFI ¼ 0.945;

RMSEA ¼ 0.111; PNFI ¼ 0.491; PGFI¼ 0.396) are lo-

cated within the recommended limits and are considered

proof of a good fit. Parsimony indexes are slightly better

than in the previous model.

As can be concluded from these results, hypotheses

H1 and H2 are confirmed. In the line of previous

research we observed that expectations determine perceived

quality in the visit and that perceived quality, in turn,

is an indicator of satisfaction. Also, regarding H3, we

confirm that disconfirmation is positively determined

by perceived quality and negatively influenced by the

expectations of the visitor. However, the existence of asignificant effect of disconfirmation on satisfaction (H4)

was not demonstrated, a result already reported by

some authors (like Spreng & Page, 2001), who consider

the existence of variables that moderate the relation-

ship between expectations and satisfaction as possibly

being the level of confidence visitors have in their

expectations. In short, it is demonstrated that the cognitive

approach of satisfaction is validated by the path of

perceived quality, but not by the route of dissatisfaction

of expectations.

Regarding the emotional approach, we validate the

positive effect of perceived quality on pleasure (H5), and

the effect of pleasure on satisfaction (H6), in such a way

that we can see how emotions are also generators of

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Matrix of correlations

Expectations Perceived quality Disconfirmation Pleasure Satisfaction

Perceived quality 0.363

Disconfirmation 0.118 0.581

Pleasure 0.245 0.543 0.441

Satisfaction 0.347 0.731 0.542 0.637

Disconfirmation 0.057 0.248 0.268 0.132 0.265


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


9/14

satisfaction. It seems that the formation of positive

emotions derives from an evaluation of positive quality.

This means that the model of beliefs–attitudes is again

confirmed in the formation of visitor satisfaction. As for

the relationship between satisfaction and intensification

of the use or service (H7), we also find a positive

and significant coefficient to confirm the proposed hypo-thesis, unlike previous studies (Bigne ´ & Andreu, 2004)

that failed to demonstrate this effect. Nevertheless, we

observe that the effect of satisfaction on intention, in

this case to buy or try other related services, is not

excessively high.

Finally, and in relation to hypothesis H8, the interaction

between mood and disconfirmation of expectations (H8c)

has been validated, indicating that a more positive mood

(more enthusiasm, animation or excitement) makes the

disconfirmation of expectations reinforce the satisfaction of the visitor. However, we have found an unexpected nega-

tive effect in the interaction between mood and perceived

quality on satisfaction. The greater is visitors’ enthusiasm

and excitation before the visit, while the lower is the effect

of their cognitive experiences (perceived quality) on

satisfaction. The moderator ‘effect of mood’ on the

emotions felt (measures of pleasure) (H8b) was not

significant.

6. Discussion and conclusions

This study began with the aim of analyzing a specificaspect of marketing applied to cultural tourism, art and

cultural exhibitions, and the formation of visitor satisfac-

tion. Our proposal is based on combining two comple-

mentary approaches in the analysis of satisfaction: a

cognitive approach, according to which satisfaction derives

from stimuli and quality received and from the confirma-

tion–disconfirmation of expectations; and an affective

approach, according to which satisfaction also responds

to emotions that arouse certain stimuli in the visitor and

moderate visitors’ experiences’ effect on satisfaction. This

was developed in the context of cultural exhibitions and

our analysis has contemplated visitors’ expectations andmoods before the visit, and how they influence satisfaction.

We consider this context, a heritage tourism attraction, to

be a relevant contribution given that previous works

ARTICLE IN PRESS

DISCONFIRMATION

PLEASURE

INTENSIFICATION

EXPECTATIONS

SATISFACTION

PERCEIVED

QUALITY

0.445

(6.728)-0.227

(-3.750)

0.092

(1.372)0.497

(6.077)

0.813

(13.016)

0.382

(6.531)

0.322

(4.176)

0.600

(9.774)

Fig. 2. Results of path analysis.

DISCONFIRMATION

PLEASURE

INTENSIFICATION

PERCEIVED

QUALITY

EXPECTATIONS

SATISFACTION

Mood ∗ QualityMood ∗

DisconfirmationMood ∗Pleasure

0.809

(13.029)-0.205

(-3.413)

0.005

(0.091)0.488

(5.768)

0.919

(6.808)

0.477

(7.808)

0.246

(3.195)

0.685(11.802)

0.190

(2.461)0.118

(1.392)

-0.261

(-2.121)

Fig. 3. Results of path analysis (with moderator effects).


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


10/14

analyzing the impact of expectations, quality, and emo-

tions on satisfaction have focused on entertainment

attractions. Tourists do not choose museums and cultural

exhibitions because of a cursory interest, but because they

have a familiarity with the exhibition’s content, in our case,

with Spanish history.

The first implication of our work is the confirmation of our model due to its high validity and explanatory

power. Our model of satisfaction is unusual in that it

combines cognitive and emotional aspects. In fact, it has

been illustrated that the model knowledge–attitude–

behavior is completely valid in the explanation of the path

followed by the visitor in the evaluation of his/her

satisfaction levels and subsequent behavior. Visitor’

expectations are affected by both cognitive (perceived

quality) and emotional (pleasure) experiences; it is possible

to view these as two complementary paths that result in

satisfaction. If we compare these two pathways, we can

affirm that the effect of perceived quality on satisfaction is

greater than the effect of emotions. Moreover, pleasure, in

this cultural context, appears not to be an external feeling

but closely related to the cognitive experience (perceived

quality). Cognitive factors’ greater influence can be

explained by the visitor’s experience. Although this was

the first visit to the interpretation center for most visitors,

their profiles indicated that most had attended higher

education (57.1%). Moreover, the historical theme of the

interpretation center continues to attract more involved

and experienced visitors, most of whom have a relatively

high knowledge of museums and exhibitions. Homburg

et al. (2006) state that as experience accumulates the impact

of affective factors on customer satisfaction decreases andthe impact of cognitive factors increases. Affect has a

greater impact on the satisfaction judgments in earlier

stages of the satisfaction development process, when

judgments require a higher degree of constructive proces-

sing. Applied to context of cultural exhibitions, visitors are

likely to have previously gained experience of museums or

centers and consequently the role of cognition becomes

more prominent when experience accumulates (Homburg

et al., 2006).

However, we have not proved the effect of disconfirma-

tion on satisfaction. An explanation of this result can be

found in visitor’s confidence of expectations. Spreng and

Page (2001) indicate that the level to which expectation is

held may influence the degree or extent to which

expectation is utilized in post-purchase evaluations. When

a consumer holds an expectation with little confidence it

will be fulfilled, he/she is not surprised when it does not

eventuate. Disconfirmation of this expectation will not

have a strong effect on satisfaction. An expectation formed

based on information obtained from a highly credible,

expert source, is likely to be held with more confidence

than one developed from casual word-of-mouth conversa-

tions (Spreng & Page, 2001). In this research, expectations

have not yet been created by prior experience (as

aforementioned, in most cases it was the visitors’ inaugural

visit), or by commercial sources, as the advertisements of

this interpretation center are largely brochures. Therefore,

it is likely that expectations are based on information

gathered from brochures and word-of-mouth conversa-

tions, and thus the level of confidence in this information is

not high.

Another implication refers to expectations. In theestimated model it is evidenced that expectations have a

lower effect on disconfirmation than perceived quality.

Wirtz and Bateson (1999) indicate that when expectations

have a low influence on disconfirmation, a situation of no

disconfirmation and no complex cognitive processes occurs

at the same time. Experience rather than disconfirmation is

therefore the determinant of affective states.

An additional conclusion centers on the implications of

visitor satisfaction. We have not examined loyalty (which

is a regular consequence of satisfaction in marketing

literature) because of its low relevancy in this context.

However, we have analyzed the intensification of use by

measuring the purchase of related products or material,

and we have found that intensification does appear to

be a behavior correlated to visitor satisfaction (although

this correlation is weak). Part of our study is the analysis

of the role played by the mood of the individual in the

formation of satisfaction. Our results enable us to state

that a positive mood reinforces the effects of disconfirma-

tion of expectations during the process to final satisfaction,

but does not influence the effect of emotions experienced.

It seems then that the mood strengthens the cognitive

path towards satisfaction, but does not influence the

emotional pathway. A non-expected result is that a

positive mood reduces the effect of perceived quality onsatisfaction. Bagozzi et al. (1999) say that when people

attribute their mood to a different situation or object than

that being evaluated, mood’s effect may disappear. We can

add that an unimpressed and calm visitor is more

predisposed to base satisfaction on the perception of

quality.

Regarding managerial implications, the study suggests

the importance of visitor experience in cognitive and

emotional aspects as bases for satisfaction. Although

cognitive and affective dimensions are central to managers,

one does not go without the other (Chebat & Michon,

2003). This seems to be in line with the new strategies and

attitudes adopted by managers of museums and cultural

centers at the time of designing and planning their

businesses. The presentation of the cultural product

(location, internal distribution, walkways, lighting or

informative panels) contributes to stimulate the interest

and the involvement of the visitor. Also, the interpretation

and the intangibles which surround the cultural product

(contextualization, personalization, creation of a dialogue,

and interaction with the visitor in order to create an

experience, feelings, and sensations) allows the visitor to

understand, feel, and relive the heritage. If the visitor is

offered an adequate interpretation of that being contem-

plated, it increases his/her involvement and increases the

ARTICLE IN PRESS


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


11/14

possibility that the visitor will spend more time, stop at a

gift shop, encourage other visits, and even help in

preservation of the heritage. Management in tourism may

also learn the importance of offering convenient cognitive

and emotional experiences. When a destination is based on

the offer of museums and heritage exhibitions or events, it

should be analyzed whether or not tourists may needvarious stimuli gain a positive experience. For instance, the

satisfaction of a more involved tourist could be more

related to the extent to which the exhibition is unique and

original, while for less-involved tourists satisfaction could

be determined by emotions which arise from stimuli other

than the exhibition itself.

Evidently, the work presented is not without limitations.

Firstly, we have introduced the study of a concrete case.

The application of the study to other cultural sectors would

allow for wider generalizations to be made from the results

obtained. For instance, in a case study the impact of the

type or novelty of exhibitions on visitors’ expectations,

pleasure and satisfaction cannot be appreciated. For future

research, we leave scope for the inclusion of other factors

such as the confidence of consumers in their expectations

or context in which the service is being placed. Confidence

and context could be variables that moderate the effect of

expectations, quality or emotions on satisfaction. This

would require us to analyze the model using a larger

sample of a wide range of museums, exhibitions and

cultural centers. Another possibility is the analysis of the

moderating effect of personality in the process of generat-

ing satisfaction via emotional or cognitive paths. For

instance, Gountas and Gountas (2007) propose the

influence of consumers’ personality orientations on positive

and negative emotional states during the service interaction

and on the overall service satisfaction. Regarding this

context, we have not differentiated between the segments of

visitors. It would be interesting to compare the expecta-tions and evaluations of tourists to those of locals and

more-involved visitors. We also consider the application of

this model to be interesting, with its possible variations, to

the case of artistic products (theater, performances,

concerts) where the role of emotions could prove to be

more relevant in the generation of satisfaction than the role

of perceived quality, or the disconfirmation of expectations

due to the increased evaluation difficulty for spectators. We

should note that as the study has not considered interaction

perceived quality, we have not proved the impact of service

personnel behavior on visitor affect and pleasure.

Appendix A

Variables and items (see Table A1).

Appendix B

See Table B1.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table A1

Variable Item Description Mean SD l a AVE

Expectations EXP1 I think that the center will have professionals

disposed to offer me information and respond to my

needs

4.14 0.94 0.86 0.892 0.652

EXP2 I expect to receive good treatment from the

employees

4.30 0.84 0.85

EXP3 In this center I believe I will find modern,

technologically advanced installations

3.86 0.95 0.69

EXP4 I believe that the center will have informative panels

and adequate lighting and use of spaces

4.03 0.94 0.88

EXP5 I believe that the content of the exhibition will be

unique and different from that of other centers

3.64 1.01 0.73

EXP6 I believe that this center is going to offer me an

interesting educational or instructive experience

3.94 0.97 – b

EXP7 I expect that the objects, material, and information

exhibited to be of high cultural and historical interest

4.06 0.94 0.81

w2(7) ¼ 21.395 (P ¼ 0.003); GFI ¼ 0.973; AGFI ¼ 0.920; CFI ¼ 0.991; RMSEA ¼ 0.08

Perceived quality QUA1 The treatment received by the center employees has

been excellent (interaction quality)

4.65 0.57 – b 0.865 0.650

QUA2 At all times the center employees have demonstrated

their willingness to look after me correctly

(interaction quality)

4.65 0.63 – b

QUA3 The installations in the center are better than those in

other centers or museums I have visited (physical

environment quality)

3.29 0.98 0.85

QUA4 3.82 0.98 0.82


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


12/14

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table A1 (continued )

Variable Item Description Mean SD l a AVE

I evaluate the informative panels positively and the

atmosphere created in the center (physical

environment quality)

QUA5 I consider the visit to the center to have been a good

educational or instructive experience (outcome

quality)

3.98 0.99 0.75

QUA6 I consider the exhibition of the objects and materials

in the center to be excellent (outcome quality)

3.49 1.11 0.80

Disconfirmationa DIS1 In comparison with what you expected from the visit

in general to the center of interpretation, it has been:

much worse/worse/the same/better/much better than

expected

3.57 0.86 0.97


Pleasurea PLE1 Angry/content 4.10 0.83 0.89 0.900 0.699

PLE2 Bored/entertained 3.92 0.97 0.82

PLE3 Unhappy/happy 3.93 0.90 0.92

PLE4 Disappointed/impressed 3.64 0.98 0.76

PLE5 Unhappy/joyful 3.91 0.94 0.78

PLE6 Unhappy/delighted 3.12 1.17 – b


Satisfaction SAT1 This is one of the best interpretation centers I could

have visited

3.28 1.01 – b 0.903 0.751

SAT2 I am pleased with my decision to visit this

interpretation center

3.98 0.87 0.87

SAT3 I have really had a good time, I have had fun in this

center

3.78 0.95 0.81

SAT4 I will recommend someone to visit this center 3.93 1.03 0.95

SAT5 I will say positive things about this interpretation

center

3.86 1.01 0.83

Intensification INT1 I have bought a book or guide for more information 1.97 1.37 0.78 0.700 0.640

INT2 If there were a shop in this center I would buy a

souvenir

2.80 1.46 0.82


Mooda MOO1 Unimpressed/enthused 2.89 1.09

MOO2 Calm/excited 2.83 1.05

MOO3 Relaxed/animated 2.90 1.19

aScale of differential semantic.bEliminated items.

Table B1

Questionnaire

Variable Question

Expectationsa I think that the center will have professional available to offer me information and respond to my needs

I expect to receive good treatment from the employees

In this center I believe I will find modern, technologically advanced installationsI believe that the center will have informative panels and adequate lighting and use of spaces

I believe that the content of the exhibition will be unique and different from that of other centers

I believe that this center is going to offer me an interesting educational or instructive experience

I expect that the objects, material and information exhibited to be of high cultural and historical interest

Perceived qualitya The treatment received by the center employees has been excellent (interaction quality)

At all times the center employees have demonstrated their willingness to look after me correctly (interaction quality)

The installations in the center are better than those in other centers or museums I have visited (physical environment

quality)

I evaluate the informative panels positively and the atmosphere created in the center (physical environment quality)

I consider the visit to the center to have been a good educational or instructive experience (outcome quality)

I consider the exhibition of the objects and materials in the center to be excellent (outcome quality)

Disconfirmationb In comparison with what you expected from the visit in general to the center of interpretation, it has been: much worse/

worse/the same/better/much better than expected



13/14

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and

interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Anderson, E. W. (1994). Cross-category variation in customer satisfaction

and retention. Marketing Letters, 5(1), 19–30.

Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The antecedents and

consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Marketing Science, 12,

125–143.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling

in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psycho-

logical Bulletin, 103, 411–423.

Appiah-Adu, K., Fyall, A., & Singh, S. (2000). Marketing culture and

customers retention in the tourism industry. The Service Industries

Journal , 20(2), 95–113.

Babin, B. J., & Griffin, M. (1998). The nature of satisfaction. An

updated examination and analysis. Journal of Business Research, 4(2),

127–136.

Bagozzi, R. P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. (1999). The role of emotions in

marketing. Journal Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (2), 184–206.

Bearden, W. O., & Teel, J. E. (1983). Selected determinants of consumer

satisfaction and complaint reports. Journal of Marketing Research,

20(1), 21–28.

Bigne ´ , J. E., & Andreu, L. (2004). Modelo cognitivo-afectivo de la

satisfaccio ´ n en servicios de ocio y turismo. Cuadernos de Economı́ a y

Direcció n de la Empresa, 21, 89–120.Bigne ´ , J. E., Andreu, L., & Gnoth, J. (2005). The theme park experience:

An analysis of pleasure, arousal and satisfaction. Tourism Manage-

ment, 26 (6), 833–844.

Bigne ´ , J. E., Sa ´ nchez, M. I., & Sa ´ nchez, J. (2001). Tourism image,

evaluation variables and after purchase behaviour inter-relationship.

Tourism Management, 22(6), 607–616.

Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., & Zeithaml, V. (1993). A dynamic

process of service quality: From expectations to behavioural inten-

tions. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), 7–27.

Bowen, D. (2001). Antecedents of consumer satisfaction and dissatisfac-

tion on long haul inclusive tours: A reality check on theoretical

considerations. Tourism Management, 22(1), 49–61.

Brady, M., & Cronin, J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing

perceived service quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Market-

ing, 65(3), 34–49.

Cadotte, E. R., Woodruff, R. B., & Jenkins, R. L. (1987). Expectations

and norms in models of consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing

Research, 24(3), 305–314.

Caldwell, N. (2002). (Rethinking) the measurement of service quality in

museums and galleries. International Journal of Nonprofit and

Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7 (2), 161–171.

Chebat, J. C., & Michon, R. (2003). Impact of ambient odors on mall

shoppers’ emotions, cognition, and spending: A test of competitive

causal theories. Journal of Business Research, 56 (7), 529–539.

Churchill, G., & Surprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the

determinants of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research,

19(4), 491–504.

Colbert, F. (2003). Entrepreneurship and leadership in marketing arts.

International Journal of Arts Management, 6 (1), 30–39.

Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A re-

examination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56 (3), 55–68.

Dabholkar, P. A., Shepherd, C. D., & Thorpe, D. I. (2000). A

comprehensive framework for service quality: An investigation of

critical conceptual and measurement issues through a longitudinal

study. Journal of Retailing, 76 (2), 139–173.

De Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., & Bloemer, J. (1998). On the relationship

between perceived service quality, service loyalty and switching

costs. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(5),

436–454.

De Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., Lemmink, J., & Mattsson, J. (1997). The

dynamics of the service delivery process: A value-based approach.International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14(3), 231–243.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, J. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour:

An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Forgas, J. P., & Bower, G. H. (1987). Mood effects on person-perception

judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 53–60.

Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barometer: The

Swedish experience. Journal of Marketing, 56 (1), 6–21.

Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Frijda, N. H. (1993). Moods, emotion episodes and emotions. In M. L. En

Haviland, & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions. New York:

Guildford.

Gilmore, A., & Rentschler, R. (2002). Changes in museum management:

A custodial or marketing emphasis? Journal of Management Develop-

ment, 21(10), 745–760.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table B1 (continued )

Variable Question

Pleasureb Angry/content

Bored/entertained

Unhappy/happy

Disappointed/impressed

Unhappy/joyful

Unhappy/delighted

Satisfactiona This is one of the best interpretation centers I could have visited

I am pleased with my decision to visit this interpretation center

I have really had a good time, I have had fun in this center

I will recommend someone to visit this center

I will say positive things about this interpretation center

Intensificationa I have bought a book or guide for more information

If there were a shop in this center I would buy a souvenir

Moodb Unimpressed/enthused

Calm/excited

Relaxed/animated

a

Five points Likert scales.bScale of differential semantic.



14/14

Goulding, C. (2000). The museum environment and the visitor experience.

European Journal of Marketing, 34(3/4), 261–278.

Gountas, J., & Gountas, S. (2007). Personality orientations, emotional

states, customer satisfaction, and intention to repurchase. Journal of

Business Research, 60(1), 72–75.

Gro ¨ nroos, C. (2000). Service management and marketing. A customer

relationship management approach (2nd ed.). West Sussex, UK: Wiley.

Harrison, P., & Shaw, R. (2004). Consumer satisfaction and post-purchaseintentions: An exploratory study of museum visitors. International

Journal of Arts Management, 6 (2), 23–33.

Higgs, B., Polonsky, M. J., & Hollick, M. (2005). Measuring expectations.

Forecast vs. ideal expectations. Does it really matter? Journal of

Retailing and Consumer Services, 12(1), 49–64.

Homburg, C., Koschate, N., & Hoyer, W. D. (2006). The role of cognition

and affect in the formation of customer satisfaction: A dynamic

perspective. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 21–31.

Keaveney, S. M. (1995). Customer switching behaviour in service

industries. An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 71–82.

Kim, S., & Littrell, M. A. (1999). Predicting souvenir purchase intentions.

Journal of Travel Research, 38(2), 153–162.

LaBarbera, P. A., & Mazursky, D. (1983). A longitudinal assessment of

consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction. The dynamic aspect of the

cognitive process. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(4), 393–404.Laros, F. J. M., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. (2005). Emotions in consumer

behaviour. A hierarchical approach. Journal of Business Research,

58(10), 1437–1445.

Liljander, V., & Strandvik, T. (1997). Emotions in service satisfaction.

International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(2), 148–169.

Luong, A. (2005). Affective service display and customer mood. Journal of

Service Research, 8(2), 117–130.

Mano, H., & Oliver, R. L. (1993). Assessing the dimensionality and

structure of the consumption experience: Evaluation, feeling, and

satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 451–466.

Mattila, A. (1998). An examination of consumers’ use of heuristic cues in

making satisfaction judgements. Psychology and Marketing, 15,

477–501.

McGill, A. L., & Iacobucci, D. (1992). The role of post-experience

comparison standards in the evaluation of unfamiliar services.Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 570–578.

Menon, K., & Dube ´ , L. (2000). Ensuring greater satisfaction by

engineering salesperson response to customer emotions. Journal of

Retailing, 76 (3), 285–307.

Oatley, K. (1992). Best laid schemes. The psychology of emotions.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and

consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research,

17 (4), 460–469.

Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective and attribute bases of the

satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 418–430.

Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction. A behavioural perspective on the

consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty. Journal of Marketing,

63(4), 33–44.Oliver, R. L., & Desarbo, W. S. (1988). Response determinants in

satisfaction judgements. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 495–507.

Oliver, R. L., Rust, R. T., & Varki, S. (1997). Customer delight.

Foundations, findings and managerial insight. Journal of Retailing,

73(3), 311–336.

Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989). Equity and disconfirmation

perceptions as influences on merchant and product satisfaction.

Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (3), 372–383.

Olsen, S. O. (2002). Comparative evaluation and the relationship between

quality, satisfaction, and repurchase loyalty. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 30(3), 240–249.

Olson, J. C., & Dover, P. A. (1979). Disconfirmation of consumer

expectations through product trial. Journal of Applied Psychology,

64(2), 179–189.

Patterson, P. G. (1993). Expectations and product performance as

determinants of satisfaction for a high-involvement purchase. Psychol-

ogy and Marketing, 10(5), 449–465.

Phillips, D., & Baumgartner, H. (2002). The role of consumption emotions

in the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(3),

243–252.

Ping, R. A. (1995). A parsimonious estimating technique for interaction

and quadratic latent variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(3),336–347.

Prakash, V. (1984). Validity and reliability of the confirmation of

expectations paradigm as a determinant of consumer satisfaction.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 12(4), 63–76.

Rowley, J. (1999). Measuring total customer experience in museums.

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(6),

303.

Russell, J. A., & Pratt, G. A. (1980). A description of the affective quality

attributed to environments. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 38(2), 311–322.

Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor, C. (1987). Emotion

knowledge. Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1061–1086.

Spreng, R. A., Mackenzie, S. B., & Olshavsky, R. W. (1996). A re-

examination of the determinants of consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 15–32.

Spreng, R. A., & Page, T. J. (2001). The impact of confidence in

expectations on consumer satisfaction. Psychology and Marketing,

18(11), 1187–1204.

Storm, C., & Storm, T. (1987). A taxonomic study of the vocabulary of

emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4),

805–816.

Szymanski, D. M., & Henard, D. H. (2001). Customer satisfaction: A

meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of Academy of

Marketing Science, 29(1), 16–35.

Tse, D. K., & Wilton, P. C. (1988). Models of consumer satisfaction

formation. An extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2),

204–212.

Vanhamme, J. (2000). The link between surprise and satisfaction: An

exploratory research. Journal of Marketing Management, 16 (6),565–582.

Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/consumption-based affective responses

and post-purchase processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3),

258–270.

Westbrook, R. A., & Oliver, R. L. (1991). The dimensionality of

consumption emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction. Journal of

Consumer Research, 18(1), 84–91.

White, C., & Yu, Y. T. (2005). Satisfaction emotions and consumer

behavioral intentions. The Journal of Services Marketing, 19(6/7),

411–420.

Wirtz, J., & Bateson, J. E. G. (1999). Consumer satisfaction with services:

Integrating the environment perspective in services marketing into the

traditional disconfirmation paradigm. Journal of Business Research,

44(1), 55–66.

Wirtz, J., Mattila, A. S., & Tan, R. L. P. (2000). The moderating role of target-arousal on the impact of affect on satisfaction. An examination

in the context of service experience. Journal of Retailing, 76 (3),

234–250.

Woodruff, R. B., Cadotte, E. R., & Jenkins, R. L. (1983). Modelling

consumer satisfaction processes using experience-based norms. Journal

of Marketing Research, 20(3), 296–304.

Yuksel, A., & Yuksel, F. (2001). An updated model of travel and tourism

purchase-consumption systems. Journal of Travel and Tourism Market-

ing, 10(1), 3–27.

Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioural

consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–46.

Zins, A. H. (2002). Consumption emotions experience quality and

satisfaction: A structural analysis for complainers versus no complai-

ners. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 12(2/3), 3–18.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Documents

Moderacion Del Humor en La Satisfacción