.

€116.13

an»: . .. .9.

C
nu. .11 .

‘ 1...:
‘1’: o

 

 

 

 

2?...» 5‘ «1....4? .
$5.? :am‘ ”53.x“
A .. $3.13....

v7.10

.fififiuy J

1...: II!
(51;. 9!... m;

.c 21.53:. 7.
1:31,

I.
.i

. 5:...
i: .3}!
“R: .i.

, l
a.
finnwmq

SI! III-It's.
«Out-1‘: bra!

(V1VI$. \‘u
t..iu6..5|!
c} It .‘. I1 .

‘ «I... .I

. .. ,fiéfiwfigfi.

utVtx \1
Lo il‘. 4
1.0.4 : .A n z

t

III.

 

 

iBRARY

l‘flhn' in.“ CV».
5\H'~.'n;'ctvan Ulate

. g 0..
i n‘ 3.3? -1'
I tailliv3~QyiLy

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

ROLES OF MOTIVATIONS, PAST EXPERIENCE,
PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICE QUALITY, VALUE AND
SATISFACTION IN MUSEUM VISITORS’ LOYALTY

presented by

CHI-MING HSIEH

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in Community, Agriculture, Recreation
and Resource Studies

 

 

 

AA 0 1/»an W

Major Professor's Signatule
s fli/M

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:IProj/Acc&Pres/CIRCIDateDue.indd

 

 

ROLES OF MOTIVATIONS, PAST EXPERIENCE,
PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICE QUALITY, VALUE AND SATISFACTION
IN MUSEUM VISITORS’ LOYALTY
By

Chi-Ming Hsieh

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies

2010

ABSTRACT
ROLES OF MOTIVATIONS, PAST EXPERIENCE,
PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICE QUALITY, VALUE AND SATISFACTION
IN MUSEUM VISITORS’ LOYALTY
By
Chi-Ming I-Isieh

Cultural tourism is an important and fast developing type of tourism, in terms of its
cultural, social and economic impacts. The museum market, including over 40,000
museums worldwide, represents one of the largest segments of the cultural tourism
market. Approximately 450 museums in Taiwan have attracted an annual visitor number
equivalent to half of the entire population of Taiwan. Museums face growing challenges,
and are competing for visitors, resources, volunteers, and funding to maintain facilities
and continue operating. Additionally, the educational and cultural interests of museum
visitors, the exhibits they visit, the activities in which they participate, and their
interactions with museum collections and interpreters play important roles in museums’
long-term sustainability because, without visitors, museums would struggle to survive.

The first purpose of the study, which was to develop and test an integrated, dynamic
model of museum visitor behavior (n = 512), was fulfilled by successfully integrating
two theories (push and pull motivation theory, destination loyalty theory) and two
models (recreational behavior model, service quality model) into a comprehensive
structural model across three temporal stages. Results also favorably identified
significant interrelationships—among pull motivation, perception of service quality,
perception of value and overall satisfaction—that played concurrent positive roles in

determining visitors’ loyalty. The second purpose of this study, which was to assess the

moderating effects of socio-demographic and travel behavior variables on the

hypothesized relationships in the structural model, was partially fulfilled by recognizing
the significant moderating effects of membership status, ticket type (one indicator of
visitor type), and length of stay on three paths @erception of service quality-satisfaction,
perception of value—loyalty, satisfaction—loyalty). Thus, to the primary research
question—did the National Museum of Natural Science in Taiwan deliver the
appropriate quality of service to match its visitors’ needs—the answer was “yes” and as
the research also showed that these visitors were loyal.

The implication of this research is that museum managers Should examine both
push and pull motivations Simultaneously to accommodate their visitors’ expectations
(personal needs and growth, professional purposes, and an enjoyable gathering with
family and fi’iends) through providing sufficient levels of the recognized service
(professional training and development programs attended by museum staff members,
physical facilities and equipment, provision of understandable and sufficient information,
and caring and individualized attention) to increase visitors’ revisit intentions and assure
the museum’s continued operation and success. Managers should pay attention to the
needs of nonmembers, and provide incentives for short-stay visitors to extend their stays,
in an effort to enhance their perceptions of value (reasonable price, valuable exhibits,
helpful activities, and useful services). Suggested directions for future research include:
1) an examination of a wider respondent base across other museums or cultural tourism
services (e.g., historical sites); 2) the selection and development of a well-established
measurement scale of service quality and other factors, using a qualitative approach; and

3) the selection of other potential moderating variables and affected paths.

 

Copyright by
Chi-Ming Hsieh
2010

Dedicated to my father, Jui-Chen Hsieh, and my mother, Pi-Ching Chien,
for their endless love, support
and encouragement throughout my life.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Numerous people have provided support and assistance toward the completion of
this dissertation. First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to
the committee chairperson and my advisor, Dr. Gail A. Vander Stoep. Without her
guidance, support and encouragement, I could not have finished my degree. There were
countless meetings between us for making major breakthroughs and improvements of
my thoughts and studies at different stages. I have gained inspiration and insights about
tourism through many discussions with her. Her continual nurturing of my academic and
professional development in the past six years has provided a solid foundation for my
scholarship and the completion of my research. She will remain an example of teaching
passion, integrity, and excellence in scholarship.

I have been fortunate to have supportive committee members providing their
valuable insights in their areas of expertise. To Dr. Christine A. Vogt, sincere thanks for
concepts learned in three courses during my first three years and for providing thoughtful
suggestions, opinions and comments, which were invaluable throughout my graduate
studies. To Dr. Regina C. McNally, heartfelt appreciation for her time, effort, opinions
and critical contributions toward my final two chapters and for her commitment through
meetings, feedback and encouragement during my last year. To Dr. Richard D. Paulsen,
the associate chairperson of my department, thanks for his continued suggestions and
contributions to improve the quality of the dissertation as well as his warm

encouragement, starting from my first day at Michigan State University.

vi

Many thanks to Mr. Ching-Shen Teng, Director of Taiwan’s National Museum of
Natural Science, as well as to other museum staff. Without their help I could not have
completed this dissertation. My thanks also go to Wan-Ru and Cheng-Tang for
sacrificing their weekends to help with data collection.

I would like to thank all my good friends and colleagues who supported me all
along the way at MSU. I particularly thank Dr. Sung Hee Park as my best buddy and
mentor for her tremendous support and prayers during my final three years. We have all
gone through this doctoral experience together with tears and joy and will continue our
friendship and authorship in our future teaching careers. Sincere appreciation goes to Dr.
Chang Huh at Niagara University for his warm encouragement and support through
coauthoring papers and facilitating my application for a teaching position during my
final stage at MSU. Many thanks go to the students, faculty and staff at the CARRS
Department for their assistance and support, especially Fong, Jamie, Kaoruko, Gwo-Bao,
Harrison, Myung Sun, Eun Jeong and J u Hyoung. I truly appreciate a wonderful couple,
Drs. Katharine and Frank Dennis, for offering their time, effort and suggestions through
my last stage of dissertation writing. To my Christian fellowship group, a kindly
appreciation for their constant friendship and prayers, especially Kuo-Liang and Ya-Wen,
who always opened their home to me and were there to listen and be spiritual mentors
based on God’s love and guidance during my mental and emotional crises.

Lastly, I want to express gratitude to my family for their full support. Particularly,
my parents and my brother, Chi-Jen, and my beloved wife, Hsin-Yu, deserve my special
thanks for their unconditional love, understanding, patience, and support whenever

needed during my six-year journey toward a Ph.D. degree.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. xi
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xv
CHAPTER 1 ........................................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
Background .................................................................................................................. 1
Need for the Study ....................................................................................................... 4
Traditional Museum Roles .................................................................................. 4
MUSCUHIS as Businesses ....................................................................................... ‘7

Need for Museum TOUI‘ISI Studies ....................................................................... 8

National Museums in Taiwan ............................................................................ 10

Study Put-poge and Objectives ................................................................................... 1 1
Theoretical Framework .............................................................................................. 14
Research Hypotheses ................................................................................................. 16
Potential Contributions of the Study ......................................................................... 19
Definitions of Terms .................................................................................................. 20
Delimitations ............................................................................................................. 22
Structure of Dissertation ............................................................................................ 22
CHAPTER 2 ...................................................................................................................... 23
LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................. 23
Overview ................................................................................................................... 23
Tourist Behavior ........................................................................................................ 23
Clawson and Knestch’s Model of Recreational Behavior --------------------------------- 25

Tourist Motivations ................................................................................................... 27
Push and PD” Motivation Theory ...................................................................... 28
Motivation Studies in Museum Tout-ism ........................................................... 29
Correlation and Causation between Push and Pull ------------------------------------------ 34

SCI’VICC Quality .......................................................................................................... 37
Museum Functions and SCI’VICCS ....................................................................... 38
Measurement of SCI’VICC Quality ....................................................................... 40
Applications of SCI’VICC Quality in Tourism ...................................................... 45

Service Quality Studies in MUSCUIIIS ................................................................. 47
Second-order serViCC Quality ............................................................................ 52
SERVQUAL (Gap Score) VS. SERVPERF (Performance-Only) -------------------- 55
Causation between Push (or Pull) and Perception of Service Quality -------------- 60
Satisfaction ................................................................................................................ 62
Satisfaction with Museum ................................................................................. 63

Past Experience .......................................................................................................... 64
Effect of Past Experience on Perceptions of Service Quality --------------------------- 65

viii

Effect of Past Experience on Attitude toward Revisit Intention ---------------------- 65

Perception of Value ................................................................................................... 66
Tourism Destination Loyalty Theory ........................................................................ 68
Socio-Demographic and Travel Behavior Variables ................................................. 71
Moderating Effect of Visitor Type and Length of Stay on Three Causal
Relationships ..................................................................................................... ‘74
Visitor Type ....................................................................................................... 75
Length of Stay ................................................................................................... 75
Summary of the Relationships among Key Constructs ............................................. 80
CHAPTER 3 ...................................................................................................................... 86
METHODS ........................................................................................................................ 86
Overview ................................................................................................................... 86
Study Site ................................................................................................................... 87
Instrument Development and Measurement Scales ................................................... 91
Measurement of Motivation and Past Experiences ........................................... 92
Measurement of Perception of Service Quality ................................................. 93
Measurement of Perception of Value and Overall Satisfaction ------------------------ 94
Measurement of Museum Loyalty ..................................................................... 94
Constructs and Variables ................................................................................... 94
Pre-Test and Pilot Study .................................................................................. 100
Reliability and Validity Test ............................................................................ 101
Sampling Plan .......................................................................................................... 104
Sample Frame .................................................................................................. 104
Sample Size ..................................................................................................... 105
Sampling Methods ........................................................................................... 107
Ticket (Visitor) Types ..................................................................................... 107
Survey Time Frame ......................................................................................... l l 1
Data Collection Procedures ..................................................................................... l 12
Data Analysis Methods ............................................................................................ I 14
Descriptive Analyses ....................................................................................... 114
Chi-Square Test and Independent T-Test ........................................................ I 14
Structural Equation Modeling ......................................................................... I 15
CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................................... I 16
RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ I 16
Overview ................................................................................................................. I 16
pilot Study Analysis ................................................................................................ 116
Survey Response Rates ............................................................................................ l 18
Description of the Sample ....................................................................................... 122
Socio-demographic Characteristics ................................................................. 122
Travel Behavior Characteristics ...................................................................... 124
Tourist Motivation Profile ............................................................................... 127
Past Experience Profile .................................................................................... 128
Perception of Service Quality Profile .............................................................. 129
Perception of Value profile ............................................................................. 132

ix

Overall Satisfaction Profile ............................................................................. 132

Museurn Loyalty Profile .................................................................................. 133

Item Analysis ........................................................................................................... I33
Comparison of Pilot and Formal Studies ................................................................. 140
Testing the Measurement Model ............................................................................. 149
Correlation for the Second_0rder MUSEQUAL ............................................. 150
Measurement Model Evaluation and Modification ---------------------------------------- 151
Construct Reliability and Validity ................................................................... 158
Discriminant Validity ...................................................................................... 160

Testing the Hypothesized Structural Model ............................................................ 164
Overall Goodness-of-Fit of the Structural Equation Model --------------------------- 164

Research Hypotheses Testing and Path Coefficients ------------------------------------- 165

Path Effects Analysis ....................................................................................... 17]
Examination of Moderating Effects ........................................................................ I73
Measurement Invariance Analysis ................................................................... I73
Moderating Effect of Visitor Type (Nonmember and Member) --------------------- 176
Moderating Effect of Visitor Type (Adult and Discount Ticket) ------------------ 181
Moderating Effect of Length of Stay ............................................................... 184
CHAPTER 5 .................................................................................................................... l 89
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................... 189
Summary of the Study ............................................................................................. 189
Summary and Discussion of Key Findings ............................................................. 191
Characteristics of NMNS Visitors ................................................................... 191
Validation of the Measurement Model ............................................................ 192
Antecedents and Consequences of the Research Variables ---------------------------- 194
Significance of the Moderating Effects ........................................................... 199
Theoretical implications .......................................................................................... 199
Managerial implications .......................................................................................... 204
Study Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ----------------------------- 209
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 21 5
Appendix A: Consent Form for Survey ................................................................... 216
Appendix B: English Survey Instruments ............................................................... 217
Appendix C: Chinese Survey Instruments ............................................................... 223
Appendix D: Photos of Incentives ........................................................................... 229
Appendix E: Results of Pilot Study ......................................................................... 230
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 238

Table 1

Table 2
Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Table 11

Table 12

Table 13

Table 14

Table 15

LIST OF TABLES

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Services in the US. Estimated Revenue,

2004 through 2007 ............................................................................................. 3
Prior Studies about Motivations for Visiting Museums .................................. 33
Summary of Museum Service Quality Studies ................................................ 54

Issues Related to Expectancy-Disconfirmation Theory (Yiiksel & Yfiksel,
2001) ................................................................................................................ 59

Prior Studies Indicating Repeat Resident Visitation to Three Major Taiwan
Museums .......................................................................................................... 70

Previously Identified Variables Moderating the Causal Relationship between
Performance and Satisfaction (adapted from Matzler et al., 2008) ................. 77

Previously Identified Variables Moderating the Causal Relationship between
Satisfaction and Loyalty (adapted from Matzler et al., 2008) ......................... 77

Previously Identified Variables Moderating the Causal Relationship between
Perception of Value and Loyalty ...................................................................... 78

Prior Museum Studies Regarding Correlations between Constructs Using
Pearson Correlation Analysis ........................................................................... 81

Prior Tourism Studies Regarding Causal Relationships among Constructs
Using SEM ...................................................................................................... 82

Summary of Previous Literature Relevant to Structural and Causal
Relationships among Key Constructs Using Structural Equation Modeling in
Museum Contexts ............................................................................................ 84

Characteristics of the National Museums ........................................................ 89

Annual Visits to Three Largest National Museums in Taiwan: 2005 through
2009 ................................................................................................................. 90

Variables and Sources for Scale Items Used for Measurement ....................... 96

Characteristics of the Sample Ticket Type Categories of NMNS (National
Museum of Natural Science, 2009) ........................................ , ....................... 108

xi

Table 16

Table 17

Table 18

Table 19

Table 20

Table 21

Table 22

Table 23

Table 24

Table 25

Table 26

Table 27

Table 28

Table 29

Table 30

Table 31

Table 32

Table 33

Table 34

Table 35

Table 36

Table 37

Administration Dates of Pilot Study during 6/ 16/2009-6/28/2009 ............... 111
Administration Dates of Formal Study during 6/30/2009-7/12/2009 ........... 112
Survey Response Rates .................................................................................. 120

Administration Dates of Formal Study during June 30, 2009—June 12, 2009

....................................................................................................................... 120
Visitor Numbers in the Life Science Hall of NMNS during June 16,
2009-June 12, 2009 ....................................................................................... 121
Demographic Characteristics of Museum Respondents (n = 512) ................ 123
Museum Visit Behavior (11 = 512) ................................................................. 125
Motivation Profile .......................................................................................... 128
Past Experiences Profile ................................................................................ 129
Perceptions of Service Quality Profile .......................................................... 131
Perception of the Value Profile ...................................................................... 132
Overall Satisfaction Profile ........................................................................... 133
Museum Loyalty Profile ................................................................................ 133
Summary of Item Analysis of Motivations for Visiting Museum ................. 136
Summary of Item Analysis of Past Experience ............................................. 137
Summary of Item Analysis of Perception of Service Quality ....................... 138
Summary of Item Analysis of Perception of Value ....................................... 139
Summary of Item Analysis of Loyalty .......................................................... 139
Summary of the Measurement Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) .................... 139
Comparison of Demographic Characteristics between Pilot and Formal
Studies ........................................................................................................... 141
Comparison of Visit Behavior between Pilot and Formal Studies ................ 142

Comparison of Demographic Characteristics between Non-Response and

xii

Table 38

Table 39

Table 40

Table 41

Table 42

Table 43

Table 44

Table 45

Table 46

Table 47

Table 48

Table 49

Table 50

Table 51

Table 52

Table 53

Table 54

Response samples .......................................................................................... 144

T-test Results of Measurement Scale between Pilot Study and Formal Studies

....................................................................................................................... 146
Comparison of the Ticket Type between the Entire Visitors and the Entire
Respondents during the Survey Period .......................................................... 148
Correlations among First Order Constructs for Second-Order MUSEQUAL 51
....................................................................................................................... l

A Summary of the Measurement Model Assessment and Modification ....... 153
Final Measurement Model (n = 512) ............................................................. 159
Chi-Square Difference Test for Assessing Discriminant Validities ............... 162
Summary of Discriminant Validities and Correlations .................................. 163
Summary of Goodness-of Fit Indices for the Final Measurement and
Structural Models .......................................................................................... 165
Summary of the Tested Hypotheses 1—1 0 ..................................................... 170
Path Effects on Museum Loyalty .................................................................. 172
Test Results of Measurement Invariance across Groups ............................... 174

Results of the Moderating Effects of Visitor Type (Member and Nonmember)
....................................................................................................................... 177

Chi- -Square Difference Test Results for Moderating Effects of Membership
Status ............................................................................................................. 178

Comparison Results of Path Coefficients and T-Value (Member and
Nonmember) .................................................................................................. 180

Results of the Moderating Effects of Visitor Type (Adult and Discount Ticket)
....................................................................................................................... 181

Chi-Square Difference Test Results for Moderating Effects of Ticket Type
....................................................................................................................... 182

Comparison Results of Path Coefficients and T-Value (Adult and Discount
Ticket) ............................................................................................................ 183

xiii

Table 55 Results of the Moderating Effects of Length of Stay .................................... 185

Table 56 Chi-Square Difference Test Results for Moderating Effects of Length of Stay
....................................................................................................................... 186

Table 57 Comparison Results of Path Coefficients and T-Value (Short and Long Stay)
....................................................................................................................... 187

xiv

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.

Figure 14.

LIST OF FIGURES

Theoretical framework .................................................................................... 15
Expectancy-disconfirrnation theory (Oliver, 1980) ........................................ 41
Model of service quality gaps (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985) ....... 43
A Conceptual Model of Perceived Recreation Service Quality (Mackay &
Crompton, 1988) .............................................................................................. 46
Relative advantages of SERVQUAL vs. SERVPERF (Kettinger & Lee, 1997)8
......................................................................................................................... 5 _
The proposed hypothetical model of the relationships among all constructs 85
Map showing the location of the National Museum of Natural Science and
two other major national museums in Taiwan. ................................................ 88
Changes in annual visitor arrivals to the three major museums in Taiwan
(2004—2008) (Taiwan Tourism Bureau, 2009). ............................................... 91
The proposal structural model with all constructs and observed variables
before modification .......................................................................................... 99
Final measurement model .............................................................................. 157
Summary of tested hypotheses (H1—H10) ..................................................... 171
Results of the moderating effects with the hypotheses (H1 la—H13a) ........... 180
Results of the moderating effects with the hypotheses (H11b—H13b) ........... 184
Results of the moderating effects with hypotheses (H14—H16) .................... 188

XV

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background

Cultural tourism is one of the fastest developing types of tourism in the world, and it
has potential for greater promotion in the international tourism market (Alaeddinoglu &
Can, 2009) in terms of its cultural, social and economic influences. Stebbins (1996, p.
948) defined cultural tourism as “a genre of special interest tourism based on the search
for and participation in new and deep cultural experiences, whether aesthetic, intellectual,
emotional, or psychological.” Kennedy (2001) claimed that “cultural tourism
incorporates a variety of cultural forms, including museums, galleries, festivals,
architecture, historic sites, artistic performances, and heritage sites, as well as any
experience that brings one culture in contact with another for the specific purpose of that
contact, in a touring situation.”

Cultural attractions constitute a crucial component of most attractive tourism
destinations (Prentice, 2001; Richards, 2002) and have had an impact on host
communities. In 1996, the World Tourism Organization (WTO) reported that cultural
tourism accounted for 37 percent of all tourism trips, and predicted that demand would
continue to grow by 15 percent per annum, generating an estimated 240 million
international trips to cultural destinations each year (Richards, 1996). The US. Travel
Association (2003) supported the prediction of the WTO by reporting an annual increase
of 13 percent in domestic cultural tourism in the United States from 192.4 million

person-trips in 1996 to 216.8 million person-trips in 2002. This trend resulted in 217

million person-trips in 2002, and these tourists spent more and stayed longer at the
destination than other visitors.

Cultural tourism is still spreading to many comers of the world and is being
embraced by local, national, and transnational bodies (Richards, 2007). For instance, The
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) promotes
cultural tourism as a means of preserving world heritage, the European Commission
supports cultural tourism as a major industry, and the newly emerging nation-states of
Africa and Central Europe see it as an important facilitator for maintaining national
identity (Richards, 2007). In regions such as Latin America, cultural tourism plays a
crucial role in the development of international tourism; for instance, Peru classifies 93
percent of its visitors as cultural tourists (Richards, 2007). In many parts of the world,
cultural tourism attracts the majority of tourists, and supports the local economy,
traditional activities, and cultural preservation. Tourism is recognized as an agent of
change (Carter & Beeton, 2004), and cultural tourism has high potential for positively
impacting communities.

Several studies have noted that 65 million people, or nearly half of all American
domestic travelers, visited or participated in museums, historic sites or musical arts
performances (Kerstetter, Confer, & Bricker, 1998; Miller, 1997). After assessing the
typology of cultural tourism, the Association for Tourism and Leisure Education
(ATLAS) reported that museums and art galleries are the most important attractions for
cultural tourism, and account for over 50 percent of all cultural tourist visits (Richards,
2007). In other words, museums represent one of the largest segments in the cultural

tourism market. For instance, in the United States, visiting museums ranks among the

top three tourist activities and the estimated revenue from museums, historical sites and

similar institutions has been the fastest growing segment among the primary market of

arts, entertainment and recreation annually from 2004 to 2007 (US. Census Bureau,

2009) (see Table 1). In Europe museums attract more than 370 million visitors a year

(Creigh-Tyte & Selwood, 1998), many of whom are tourists (Johnson, 2003).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Services in the US. Estimated Revenue, 2004
through 2007
Estimated Revenue Estimated Year-to—Year
Arts, entertainment, ($1,000) Percent Change
and recreation
2004/ 2005/ 2006/
2004 2005 2006 2007 2005 2 006 2007
Pe'f°"“.'”g am 11,554 11,978 11,987 11,734 3.7% 0.1% -2.1%
compames
Spectator sports 23,659 24,402 26.531 28,757 3.1% 8.7% 8.4%
Museums, historical
sites, and similar 9,688 10,256 1 1,967 12,978 5.9% 16.7% 8.4%
institutes
Amusement and 9,344 9,882 9,963 10,746 5.8% 0.8% 7.9%
theme parks
“Sims (except 16,664 18,010 19,746 20,485 8.1% 9.6% 3.7%
casmo hotels)
G°'f°°“‘ses and 17,880 18,533 19,082 19,279 3.7% 3.0% 1.0%
country clubs
Fitness and
recreational sports 16,839 17,620 18,519 19,507 4.6% 5.1% 5.3%
centers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: US. Census Bureau (2009); adapted from “2007 Service Annual Survey, Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation Services”

There has been an increasing interest in the overall relationship between the arts and
tourism because culture becomes a significant factor affecting visitors’ choice of a city as
a tourist destination (Hughes, 1998). Museums are thus an important, popular component
of the attraction-base and tourism resources of a tourism destination (Beeho & Prentice,

1995; Jansen-Verbeke & Rekom, 1996). In many cities, museums have served as one of

the main attractions for tourists. Moreover, tourism and cultural development can play a
key role in urban regeneration, and a museum can be the core element of a redevelopment
program (Plaza, 2000), as well as having a significant effect on tourism promotion
strategies for the destination (Prideaux & Kininmont, 1999).

Within such an important and competitive cultural tourism market, understanding
cultural tourist behavior has become necessary for practitioners, marketers and
policy-makers. Furthermore, as in other travel and tourism industry segments,
contributions of cultural tourism attractions largely rely on the level of satisfaction
derived by tourists; such satisfaction is determined primarily by visitors’ assessment of
their experiences. Thus, the tourist experience becomes a key concept in cultural tourism

(De Rojas & Camarero, 2007).

Need for the Study

Traditional Museum Roles

More than 40,000 museums exist worldwide (Zils, 2000). The museum mix in many
countries includes small, local, volunteer-operated private museums, large independent
visitor attractions, national public museums fully or partly supported by governments,
local authority cultural service; and university museums. These various museums, which
present a wide range of topics and are supported largely by corporate and/or public
monies, serve a diverse public (Falk, 1998). Because museums are the largest segment of
the cultural tourism market, they face external competition from. similar attractions, such
as historic and cultural sites, and from other attractions, such as movie theaters or sport
events, and even home recreation and electronic pastimes. Museums also must address

internal issues, including lack of management commitment, failing budgets, lack of clear

goals, confirsion over museum roles, lack of specialist operational managers, lack of staff
commitment, lack of other incentives, a constant turnover in front-of-house staff owing
to low wages and seasonality, and lack of visitor praise (Black, 2005).

Many museums find themselves in an increasingly competitive environment,
competing for visitors, resources, volunteers and funding (Black, 2005). Private/
independent museums are heavily reliant on visitor income (admissions, catering, and
retailing). Museums find they must develop new and innovative services to retain
existing users and attract new ones, and must work to improve standards across the board
to ensure their futures. Black (2005) emphasized that the twenty-first-century museum
should focus on audience needs and the role of musetuns in society, indicating that a
museum should be:

e an object treasure-house significant to the local community;
0 an agent for physical, economic, cultural and social regeneration;

e accessible to all— intellectually, physically, socially, culturally, economically;

0 relevant to the whole of society, with the community involved in product
development and delivery, and with a core purpose of improving people’s lives;

a a celebrant of cultural diversity;

0 a promoter of social cohesion and inclusion;

o proactive in supporting neighborhood and community renewal;

e proactive in developing new audiences;

e proactive in developing, working with and managing pan-agency projects;

0 a resource for structured educational use;

a integral to the learning community;

0 a community meeting place;

0 a tourist attraction;

e an income generator; and

e an exemplar of quality service provision and value for money.

Both supply and demand sides are incorporated in the above roles. On the supply
side, museum functions and services should be provided for visitors. On the demand side,
visitors expect and desire educational and fun experiences to benefit themselves and host
communities. Successful and sustainable development of museums necessitates a
long-term commitment, balancing between museum supply of museums and visitor
demands, and general consensus among key stakeholders for museums’ roles.
Understanding visitor motivation, perception of service quality, perception of value and
satisfaction can be important in helping managers identify weaknesses and deficiencies
and develop strategies for improvements.

The following case provides a good example of the trends in roles and functions of
contemporary museums:

The Museum of Modern Art in New York has redefined its role as a Heritage Visitor
Attraction (HVA). The museum wants people to visit more often and stay longer. To
achieve that objective, it now offers its facilities as an alternative meeting place and
it has become an entertainment venue; it has seized the opportunity to become a
participant in community learning and support. This expanding audience has led the
museum to operate in a different economic environment and, by focusing greater
attention on visitors’ needs; the management has created a more welcome

environment (Drummond & Yeoman, 2001 , p. 21).
There is a need to expand innovative exhibit programs or provide additional services
(e.g., mail order services, dining facilities) to satisfy new markets. Simultaneously,

museum staffs are required to be more skilled and to have better understanding of the

visitor, according to Enterprise (1999).

Museums as Businesses

Sargeant (1999) classified museums as one of several types of nonprofit organizations.
Because they are “nonprofit,” there organizations have not been treated as businesses in
most countries. However, traditional funding sources seem to be declining; thus,
nonprofit organizations must become more market-oriented to survive (Clarke & Mount,
2001; Shelley & Polonsky, 2002; Sullivan, 2001). One common element between
nonprofit and profit organizations is that the customer service that they provide is
important in generating income. As a result, current nonprofit organizations are being
recognized as industries driven by economic influences (Sullivan, 2001). Sokolowski and
Salamon (1999) estimated that the nonprofit industry in 22 countries contributes over $1
trillion to local economies and employs 19 million full-time workers. Educational and
cultural organizations such as universities, libraries, museums and galleries provide good
examples of nonprofit organizations that play key roles in many aspects of our society. In
short, these nonprofit organizations provide services to customers, as do for-profit
organizations.

Kotler and Kotler (1998) defined marketing as the social and managerial process by
which individuals and groups obtain what they need and want through creating and
exchanging products and services with others. Marketing focuses primarily on
customers’ satisfaction by matching products and services with their needs and wants.
There has been debate whether marketing concepts can be applied to nonprofit
organizations such as museum. If, as this study posits, for-profit organizations employ
marketing strategies to benefit themselves and their customers, marketing can also be

applied to nonprofit organizations that are now regarded as business entities. As Gil and

 

Tl..-

j‘yui

.‘w
“A

‘1'.’

1.151

‘1‘

~o

silt

i...
1).»

PC;
31.:

HI.

'3',
I

ur;

“4.1

Ritchie (2008) mentioned, “museums function not only as economic development
engines but also as one distinctive form of attraction within tourist destinations.” As such,
they contribute to job and income growth (Kotler & Kotler, 2000). Thus, musetuns must
be studied from a marketing perspective.
Need for Museum Tourist Studies

Several researchers have noted insufficiencies in museum visitor studies. Bicknell
and Farmelo (1993) pointed out that, despite museums’ importance to both the tourism
industry and local culture, only a few studies focus on the museum product. There is little
understanding of what visitors expect a museum to offer, although museums have given
much more serious consideration to attracting tourists in recent years (Hanison, 1997).
Richards (2001) noticed that surveys of tourists rarely assess cultural tourism beyond
establishing the number of tourists visiting cultural attractions. Meehan (2002) found
that little research relates data to factors such as satisfaction and behavioral intentions in
the cultural tourism context. Previous studies of museums focus on museum visitor
profiling, including demographics such as age, education, place of residence and
nationality, to help museum managers determine who visits their museums (Harrison &
Shaw, 2004). Gil and Ritchie (2008) noted that little attention has been accorded to
understanding what makes visitors satisfied with their museum experiences, or what
differences there might be between tourists and residents, although both are major target
markets for museums located in tourism destinations.

Thyne (2001) summarized numerous museum studies and found that most studies
focused on visitor experiences over the past two decades, and listed the aspects

investigated: 1) visitor expectations (Beeho & Prentice, 1997; Harrison, 1997); 2) visitor

satisfaction (Moscardo, 1996; Moscardo & Pearce, 1986); 3) visitors’ perceptions of
authenticity (McIntosh & Prentice, 1999; Moscardo & Pearce, 1986); 4) information
sources used by visitors about museums (Prideaux & Kininmont, 1999); 5) the impact of
interpretation on learning and education (Prentice, Guerin, & McGugan, 1998); and

6) the motivation and behavior patterns of museum visitors (J ansen-Verbeke & Van
Redom, 1996). Additionally, Frochot (2000), Allen (2001) and Lynch (2006) focused on
the assessment of museum service quality.

In addition, several researchers have considered multiple dimensions to explain
museum tourist behavior. For instance, Burton and Scott (2003) claimed that satisfaction
with a museum’s components (e. g., facilities, staff, services, exhibitions) influences
overall satisfaction, intention to return and intention to recommend. Harrison and Shaw
(2004) investigated the relationship among service elements (e. g., facilities, services, and
experiences), satisfaction and future revisit intentions using SERVQUAL.

Although several studies on museum visitors exist, most are based on one to three
dimensions of tourist behavior. A few researchers have jointly examined the structural
and causal relationships among key factors of nonprofit museum organizations. However,
there is still need for a holistic and systematic approach that considers temporal aspects
(pre-visit, on-site, post-visit and future intention). Such studies must be built on a solid
theoretical foundation.

In summary, a substantial number of people visit more than 40,000 museums
worldwide; this justifies building a comprehensive model to understand museum tourist
behavior. Museums are becoming more visitor-oriented and are “paying greater attention

to the wishes and needs of their visitors” (Gil & Ritchie, 2009; Johnson, 2003;

Kawashima, 1999; Kotler & Kotler, 2000; Ruyter et al., 1997). In this era of
accountability, museums must listen more attentively to the various segments that
comprise their markets as means of improving service quality, enhancing the satisfaction
of visitors and other stakeholders (Caldwell, 2002), and encouraging repeat visits.
Museums are seeking ways to reach a broader public, strengthen community ties, and
compete effectively with other tourism and leisure activities (Kotler & Kotler, 2000).This
study was proposed to better understand and integrate the multiple factors that affect
museum visitor behavior by investigating visitors to one nonprofit museum in Taiwan.
The following section is a discussion of the public museums of Taiwan.
National Museums in Taiwan

From 2004 to 2007, cultural tourism has accounted for approximately 30% of the
entire tourism and recreation market in Taiwan (National Statistics of Taiwan, 2008).
Museums have made up 23% of cultural tourism attractions and are primary destinations.
According to the Chinese Association of Museums (2009), Taiwan has approximately
456 museums, including 21 public and 435 private. The number of museums in Taiwan
has quadrupled since 1990, when there were only 99 museums. As in most countries,
Taiwanese museums vary in scale, operations and governance, and include national,
county, city, local and independent or private museums. The average annual number of
visitors to national museums between 2001 and 2008 was 12.43 million, the equivalent
of 54% of the entire population (Taiwan Tourism Bureau Ministry, 2009). Thus, visiting
national museums has played an important role as a leisure time activity.

Nevertheless, similarly to other museums throughout the world, most Taiwanese

museums have struggled to maintain their audience share in an increasingly competitive

10

leisure market. Declining visitation reduces revenue and this influences organizations’

routine operations. For instance, in 2007, the National Palace Museum in Taipei decided

to raise its entrance fee from NT$100 to NT$1601, an increase of 60%, to cover

operating costs for maintenance, utilities and employee salaries.

Study Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this study is to develop and test an integrated, dynamic museum
tourist behavior model based on theories concerning a range of interrelationships among
seven variables of tourists’ decisions and behavior patterns, which appeared in three
temporal phases, including: 1) pre-visit determinants of destination choice (push
motivations, pull motivations, past experience); 2) post-visit evaluation of on-site
experience (perception of service quality, perception of value, perception of value,
overall satisfaction); and 3) future behavioral intentions (museum loyalty). Specifically,
the proposed model aims to explain the complex process encompassing museum tourists’
behavior before, during and after their visits by identifying: the determinants of visitors’
intentions to revisit a specific nonprofit museum; the antecedents and consequences of
museum service quality (MUSEQUAL); assessing concurrently the structural and causal
relationships among these seven variables; and the moderating effect of visitor type and
length of stay on the causal relationship between perception of service quality and

overall satisfaction, and overall satisfaction and museum loyalty.

 

] US $1z NT $32

11

Taiwan museums undoubtedly have had positive socio-cultural, economic and
educational impacts on the host communities. However, they cannot avoid increasing
competition and are losing visitors. Challenged to find ways to retain current visitors and
attract new ones, museum managers and planners must understand museum
visitor/tourist behavior and decision-making. According to Ryan (2002) and Williams
and Buswell (2003), tourist behavior can be divided into four stages, including pre-Visit,
on-site, post-visit, and future decision-making. In this study, museum tourist behavior
can be regarded as an aggregate construct, comprising pre-visit determinants for
destination choice (e. g., motivation, past experience); on-site experience (e. g., activities,
events participation); post-visit evaluation (perception of service quality, perception of
value, overall satisfaction); and future behavioral intentions (destination loyalty).
Combined, these factors help to understand comprehensive museum visitor behavior.
Identifying motivations of visitors and increasing the service quality of museums are
viable ways for museums to remain competitive. In turn, these could lead to better
understanding of the needs of different museum consumer segments; more careful
shaping and launching of new services; pruning of weak services; more effective
methods of delivering services; more flexible pricing approaches; and higher levels of
client satisfaction (Kotler, 1979).

An extensive literature review indicates that seven important variables can be critical
determinants of overall museum visitor/tourist behavior. The seven variables include
push motivations, pull motivations, past experience, perception of service quality,
perception of value, overall satisfaction, and museum loyalty. Most studies have focused

on an examination of no more than three constructs at the post-visit stage. The seven

12

variables have not been integrated into a single model to examine all interrelationships

simultaneously. The research objectives, within the framework of the overall purpose,

are to identify the following (presented in terms of three stages of visits to a specific

museum):

Pre-visit stage

1) visitors’ push and pull motivations prior to the initial visit among museum visitors;

2) visitors’ frequency of and satisfaction with prior museum visits;

On-site stage

3) visitors’ participation in activities or events, service experiences and interaction with
museum staff during their museum visit;

Post-visit stage

4) visitors’ perceptions of museum service quality;

5) visitors’ perceptions of value of their museum experiences;

6) visitors’ overall satisfaction with quality of museum service; and

Future intention/ decision-making

7) visitors’ to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or gain membership
within one year.

The on-site stage was included in the post-visit stage in this study because visitors’
perceptions of on-site service quality needed to be evaluated after their visit. Future
intention was also evaluated after their visits. A holistic and systematic approach
utilizing the three temporal stages and corresponding seven important factors, which
concur in museum tourist behavior process, has been applied to the entire study. An

examination of relevant literature is provided for a theoretical foundation for this study.

13

Theoretical Framework

The study explores museum visitors’ behaviors by empirically examining both the
consumer side (motivations, perception of value, past experience and satisfaction) and
the provider side (museum services and products) as antecedents that influence a
museum visitor’s intention to revisit, recommend and become a member. This study
proposes and tests a theoretical foundation on the basis of seven major sources: Push and
Pull Motivation Theory (Dann, 1977), Service Quality Model (Parasuraman, etal., 1988),
Destination Loyalty Theory (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Bitner, 1990; Dick & Basu, 1994)
and Recreational Behavior Model (Clawson & Knetsch, 1966). A theoretical framework
(see Figure 1) was developed to integrate these theories and their associated variables
into a single model and graphically represent the structural and causal relationships
among seven constructs, including push motivations, pull motivations, past experience,
perception of service quality, perception of value, overall satisfaction, and museum

loyalty.

14

 

 

 

 

610268me 30:88:... ._ aha—mi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1
“66:6 65.8666: A ....... “ 62:16. E .866 M6 593 . m
86:6 .6360 A n 92:19. 5 A69: “66.65 = 25 53> . .
. «2312:; 386.8 aEfiBEoEV _ 25 Sam; . u
n ............ 66.-6....6.-.._8.6...H6 .............. n 6566668 h656
" 3 . > e S u 5:: :ozoflmzmm .
p IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII \l IIIIIIIIII t
o: \ ZZmZ
\ FEB :otuflmumm .
2:5» he 6 x
a: 5:395.— \\ 5: 6.3520an «max—
\\
\\\
w: \
9 we :58 \x m:
.n on “I 1111111 1 1111111 1“ AER—Em .
36:2 .5 £60 . . .
. 4 _ 855mm< . A
368882 . . mmocozmeoamuz .
8 .8285 . A + 533.35% t + cox—323. . t ==m E :2:—
zflfi: 8 53:3:— . o2.— =a..o>o VI hum—mamas... . mm .NI
b.534— E=um=2 5:30 axiom 22333—2
be $233.88—
A A A. ................................... A Goa 5636.9 a. 5636.8
233k 5.3-:dk mars 5.3-6wa 336: 3.23th #53338“
f K r K [ K
. )1 < <1
. . 9.66.. 666m a. 6.65 €62 .663; 6.6 5628 hams: 2.6a. Ea. .568
.C@Q— hvsmm .OOON COHQEOHU a hoxdmv . b°~§ fissg§g NNg q *Hg

.56.: be?» =§6§6a

A33 ..36 553.5% 7.636: baaam 3.35%

15

Research Hypotheses

Based on the theoretical framework illustrated in the proposed model, the influence

of and interactions among variables in multiple theories will be tested using the

following sixteen hypotheses. Specific reviews of literature related to these theories and

constructs are discussed in the literature review section.

H1:

H2:

H2alt2:

H3:

H3alt:

H4:

H5:

H6:

Museum visitors’ push motivations positively affect their pull motivations at

the pre-visit stage;
Museum visitors’ push motivations positively affect their perceptions of

service quality in the museum at the post-visit stage;

Museum visitors’ push motivations negatively affect their perceptions of

service quality in the museum at the post-visit stage;

Museum visitors’ pull motivations positively affect their perceptions of

service quality in the museum at the post-visit stage;

Museum visitors’ pull motivations negatively affect their perceptions of

service quality in the museum at the post-visit stage;

Museum visitors’ perceptions of service quality at the post-visit stage

positively affect their overall satisfaction with quality of museum service;

Museum visitors’ past experiences at the pre-visit stage positively affect their

perceptions of service quality at the post-visit stage;

Museum visitors’ past experiences at the pre-visit stage positively affect their
intentions to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or gain

membership in the future;

 

2 . . .
“alt” indicates the alternate of the hypothesis H2 and H3, descr1bed more fully on p. 61 1n this study

16

H7:

H8:

H9:

H10:

Hlla:

Hllb:

H12a:

H12b:

Museum visitors’ perceptions of service quality at the post-visit stage
positively affect their perceptions of value of their museum experiences at the

post-visit stage;

Museum visitors’ perceptions of value of their museum experiences at the
post-visit stage positively affect their overall satisfaction with quality of

museum service;

Museum visitors’ perceptions of value of their museum experiences at the
post-visit stage positively affect their intentions to return, to recommend

visiting to others, and to renew or gain membership in the future;

Museum visitors’ overall satisfaction with quality of museum service at the
post-visit stage positively affects their intentions to return, to recommend

visiting to others, and to renew or gain membership in the future;

Visitor type by membership status (member and nonmember) moderates the
effect of museum visitors’ perceptions of service quality on the overall

satisfaction with quality of museum service at the post-visit stage;

Visitor type (adult and discount ticket) moderates the effect of museum
visitors’ perceptions of service quality on the overall satisfaction with quality

of museum service at the post-visit stage;

Visitor type by membership status (member and nonmember) moderates the
effect of museum visitors’ overall satisfaction with quality of museum
service on their intentions to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to

renew or gain membership in the future;

Visitor type (adult and discount ticket) moderates the effect of museum
visitors’ overall satisfaction with quality of museum service on their
intentions to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or gain

membership in the future;

17

Hl3a:

Hl3b:

H14:

H15:

H16:

Visitor type by membership status (member and nonmember) moderates the
effect of museum visitors’ perceptions of value of their museum experiences
on their intentions to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or

gain membership in the future;

Visitor type (adult and discount ticket) moderates the effect of museum
visitors’ perceptions of value of their museum experiences on their intentions
to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or gain membership

in the future;

The length of visitors’ stay in museums moderates the effect of museum
visitors’ perceptions of service quality on the overall satisfaction with quality
of museum service at the post-visit stage in which the relationship is likely to
be positively stronger for visitors’ lengthy stays in the museum than for

shorter stays; and

The length of visitors’ stay in museums moderates the effect of museum
visitors’ overall satisfaction with quality of museum service on their
intentions to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or gain
membership in the future in which the relationship is likely to be positively

stronger for visitors’ lengthy stays in the museum than for shorter stays; and

The length of visitors’ stay in museums moderates the effect of museum
visitors’ perceptions of value of their museum experiences on their intentions
to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or gain membership
in the future in which the relationship is likely to be positively stronger for

visitors’ lengthy stays in the museum than for shorter stays.

18

Potential Contributions of the Study

This study represents one of the first attempts to integrate theories, models and
constructs within a museum tourist behavior context to explain the complex process of
museum visit decisions, experience quality and loyalty. It attempts to synthesize seven
constructs, including push motivations, pull motivations, service quality, perception of
value, past experience, overall satisfaction and museum loyalty. Specifically, this study
proposes a theoretical framework integrating two models (recreational behavioral model,
service quality model) and two theories (push and pull motivation theory and destination
loyalty theory) into a conceptual model based on a literature review within the tourism
and marketing fields. The interrelationships among seven constructs were examined
using structural equation modeling (SEM). Results should extend the body of knowledge
in the museum tourist behavior field by integrating these critical factors.

This study was conducted within a major cultural market in Taiwan, its largest
national museum, the National Museum of Natural Science. Annual visitor numbers are
comparable to those of the most popular museums in the world (e. g., the Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York, USA; Le Louvre, Paris, France; and the British Museum,
London, UK). Additionally, the total annual visits to this museum, along with other two
largest national museums (i.e., National Palace Museum, National Science &
Technology Museum), is comparable in size to half of the Taiwan population. This
museum has become an important cultural attraction for people with diverse educational
and cultural motivations. It is beneficial to study one of these places that have impacted
certain types of regional and national influence in many aspects, such as social, cultural

and economic impacts. This study proposes a generalized model of determinants of

19

museum tourists’ intentions to revisit, and hopefully can be used by museum staff to
tailor services to visitor expectations, reinforce visitor experiences and build visitor
loyalty. By improving services and visitor experiences, and by increasing visits,
museums can play a significant role in the host community and overall cultural tourism

market.

Definitions of Terms
Following are definitions of the terms as they were used in this study.
Push motivation: Internal (social-psychological) personal needs and desires within
travelers that generate the demand for travel (Dann, 1977).
Pull motivation: External characteristics of the destination, or destination attributes, that
generate the demand for travel (Dann, 1977).
Service quality: Customers’ perception of the service component of a product or
destination, including:
Tangibility. This component refers to the physical facilities, equipment and
appearance of personnel (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988).
Responsiveness. This component refers to the willingness, knowledge and courtesy
of employees to provide prompt service to customers (Parasuraman, et al., 198 8).
Empathy. This component refers to the caring, individualized attention the museum
staff provides its customers (Parasuraman, et al., 1988).
Communication. This component refers to the ability of the staff to convey accurate,
understandable and sufficient information to customers for their desired services

(Frochot & Hughes, 2000).

20

Consumables. This component refers to the quality and variety of merchandise,
restaurants and souvenir stores the museum provides its customers (Frochot &
Hughes, 2000).
Satisfaction: Cognitive assessment of quality or characteristics of a product or
destination resulting from the customers’ comparison of the rewards and costs of the
purchase in relation to the anticipated consequences (Churchill & Surprenant, 1982).
Alternatively, dissatisfaction is the assessment when this confirmation does not take
place (Engel, Blakwell, & Miniard, 1986).
Perception of valae; Consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product/service
based on perceptions of what is received and what is given. The meaning of value is
what consumers get for what they give (Zeithaml, 1988).
Destination loyalty: Committed behavior that is reflected in the propensity to participate

in a particular recreation service/activity (Bachman & Crompton, 1991).

 

Visitor/Tourist: Any person traveling to a place other than that of his/her usual
environment, for less than 12 months and whose main purpose of visit is other than the
exercise of an activity remunerated from within the place visited (World Tourism
Organization, 2001). This study categorizes museum visitors as: l) the domestic tourists
(visitors), who are not local residents and travel for at least one night for the museum
visit; 2) the same-day domestic visitors, who are local residents or non-residents and

travel to the museum for a same-day trip.

21

Delimitations

The study is constrained to only Chinese-speaking citizens in Taiwan, who are
between 20-64 years of age, have residences in Taiwan, and visited NMNS between June
16, 2009—July 12, 2009. The data in the study were collected in the National Museum of
Natural Science in Taichung City during a four-week period from June 16 (Tuesday)
thorough June 28 (Sunday) 2009 for the pilot study, and from June 30 (Tuesday)
thorough July 12 (Sunday) for the formal study. The participants were screened and
selected in terms of ticket type, including adult tickets, discount tickets (students aged 20
years or more, government employees) and members, who indicated that they had spent

one day or more visiting the NMNS.

Structure of Dissertation

This dissertation includes five chapters. Chapter one provides the background,
rationale and research purpose. Research hypotheses and a theoretical framework are
proposed, followed by the research hypotheses that guide this study. Lastly, potential
contributions are discussed, along with the statement of definition of terms and
delimitations. Chapter two discusses relevant theories and models, and the associations
among key constructs and variables that frame this study. Chapter three presents the
methods employed in this study. Sample selection and sampling approach, instrument
development and pilot testing, survey procedures, and data analyses are described.
Chapter four presents the results of data analysis and hypothesis testing. Chapter five
discusses conclusions derived from the results. Managerial implications and

recommendations for firrther study in the museum field are addressed in this chapter.

22

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview

This chapter provides a review of previous studies to identify relevant theories,
models and variables related to visitor decision-making, experience quality and loyalty.
The review discusses seven constructs of tourist behavior (push motivations, pull
motivations, perception of service quality, past experience, perception of value,
satisfaction and loyalty), two theories (push and pull motivations and tourism destination
loyalty) describing the relationships among several constructs, and two models
(recreational behavior model and service quality model) describing tourist behavior in
terms of temporal stages and service quality measurement. These constructs, theories and
models have been integrated to propose a theoretical framework for this study. The
relevant literature is organized in nine sections: 1) tourist behavior; 2) tourist motivations;
3) service quality; 4) satisfaction (including approaches to its assessment); 5) past
experience; 6) perception of value; and 7) tourism destination loyalty. The chapter
concludes with a conceptual synthesis and discussion of hypothesized relationships

among all constructs that provide the basis for the study’s research hypotheses.

Tourist Behavior
How people consume travel and tourism products has become a focus of much
tourism research. Understanding travel behavior is imperative in today’s highly

competitive business environment (Pizam & Mansfeld, 1999). Tourists, or visitors, are

23

classified by the World Tourism Organization as follows: 1) the domestic tourist (visitor),
who travels to a domestic destination for at least one night for purposes such as leisure
and holiday, or business and professional; 2) the international tourist (visitor), who
travels to a country other than his/her home country for at least one night for purposes
such as leisure and holiday, or business and professional; 3) same-day international
tourist (visitor); and 4) same-day domestic tourist (visitor).

Tourist behavior is subjective, dynamic and multi-faceted; it involves and is
influenced by many factors over time. Pizam and Mansfeld (1999) pointed out that
research on consumer behavior in travel and tourism primarily involves the relationships
between travel motivation, choice of destination choice and consequent travel behavior
over time. Tourist behavior is studied to determine why tourists purchase tourism
products/services (Hudson, 2000), how they make decisions (where to go, how long to
stay), and what determines their subsequent behavior, such as post-purchase evaluation
and future decision-making (Moutinho, 1987). Lee, Lee, and Lee (2005) pointed out that
tourist behavior is an umbrella term that labels a set of temporal stages mainly
comprising decision-making, on-site experience, experience evaluation, and post-trip
behavior.

Several theories and models have been developed and proposed to explain tourists’
destination choice processes and their travel behavior. These include: the recreational
behavior model (Clawson & Knestch, 1966); the travel decision model (Schmoll, 1977)
based on buyer behavior theory (Howard & Sheth, 1969); the tourist decision-making
process model (Mathieson & Wall, 1982); the vacation tourist behavior model

(Moutinho, 1987); the stimulus-response model of buyer behavior (Middleton,1988); the

24

general model of traveler leisure destination and awareness choice (Woodside &
Lysonski, 1989); the model of the pleasure travel destination choice process (Um &
Crompton,]990); the general system framework of customer choice decisions of tourism
services (Woodside & MacDonald, 1994); and a set of propositions model (Teare, 1994).
All of the above models include successive stages or phases, as well as sets of distinct
variables. With the exception of Woodside and MacDonald’s framework (1994) and
Teare’s (1994) propositions, most of the above are not predictive or complete because
they do not consider the complexity of real life (e. g., the problem of attitude/behavior
discrepancy) and issues of the role of emotion and feelings (Decrop, 2000).

One of the most widely accepted is Clawson and Knetsch’s (1966) recreational
behavior model, which identifies the main drivers affecting the choice and later
evaluation of a tourism destination by tourists over time, including pre-visit, on-site,
post-visit and/or future intention stages. An explanation of this model follows.

Clawson and Knestch ’s Model of Recreational Behavior

Clawson and Knestch (1966) first proposed a five-phase process, including
anticipation, travel to the site, on-site behavior, return travel, and recollection.
Specifically, the stage of anticipation (i.e., planning and thinking about the trip)
incorporates the activities undertaken prior to travel, including recognition of need and a
search for information. The stage of travel to the site (i.e., getting to the destination)
involves a wide range of experiences and service encounters, depending on the mode of
transport. In some situations, traveling to and from the destination may be a principal
travel experience such as an oversea trip or a luxury train journey. The stage of on-site

behavior (i.e., behavior at the site or destination region) incorporates the travel

25

experience and is affected by a variety of service providers, such as the accommodation
facility, recreation outlets, retail services, and interaction with other travelers. The stage
of recollection (i.e., recall, reflection and memory of the trip) determines the
post-purchase evaluation phase that will greatly affect the next purchase decision.

John and Clark (1993) applied this recreation behavior model to the museum context.
They supported that museum tourists view the experience of visiting museum as a
“journey” that includes six stages: 1) pre-visit; 2) arrival; 3) entry; 4) visitor experience;
5) exit; and 6) follow-up. A systematic appraisal of service quality through use of
customer perception audits offers an effective means of assessing service quality from
visitors’ perspectives over time in museums and galleries.

Clawson and Knestch’s (1966) model was selected to provide the general temporal
framework for museum visitor behavior, and have integrated other relevant theories and
variables to develop a museum tourist behavior model in this study. This study omits the
second stage (travel to the site) and the fourth stage (return travel) to fit Taiwanese
visitors who do not have to travel long distances. A three-phase process of museum
tourist behavior was used: 1) pre-visit stage, determinants of destination choice (push
and pull motivation, past experience); 2) on-site and post-visit stage: recollection of the
visit and evaluation of on-site experience (perception of service quality, perception of
value, overall satisfaction); and 3) future intention stage: next visit decision (museum
loyalty).

Reviews of the reasons for using key constructs at each travel stage are presented in

the following sections. Studies that identify key determinants of tourist behavior at each

26

stage, as supported by relevant models, theories and empirical studies, are discussed in

the following sections.

Tourist Motivations

Most tourism studies agree that at the pre-visit stage, motivation plays a major role in
determining tourists’ decisions regarding when, where and what type of tourism to
pursue (Pizam & Mansfeld, 1999). Several motivation theories have been proposed to
describe how tourists’ motivation affects their tourism behavior and actions, including
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1970), Plog’s (1973) tourism motivation model,
Dann’s (1977) push and pull motivation theory, and Crompton’s (1979) nine motives.

Every tourist can choose from a number of destinations (Crompton, 1992), and the
prime reasons encouraging tourists to travel or participate in a tourist activity can be
regarded as motivations. Andreu, Kozak, Avci, and Cifter (2005) claimed that
motivations may differ from one tourist to another because of their diverse needs and
desires and from one destination to another because of the various products and services.
They supported that understanding tourists’ motivations enables tourism destination
planners to better satisfy consumer needs. A number of studies highlight the importance
of understanding tourist motivations to better understand visitors’ choices, preferences
and needs (Bansal & Eiselt, 2004). Other empirical examinations of tourist motivation
have been carried out to identify markets in which tourist motivations and destination
features and resources match (Kozak, 2002).

Besides Andreu et al.’s (2005) definition of motivation, a review of the literature

shows that motivations are: l) the fundamental reasons for behavior (Mayo & Jarvis,

27

1981; Pearce, 1991); 2) critical to understanding the vacation decision-making process
(Dann, 1977; Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005); 3) essential in assessing satisfaction with the
experience (Ross, Elizabeth, & Iso-Ahola, 1991; Ryan, 2002; Yoon & Uysal, 2005); and
4) critical for marketing tourism experiences, for designing and planning tourism
attractions, and for evaluating service delivery of a vacation (Snepenger, King, Marshall,
& Uysal, 2006).
Push and Pull Motivation Theory

A majority of studies that emphasize the importance of tourists’ motivation based on
the concept of push and pull motivations in choosing vacation destination choices have
been generally accepted (Alghamdi, 2007; Baloglu & Uysal, 1996; Bogari, Crowther, &
Marr, 2003; Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1977; Jang & Cai, 2002; Kim & Lee, 2002; Kim,
Lee, & Klenosky, 2003; Pyo, Mihalik, & Uysal, 1989; Sung, 2004; Uysal & Hagan,
1993; Uysal & Jurowski, 1994; You, O'Leary, Morrison, & Hong, 2000). Dann (1977)
first proposed the push and pull motivation theory and classified travel motivations: 1)
push motivations are travelers’ internal (social-psychological) needs and desires, which
generate the demand for travel; and 2) pull motivations are external forces of
destinations, or destination attribute factors. Crompton (1979) proposed that push
motives explain the desire to travel while pull motives explain the selection of
destination. These external and internal stimulations trigger a tourist’s desire to travel
(Kotler, 1982).

Uysal and Hagan (1993) explained that “push” motivations refer to the intangible or
intrinsic desires of the individual tourist, e.g., the desire for escape, rest and relaxation,

adventure, health or prestige; “pull” motivations relate to the attractiveness of a given

28

destination and its tangible characteristics, such as natural features, accommodation and
recreation facilities, and cultural and historical resources. Jang and Cai (2002) found that
British travelers to Asia were likely to be influenced by the push motivation of “novel
experience,” while British travelers who selected the US as a holiday destination were
affected by the pull motivation of “enjoyable and exciting outdoors activities.” Sung
(2004) agreed that examining push and pull motivations of tourists should be beneficial
to destination marketers and researchers because individuals’ various needs, attitudes,
and lifestyles can be identified, understood and incorporated into programming and
marketing activities. Based on above discussions, Dann’s (1977) push and pull
motivation theory was used to explain the motivations for visiting museums in this
study.
Motivation Studies in Museum Tourism

Kuo (2005) claimed that museums view visitors’ motivations to visit, needs, and
expectations as top priorities. Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson (1995) found that
novelty and curiosity are intrinsic motivations to visit museums. They claimed that the
desire to learn for its own sake appears to be a common motive for many museum
visitors. Packer (2004) claimed that “motivation is an important aspect of learning in
educational leisure settings because it affects the choices visitors make regarding what to
attend, the amount of effort they devote to learning, and the extent to which they enjoy
the experience.” In addition, Packer and Ballantyne (2002) identified five motivational
factors for visiting an educational leisure setting, based on 40 items derived from
previous research in leisure motivation (Beard & Ragheb 1983; Crandall, 1980;

Crompton, 1979) and goal taxonomies (Ford & Nichols, 1987). These five motivational

29

factors are: 1) Learning and discovery (the desire to discover new things, expand
knowledge, be better informed and experience something new or unusual); 2) Passive
enjoyment (the desire to enjoy oneself, to be pleasantly occupied and to feel happy and
satisfied); 3) Restoration (the desire to relax mentally and physically, to have a change
from routine and recover from stress and tension); 4) Social interaction (the desire to
spend time with friends or family, interact with others and build relationships); and 5)
Self-fulfillment (the desire to make things more meaningful, challenge abilities, feel a
sense of achievement and develop self-knowledge and self-worth). These five
motivational factors can be categorized as push (internal) motivations.

Davies and Prentice (1995) claimed that positive motivation results from the belief
that expected valued consequences (experiences and benefits) will satisfy needs.
Conversely, negative motivation occurs when visitors believe that visiting a heritage
attraction will produce consequences to be avoided, such as intellectual anxiety,
boredom or a diminished self-concept. They indicated that fundamental motivations for
visiting heritage sites (e.g., museums) include: intrinsic-terminal needs, hedonic needs,
perceived benefits, and satisfactions. Other reasons for visiting museums have been
indentified in several studies. For instance, Leichter, Hensei, and Larsen (1989) found
that family visits to museums can initiate family discussions. Brunt (1990) found that
people visited a museum for: seeing the particular site; education; being with family and
taking children; being of a group travel package; going for a walk; visiting friends and
relatives; and just wanting to go somewhere. Kelly’s (1993) study pointed out that some
visitors go to museums only for status-seeking experiences, and some only spent time in

the souvenir shop or the café.

30

Jansen-Verbeke and Van Redom (1996) applied a laddering technique to interview
visitors in a museum in Rotterdam, and identified their motivations for visiting the
museum as: to see something new; to have a day out; to escape from daily routine; and to
learn something. Prentice, Davies, and Beeho ( 1997) listed motivations for visiting a
museum as: to gain general knowledge; out of curiosity; as part of a general day out; to
gain a feeling of self-fulfillment, to contribute to preserving the attraction for future
generations; and to escape routine by relaxing with family and friends. The author
suggested that motivation needs to be reflected in product and promotional design to
meet visitors’ needs.

Richard’s (2001) study found that half of the interviewed participants indicated that
they always visited a museum on a holiday. Motivations that were rated most highly by
these respondents were: experiencing new things; learning new things; and relaxation.
He concluded that cultural tourists are largely motivated by a desire to learn about and
experience other cultures. However, he emphasized that cultural tourism, including
museum visits, is no longer regarded as purely cultural but a form of leisure as well.
Furthermore, there were far more significant differences in motivations between
residents and tourists. Tourists were more likely to search for new experiences and learn
new things than local residents.

Kerstetter, Confer and Graefe (2001) identified several heritage tourism motivators,
including: interest in culture; talking with new people; observing other people; interest in
heritage; supplemental to visit other sites in the region; historic character of the place;
learning something new; experiencing authentic elements; and encountering history.

Packer and Ballantyne (2002) emphasized that museum visitors are likely to value the

31

learning aspects. They determined that visitors seldom see the museum environment as
entertaining, fun or emotionally engaging. They claimed that an understanding of the
motivational factors involved in leisure or free-choice learning settings such as museums
will help to meet a significant challenge for museums- the need to stimulate visitors’
motivation to learn. The studies related to motivations for visiting museums are
summarized in Table 2, in which most motivational factors are categorized as the push

motivation.

32

Table 2

Prior Studies about Motivations for Visiting Museums

 

 

Researchers Contexts Motivations

Alt (1980); Falk and General dimensions of experiences sought,
Dierking (1992); Hood including: to seek social or recreational

(1983); Litwak (1993); General museums experiences; to satisfy their general interest and

McManus (1987); Merriman
(I991)

curiosity; and to receive informal education and
social interaction

 

Beard and Ragheb (1983);
Crandall (1980); Crompton
(1979); Ford and Nichols
(1987); Packer (2002);

Museums in
Queensland,
Australia

Learning and restoration; discovery; passive
enjoyment; social interaction; and
self-fulfillment

 

Heritage sites,

To see the particular site; an educational
interest; to be with family and taking children

 

Brunt (1990) . . out; to go for a walk; good weather; to visit
includmg museums . . .
fnends and relatives; and to just go out
somewhere
Interest in history; general interest; to explore
Caldwell (2002) 11 London museums myself; educational interest; enjoyable; and

place to take school children

 

Csikszentmihalyi and
Hermanson (1995)

General museums

Novelty; curiosity; and learning

 

Davis and Prentice (1995)

Heritage sites,
including museums

Intrinsic terminal needs; hedonic needs; and
perceived benefits

 

Jansen-Verbeke and Van

Rotterdam museums

To see something new; to have a day out; to
escape from daily routine; and to learn

 

 

Redom (1996) .
somethmg
Johnson (1990); Wales In dustrial museums Specific interest in industrial history or
Tourist Board (1984) archaeology
Kelly (1993) Major museums To seek experrence; to consolidate one 5 actual

throughout the world

and desired social position

 

Kerstetter, Confer and
Graefe (2001)

Heritage Tour Route,
including museums,
located in
southwestern
Pennsylvania, US

Interest in culture; interest in heritage; visiting
other sites in the region; historic character of the
place; learning something new; experiencing
authentic elements; and encountering history

 

Koran, Koran, and Longino
(1986)

General museums

To “kill time;” to be entertained; to satisfy
curiosity; and to “people watch”

 

Laws (2001)

General heritage sites

Formal learning; curiosity; informal learning;
entertainment; and enjoyment

 

Leichter et a1. (1989)

General museums

To learn; to be with family and take children
out; and to just go out somewhere

 

McManus (1991)

 

Science Museum in
London

 

Enjoyment with family; recreation; and learning

 

33

Table 2 (cont’d)

 

Researchers Contexts Motivations

 

To gain general knowledge; to satisfy curiosity; as
. General part of a general day out; to gain a feeling of
Prentice et a1. (1997) museums self-fulfillment, to contribute to preservrng the
attraction for future generations, and to escape
routine by relaxing with family and friends

 

 

 

Museums in To ex erience new thin S' to Ieam new thin S‘ and
Richards (2001) nine European p g l g 9
, to relax
countrres '

 

Correlation and Causation between Push and Pull

Numerous studies have shown that push and pull motivations were integrated and
had a significant positive and reciprocal relationship (Alghamdi, 2007; Baloglu & Uysal,
1996; Bogari etal., 2003; Jang & Cai, 2002; Martin Armario, 2008; Kim, 2008; Kim &
Lee, 2002; Klenosky, 2002; Uysal & Jurowski, 1994; You, O'Leary, Morrison, & Hong,
2000). Push and pull motivations should not be viewed as independent variables, but as
related to each other (Klenosky, 2002). Most tourist motivation studies have focused on
an integration model using push and pull motivation theory, which can be matched to
psychographic profiles of tourists (Alghamdi, 2007). For example, the “escape and
relaxation” factor leads to the choice of destinations where outdoor activities reduce
tensions, whereas the “cultural experience” factor motivates tourists to go to historical
and cultural attractions to expand knowledge or enjoy different experiences, and the
“family togetherness” factor may result in family members choosing to improve their
relationship by participating in interactive or educational activities in a friendly and
convenient environment. It is important to identify correlations between push and pull
and to explore the causal relationship between the two motives. Prior studies relevant to

the causal relationship between push and pull motives are provided below.

34

Uysal and Jurowski’s (1994) study was one of the first to examine the causal
relationships between push and pull motivations. They found several significant causal
relationships between push motivations (re-experiencing family togetherness, sports,
cultural experiences, escape) and pull motivations (entertainment/resort, outdoor/nature,
heritage/culture, rural/inexpensive). The test results based on multiple regression showed
that the “escape” push motivational factor had the strongest effect on the
“rural/inexpensive” pull motivational factor, whereas the “escape” factor had the
weakest influence on the “entertainment/resort” pull motivational factor. The “cultural
experiences” push motivational factor had positive effects on all four pull motivational
factors. All push motivational factors had positive effects on “heritage/culture” factor
except “sports” factor having a negative impact on “heritage/culture factor.” On the other
hand, a simultaneous examination of the reversed model was checked and found that all
four pull motivational factors (as independent variables) negatively influenced the
“sports” push motivational factor (as an independent variable).

Consistent with Uysal and Jurowski’s (1994) findings, Kim and Lee’s (2002) study
supported that three push motivational factors (family togetherness and study,
appreciating natural resources and health, escaping from everyday routine) positively
affected the pull motivational factor (various tourist resources). Inconsistent with Uysal
and Jurowski’s (1994) findings, however, they found that a regression model to predict
the push motivational factor (adventure and building friendship) using the three pull
motivational factors was not statistically significant. They identified only one positive
direction between push and pull motivations—push motivations positively affected the

pull motivations.

35

Another study conducted by Bogari et a1. (2003) extensively examined causal
relationships between Saudi domestic tourists’ nine push motivational factors (cultural
value, knowledge, family togetherness, relaxation, convenience of facilities, utilitarian,
social, economical, and interest factors) and nine pull motivational factors (i.e., safety,
activity, beach sports/activities, nature/outdoors, budget, leisure, historical/cultural,
religious, and upscale factors). The causal link between the total push motivation and the
total pull motivation, and between each pull motivational factor and each push
motivational factor, were examined in detail using a multiple regression analysis. The

major findings were that the push motivational factors positively and strongly affected

the pull motivational factors at R2 2 0.25. These included: 1) the total push motivation

positively influenced pull motivation at R2 = 0.27; 2) “cultural value” positively affected

five pull motivational factors (safety, nature/outdoor, historical/cultural, religious,
leisure); 3) “knowledge” positively influenced two pull motivational factors
(nature/outdoors, historical/cultural); and 4) “interest” positively influenced five pull
motivational factors (activity, beach sports/activities, historical/cultural, religious factor,
upscale).

Finally, in the study of domestic and international travel, Kim (2008) investigated
whether US. college students’ push motivations had positive impacts on their pull
motivations. The results supported that push motivations (“adventure and excitement,”

“discovery and learning”) were a good predictor of pull motivations (“lodging and

9’ 6‘ 99 6‘

transportation, convenience and value, sun and beaches,” “family friendly”) in a

positive causal direction.

36

In summary, tourist motivation has been regarded as the starting point and driving
force of tourist behavior by most tourism researchers (Crompton, 1979; Mannell &
Iso-Ahola, 1987; Mansfeld, 1992; Kim, 2006) because most stakeholders have been
interested in investigating why people travel (Alghamdi, 2007). Tourists travel because
they are “pushed” into making travel decisions by internal, psychological forces, and
“pulled” by external forces of the destination attributes. The push and pull approach to
travel decision making provides the best way of explaining and predicting tourists’ travel
decisions (Kim & Chalip, 2004; Kim, J ogaratnam, & Noh, 2006). Moreover, prior
studies have shown that push motivations were positively associated with pull
motivations. Based on the above discussion, the first hypothesis describes the
relationship of the exogenous variable, push motivations, and the endogenous variable,

pull motivations:

H1: Museum visitors ’ push motivations positively affect their pull motivations at

the pre-visit stage.

Service Quality
Shonk (2006, p. 41) claimed that “we live in a society whereby our very functioning
depends upon the services of others.” Over two-thirds of the workforce in the United
States is employed in the service sector (Orwig, Pearson, & Cochran, 1997). Service
quality is the customers’ perception of the service component of a product (Goeldner &
Ritchie, 2006), and eValuating it helps understand how to satisfy customers so that they
hold positive attitudes toward products and services (Ostrowski, O’ Brien, & Gordon,

1993). Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985; 1988) first defined service quality as

37

the difference between customer perceptions of the current service being provided by a
given organization and customer expectations of excellent service within that given
industry. Namely, service quality is the relationship between what customers desire from
a service and what they perceive that they received (Mackay & Crompton, 1988). It is
commonly believed that high quality service will produce satisfied visitors who are more
likely to spread their views by word-of—mouth, and to be repeat tourists (Cole & Illum,
2006)

Vogt and F esenmaier (1995) indicated that service delivery had become important to
businesses and governmental units, particularly in the public recreation, tourism, and
hospitality areas. The reason is that service quality can be adopted as an indicator of
profitability and the success of organizational objectives in the fields of recreation and
tourism (Lee, Graefe, & Burns, 2004). Service quality can be used to help deliver a
competitive advantage in tourism by leading to tourist satisfaction and loyalty, both of
which lead to repeat business and long term profitability (Goeldner & Ritchie, 2006).
Museum Functions and Services

The International Council of Museums (ICOM, 2001) defines a museum as “a
nonprofit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the
public, which acquires,‘conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits, for purposes
of study, education and enjoyment, material evidence of people and their environment.”
In addition to the above functions, museums also provide extended and diverse services
for visitors, including engagement of leisure activity, anistic and aesthetic development,

cultural appreciation and development of moral and ethical sentiment.

38

There has been agreement that museums are built not only to educate visitors but
also for collecting and preserving valuable objects and artifacts (Bryant, 1988). Several
researchers cited in that study agreed that museums have to recognize visitors’ needs and
provide services that they want (Beeho & Prentice, 1995; Combs, 1999; Falk, 1998).
Moreover, Rubenstein and Loten (1996) suggested that visitor services could be the most
distinguishing factor of why a visitor goes to one museum more often than another.

Reynolds (1999) claimed that tourism experiences have four basic characteristics that
are equally applicable to museums: l) the experience is intangible; 2) the experience
consists of activities rather than things; 3) the experience is produced and consumed
simultaneously; and 4) the customer has to be present and participate in the production
process. Black (2005) suggested that these attributes reflect the role of the museum as
part of the service economy. He supported Bryant’s (1988) contention that, although
museums are about real things—real sites, real objects, exhibitions, programs, etc.—it is
visitor engagement with these that creates the individual user experience.

Drummond (2001) suggested that service is viewed as a major factor associated with
the competitiveness and development of tourism as we move into the twenty-first
century. The ability to enhance service quality is fundamentally important to an
attraction’s future sustainability (Lynch, 2006). Although tourism has the general
characteristics of services, including intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability,
perishability (Cowell, 1984) and intangibility (Frochot & Hughes, 2000), tourism faces
challenges of delivering satisfying experiences to tourists visiting heritage sites

(including museums) because each site may have its individual or unique characteristics.

39

Customer-oriented service quality is necessary for a tourism organization that desires
to better understand its targeted tourists and effectively manage a customer service.
Furthermore, managers should seek “a balance between human input and technology,
between costs and income, and finally between quality and productivity” (Gummesson,
1993). Drummond (2001) emphasized that service quality should be in everyone’s best
interest, from the large heritage attraction (e. g., museums) to small independent
operators, to deliver the customers’ required standard of service by: I) talking to the
customer (consumer and market research); 2) developing what they want ( product and
service development); 3) setting standards to suit the customer (quality planning); 4)
developing operating procedures to achieve the standards (re-organization of the
processes); 5) providing expected products and service (quality of resources - human
and material); and 6) control, evaluation and review (to be used for quality improvement
and development).

Measurement of Service Quality

Expectancy-disconfirmation theory (EDT) (Oliver, 1980) was used to develop the
measurement of service quality. EDT has been widely used as a framework for customer
satisfaction research within the marketing field and has received strong empirical support.
EDT (see Figure 2) suggests a comparison between expectation and performance (Oliver,

1980; Oliver, 1997; Wirtz, Mattila, & Tan, 2000; Yi, 1990).

40

 
   

Expectation

    

Outcome
Satisfaction

 

Disconfimiation

  

   
     
 

Perceived
Performance

  

Figure 2. Expectancy-disconfirmation theory (Oliver, 1980)

The EDT model claims that consumers first form their expectations of product or
service prior to purchase or use. Subsequently, purchase and use contribute to consumer
beliefs about the actual or perceived performance of the product or service. The
consumer then compares the perceived performance with prior expectations. Thus,
consumer satisfaction is seen as the outcome of this comparison of expectation with
performance (Clemons & Woodruff, 1992). Specifically, a consumer’s expectation is: 1)
confirmed when the product or service performance matches prior expectations; 2)
negatively disconfirmed when product or service performance fails to meet the minimum
level of expectation; and 3) positively disconfirmed when the perceived performance of
product or service exceeds expectation. Dissatisfaction occurs when a consumer’s
expectation is negatively disconfirmed; that is, the product performance is less than

expected (Churchill & Surprenant, 1982; Oliver & Beardon, 1985; Patterson, 1993).

41

Parasuraman et a1. (1985) first developed a service quality gap model in the
management field to explain the concept of service quality by synthesizing: 1) the
expectation-disconfirrnation theory concerning consumer satisfaction (Churchill &
Surprenant, 1982; Gronroos, 1982; Lewis & Booms, 1983; Oliver, 1980); and 2)
previous explorations of the dimensions of service quality (Gronroos, 1982; Lehtinen &
Lehtinen, 1982; Sasser, Olsen, & Wyckoff, 1978). As seen in Figure 3, the service
quality gap model identifies seven key potential discrepancies, or gaps, related to
managerial perceptions of service quality, and tasks associated with customer service
(Shahin, 2004). Of seven gaps, six gaps (Gap 1, Gap 2, Gap 3, Gap 4, Gap 6 and Gap 7)
are identified as functions of the way in which service is delivered, whereas Gap 5
pertains to the customer and as such is considered to be the true overall measure of
service quality as perceived by the customer. The other six gaps contribute to the overall
Gap 5 assessment. Therefore, Gap 5 is used as a practical factor to assess customers’

perceptions of expectation and performance levels. This model is applied in many fields.

42

 

 

 

Word-of-mouth Personal Personal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Communication Needs Experience
r ----------------- ) Expected service
: z" """" >
: : I ‘
. i I Gap 5 l
I ' '
Consumer . Gap 6 : v
' I
l : Perceived service
i :
I I
' I
I I
-------- C..—-———-r--——————---—-------—-------II—-—---
: E
l l
E a Service delivery Gap 4 Extemal
Provider : : (including pre- and (_ ...... ., Communrcatron to
E : post-contacts) customers
. : k
: : l A
Gap 1 : : Gap 3 E
: v w
I
5 Employee Translation of
: perceptions of perceptions into
I
: consumer service quality
: expectation specifications
I
: I K A
. : :
E Gap 7 : Gap 2 ‘u' (— Cause-effect
. : .
: : Management (- - - -> lnteractron
I
: l. ....... ) perceptions of
'- ----------------- fl consumer
expectation

 

 

 

Figure 3. Model of service quality gaps (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985)

Based on the above discussion, Parasuraman et a1. (1985) subsequently developed a
multiple-item scale, PZB SERVQUAL model, and revised it in 1991, to conceptualize

and measure elements of service that are evaluated by customers. The SERVQUAL scale

43

covers 22 items within five generic dimensions described as follows (Parasuraman,

Bahri, & Molloy, 1991; Van Iwaarden, Van der Wiele, Ball, & Millen, 2003):

(1) T angibles refer to the appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel and
communication materials.

(2) Reliability relates to the organization’s ability to perform the promised service
dependably and accurately.

(3) Responsiveness is the willingness to help customers and provide prompt service.

(4) Assurance is the knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire
trust and confidence (including competence, courtesy, credibility, and security).

(5) Empathy refers to the caring and individualized attention that the firm provides to its

customers (including access, communication, and understanding of the customer).

After using the instrument in several service sectors, the authors came to the
conclusion that the above five criteria used by consumers in evaluating service quality
were similar regardless of the type of services industries provide. The SERVQUAL
instrument seems to have the greatest potential for applicability across different
industries and sectors although there are many different approaches or methods for
measuring service quality. Lewis and Booms (1983, p. 10), pioneers in this area,
proposed that service quality is “measure of how well the service level delivered matches
the customer's expectations.” Prior research indicates that SERVQUAL had become the
most common method in the late 1980’s for measuring service quality by marketing

researchers.

44

Applications of Service Quality in Tourism

Various studies have been published as to how tourists evaluate the quality of
services they receive while on trips (Atilgan, Akinci, & Aksoy, 2003; Baker &
Crompton, 2000; Chadee & Mattsson, 1996; F rochot, 2004; Hudson, Hudson, & Miller,
2004; Shonk, 2006; Sub, Lee, Park, & Shin, 1997; Vogt & F esenmaier, 1995; Weirmair
& Fuchs, 1999) and service quality of travel agencies (Ryan & Cliff, 1997). Tonge and
Moore (2007) claimed that effective tourism and recreation management relies on being
able to evaluate visitors’ perception of service quality. Tourism research has
demonstrated that consumer satisfaction is a firnction of both expectations related to
certain performance attributes and judgments of attribute performance. However, each
service industry in the tourism field has its own unique dimensions that may or may not
be applicable to other industries. It was suggested by Carman (1990) that researchers
should be cautious when using SERVQUAL because each service industry should have
its own dimensions.

Mackay and Crompton (1988) first proposed a conceptual model (see Figure 4),
adapted from Parasuraman et a1. (1985), to explain the process by which a consumer
evaluates perception of service quality in the tourism and recreation fields. This was the
first time the SERVQUAL model was used to measure tourists’ satisfaction in both
public and private sectors, so it opened the door to a new type of satisfaction research in
the tourism field (Hwang, Lee, & Chen, 2005). Crompton, Mackay, and Fesenmaier
(1991) further proposed a revised version of the SERVQUAL model, named RECQUAL,
to measure the degree of tourist satisfaction in the context of public sector recreation.

RECQUAL presents a framework for the methodical investigation of perceived

45

recreation service quality in the public sector, and emphasizes the managers’ need to

understand customers’ experiences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W
Cogiept lylllgthf Perceived Past Nonpersonal
Equity Communication Needs Experiences Communication
Unsatisfactory
Consumers’ it _ 55 > PS Quality
Determinants Expected
Of Service
Service 4 (ES)
Qual'ty Satisfactory Perceived
. . . Service
oRelrabrllty ES = p5 Quality __) Quality
°Responsiveness
°Empathy Perceived
°Assurance _)1 Service )
°Tangibility (PS) Highly
L... ES < PS Satisfactory
Quallty

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. A Conceptual Model of Perceived Recreation Service Quality (Mackay &
Crompton, 1988)

In addition to RECQUAL, several alternative service quality dimensions and

measurement scales have been proposed and applied in the leisure, tourism, recreation

and hospitality context. For example, LODGSERV is proposed to measure service

quality in hotels (Knutson, Wullaert, Patton, & Yokoyarna, 1990). Three different

instruments have been adapted to the lodging industry, including: 1) LOGQUAL

(Lodging SERVQUAL; Getty & Thompson, 1994); 2) DIN ESERV (Dinning

SERVQUAL; Stevens, Knutson, & Patton, 1995); and 3) HOTELQUAL (Hotel

SERVQUAL; F alces et al., 1999). Moreover, HOLSAT was used to evaluate the

46

destination satisfaction of Varadero, Cuba (Tibe & Snaith, 1998); HISTOQUAL is for
historic houses (Frochot & Hughes, 2000); ECOSERV was designed for measuring
service quality in ecotourism (Khan, 2003); and ATTRACTQUAL has been applied in
cultural tourism contexts, including museums (Lynch, 2006).

Service Quality Studies in Museums

Many established service quality dimensions or similar measures have been designed
for specific industries. The museum industry is no exception. Museums, whether
operated by the public sector or private foundations, are now being scrutinized to see
what sort of services they are delivering (Caldwell, 2002). The purpose of evaluating
service quality is to help professionals provide reliable services for the visiting public
(Nowacki, 2005). The measurement of museum service quality can help to identify
positive and negative attributes to improve quality management. Realizing how various
dimensions affect overall service quality would enable museums to efficiently design
their service delivery elements and processes. Knowing how visitors perceive museum
service quality and being able to measure it can benefit museum industry professionals
(Shahin, 2004). Moreover, identifying strengths and weaknesses pertaining to the
dimensions of service quality can help museums better allocate resources to provide
better service to visitors.

Caldwell (2002) indicated that no systematic study of how museums measure service
quality has been conducted since the development of the SERVQUAL model in the
19805. Black (2005) emphasized the importance of service quality in museums, but also
highlighted the weakness of the service quality evaluations currently being carried out.

He found that most user satisfaction surveys about service in museums are developed in

47

an ad hoc fashion by individual institutions. Some prior studies have investigated service
quality of museums using non-SERVQUAL approaches; for example, Caldwell (2002)
examined the issue of how service quality is measured in museums, and used a repertory
grid analysis of factors by visitors to 11 key London museums. Yucelt (2000) used factor
analysis to investigate museum visitors in 24 historical and museum sites in
Pennsylvania to discover service quality, needs, wants, interest, and satisfaction levels of
visitors to improve museums’ service level.

According to the extant literature review in tourism contexts, SERVQUAL has been
valued as a practical tool to assess tourists’ perceptions about service quality and
satisfaction. Among the SERVQUAL models employed in tourism and hospitality
industries, HISTOQUAL (Frochot & Hughes, 2000) and ATTRACTQUAL (Lynch,
2006) are applied in cultural tourism, both indirectly and directly applied to museums.
Although MUSEQUAL was first developed and named by Allen (2001), access to the
complete MUSEQUAL instrument is unavailable for subsequent researchers. To date,
research that emphasizes primarily cultural tourist service experience and satisfaction
has increased. The use of SERVQUAL in the museum context appears to be generally
compatible with the procedures and methods obtained in previous tourism studies.
Following are several supporting studies relevant to visitors’ service experiences using
the concept of SERVQUAL in the museum context.

As mentioned in chapter one, John and Clark (1993) first used the quality audit
approach adapted from the SERVQUAL concept to assess service quality at six stages of
museum and gallery visits from the visitor's point of View. Based on Parasuraman et al.’s

(1985) model, John and Clark attempted to help museums close five gaps, including:

48

1)positioning gap: the gap between customers’ requirements and management’s concept
of the museum product; 2) specification gap: the gap between management’s vision of
the museum product and the specifications or policies that are written for employees and
others to follow; 3) delivery gap: the gap between what is specified and what is actually
delivered; 4) communication gap: the gap between the museum's external image and the
service being delivered; and 5) perception gap: the gap between what is perceived and
expected by the visitor.

Harrison and Shaw (2004) adapted the generic service quality model rather than
SERVQUAL to measure perceptions of visitors at 10 Australian museums and galleries.
Three service elements (i.e., exogenous constructs) were devolved based on a review of
the literature, including: 1) exhibition experience (education, stimulation, relevance,
contemplation, emotion); 2) staff services (accessibility, information, friendliness); and
3) venue attributes (accessibility, ease of movement, functionality, cleanliness, comfort,
safety, aesthetics). That study clarified the relationship between specific museum service
elements, evaluation of the museum experience and subsequent intentions. The study
resultsshowed that the exhibition experience is the major contributing factor to
satisfaction among the three service elements. In addition, demographics (e. g., gender,
age, education) moderated the effect of satisfaction on subsequent behavior.

Since the late 19903, researchers have applied the SERVQUAL instrument in
museum settings. Williams (1998) first investigated whether or not the SERVQUAL
model is an appropriate management tool for measuring service delivery quality in
nonprofit sectors of the service industry rather than commercial organizations. He

adapted the SERVQUAL model to one art gallery and one museum. That study assessed

49

the original five dimensions for service delivery quality with consideration of the
perspectives of both consumers (consumption) and employees (provision).

Frochot (2001, 2004) investigated the strengths and limitations of the SERVQUAL
scale and developed a new scale identifying service quality dimensions for historic
attractions, including museums. Using SERVQUAL as a starting point, the new scale's
results, HISTOQUAL, provided detailed insight into service quality assessment across
three properties belonging to the same organization. The author indicated that if
attractions are part of a common organization or trust, the various sites are more likely to
implement similar marketing strategies and service quality. Partly different from the five
SERVQUAL dimensions, the HISTOQUAL instrument includes the five original
SERVQUAL dimensions, 1) responsiveness; 2) tangibles; 3) communication;

4) consumables; and 5) empathy, plus additional different dimensions (communication
and consumables). HISTOQUAL has been shown to be a reliable tool to help identify
the dimensionality of service quality and to assess satisfaction of service quality in the
context of heritage attractions; it provides a direct contribution to assessment of museum
service quality.

The original five dimensions of SERVQUAL investigated five profit sectors
(appliances, repair and maintenance, telephone company, banking, credit cards). Several
studies (Maher, Clark, & Motley, 2004; McFadyen, Harrison, Kelly, & Scott, 2001)
contributed to an agreement that the dimensions of service quality are similar in both
nonprofit and profit organizations. Nevertheless, a comparative study (Maher & Clark,
2005) found differences in customers’ rankings of these five dimensions between a

typical service industry (banking) and a nonprofit organization (museum). More

50

specifically, they indicated that customers perceive slight differences in their
expectations of service by different types of service providers. The bank’s highest
priority was customers’ expectation of reliable service, followed by the assurance that
services would be provided as promised. On the other hand, museum patrons perceive
assurance of service to be most important, followed by the tangible aspects of the service.
Their study indicated that service marketers must recognize the differences in
expectations of customers in different industries. Consequently, modifications of
instruments to measure service quality must be considered.

Nowacki (2005) regarded museums as tourism products and used the concept of
SERVQUAL to assess service quality of the Rogalin Museum. He used 36 items, revised
and expanded from the original 22 items as proposed by Parasuraman et al. (1988), to
assess visitors' expectations, perceptions, and level of satisfaction. The results of factor
analysis did not fit the original five service quality dimensions, but were helpful in
assessing service quality of heritage and cultural tourism products. He suggested that
future researchers should be flexible and adjust methods and instruments to particular
tourists and their particular characteristics. Also, elements of the measurement scales
should be modified according to site-specific features.

Lynch (2006) suggested that enhancement of service quality could be an effective
way to assure an attraction’s future sustainability. He first developed and piloted a
diagnostic tool, ATTRACTQUAL, to measure perceptions of service quality within
visitor attractions, including museums. Using Churchill’s (1979) purification procedures,
Lynch’s instrument includes a 17-item scale based on the original SERVQUAL

instrument. Two underlying dimensions (interactions and outcomes) were generated

51

through use of exploratory factor analysis (EF A). That study was unable to replicate the
five SERVQUAL dimensions, possibly due to limitations in respondent sample size and
various destination contexts. However, the author provided a foundation for future
research, and suggested use of larger samples and different types of attractions to test the
stability of the dimensions.

Second-order Service Quality

An important feature of measuring service quality is to consider overall service
quality as a common second-order factor. It is an overall evaluation of a service, not an
evaluation of simple service attributes. Recent research has supported a second-order
five-construct structure for service quality (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2002; Bagozzi &
Dholakia, 2006; Bagozzi & Lee, 2002; Bauer, Falk, & Hammerschmidt, 2006; Dholakia,
& Bagozzi, 2004; Kaul, 2007; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Malhotra, 2005; Park, & Back,
2007; Raajpoot, 2004; Ramsden, 1991).

In short, most museums currently accept that they belong to part of the service
world, and that they resemble other service providers with regard to the need to
understand and respond to visitor demand, and to meet visitor expectations (Black, 2005).
As already discussed, museum studies suggest that visitors’ experiences when visiting
museums are important to the operation of museums. Visitor satisfaction must be
checked periodically and the marketing plans of museums should be revised according to
the needs and wants of museum visitors. A generalized and effective museum
SERVQUAL is needed to improve museums’ service quality by researchers,
practitioners, or marketers. Table 3 summarizes prior studies about application of

SERVQUAL to museums. This study adapted five dimensions (i.e., tangibility,

52

responsiveness, empathy, communication, consumables) from the HISTOQUAL
(Frochot, 2000) and MUSEQUAL (Allen, 2001) in the contexts of cultural, heritage, and

historical attritions, to measure the visitor services element of the museum experience.

53

Table 3

Summary of Museum Service Quality Studies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Researchers Contexts Service Quality Dimensions
hgasnchester Ncl‘useum Named MUSEQUAL, composing five exogenous constructs
0 meme an . . . .
Allen (2001) In dustry' Derby (usmg 24 1tems) burlt on HISTOQUAL.
M ’ & Art 1)Tang1bles; 2) Responsrveness; 3) Awareness;
useurn 4) Communication; and 5) Consumables
Gallery 1n UK
Deng & Lee Taipei Fine Arts Five exogenous constructs (using 26 items) adapted from
(2006) Museum in Taiwan SERVQUAL: 1)Tang1bles; 2) Relrabrlrty; 3) Responsrveness;
4) Assurance; and 5) Empathy
Three historic sites Named HISTOQUAL, comprising five exogenous constructs
Frochot (2000) cor;ta1r;1ngin£1£useums (using 24 items) adapted from SERVQUAL:
1n ng an 1) Responsiveness; 2) Tangibles; 3) Communication;
Scotland. 4) Consumables; and 5) Empathy
Three exogenous constructs: 1) Exhibition experience
Hanison & 10 museums and (educational, stimulating, relevant, contemplative, emotive);
Shaw (2004) galleries in Australia 2) Staff services (accessible, informative, friendly); and
3) Venue attributes (accessible, ease-of-movement,
firnctional, clean, comfortable, safe, aesthetic)
Lee & Lin Shihsanhan g Interpretation service quality, composing three exogenous
2 Museum in Taiwan constructs: 1) Interpretation facrlrtres; 2) Exhrbrtron
( 008) environment; and 3) Interpretation staff services
33:12:6‘32112636 Named ATTRACTQUAL, comprising two exogenous
Lynch (2005) heri ta e museirm in constructs (using 17 items) adapted from SERVQUAL:
g . l) Interactions and 2) Outcomes
Australia
Five exogenous constructs (using 26 items) adapted from
51%;; & Clark caerufElPt: agdsa SERVQUAL: l) Tangibles; 2) Reliability; 3) Responsiveness;
’ ' ' 4) Assurance; and 5) Empathy
. Ten dimensions (using 39 items ) adapted from original ten
“£31323: Cambridge & County SERVQUAL dimensions: 1) Physical environment; . .
Folk Museum in UK 2) Securrty; 3) Access; 4) Commumcatron; 5) Cred1b111ty;
(2006) 6) Courtesy; 7) Reliability; 8) Responsiveness;
QLCompetence; and 10) Empathy
Seven factors that are different from SERVQUAL, using 36
. . . items revised from the original 22 items of Parasuraman et a1.
Nowacki Rogalrn museum 1n (1988). Seven factors are: l) Orientation marking; 2) Safety
(2005) Poland information; 3) Personnel; 4) Exhibition and personnel
standards; 5) Technical aspects of the exhibition;
6) Aesthetics; and 7) Exhibition theme and stimulation
. , Five exogenous constructs (using 30 items) revised from
mg (2008) Quid?" 8 Museum SERVQUAL: 1) Tangibles & reliability; 2) Care a empathy;
1“ Ta1wan 3) Inspiration & educatron; 4) Operation & entertainment; and
5) Assurance & response
. . Five exogenous constructs (using 22 items) adapted from
Willrams Art gallery and , . . . . . . . ,
(I998) museum in UK SERVQUAL. I)Tang1bles, 2)Relrab111ty, 3) Responsrveness,

 

 

4) Assurance; and S) Empathy

 

54

SER VQUAL (Gap Score) VS. SER VPERF (Performance-Only)

There is an unresolved debate as to whether the gap score (the difference between
expectation and performance) or the perforrnance-only item score can be an effective
determinant of service quality when it comes to the measurement of service quality.
Based on EDT’s concepts, Importance-Performance Theory (or Importance-
Perforrnance Analysis, IPA), proposed by Fishbein (1967), is another frequently used
customer satisfaction approach to reflect customer service information back to providers
(Crompton & Duray, 1985; Guadagnolo, 1985; Hammitt, Bixler, & Noe, 1996;
Hollenhorst, Olson, & Fortney, 1992; Martilla & James, 1977). IPA introduces a way of
understanding consumers’ needs so as to make good management decisions about how
to respond to them. By finding out what people think about the importance and
performance of the attributes of a product or service, managers can reach some
reasonable conclusions about modifying performance to increase profit or customer
satisfaction effectively. However, IPA deals with issues similar to those of EDT when
using gap analysis with the disconfirrnation concept. Therefore, SERVPERF was
modified based on SERVQUAL and was proposed as a substitution approach. Lee and
Beeler (2007) noted that SERVQUAL remains a leading instrument, and that
SERVPERF, adapted from SERVQUAL, also is being used regularly.

Cronin and Taylor (1992) first proposed a “performance-based” service quality
measurement scale named SERVPERF because SERVQUAL, using a gap score, was
supported by little empirical evidence in the early 19905. SERVPERF has been
supported by subsequent studies (Babakus & Boiler, 1992; Babakus & Mangold, 1992;

Oliver, 1993) after the initiation. To date, the SERVPERF instrument, built on

55

unweighted performance-based assessment, has been a better method of measuring
service quality than SERVQUAL in terms of reliability and validity (Lee, 2007). Several
reasons are discussed below.

First, prior studies had supported the hypothesis that the performance-only item
scores could be a better or more effective predictor than the gap scores (the difference
between importance and satisfaction) in terms of the significant causal relationship
between service quality and overall satisfaction. For example, Churchill and Suprenant
(1982) and Oliver and DeSarbo (1988) found that the perfonnance-only score could
directly affect overall satisfaction. Tse and Wilton (1988) pointed out that consumer
dissatisfaction is a function of only the perceived performance, regardless of expectation.
Babakus and Boller (1992) and Carman (1990) found that the expectation score was
obviously dominated by the perception score rather than contributing to the difference
scores.

In another study, Cronin and Taylor (1992) noted that there is not strong empirical
evidence to support the idea that the gap is the basis for measuring service quality.
Boulding et a1. (1993) found that service quality is directly influenced only by
post-experience perceptions. Burns et a1. (2003) and Kim (2004) explored the possibility
of employing both performance-only item scores and gap scores to develop a better
predictor of overall satisfaction, and found that the performance-only measures provided
significantly better explanations of the larger proportions of the variance in overall
satisfaction than gap scores. Lee (2007) claimed that previous studies were in favor of
the SERVPERF perspective, indicating that the performance-only approach yields more

stable results than the gap score approach in measuring service quality.

56

Second, SERVPERF has been adapted for use in numerous studies of consumers,
and in both profit and nonprofit industries (Lee, 2007), including banks (Angur,
Nataraajan, & Jahera, 1999; Bauman et al., 2007), retail stores (Mehta, Lalwani, & Han,
2000), a shopping center (Marshall & Smith, 2000), an airline (Cunningham, Young, &
Lee, 2002), a dental office (Paul, 2003), higher education (Abdullah, 2006), air cargo
(Hong & Jun, 2006), business-to-business repair (Peterson et al., 2005), and public
transportation (Perez et al., 2007). The use of SERVPERF in several studies of tourism
has revealed that the performance-only approach can significantly determine
relationships among multiple dimensions, as well as overall satisfaction in tourism
(Hudson, Hudson, & Miller, 2004; Johns, Avci, & Karatepe, 2004), hotels (Nadiri &
Hussain, 2005), sporting events (Shonk, 2006), convention attending (Severt, Wang,
Chen, & Breiter, 2007), festival tourism (Cole & Illum, 2006), and cultural tourism
(Yoon & Uysal, 2005).

As to pros and cons of gap score (SERVQUAL) vs. performance-only (SERVPERF),
Crompton and Love (1995) indicated that, although the perforrnance-only measures have
generally been better predictors of satisfaction, the gap scores are useful in tracking trend
data over time regarding visitor expectations. Specifically, Kettinger and Lee (1997)
summarized advantages and disadvantages of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF,
respectively, as instruments to measure service quality (see Figure 5). They illustrated
that SERVPERF had better performance concerning data collection efficiency and
predictive power than SERVQUAL, although SERVQUAL had provided greater

“diagnostic value” and “data richness” than SERVPERF.

57

 

Diagnostic Value

0

Predictive Power

l———o—o l

 

High Data Collection Efficiency

 

 

l 1 Low
1 O . 1
or or
Strong Reliability Weak

1——<>0 1

Construct Validity
l 1
I O. 1

 

 

 

 

Q SERVQUAL
Q SERVPERF

 

 

Data Richness

 

 

O

 

 

 

Figure 5. Relative advantages of SERVQUAL vs. SERVPERF (Kettinger & Lee, 1997)

Nevertheless, Yiiksel and Yiiksel (2001) claimed that there are unresolved issues or
weaknesses remaining with EDT gap scores (see Table 4), although most previous
EDT-based SERVQUAL studies suggest that expectations, performance, and

disconfirmation play important roles in predicting consruner intention.

58

Table 4

Issues Related to Expectancy-Disconfirrnation Theory (Yiiksel & Yiiksel, 2001)

 

Researchers Issue items

Questions or concerns addressed

 

Pre-purchase expectations

Without expectations, disconfirmation cannot occur. How realistic
would it be to expect customers to have firm expectations of all
attributes prior to purchase in every consumption situation?

 

 

Meanin of . . .

g. Would an expectatlon question have the same meamng for everyone?
expectations
Single or multiple Does customer satisfaction come from disconfirmation of expectations
comparison alone?

 

Logical inconsistency

Would meeting low expectations generate satisfaction as the model
predicts? Why do customers report overall satisfaction when their
ratings indicate service performance falling short of their initial
expectations?

 

Disconfirmation process

Would the disconfirmation process operate in every consumption
situation?

 

Operational timing of the
expectation measurement

Should expectations be measured before or after the service
experience?

 

If customers have high
expectation norm

If scores on expectations are consistently and constantly high, then it
may never be possible to exceed them.

 

Possibility of misleading

Would meeting a high expectation with a high performance and meeting a

low expectation with a low performance signify equal satisfaction in each

 

conclusions case?
Dual administration and
possibility of Answering the same set of questions twice might bore respondents.

response-tendency-bias

 

Uncertainty

 

The EDT predicts that customers will be satisfied (dissatisfied) when
their initial expectations are met (unmet), but this may not necessarily
apply to every consumption situation.

Subjective satisfaction standards may differ before and after purchase,
and differ across products/services.

 

Based on the above comparison of two measurement methods (SERVQUAL score =

perception score - expectation score; SERVPERF score = perception score), SERVPERF

was used in this study to assess visitors’ perceptions of museum service quality. The

adapted museum SERVPERF was conceptualized as a second-order five construct

59

structure comprising tangibility, responsiveness, empathy, communication, and
consumables. The SERVPERF measurement is a better predictor of overall satisfaction,
and is more efficient for data collection than is SERVQUAL. Specifically, the advantage
of data collection efficiency is that respondents need only to rate the performance-only
items rather than spending time to rate both expectation and performance items. Using
this approach, the study hopefully will increase its response rate and item reliability
because visitors are more likely to participate in a shorter, less time-consuming survey
than a longer one. Theoretically, perforrnance-only analysis for service quality in this
study can help museum planners and staff understand the determinants of satisfaction
among visitors, and determine if there is a significant relationship between service quality
and satisfaction, as prior studies have found. Practically, performance-only analysis can
help museum managers focus resources on influencing visitors’ perceptions of service
performance and help managers properly allocate resources.
Causation between Push (or Pull) and Perception of Service Quality

Tourism studies have agreed that motivation has a positive, direct effect on
satisfaction (Fielding, Pearce, & Hughes, 1992; Ross et al., 1991; Yoon & Uysal, 2005)
or an indirect effect on satisfaction via the mediating variables (e. g., activity
participation) (Hsieh, 1998; Ragheb, 1980; Ragheb & Griffith, 1982; Russell, 1987;
Ragheb etal., 1993; Sneegas, 1986). A specific relationship between motivation and
expectation or perception of service quality has been emphasized and explored in recent
literature. A review of the tourism literature reveals that very few studies have analyzed
the causal relationship between two variables— tourist motivation (push and pull) and

level of perception of service quality (SERVPERF). Three studies reported that tourist

60

motivation, including push and pull motivational factors, directly affected tourists’
expectation, perception of service quality, or the difference between expectation and
perception, which then determined the level of tourists’ overall satisfaction or revisit
intention (Shen & Tseng, 2006; Wu, Huan, and Chiu, 2004; Yoon and Uysal (2005). For
example, Wu, Huan, and Chiu (2004) found that both push and pull motivations had a
direct positive effect on tourists’ expectations of service quality and satisfaction
(expectation score—perception score), which then influenced their intentions to revisit a
national park. Yoon and Uysal (2005) examined the causal relationship between the
tourists’ push and pull motivations, and tourists’ satisfaction (expectation —perception) in
a cultural attraction. They found that pull motivational factors had a direct negative
impact on tourists’ satisfaction (expectation—perception), whereas push motivational
factors had none. Shen and Tseng (2006) found that visitors who were strongly
motivated to seek therapy via hot springs gave the spa a high expectation and perception
rating. The test results supported that spa visitors’ push and pull motivation had a
positive impact on the visitors’ expectations and perceptions of service quality, which
then affected their level of satisfaction and revisit intention.

Based on the above discussion, tourism motivation (either overall motivation or
individual push and pull motivation) has been shown to either positively or negatively
affect perception of service quality. This study, using push and pull motivation as well as
SERVPERF approach (only perception of service quality), addresses the following two
sets of hypotheses to test the causal relationship between push motivations and visitors’

perceptions of service quality in a positive direction or negative (for alternate), and the

61

causal relationship between pull motivations and visitors’ perceptions of service quality

in a positive direction or negative (for alternate).

H2: Museum visitors ’ push motivations positively affect their perceptions of

service quality in the museum at the post-visit stage.

”2,1113; Museum visitors ’ push motivations negatively affect their perceptions of

service quality in the museum at the post-visit stage.

H3: Museum visitors ’ pull motivations positively affect their perceptions of

service quality in the museum at the post-visit stage.

H3alt: Museum visitors ' pull motivations negatively affect their perceptions of

service quality in the museum at the post-visit stage.

Satisfaction
Consumer satisfaction plays a central role in marketing in many fields. It usually
costs at least five times more to attract a new customer than it does to keep an existing
one (Kandanpully & Duddy, 1999). In other words, it is more important to retain and
satisfy present customers than attract/secure new ones because customer retention is less

costly and, therefore, more profitable than customer attraction. Retention also contributes

 

3 .
H2alt and H3alt (for alternate) are alternative statements of the competing hypothes1s H2 and H3. Test
results would support one of the alternatives for both hypotheses 2 and 3.

62

to the creation of reputation, which in turn further lowers customer acquisition costs (Xu
& John, 2005). Consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction is determined by how well/bad a
consumer perceives the service fulfills needs, wants or desires, and is measured as a sum
of satisfaction with the different attributes of a service (Athiyaman & O'Donnell, 1995).
Tourism research findings (Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Parasauraman, Zeithaml & Berry,
1994; Wang, Zhang, Gu, & Zhen, 2009) supported that satisfaction is a consequence of
service quality (i.e., a causal direction), and has been considered one of the most
significant predictors of behavioral intentions (e.g., purchase, repurchase, brand choice
and switching behavior, etc) in many service industries (Attaway & Griffin, 1996; Baker
& Crompton, 2000; Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000; Duman & Mattila, 2005; McQuitty,
Finn, & Willey, 2000; Oh, 1999; Oliver, 1980; Petrick, Morais, & Norman, 2001;
Tian-Cole, Crompton, & Wilson, 2002; Yoon & Uysal, 2005), including museums as
described below.
Satisfaction with Museum

Harrison and Shaw (2004) pointed out that many museums consider visitor
satisfaction to be a primary goal of their organizations. For example, in Australia the
Museum Victoria sets a level of 95% audience satisfaction as the staffs number one
goal; the National Museum of Australia also focuses on high levels of customer
satisfaction and is engaged in continuing evaluation of the visitor experience.

Danaher and Mattson (1994) suggested that museum studies should evaluate visitors’
satisfaction with key components of museum services, such as facilities, staff services
and the exhibition, as well as overall satisfaction. Burton and Scott (2003), and Gabbott

and Hogg (1998) agreed that satisfaction with museum services should be evaluated

63

continually throughout the service delivery or consumption process, rather than mainly
post-visit. Prior research found that museum visitors’ perceptions of service quality had a
positive impact on the overall satisfaction, using SERVPERF (Deng & Lee, 2006) or
SERVQUAL (Nowacki, 2005; Peng, 2008).

In this study, SERVPERF is the preferred instrument as discussed previously, and
will be used to assess visitors’ perceptions of museum service quality regarding five
constructs as identified previously (i.e., tangibility, responsiveness, empathy,
communication, consumables). This study will use overall satisfaction as the
consequences of perceptions of museum service quality to determine the final level of
visitors’ satisfaction with the museum visit. A hypothesis is proposed to test the causal
relationship between visitors’ perceptions of service quality and overall satisfaction at

the post-visit stage.

H4: Museum visitors ’ perceptions of service quality at the post-visit stage positively

affect their overall satisfaction with quality of museum service.

Past Experience
Tourism literature has indicated that the quantity and quality of tourists’ past
experiences, and their satisfaction with those experiences, play an important role in
tourist behavior. It is generally accepted that past travel experience can influence tourist
attitude toward destination decision-making, both positively and negatively

(Anastasopoulos, 1992; Huang & Hsu, 2009). Tourist experiences include tourist

64

activities, intercultural interaction, service quality, tourism products, and other resources
provided by tourism destinations (Gomez-Jacinto, Martin-Garcia, & Bertiche-
Haud’Huyze, 1999; Oppermann, 2000).
Effect of Past Experience on Perceptions of Service Quality

As discussed previously, the SERVQUAL model (see Figure 3, p. 42) pointed out
that personal experience, personal needs and word-of—mouth communication can directly
affect expected service quality. This is also supported by the subsequent recreation
SERVQUAL model (see also Figure 4, p. 45), in which tourists’ past experiences have a
direct impact on their expectation or perception of service quality. Research has
indicated that tourists’ satisfaction with their prior experiences significantly affects their
perceptions of service quality and their overall satisfaction (Huh, 2002; Jodice et al.,
2006)
Effect of Past Experience on Attitude toward Revisit Intention

Prior studies have reported that past experience or past behavior directly affects
future purchase intentions or behavior (Bentler & Speckart, 1979; Petrick et al., 2001;
Sonmez & Graefe, 1998), and in most cases past travel experiences positively influenced
visitors’ revisit intention (e. g., Gomez-Jacinto, Martin-Garcia, & Bertiche-Haud’Huyze,
1999; Sonmez & Graefe, 1998). Specifically, tourists’ positive past experiences of
service quality provided by tourism destinations could produce repeat visits as well as
positive word-of-mouth influence on potential tourists such as friends and/or relatives
(Bramwell, 1998; Oppermann, 2000; Postma & Jenkins, 1997).

Past travel experiences to specific destinations increases the intentions to travel there

again (Mazursky, 1989; Perdue, 1985; Sonmez & Graefe, 1998). Specifically, tourists

65

are more likely to perceive a destination as less risky and feel safer in choosing it in the
future once they have visited it (Sonmez & Graefe, 1998, p. 199). Because their past
experience reduces the “risk that an unsatisfactory experience is forthcoming,” tourists
repeat a vacation experience (Gitelson & Crompton, 1984). Moreover, tourists are more
likely to revisit a destination once they have had satisfactory past travel experiences with
it (Huang & Hsu, 2009).

Based on the above research, this study asked participants about their satisfaction
with previous visit experiences (e.g., activities, facilities, exhibition, etc.), and proposed

two hypotheses:

H5: Museum visitors ’ past experiences at the pre-visit stage positively affect their

perceptions of service quality at the post-visit stage.

H6: Museum visitors ’ past experiences at the pre-visit stage positively affect their
intentions to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or gain

membership in the future.

Perception of Value

Perception of value has received increasing attention in the literature in many fields,
including marketing and tourism. According to Zeithaml (1988), one of the most widely
used definitions of perception of value is “the consumer’s overall assessment of the
utility of a product/service based on perceptions of what is received and what is given.”

In addition, the vast majority of prior studies has focused on the meaning of value as

66

“what consumers get for what they give” (Bojanic, 1996; Caruana, Money, & Berthon,
2000; Tarn, 2000; Zeithaml, 1988). Put another way, perception of value is “a trade-off
between perceived benefits and perceived cost” (Lovelock, 2002).

Prior studies indicate that perceptions of service quality positively affect
perceptions of value (Chen, 2008; Chen & Chen, 2010; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Chen & Tsai,
2008; Choi & Chou, 2001; Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000; Lai, Hutchinson, Li, & Bai,
2007; Oh, 1999; Petrick, 2004; Petrick & Beckman, 2002; Tam, 2004; Zeithaml, 1988).

Based on the above research, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H 7: Museum visitors ’ perceptions of service quality at the post-visit stage positively
affect their perceptions of value of their museum experiences at the post-visit

stage.

The positive impact of perception of value on overall satisfaction has been reported
in prior studies (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Caruana, Money, & Berthon, 2000; Cronin,
Brady, & Hult, 2000; Gronroos, 1997; Petrick & Beckman, 2002; Tam, 2000; Woodruff,
1997). Also, customer satisfaction is found to mediate the relationship between
perception of value and behavioral intentions (Tarn, 2000). Based on prior empirical

studies, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H8: Museum visitors ’ perceptions of value of their museum experiences at the
post-visit stage positively affect their overall satisfaction with quality of museum

service.

67

As for the relationship between perceptions of value and loyalty, perception of
value recently has been recognized as one of the most salient determinants of purchase
intentions and repeat visit (Bolton & Drew, 1991; Chang & Wildt, 1994; Jayanti &
Ghosh, 1996). There is considerable support that perception of value is a better predictor
of repurchase or revisit intentions and recommendation intentions than either satisfaction
or perceptions of service quality in tourism studies (Chang & Wildt, 1994; Cronin, Brady,
Brand, Hightower, & Shemwell, 1997; Dodds, McDougall & Levesque, 2000; Monroe,
& Grewal, 1991; Oh, 2000; Parasuraman, 1997; Petrick & Beckman, 2002; Reicheld,
1996; Tam, 2000). This means that high levels of perception of value result in higher
levels of future behavioral intentions. Moreover, Cronin et a1. (1997) showed that
perception of value can significantly explain larger variance in purchase intentions than
perceived performance in a variety of service settings. Based on the literature cited

above, the following hypothesis has been developed for this study:

H9: Museum visitors ’ perceptions of value of their museum experiences at the
post-visit stage positively affect their intentions to return, to recommend visiting

to others, and to renew or gain membership in the future.

Tourism Destination Loyalty Theory

In the marketing literature, customer loyalty usually refers to repeat purchases or
recommendations to others (Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Antanassopoulos, Goumaris, and

Stathakopoulos (2001) showed that satisfied customers are most likely to engage in

68

favorable word-of-mouth communication, and demonstrate product brand and company
loyalties. Jang and F eng (2007) pointed out that intention to repurchase or revisit has
been viewed as one of the most important subjects in contemporary marketing, and has
the following benefits: 1) attracting previous customers is more cost-effective than
gaining new ones; 2) a five percent increase in customer retention can increase profits by
25-85%; and 3) customer retention tends to yield positive word-of—mouth referral
(Shoemaker, 1999).

In the context of tourism, destination loyalty theory refers to the causal relationships
between satisfaction and destination loyalty, in which tourist satisfaction directly affects
tourist loyalty (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Bitner, 1990; Dick & Basu, 1994; Kozak,
2001; Oliver, 1999; Yuksel, 2001). Davidow (2003) found that satisfaction generates
favorable word-of-mouth, then generates return intentions. Customers with higher levels
of satisfaction are more likely to translate their intentions into actual behaviors indicating
destination loyalty than those who are merely satisfied (Harrison & Shaw, 2004). Several
studies have supported this relationship and emphasized that satisfied customers are
believed to affect the long-term viability of organizations through repeat purchase, brand
loyalty and positive word-of—mouth communication (Churchill & Surprenant, 1982; Cina,
1989; Walker, 1995).

Loyalty traditionally is measured through behaviors such as repeat purchase,
intention to repurchase or advocacy of the organization’s products. To a destination’s
manager or marketer, it is vital to investigate the degree of tourists’ loyalty that reflects
their intentions to revisit the destination and in their recommendations to others

(Oppermann, 2000). Three major public museums (including the study site) in Taiwan

69

receive a substantial portion of repeat visitors (see Table 5), according to previous

studies (Huang, Cheng, Pu, Yen, & Huang, 1999; Chiang, 2002; Lu, 2003; Chen & Lu,

2006). Evidence shows that it is meaningful to assess museum loyalty of those visitors

who have visited more than once for the multiple purposes of education, culture and/or

entertainment. A resident group is more likely to revisit a museum than other

non-resident groups.

Table 5

Prior Studies Indicating Repeat Resident Visitation to Three Major Taiwan Museums

 

Museum

Frequency of Visits

Residents/ Locals

 

National Palace Museum

(NPM)

3 times (40%) and 10 times or above (30%)
visiting NPM with N=100; 1 time (50%)
and 2 times or above (30%) visiting other

museums per year
(Lu, 2003)

44.3% were resident visitors

 

70% were repeat visitors with N=7 l 6
(NPM, 2007)

An average of 45.3% were
resident visitors in the years
of 2006 and 2007

 

National Museum of
Natural Science (N MNS)

3.2 times with N=386
(Chen & Lu, 2006)

61 . 1% were resident visitors

 

National Science &
Technology Museum
(N STM)

2.6 times with N=583
(Chiang, 2002)

55.7% were resident visitors

 

 

40% were repeat visitors with N=236
(Huang et al., 1999)

 

44.9% were resident visitors

 

In summary, this study used destination loyalty theory as the main outcome variable

for measuring satisfaction and behavioral intentions and for examining the relationship

between satisfaction and intentions to revisit and to recommend to others. In light of the

70

above, this study proposes the following hypothesis to test the relationship between

visitors’ overall satisfaction and their museum loyalty.

H10: Museum visitors’ overall satisfaction with quality of museum service at the
post-visit stage positively affects their intentions to return, to recommend

visiting to others, and to renew or gain membership in the future.

Socio-Demographic and Travel Behavior Variables

Social demographics have been widely explored in the tourism literature. Cultural
tourists are likely to be female, older, well educated and high-income (Bourdieu, 1991;
Burton & Scott, 2003; Colbert, 2002), as well as having adequate leisure time or having
occupations related to the cultural industries and education (Richards, 1996; WTO,
2001)

Museum research reveals that socio-economic class and education strongly correlate
with the habit of museum visiting (Falk, 1998; Harrison & Shaw, 2004; Kawashima,
1999; Yucelt, 2000). To illustrate the characteristics above, F alk (1998) found that
several variables are associated with museum-goers, including education, income,
occupation, race, and age. Harrison and Shaw (2004) indicated that the background of
museum visitors, including age, education, place of residence and nationality, can
provide enough detail for managers to visualize their primary visitors for pmpose of
museum marketing.

In another study, McLean (1994) focused on museum visitors’ residence and

indicated the importance of both community and non-community visitors in the success

71

of museums. Two primary reasons were provided: 1) both local and inbound visitors to
museums can bring profits to maintain their operations; and 2) museums’ socio-cultural
impacts can positively influence local visitors who can represent the broad community.
However, non-resident and resident visitors may have significantly different opinions
about their experiences when visiting museums. Harrison and Shaw (2004) suggested
that it is important to museum managers and marketers to appeal to both groups.
Followed by Jurowski and Gursoy (2004), they found that the distance between
residents’ homes and tourism attractions had a significant effect on how the costs and
benefits were evaluated. For example, residents who lived closest to the site supported
tourism development more and evaluated the benefits more highly than more distant
residents, possibly due to the increased opportunities for employment or benefit from
improvements in infrastructure and public services. Black (2005) further indicated that
local residents and day-trippers make up the core market for most heritage sites and
museums in the United Kingdom and other countries; additionally, those local residents
represent the bulk of repeat visitors, reflecting an unwillingness to travel long distances
(more than 30 minutes) to revisit a site.

In travel behavior research, museum visitors’ travel behavior has not been explored
widely. The few studies that have discussed this issue concluded that tourists visiting
heritage or cultural sites tend to stay longer and spend more money during their trips
than tourists in other market segments (Kerstetter, Confer, & Graefe, 2001; Silberberg,
1995).

In terms of the association and causal relationship between socio-demographics and

previously mentioned constructs (e.g., motivation, satisfaction, loyalty), prior research

72

demonstrated that socio-demographic factors have significant effects on tourists’ push
and pull motivations (Bogari et al., 2003; Jang & Cai, 2002; Jamrozy & Uysal, 1994;
Kim, Lee, & Klenosky, 2003; Prentice et al., 1997; Zhang, Qu, & Tang, 2004). Prentice
et a1. (1997) indicated that socio-demographics have been used in profiling museum
visitors, and are useful in explaining museum visit motivations, which may vary by
social group. Kim et al.’s (2003) study found that older respondent groups, compared to
younger respondents, generally viewed the pull factors of the “key tourist resources,”

99 ‘6

“information, convenience of facilities,” and “accessibility and transportation” as more
important. Tsiotsou and Vasioti (2006) used demographics (e.g., gender, age, family
status, education, employment status) to predict the level of satisfaction with tourism
services in Greece. They found that education and age discriminated between the two
groups of consumers (high satisfaction and low satisfaction), in which educated younger
tourists are more likely to be satisfied than less educated older tourists. As to the
residence factor, the residence of visitors has a significant impact on the visit frequency
as well as loyalty due to considerations of travel time and distance as indicated by Black
(2005). Yucelt (2000) stated that socio-demographic variables such as age and marital
status of visitors are good indicators for target market decision-making. Based on the
above research, both demographic backgrounds and travel behavior of visitors can be
effective tools for target market analysis and advertising strategies in the museum field.
A moderating effect, in which one moderator variable is manipulated, can alter the
strength of a causal relationship between two variables. In the 20005, the moderating

effect of two moderator variables, including socio-demographics and travel behavior

variables, have been tested on the relationship between performance and satisfaction

73

(Kozak, 2001; Matzler, Fuller, Renzl, Herting, & Spath, 2008; Matzler, Hattenberger,
Pechlaner, & Abfalter, 2005; Matzler, Renzl, & Rothenberger, 2006; Wu, DeSarbo,
Chen, & F u, 2006), the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty (Garbarino &
Johnson, 1999; Harrison & Shaw, 2004), and the relationship between value perception
and loyalty (Chen & Tsai, 2008) in the tourism and recreation fields. Little research has
tested the moderating effect of social demographics and travel behavior variables on the
above three relationships in the museum context. A discussion of three moderating
effects is provided below.

Moderating Effect of Visitor Type and Length of Stay on Three Causal Relationships
Prior studies in many fields, including tourism, have supported the moderating
effects of variables (socio-demographic and travel behavior) on the relationship between
“perception of service quality” and “overall satisfaction,” between “overall satisfaction”
and “loyalty,” and between “perception of value” and “loyalty” (e. g., Chen & Tsai, 2008;

Evanschitzky & Wunderlich, 2006; Harrison & Shaw, 2004; Matzler et al., 2008; Matzler
et al., 2005; Matzler et al., 2006; Kozak, 2001; Wang & Wu, 2009; Wu, DeSarbo, Chen,

& Fu, 2006).

Harrison and Shaw (2004) demonstrated that demographics such as age, gender and
education act as moderators of satisfaction and subsequent behavioral intention,
including intention to return to a museum and intention to recommend. Another study
conducted by Neal, Sirgy, and Uysal (2004) revealed the moderating effect of length of
stay on two paths of impact, including from “satisfaction with tourism experiences” to
“satisfaction with leisure life” and from “satisfaction with leisure life” to “satisfaction

with life in general.” Impacts were stronger for vacationers who stayed longer than for

74

 

 

I

11105

I}?

1111

111.

$51

Rt:

those who had a shorter stay.

Three selected variables, visitor type (as indicated by membership status and ticket
type) and length of stay, have been shown to have a moderating impact on three paths
(perception of service quality-satisfaction, satisfaction-loyalty, perception of
value-loyalty) in the travel and tourism field other than the museum context.

Visitor Type

Visitor type can be referred to as the category of ticket at which different prices are
set based on the buyer’s demographic characteristics (e. g. age, occupation, residence).
Another visitor type can be refereed as to membership status (“member” or
“nonmember”). Prior studies (Bowman & Narayandas, 2001; Evanschitzky &
Wunderlich, 2006; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999) have demonstrated that various types of
customers rate perception of service quality, overall satisfaction and loyalty differently.
Garbarino and Johnson (1999) found that theater visitors in three groups (subscribers,
occasional subscribers, and individual ticket buyers) scored differently on satisfaction
and loyalty. In another example, Evanschitzky & Wunderlich (2006) reported that visitor
type (general customers, loyalty card members) as a moderator variable in chain stores
resulted in different moderating impacts on the relationships between satisfaction and
loyalty.

Length of Stay

Length of stay is important to tourism destinations because visitors’ length of stay is

positively correlated with aggregate earnings (Barros, Butler, & Correia, 2010).

Researchers have suggested that an increase in time spent on leisure and travel enhances

75

tourists’ satisfaction (e.g., Buchanan, 1983; Driver, 1976; Neal, Sirgy, & Uysal, 1999;
Neal, 2003; Neal, Uysal, & Sirgy, 2007; Shen & Ho, 2007).

Neal’s (2003) study illustrated that satisfaction levels were significantly higher for
long-term visitors than for short-term visitors across three relationships among variables:
1) length of stay and perceptions of tourism service quality; 2) length of stay and
perception of satisfaction; and 3) length of stay and perception of value of travel and
tourism services. They concluded that the length of time spent on leisure travel affected
satisfaction with leisure life because tourists have more opportunities to interact with
destination service providers, to engage in exhilarating activities during the trip, to meet
people, and to spend time with travel companions. On the other hand, when visitors have
spent little time enjoying the amenities of the trip, destination service providers do not
have a personal relationship with the guests such that individual needs and tastes are
identified and satisfied. In another example, Shen and Ho’s (2007) study revealed that
length of stay is significantly related to tourist's travel experiences (e.g., activities,
interaction) and expenditures.

Tables 6, 7 and 8 summarize various moderating variables on impact paths between

,9 66

“performance” (i.e., perception of service quality) and “overall satisfaction, overall
satisfaction” and “loyalty,” and “perception of value” and “loyalty.” These moderators
include several socio-demographic variables (e. g., gender, age, type of visitor, and

nationality) and consumer behavior variables (e.g., length of experience and involvement)

across fields of tourism, hospitality and other industries.

76

Table 6
Previously Identified Variables Moderating the Causal Relationship between
Performance and Satisfaction (adapted from Matzler et al., 2008)

 

 

Moderator Variable Study Respondent
1,872 British and German
Nationality Kozak (2001) tourists visiting Mallorca and

Turkey

 

Age, gender, type of visitor ( new
visitor, repeat visitor)

Matzler, Fuller, Renzl,
Herting, and Spath (2008)

14,861 skiing tourists

 

Lifestyle

Matzler, Hattenberger,
Pechlaner, and Abfalter (2005)

1,042 skiing tourists

 

Nationality

Matzler, Renzl, and
Rothenberger (2006)

1,555 hotel guests

 

Four determinant attributes of
customer satisfaction

 

Wu, DeSarbo, Chen, and Fu
(2006)

 

314 festival visitors

 

Table 7

Previously Identified Variables Moderating the Causal Relationship between Satisfaction
and Loyafiy (adapted from Matzler et al., 2008)

 

 

 

 

 

Moderator Variable Study Respondent
Amount of elaboration 598 buyers of blank audio
(involvement and deliberation) Bloemer and Kasper (1995) cassettes
. 650 customers of cell phone
Length of experrence Bolton (1998) providers
. 1,715 customers of seven
ngh loyalty, heavy user, type Of Bowman and Narayandas (2001) manufacturers of frequently
contact
purchased consumer goods
Personal characteristics: Age,
income, and education;
Situational characteristics: Evanschitzky and Wunderlich 888 customers of a do-it-yourself
Expertise, price orientation, critical (2006) chain store

incident recovery, loyalty card
‘membership

 

Type of subscribers (subscribers,
occasional subscribers, and
individual ticket buyers)

Garbarino and Johnson
(1999)

173 subscribers, 91 occasional
subscribers, and 80 individual
theater ticket buyers

 

Age, education, and gender

Harrison and Shaw (2004)

172 museum visitors

 

Income, involvement, gender, age,
variety seeking

Homburg and Giering (2001)

943 customers of a car
manufacturer

 

Gender, education, age, children

 

 

Mittal and Kamakura (2001)

 

100,040 automotive customers

 

77

 

Table 8
Previously Identified Variables Moderating the Causal Relationship between Perception
of Value and Loyalty

 

 

 

Moderator Variable Study Respondent
Involvement Chen and Tsai (2008) 407 TV-shopping customers
Length of relationship Wang and Wu (2009) 279 general consumer

 

 

 

 

Based on the above review, visitor type of a museum and visitor’s length of stay
can be moderator variables due to their importance and little research existing in the
museum field. In this study, all respondents were categorized into “member” or
“nonmember” in terms of membership status. The nonmember group was further
categorized into “adult ticket buyer” and “discount ticket buyer” depending on the price
in which their ticket was purchased. Therefore, three variables were selected as
moderator variables; 1) membership status (member or nonmember) and 2) visitor type
as indicated by ticket type (adult or discount ticket buyer) from socio-demographic
characteristics; and 3) length of stay (lengthy stay or shorter stay) from travel behavior
variables, to examine their moderating effects on three specific links (perception of
service quality- satisfaction, satisfaction-loyalty, perception of value-loyalty). Nine
following hypotheses were generated to test for moderation effects in relational paths
from “perception of service quality” to “overall satisfaction,” from “overall satisfaction”
to “future intentions to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or gain
membership,” and from “perception of value” to “future intentions to return, to

recommend visiting to others, and to renew or gain membership.”

78

Hlla:

HIIb:

H12a:

H12b:

H1311:

H13b:

H14:

Visitor type by membership status (member and nonmember) moderates the
effect of museum visitors ’ perceptions of service quality on the overall

satisfaction with quality of museum service at the post-visit stage;

Visitor type (adult and discount ticket) moderates the effect of museum
visitors ’ perceptions of service quality on the overall satisfaction with quality

of museum service at the post-visit stage;

Visitor type by membership status (member and nonmember) moderates the
effect of museum visitors’ overall satisfaction with quality of museum service
on their intentions to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or

gain membership in the future;

Visitor type (adult and discount ticket) moderates the effect of museum
visitors ’ overall satisfaction with quality of museum service on their
intentions to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or gain

membership in the future;

Visitor type by membership status (member and nonmember) moderates the
effect of museum visitors ’ perceptions of value of their museum experiences
on their intentions to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or

gain membership in the future;

Visitor type (adult and discount ticket) moderates the effect of museum
visitors ’ perceptions of value of their museum experiences on their intentions
to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or gain membership

in the future;

The length of visitors ’ stay in museums moderates the effect of museum
visitors ’ perceptions of service quality on the overall satisfaction with quality
of museum service at the post-visit stage in which the relationship is likely to
be positively stronger for visitors’ lengthy stays in the museum than for

shorter stays; and

79

H15: The length of visitors ’ stay in museums moderates the effect of museum
visitors ’ overall satisfaction with quality of museum service on their
intentions to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or gain
membership in the future in which the relationship is likely to be positively

stronger for visitors’ lengthy stays in the museum than for shorter stays; and

H16: The length of visitors ’ stay in museums moderates the effect of museum
visitors ’ perceptions of value of their museum experiences on their intentions
to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or gain membership
in the future in which the relationship is likely to be positively stronger for

visitors ' lengthy stays in the museum than for shorter stays.

Summary of the Relationships among Key Constructs

Tourism research has addressed the importance of empirically assessing the
antecedent, mediating and consequent relationships among key constructs. The
relationships between perception of service quality, perception of value and overall
satisfaction have been modeled in numerous studies (Antanassopoulos et al., 2001;
Baker & Crompton, 2000; Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000; Oh, 1999; Petrick & Beckman,
2002; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). Moreover, the relationships among
motivation, satisfaction and loyalty are supported by several studies (Severt et al., 2007;
Shen & Tseng, 2006; Wu, Huan, & Chiu, 2004; Yoon & Uysal, 2005).

As already discussed, one model and one theory provide the basis of causal
relationships between key constructs, including: 1) SERVPERF model (perception of
service quality ——> overall satisfaction); and 2) destination loyalty theory (overall
satisfaction —-) behavioral intentions). Nevertheless, beyond the two identified

relationships based on theories and literature, there is a need for summarizing and

80

comparing all relationships identified in this study to clarify the complex museum tourist
behavioral process.

Using Pearson correlation analysis, the correlations (no cause-effect association)
among key constructs in the museum literature are summarized in Table 9. Furthermore,
previous tourism research using structural equation modeling (SEM) is summarized in
Table 10 to illustrate the potential causal relationships among several constructs of
tourist behavior.

Table 9

Prior Museum Studies Regarding Correlations between Constructs Using Pearson
Correlation Analysis ,

 

 

 

 

 

Researcher;
Museum; Testing Variable Identified Relationship
Sample size
Packer and Ballantyne (2002); . . . Motivational factors H
museum, art gallery, and Mot1vatronal factors; motivated . . .
. . . . . motrvated learmng behavror H
aquarrum 1n Queensland, learning behavror; expenence of . .
. . . . . . . . experience of learmng H
Australia, leammg, v1srtor sat1sfact10n satisfaction
N=499
Simpson (2000);
museum or art gallery in New Satisfaction; behavioral Satisfaction H
Zealand; intentions behavioral intentions
N=141
Nowacki (2005); Service uali _ -
Rogalin museum in Poland; . q ty, Service quality H satisfaction
_ sat1sfact10n
N—102
Huo and Miller (2007);
Robert Louis Stevenson (RLS) Satisfaction; Satisfaction H
museum in Samoa; behavioral intentions behavioral intentions
N=l l2

 

 

 

81

Table 10

Prior Tourism Studies Regarding Causal Relationships among Constructs Using SEM

 

Researcher;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¥

Exogenous Endogenous Identified causal
Context; . .
constructs constructs relationships
Sample size
. . . . . Leisure attitude H
Hsreh (1998); Leisure motivation; . . .
. . . . . . . . . . leisure motivation H
leisure activ1ties; Leisure attitude leisure partic1pation; . . . .
_ . . . leisure part1c1pation H
N—503 leisure satisfaction . . .
leisure satisfaction
. . Travel ex erience H
Petrick (1999); Perception of value; p
. . . loyalty H overall
golf; Travel experience loyalty; satisfaction; . . .
_ . . . . satisfaction H perception of
N-439 intention to reViSit . . . .
value H intentions to rev181t
Service uali ' . . ervice ali H
Tam (2000); restaurant; .q ty, . Overall satisfaction; S qu. ty .
perception of serv1ce . . . overall satisfaction H
N=92 . behavroral intentions . . .
quality behavroral intentions
. . Service erform
Hong (2003); . Satisfaction; . p ance .4
. _ Serv1ce performance . affective factor H
special event; N-394 emotion . .
satisfaction
. . M iv i n
Yoon and Uysa1(2005); . . Satisfaction; 9t at .0 S —.
. . . _ Motivation . satisfaction H
historical srte; N-148 intent to return . .
destination loyalty
. . P rf rm nce 1
Cole and Illum (2006); Experience quality; e O. a qua] ty —+
. . . . experience quality H
Festival; Performance quality overall satisfaction . .
_ . . . overall satisfaction H
N—4 l 3 behavroral intentions . . .
behaVioral intentions
. Push motivati ns; ull .
Kim (2006); . . o p Travel involvement H
. motivations; . . . .
Travel; Travel involvement . . . motivations H satisfaction
N=395 sa"Sfa°"°“’ -» destination loyalty
destination loyalty
Event ima e' Event image H destination
Kaplanidou (2006); . . g ’ . . . image H intention to
subjective norms; Destination image; . . .
Sport Event; . . . . . . revrsrt; past behaVior H
_ perceived behav1oral intention to revrsrt . . .
N-495 . destination image H
control; past behavror . . . .
intention to rev151t
. Sport tourism Contest quality H
. Access uali ; . . . . .
Shonk (2006); Sporting q . ty satisfaction; sport tourism satisfaction H
_ venue quality; . . . .
Event; N—2 1 5 contest uali satisfaction; satisfaction H
q ty intent to return intent to return
Lee and Beeler (2007); Service uali Satisfaction; Satisfaction H
Festival; N=254 q ty future intent future intention

 

 

Educational benefits H

 

Severt et al. (2007); Educational benefits; Satisfaction; return . .
. . . . satisfaction H
Conference; actrvrty & intention; . .
N=157 opportunity Word-of mouth return intention a
word-of—mouth
Shen and Tseng (2006); Service quality; motivations H
hot spring restaurant; Motivation Satisfaction; service quality H

N= 442

 

 

Loyalty

 

satisfaction H loyalty

 

82

Relevant museum-based studies using SEM mainly focus on the causal relationship
between: perception of service quality and overall satisfaction (Deng & Lee, 2006; Peng,
2008); perception of service quality and future intention (Lee & Lin, 2008); and
perception of service quality, overall satisfaction and future intentions (Harrison & Shaw,
2004) (see Table 11). Nevertheless, to date, no study has empirically tested structural
relationships among the antecedents (i.e., push motive, pull motive, past experience) and
consequences (overall satisfaction, perception of value, loyalty) of tourists’ perceptions
of service quality in the context of museums. As Hwang, Lee, and Chen (2005) claimed,
a current research trend in consumer behavior is investigating causal relationships
between motivations and other related variables as proposed in this study. The reason is
that relationships can help predict how and why individuals are involved in travel and
how travel decisions are made regarding preferred destinations for vacation or pleasure.

Black (2005) suggested that museums should place visitors in the “right frame of
mind” so that visitors expect to engage with collections and exhibitions; this should
include operational and service quality and a sense of welcome and belonging. In
addition, museums should provide visitors the stimulus to visit them; this should include
attractive destination attributes, proper service quality, effective marketing, prior
personal experiences, word-of—mouth recommendations by previous visitors, etc. The
above statement has addressed the importance for museum managers to understand
museum tourist behavior for the purpose of meeting visitors’ overall needs, enhancing

their satisfaction and maintaining their loyalty to museums.

83

Table 11

Summary of Previous Literature Relevant to Structural and Causal Relationships among

Key Constructs Using

 

Researchers;
Context;
Sample size

Exogenous constructs

Endogenous
constructs

Structural Equation Modeling in Museum Contexts

Identified relationships

 

Harrison and Shaw
(2004); museums and
galleries in Australia;
N=184

Exhibition experience;
staff services; venue
attributes

Overall
satisfaction;
intention to return;
intention to
recommend

Service quality (exhibition
experience & staff services)
H overall satisfaction H
intention to return and
recommend

 

Packer (2004);
museum, art gallery, a
wildlife centre,
aquarium, and natural
and cultural heritage
site in South East
Queensland, Australia;
N=499

Learning goal;
situational incentives

Motivated learning
behavior;
experience of
learning

Situational incentives

H motivated learning
behavior H experience of
leaning

 

Deng and Lee (2006);
Taipei Fine Arts
Museum in Taiwan;
N=371

Tangibles; reliability;
responsiveness;
assurance; empathy

Overall satisfaction

Perception of service quality
H satisfaction

 

Interpretation facilites;

Perceived

 

Lee and L1n(2008); exhibition performance Of Perception of service quality
Shihsanhang Museum . serv1ce quality; . .
. . envrronnement; . . H intention to return and
m Taiwan; inte retation staff intention to re ’ recommend
N=219 rp intention to

serv1ces

recommend

Tangibles & reliability;

Peng (2008); care & empathy;

Children’s Museum in
Taiwan;
N=230

 

inspiration &
education; operation &
entertainment;
assurance & response

 

Overall satisfaction

 

Perception of service quality
H overall satisfaction

 

This review of literature suggests that significant gaps can be identified based on a

review of fundamental theories and models. Two theories and two models were used to
construct the theoretical framework for this study in the museum context. The proposed
framework, incorporating relationships across seven constructs, attempts to advance the

understanding and knowledge base of museum tourist behavior. More specifically,

84

development of this museum tourist behavior model would benefit from a better
understanding of visitors’ motivations to visit museums, their perceptions of museum
service quality, their perceptions of value of museiun experiences, and their behavioral
intentions. The hypothesized relationships among seven constructs (push, pull,
perception of service quality, past experiences, perception of value, overall satisfaction,
loyalty) and two moderating effects (stay length and visitor type) using a structural

equation modeling approach, are graphically presented in Figure 6.

   

 

   
 

     

      
     

Length
Push Perceived of Stay
Motivation Value “'4 ,x .
. H15!" .'
H2 (+ or -) H7 (+) x ,I ,t
+ I, I I H16
H10») ”(L/1196) x ;
II” I, y,
p ,- H4 (+) ?‘
erce ion / ' 4
Pull of Service a Overall r .
Motivation Quality h. Satisfaction {AH 111/H
115( ) “6 (+) 1
+ \ " I
x " ’7' H133 & b
Hl2a & bf
Past xx '1' I,
Experience H1 1a & b x‘ '1 l.’

\ I
\

 

——> Indicates causal effect

--------- > Indicates moderating effect

 

 

 

Figure 6. The proposed hypothetical model of the relationships among all constructs

85

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

Overview

This study focuses on the determinants of visitors’ intentions to revisit or become
members of musetuns in Taiwan. The proposed model, including the interrelationships
of seven constructs comprising museum visitor behavior across three stages, was
examined using the data collected from one national Taiwanese museum to understand
museum visitor behavior.

This chapter discusses the research methods and procedures employed to obtain and
analyze the data. First, characteristics of the selected study site are provided in detail.
Second, the methods and processes used for developing the survey instrument and
measurement scales are presented. A survey instrument was developed as the primary
measuring tool, based on the proposed model for assessing key variables. This
subsection includes a discussion of the pre-test and pilot study, and of the reliability and
validity tests employed. Third, the sampling plan is described, including the sample
frame, sample size, sampling methods, and survey time frame. A stratified and
systematic sample was used to draw a sufficient number of respondents from the study
museum. These selected participants, who possessed the characteristics of typical
museum visitors, should be representative of the targeted museum visitor population.
Fourth, data collection procedures are discussed; these include asking participants to
complete two survey components (one before and one after their visits). Finally, several

data analysis methods are employed to describe the sample and examine the proposed

86

llpolllfis

111 star

111

largest 1
11186111
1111 1651
input:-

- .l' .

132111116

hypotheses, including descriptive analyses, chi-square test, independent sample t-test,

and structural equation modeling (SEM).

Study Site

The determinants of museum visitors’ intentions to revisit were investigated in the
largest national museum in terms of annual visit in Taiwan, which is the National
Museum of Natural Science (NMNS). One of the objectives of this study was to create
and test a service quality scale that is usable for public museums in Taiwan. Thus, it was
important to choose one representative museum that had an appropriate range of quality
facilities and services, and a large annual number of visitors. The NMNS has the
following features, qualifying it as a representative public museum in Taiwan:
1) geographical convenience: located in Taichung metropolis in central Taiwan, one of
the three major metropolises in Taiwan, and accessible to most people across Taiwan
(see F igure7); 2) large population of the host city: a population of 2.63 million; 3) high
annual visit: 3.3 million annual visitors within five years; 4) varied facilities and services:
open areas for the public, including tourism exhibitions, multimedia center with new
technologies, websites and other on-line resources, interpretation services, gift shops and
restaurants; and 5) permanent and temporary offerings: permanent exhibits, temporary
exhibits and special events that would attract repeat visitors.

Figure 7 shows the geographical location of the three largest museums from north
to south in Taiwan, including the study museum. Specifically, Table 12 lists the main
characteristics of these three national museums for purposes of comparison between the

study site and the other two museums in terms of museum scale and scope of services.

87

 

National Palace
Museum

 

 

fi

Taipei f'

 

its

Study site:
National Museum
of Natural Science

 

 

I Taichung

National Science & I
Technology Museum ’
Kaohsiung I

Figure 7. Map showing the location of the National Museum of Natural Science and two
other major national museums in Taiwan.

 

 

 

 

1.11. 1

lluseur

lmbu

——
5"
90.. 1

titiirllai

lfidlli

 

Coil:

Table 12

Characteristics of the National Museums

 

National Palace

National Museum of

National Science &

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Museum . Technology Museum
Museum (NPM) Natural Science (NMNS) (NSTM)
Attribute Historical art and artifacts Natural science Natural selence and l
technology
Affiliation Executive Yuan Council for Cultural Affairs Ministry of Education
Location Taipei metropolis in Taichung metropolis in Kaohsiung metropolis in
Northern Taiwan Central Taiwan Southern Taiwan
Year ”"1" 1965 1986 1997
Metropolis
population 2.62 million 2.63 million 2.78 million
Exhibition 16,000 m2, including four
area 9,614 m2, including five CXh'me" “3"5’ four _ 112,404 m’, including 16
exhibition halls theater-5 and one bO‘an'Ca' exhibition halls
garden
Facilities Exhibitions, interpretation Exhibitions, interpretation Exhibitions, interpretation
& services services, collections and services, collections and services, collections and
research, special events and research, special events and research, special events and
activities, multimedia activities, various theaters activities, multimedia center
center with new (3D and 2D) multimedia with new technologies,
technologies, websites and center with new websites and other on-line
other on-line resources, and technologies, websites and resources, and gift shops and
gift shops and restaurants other on-line resources, and restaurants
gift shops and restaurants
Collections Paintings, calligraphy, rare 574,861 specimens across Scientific technical
books, documents, four fields, including heritage, including:
ceramics, bronzes, jades, zoology, botany, geology printing, weights and
curios and anthropology measures, electronics,
machinery, optical science,
and textiles
Average
annual visit
(2004-2008) 2,214,800 3,299,800 1,391,400
Reputation Ranked as one of the Most heavily visited The largest science museum

 

world's five great
museums, along with
France’s Louvre Museum,
the British Museum,
America's Metropolitan
Museum, and Russia's
Hermitage Museum

 

museum in Taiwan.

 

in Taiwan, which is ranked
2nd in the world among
applied scientific museums
in terms of scale (e.g.,
collections, exhibition
areas)

 

89

As previously mentioned, the average annual visitor arrivals to all national
museums (12.43 million) of Taiwan have been comparable to more than half of
Taiwan’s entire population (23 million) in the past decade. The three largest museums
(including NMNS) together receive almost 7 million annually, which is equivalent to
30% of Taiwan’s entire population and over half (56%) of the visit to all national
museums. However, most national museums, including the three largest museums, have
encountered decreasing or slow growth in visitor numbers over the past five years (see
Table 13 and Figure 8). The visitor count for the study museum declined by 0.462
million (13.7%) between 2007 and 2008, which was the largest decline in total number

of visitors (thought not in percent) among the three museums.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 13
Annual Visits to Three Largest National Museums in Taiwan: 2005 through 2009
Visitor Arrivals (unit: 1,000) Emma“ Year‘m‘ye’"
Percent Change
Museum 2004/ 2005/ 2006/ 2007/
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2005 2006 2007 2008
Na’wm'Pa'ace 1,545 2,637 1,996 2,651 2,245 +70.7 —24.3 +32.8 —15.3
Museum (NPM)
National Museum
“Natural 3,371 3,505 3,364 3,367 2,905 +3.9 —0.4 +0.1 —13.7
Science (NMNS)
National Science
&Techno|ogy 1,257 1,476 1,642 1,298 1,284 +17.4 +11.2 —20.9 —0.01
Museum (NSTM)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Taiwan Tourism Bureau (2009)

90

 

Fli‘l
1L
5

for

11111

Oil

and

tilt

the.

 

Visitor Arrivals (1,000 person)

 

4,000

3,500 ‘
3,000 - M
2,500 ‘ + NMNS

+ NPM
+ NSTM

 

2,000 -

1,500 — A

1,000 r

 

 

 

500 _

 

 

O I I I l I
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year

 

 

 

 

Figure 8. Changes in annual visitor arrivals to the three major museums in Taiwan
(2004—2008) (Taiwan Tourism Bureau, 2009).

Instrument Development and Measurement Scales
A review of the extant literature regarding musetun visitor experiences provides the
foundation for the development of item statements in the questionnaire, containing
multiple-choice and rating-scale questions. A final self-administered survey with the use
of close-ended questions was designed to obtain information about participants’ attitudes
and evaluation of their visits to the targeted museum, National Museum of Natural
Science. The structure of this survey includes two stages, in which the first stage has

three sections, and the second stage has six sections, as follows.

91

coma
and ;
inter.
Md

30519

$31111
Cm.
i3,

91815

At the first stage, the first half of the questionnaire was for the pre-visit phase,
containing sections one through three, and asked questions about participants’ pre-visit
determinants for their destination choice. The first section identified participants’
socio-demographic characteristics. The second section identified participants’ travel
behavior and their evaluation of past experiences at NMN S and other museums. The
third section identified participants’ motivations for visiting the NMNS.

At the second stage, the second half of the questionnaire was for the post-visit phase,
containing sections four through seven, and asked questions about participants’ on-site
and post-visit evaluation of their experience and their assessment of future behavioral
intentions. The fourth section assessed participants’ evaluation of service quality of the
museum. The fifth section investigated participants’ perception of value in terms of the
costs and benefits experienced during their museum visits. The sixth section evaluated
participants’ overall satisfaction with this visit. Finally, the seventh section asked about
participants’ intentions to return to the museum, to recommend visiting it to others, and to
renew or become a new member of the museum within one year. The following sections
describe the measurement scales and items utilized, with corresponding literature, in the
questionnaire.

Measurement of Motivation and Past Experiences

Push motivation attributes were derived from previous studies in educational leisure
settings, including museums, art galleries and aquariums (Beard & Ragheb, 1983;
Crandall, 1980; Crompton, 1979; Ford & Nichols, 1987; Kotler & Kotler, 2000; Packer

& Ballantyne, 2002; Prentice etal., 1997; Richard, 2001). Pull motivation attributes also

were adapted from previous studies (Hanqin & Lam, 1999; Jang & Cai, 2002; Kau &

92

Lim, 2005; Oh, Uysal, & Weaver, 1995; Zhang et al., 2004). Altogether, there were
twenty question statements in this section. Respondents were asked to indicate their level
of agreement with these attributes on a seven—point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Next, tWo items were derived from previous studies
(Petrick, 1999) and were used to measure past experiences. A seven-point Likert scale
was used, with a range of 1 (strongly dissatisfied) to 7 (strongly satisfied). In addition, a
zero score was provided for respondents who were first-time visitors and did not have
any previous museum experience.
Measurement of Perception of Service Quality

The section on museum service quality attributes asked respondents how they rated
the museum’s performance of each service characteristic at the post-visit stage. Items
were derived from previous studies in educational leisure settings, including museums,
art galleries, historic sites and aquariums (Allen, 2001; Frochot & Hughes, 2000;
Harrison & Shaw, 2004; Wang, 2001). F rochot and Hughes’s (2000) HISTOQUAL and
Allen’s (2001) MUSEQUAL, which was mainly adapted from HISTOQUAL, comprised
the main measurement scale for service quality. Five dimensions were proposed, based
on Frochot and Hughes’s (2000) responsiveness, tangibles, communications, and
consumables dimensions and Allen’s (2001) awareness dimension, to fit the context of
museums. Most adapted dimensions with corresponding items were suggested for use in
terms of their appropriate levels of internal consistency and overall validity (trait validity,
face validity, and convergent validity). Finally, twenty-eight components of museum
service quality were used in the final survey. Each item was measured with a seven-point

Likert scale, which ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

93

Measurement of Perception of Value and Overall Satisfaction

Four items were utilized to measure perception of value of the study museums and
were derived from previous studies (Chen, 2008; Petrick, 1999). A seven-point Likert
scale was used, with a range of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Overall
post-visit satisfaction was measured by one item, as supported by prior studies (Baloglu,
Pekcan, Chen, & Santos, 2003; Burns, Graefe, & Absher, 2003; Severt et al., 2007; Shen
& Tseng, 2006; Shonk, 2006; Wu et al., 2004).
Measurement of Museum Loyalty

Museum loyalty was measured by two items that asked respondents how likely they
were to revisit the museum and recommend it to others in the next 12 months. Two items
have been identified and used by previous researchers (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Bitner,
1990; Dick & Basu, 1994; Kozak, 2001; Oliver, 1999; Oppermann, 2000; Yuksel, 2001).
A seven-point Likert scale was employed to measure the degree of likelihood for each
statement: 1 (extremely unlikely) to 7 (extremely likely). This study also included one
additional loyalty item based on scholars’ opinions, asking about their intent to renew or
become a member. Thus, the last endogenous dependent variable included three
observed variables to increase the possibility of significant correlations between loyalty
variables and other variables.
Constructs and Variables

The proposed model was designed to examine the interrelationships among seven
constructs using structural equation modeling (SEM). Theoretically, SEM deals with
exogenous independent variables and endogenous dependent variables. The seven

constructs include: two exogenous constructs (push motivation, past experience); four

94

mediate endogenous constructs (pull motivations, perception of service quality,
perception of value, overall satisfaction,); and one ultimate endogenous construct
(museum loyalty).

A summary of all constructs, observed variables, measurement item statements,
scales and studies from which the study items were adapted, is presented in Table 14. All
survey questions/statements are presented in Appendix B. The proposed structural model
with all relationships among constructs, observed variables and their error terms for

SEM testing is depicted in Figure 9.

95

.oocotoaxo “mam $2865 awn... Ea £23388 :3 828:2: :15: 623388 :95 8:365 :39. ”682

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bantam .
33 C 6656; bwcobm K .3582. .850 5:5 moocotoaxo “man =Eo>O N Nmm nouuflaomxm
. 8 6338 £5 5:: moucotonxo «mug =Eo>O ._ .mm «nan—
853636
bwcobm ”—
638a .3255 was 5:82: 3.38m .3 2:5
35>“. 38% venue oh .2 23m
238 25 0.28 fl 8332: 3.38m .m. 9.5
35388.. meow 3: 8:82: 838m .2 ”:5
832.86 0363.86 8: 8:32: omzaoom .2 Sam
EoEEEEo 033.858 we: 63.6.58 3.38m .m. E?—
883 @5256. poem 8: 8:32: 338m .E 2.5
33268 Bo: com o._. .2 Sam
365—520 was 6:»:th mo €32.86. was 5:32: 838m .Q Q?—
Avoomv .E 8 mug—Ba 6398.86 8: 833:. 8.88m .2 N15
wag—N M £83 2202 5...?on “mo—aw 368% a use: 8. .o_ :5
5.3: .130 6236.:— $538 Eoeombu E 33:38 3.86 o... .o $45 323282
m Amoomv vetoes—mm can on _ mwfifi 688 65 3.86 0:3 Bacon 5:: on 8. .w wmam
hoe—own ”Ago: ._m 3 :0 53:8 can mmobm Set .5302 o._. s swam
”8893:3— 95 8:3— .
Amcomv 65 new :3. moucotoaxo Bo: the?» o... c 96.5
Amocmv 30 use wag. Bacon Be: .23 c2888.: 308 5.86 8. .m mash
”Ago: E3 28 Event enema 25:8 Bob owes—3 a 622 o... 46 $45
523 6.222 6:6 £665 a 66.66.32: 2696 eh .m and
Bow “33: 55880 8 EEE no 325 53» 2:: E33 98% 8. .N NE
x86: =66=eo 666M666 63.2 oh ._ and
x93: and 6:6 266m 38%. n.
means: .565 3.. 525592 he 2.25.5232
gonnuehanuwmum 23w EoESSm Eu: «55956.82 HM”— HMMMANW 39:53an

 

 

 

 

 

 

#:0823362 8m H83 25: Beam no.“ moon—om can who—9633’

z 2an

96

.:0.000.::5500 00.00.05 .500: 0:0 $50050 00000.05 .hEm: .000:0>.m:0%00 00000.05 :03... 05.5.50. 00000.05 ..:0...: ”0.02

 

 

 

 

 

 

35.0% 0:0 0500. 030.50.000.05. 00 0:505:80: 03.6.... .mm @500
5:05:85 300:0 0.0305. 00.303 020:0 $0.50. :0503 0:... .2 250
A000 ..0b:00 0:... 60:06.00 5.3 5.80.505 .
50:05.. 000% 5.00.0 ..w.0v 0:30. 5300505500 000w 0>0.. 0.000.905. m. 0500
5:00.05 05 0:: 0. .0000 0. 00.05 0:50 .0000 0:0 .003. .0 mfioo
322:: =03 m. 0.0: 0.0 30500.5 50.8.. .o .
50.3. 00:50. .0 00.0. $5.58E5000009005 0... .0 >030... .0593: ...0._0>O 0 N500
0.0w.>0: 0. >000 5 00.05 500005 05 5 0:50 .0:0.000._.n. .N .500
50.05:... 0:0 56.20 00.. 00.02.00. 0.: .mm anm
5000?: 0... 5 0.00... 0.05.0.0 0.8 000:... .0. 9.5m.
0000.03 030 000. .0 0.000: 05 0. 000000 500005 0:... .w. 005m.
030000000 0. 00.0: .0 .0>0. 0:... .m. 0.05m.
030000000 0. w5030:0 .0 .0>0. 0:... .0 N05”.
33.5.0 05 5.3 w50000. 5 m. 5003:. 05 5 0.05.0050 0:... .m .95. >525
€55 0:30 .00 a»: 80050 .0
00.000: 5...: 000:5: 50.053 0 5 0.:0..0>0 m. tam .vm 000M. 0:52.020.
0.8.03 w550: 0.5. 0:09.. 0. w5...3 m. tfim ..N 0.00M.
30%... .
0... .0 030030.305. 63.000000 ..w.0. 35.30.05 00 5000:3005 om ~03.
b00505. $000.00.. .5050; 0. 00:09.0. tfim .. . .00”.
00003.0 000 0050... 05.68 0:... .mm 0:0...
000w0 :00.0 0. 5:055 0...... .m. 20...
Scam. >.w:0bm R 0050505 =03 000 0.5.5.0 0:... .0. 0:0...
053 5.80. 320 2 00:20 :0; 0:50 .0. 95
0:0 80:00: .8008 00%00... 0.:0..0>0 000 005.60.. 00:0... .m N5...
5500...... ”A . oomv :0=< bwcobm U. 032.02. 5 Ho. mac—ha on... .. :8...
=0: outflow .0 :50 00:0“. .0 30505000.).
002.060 0. 500. .07. 0.0...5..0>
50...? 50.... 00:55 0.05 00050.05 58. 505050002 50.. 00.2030 $0500.30

 

 

 

 

 

 

.0008. E 030..

97

5.0.3. 8000:... 00.00%... 30‘... 0:0 .=0_.0£m_.am .2205 00.00%... ...0m: ,0:_0> 00 00.58.00 .50.. .0030800000 00.00%... :000: “0.02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'10?» ”.830
5.08.0an .8003 A box: .0080... 0 080000 .0 0520080... 3000M .m 90‘.
AWMMW rfifiwfiflwm 3&0be . £050 0. 5:03... 0.... 00088000”. .m 63‘. 3.9.0..—
.. . . c.0002... m. 2630M. . >0 5:00..
.88: .220 .880 33:5 ._ _ _ a 2
00.9.8.0 0:0 Exam b05056 H
.0 04 8:02.: ._0 2.050.300:
.303 8038

.3 .0 =3 M38$ 0.85m 308% ”

M386 0:3... Ea 5% 2 808.38
A308 .0 .0 t0>0m 005.20%? 0003.00. .000 8ch0.. :0 5.3 02.8.3.3 =E0>O ._ 20m =0..0>O
”.803 .3 a 250 0085 ”

A803 .0 .0 =_w0_0m :0_.00._0_.0m =0..0>O .0 2.0.5.5302
00.?
bwcobm . .600: 0.03 803.00. =80>0 0... £03 0... .00 200 . 00.... 05 3:020:00 .v 0?.
0. 0.03 003.380 =E0>0 0... £03 05 8.. Eng _ 00....— 0... 95022.00 .m m>m 0......» .0
8003 00.30.... 0.03 0.5.5.0 :E0>0 0... J33 05 .00 200 _ 00w... 05 3:005:00 .m ~>m 5.300.03—
0.2000 .8008 00:0 bwcobm n 0300030.. 00>» gm; mm... .00 20.. . 00:0 =E0>0 2F ._ _>m .
0......» .0 2.0.. 00.0.. .0 30.00.5302
00 30 200: £300 3&0 80:... och 6N m=0U
bwcobm H 0.5.3.008 ..0 80.9.0 0.03.2: 8.00 3.8.00.3. 0.: .3 $.00
0. 050: 00 000.050 9.0.030 5&0 30.7. 0.: .0. $.00
00%006 0.5.3008 5:000 .0000 800.0800. 0:... .2 N000 3:000
bwcobm ” 00 00 0.0 0 m0 0.... m :0... m0. 0 . =0 000_>..0m .0
_>.. .0 . E E> :8 .0. 0. .E. w . U 2.0.2.0000.—
..0: 0003.3 .0 2.0.. 00.0.— ..0 2.080.530:
03%.... a. 5.. .02 832:5
:02...» E0...— 00305 0.00m 2.0.5.05 .00.— ...05030002 80: Btoflo 303.0000

 

 

 

 

 

6.680 3 29¢

 

98

:ouqu—EE 2&3 moist? votomno 98 325280 =w 5m? $608 gong 13¢qu 2F 6 2sz

 

 

 

 

 

95228:: .338 All
czar? @3538: .8 Sta 2: r.
052:; nutofio mo 5:» 2: no

      

35:0an
.25

 

 

    

 

      

 

  

E _ Afiv

_ IE... 6

am. Am. aw i
E E E E
:9. _ Guy

_ couuémzam 5:55 K 2:; _ 9
g .335 ham”; :5. ”Elle

_ . /E _ AW

e _ 23 _ AU

6 NE _ AU

:5 AV

E
E
E
E
E
E-

Hz

99

Pre- Test and Pilot Study

A pre-test was used to determine if there were obvious deficiencies or quality
problems in the survey instrument and/or the survey distribution procedures before the
formal study was run. First, the initial survey instrument was developed based on the
literature review. This first draft was circulated to dissertation committee members and
several graduate students in the tourism and recreation field of the Department of
Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resources Studies. The intention of the scholar
and peer reviews was to find any deficiency in the instrument, including question design,
question wording, question sequence, and formatting or layout. Their comments and
suggestions were incorporated into the design of the questionnaire used in the pilot study.
The final measurement scales and the design of the survey questionnaire were further
clarified and confirmed through the above procedures (see Appendix A for consent form
and Appendix B for the final survey instrument in English).

The revised questionnaire was translated into Chinese and was administrated to a
convenience sample of twelve Taiwanese graduate students at Michigan State University
and two NMNS research staffs who were able to answer both English and Chinese
versions to check for accuracy (e.g., clarity and readability) of questions in translation. A
final Chinese instrument was developed by correcting wording and meanings as
indicated by these twelve respondents (see Appendix C for the final survey instrument in
Chinese).

Next, a pilot study was employed to ensure that measurement scales were reliable,
valid and supported in a confirmatory factor analysis (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991;

Stratman & Roth, 2002). After the above pre-test, a pilot study of the revised, translated

100

C)

cl
UL

instrument was conducted to examine both the reliability and validity of the scales and to
delete items with a low reliability score. Pilot study can identify potential problems
before they become costly mistakes, such as too much time needed to complete the
survey or any items that are confusing or difficult to answer.

Schriesheim et al. (1993) and Anderson and Gerbing (1991) suggested that a sample
of 65 is appropriate for a pilot study. Wang (1999) suggests that a sample size of 100 or
over is necessary to obtain sufficient information using Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(CFA). To obtain a reliable measurement by employing CFA among 7 latent variables
(with a total of 56 observed variables), this study used a sample size of 500 for
conducting a pilot study. An explanation of determining the number of 500 will be
discussed in a following section about “sample size.”

Reliability and Validity Test

Two major criteria for assessing measurement are reliability and validity. Both were
evaluated for the constructs in the pilot study and the formal study through various
statistical techniques. They are important to assist in developing measurement scales in
this study, and are described as follows:

Reliability means repeatability—the ability to yield consistent results over time

from several measurements made in the same way. Reliability is a necessary condition
for validity (Kerlinger, 1986), namely, a measurement that lacks reliability will also lack
validity (Walonick, 2004). Internal consistency reliability, which has been the most
commonly used reliability method in developing measurement scales, was applied to

examine reliability within a similar set of items on a test using Cronbach’s alpha.

101

Validity is the validation for measurement and refers to the accuracy or truthfulness
of a measurement. That is to say, validity is the extent to which differences found with a
measuring tool reflect true differences among respondents being tested. After a survey
instrument is developed, each question is scrutinized and modified through certain
procedures until it is acceptable as an accurate measure of the desired construct.

Two validities were used in this study, including content validity and construct
validity. Content validity refers to the subjective agreement among professionals that a
scale logically appears to reflect accurately what it is intended to measure (Yang, 2005).
Namely, content validity is the degree to which the content of the items adequately
represents the universe of all relevant items under study. Construct validity is the extent
to which the measure correlates with other measures designed to measure the same thing
(Ap & Crompton, 1998). Construct validity is evaluated by examining the item loadings
and their associated t-values, as well as the composite reliabilities and the average
variance extracted in this study (Fomell & Larcker, 1981).

Two main assessment tools were used to help examine reliability and validity in the
pilot and formal studies: item analysis and confirmatory factor analysis.

Item analysis was used for improving item measurement once the data from the
pilot study sample were collected. Item analysis is a process to examine participants’
responses to each item (question) to assess the quality of each item and of the test as a
whole. Three testing indices are included in the item analysis in this study, including
critical ratio (CR) analysis, correlation analysis, and internal consistency reliability. The
critical ratio is generated by using a t-test. It is suggested that an item be deleted if its

ratio is less than 3. In addition, correlation analysis, which is the correlation or

102

relationship between the test item and the total test score, was used to test the corrected
item-to-total correlation. Any item-to-total correlation less than 0.3 should be eliminated,
according to Chiou (2002). Last, it is suggested that Cronbach’s alpha of internal
consistency reliability should be above the minimum of 0.7, recommended by Nunnally
(1978), and the item should be deleted if the coefficient is below 0.6 (Wu, 2001).

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used on the pilot study to examine the
standardized factor loading, construct reliabilities and variance-extracted values for all
constructs via Amos maximum likelihood method. A standardized factor loading of 0.30
is suggested as the benchmark for including items in a factor. The variance extracted
measure, another measure of reliability, represents the overall amount of variance in the
indicators accounted for by the latent construct. The score is recommended to exceed .50
for the construct (Hair, 1998).

Next, in the formal study, convergent validity was examined in the measurement
model by estimating t-tests of all confirmatory factor loadings and their corresponding
significance (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). If all factor loadings for the indicators under
the same construct were more than 0.5, and t-values were statistically significant at the
level of 0.05, this supported the convergent validity of the constructs.

In conclusion, these analyses were used to determine the appropriate items to be
scaled, and the effective scales to be used. All of these tested items and measurement
scales were analyzed for selection based on several procedures. Considered in the final
instrument development were reviews of previous empirical studies, academic scholars’
opinions, review by peers in the tourism and recreation field, and examination of overall

reliability and validity through item analysis and CPA in the pilot and formal studies as

103

well as SEM analysis. This study established sufficient evidence of reliability and
validity based on above procedures. Results of both reliability and validity tests are

reported in Chapter Four.

Sampling Plan

The advantage of conducting survey research is that it allows generalization from a
sample to a population, so that inferences can be made about the population’s
characteristics, attitudes and behaviors. This study’s questionnaires were distributed to
visitors during their pre- and post-visit at NMNS in Taiwan.
Sample Frame

Museum visitors/tourists are comprised of both domestic and international visitors,
including tourists who visit various types of for-profit and nonprofit museums. The
composition of domestic museum visitors in Taiwan includes resident and nonresident
visitors. According to common definitions of what constitutes a tourist (World Tourism
Organization, 2001), the domestic visitors/tourists used in this study can be categorized
into: 1) domestic tourists who are not local residents, and who are traveling to one of the
study communities for at least one night; and 2) same-day visitors, who may be residents
or non-residents of the study community they are visiting. The population for this study
included all Taiwanese aged 20 to 64 years who visited NMNS during the survey period,
who bought tickets and were capable of expressing their opinions about motivation,
service quality and perception of value—as asked in this study. Excluded were

international visitors, Taiwanese under the age of 20 and over 64, and free-ticket visitors.

104

Sample Size

An appropriate sample can represent the population of interest, and can assure
enough reliability and validity in the assessment of responses. This study determined the
appropriate sample size based on considerations of statistical principles and advice from
empirical studies using structural equation modeling (SEM).

Statistically, a commonly used formula for determining a sample size for the

population mean, if the population variance 0 2 is known, is as follows:

where
n is the required sample size;

2 is the z-value associated with the desired confidence interval;
0 2 is the population variance; and
E is the maximum acceptable difference (maximum error) or margin of error that

can also be used to mean sampling error in general.

The sample variance (S 2) can be obtained from previous studies, or through pilot

testing if the population variance (0 2) is unknown. Because there was no available

information about population and sample variance for this study’s population, a pilot
study was used to determine the sampling variance. Subsequently, the sample error was
estimated based on above equation and is provided in Chapter Four (see p. 119)
Empirically, this study employed structural equation modeling (SEM) as the
primary analytical tool for testing the proposed model and hypotheses. In general, there
is no absolutely correct sample size, although larger samples are preferable (Yoon, 2002).

Nevertheless, prior empirical studies related to structural equation modeling (SEM)

105

supported two ways of determining sample size, including 1) the ratio of sample size to
the number of observed variables (or free parameters), and 2) a suggested minimum or
maximum sample size based on prior empirical studies. There is a wide variety of
opinions in the literature. Some authors suggest a ratio of sample size to number of
observed variables ranging from 1:5 (Bentler & Chou, 1987) through 1:10 (Hair et al.,
1998). However, another rule of thumb suggests a range from 1:10 to 1:20 (Hwang,
2003). Other sample size considerations include: 100 to 150 as the minimum sample size
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988); an appropriate sample of between 100 and 400, using the
Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) for SEM (Hair et al., 1998); a sample size
ranging from 200 to 500 for most research (Shumacker & Lornax, 1996); an appropriate
sample size of 200 to 400 (Boomsma & Hoogland, 2001); a sufficient sample size of 150
observations, which should be sufficient for obtaining an acute solution in exploratory
factor analysis (EF A), as long as item inter-correlations are reasonably strong
(Guadagnoli & Velicer, 1988); and a minimum sample size of 200 recommended for
confirmatory factor analysis (Hoelter, 1983).

An appropriate sample size for this study was determined based on budgetary
constraints in combination with other considerations. It is suggested by the above
researchers that the appropriate ratios range between 1:5 and 1:20, and that the
appropriate sample sizes range from 100 to 500. This study has 56 measurement items to
test museum visitors’ behavior, which requires a sample size between 280 (5 x 56) and
1120 (20 x 56), in terms of the suggested ratio. Ideally, this study expected to achieve a
sample size of 500 usable questionnaires from the study site by distributing 500 or more

questionnaires to visitors in the pilot study (500 questionnaires) and formal study (610

106

questionnaires), respectively, in case there would be incomplete or blank responses.
Sampling Methods

A combination of sampling methods was used to select sampling units (museum
visitors), from which a sample size of 610 respondents (estimated from pilot study
response rate) at the study museum was drawn, as representative of the targeted museum
population.
1. Stratified Sampling
Ticket (Visitor) Types

Stratified sampling, which is also called quota sampling using random selection,
was used to ensure that the sample was representative. In this way, a proportion of the
sample elements can possess certain characteristics that are approximately the same as
the same proportion of the elements with the same characteristics in the total population
(Churchill & Iacobucci, 2002). NMNS museum, which has more visitors than other
museums, has published annual reports from 1994 through 2008 summarizing the
characteristics of its entire population in terms of different types of tickets sold (see
Table 15). Table 15 also shows that the previous visitor population is divided into
separate groups (strata) based on certain characteristics: number of visitors (group and
individual), age (child, adult, senior), and occupation (labor, student, government
employee). The visitor type, with corresponding proportions, are: 1) group: labor group
(0.15%), student group (16.90%), general group (3.43%); and 2) individual: adult ticket

(28.03%), adult discount ticket (11.97%) and free ticket (39.52%).

107

Table l:
Charact
Xatural

r_.—--

/

/

. 1A»
. g'JlJS

/

A i it».

wee
ll” 1
.yQ, _

fl ,
‘0‘ng

.n€_rree

n
.hthCSer\

Table 15

Characteristics of the Sample Ticket Type Categories of NMNS (National Museum of
Natural Science, 2009)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group (20 people or more ) Individual
Discount
Labor Student General (students & Total
Adult Free
Group Group Group government
employees)

1994 7,270 614,941 1 15,031 906,119 341,272 1,329,003 3,313,636
(0.22%) (18.56%) (3.47%) (27.35%) (10.30%) (40.1 1%) (100%)

1995 6,146 589,936 139,879 1,056,176 528,113 838,470 3,158,726
(0.19%) (18.68%) (4.43%) (33.44%) (16.72%) (26.54%) (100%)

1996 10,173 598,863 108,520 974,571 467,377 980,790 3,113,294
(0.33%) (19.24%) (3.49%) (30.44%) (15.01%) (31.50%) (100%)

1997 9,277 549,248 120,336 852,323 419,025 748,066 2,698,275
(0.34%) (20.36%) (4.46%) (31.59%) (15.53%) (27.72%) (100%)

1998 1,982 457,780 100,457 787,406 401,837 610,645 2,360,107
(0.08%) (19.40%) (4.26%) (33.36%) (17.03%) (25.87%) (100%)

1999 1,826 375,429 146,923 1051,234 484,214 981,937 3,041,563
(0.06%) (12.34%) (4.83) (34.56) (15.92) (32.28) ( 100%)

2000 1,657 836,212 215,814 1,097,389 375,955 1,173,559 3,700,586
(0.04%) (22.60%) (5.83%) (29.65%) (10.16%) (31.71%) (100%)

2001 488 493,964 74,833 946,850 374,958 1,298,403 3,189,496
(0.02%) (15.49%) (2.35%) (29.69%) (1 1.76%) (40.71%) (100%)

2002 678 497,377 69,153 668,459 240,594 1,121,595 2,597,856
(0.03%) (19.15%) (2.66%) (25.73%) (9.26%) (43.17%) (100%)

2003 15,494 476,155 80,673 654,904 209,552 1,1 16,388 2,553,166
(0.61%) (18.65%) (3.16%) (25.65%) (8.21%) (43.73%) (100%)

2004 6,799 556,360 96,438 865,646 233,114 1,612,977 3,371,334
(0.20%) (16.50%) (2.86%) (25.68%) (6.92%) (47.84%) (100%)

2005 392 486,781 103,509 759,834 346,299 1,808,680 3,505,495
(0.01%) (14.69%) (3.12%) (22.93% ) (10.45%) (54.58%) (100%)

2006 336 454,813 81,279 834,775 394,199 1,598,834 3,364,236
(0.01%) (13.5%) (2.4%) (24.8%) (1 1.7%) (47.5%) (100%)

2007 31 1 436,721 71,640 847,243 463,862 1,547,188 3,366,965
(0.01%) (12.9%) (2.1%) (25.2%) (13.8%) (45.9%) (100%)

2008 4 420,084 62,046 660,678 255,632 1,506,1 13 2,904,557
(0.0001%) (14.5%) (2.1%) (22.7%) (8.8%) (51.8%) (100%)

3:32?" 3,294 442,653 88,775 864,241 311,108 1,073,678 3,074,444
2008) (0.15%) (16.90%) (3.43%) (28.03%) (1 1.97%) (39.52%) (100%)

 

Note: Free ticket includes: Senior visitors over 65; disabled people; children below 110 centimeter; retired
public servants; 9 am -10 am on Wednesday; members (approximately 12,200 visit arrivals, 2003-2008)

108

 

One of the objectives of this study was to measure visitors’ perception of value,
which in turn influences their museum loyalty. As mentioned previously, perception of
value focuses on what visitors get for what they pay. This study targeted only
paid-admission visitors, and excluded “free ticket” visitors. One complication is that
members are categorized as “free” after they pay an annual membership fee. Because
“value” is still relevant to them, this study included them in the proportion of sampling
elements. This study screened for this either by asking visitors if they were members or
by checking the ticket or membership card that the visitors presented to staff when they
entered the museum. Between 2003 and 2008, the average annual number of members
for NMNS was 12,200 (N MNS, 2009). Member tickets accounted for 1% of the “free”
ticket category; these “free” tickets were integrated into the “discount” ticket category
for this study. This study excluded group visitors because the sampling unit was based
on individual visitors rather than groups. Other reasons to screen out group visitors
included: 1) visitors whose travel plans were arranged by travel agencies may not have
similar motivations as individuals; 2) the ticket fees might be paid by the group
coordinators instead of the individual; 3) groups might not have enough time to
experience all of the facilities and activities; and 4) group visitors were generally not
willing to do surveys due to time constraints (N PM Customer Investigation in 2006 &
2007). Consequently, after modifications and weighted average calculations, two strata
were proposed: 1) 340 respondents from the adult paid tickets (68% after rounding off);
and 2) 160 respondents from discount tickets (students aged 20 years or more,
government employees and members) (32%), based on previous proportions (28.03%,

and 11.97%, plus 1% from members).

109

2. Systematic Sampling

Systematic sampling was used to select the sample at regular intervals, after a
random start. Using systematic sampling can reduce sampling errors. With
randomization, a representative sample from a population provided the ability to
generalize to a population. This study selected one participant approximately every ten
minutes, with that person being approached as they entered the main entrance of the
study museum, until the number of subjects met the specific fraction predetermined for
each group based on ticket type.

In summary, this study employed: 1) a proportion of ticket type, based on the most

heavily attended museum (N MN S) across 15 years, and 2) the fraction of each weekday

and each weekend day, which was 122.334 (5,039: 11,741) according to the annual
report of the National Museum of Natural Science in 2006. Furthermore, this study
assigned an equal number to each time period (morning and afiemoon) per day. Thus,
this study followed the principles of stratified and systematic (interval) sampling to
collect data from target visitors possessing certain characteristics that can represent
NMNS. Some adjustments (e.g., survey quota, time interval of participant selection)
were made to the sampling methods after identifying any deficiencies in the pilot study

and the beginning of the formal on-site survey.

 

 

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Sun

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.33

 

2.33

 

 

110

Survey Time Frame

A self-administered survey was conducted with visitors of the National Museum of
Natural Science in Taiwan in the summer of 2009. Investigators distributed surveys to
visitors over the course of four weeks, during open hours—9:00 to 17:00 from Tuesday
(N MNS is closed on Monday) through Sunday. The pilot study was distributed from
June 16 (Tuesday) through June 28 (Sunday) 2009, and the formal study from June 30
(Tuesday) through July 12 (Sunday) 2009.

This study expected to draw 29 to 41 participants during each three-hour period of
morning or aftemoon. This means that investigators selected a visitor every ten minutes
on weekdays and every four minutes on weekends. With the quota sampling and the
fraction of the visitors’ numbers on weekdays and weekends, this study proposed the
following time frames for their corresponding sample sizes, for conducting the surveys

in the study museum, as seen in Tables 16 and 17.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 16
Administration Dates of Pilot Study during 6/16/2009-6/28/2009
Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
6/16 6/17 6/18 6/19 6/20 6/21
9pm
to Survey Quota 29 29 67
12pm
2pm
to Survey Quota 29 29 67
5pm
Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
6/23 6/24 6/25 6/26 6/27 6/28
9pm
to Survey Quota 29 29 67
12pm
2pm
to Survey Quota 29 29 67
5pm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

111

Table 17
Administration Dates of F ormal Study during 6/30/2009-7/12/2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
6/30 7/01 7/02 7/03 7/04 7/05
9pm
to Survey Quota 29 29 67
12pm
2pm
to Survey Quota 29 29 67
5pm
Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
7/07 7/08 7/09 7/10 7/1 1 7/12
9pm
to Survey Quota 42 42 96
12pm
2pm
to Survey Quota 42 42 96
5pm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Adjustment of quota in the second week

Data Collection Procedures

Data collection was divided into two stages that corresponded with the design of the
survey instrument. The survey itself also was divided into two components: 1) the first
half of the questionnaire was completed before the visit and after the ticket was
purchased, and 2) the second half of the questionnaire was completed afier the visit in
the museum. Participants were screened in terms of ticket type (adult tickets and discount
tickets, including students aged 20 years or more, government employees and members),
residence (living in Taiwan), citizenship (Taiwan), and age (20-64 years old). All
participants were informed that they would receive an incentive (a museum souvenir) to
increase their participation (see Appendix D for photos of incentives). Entering times of

participants were recorded on their questionnaires by the investigators. Each

112

questionnaire was given a unique ID code to ensure that the participant’s identity
remained anonymous to the researcher. The survey codes were from NMNS 001 through
NMNS 500 for the pilot study, and NMNS 501 through NMNS 1100 for the formal
study.

Initially, one participant was selected every ten minutes on weekdays and every four
minutes on weekend days. After a random start time, the investigators certified visitors’
qualifications in terms of their ticket type, until one qualified participant was generated
within this ten-minute period. That participant was presented with an entire survey
package, including a cover letter and survey questionnaire. The research investigators
were trained to briefly explain the survey instructions, and to help clarify the meaning of
the survey items if the participant felt unclear about the survey questions.

After the participant finished the first half of the questionnaire and returned it to the
investigator, the participant was reminded to take the second half of the questionnaire
with him/her during his/her visit and to finish and return it to a designated place near the
main exit at the end of his/her visit. To increase the number of completed surveys, the
survey assistants at the second counter politely asked participants to quickly examine
their completed questionnaires and finish any incomplete parts if participants were
willing to do it. The departure times of the participants were recorded on their
questionnaires by the investigators. Thus, the length of stay of each participant was

calculated based on the recorded entrance and departure times.

113

Data Analysis Methods

This study employed several statistical techniques to describe the sample and
examine proposed hypotheses. Collected data were entered and analyzed in the
Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 17.0 for Windows, and Amos
(Analysis of Moment Structures) version 17.0 for Windows.
Descriptive Analyses

Descriptive analyses were performed on museum visitors’ socio-demographic
characteristics and various travel characteristics. To provide an overview of the
respondents’ profiles, several items were included: gender, age, place of residence,
family status, education, monthly income, employment status, number of museum
visits/year, types of travel companies, and length of visit. Distributional characteristics of
each variable, including frequencies, percents and mean, were used for descriptive
profiles.
Chi-Square Test and Independent T- Test

Two tests were used to examine how representative participants were. First, a
chi-square test in terms of the type of collected data (categorical variable) was used to
determine if there was a significant relationship between test types (pilot study and
formal study) and each categorical variable in the socio-demographical characteristics
and travel behavior. Second, an independent sample t-test was employed to examine any
significant difference of the mean scores in five constructs (motivation, perception of
service quality, perception of value, satisfaction, and museum loyalty) between pilot and

formal study results.

114

Structural Equation Modeling

The proposed model was tested through structural equation modeling (SEM) using
Amos. The major feature distinguishing SEM from other multivariate techniques
(including path analysis) is that it incorporates two structures, including a measurement
model and a structural model in a single structure, in which multiple equations can be
estimated simultaneously (Bollen, 1989). First, confirmatory factor analysis (CF A) was
performed to estimate the overall fit of the measurement model among seven latent
constructs (museum visitors’ push motivations, pull motivations, past experience,
perception of service quality, perception of value, overall satisfaction, and museum
loyalty). The results of CFA were examined with the overall fit index scores, including
chi-square statistics, goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI),
and root mean square residual (RMR). Second, using the covariance matrix resulting
from the CF A of the measurement model, the nineteen hypothesized associations were
simultaneously tested via the SEM. Direct and indirect effects were examined to

determine any significance of the causal relationships.

115

CHAPTER4

RESULTS

Overview

The primary purpose of this study is to identify the structural and causal
relationships among key constructs (motivation, perception of service quality, perception
of value, satisfaction, and museum loyalty) concurrently in the context of nonprofit
museums. To achieve this purpose, a self-administered survey was conducted to collect
visitors’ information and opinions. Analyses were conducted to examine subjects’
backgrounds and the proposed model. In this chapter, the analysis of data is presented
according to the following topics: 1) pilot study analysis; 2) survey response rates;
3) description of the sample; 4) comparison of pilot and formal studies; 5) item analysis;
6) testing the measurement model; 7) testing the hypothesized structural model; and

8) examining moderating effects.

Pilot Study Analysis
A smnmary of respondents’ backgrounds (socio-demographics and travel behavior)
is presented in Appendix E, Tables E1—E2. The main purpose of the pilot study was to
ensure that the measurement scales worked adequately, and to refine the data collection
procedures, prior to collecting the data for the main study; A total of 500 questionnaires
was delivered, and 389 usable questionnaires were collected, yielding a 77.8% overall
response rate. To examine the reliability and validity of the measurement scales, an item

analysis was conducted with 56 items within four constructs—motivation, past

116

experience, perception of service quality, perception of value, and museum loyalty—in
the 389 usable surveys. As suggested by Wu and Tu (2006), item analysis comprised
four procedures: critical ratio (CR) analysis, Pearson item-total correlation analysis,
assessment of normality, and internal consistency reliability. A full discussion of these
four procedures is provided in the section about item analysis for the formal study (p.
144)

Outcomes of the item analysis of the four constructs are listed in Appendix E,
Tables E3—E7. The summary of four measurement reliability tests (see Appendix E,
Table E—8) shows that Cronbach’s alphas of measurement reliability of the five
constructs are as follows: 1) motivation scale, 01 = 0.88; 2) past experience scale, a =
0.89; 3) perceived service quality scale, a = 0.94; 4) perception of value scale, a = 0.93;
and 5) loyalty scale, a = 0.81, indicating that these five constructs are reliable.

The item analysis results of the pilot study show moderate reliability and validity of
most measurement scales, except for two items (Pu52 and Pus9) that were below the
criteria in terms of Pearson correlation analysis in item Pus9, and Cronbach’s alpha
reliability analysis in item PusZ and Pus9. The two items were slightly below one or two
criteria and most of the scores for the other three procedures were above the
recommended values. Thus, Pus2 and Pus9 were decided as acceptable and were adopted
for further construct assessment in the formal study as suggested by Li (2006). In the
pilot study, most of the measurement items were demonstrated to be reliable and content
valid, as proposed in the theoretical framework. Subsequently, all of the measurement
items in the questionnaire were deemed appropriate to use and data collection procedures

were adequately refined and managed to allow for official data collection.

117

Survey Response Rates

The formal study survey was administered at the National Museum of Natural
Science over two weeks, from J une 30 through July 12 of 2009. Several procedures were
used for dealing with the data collected in the field, including coding the data in a format
that the SPSS and Amos software packages could use, entering the data, cleaning the
data (identifying missing values or outliers) using frequency tables, and replacing
missing data with continuous variables. Two of the researchers double-checked that all
data were entered properly, to ensure data accuracy for each questionnaire. A total of
610 respondents returned the first half of the questionnaire. Of these, only 535
respondents completed and returned the second half of the questionnaires. Forty-six
eligible visitors who refused to participate in the survey gave several reasons: “did not

9, ‘6

have the time, not interested,” “felt weird to fill out the survey before viewing any
exhibit,” “felt two-stage survey was complicated and time-consuming,” “did not want to
give personal information,” and “the incentive was not appealing.” Altogether, there was
a 7% refusal rate. Of the completed surveys, twenty-three questionnaires were found to
be invalid because participants: 1) had omitted a considerable number of items (i.e.,
incomplete surveys); 2) had considerable outliers (e. g., the rating scores were not
between 1 and 7); 3) answered the same way across many items; or 4) returned the
second half of the survey less than 30 minutes after they had completed the first half.
During the second week of the formal survey period, a quota adjustment was made
to reach a goal of 500 usable surveys. This was done based on both the response rate of

the pilot study (77.8%) and the response rate of the formal study (87.6%) during the first

week. Because 219 usable surveys were collected in the first week of the formal study, it

118

was determined that 281 should be collected in the second week to achieve the goal of
500 usable surveys. Thus, a desired collection rate of between 321 (281 divided by .876)
and 361 (281 divided by .778) was determined. The quota added an extra 110 surveys to
the original plan to collect 250 surveys. Ultimately, 360 surveys were collected during
the second week. These were evenly distributed over the weekdays and weekend, based
on a ratio of 122.23. Twenty-three surveys were considered invalid and were deleted
from the sample. Five hundred and twelve usable surveys remained for the formal study,
the sample profile and the model test analysis. The overall response rate for this study
was 83.9%, which was higher than for the pilot study (77.8%) (see Table 18).
Characteristics of the survey response rate during the two-week response are presented
in Table 19, indicating that the survey response rates, distributed over weekdays and
weekends, were 89.4% and 88.9%, respectively. Table 20 presents the total visitor
numbers at NMNS, and the visitor numbers in the largest building of NMNS, Life
Science Hall, in which the survey was conducted. The entire population size of the target
groups (Adult, Discount and Membership) was 113,241 during the survey period. As a

result, the sample was 0.452 percent (610/ 1 13,241) of the entire population, and revealed

that a 3.96% sampling error5 was obtained with a 95% confidence level.

 

Sampling error is the degree to which a sample might differ from the population

119

lable 18
Sun'ev R

.___L——

11151 11811
110131 18

 

Second 1

1061111!

“

Total :0

11118101

\

Total ta

\—

1. 11118110
than 31.1

Table 11

311111111:
x

Table 18

Survey Response Rates

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pilot Study Formal Study
Frequency Percent (%) Frequency Percent (%)

H...
Second half questionnaire returned 399 79.8 535 87.7
Unretumed surveys 101 20.2 75 12.3
Total coded responses 399 535
Invalid responses 3 10 23
Total valid responses 389 77.8 512 83.9

 

a: Invalid response refers to: missing items, outliers, and the second half of survey being returned in less
than 30 minutes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 19
Administration Dates of Formal Study during June 30, 2009—June 12, 2009
Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
6/30 7/01 7/02 7/03 7/04 7/05
Delivered
9g“ Questionnaires 29 29 67
1me Ram?“ . 23 23 65
Quest10nna1res
Delivered
2pm Questionnaires 29 29 67
o
Spm Rem?“ . 28 27 53
Questionnatres
Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
7/07 7/08 7/09 7/10 7/ 1 1 7/12
Delivered
9:33“ Questionnaires 42 42 96
12pm Ram?“ . 37 36 85
Quest10nna1res
Delivered
2pm Questionnaires 42 42 96
0
5pm Returl‘ed . 37 38 83
Quest10nna1res

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Adjustment of quota (from 29 to 42 on weekdays; from 67 to 96 on weekends) in the second week.

120

Table 20

Visitor Numbers in the Life Science Hall of NMNS during June 16, 2009—June 12, 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adult Discount Visitor Visitor . Group Free Free entrance
Date Ticket Ticket number With Number w1th number ticket on Wed. 9-10am
Dinosaur card Family card Group Individual
6/16—6/28
6/16 (Tue) 603 348 49 47 41 81
6/17 (Wed) 620 470 24 145 0 81 229 539
6/18 (Thu) 639 581 15 91 38 95
6/19 (Fri) 935 743 47 135 0 121
6/20 (Sat) 3,329 3,065 115 801 73 250
6/21 (Sun) 4,880 3,870 127 901 32 311
6/23 (Tue) 2,086 792 68 97 20 91
6/24 (Wed) 2,282 1,106 48 150 20 84 261 853
6/25 (Thu) 1,973 1,045 55 149 160 87
6/26 (Fri) 3,654 986 39. 139 80 120
6/27 (Sat) 5,552 5,11 1 156 1,032 92 377
6/28 (Sun) 6,486 5,543 163 1,039 1 14 399
Subtotala 33,039 23,660 906 4,996 670 2,097 490 1 ,3 92
6/30-7/12
680 (Tue) 1,643 1,566 49 176 192 142
7/1 (Wed) 2,605 2,540 83 285 42 142 133 2742
7/2 (Thu) 2,785 3,307 73 445 105 272
7/3 (Fri) 3,261 2,728 138 412 170 235
7/4 (Sat) 6,589 5,793 170 1,032 149 482
75 (Sun) 8,825 6,932 231 1,501 84 785
7/7 (Tue) 2,854 3,103 131 463 177 326
7/8 (Wed) 2,953 2,603 53 258 81 206 522 3,201
7/9 (Thu) 2,589 3,528 101 447 69 131
7/ 10 (Fri) 2,925 2,967 128 383 164 245
7/11 (Sat) 7,513 6,691 134 1,061 57 634
7/12 (Sun) 9,806 7,628 202 1,551 158 774
Subtotal 54,348 49,386 1,493 8,041 1 ,448 4,3 74 655 5,943
Total of
6/16-7/12 87,387 73,046 2,399 13,010 2,118 5,697 1,145 7,335
Visit numbers
to Life Science N/A N/A 1,584 9,322 4,023 4,309 1,271 1,978
Hall in June
Visit numbers
to NMNS in 44,438 46,900 3,046 15,813 20,766 12,405 5,243 3,062
June
Visit numbers b
to Life Science N/A N/A 3,049 14,817 3,722 0 3,593 16,675
Hall in July
Total visitors
iOINMNS in 119,939 94,417 5,421 30,089 16,198 41,862 12,024 24,537
u y

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note. Adapted from “2009 Annual Statistical Report of the National Museum of Natural Science.”
a: The sample was 0.798 percent (500/62,601) of the entire population during pilot study, and
revealed a 4.37% sampling error was obtained with a 95% confidence level.
b: No free tickets to the Life Science Hall for the Darwin Exhibit June 19, 2009—Oct. 11, 2009.

121

 

$01

[he

513'

F181

1116

Hit

N1

We

Description of the Sample

Socio-demograph ic Characteristics

The socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents, representing visitors to
the NMNS in this study, included ticket type, gender, age current residence, marital
status, educational level, monthly income, and occupation (see Table 21). Study
participants’ (n = 512) ticket type are adult ticket (56.4%), discount ticket (23.8%),
member with Family card (14.8%) and member with Dinosaur card (4.9%). Of the 512
respondents, more were female (53.3%) than male (46.7%). The ages of participants
ranged from 20 to 64 years, with a higher percentage in the ages between 30-39 and
20-29 (36.7% and 33.2%, respectively). The average age of all participants was 35 years.
The majority of them resided in Taichung City/County (46.7%), and 132 (25.8%) were
from Northern Taiwan (Keelung, Taipei, Taoyuan, Hsinchu). There were more married
respondents with children (53.7%) than single respondents (42%). The majority of them
(88.5%) had at least a college degree. Respondents were evenly distributed among
income groups: 23.2% had no income; 19.5% had a monthly income greater than NT
$50,000; 17% had a monthly income between NT $30,000 and $39,999; and 16% had a
monthly income between NT $20,000 and $29,999. Average income was in the range of
NT $20,000-$29,999. Excluding the no-income group (students, retired people,
housewives), the average income was between NT $30,000-$39,999. About thirty
percent of the respondents were employed in the private sector. Teachers and students

were 14.8% and 12.9%, respectively; 13.5% were self-employed.

122

Table 21
Demographic Characteristics of Museum Respondents (n = 512)

 

 

Variable Frequency Percent (%)
Ticket type
Adult (regular) 289 56.4
Discount (student aged 20 years or more, government 122 23.8
employee)
Member with Dinosaur card 25 4.9
Member with Family card 76 14.8
Gender
Male 239 46.7
Female 273 53.3
Age in years
20-29 170 33.2
30-39 188 36.7
40-49 124 24.2
50-59 26 5.1
60-64 4 0.8
Current residence
Local (Taichung City/County) 239 46.7
Northern Taiwan (Keelung, Taipei, Taoyuan, Hsinchu) 132 25.8
Central Taiwan (Miaoli, Changhua, Nantou, Yunlin) 67 13.1
Southern Taiwan (Chiayi, Tainan, Kaohsiung, Pingtung) 60 11.7
Eastern Taiwan (Yialn, Hualien, Taitung) 14 2.7
Marital status
Single, never married 215 42.0
Married with no children 19 3.7
Married with children 275 53.7
Other 3 0.6
Education level
Completed junior high school or less 8 1.6
Completed senior high school 50 9.8
Completed college 347 67.8
Completed graduate school or more 106 20.7
Missing value 1 0.2
Monthly income
No income 1 19 23.2
5 NT $20,000 57 1 1.]
NT $20,000-29,999 82 16.0
NT $30,000-39,999 87 17.0
NT $40,000-49,999 65 I 12.7
NT $50,000 or more 100 19.5
Missing value 2 0.4

 

123

Table 21 (cont’d)

 

 

Variable Frequency Percent (%)

Occupation
Government employee 49 9.6
Private sector employee 153 29.9
Self-employed 69 13 .5
Unemployed 16 3.]
Teacher 76 14.8
Student 66 12.9
Retired 5 1.0
Housewife 38 7.4
Other 40 7.8

 

Travel Behavior Characteristics

Respondents’ travel behavior characteristics included visit frequency, number of
visits, number of accompanying people, companions, overnight stay or not, information
sources, and museum membership, as presented in Table 22. Of the 512 respondents,
55.1% visited NMNS two times a year, 20.1% visited once a year, and 18.4% visited
once in three or more years. First-time visitors comprised 20.9% of the total sample
while 79.1% were repeat visitors; over half of them (55.1%) had visited the NMNS more
than four times. About 36.3% had two accompanying members, followed by four people
(24.4%), three people (18.8%) and five people or more (17.2%). The majority of the
visitors’ (71.1%) companions were family members (adults or children), followed by
friends (27.7%). There were more day-trippers (58.0%) than persons on an overnight trip
(42.0%) among the visitors. Visitors’ length of stay ranged from less than one hour to
more than five hours, with a higher percentage between 1 and less than 2 hours (35.7%)
and less than one hour (29.1%), followed by 2 to less than 3 hours (19.53%) and 3 to less

than 4 hours (12.1%). The average length of stay was 1.8 hours.

124

Table 22
Museum Visit Behavior (11 = 512)

 

 

Variable Frequency Percent (%)
Frequency
Two or more times per year 282 55.1
One time per year 103 20.1
Once in two years 31 6.1
Once in three years or more 94 18.4
Missing value 2 0.4
Number of visits in the past
1 time 107 20.9
2-3 times 123 24.0
4-5 times 88 17.2
6-7 times 31 6.1
8 times or more 163 31.8
Accompanying number
Only myself 16 3.1
2 people 186 36.3
3 people 96 18.8
4 people 125 24.4
5 people or more 88 17.2
Missing value 1 0.2
Companion (multiple choice)
Family without children 98 19.]
Family with children 266 52.0
Colleague(s) from work 11 2.1
F riend(s) 142 27.7
None, only myself 22 4.3
Overnight staying
Yes, overnight trip 215 42.0
No, day trip 297 58.0
Length of stay
Less than 1 hour 149 29.1
1 to less than 2 hours 183 35.8
2 to less than 3 hours 100 19.5
3 to less than 4 hours 62 12.1
4 to less than 5 hours 16 3.1
More than 5 hours 2 0.4
Information
Family word-of-mouth (WOM) 144 28.1
Friend or colleague WOM 106 20.7
Internet 81 15.8
Radio station or TV program 10 2.0
Brochure/flyer 53 10.4
Newspaper or magazines 33 6.4
Other 80 15.6
Missing value 5 1.0
NMNS member
Yes. 101 19.7
No 41 1 80.3

 

125

Table 22 (cont’d)

 

 

Variable Frequency Percent (%)
Membership in other museums
Yes 46 9.0
No 464 90.6
Missing value 2 0.4
Past experiences with N MNS
No experience 107 20.9
Strongly dissatisfied 5 1.0
Dissatisfied 3 0.6
Somewhat dissatisfied 6 1.2
Neutral 7 1.4
Somewhat satisfied 58 1 1.3
Satisfied 236 46.1
Strongly satisfied 87 16.9
Missing value 3 0.6
Past experiences with other museums
No experience 17 3.3
Strongly dissatisfied 8 1.6
Dissatisfied 12 2.3
Somewhat dissatisfied 19 3.7
Neutral 63 12.3
Somewhat satisfied 122 23.8
Satisfied 221 43 .2
Strongly satisfied 40 7.8
Missing value 10 2.0

 

The primary information sources for finding out about and planning a trip to the
museum were: family word-of-mouth (WOM) (28.1%), friend or colleague WOM
(20.7%), Internet (15.8%), and other sources (15.6%). Of the 512 visitors, 29.7% were
members of NMNS and 9% had membership in a least one other museum. A large
percent (78.5) of the respondents had visited NMNS before, 94.7% had visited other
museums before, and 85.6% had visited both the NMNS and other museums before.
Sixty-three percent of the respondents who had visited NMNS said they were “satisfied”
or “strongly satisfied,” and 51% of respondents felt satisfied or strongly satisfied with

other museums.

126

Tourist Motivation Profile

Tourist motivation was measured using two constructs: push motivation, formed by
nine indicator variables; and pull motivation, formed by 11 indicator variables. As
shown in Table 23, NMNS visitors perceived their level of agreement with push
motivation (average mean score was 5.84) to be higher than with pull motivation
(average mean score was 5.38).

The mean scores of nine push indicator variables ranged from 5.62 to 6.31; among
these, two indicator variables—“to be with people who enjoy the same things I do”
(mean = 6.31) and “to recover from stress and tension” (mean = 6.02)—reached the
highest level of agreement. On the other hand, “to enjoy social interaction with new
people” (mean = 5.62) was at a lower level of agreement than other indicators.

As for the pull motivation, the mean scores of eleven indicator variables ranged
from 4.34 to 5.93; “to see new exhibits” (mean = 5.93) and “because museum is safe and
secure” (mean = 5.92) achieved the highest scores. “Because museum has good

restaurants” (mean = 4.34) had the lowest level of agreement.

127

181

.110

111

Past

{313511

med 1

”11361

Table 23
Motivation Profile

 

 

 

 

Museum Tourist Motivations Mean Std. Deviation

Push Motivationsa 5.84b 0.67c
To relax 5.80 1.00
To spend quality time with family or friends 5.98 0.96
To expand knowledge 5.63 1.13
To have a change from routine 5.74 1.04
To enjoy social interaction with new people 5.62 1.03
To enjoy new experiences 5.63 1.06
To recover from stress and tension 6.02 0.86
To be with people who enjoy the same things 1 do 6.31 0.78
To enjoy exhibits in different settings 5.87 0.99

Pull Motivationsa 5.38b 0.74c
To hear a famous guest speaker 4.95 1.29
Because museum has enjoyable facilities 5.69 0.99
Because museum has standards of hygiene and cleanliness 4.64 1.45
To see new exhibits 5.93 0.96
Because museum has good souvenir stores 5.02 1.30
Because museum has comfortable environment 5.90 0.95
Because museum has enjoyable activities 5.70 1.07
Because museum has good restaurants 4.34 1.45
Because museum is safe and secure 5.92 0.95
To attend special events 5.79 1.00
Because museum has friendly people 5.27 1.20

 

a: Scale ranged from “l= strongly disagree” to “7=strongly agree.”
b: Average mean score of all items in the construct.
c: Average standard deviation of all items in the construct.

Past Experience Profile

Table 24 presents a profile of visitors’ past experiences with visits to NMNS and
other museums. Two observed variables, “overall past experiences with this museum”
(mean = 5.92) and “overall past experiences with other museums” (mean = 5.27), were
used to measure the level of satisfaction with respondents’ visits to NMN S and other

museums. Respondents who visited NMNS (n = 402, three missing values) were better

128

satisfied than those who visited other museums (n = 485, ten missing values) (see Table
22, p. 126). The average mean score of satisfaction with visits to NMNS and other

museums was 5.59 (see Table 24).

 

 

Table 24
Past Experiences Profile
P ti rv 1 a Mean S‘d'
ercep on o a ue Deviation
Average mean score 5.59 0.91
b
Overall past experiences with this museum 5.92 0.99
Overall past experiences with other museumsc 5.27 1.22

 

 

 

a: Scale ranged from “ 1 = strongly dissatisfied” to “7 = strongly satisfied.”
b: NMNS (n = 402, three missing values).
c: Other museums (n =485, ten missing values).

Perception of Service Quality Profile

Table 25 presents the profile of visitors’ perceptions of service quality, according to
five constructs: tangibility, responsiveness, empathy, communication and consumables.
The participants’ level of agreement with responsiveness (average mean score is 5.73)
was higher than with other constructs, which ranged from 5.11 to 5.71. The consumables
construct had the lowest level of agreement for the perception of service quality among
the five constructs (average mean score is 5.11).

NMNS visitors indicated their highest and lowest levels of agreement with the
indicator variables in each construct, including: 1) tangibility: “the museum is clean”
(mean = 6.01) had the highest score, while “toilet facilities are available” (mean = 5.33)
had the lowest score; 2) responsiveness: “staff is friendly” (mean = 5.93) had the highest
score, while “staff is available in a sufficient number when needed” (mean = 5.61) had

the lowest score; 3) empathy: “the atmosphere in the museum is in keeping with the

129

exhibits” (mean = 5.39) had the highest score, while “there are adequate seats in the
museum” had the lowest score (mean = 5.03); 4) communication: “exhibit descriptions
are understandable” (mean = 5.86) had the highest score, while “directional signs in the
museum make it easy to navigate” had the lowest score (mean = 4.78); and

5) consumables: “the shop offers quality items” (mean = 5.62) had the highest score,
while “the restaurant offers multiple choices of food/drink” (mean = 4.74) had the lowest

score.

130

Table 25
Perceptions of Service Quality Profile

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . a Std.
Museum Tourist Motivations Mean Deviation
Tangibility 5.71 0.71
The parking lot is available 5.55 1.04
Toilet facilities are available 5.33 1.16
Staff is well dressed 5.84 0.84
The exhibits are well maintained 5.71 1.11
The museum is clean 6.01 0.86
The exhibit themes are diverse 5 .80 0.93
Responsiveness 5.73 0.80
Staff responds to visitors’ requests promptly 5.73 1.01
Interpreters are professional (e.g., accessible, knowledgeable of the
. 5.62 1.07
subjects)
Staff is willing to spend time helping visitors 5.77 0.98
Staff is available in a sufficient number when needed 5.61 1.06
Staff is friendly 5.93 0.89
Empathy 5.25 0.87
The atmosphere in the museum is in keeping with the exhibits 5.39 1.10
The level of crowding is acceptable 5.29 1.16
The level of noise is acceptable 5.16 1.38
The museum caters to the needs of less able visitors 5.36 1.16
There are adequate seats in the museum 5.03 1.32
The facilities for children are sufficient 5.27 1.16
Communication 5.57 0.79
Directional signs in the museum make it easy to navigate 4.78 1.49
Overall, physical display of the interpretation/exhibits (e.g. size of 5 63 1 0 6
signs, layout of design, brightness of light) is well provided ' '
Road and street signs make it easy to find the museum 5.78 1.03
Interpreters have good communication skills (e.g., clarity, speed,
. . . . . 5.68 1.01
fluency, interactron wrth audrence, time control, etc.) ‘
The written leaflets and/or website provide enough information 5.71 1.05
Exhibit descriptions are understandable (texts and graphs) 5.86 0.99
Consumables 5.11 0.87
The restaurants’ staff provides efficient service 4.92 1.24
The restaurants offer quality food/drink 5.42 1.1 1
The shops offer diverse choices of items 4.84 1.21
The restaurants offers multiple choices of food/drink 4.74 1.34
The shops offer quality items 5.62 1.15

 

a: Scale ranged from “1 = strongly disagree” to “7 = strongly agree.”

131

Perception of Value Profile

The visitors’ perception of value for their NMNS experience was measured with
four indicator variables. As shown in Table 26, scores ranged from 5.57 to 5.86. Among
them, “considering the price I paid for the visit, the overall activities were helpful”
(mean = 5.86) reached the highest level of agreement, whereas “the overall price I paid

for this visit was reasonable” (mean = 5.57) had the lowest level of agreement.

 

 

Table 26
Perception of the Value Profile
. a Std.
Perception of Value Mean Deviation
Average mean score 5.75 0.87
The overall price I paid for this visit was reasonable 5.57 1.13
Considering the price I paid for the visit, the overall exhibits
5.80 0.96
were valuable
Considering the price I paid for the visit, the overall activities
5.86 0.89
were helpful
Consrderlng the prrce I paid for the V1srt, the overall serv1ces 5.78 0.94

were useful

 

a: Scale ranged from “1 = strongly disagree” to “7 = strongly agree.”

Overall Satisfaction Profile

One item, “overall satisfaction with all facilities and services,” was used to measure
the visitors’ level of satisfaction with their visit. Most of the participants (75.4%) rated
their overall satisfaction with all facilities and services as “satisfied” and “strongly

satisfied” in this category. The mean score was 5.86 (see Table 27).

132

Table 27
Overall Satisfaction Profile

 

 

. . a Std.
Overall Satisfaction Mean Deviation
Overall satisfaction with all facilities and services. 5.86 0.85

 

a: Scale ranged from “1 = strongly dissatisfied” to “7 = strongly satisfied.”

Museum Loyalty Profile

The visitors’ loyalty to the museum was measured with three indicator variables. As
shown in Table 28, NMNS visitors felt they were “likely” to revisit this museum (mean
= 6.09), and were “likely” to recommend this museum to others (mean = 6.08), whereas

they were “somewhat likely” to renew membership or become a member (mean = 5.16).

 

 

Table 28
Museum Loyalty Profile
M Lo 1 a Mean Std.
useum ya ty Deviation
Average mean score 5.78 0.95
Revisit this museum 6.09 1.03
Recommend this museum to others 6.08 0.99
Renew membership or become a member 5.16 1.31

 

a: Scale ranged from “1 = very unlikely” to “7 = very unlikely.”

Item Analysis
Item analysis was estimated for each construct with corresponding items (56 items
as a total), by employing four procedures (critical ratio, correlation analysis, assessment
of normality, and internal consistency reliability), as was done for the pilot study.
Results are presented in Tables 29-33. First, the critical ratio was estimated using a t-test.

The t-value was a measure of the extent to which a given statement differentiates the

133

high-scoring group (the highest 27%) from the low-scoring group (the lowest 27%) for
each item. All 56 item statements were found to be significant at a p < .001 level, with
t-values ranging from 10.413 to 19.139 in the motivation construct (Table 29); from
15.458 to 21.872 in the past experience construct (Table 30); from 9.106 to 19.966 in the
perception of service quality construct (Table 31); from 23.963 to 26.518 in the
perception of value (Table 32); and from 21.212 to 31.905 in the loyalty construct (Table
33). The recommended value of the critical ratio is greater than or equal to the value of
the t-test (3.0), demonstrating that all 56 items have high discrimination (Wu, 2008).

Next, Pearson correlation analysis, which is the correlation or relationship between
an individual item score and the total items score, was used to test the corrected
item-to-total correlation. The results indicated that all items are moderately correlated
with the total test score, with values ranging from 0.356 to 0.673 in the motivation
construct (Table 29); from 0.869 to 0.897 in the past experience construct (Table 30);
from 0.389 to 0.715 in the service quality construct (Table 31); from 0.804 to 0.890 in
the perception of value (Table 32); and from 0.587 to 0.732 in the loyalty construct
(Table 33). The recommended value of Pearson item-total correlation is greater than 0.4
and significant between the item score and the total score (Chiou, 2002; Wu, 2008). All
items in the four constructs are greater than 0.4 except Emp2 (0.389), indicating a
middle-high correlation.

Third, skewness and kurtosis were used to assess the normality of the data and to
describe the distribution property of all the data by using Amos, as suggested by Kline

(2004). The recommended values for a normality assessment are: -3 < skewness < 3; and

-8 < kurtosis < 8. The results showed that all values were within the recommended

134

values as follows: -1.693 < skewness < - 0.440 and -0.316 < kurtosis < 5.788 in the
motivation construct (Table 29); -1.322 < skewness < - 0.363 and 0129 < kurtosis <
3.136 in the construct of past experience (Table 30); -1.379 < skewness < - 0.257 and
-0.307 < kurtosis < 2.805 in the construct of perception of service quality construct

(Table 31); -l.192 < skewness < - 0.928 and 0.966 < kurtosis < 1.986 in the perception
of value construct (Table 32); and -1.490 < skewness < -0.221 and -0.582 < kurtosis <
2.723 in the loyalty construct (Table 33).

Finally, Cronbach’s alpha of reliability for internal consistency was used and an
item was deleted if the coefficient was less than 0.7, according to Nunnally (1978). The
tests showed that most values of Cronbach’s alpha (greater than 0.806), along with factor
loading (greater than 0.45), were within the recommended values, except Pul8 (“because
museum has good restaurants”) and Emp2 (“the level of crowding is acceptable”),
demonstrating an internal consistency reliability in most constructs. A summary of the
measurement reliability, using Cronbach’s alpha, is presented in Table 34.

In summary, 56 items in the formal study were suggested to possess reliability and
content validity except for two items (Pul8 and Emp2), which were deleted because the
values were below the recommended values in three analyses (Pearson correlation,

Cronbach’s alpha reliability, and factor loading).

135

Table 29

Summary of Item Analysis of Motivations for Visiting Museum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item C2? Jim; Skewness Kurtos's C3312? s [2:22; :tcecIZpted

item deleted or deleted
Pusl 13.178‘" 0.624” -1.693 4.735 0.894 0.658 Accepted
PusZ 10.413"* 0.541 " -1 . 198 2.276 0.896 0.563 Accepted
Pus3 10.840*** 0.542" -1.141 1.401 0.896 0.581 Accepted
Pus4 1 1246*" 0.495" -1.142 2.075 0.897 0.492 Accepted
PusS 11.83?" 0.537" -0.962 0.753 0.899 0.472 Accepted
Pus6 15.471 *" 0.672“ "‘ -1.067 1.617 0.892 0.691 Accepted
Pus7 14.312*“ 0.620" -l.669 5.788 0.894 0.641 Accepted
Pus8 14.216"* 0.677“ -1.505 4.250 0.892 0.696 Accepted
Pus9 12.52?" 0.570" -1.103 1.909 0.895 0.603 Accepted
Pusll 15.099*" 0.601 *" -0.468 0.1 12 0.895 0.549 Accepted
Pu12 13.775"* 0.640" -0.809 0.655 0.893 0.652 Accepted
Pul3 15.330"* 0.673" -0.138 -0.316 0.892 0.699 Accepted
Pu14 12.911*" 0.556" -1.281 2.389 0.895 0.563 Accepted
Pu15 13.859"* 0.580" -0.605 0.344 0.896 0.529 Accepted
Pul6 16.027 *" 0.695" -1.201 2.231 0.892 0.720 Accepted
Pul7 19.139"* 0.686" -1.070 1.563 0.892 0.700 Accepted
Pul8 1 1.047“ " 0.356" -0.440 0.142 0.900 0.419 Deleted
Pul9 15.506"* 0.621 " -0.839 0.544 0.894 0.635 Accepted
Pu110 13.049“ "”" 0.547" -1 .07 8 1.400 0.896 0.499 Accepted
Pull 1 17 425*" 0.637 " -0.639 0.448 0.893 0.660 Accepted

Criteria 2 3.0 2 0.400 -3 < s3| <3 -8 < kb< 8 2 0.899c 2 0.450

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note. All values of Critical Ratio are significant at u = 0.001 level. All values of Pearson correlation are
significant at a = 0.01 level. The bold numbers are below the criteria.

a: “5” indicates skewness.
b: “k” indicates kurtosis.

c: Cronbach's alpha of overall motivation construct.

"p < 0.01, m p < 0.001.

136

Table 30
Summary of Item Analysis of Past Experience

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item C2”: 05;:an Skewness Kurtos'u C2131: c: s '23:; 1:3de
item deleted or deleted
pEla 15.458‘“ 0.897" -1.322 3.136 0.561 0.823 Accepted
PE2 21.87?" 0.869" 0363 -0.129. 0.561 0.823 Accepted
Criteria 2 3.0 2 0.400 -3 < s < 3 -8 < k < 8 2 .716b 2 0.450

 

a: “PE” indicates Past Experience.
b: Cronbach's alpha of Perception of Value construct.
"p < 0.01, "* p < 0.001.

137

Table 31

Summary of Item Analysis of Perception of Service Quality

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item C2? 05:;le Skewness Kurtos- (33:11:61: s 3:32;; 12:11pm

item deleted or deleted
Tan] 1 1348"" 0.431" -0.590 -0.156 0.944 0.456 Accepted
Tan2 13 022*" 0.562" -1.037 1.273 0.941 0.590 Accepted
Tan3 13.900‘“ 0.570" -1.253 2.805 0.941 0.614 Accepted
Tan4 16.113*** 0.576" -1.111 1.110 0.941 0.615 Accepted
Tan5 15.142* ** 0600* "‘ -1.049 1.543 0.941 0.641 Accepted
Tan6 14.565*" 0.629" -0.754 0.620 0.940 0.674 Accepted
Resl 19.400*"'"' 0.643" -0.724 0.084 0.940 0.691 Accepted
ResZ 17.976"* 0.615“ * -0.63 8 0.009 0.940 0.658 Accepted
Res3 19.087*" 0.694" -0.762 0.682 0.940 0.744 Accepted
Res4 15.482*** 0.664" -0.850 1.466 0.940 0.712 Accepted
ResS 18.755“* 0.679" -0.795 0.508 0.940 0.725 Accepted
Empl 13.014*** 0.566” -0.597 0.300 0.941 0.606 Accepted
Emp2 9. 106" * 0.389“ "' -0.801 0.572 0.943 0.418 Deleted
Emp3 13.993 "* 0.531" -0.590 0.081 0.941 0.563 Accepted
Emp4 15.835*" 0.603" -0.624 0.004 0.941 0.636 Accepted
EmpS 13.477*** 0.570" -0.868 0.367 0.941 0.601 Accepted
Emp6 14.894*" 0.626" -0.533 0.157 0.940 0.651 Accepted
Coml 13.636""' 0.556" -1.062 1.202 0.941 0.587 Accepted
Com2 14.816*" 0.609" -1.068 1.582 0.941 0.648 Accepted
Com3 16.933"* 0.629" 0592 -0.464 0.940 0.666 Accepted
Com4 18.800” * 0.662“ " -0.642 -0.181 0.940 0.708 Accepted
Com5 19.966" "' 0715* " -0.938 0.969 0.939 0.754 Accepted
Com6 15.413*" 0.665" -1.165 1.988 0.940 0.712 Accepted
Conl 16.352*" 0.533" -0.278 -0.307 0.941 0.553 Accepted
Con2 15.83?" 0.573“ -1.379 2.641 0.941 0.591 Accepted
Con3 19.778*"“" 0.669" -0.257 0.001 0.940 0.699 Accepted
Con4 16.019*" 0.61 1" -1.092 1.141 0.941 0.627 Accepted
Con5 18.064*" 0659* * -0.303 -0.180 0.940 0.688 Accepted

Criteria 2 3.0 2 0.400 -3 < s < 3 -8 < k < 8 2 0,942a 2 0.450

 

Note. All values of Critical Ratio are significant at a = 0.001 level. All values of Pearson correlation are
significant at a = 0.01 level. The bold numbers are below the criteria.
a: Cronbach’s alpha of Perception of Service Quality construct.

"p < 0.01, m p < 0.001.

138

Table 32

Summary of Item Analysis of Perception of Value

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, . | Cronbach's Item
Item Cratio 05:32:“ Skewness Kurtosis alpha if '2?in accepted
item deleted g or deleted
PVla 26.518*** 0.804M -1.192 1.986 0.898 0.886 Accepted
PV2 23.963*" 0.876" -0.955 0.966 0.854 0.933 Accepted
PV3 25.3 53*" 0.890“ -0.928 1.503 0.867 0.945 Accepted
PV4 24.56?" 0.877 ** -0.959 1.196 0.866 0.935 Accepted
Criteria 2 3.0 2 0.400 -3 < s < 3 -8 < k < 8 2 0.937B 2 0.450 Accepted
a: “PV” indicates Perception of Value
b: Cronbach's alpha of Perception of Value construct
"p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 33
Summary of Item Analysis of Loyalty
. . Cronbach's Item
Item (323' cfrifinldn Skewness Kurtos's alpha if '52::in accepted
item deleted 3 or deleted
Loyla 21.212*** 0.732" -1490 2.723 0.662 0.900 Accepted
Loy2 21.588*** 0.682" -1.186 1.329 0.718 0.875 Accepted
Loy3 31.905**"‘ 0.587" -0.221 -0.582 0.839 0.798 Accepted
Criteria 2 3.0 20.400 -3 < s < 3 -8 < k < 8 2 o_306b 2 0.450 Accepted
a: “Loy” indicates Loyalty
b: Cronbach's alpha of Loyalty construct
"p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 34
Summary of the Measurement Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha)
a
Measurement Scale Number of Items Cronbach’s alpha ((1)
Motivations 20 0.899
Past Experience 2 0.716
Perception of Service Quality 28 0.942
Perception of Value 4 0.937
Loyalty 3 0.806

 

 

 

a: Construct of overall satisfaction is not included because there is only one indicator variable.

139

Comparison of Pilot and Formal Studies

The purpose of this comparative analysis was to explore any differences between
visitors (n = 389) in the pilot study and visitors (n = 512) in the formal study with respect
to their socio-demographic characteristics and travel (visit) behavior, as well as their
measurement scales. First, sample profiles of socio-demographic characteristics and
travel behavior were compared to identify any significantly different variables between
the samples (pilot study and formal study). A chi-square test, in terms of the type of
collected data (categorical variable), was performed to determine if there was a
significant relationship between test types (pilot study and formal study) and each
categorical variable. Several chi-square statistics were significant at the critical alpha

level (a = 0.05, p < .05) in the demographic characteristics across samples, including:
age (x2 = 41.79), marital status (x2 = 23.96) and occupation (x2 = 30.18) (see Table 35).
Table 36 shows several significant differences in visitor behaviors across samples,

including: frequency of visits (x2 = 10.83), number of visits (x2 = 107.57), visiting group

size (x2 = 41.22), overnight stay or not (x2 = 16.67), and information (x2 = 20.21).

Second, in the formal study, there were 75 non-respondents who did not complete
the second half of survey. A comparison of non-respondents (the 75 respondents who did
not return the second half of the survey) and respondents (n = 512) was run to identify
any significant differences across samples. Table 37 presents data that show that all of

the categorical variables displayed no significant differences between non-respondents

and respondents, except for occupation (x2 = 30.10), indicating that, generally, the

profile of the non-respondent sample was similar to that of the respondents.

140

Table 35
Comparison of Demographic Characteristics between Pilot and Formal Studies

 

Pilot Formal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristic study group study group sta'lt‘iiisttics
(n = 389) (n = 512)

Ticket type x2 = .42
Adult (regular) 224 289
Discount 94 122
Member with Dinosaur card 16 25
Member with Family card 55 76

Gender x2 = 1.83
Male 164 239
Female 225 273

Age in years x2 = 41.79“
20-29 189 170
30-39 146 188
40-49 50 124
50-59 3 26
60-64 1 4

Current residence 2 = 7.43
Local (Taichung City/County) 156 239
Northern Taiwan 132 132
Central Taiwan 54 67
Southern Taiwan 39 60
Eastern Taiwan 5 14
Island County 3 0

Marital status x2 = 2396*
Single, never married 179 215
Married with no children 22 19
Married with children 187 275
Other 1 3

Education level x2 = 3.66
Completed junior high school or less 5 8
Completed senior high school 31 50
Completed college 287 347
Completed graduate school or more 66 106
Missing value 0 1

Monthly income x2 = 8.68
No income 87 1 19
5 NT $20,000 68 57
NT $20,000-29,999 62 82
NT $30,000-39,999 60 87
NT 340,000-49,999 51 65
NT $50,000 or more 61 100
Missing value 0 2

* p < 0.05

141

Table 35 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pilot Formal Test
Characteristic study group study group . .
(n ___ 389) (n = 512) statlstrcs
Occupation x2 = 3018*
Government employee 25 49
Private sector employee 107 153
Self-employed 52 69
Unemployed 1 3 16
Teacher 30 76
Student 82 66
Retired 1 5
Housewife 27 38
Other 52 40
* p < 0.05
Table 36
Comparison of Visit Behavior between Pilot and Formal Studies
Pilot Formal Test
Characteristic study group study group statistics
(n = 389) (n = 512)
Frequency x2 = 10.83“
Two or more times per year 182 282
One time per year 82 103
Once in two years 20 31
Once in three years or more 105 94
Missing value 0 2
Number of visits x2 = 107.57*
1 time 105 107
2-3 times 1 18 123
4-5 times 61 88
6-7 times 20 31
8 times or more 84 163
Missing value 1 0
Accompanying number x2 = 4122*
Only myself 13 16
2 people 215 186
3 people 71 96
4 people 55 125
5 people or more 34 88
Missing value 1 l
Companion (multiple choice) x2 = 0.79
Family without children 82 98
Family with children 131 266
Colleague(s) from work 13 11
Friend(s) 1 5 7 142
Only myself 9 22

 

Table 36 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pilot Formal Test
Characteristic study group study group statistics
(n = 389) (n = 512)
2
Overnight staying x = 1667*
Yes, overnight trip 1 1 1 215
No, day trip 275 297
Missing value 3 0
2
Length of stay x = 3.08
Less than 1 hour 94 149
1 to less than 2 hours 125 183
2 to less than 3 hours 95 100
3 to less than 4 hours 42 62
4 to less than 5 hours 28 16
More than 5 hours 5 2
2
Information x = 20.21 *
Family word-of-mouth (WOM) 101 144
Friend or colleague WOM 93 106
Internet 78 81
Radio station or TV program 12 10
Brochure/flyer 45 53
Newspaper or magazines 27 33
Other 26 80
Missing value 7 5
2
NMNS member x = 0.31
Yes 71 101
No 318 41 1
2
Membership in other museum(s) x = 2.97
Yes 23 46 '
No 365 464
Missing value 1 2
*p<005

143

Table 37
Comparison of Demographic Characteristics between Non-Response and Response
Samples

 

N on-response Response

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristic Sa m ple Sa m ple S taltigics
(n = 75) (n = 512)
Ticket type x2 = 5.25
Adult (regular) 45 289
Discount 23 122
Member with Dinosaur card 2 25
Member with Family card 5 76
Gender x2 = 0.19
Male 33 239
Female 42 273
Age in years X2 = 4.55
20-29 30 170
30-39 31 188
40-49 12 124
50-59 2 26
60-64 0 4
Current residence X2 = 6.96
Local (Taichung City/County) 27 239
Northern Taiwan 21 132
Central Taiwan 14 67
Southern Taiwan 13 60
Eastern Taiwan 0 14
Island County 0 0
Marital status x2 = 4.16
Single, never married 37 215
Married with no children 0 19
Married with children 38 275
Other 0 3
Education level x2 = 2.05
Completed junior high school or less 0 8
Completed senior high school 6 50
Completed college 50 347
Completed graduate school or more 19 106
Missing value 0 1
Monthly income x2 = 5.89
No income 17 1 19
_<_ NT $20,000 7 57
NT $20,000-29,999 8 82
NT $30,000-39,999 13 87
NT $40,000-49,999 7 65
NT $50,000 or more 23 100
Missing value 0 2

 

144

Table 37(cont’d)

 

 

 

. . Non-responsea Response Test
Characteristic Sample Sample Statistics
(n = 75) (n = 512)
Occupation X2 = 30,103!
Government employee 9 49
Private sector employee 1 1 153
Self-employed 3 69
Unemployed 4 16
Teacher 9 76
Student 19 66
Retired 1 5
Housewife 5 38
Other 15 40
a: Non-respondents are these who did not complete the part of the survey.
* p < 0.05

Third, an independent sample t-test was used to determine whether statistically
significant differences existed in the mean scores for each item between the pilot and
formal studies. Table 38 shows that nine of 20 measurement items in the motivation
construct were significantly different across the samples; five of 28 items in the
“perception of service quality” construct were significantly different across samples; one
of four items in the “perception of value” construct was significantly different; and one

of three items in the loyalty construct was significantly different.

145

Table 38

T-test Results of Measurement Scale between Pilot Study and Formal Studies

 

 

 

Constructs 9:52ng “'33:” Foratllasrdy t-value
Motivations Pusl 5 .95 5 .80 1.87
PusZ 5.85 5.98 -1.67
Pus3 6.11 5.63 5.91*
Pus4 5.72 5.74 -0.21
PusS 5.56 5.62 -0.86
Pus6 6.09 5.63 4.75*
Pus7 5.94 6.02 - l .23
Pu58 6.10 6.31 -2.76*
Pus9 6.27 5.87 -4.88*
Pull 4.61 4.95 4.16"
Pu12 5.58 5.69 -1.65
Pu13 4.98 4.64 4.18"
Pul4 5.84 5.93 -1.24
Pu15 5.32 5.02 3.77“
Pu16 6.22 5.90 4.21"
Pul7 5.71 5.70 0.11
Pu18 4.47 4.34 1.78
Pul9 6.04 5 .92 1.65
PullO 5.29 5.79 -6.21*
Pull 1 5.34 5.27 1.09
Perception of Tanl 5.67 5.55 1.58
Services Quality Tan2 5.25 5.33 -1.19
Tan3 5.76 5.84 -l.01
Tan4 5.68 5.71 -0.45
Tan5 6.09 6.01 1.19
Tan6 5.88 5.80 1.02
Resl 5.72 5.73 -0.08
Res2 5.84 5.62 3.12*
Res3 5.96 5.77 268*
Res4 5.64 5.61 0.46
ResS 6.12 5.93 2.54“
Empl 5.45 5.39 0.54
Emp2 5.36 5.29 0.98
Emp3 5.18 5.16 0.35
Emp4 5.41 5.36 0.62
Emp5 5.09 5.03 0.73
Emp6 5.38 5.27 1.14

 

*p < 0.05

146

Table 38 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Constructs Observed Pilot study Formal study t-value
variables Mean (Rank) Mean (Rank)

perception of Coml 4.72 4.78 -0.78

Services Quality Com2 5.56 5.63 -l .17
Com3 5.64 5.86 -2.68*
Com4 5.62 5.68 -0.93
Com5 5.63 5.71 -1.15
Com6 6.05 5.86 306*
Conl 4.87 4.92 -0.72
Con2 5.51 5.42 1.23
Con3 4.78 4.84 -0.73
Con4 4.67 4.74 -0.98
Con5 5.54 5.62 -0.79

Perception of PVl 5.52 5.57 057

Va'“ PV2 5.72 5.80 -1.17
PV3 5.59 5.86 -3.85*
PV4 5.69 5.78 -1.12

Overall Satl 5.98 5.86 1.59

Satisfaction

Loyalty Loyl 5.90 6.09 -2.61*
Loy2 6.05 6.08 -0.48
Loy3 5.09 5.16 -1.04

*p < 0.05

In addition to the above comparison between two groups, a chi-square goodness-

of-fit test was performed to determine how all respondents (11 = 901, pilot and formal

studies), who were randomly selected in terms of the visitor type, represented the entire

NMNS museum visitor population. Table 39 shows that ticket type was not significantly

different between the respondents and the entire population during survey period as

demonstrated, with x2 = 5.112 (df = 3, p > 0.05), indicating that the percentages of the

four visitor types (Adult, Discount, Dinosaur, and Family) of 901 respondents were

consistent with those of the entire museum population during survey period.

147

Table 39
Comparison of the Ticket Type between the Entire Visitors and the Entire Respondents
during the Survey Period

 

Total number of Study respondents

 

 

a
T' k t museum visitors (n = 901; 389 for pilot study, Chi-square
Ic e type from 6/16 to 7/12/2009 and 512 for formal study) test statistics
Percent Percent
2 c
x = 5.112
Adult ticket 59.1 57.0
. . b
Drscount ticket 24.7 24.0
Member w1th 3.6 4.6
Dinosaur card
Member ”‘1“ 12.6 14.5
Family card

 

a: The total number of museum visitors during the survey period was 175,869 (see Table 20, p. 121)

b: The number of discount tickets in Table 19 (p. 120) comprises all visitors who were students of any age
or a government employee. This study targeted only students aged 20 years or more and government
employees. The percentage is adjusted according to the proportion (46.2%) of discount ticket
respondents (students aged 20 or more and government employees) to total respondents in the prior
research conducted by NMNS in 2008 (National Museum of Natural Science, 2008), in which a
probability sample was used to gain a sample size of 2,001. A percentage of 24.7 for the discount ticket
in the above table is estimated based on 46.2%.

c: The critical value of chi-square with df = 3 for significance atthe 0.05 level is 7.815.

In summary, test results comparing the pilot and formal study groups showed that
five of eight (62.5%) socio-demographic variables were not significantly different across
samples; four of nine (44.4%) visitor behavior variables were not significantly different
across samples; and 41 of 56 (73.2%) measurement items were not significantly different
across samples. Moreover, seven of eight (88%) socio-demographic variables were not
significantly different between non-response and response samples for the formal study
group. Thus, comparison analysis of the two groups in the pilot and formal studies
supports the conclusion that the majority of the participants in the two studies were
similar during the survey period, except that the two groups differed in the category of

museum visitor behaviors, including visit frequency, number of visits, group size,

148

overnight stay or not, and information. All the above significant differences could have
been caused by differences in sample size (3 89 vs. 512), sampling time (June vs. July)
and sampling methods (survey quota and time interval of participant selection) between
the two tests. In addition, other potential impacts within the normal variation should not
impact the study results. Last, the test results demonstrated the representativeness of the
respondents (n = 901) of the total museum visitor population (N = 175,869) from June
16 (Tuesday) through July 12 (Sunday) in 2009 in terms of the ticket type.

Both pilot and formal studies met the recommended values (see Table E-8, p. 237
and Table 34, p. 139), indicating that Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of internal
consistency reliability were above the minimum of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978). Thus, this
study used the remaining 56 items in the formal study in the following analyses:
construct validity, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structural equation modeling.

CFA measurements follow the item analysis, below.

Testing the Measurement Model
The measurement model was evaluated before the structural model, using the
two—step approach suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). The measures were
validated through a process of confirmatory factor analysis (CF A), which tested the
measurement model by specifying the posited association of the observed variables and
the underlying constructs, using Amos for Windows. In processing the CFA, this study
utilized maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) as the method of parameter estimation

when the sample number was greater than 100 (Ding, Velicer & Harlow, 1995). The

149

 

sample size (n = 512) of the current study was adequate to be assessed with this CFA

measurement model.

Correlation for the Second-Order M USE QUAL

The five constructs of museum service quality were combined to form one measure
of museum service quality, as suggested earlier in the literature regarding service quality.
This study conducted a correlation test to examine whether the overall perceptions of
museum service quality were represented by the five constructs for museum service
quality. Table 40 shows that the correlations between the five constructs ranged from
0.588 through 0.947, which are adequate correlation parameters, and all ten covariances
were significantly different (i.e., t-value > 1.96). These results indicate that the five
measures converge on a common underlying construct (Lages et al., 2005; Li, 2006; Wu,
2008), and suggest that there should be a higher order model that can fairly explain the
data (Bauer, Falk, & Hammerschmidt, 2006). The above findings confirmed that the five
sub-dimensions were adequately modeled as first-order constructs (tangibility,
responsiveness, empathy, communication, consumables), and one dimension was needed
as a second-order construct (named MUSEQUAL). A chi-square difference test was
performed to test for discriminate validity, demonstrating whether or not the five

constructs were distinguishable factors in the later section of “discriminant validity.”

150

Table 40
Correlations among First Order Constructs for Second-Order MUSEQUAL

 

 

Covariances Estimate S.E. C.R. (t-value) Correlations
Responsiveness H Tangibility .393 .040 9.73"”MI .752
Empathy H Responsiveness .520 .052 1007*“ .812
Empathy H Communication .485 .049 988*” .767
Consumables H Communication .513 .056 919*" .622
Empathy H Tangibility .359 .041 8.81 *" .678
Tangibility H Communication .422 .041 1025*" .822
Tangibility H Consumables .430 .049 8.77"" .624
Responsiveness H Communication .590 .052 l 1.43* ** 947a
Responsiveness H Consumables .491 .056 8.83“" .588
Empathy H Consumables .668 .067 999*“ .787

 

a: Assessment of discriminant validity between Responsiveness and Communication is provided in Table
43 (p. 163)
"* p < 0.001

Measurement Model Evaluation and Modification

The proposed final measurement model is comprised of eleven latent constructs and
54 observed variables. All constructs and variables in the proposed model were
presented earlier, in Table 14, and their interrelationships were depicted in Figure 9. The
perception of museum service quality (i.e., MUSEQUAL) as the second-order latent
construct, was embraced in the proposed model, which was specified by five service
quality constructs as the first-order latent constructs.

The CFA measurement model was assessed to determine whether the proposed
measurement model fit the data set by examining the model fit indices. As recommended
by other researchers (Hoyle & Panter, 1995; Hu & Bentler, 1999), five common
goodness-of-fit indices (chi-square, CFI, NNFI, RMSEA, and SRMR) about how well

the CFA model fit the data are as follows: 1) the value of the relative chi-square (xz/df)

151

should be less than 3 (Kline, 2005; Simon, & Paper, 2007); 2) the comparative fit index
(CF I) should be equal to or greater than 0.90 (Bollen, 1989; Byme, 1998; Hoyle &
Panter, 1995); 3) the non-normed fit index (NN F I) should be equal to or greater than
0.90 (Bollen, 1989; Byme, 1998; Hu & Bentler, 1999); 4) the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) should be less than 0.07 (Bollen, 1989; Byme, 1998); and

5) the standardized root mean residual (SRMR) should be less than 0.08 (Hu & Bentler,

. . 2 . .
1999). It rs 1mportant to note, however, that x has a strong tendency to indicate

significance if the sample size is large (Hair et al., 2006).

Model modification is necessary if the fit of the implied theoretical model is not as
strong as one would like (i.e., fit indices are less than recommended values). In the
process of model modification, it has been suggested that one identify low standardized
factor loadings, a high modification index and high standardized residuals, and then
delete them so as to arrive at an acceptable model fit criterion level. Specifically, the
standardized factor loadings of observed variables should be greater than 0.63, because
constructs could explain 40% of the variance of the corresponding items if the factor
loading of each item is greater than 0.63 (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). Those loadings
equal to or less than 0.63 or exceeding 1.0 should be eliminated (Hair et al., 1998). Next,
a modification is needed if a modification index (MI) between a pair of correlated error
terms exceeds 20 (Li, 2006). Last, a large standardized residual covariance between pairs
of residuals for statistical significance (i.e., t-value > 1.96 at p < .05 or 2.58 at p < .01)
should be deleted (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1984; Schumacker & Lornax, 1996) or most
standardized residuals should be less than two in absolute value with a correct model

(J oreskog & Sorbom, 1984). After removing observed variables with the above poor

152

scores (i.e., standardized factor loadings, MI, and standardized residuals), five
goodness-of-fit indices were re-estimated to create a better fitting model.

The overall goodness-of-fit indices of the CF A measurement model through
modification procedures are summarized in Table 41. In the initial estimation of the

proposed model, which was estimated with 56 observed variables, the results showed

that the proposal model was not acceptable. The chi-square (xz/df) was 2.536 and

statistically significant at p < .001, as suggested by Kline (2005). RMSEA is 0.055, less
than 0.07 as recommended by Browne and Cudeck (1993). The RMR = 0.0645 was less
than 0.08, as suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999). The t-value of each factor loading was
significant at the level of 0.05, as suggested by Byme (1998). However, two indices
provided evidence of an unacceptable model, with CFI = 0.860 and NNFI = 0.851. As a

result, there was a need for fiirther modification of the proposed model.

 

 

 

T bl 41
AaSueinmary of the Measurement Model Assessment and Modification
x2 xz/df CFI NNFI RMSEA SRMR

Proposed Model 3259 253*" 0.860 0.851 0.055 0.065
lst Modified Modela 2145 236*” 0.901 0.892 0.052 0.049
2nd Modified Modelb 1542 219*" 0.926 0.918 0.048 0.041
Final Modified Modelc 1334 209*” 0.933 0.937 0.046 0.041
Recommended valued N/A < 3.0 2 0.900 2 0.900 < 0.070 < 0.080

 

a: Deleting Pus4, PusS, Pus7, Pus8, Pull, Pul3, Pull 1, Com3 from the proposed model.
b: Deleting Pu15, Tan2, EmpS, Con2, Con4, creating the first modified model.
c: Deleting Tan3, Tan5, Res4, Empl, Com5 creating the second modified model.

*" p<.001

In the first modified model, eight observed variables with factor loadings below 0.5,

153

as suggested by Kline (2004), were eliminated, including: Pus4, PusS, Pus7, and Pus8
from the push motivation construct; Pull, Pul3, and Pull 1 from the pull motivation
construct; and Com3 from the communication construct. After eliminating eight

variables, the CFA was run with 48 variables, to estimate the first modification of the

model. The results indicated that the chi-square (xz/df) was significant at p < .001. Other

goodness-of-fit indices (CF I = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.053, SRMR = 0.05) represented a
better fit compared to the proposal model. The NNFI index still exhibited a poor fit, with
a value of 0.89, which is below the recommended value of 0.90. Thus, a second
modification was required.

In the second modified model, five observed variables were identified and deleted
because of a lower factor loading than 0.5 (Kline, 2005), including: Pu15 from the pull
motivation construct; Tan2 from the tangibility construct; Emp5 from the empathy
construct; and Con2 and Con4 from the consumables construct. After these five variables
were deleted, the CPA with 43 variables was re-run to estimate whether or not the

collected data fit the second modified model. The results showed that the chi-square

(xz/df) was significant at a level of .05. All other fit indices also showed that the data fit

the model fairly, with CFI = 0.926, NNFI = 0.918, RMSEA = 0.048, and SRMR = 0.041.
However, the high modification indices (MI) showed that the second revised model
would improve if highly correlated variables were adjusted. Moreover, covariances
between observed variables could be explained better by modifying the large
standardized residuals in this second model. Thus, an additional modification was
needed for a better fitting model.

In the third and final modified model, three sets of correlated error terms were

154

identified: 1) MI is 46.49 between the Tan3 error term and the Tan5 error term in the
tangibility construct; 2) MI is 26.96 between the Resl error term and the Res4 error term
in the responsiveness construct; and 3) MI is 24.23 between the Com5 and the Com6
error terms in the communication construct. Each pair of the terms above was
conceptually related in the underlying construct. For example, Resl “staff responds to
visitors’ requests promptly” and ResS “staff is available in a sufficient number when F
needed,” were conceptually associated with responsiveness in museum service quality. 1

One item in each set was eliminated from the same underlying construct (Li, 2006). Thus,

 

three observed variables (Tan3, Res4, Com5) were eliminated because modification '
indices (M1) were above the threshold level of 20, as suggested by Li (2006), to improve

the model fit. Additionally, the value of the standardized residual covariance between

Tan5 and Empl was 3.29 greater than the threshold level of 2.0 (Joreskog & Sorbom,

1984). Using this third revised model with 38 variables, CFA was run to re-estimate the

modified model. Results from testing this final revised model showed that the

goodness-of-fit indices and other estimated parameters and variances substantially

support that the final revised model fit the data fairly well, with xz/df = 2.09, CFI =

0.933, NNFI = 0.937, RMSEA = 0.046, and SRMR = 0.041.

In summary, 18 observed variables were eliminated because of: low factor loadings
(Pus4, Pus5, Pus7, Pus8, Pull, Pul3, Pull l, Com3, Pu15, Tan2, Emp5, Con2, and Con4),
high modification index (Tan3, Res4, and Com5), and high standardized residual
covariance (Tan5 and Empl). These deleted items were conceptually associated to some
extent with the remaining items in the underlying construct. For example, Pus4 (to have

a change from routine) was closely related to Pus6 (to enjoy new experiences), and Pus7

155

(to recover from stress and tension) is conceptually related to Pusl (to relax). The final
modified model exceeded the proposed model on all goodness-of-fit indices after two
revision processes, providing evidence to support that these model modifications were
necessary and meaningful.

Figure 10 shows the final revised measurement model. Thirty-eight observed
variables were employed as indicators of these twelve latent constructs, including one
second-order construct and eleven first-order constructs, and were used to test the

subsequent structural model.

156

 

 

E58 2552388 Rafi .3 SEE
66 680

0 _
Haas lei

0.00....

i -EE 2.8E.E 3. IE -
«f _
. . @

       

 
  

 

Sam NBA :25 inan— .msm

/
.648668468/ anew}; 4.44

 

 

157

Construct Reliability and Validity

Final results of examining the revised measurement model are summarized in Table
42, including the measurement construct and indicator, standardized factor loading,
composite reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE). These results show how
these data fit the factor model by examining construct validity and discriminant validity.
As presented earlier in Table 34 (p. 139), all constructs were above the threshold level of
0.6 (01 _>_ 0.6), which is a criterion for reliability (F omell & Larcker, 1981). The main
criterion for construct reliability is the index of composite reliability (CR), which needs
to be greater than 0.7 and is more robust than Cronbach’s alpha (F omell & Larcker,
1981). Construct validity was evaluated by examining the item loadings and their
associated t-values, as well as the composite reliabilities and average variance extracted.

Table 42 presents all forty-three item loadings, which ranged from 0.640 to 0.971 ,
indicating that constructs provided a better explanation of the variance for the
corresponding items when the factor loading of each item was greater than 0.63
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). All loadings in the final CFA were significant, with a
standardized loading of at least 0.640, and t-values were all significant as well, at the
level of a = 0.001; this is evidence of convergent validity (Bagozzi et al., 1991; Fomell
and Larcker, 1981). The composite reliability value ranged from 0.721 to 0904-—
greater than 0.70 (Fomell & Larcker, 1981)—demonstrating reliable factors and an
internal consistency for all items. Moreover, the average variance extracted (AVE)
ranged from 0.518 through to 0.929 for all values, which exceeded 50% (Barclay et al.,
1995), indicating that the measurement error variance was less than the variance

captured by the latent variable, and that measurement error was not driving the results.

158

Table 42
Final Measurement Model (n = 512)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Factor Composite Average
Construct & Indicators Loading 0‘) t-value Reliability Variance
Extracted
First-order Constructs
Push Motivation 0.880 0.595
Pusl 0.776 19.963
PusZ 0.797 20.764
Pus3 0.783 20.249
Pus6 0.781 20.162
Pus9 0.709 17.606
Pull Motivation 0.871 0.529
Pu12 0.751 19.063
Pul4 0.754 19.179
Pul6 0.783 20.228
Pu|7 0.677 16.569
Pu19 0.708 17.586
Pu110 0.677 16.564
T angibility 0.768 0.524
Tanl 0.745 14.430
Tan4 0.708 A set to 1
Tan6 0.710 13.890
Responsiveness 0.833 0.556
Resl 0.722 it set to 1
Res2 0.703 15.11 1
Res3 0.810 17.374
ResS 0.744 15.999
Empathy 0.769 0.526
Emp3 0.702 A set to 1
Emp4 0.772 14.872
Emp6 0.695 13.689
Communication 0.811 0.518
Coml 0.703 it set to 1
Com2 0.668 14.079
Com4 0.735 15.432
Com6 0.761 15.949
Consumables 0.806 0.581
Conl 0.721 A set to l
Con3 0.786 15.179
Con5 0.773 15.033
Perception of Value 0.904 0.701
PVl 0.775 20.296
PV2 0.871 24.366
PV3 0.851 23 .404
PV4 0.862 23.887

 

159

Table 42 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

Factor Composite Average
Construct & Indicators Loading 0‘) t-value Reliability Variance
Extracted
Loyalty 0.827 0.618
Loyl 0.841 21.970
Loy2 0.859 22.636
Loy3 0.640 15.263
Past Ewerience 0.721 0.564
PEI 0.790 15.935
PE2 0.710 14.612
Overall Satisfaction a 0.929 0.929
Satl 0.964 29.736
Secogd-order Construct
Service Quality 0.936 0.746
Tangibility 0.838 14.609
Responsiveness 0.939 17.059
Empathy 0.849 14.698
Communication 0.971 16.987
Consumables 0.690 12.574

 

a: Set the error variance of overall satisfaction equal to 0 or 0.05 when there is one latent “overall
satisfaction” with only one observed variable “Satl ,” as suggested by Wu (2008).

Discriminant Validity

Two test methods of examining discriminant validity were used in this study,
including a chi-square difference test (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi & Phillip,
1982) for the five second-order constructs in this study, and a comparison between the
square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) and correlations (Fomell and
Larcker, 1981) for the seven first-order constructs. Each of them can achieve the purpose
of examining the discriminant validity as discussed below:

Discriminant validity of five first-order constructs for second-order MUSEQUAL.
All five second-order constructs were verified to be separate factors (i.e., to exhibit

construct discriminant validity) by conducting a series of chi-square difference tests. The

2 . . . .
x value was generated for the constrained model by constraimng the correlation

160

parameter to 1, indicating that the correlation between the two constructs is perfect.

Similarly, the x2 value was generated for the unconstrained model for which the

correlation parameter was not manipulated. Discriminant validity between the pair of
constructs is achieved if the chi-square difference (with 1 d1) between the constrained
and unconstrained model is significant, indicating that the model in which the two
constructs are viewed as distinct (but correlated) is superior (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988;
Bagozzi & Phillip, 1982). As presented earlier in Table 40 (p. 151), the estimated
correlations between ten pairs of second-order constructs were not excessively high
except for the correlation (0.947) between responsiveness and communication. Thus, a
stronger test method, the chi-square difference test suggested here, was further used to

assess the discriminant validity of the five second-order constructs in this study. As

presented in Table 43, all x2 differences ranged from 17.0 through 94.3, which all

exceeded x2 (1) = 3.841 at the 0.05 level of significance, demonstrating that discriminant

validity existed among these five constructs.

161

Table 43

Chi-Square Difference Test for Assessing Discriminant Validities

 

Construct pair

Unctzinstrained model
x ( 109) = 363.6

 

Constrained model

Chi-square gifference

 

x2( 110) Ax
(Tangibility, Responsiveness) 453.8 90.2*
(Tangibility, Empathy) 457.9 94.3*
(Tangibility, Communication) 446.4 82.8“
(Tangibility, Consumables) 427.1 635*
(Responsiveness, Empathy) 407.4 43.8*
(Responsiveness, Communication) 399.7 36.1*
(Responsiveness, Consumables) 407.5 43.9“
(Empathy, Communication) 418.7 55.1"
(Empathy, Consumables) 380.6 170*
(Communication, Consumables) 406.0 42.4*

 

*p<005

Discriminant validity of seven first-order constructs for the entire model. An

alternative test method of examining the discriminant validity was used by comparing

the square root of the average variance extracted for a given construct with the

correlations between that construct and all other constructs. Discriminant validity was
supported by the square root of the average variance extracted, which was greater than
absolute correlations between two constructs (Fomell and Larcker, 1981). Table 44
shows that the diagonal elements have been replaced by the square roots of AVE. All
square roots of AVE on the diagonal ranged from 0.77 to 0.96, which were greater than
their correlation coefficients off the diagonal; these ranged from 0.16 through 0.71,

indicating that each construct shared more variance with its items than it did with other

COI‘ISII'UCIS .

162

Table 44
Summary of Discriminant Validities and Correlations

 

Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Push 0.778

2. Pull 0.57*** 0.73

3. PE 044*" 0.54m 0.75

4. MUSEQUAL 0.16" 0.53M 0.43*** 0.97

5.PV 0.22W 0.42*** 0.321M 0.66*** 0.84

6.Sat 0.16*** 036*" 028*“ 0.57*** 0.62*** 0.96

7.Loy 0.17m 0.47M 0.37m 0.59m 0.71m 0.59*** 0.79

 

 

a: The bold numbers on the diagonal are the square root of Average Variance Extracted (AVE); off
diagonal numbers are the correlations among constructs.
"p < 0.01, *" p < 0.001.

In sum, all five second-order constructs for the second-order MUSEQUAL, and
seven first-order constructs for the entire model in this study passed the test of
convergence validity and discriminant validity, indicating that the final modified
measurement model possessed construct validity and reliability. A final step, to be
followed by measurement model testing and model modification, was testing structural
equation analysis with. the entire group of samples (n = 512), which is discussed in the

next section.

163

Testing the Hypothesized Structural Model
Structural equation modeling (SEM) has been considered an effective way to test
specified theories prescribing associations between underlying constructs and observed
variables that are indicators of latent variables (Hoyle, 1995; Joreskog, 1995). In this
study, SEM was used to test ten cause-and-effect hypotheses among twelve latent
constructs, which were drawn from theories and models, as mentioned previously.

Overall goodness-of fit statistics, hypotheses testing and path analysis are discussed

 

below.

Overall Goodness-off it of the Structural Equation Model
The proposed structural model presented earlier in Figure 9 (p. 99) was analyzed
here using the refined constructs and variables that resulted from the processes of the

measurement analysis. The overall goodness-of-fit statistics for the structural model

showed a moderate fit of the data to the model with 12 = 1475.6 (df = 650, p < 0.001),

xz/df= 2.27, CFI = 0.921, NNFI = 0.914, RMSEA = 0.050, and SRMR = 0.0781). A

summary of the goodness-of—fit statistics for the structural model as well as the final

measurements are presented in Table 45.

164

Table 45
Summary of Goodness-of Fit Indices for the Final Measurement and Structural Models

 

Model x2 at ledf CFI NNFI RMSEA SRMR

 

Second-order
measurement model 447.96 1 14 2.930 0.922 0.907 0.076 0.051
of MUSEQUAL

Overall revised

1334.36 640 2.085 0.933 0.927 0.046 0.041
measurement model

Structural model 1475.57 650 2.270 0.921 0.914 0.050 0.078

 

Recogmznded N/A N/A <3.00 20.90 20.900 <0.070 <0.030

 

Research Hypotheses Testing and Path Coefficients

Ten sets of research hypotheses (twelve hypotheses in all) were proposed and tested
for their causal relationships, using structural equation modeling. The causation between
the constructs was identified by estimated path coefficients (i.e., [3), standard errors and
t-values (Byme, 1998; Hair et al., 1998). Test results, along with associated path
coefficients, are discussed below.

Hypothesis 1 .' Museum visitors ’ push motivations positively affect their pull
motivations at the pre-visit stage is supported by the test results. The SEM analysis
indicated that the path coefficient from push motivations to pull motivations (push
motivations —> pull motivations) was statistically significant at the 0.001 level, having a
strong and positive causation (B = 0.57, t = 10.39, p < 0.001). Specifically, museum
visitors who had high scores on internal motivations, such as “to relax” and “to be with
people who enjoy the same things I do,” would also have high scores on pull motivations,

such as to visit a museum with “a comfortable environment” and “enjoyable activities.”

165

Hypothesis 2alt: Museum visitors ’ push motivations negatively affect their
perceptions of service quality in the museum at the post-visit stage is supported by the
test results. The path coefficient from push motivations to visitors’ perceptions of service
quality (push motivations —+ perceptions of service quality) was significant at the 0.001
level, demonstrating a moderate and positive causation ([3 = —0.24, t = —3.95, p < 0.001).
Accordingly, the results showed that if museum visitors had a higher push motivation
score before their visits, they would have a lower score on perception of museum service
quality after their visit.

Hypothesis 3 .' Museum visitors ’ pull motivations positively affect their perceptions
of service quality in the museum at the post-visit stage is supported by the test results.
The path coefficient from pull motivations to visitors’ perceptions of service quality
(pull motivations —> perceptions of service quality) was significant at the 0.00] level,
having a strong and positive causation (B = 0.59, t = 7.88, p < 0.001). Museum visitors
with higher pull motivation score also gave the higher score for museum service quality
on factors such as tangibility, responsiveness, empathy, communication, and
consumables.

Hypothesis 4 .' Museum visitors ’ perceptions of service quality at the post-visit stage
positively affect their overall satisfaction is supported by the test results. The path
coefficient from perceptions of service quality to visitors’ overall satisfaction
(perceptions of service quality —> overall satisfaction) was significant at the 0.00] level,
having a positive causation (B = 0.23, t = 3.92, p < 0.001). It was supported that if
museum visitors experienced a higher quality of museum service, their overall

satisfaction with their museum visits was higher.

166

Hypothesis 5: Museum visitors ’ past experiences at the pre-visit stage positively
affect their perceptions of service quality at the post-visit stage is supported by the test
results. The path coefficient from past experience to visitors’ perceptions of service
quality (past experience —+ perceptions of service quality) was significant at the 0.001
level, showing a positive causal relationship ([3 = 0.11, t = 2.33, p < 0.05). Specifically,
this result supported that if museum visitors felt satisfied with their past experiences in
visiting museums, they were more likely to have a positive perception of service quality.

Hypothesis 6: Museum visitors ’ past experiences at the pre-visit stage positively
affect their intentions to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or gain a
membership in the future is supported by the test results. The path coefficient from past
experience to visitors’ museum loyalty (past experience —> museum loyalty) was
significant at the 0.001 level, having a moderate and positive causation (B = 0.37, t =
5.27, p < 0.001). This result supported that museum visitors who felt satisfied with their
past experiences in visiting museums were likely to express loyalty to the museums they
had visited.

Hypothesis 7.‘ Museum visitors ’ perceptions of service quality at the post-visit stage
positively affect their perceptions of value of their museum experiences at the post-visit
stage is supported by the test result. The path coefficient from perceptions of service
quality to visitors’ perceptions of value (perceptions of service quality —» perceptions of
value) was significant at the 0.001 level, having a strong and positive causation (B = 0.65,
t = 10.03, p < 0.001). This result supported that if museum visitors experienced a high
quality of museum service, they gave a high score on their perceptions of the value of

their museum experiences.

167

Hypothesis 8: Museum visitors ’ perceptions of value of their museum experiences at
the post-visit stage positively affect their overall satisfaction is supported by the test
results. The path coefficient from visitors’ perceptions of value to their overall
satisfaction (perceptions of value —+ overall satisfaction) was significant at the 0.001
level, having a strong and positive causation ([3 = 0.55, t = 8.07, p < 0.001). This result
indicated that, when museum visitors experienced a higher perception of value in their
museum experiences, they had greater overall satisfaction with their museum visits.

Hypothesis 9: Museum visitors ' perceptions of value of their museum experiences at
the post-visit stage positively affect their intentions to return, to recommend visiting to
others, and to renew or gain membership in the future is supported by the test results.
The path coefficient from visitors’ perceptions of value to their museum loyalty
(perceptions of value —> museum loyalty) was significant at the 0.01 level, having a
strong and positive causation (B = 0.50, t = 3.22, p < 0.01). The result supported that
museum visitors who experienced a high perception of value in their museum
experiences were also likely to express an intention to return, to recommend the museum
visiting to others, and to renew or gain membership in the future.

Hypothesis 10: Museum visitors’ overall satisfaction at the post-visit stage
positively affects their intentions to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew
or gain membership in the future is supported by the test results. The path coefficient
from visitors’ overall satisfaction to their loyalty (overall satisfaction —> museum loyalty)
was significant at the 0.001 level, having a moderate and positive causation (B = 0.28, t =
2.12, p < 0.05). This result supported that, as museum visitors experienced high overall

satisfaction with their museum visits, their loyalty to the museums increased.

168

A summary of the above ten sets of hypothesis test results is presented in Table 46.
Overall, all of the ten cause-effect hypotheses were supported with a positive, moderate
or strong association (most values of B 2 0.25) except that the path coefficient of the link
between push motivations and perceptions of service quality is negative (B = -—0.28) and
the path coefficient of the link between past experience and museum loyalty is slight
(B = 0.1 1). Figure l 1 shows graphically the resulting path coefficients of the structural

model.

169

Table 46

Summary of the Tested Hypotheses 1—10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research . Expected Path Std.
hypothesis HypotheSlzed path sign coefficient t-value Error Results
Push Motivations 9 H. 0.047
H1 Pull Motivations + 0.57 10.39 Supported
3 Push Motivations 9
H2 alt Perception of Service + (_) ~0.24 -3.95*** 0.053 Supported
Quality
Pull Motivations 9
H3b Perception of Service + (_) 0.59 788*” 0.078 Supported
Quallty
Past Experience 9
H4 Perception of Service + 0.23 392*" 0-058 Supported
Quality
Past Experience —) + I, 0.020
H5 Museum Loyalty 0.11 2.33 Supported
Perception of Service
H6 Quality -> + 0.37 527m 0066 Supported
Overall Satisfaction
Perception of Service
H7 Quality -> + 0.65 1003*" 0-080 Supported
Perception of Value
Perception of Value
H8 -> Overall + 0.55 807“" 0-051 Supported
Satisfaction
Overall Satisfaction + H 0.051
H9 _) Museum Loyalty 0.50 3.22 Supported
H10 Perceptlon 0f Value + 0.28 2.12* 0.131 Supported

9 Museum Loyalty

 

a: The competing hypothesis of HZalt is H2: Museum visitors ’ push motivations positively affect their

perceptions of service quality in the museum at the post-visit stage.

b: The competing hypothesis of H3 is H3alt: Museum visitors ' pull motivations negatively aflect their

perceptions of service quality in the museum at the post-visit stage.

‘p < 0.05, "p < 0.01, *** p < 0,00],

170

      
   

 

   
    
 

Push Perception
Motivation of Value
-0.24*** 0.65" 0'28]:
057"“ 055*"
P t' 037*“ 0.50"
Pull ercep lon Overall

      

of Service

Quality

 
 

Motivation Satisfaction

 
    

025*"

0.11"

 
  
 

  

Past
Experience

  

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, m p < 0.001.

Figure 11. Summary of tested hypotheses (H1—H10)

Path Effects Analysis

In this study, museum loyalty is the final outcome or consequence variable,
determined directly and indirectly through six constructs (push motives, pull motives,
perception of service quality, past experiences, perception of value, overall satisfaction).
The total path effects of the six constructs on museum loyalty, including indirect effects,

direct effects and total effects, were estimated based on the test results of the structural

model (see Table 47).

171

Table 47
Path Effects on Museum Loyalty

 

Hypothesized path Indirect effect Direct effect Total effect

 

Push Motivation

 

 

 

 

 

—> Museum Loyalty 0'057 _ 00”
Tthggh‘hjtfgalty 0'327 - 03”
ESQEZEEQCEZSMW 0. 136 0. 106 0.242
if”fi§§itl.°£§§£l€§’°”"“y —
Tfigggwizjgr; 0.279 0.281 0.560
Overall Satisfaction _ 0.504 0504

—> Museum Loyalty

 

 

First, push motivation had no direct effect on museum loyalty; the total effect of
push motivation on museum loyalty was weak (0.057). On the other hand, the total effect
(only through the indirect effect) of pull motivation on museum loyalty was stronger
(0.327) than that of push motivation. Next, past experiences with museum visits had a
significant impact on museum loyalty, with a total effect (indirect and direct effect) of
0.242. Further, the perception of service quality had a strong total effect (indirect effect
only) with 0.550 on museum loyalty, indicating that MUSEQUAL played a substantial
mediator role in the model, especially between pull motivation and museum loyalty. The
perception of value had a higher (0.560) total effect (indirect and direct effect) on
museum loyalty than the other five constructs, which indicated that perception of value
was an important mediator among three constructs (pull motivation, past experiences,
perception of service quality) and museum loyalty. Finally, the overall satisfaction also

had a substantial total effect (direct effect only) on museum loyalty (0.504).

172

Examination of Moderating Effects

Three moderator variables and nine hypotheses are addressed in this section. The
moderating effects of visitor type (member and nonmember, adult and discount ticket)
and length of stay on three causal relationships were assessed to determine any
significant differences across groups, including the relationship between perception of
service quality and overall satisfaction, and the relationship between overall satisfaction
and museum loyalty. A specific discussion is provided below.
Measurement In variance Analysis

It is necessary to assess factor invariance of the measurement prior to comparisons
between groups because there is reason to believe that the structure of the compared
construct is not equal across groups (Nuevo et al., 2008). This study statistically
compared the equivalence of the factor structures across two samples by following the
guidelines suggested by Joreskog (1971) and elaborated by Byme, Shavelson, and
Muthen (1989). Factor structure equivalence was tested across the two groups by
constraining the item loadings, the factor covariances, and the factor variances across
groups known to be equal, and then testing the hypotheses of equal lambdas, covariances,
and variances (Byme et al., 1989). The number (a minimum of 101) of respondents in
each subgroup in three models was greater than 100, as mentioned earlier (Ding et al.,
1996), indicating the adequacy of fit assessment. Table 48 indicates that most of the
items in each construct exhibit equivalent factor loadings (i.e., full invariance) across
samples except for a few constructs that had a partial invariance in these three models
(adult ticket vs. discount ticket model, nonmember vs. member model, short stay vs.

long stay model).

173

Table 48
Test Results of Measurement Invariance across Groups

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Equivalent of A across Equivalent of it across Equivalent of A across
. Visitor-T Grou s Visitor-T Grou s Len h of Sta Grou s
C°“s"“°‘ 8‘ Ind'cam (Noumemiepf/n = 4il; (Adult/yup: 289; p (gshorr/n =y256; p
Member/n = 101) Discount/n = 122) Long/n = 256)
First-order Constructs
Push Motivation
Pusl Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Pu52 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) No (p < 0.05)
Pus3 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Pus6 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Pus9 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes Q) > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Full or partial invariance Full invariance Full invariance Partial invariance
Pull Motivation
Pu12 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) No (p < 0.05)
Pul4 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Pul6 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Pul7 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Pul9 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
PullO Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
F all or partial invariance F all invariance Full invariance Partial invariance
Past Experience
PEI Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
PE2 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Full or partial invariance Full invariance Full invariance F all invariance
MUSEQUAL
Tangibility Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Responsiveness Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Empathy Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Communication Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Consumables Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
F all or partial invariance Full invariance F all invariance Full invariance
Perception of Value
PV1 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
PV2 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
PV3 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
PV4 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Full or partial invariance Full invariance Full invariance Full invariance
Overall Satisfaction
Satl Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Full or partial invariance Full invariance Full invariance Full invariance

 

174

Table 48 (cont’d)

 

Equivalent of A across

Equivalent of A across

Equivalent of A across

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Visitor-T Grou s Visitor-T Grou s Len of Sta Gr u s
COMM“ & [“d'ca‘m (Nonmembgf/n = 41131; (Adult/yup: 289; p (:Slliort/n 3256? p
Member/n = 101) Discount/n = 122) Long/n = 256)
Loyalty
Loyl Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Loy2 No (p < 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Loy3 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Full or partial invariance Partial invariance Full invariance Full invariance Fe
Second-order Construct
Tangibility
Tanl No (p < 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Tan4 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Tan6 A set to 1 (‘Not tested) A set to 1 (Not tested) A set to 1 (Not tested) i—
F all or partial invariance Partial invariance Full invariance Full invariance l
Responsiveness
Resl Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
ResZ Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Res3 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Res5 A set to 1 (Not tested) A set to 1 (Not tested) A set to 1 (Not tested)
Full or partial invariance Full invariance Full invariance Full invariance
Empathy
Emp3 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Emp4 No (p < 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Emp6 A set to I (Not tested) A set to 1 (Not tested) A set to 1 (Not tested)
Full or partial invariance Partial invariance Full invariance Full invariance
Communication
Coml Yes (p > 0.05) No (p < 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Com2 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Com4 No (p < 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Com6 A set to 1 (Not tested) A set to 1 (Not tested) A set to 1 (Not tested)
Full or partial invariance Partial invariance Partial invariance Full invariance
Consumables
Conl A set to 1 (Not tested) A set to 1 (Not tested) A set to 1 (Not tested)
Con3 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05)
Con5 Yes (p > 0.05) Yes (p > 0.05) No (p < 0.05)

F all or partial invariance

 

Full invariance

 

Full invariance

 

Partial invariance

 

The constructs with inequivalent factor loadings (i.e., partial invariance) include:

one item (Item Coml) in the communication construct in the adult-discount ticket model;

175

four items (Item Tanl, Emp4, Com4, Loy2) in the “tangibility,” “empathy,”
“communication,” and “loyalty” constructs, respectively, in the nonmember-member
model; and three items (Item Pus2, Pu12, ConS) in the “push,” “pull,” and

“consumables” constructs, respectively, in the length-of-stay model. Overall, the test

. . . 6
results demonstrated support for full measurement and partlal measurement 1nvar1ance

for the three models (Byrne et al., 1989; VandeWalle, 1997; Watson, Meade, Surface, &

I K una— i‘fififi l!

VandeWalle). Thus, an examination of moderating effects across groups was further
conducted and explained in the next section.
Moderating Effect of Visitor Type (Nonmember and Member)

Visitor type by membership status was used as a moderator of three paths
(perception of service quality-overall satisfaction, overall satisfaction-museum loyalty,
and perception of value-museum loyalty) in the structural model. In this study, all
respondents were split into two subgroups: member group (those who had NMNS
membership, with a total number of 101) and nonmember group (those who purchased
adult and discount ticket, with a total number of 41 l). A multiple group analysis within
Amos was used to assess the moderator variable effects of visitor type on the structural
model (Byme, 2001) by comparing the two subsamples (i.e., adult ticket vs. discount
ticket). The examination of the moderating effect was conducted in a three-step approach
suggested by Li (2006) and Kim (2007). Two structural models were created for a

comparison of statistics. The first model was an unconstrained model in which path

 

Full invariance (Past Experience , MUSEQUAL, Empathy, Communication, Consumables, Perception
of Value, Overall Satisfaction) and partial invariance (Push, Pull, Loyalty, Tangibility, Responsiveness)
were found between pilot study (n = 389) and formal study (n = 512).

176

coefficients were allowed to vary across two subgroups (member vs. nonmember). The
second model was a constrained model in which path coefficients were constrained to be
equal across the two subgroups.

The next step was to test the difference between the unconstrained and constrained

models. The chi-square value (x2) difference was determined to compare the x2 values of

the unconstrained structural model and the constrained structural model. The

unconstrained model has less degree of freedom than the constrained model, so the

x2 value would always be lower for the unconstrained model than for the constrained

model. If x2 improved significantly when moving from the unconstrained model to the

constrained model, the testing moderator variable would have had a differential effect on

the tested causal path, and could be confirmed as a moderator. Table 49 shows that the
x2 value for the unconstrained and the constrained models were 2355.91 (df = 1300) and
2428.97 (df = 1341), respectively. The difference between the two x2 values was 73.06

with 41 degrees of freedom, which was statistically significant at the level of a = 0.01

(p < 0.001), indicating that membership status had a moderating effect on the structural

 

 

 

model.
Table 49
Results of the Moderating Effects of Visitor Lype (Member and Nonmember)
Unconstrained Partial constrained x2 Moderating
model model difference effect
2 2 73.06
: . l : 242 . 7
X2 ((11) X 2355 9 X 8 9 (df = 41) Supported
(df= 1300) (df= 1341) p = 0.0024...
Note. x2 (df= 41 ) = 56.94 at a = 0.05.
"p < 0.01.

177

The second step was to test the difference in the individual paths. The chi-square
difference was performed again to test for moderating effects on three targeted paths
(PSQ ——» Sat, Sat ——2 Loy, and PV —+ Loy). Table 50 indicates that the influence of visitor
type on the causal relationship between perception of service quality (PSQ) and overall

satisfaction (Sat) was significantly different between the adult ticket group and the
discount ticket group, with Ax2(1) = 0.94, p > 0.05. As a result, hypothesis 11a: Visitor
type (member and nonmember) moderates the effect of museum visitors ’ perceptions of

service quality on the overall satisfaction with the quality of museum service at the

post-visit stage was not supported.

 

 

 

 

Table 50
Chi-Square Difference Test Results for Moderating Effects of Membership Status
Hypothesized Unconstrained Partial constrained 12 Moderating
moderated path model modela difference effect
2 2 of — 0 94
b x = 2355.91 x = 2356 85 ' '
HI la: PSQ -—> Sat = = ' (df= 1) Not Supported
(df 1300) (df 1301) p = 0.332
2 2 ME — 4 07
C d : . = . - .
H12a: Sat —» Loy xdf _ 3:: 9' 7: df 3333198 (df=.- ” Supported
( ‘ ) ( ' ) p=0.044*
2
2 2 Ax = 6.23
e x = 2355.91 x = 2362.14 S rt d
H13a: PV —> Loy = ___ (df= 1) “PP0 e
(df 1300) (df 1301) p = 0.012,

 

Note. x2 (df= 1) = 3.34 at or = 0.05; *p < 0.05.

a: Partial constrained model means that “only the target path coefficient (PSQ-Sat, Sat-Loy, PV-Loy) was
set to be equal for cross-group data sets” (Kim, 2007)

b: “PSQ” indicates perception of service quality.

c: “Sat” indicates overall satisfaction.

d: “Loy” indicates museum loyalty.

e: “PV” indicates perception of value.

178

Next, the effect of visitor type in terms of the possession of NMNS membership on

the causal relationship between overall satisfaction (Sat) and muselnn loyalty (Loy) was

significantly different between the member group and nonmember group, with sz (1) =

4.07, p < 0.05. Hypothesis 12a: Visitor type (member and nonmember) moderates the
effect of museum visitors ’ overall satisfaction with quality of museum service on their
intentions to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or gain membership
in the future was supported. This study found that the moderating effect of visitor type

(member and nonmember) on the relationships between perception of value (PV) and

museum loyalty (Loy) was significantly different between two groups, with [3780) =

6.23, p < 0.05. Thus, hypothesis13b: Visitor type (member and nonmember) moderates

the effect of museum visitors ’ perceptions of value of their museum experiences on their
intentions to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or gain membership
in the future was supported.

The third step was to compare the path coefficient between the two groups. The
independent t-value was employed to compare two path coefficients within the Amos
program. Table 51 indicates that the effect of overall satisfaction on museum loyalty was
stronger in the nonmember group (B = 0.68, t = 1.63, p < 0.001) than the effect in the
member group (B = 0.44, t = 2.69, p < 0.05), and the effect of perception of value was
stronger in the member group (B = 0.56, t = 5.63, p < 0.001) than the effect in the
nonmember group (B = 0.23, t = 2.61 , p < 0.05). The results of the three moderating

effects are shown in Figure 12.

179

Table 51
Comparison Results of Path Coefficients and T-Value (Member and Nonmember)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Member Nonmember Comparison
Hypothesized
moderated path Path - Path _ a b
coefficient t value coefficient t value (M ’ NM )
H1 lb: PSQ —+ Sat 0.272 1.974“ 0.401 4939*" M = NM
H12b: Sat —> Loy 0.441 2.694* 0.676 3.6] l*** M < NM
Hl3b: PV —r Loy 0.561 5.627 *** 0.232 2.605* M > NM

 

a: “M” indicates member group.
b: “NM” indicates nonmember group.
‘p < 0.05, *" p < 0.001.

 
      
  
 

Push
Motivation

Perception
of Value

: 0.56
NM : 0.23

 

 
  

     
 

Perception

   
  

    
 

 

 

Pull of Service Overall
Motivation Quality Satisfaction
\
‘\ NM : 0.6.
‘ H12a
\
x
\
\\
Past H118 \
Experlence Visitor type
(Member &
Nonmember)

 

——* Bold line indicates path is significant

------ > Indicates path is not significant

 

 

 

Figure 12. Results of the moderating effects with the hypotheses (H11a—H13a)

180

Moderating Effect of Visitor Type (Adult and Discount Ticket)

This study used another visitor characteristic—ticket type—as a moderator of three
paths (perception of service quality-overall satisfaction, overall satisfaction-museum
loyalty, and perception of value-museum loyalty) in the structural model. In this study,
visitors who purchased different tickets were split into two subgroups: those buying
full-priced adult tickets for those who are Taiwanese citizens, aged 20 to 64 years old,
with a sample size of 289; and those buying discount tickets for students who are
Taiwanese citizens, aged 20 years or more, and government employees, with a sample size
of122.

Similar to that used in analyzing the moderating effect of member and nonmember
model, a three-step approach was used to test the moderating effect of ticket type. First,

the chi-square difference was performed to test the difference between the unconstrained
and constrained models. Table 52 shows that the x2 values of the unconstrained and the
constrained models were 2415.24 (df = 1300) and 2482.50 (df = 1341), respectively. The
difference between the two x2 values was 67.26 with 41 degrees of freedom, which was

statistically significant at the level of a = 0.01 (p < .01), indicating that visitor type had a

moderating effect on the structural model.

 

 

 

Table 52
Results of the Moderating Effects of Visitor Type (Adult and Discount Ticket)
Unconstrained Constrained X2 Moderating
model model difference effect
2 2 67.26
(df= 1300) (df= 1341) p = 0.006"

 

Note. x2 (df= 41) = 56.94 at or = 0.05.
"p < 0.01.

181

Next, the chi-square difference was performed again to test for the moderating
effects on three hypothesized paths of PSQ —-> Sat, Sat —* Loy, and PV —-> Loy. Table 53

indicates that the effect of ticket type on the causal relationship between PSQ and Sat

was not significantly different between the member group and nonmember group, Ax2(1)

 

 

 

 

= 6.14, p < 0.001.
Table 53
Chi-Square Difference Test Results for Moderating Effects of Ticket Type
Hypothesized Unconstrained Partial 2 Moderating
moderated path model constrained model difference effect
2 2 sz = 614
H1 lb: PSQ -—> Sat A d:-2:33024 X df=-2:§0138 (df= 1) Supported
( ' ) ( ‘ ) p=0.013*
2 2 of = 0 66
H12b: Sat —r Loy X (1:33:64 A dfzfggigo (df= 1) Not Supported
( — ) ( _- ) p = 0417
2 2 M = 0 54
“Bum/am x =2415.24 x :2415.78 _ -
y (df= 1300) (df= 1301) W - 1) NO‘ S“PP°”ed
p = 0.463

 

Note. x2 (df= 1) = 3.84 at a = 0.05.
*p < 0.05.

As a result, hypothesis 1] b: Visitor type (adult and discount ticket) moderates the
effect of museum visitors ’ perceptions of service quality on the overall satisfaction with
the quality of museum service at the post-visit stag was supported. Further, the effect of
visitor type in terms of the possession of NMNS membership on the causal relationship

between overall satisfaction (Sat) and museum loyalty (Loy) was significantly different

between the member group and nonmember group, with Ax2(1) = 0.66, p > 0.05.

182

Hypothesis] 2b: Visitor type (adult and discount ticket) moderates the eflect of museum
visitors’ overall satisfaction with the quality of museum service on their intentions to
return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or gain membership in the future
was not supported. Next, this study found that the moderating effect of visitor type

(member and nonmember) on the relationships between perception of value (PV) and

museum loyalty (Loy) was significantly different between two groups, with Ax2(1) =

0.54, p > 0.05. Hypothesis13b: Visitor type (adult and discount ticket) moderates the
effect of museum visitors ' perceptions of value of their museum experiences on their
intentions to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or gain membership
in the future was not supported.

Last, Table 54 indicates that the effect of the perception of service quality on
overall satisfaction was stronger in the adult ticket group (B = 0.42, t = 4.07, p< 0.001)
than in the discount ticket group (B = 0.30, t = 3.08, p < 0.01). The results of the three

moderating effects are shown in Figure 13.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 54
Comparison Results of Path Coefficients and T-Value (Adult and Discount Ticket)
Adult ticket Discount ticket Comparison
Hypothesized
moderated path Path _ Path _ a b
coefficient t value coefficient t value (A ’ D )
Hlla: PSQ —> Sat 0.421 4.066*** 0.303 3.081“ A > D
H128: Sat -* Loy 0.536 3.073" 0.438 1.315 A = D
Hl3a: PV -r Loy 0.364 1.708" 0.184 1.153 A = D

 

a: “A” indicates adult ticket group.
b: “D” indicates discount ticket group.
"p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

183

 

Push Perception

 

 

 
     
 

        
     

Motivation of Value
4
l
Perception :
Pull of Service Overall
Motivation Quality Satisfaction A l
l l
l l
l
l
l l
l l Hl3b
H12b: :
H 1 1b ' l
l 1
Adult: 0.42 l t

Past
Discount: 0.30

    
 

Experience

  

Visitor type
(Adult & Discount
ticket buyers)

   
   

 

——-—> Bold line indicates path is significant

------ > Indicates path is not significant

 

 

 

Figure 13. Results of the moderating effects with the hypotheses (H11b-H13b)

Moderating Effect of Length of Stay

Thisistudy examined the moderating effects of visitors’ length of stay on three
hypothesized paths (PSQ —> Sat, Sat —2 Loy, and PV —+ Loy). Visitors were split into
two groups based on median length of stay, which was 1.5 hour: short stay visitors (those
who stayed from 0.6 hour to less than 1.5 hours in the NMN S museum) and long stay

visitors (those who stayed from 1.5 hours to less than 5.2 hours).

184

 

The same three procedures as for the above two moderating effects were

manipulated to examine the moderating effect of membership. Table 55 shows that the
difference between the x2 values of the unconstrained model (2338.35, df = 1300) and
the constrained models (2402.29, df = 1341) was 63.94 with 41 degrees of freedom,

which was statistically significant at the level of a = 0.05 (p < .05), demonstrating a

moderating effect of visitors’ length of stay between two groups.

 

 

 

Table 55
Results of the Moderating Effects of Length of Stay
Unconstrained Partial constrained X2 Moderating
model model difference effect
2 2 63.94
X2 (df) x = 2338.35 x = 2402.29 (df= 4|) Supported
(df=1300) (df= 1341) p=0.012*

 

Note. x2 (df= 41) = 56.94 at a = 0.05.
*p < 0.05.

Table 56 showed the test results of the chi-square difference for the moderating

effects on three paths. The moderating effect of length of stay on the path of PSQ -—+ Sat

was significant ([8980) = 3.93, p < 0.05) between the short and long stay groups,
supporting hypothesis 14: The length of visitors ’ stay in museums moderates the effect of
museum visitors ’ perceptions of service quality on the overall satisfaction with the

quality of museum service at the post-visit stage in which the relationship is likely to be

positively stronger for visitors’ lengthy stays in the museum than for shorter stays.

185

Table 56
Chi-Square Difference Test Results for Moderating Effects of Length of Stay

 

2

 

 

 

Hypothesized Unconstrained Partial X. Moderating
moderated path model constrained model difference effect
2 2 Ax: = 3.93
H14: PSQ —> Sat x(df==zl’3303)s x(d:=2:;:‘12)1 (df= 1) Supported
p = 0.0474*
2 2 Ax2 = 1.01
H15: Sat —v Loy X(df:2f:g()3)5 X(df:=2133”313)6 (df= 1) Not Supported
p = 0.315
2 2 sz = 4.58
H16: PV —r Loy x = 2338.35 x = 2342.93 (df= 1) Supported
(df= 1300) (df= 1301) p = 0.032,,

 

Note. x2 (df= 1) = 3.84 at or = 0.05.
*p < 0.05.

On the other hand, hypothesis 15: The length of visitors ’ stay in museums
moderates the effect of museum visitors ’ overall satisfaction with quality of museum
service on their intentions to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or
gain membership in the future in which the relationship is likely to be positively stronger

for visitors ’ lengthy stays in the museum than for shorter stays was not supported, with

13780) = 1.01, p > 0.05. As for the moderating effect of length of stay on the path of PV

-—r Loy, the x2 statistic (Ax2(1) = 4.58, < 0.05) was significant and supported hypothesis

16: The length of visitors ’ stay in museums moderates the effect of museum visitors ’
perceptions of value of their museum experiences on their intentions to return, to
recommend visiting to others, and to renew or gain membership in the future in which
the relationship is likely to be positively strongerfor visitors ’ lengthy stays in the
museum than for shorter stays.

Finally, this study found that the effect of the perception of service quality on

186

 

overall satisfaction was stronger in the long stay group (B = 0.46, t = 5.24, p < 0.001)
than short stay group (B = 0.23, t = 1.86, p < 0.05), as presented in Table 57. Moreover,
the effect of the perception of value on museum loyalty was stronger in the long stay
group (B = 0.36, t = 2.34, p < 0.05) than its effect in the short stay group (B = 0.19, t =
2.84, p < 0.05). Finally, the results of the three moderating effects in terms of the length

of stay are shown in Figure 14.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 57
Comparison Results of Path Coefficients and T-Value (Short and Long Stay)
Short stay Long stay Comparison
Hypothesized
moderated path Path _ Path _ a b
coefficient t value coefficient t value (S ’ I" )
H14: PSQ —) Sat 0.229 2.018* 0.448 5.239*** S < L
H15: Sat —r Loy 0.574 1.466 0.463 2.699" S = L
H16: PV —> Loy 0.187 2.836* 0.359 2.344* S < L

 

a: “S” indicates short stay group.
b: “L” indicates long stay group.
*p < 0.05, "p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

187

Length

Push Perceptlon of Stay

Motivation of Value

 

I H16
’ Long : 0.33

 

H14 ’
H15 Short: 0.19
Long : 0.45 I
Short: 0.23 ’ 1

     
   
 

     
 

Perception
of Service

Quality

Vs

  

Overall
Satisfaction

Pull
Motivation

 

Past

Experience

 

 

———+ Bold line indicates path is significant

------ > Indicates path is not significant

 

 

 

Figure 14. Results of the moderating effects with hypotheses (H14—H16)

188

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

 

Summary of the Study
This study theoretically developed and empirically tested a structural model of F“
museum visitor behavior, based on visitors’ overall needs, beliefs, perspectives,
experiences, values and intentions. The educational and cultural interests of museum ‘
if
visitors, the exhibits they visited, the activities in which they participated, and their r _

interactions with museum collections and interpreters play important roles in museums’
long-term sustainability. Thus, visitors’ motivations, perceptions, attitudes and behaviors
regarding their museum visit experiences were the sources of information for testing the
proposed model and hypotheses in this study. The core principle that guided this study
was that understanding museum visitors’ needs well, and making sufficient provisions
for them through the museum’s services, were key determinants for increasing visitors’
revisit intentions and assuring the museum’s continued operation and success.

The first purpose of the study, which was to integrate and test a museum tourist’s
dynamic behavior, was achieved by successfully integrating two theories (i.e., push and
pull motivation theory, destination loyalty theory) and two models (i.e., recreational
behavior model, service quality model) into a comprehensive research model of museum
visitor behavior across three temporal stages, and by favorably identifying the significant
interrelationships among the constructs studied—particularly the antecedents and
consequences of MUSEQUAL—as well as the determinants of museum loyalty. The

second purpose of this study, which was to assess the moderating effects of important

189

socio-demographic and travel behavior variables on the hypothesized relationships in the
structural model, was partially fulfilled by empirically recognizing that there were five
significant (out of nine, total) moderating effects of visitor type (i.e., adult and discount
ticket buyer, member and nonmember) and length of stay (i.e., lengthy and short stay) on
three paths (i.e., perception of service quality-satisfaction, satisfaction-loyalty,
perception of value-loyalty).

Nineteen proposed research hypotheses were addressed in this study, and the
principle findings—supported by the data through a series of analyses—suggested that:
l) pull motivation, perception of service quality, perception of value and overall
satisfaction played concurrent positive roles in determining museum visitors’ loyalty,
according to the total path effects (see Table 47, p. 172); 2) the visitor type by
membership status (“member” and “nonmember”) demonstrated moderating effects on
the relationships between overall satisfaction and museum loyalty, and between
perception of value and museum loyalty; 3) the visitor type by ticket type (“adult ticket”
and “discount ticket” buyers) showed a moderating effect on the relationship between
perception of service quality and overall satisfaction; and 4) length of stay supported a
moderating effect on the relationship between perception of service quality and overall
satisfaction. The primary research question for this study was to investigate whether the
National Museum of Natural Science in Taiwan delivered the appropriate quality of
service to both member and non-members visitors to match their needs and desires,
which in turn established their loyalty. The answers obtained for the research question

were “yes,” in terms of a number of statistically significant findings.

190

 

The main focus of this final chapter is to present a summary and discussion of key
findings, drawn from the results in Chapter Four. Moreover, this chapter provides
theoretical implications for the literature on visitor behavior and museum service quality,
and managerial implications for museum staff, researchers and practitioners. Finally, the
limitations of the study, along with corresponding recommendations for future research

on museum visitors’ behavior, are discussed.

.13:
‘ ..

Summary and Discussion of Key Findings

 

This section presents several significant findings and compares them to prior studies,
including: 1) characteristics of NMNS visitors; 2) validation of the measurement model;
3) antecedents and consequences of research variables; and 4) significance of moderating
effects.

Characteristics of NMNS Visitors

With the full support of NMNS supervisors and staff, the researchers represented
the NMN S and provided each respondent with one incentive (a museum souvenir) to
achieve a high response rate, 83.9%, and collect a sufficient number of responses, 11 =
512. Additionally, NMN S staff has continuously supported this study, from sampling to
the data analysis, and has provided updated information on visitor statistics so as to
allow for a precise analysis of representative respondent for the entire museum

population during the survey period.

191

. . . . 7
The profile of NMNS Vlsltors shows that, overall, the v1s1tors were of average age

(30-39 years) and income8 (NT $30,000-39,999) for the overall Taiwanese population,
married (approximately 60%), and well educated (approximately 90% completed college
or more); aside from age, this finding was consistent with prior museum studies
(Bourdieu, 1991; Burton & Scott, 2003; Colbert, 2002; Falk, 1998; Harrison & Shaw,
2004; Kawashima, 1998; Yucelt, 2000). Museums of different types or attributes attract
different age groups (e. g., historical museums attract older people). The above findings

imply that the attributes of a natural science museum, such as NMN S, attract visitors

 

who tend to have an average income and age, be married, and be highly educated.
Nearly half (46.7%) of all respondents were local residents living in Taichung
City/County (see Table 21, p. 123). Of the 239 residents, 101 were members of the
NMNS and had visited the NMNS often in the course of the year. Consistent with
Harrison and Shaw (2004), these data emphasized the importance of appealing to both
residents and non-residents for the future of a museum. The results also supported
previous studies (Chen and Lu, 2006; Chiang, 2002; Huang et al., 1999; Lu, 2003; NPM,
2007), indicating that local residents are the main source of visitors and repeat visitors,
due to the significant influences of distance and expense involved in travel, when
choosing to visit museums (Black, 2005; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004).
Validation of the Measurement Model

This study used a pre-test (n = 12) of Taiwanese graduate students at MSU, who

 

7 The average age of all Taiwanese in 2009 was 37.42 (Taiwan National Statistics, 2010)

8 The average monthly regular earning of employees ( 2005-2009) was approximately NT $36,000
(Accounting and Statistics, 2010)

 

192

completed both the English and Chinese instruments, and a pilot study (11 = 389) to
ensure the measurement scales (and items) were reliable and valid, so as to be
appropriate for use in the formal study (n = 512). The study results demonstrated that
both the pre-test and the pilot study were important steps in developing robust
measurement scales that were likely to be supported in a confirmatory factor analysis,
and in advancing theory and model in the context of museums.

Twenty observed variables were eliminated, including two variables during item
analysis and eighteen variables through the measurement modification stage.
Thirty-eight observed variables were further analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA), path analysis and multiple group analysis. In the first stage of the measurement
model, several competing models were tested to find the optimal model. For example,
the results of the CFA with five first-order constructs of museum service quality
demonstrated a poor fit. This was also confirmed in the structural model stage, in which
most of the effects of the relationships between each of the five service-quality
constructs were not significant when they were placed as an individual first-order
constructs. After making modifications, a second-order five-factor construct
structure—which consisted of tangibility, responsiveness, empathy, communication, and
consumables—was empirically supported by the collected data. All five of the
second-order constructs were verified to be separate but related factors by examining
their discriminant validity.

Last, the final modified measurement model, consisting of all first and second order

constructs, was found to fit the data well. The results of a series of examinations of the

193

 

convergence validity and discriminant validity indicated that the final modified
measurement model possessed construct validity and reliability.
Antecedents and Consequences of the Research Variables

Significant findings among ten of the research hypotheses of cause-effect

associations supported the hypothesized structural relationships among “push and pull

,9 6‘ 99 ‘6

motivations, perceptions of service quality, past experience,” “satisfaction,”
“perception of value,” and “loyalty.” However, even though ten hypotheses were
supported and the research model was fitted at an acceptable level in terms of
goodness-of fit tests using the collected data, some gaps and weaknesses were still
identified, for instance, the direction of causation in the second hypothesis (H2) and the
magnitude of the path coefficient in the sixth hypothesis (H6).
Antecedents and Consequences of MUSEQUAL

The findings showed that museum visitors agreed that both push and pull
motivations influenced their perceptions of museum service quality, which was
comprised of seventeen items residing in five constructs. Museum visitors rated their
experiences with the five constructs from high to low. Two findings are discussed below:
the relationships between push motivations and perceptions of service quality, and
between pull motivations and perceptions of service quality.

The first findings showed that museum visitors’ push motivations had a negative
effect on their perceptions of museum service quality (path coefficient = -0.24),
indicating that the higher visitors’ push motivations, the lower the level of perception of

museum service quality. It seems that visitors with strong internal motivations did not

agree strongly that the quality of museum services matched their internal needs. Based

194

 

 

 

 

 

 

on the visitors’ perspectives, the average performance of museum service quality was
lower than their average expected desire. The findings can be interpreted in different
ways, on the basis of the test results. For instance, museum visitors who wanted to spend
quality time with family and relax in the museum might feel that the facilities for
children were insufficient. Or visitors who would like to enjoy exhibits in different
settings might find that the exhibits and collections were not as abundant or diverse as
they expected. Another explanation is that visitors who wanted to expand their
knowledge and enjoy new experiences might find that there were few things they could
learn or that caught their interests. However, despite the significant effect of push
motivations on the perception of service quality, the total effect of push motivations on
the outcome variable, museum loyalty, is extremely poor (0.057, see Table 47, p. 172).
The poor total effect implies that push motivations were not very relevant in determining
their intentions to return, to recommend visiting to others, and to renew or gain a NMNS
membership.

Although there are a few studies available in this context, most of those have
investigated the effects of push motivation on the expectations of service quality or
satisfaction with service quality (expectation score—perception score), rather than the
perceptions of service quality. In only one case in the tourism literature (Shen & Tseng,
2006), was push motivations studied in relation to perception of service quality; the
findings were inconsistent with the results of the present study in which museum visitors
who were strongly motivated to seek internal benefits from visiting NMNS, such as “to

99 6‘

spend quality time with family or friends, to enjoy exhibits in different settings,” “to

relax,” etc., conferred a low perception rating on the services offered.

195

J--. ante—".— .p . - gyms» ”___-

.‘ Tl'sf'hc _

 

 

The second finding showed that pull motivations had a positive effect on
perceptions of service quality, demonstrating that the stronger the pull motivations the
visitors have for visiting a museum, the higher the level of their perceptions of the

museum’s service quality. In other words, the average performance of museum service

 

matched or exceeded visitors’ expectations, based on the destination’s attributes. This
finding supported that the visitors’ interests in the museum’s attributes before a visit can F7

positively influence their perceptions of museum service quality during or after a visit.

 

This could be interpreted as museum visitors who wish to see new exhibits in a l
comfortable and safe museum might feel satisfied with the exhibit themes in a I ‘-
well-maintained environment. Another explanation is that visitors who preferred

enjoyable facilities and/or activities, or who wanted to attend special events, might feel

satisfied with those experiences the museums provide for them because of a consistency

between their expected activities and museum service offered. In contrast to the push

motivations, the total effect of pull motivation on the outcome variable—museum

loyalty—was moderate (0.327, see Table 47, p. 172), pointing out that that pull

motivations were the primary reasons for why visitors revisited NMNS, recommended

visiting to others, and renewed or gained membership. Consistent with the study

conducted by Shen and Tseng (2006), museum visitors who were strongly motivated to

seek the external sources or benefits provided by a museum, such as “to see new

exhibits,” “because museum is safe and secure,” “because museum has a comfortable

environment,” etc., gave a high perception rating to the quality of services offered by

NMNS.

196

 

To conclude this section, two especially interesting findings identified in this study
were: push motivation differed from pull motivation in relation to perceptions of service
quality in terms of direction of causation; and pull motivation (external sources) had a
greater effect than the push motivation (internal sources) on the total effect of museum
loyalty. These findings contribute to the literature on applying the effect of push and pull
motivations on perceptions of service quality. Also, the findings provide different
viewpoints for future research in this field on the relationship between push motivations

and perceptions of service quality. To date, there have been no published studies of

 

 

applying the effect of push and pull motivations on the perceptions of service quality
(SERVPERF) in the museum context, according to the extant literature.

With regard to perception of value as the consequence of perception of service
quality in the structural model, the findings showed that visitors’ perceptions of museum
service quality yielded a positive effect on visitors’ perceptions of value, consistent with
previous studies (Chen, 2008; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Chen & Tsai, 2008; Chen & Chen,
2010; Choi & Chou, 2001; Lai, Hutchinson, Li, Bai, 2007; Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000;
Oh, 1999; Petrick, 2004; Petrick & Beckman, 2002; Tam, 2004; Zeithaml, 1988). In
particular, the magnitude of the positive effect of perceptions of service quality on
perception of value was the strongest effect in the structural model. This indicated that
the amount the museum visitors paid for their visits was rewarded with valuable exhibits,
helpful activities, and useful services by NMNS.

Antecedents of Museum Loyalty
First, this study found that museum visitors’ past experiences predicted a positive

effect on the outcome variable (museum loyalty), with a path coefficient of 0.11,

197

demonstrating that past experience was an antecedent of museum loyalty. This finding

was also consistent with prior studies (Bramwell, 1998; Gomez-Jacinto, Martin-Garcia,
& Bertiche-Haud’ Huyze, 1999; Huang & Hsu, 2009; Oppermann, 2000; Petrick et al.,

2001; Postma & Jenkins, 1997; Sonmez & Graefe,1998).

Next, the findings indicated that the largest total effect on the outcome variable
(museum loyalty) was the perception of value (total effect = 0.56), which means
perception of value was the most influential determinant of museum loyalty. Museum
visitors perceived good value from reasonable entrance fees, worthwhile exhibits,
helpful activities and useful services, then displayed their loyalty through their intentions
to revisit, join as a member and recommend the museum to others. The findings
supported the idea that perception of value was a better predictor of destination loyalty
than other constructs, which was consistent with earlier studies (Chang & Wildt, 1994;
Cronin, Brady, Brand, Hightower, & Shemwell, 1997; Dodds et al., 1991; McDougall &
Levesque, 2000; Oh, 2000; Parasuraman, 1997; Tarn, 2000; Petrick & Beckman, 2002;
Reicheld, 1996).

In addition, the findings that push and pull motivations, and overall satisfaction
were antecedents of museum loyalty, were consistent with previously mentioned studies
(Chen & Chen, 2010; Chen & Tsai, 2008; Petrick, 2004; Shen & Tseng, 2006; Wu, Huan,
& Chiu, 2004; Yoon & Uysal, 2005).

To conclude, this study demonstrated that, except for push motivation, the five
antecedents considered (pull motivation, past experiences, perception of service quality,
perception of value, overall satisfaction) were key determinants of the outcome variable,

museum loyalty, in a positive causation, with a fair total magnitude of direct and indirect

198

 

 

effects in the structural model. In particular, perception of value, perception of service
quality and overall satisfaction were good predictors of intentions to revisit, to
recommend visiting to others, and to renew or purchase a membership.
Significance of the Moderating Effects

With a suitable sample size (N= 512), this study enabled separate analyses across
different groups, representing visitor type and length of stay. This study further explored
the moderating role of visitor type and length of stay on three relationships. Five of nine
hypotheses, which examined the moderating effect of visitor type (i.e., adult and
discount ticket buyer, member and nonmember) and length of stay on the relationships,
were significant in this study. Consistent with the prior studies mentioned earlier, the
findings showed that visitor type and length of stay had significant moderating effects
between perceptions of service quality and overall satisfaction, and between perceptions
of value and loyalty (Chen & Tsai, 2008; Evanschitzky & Wunderlich, 2006; Harrison &
Shaw, 2004; Matzler et al., 2008; Matzler et al., 2005; Matzler et al., 2006; Kozak, 2001;

Wang & Wu, 2009; Wu, DeSarbo, Chen, & Fu, 2006).

Theoretical Implications
Travel and tourism literature has paid a great deal of attention to important variables
related to tourist behavior. Very few works, however, have proposed and supported the
idea that a causal relationship exists concurrently among these seven studied constructs
across three temporal phases. Several significant findings identified from this study have
potential theoretical implications for future researchers who study tourist behavior

integrating or using the recreational behavior model, push and pull motivation theory,

199

 

 

museum service quality (MUSEQUAL) using SERVPERF, and the destination loyalty
theory. Theoretical implications and potential interpretations drawn from these
significant findings are provided below.

First, this study adapted Clawson and Knestch’s (1966) recreational behavior model
as a temporal framework for examining visitors’ needs, experiences and behavioral
intentions in a museum context. With this holistic and systematic approach, this study
utilized pre-visit, on-site, post-visit, and future intention phases to investigate important
factors that happen concurrently in the museum tourist behavior process by using a
two-stage survey (before and after visit). The significant results of the research
constructs, at three different stages, contribute to the theoretical evidence of this model
by viewing visitors’ travel or visit behavior to museums, over time. Specifically, it
would be useful for future researchers or academicians to increase their knowledge about
overall visitor behavior in a museum context, in terms of temporal modes and changes.

Second, push and pull motivation theory (Dann, 1977) was used in this study as a
theoretical basis for determining the decision-making process people use in choosing to
visit a museum. This study identified five push and six pull motivations of visitors as the
primary driving forces in choosing to visit a museum. As the findings in this study
indicated, push motivations had a positive effect on pull motivations. Specifically, five
push motivations linked to visitors’ social-psychological characteristics encouraged
those visitors to visit museums, including (from the highest and lowest levels of

,9 6‘

agreement): “to spend quality time with family or friends, to enjoy exhibits in different
settings,” “to relax,” “to expand knowledge,” and “to enjoy new experiences.” These

five important push motivations positively influenced the pull motivation construct,

200

 

 

which consisted of six pull motivations linked to attractive characteristics of the museum
itself, including “to see new exhibits,” “because museum is safe and secure,” “because

99 6‘

museum has comfortable environment, to attend special events,” “because museum
has enjoyable activities,” and “because museum has enjoyable facilities.”

The positive relationship between push and pull motivations could be explained by
the idea that most of those museum visitors who preferred spending quality time with
their companions (e.g., family or friends), and to have mental and physical relaxation,
were likely to visit a comfortable and safe museum that provided enjoyable facilities.
Another potential explanation for the relationship seen here is that visitors who preferred
enjoying various exhibits in order to expand their knowledge and experiences were
likely to decide on a particular museum to see new exhibits, attend special events, and
participate in enjoyable activities provided by a museum. This finding, that push
motivations positively affected pull motivations, was consistent with prior studies (Kim,
2008; Kim & Lee, 2002; Uysal & Jurowski, 1994), indicating theoretical evidence for
push and pull motivation theory.

Third, this study utilized the Service Quality Model (Parasuraman, et al., 1988) and
SERVPERF (Cronin & Taylor, 1992) as the basis for developing the measurement scales
of service quality in a museum context, named MUSEQUAL, for the central portion of
this study. This study identified and validated the nature of the multidimensionality of
museum service quality (MUSEQUAL), indicating that the existence of a second-order
five construct model within the research model. Supported by empirical evidence, five

sub-dimensions, which were labeled as tangibility, responsiveness, empathy

communication, and consumables, were referred to as the five first-order constructs.

201

 

In addition, assessing a service quality scale requires examining the model’s
component structure, which comprises the associations between overall service quality
(i.e., dimension) and the five sub-dimensions. This was confirmed in this study—the
sub-dimensions were highly correlated within the dimensions—demonstrating five
constructs pertaining to the construct of perception of service quality. Next, the finding
that MUSEQUAL, with five sub-dimensional constructs, was appropriate for measuring
service quality in a museum context, provided the theoretical evidence for the
application of the service quality model and SERVPERF in this study, consistent with
prior studies (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006; Bauer, Falk, & Hammerschmidt, 2006;
Dholakia, & Bagozzi, 2004; Kaul, 2007; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Malhotra, 2005;
Park, & Back, 2007; Raajpoot, 2004; Ramsden, 1991). Additionally, the findings
revealed that museum service quality, using SERVPERF, can serve as a principal
construct for mediating the relationships between these identified antecedents (push and
pull motivations, past experience) and consequences (perception of value and overall
satisfaction), and the outcome variable (museum loyalty). Based on above findings, this
study provides supporting evidence for the use of the theoretical modeling of
SERVPERF.

Finally, destination loyalty theory (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Bitner, 1990; Dick &
Basu, 1994) was employed in this study to predict visitors’ intentions to return, to
recommend visiting the museum to others, and to renew or purchase a membership in the
future, based on their level of satisfaction with the quality of museum service. This study
supported the idea that pull motivations, past experiences, perceptions of service quality,

perceptions of value, service quality, and satisfaction were good predictors of the

202

 

 

outcome variable (customer loyalty), consistent with other studies (Baker & Crompton,
2000; Davidow, 2003; Kozak, 2001; Oliver, 1999; Oppermann, 2000; Yuksel, 2001).
Nevertheless, this study did not support that push motivations were a predictor of
museum loyalty. In addition to the significant effect of overall satisfaction on museum
loyalty, the findings also provided strong evidence of respondents’ profiles to support
destination loyalty theory in terms of revisit frequency and WOM recommendation,
including: a high revisit frequency (twice or more per year) among revisit visitors
(approximately fifty percent) or members (approximately ninety percent);
word-of-mouth as a primary information source among first—time visitors
(approximately sixty percent) and revisit visitors (approximately forty percent).

In sum, this research study could be a pioneer in the study of developing and testing
an integrated museum visitor behavior model, composed of the antecedents and the
consequences of museum service quality, using SERVPERF across three temporal stages
in a museum context, resulting in a number of statistically significant findings.
Additionally, this is one of a few studies that have empirically investigated the
moderating effect of visitor type and length of stay on the relationship between
perceptions of service quality and overall satisfaction, perceptions of value and museum
loyalty, and overall satisfaction and museum loyalty, in a museum context. The
described theoretical implications identified in this study should contribute to reducing

the gap in the literature.

203

 

 

Managerial Implications

The test results of this study provide sufficient evidence for accepting significant
causal relationships among seven constructs. Therefore, this study is capable of
providing museum managers with appropriate practical recommendations drawn from
the findings, as their guidance for understanding museum visitors’ motivations, preferred
museum services, values, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in the future.

First, examining both visitors’ push motivations (internal needs) and pull
motivations (museum attributes) simultaneously can facilitate: an analysis of market
demand for visiting museums in Taiwan; market segmentation of museum visitors;
design, planning and promotion of museum exhibits, activities and events; and museum
management and development of all of its important aspects. In this study, five main
push motivations as well as six important pull motivations for visiting NMNS were
extracted and identified through a series of assessments of confirmatory factor analysis,
reliability, and validity. Museum managers and marketers should be aware of visitors’
needs, wants and interests, as these can be fundamental factors for increasing visitors’
satisfaction with a museum’s service offerings. Based on the findings, they should pay
special attention to people who visited the museum for: 1) personal needs and growth

9, 66

(i.e., “to relax, to expand knowledge,” and “to enjoy new experiences); 2) professional

9, £6 ,9 ‘6

purposes (i.e., “to enjoy exhibits in different settings, to see new exhibits, to attend
special events,” and “because museum has enjoyable activities); and 3) an enjoyable
gathering with family and fiiends (“to spend quality time with family or friends,”
“because museum is safe and secure,” “because museum has comfortable environment,”

and “because museum has enjoyable facilities”). As a result, museum managers and

204

 

marketers can better understand the demands of their primary segments, so as to tailor
existing museum products and services to their visitors, and then advertise these
attributes to pull their visits. Museums are expected to accommodate visitors’
expectations by matching visitors’ internal push motivations with the museums’ external
attributes, which in turn reinforces the visitors’ experiences, and builds visitor loyalty
toward museums.

Second, this study found that the five sub-dimensional structures of MUSEQUAL
were appropriate for measuring the service quality as experienced by NMNS visitors in
Taiwan. Museum managers are able to identify service quality areas that require
improvement using this five-dimension MUSEQUAL measurement scale, and are then
able to track improvements in specific areas of service. In this study, four constructs with
high scores in the perceptions of service quality were identified, including
responsiveness, tangibility, communications, and empathy. The results can guide
museum managers with regard to which aspects of service offerings should be
highlighted to attract or maintain visitors. Consequently, NMNS managers should place
importance on maintaining or improving these four aspects regarding'the provision of
museum service quality. The first aspect, responsiveness, was emphasized through the
significance of the professional training and development programs attended by museum

,9 ‘6

staff members, especially for “friendly with visitors, willing to spend time helping

99 “

visitors, respond to visitors’ requests promptly,” and “professional, such as accessible,
knowledgeable about the subjects.” The second aspect, tangibility, was stressed by the
importance of physical facilities and equipment, especially for “diverse exhibit themes,”

“well maintained exhibits,” and “available parking lot.” The third aspect, communication,

205

I}

 

was highlighted by the necessity of the museum’s providing understandable and

39 ‘6

sufficient information, especially for “understandable exhibit descriptions, good

99 ‘6

communication skills by interpreters, well-provided physical display of exhibits,” and
“clear directional signs.” The fourth aspect, empathy, was emphasized by the importance
of caring and individualized attention, especially for “needs of the disabled,” “sufficient
facilities for children,” and “acceptable noise in the museum.” On the other hand, the
quality of consumables was identified as having the lowest score in the perceptions of
museum service quality in MUSEQUAL. Museum managers should pay special
attention to improving the quality of service offerings in this aspect, specifically for
“efficient service provided by the restaurants,” “diverse choice of sales items in shops,”
and “multiple choices of food/drink offered in the restaurants.” Visitors who attempt to
stay for several hours may need a quality dining experience and enjoyable shopping to
reenergize themselves before continuing their visit in the museum. To monitor the
effectiveness of service delivery and the improvement of service quality, as mentioned
above, it is recommended that museum managers might conduct an evaluation of
customer satisfaction on an annual or seasonal basis, using an online survey on the
museum’s website or an on-site survey inside the museum.

Third, another important practical implication drawn from the test results is that the
role of museum membership positively increases the effect of the perceptions of value on
museum loyalty. This study found that members and nonmembers had significantly
different opinions about their experiences when visiting NMNS. The significance of this

moderating effect highlights why NMNS managers need to pay special attention to the

members group; members perceived a higher value (i.e., reasonable price, valuable

206

 

exhibits, helpful activities, and useful services) than other groups (adult and discount
ticket buyers). In 1993, NMNS issued its first family member card as well as individual
member card, named Dinosaur card, in 2002. This initiative, which was the first museum
membership launched in Taiwan, has successfully attracted visitors to join and maintain
NMN S memberships each year, achieving a total of 47,331 members (both Family and
Dinosaur cards) and a high visit frequency (11.49 times for the Family card, 6 times for

the Dinosaur card) to date (NMNS, 2008). However, the proportion (1.63%) of members

(47,3319 in 2008) to total visitors (2,904,557 in 2008) can be increased. Museum
managers and promoters could consider expanding the membership through agreements
that would encompass other museums at different sites, providing members with diverse
choices to encourage membership purchases.

Fourth, the test results showed that the relationship between perceptions of museum
service quality and satisfaction was stronger for visitors who stayed at the museum
longer than for those whose stay was shorter. The relationship between perceptions of
the value of the museum experience and museum loyalty was also stronger for
“long-stay” visitors than for “short-stay” visitors. These findings were deemed true
because visitors who remain in a large-scale museum such as NMNS for a longer period
may spend additional time resting, rejuvenating, and engaging in exhibits and activities
they enjoy than those who only stay for a short visit, as supported by Neal et al. (2007).
Thus, long-stay visitors are prone to deriving more satisfaction from various aspects of

service and to establishing museum-brand loyalty through the values they perceive from

 

9 This is taken from the “2008 Annual Report of National Museum of Natural Science.”

207

 

- ll'f'il. il'.‘..'.A\L('_I-.V.

 

 

their experiences with exhibits, activities and services. Museum managers and marketers
should meet the needs of long-stay visitors by providing well-chosen and high quality
museum products and services, and provide incentives for short-stay visitors to extend
their stay (e.g., a ticket package for visiting other areas in the museum), in an effort to
increase the probability of their returning to the destination in the future. Other
suggestions include the development of creative and enjoyable museum exhibits and
activities (special exhibits and collections, events, interactive workshops) designed to
cater to visitors’ needs and encourage a lengthy stay.

Finally, public museums such as NMNS should also pay attention to non-visitors or
potential visitors and spread social, cultural, and educational influences. There are still
many people living in Taiwan, and other comers of the world, who rarely or never visit
museums. One key factor explaining why non-visitors did not visit Taiwanese museums
was a “lack of interest in visiting museum” (Lin, 2006). Other factors included “no

99 6‘

time, prefer to spend time on other activities,” “do not usually think to visit such

9, £6 9, 6‘

attractions, can always go in the future, attractions thought to be unreflective of
personality,” and “admission prices too expensive” (Prentice et al., 1997).

After realizing above interferences that prevent those non-visitors or potential
visitors from visiting a museum, museum professionals should also try and identify what
motivates these people to visit a museum by investigating their push and pull
motivations. Subsequently, suitable advertising and promotions of exhibits and activities,
which are geared toward these non-visitors or potential visitors by tailoring existing

products and services, should be implemented. For instance, museum planners could

design a tour package providing interesting, uplifting, and memorable activities to

208

 

 

address non-visitors or potential visitors who “prefer to spend time on other activities.”
Anther suggestion for museum managers would be to customize rewarding and
worthwhile exhibits and activities, or encourage a purchase of economic tour package
covering additional costs (i.e., parking fee, 3D movie ticket, lunch meal, souvenir at
discount price) for those who feel that “admission prices are too expensive.” For repeat
visitors, it is believed that maintaining their interest is the primary objective of most
museums. Thus, the optimal strategy for a museum (e. g., NMNS) is to continuously
improve the quality of the museum’s services, which would increase the likelihood of
visitors and members having high satisfaction and/or loyalty spreading positive
word-of-mouth recommendations about the museum. It would also promote the
advantages of becoming a member of the museum, thus attracting new and returning

visitors, and new members.

Study Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

This study has several limitations that need to be addressed, although the study
makes several theoretical and managerial contributions to the field of museum visitor
behavior and museum service quality. Accordingly, recommendations and suggestions
are provided for future, related study in this field.

The first limitation concerns the scope and boundaries of this research, which only
focused only on visitors to the National Museum of Natural Science in Taichung during
a four-week period (June 16 to July12), targeting paid-admissions and Taiwanese
citizens aged 20 to 64 as a study population. The limitations of the museum type (natural

science only), the time span (four weeks in the summer season), the geographical

209

, .
«M- s _. a;

 

 

location (Taichung in central Taiwan), and the visitor type (exclusion of visitors under
20 years and older than 64 years, as well as groups) may affect different test results
relative to a broader population or other types of museums, in terms of the magnitude
and direction of the relationships among the seven constructs studied. Visitors’

characteristics, travel behavior and motives for visiting a museum may vary from site to

site. In addition, people visiting different types of museums may have differing F
perceptions and attitudes toward service quality, regarding various exhibits and
collections. Thus, it is recommended that future studies expand the time period, look at a ‘1‘
different season(s), and include different kinds of participants. Future researchers may i

 

also wish to study visitors from a wider scope of cultural tourism services (e.g., galleries,
aquariums, heritage sites, historical sites, performing arts or similar institutes).

The second limitation is the selection and adaptation of the constructs and their
observed variables (indicators). In this study, most of the observed variables were
selected based on the literature review and scholars’ opinions. However, most of the
literature relevant to motivations for visiting a museum did not provide evidence of
either reliability or validity of the item measured. The majority of items (48 items)
considered in three constructs (push motivations, pull motivations, and perception of
service quality)—including nine push motivations, eleven pull motivations and
twenty-eight museum service quality variables-_were adapted from prior studies in a
non-museum context or from museums having different attributes (e.g., heritage and
historical sites focusing on the preservation of history, heritage and culture; museums of
industry focusing on the development of technology and industry). Twenty items were

eliminated (four push motivations, five pull motivations, and eleven service quality

210

variables) due to insufficient testing of the measurement scales in prior studies, with
regard to museum motivations and service quality. This study achieved a better fit of the
measurement model, in part, by deleting both low factor loading and high modification
index items, and, in part, because not all of the selected items were relevant or important
to museum visitors. In consequence, therefore, only 38 items (65 percent of the original
58 items) were refined and retained for assessing all of the constructs.

The third limitation is the adaptation of the museum service quality measurement
scale (MUSEQUAL). Prior studies have debated whether or not an adaptation of a
measurement scale on service quality can account for a contextual difference, in terms of
the industry being studied and the region, given distinct social, cultural and
environmental factors (Kaul, 2007). Consequently, even though the significant
interrelationships between MUSEQUAL construct and its antecedents or consequences
have been addressed in this study, the use of MUSEQUAL scale itself was restricted to
the NMNS in Taiwan, restricting the extent to which these results can be applied to other
museum contexts. Future researchers should pay attention to the selection or
development of a well-established scale, the examination of a wider respondent base
across other museums, and the assessment of the reliability and validity of the
measurement items, particularly if they employ the constructs of MUSEQUAL
developed in this study to other museums.

Another suggestion for future research is to use a qualitative approach (e.g., focus
group) to understand and identify the important attributes or components of museum
service quality, based on visitors’ perspectives and open-ended comments, to generate

scale items of content validity, with a means of providing detailed information regarding

211

 

‘u_. .12.. -._ _,_.

 

specific perceptions of museum service. After items are identified, a quantitative
approach could be used to validate the data as the second part of a study employing
mixed methods. MUSEQUAL requires further refinement to be effectively generalized
and applied to different types of museums—with a variety of settings (exhibits,
collections, etc.) in other geographic locations, but with a similar large scale (e.g., the
National Palace Museum in northern Taiwan and the National Science & Technology
Museum in southern Taiwan)—to test the generalizability of this research model or
make a comparison between NMNS and others, based on a need for improving service
quality. Through this, MUSEQUAL can become an effective measurement scale for
monitoring visitors’ perceptions of service quality, regarding aspects of important
services in the museum industry.

The fourth limitation is that this study identified a weak magnitude in the
relationship between past experiences and museum loyalty, although the relationship was
significant. One potential reason is that insufficient consideration was given to the
consequential order of the temporal stage in developing this hypothesized path, based on
limited identified results in the literature. More specifically, the construct of past
experiences happened in the pre-visit phase, making it appropriate to be used as
antecedent of the construct of perception of service quality. However, it was not
appropriate to directly predict the effect of past experiences on museum loyalty in the
future intention stage, without a mediator at the post-visit stage to unite past experiences
at the pre-visit stage and museum loyalty at the future intention stage. The temporal
sequence between past experiences and their consequences should be: pre-visit —+

post-visit, but should not be the current sequence: pre-visit ——> future intention.

212

 

 

This study demonstrated a weak path effect under the situation in which past
experience skipped overall satisfaction or perceptions of value at the post-visit stage and
proceeded directly to influence museum loyalty. A future study should investigate the
effect of past experiences at the pre-visit phase on the visitors’ overall satisfaction at the
post-visit stage, in addition to the mediating effect of perceptions of service quality in the
relationship between past experience and overall satisfaction.

The fifth limitation is that this study assessed the level of the visitors’ overall
satisfaction with a single item, in accordance with previous studies (Baloglu et al., 2003;
Burns et al., 2003; Severt et al., 2007; Shen & Tseng, 2006; Shonk, 2006; Wu et al.,
2004). Although the test results provided sufficient evidence to accept the
interrelationships among the antecedents and consequences of overall satisfaction, the
moderating effects of visitor type and length of stay on the three specific paths
(quality-satisfaction, satisfaction- loyalty and value-loyalty) were not all significant. This
may be because one single observed variable for one latent variable carries some amount
of measurement error, resulting in biased estimates of direct effects (Kline, 2004).
However, this study demonstrated that overall satisfaction with the perceptions of
museum service, in conjunction with visitors’ motivations and past experiences, played a
significant role in predicting future intentions to return, recommending visiting to others
and renewing or purchasing membership. Thus, future studies should replicate these
results in different contexts to reduce the concern about using one observed variable to
represent the construct of overall satisfaction, which is an aggregation of five constructs

of museum service.

213

 

 

The sixth limitation is the selection of the moderator variable and its affected path
between two constructs. This study utilized only two variables (i.e., visitor type and
length of stay) to assess the moderating effects on three specific hypothesized paths (i.e.,
PSQ —+ Sat, Sat ——r Loy, and PV —+ Loy), based on a review of the literature. Future
studies may select other potential moderator variables from socio-demographic

characteristics and travel behavior other than these two variables, and investigate the

15:3

moderating effects on other potential hypothesized paths, besides the three paths in this

study. For instance, number of people accompanying a visitor could be used as a 1

 

moderator variable, to see whether the relationship between push (pull) motivations and

‘51
.11-

perceptions of service quality is likely to be positively stronger for large groups (with 4
or more accompanying visitors) in the museum than for small groups (with 3 or fewer
accompanying visitors). In another example, the moderating effect of visit frequency
could be manipulated to see whether the relationship between perceptions of values and
museum loyalty is likely to be positively stronger for the high frequency group (visiting
two or more times in one year) than for the low frequency group (visiting one time in
two years ). Other potential moderator variables, such as residence (resident or
nonresident), marital status (single vs. married) or educational level (completed college
vs. completed senior high school or less) are suggested for assessment in future studies.
Finally, the above-mentioned suggestions can be regarded as a means of producing
more valid and comprehensive results, if the future studies in a relevant field can
consider the identified limitations or weaknesses found during the period in which a

study was developed and conducted.

 

214

APPENDICES

215

.3.
.}
a,

l

l

I

i

.1 .

 

 

 

Appendix A: Consent Form for Survey

MUSEUM VISITOR SURVEY INFORMATION AND CONSENT
Dear Museum Visitor:

Overview:

1 am a PhD student in Michigan State University’s tourism program in the USA who is conducting a
doctoral dissertation study about museum visitor experiences and how they affect your intention to visit
again in the future. You are invited to participate in this study (all participants must be between 20 and 64
years of age). The purpose of this study is to understand the reasons you visit the museum, your level of
satisfaction with facilities and services, the overall value of your visit relative to the money you spent
during your visit, and your future intentions to revisit, recommend, and renew or become a member of the
museum. Your experiences and comments are important for improving museum services and facilities to
better serve visitors in the future.

What the survey involves:

The two-part survey takes approximately 20 minutes to complete, or about 10 minutes for each part. The
first half of the questionnaire will be completed and returned to investigators before you visit the museum.
You will take the second half of the questionnaire with you. After you have completed your museum visit,
you will fill out the second part of the survey and return it to a designated place near the main exit as you
leave. You should feel free to ask the two researchers any questions you may have.

Incentive gift:

If you complete and return both parts of the survey, you are eligible for a drawing to receive one of 20
museum souvenir gifts as our way to say thank you for your time and comments. When you turn in the
second part of the survey at the end of your visit, you will draw a card from a box to determine if you are a
gift recipient.

Voluntary participation:

Participation in this study is voluntary. Your taking and completion of the survey indicates your voluntary
consent. You may choose not to answer questions with which you may feel uncomfortable and are flee to
change your mind and withdraw at any time, or choose not to turn in any part of the survey without
consequence or penalty. However, because only a small number of visitors are receiving the survey, your
comments are important to us for understanding what you think about your experience.

Confidentiality:

Your participation in this study is completely anonymous to ensure confidentiality. You will be
unidentifiable in terms of the responses. Any information provided will not be linked to any individual
during the survey, data analysis or reporting of results. Only the primary and secondary investigators will
have access to the data. All completed questionnaires will be stored in a locked file cabinet and then
destroyed after completion of analysis after two years. Also, digital data files will be stored on the
researcher's password-protected computer.

Questions?

If you have any questions about this study, please contact the researcher Chi-Ming Hsieh at
hsiehch9@msu.edu, phone (04) 2292-0613 (Taiwan) and (517) 599-3009 (USA) or Dr. Gail A.Vander
Stoep at vanders1@msu.edu , phone: (517) 353-5190, Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation
& Resource Studies (CARRS), 136 Natural Resources Building at Michigan State University. (The second
researcher will not be available to respond until late July due to international travel. You will receive
quicker response contacting the first researcher.) If you have questions or concerns about your role and
rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a
complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University's
Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or
regular mail at 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Thanks for your time, opinions and help.
Sincerely,

Chi-Ming Hsieh

216

 

 

 

 

Appendix B: English Survey Instruments

 

 

PLEASE COMPLETE PARTS I - III BEFORE YOUR VISIT

 

 

Please record the time now: am/pm / /2009 Survey Code:

 

fart I: Vi_sitor Demographic Information (Please check one 1
1. Which of the following ticket type did you purchase? (check one)

1:] Adult (regular) [:1 Discount (student aged 20 years or more, government employee)

[:1 Member: ( ) Dinosaur card ; ( ) Family card

2. What is your age? (check one)
C) 20-29 years [:1 30-39 years C] 40-49 years [:1 50-59 years C] 60-64 years

3. What is your gender? (check one)
[3 Male C] Female

4. What is your current residence? (check one)
1:] Local (Taichung City/County)
If not local, where is your residence?
E] Northern Taiwan (Keelung, Taipei, Taoyuan, Hsinchu)
E] Central Taiwan (Miaoli, Taichung, Changhua, Nantou, Yunlin)
[:1 Southern Taiwan (Chiayi, Tainan, Kaohsiung, Pingtung)
El Eastern Taiwan (Yialn, Hualien, Taitung)
[___] Island County (Penghu, Kinmen, MaZu)
5. What is your marital status? (check one)
[:1 Single, never married E] Married with no children D Other:
[:1 Married with children

 

6. What is your highest level of education? (check one)
[:1 Completed junior high school or less [:1 Completed college

[:1 Completed senior high school 1:] Completed graduate school or more

7. What is your monthly income? (check one)
1:] No income [___] NT $30,000-39,999 B NT $50,000 or more
[:1 Less than NT $20,000 B NT $40,000-49,999
[:1 NT $20,000-29,999

8. What is your current occupation? (check one)

C] Government employee [:1 Private sector employee [:1 Self-employed
E] Unemployed E] Teacher 1:] Student
1:] Retired [:1 Housewife C] Other I

 

217

 

 

Part 11: Museum Visit Behavior

1. How often, on average, do you visit this museum? (check one)

C] Two or more times per year [:1 Once in two years [:1 Once in three years or more
1:] One time per year

2. How many times have you visited this museum in your life (including this time)? (check one)
[:1 1 time [___] 2-3 times C] 4-5 times B 6-7 times [:1 8 times or more

3. How many people accompanied you on your visit today to this museum (total number of people in
your group)? (check one) h
[:l Only myself [:1 2 people 1] 3 people [3 4 people [:1 5 people or more
4. Who is accompanying you on this visit?
1:] Family without children [:1 Family with children [:] Colleague(s) from work

[:1 Friend(s) 1:] Only myself

 

5. Are you staying overnight away from your permanent home on this trip?
1:] Yes, overnight trip [:1 No, day trip

6. When planning your trip to this museum, what was your primary source of information? (check
one)

(:1 Family word-of-mouth (WOM) 1:] Friend or Colleague WOM D Internet

. . [:1 Newspaper or

[:1 Radlo statlon or TV program E] Brochure/flyer magazines

7. Please indicate how satisfied you have been, generally, with your overall experiences at this
museum and other museums in the past. Please circle one number.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m m m m m
g c: 9, o r? o e. s:
(p O 3 3 C B a O
=3 a: o (a =3
”U —- 5’ E —- i (D --
(D ‘< v-t} 5" :1" Q. "<
a. - a: a:
(D 9: a Fr Fr fl
Items 3 a 9, g 5‘
(D g a Q. :3
5‘ t» 59., (D
5601 a. g Q-
c. a
0.
Overall past experiences with this museum 4 5
Overall past experiences with other museums 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Are you currently a member of this museum? (check one)
[:1 Yes 1:] No
9. Are you currently a member of any other museums? (check one)
[:I Yes 1:] No

218

 

Part III: Motivations for Visiting Museum

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following motivations for visiting

this museum. Please circle one number.

 

Items

9918tzsgp Alfiuong

99189530

9918mm teqmawog

[enna N

99132 teqmaulos

99er

991312 Alfiuons

 

To relax

I—‘

 

To spend quality time with family or friends

 

To expand my knowledge

 

To have a change from routine

 

To enjoy social interaction with new people

 

To enjoy new experiences

 

T0 recover from stress and ICHSIOH

 

To be with people who enjoy the same things I do

 

To enjoy exhibits in different settings

 

To hear a famous guest speaker

 

Because museum has enjoyable facilities

 

Because museum has standards of hygiene and cleanliness

 

To see new exhibits

 

Because museum has good souvenir stores

 

Because museum has comfortable environment

 

Because museum has enjoyable activities

 

Because museum has good restaurants

 

Because museum has safety and security

 

To attend special events

 

 

Because museum has friendly people

 

 

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

 

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

 

A-bhbkbAA-hAAAAAAth-hb

 

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

 

O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\GO\O\O\O\O\

 

\IQQQQNQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ

 

219

 

 

 

PLEASE COMPLETE PARTS IV — VII AFTER YOUR VISIT

 

Bart IV: Perception; of Service Qualify

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statement. Please

circle one number

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 E?» g 6 9 63: Q
g a: 3 E, B 3 g
_. a E 9’. i —-
‘< a :r :r *<
Items 9., 9’. 9.1 0%
8 9. 6% a
“3 34 a a
9 a; o
(D
The parking lot is available 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Directional signs in the museum make it easy to navigate l 2 3 4 S 6 7
Toilet facilities are available 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Staff is well dressed l 2 3 4 5 6 7
The atmosphere in the museum is in keeping with the exhibits 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The level of crowding is acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Overall, physical display of the interpretation/exhibits (e.g. size of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
signs, layout of design, brightness of light) is well provided
The restaurants’ staff provides efficient service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Road and street signs make it easy to find the museum 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The exhibits are well maintained 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Staff responds to visitors’ requests promptly l 2 3 4 5 6 7
The level of nose is acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Interpreters have good communication skills (e.g., clarity, speed,
. . . . . l 2 3 4 5 6 7
fluency, 1nteractlon w1th audrence, tlme control, etc)
The restaurants offer quality food/drink 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The museum is clean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The shops offer diverse choices of items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The written leaflets and/or website provide enough information 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
The museum caters to the needs of less able visitors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
There are adequate seats in the museum 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Interpreters are professional (e.g., accessible, knowledgeable of the
. I 2 3 4 5 6 7
subjects)
Staff is willing to spend time helping visitors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Exhibit descriptions are understandable (texts and graphs) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The exhibit themes are diverse 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Staff is available in a sufficient number when needed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The restaurant offers multiple choices of food/drink 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Staff is friendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

220

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The shop offers quality items 1 3 5
The facilities for children are sufficient l 5
am V: Perception of Value
Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statement.
Please circle one number.
9 9, m 2 m > Q
8 a 3 8 5 “5; 8
— :3 s B. s _-
‘< (D :r' 3‘ '~<
g, 9’. 9. (g
m o.
a "i 8
a a a
(D
The overall price I paid for this visit was reasonable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ConSlderlng the price I pald for the v151t, overall the exhlblts were 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
valuable
Considering the price I paid for the visit, overall the activities were
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
helpful
Con51der1ng the price I paid for the Vlsn, overall the serv1ces were 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
useful
Part VI: Overall Satisfaction
Please indicate your overall satisfaction with all facilities and services.
Please circle one number.
24 :2 2e 2 n a a
g a a a 3 5:- §
0.9. 93*- 2 E3. 2 7“ 02
*< 59., :r :r 8. ‘<
95 EB 93. 9?. 3
Items g 9' e—_ g a.
a. a a m
a. a- is?“ 3
a g Q
G.
Overall satisfaction with all facilities and services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

221

 

 

 

 

 

flirt VII: FMre Intention

In the next 12 months, how likely are you to do the following statement.

Please circle one number.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

s s a a a :1 s
Q a it a 9 E Q
= a s a s ‘< =-
2 ‘< :r :r 5
¥ 9’. 9’. —
‘<

1 c r:

‘< :3 7?

= 9.

5;" *<

(2‘

Revisit this museum 1 2 3 4 6 7
Recommend this museum to others 1 2 3 4 5 7
Renew membership or become a member 1 2 3 4 5 7

 

 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME

PLEASE TURN IN YOUR COMPLETED SURVEY AND RECEIVE A GIFT

222

 

Appendix C: Chinese Survey Instruments

 

 

Wéfifiififlfififi 1 EE‘FPJ%-‘ ~ fiififfiZFfifi

 

 

$921363 1 fi§§fl(LLL—F‘§%$%fi)

l.

fififififlfifi:
1:] $22 El (2.2131320521124020er 1 BJZEEEA £21)
1:] +3221 )idiiii‘ism )ilfisf

. tau/34692 3

D 2029);; [:1 30-391332 E] 404919; 1:] 505913.312 [:1 60641;;

. iéiB’J’l‘iii'lfi 1

E1193 Bit

igEB’fliStEittf-fi 1

1:1 fi‘iflfr‘rfli

fififllfif§fiififi¢fffii 1 .‘Q‘XEéEKEfiA 1

[:1 itfifl(§i§tfii 1 E‘itfv’ifli 1 iitlfir‘r 1 iii/rigid?)
D $6fi<fi¥fh 1 2303871: 1 $8201”: 1 iii???)

[:1 'fifififiéiffifli 1 fifiifii 1 Fé'iliii‘iiiirfi 1 Wife?)
[:1 $2MET¥1§8 1 lEfiz‘i'fr 1 15231118)

[3 $202221th 1 fif’il‘ir‘r 1 £20.11)

. iéifi’flfigifiiifiifdffi =

[:1 $122 D Ellé-néliif/NZ D Elfin-$27162 Cl Him 1

. ifiéfifififigfé‘l i
D @Wf—SL‘XT) D 1151401512 [:1 2:222:22)

D Hi%fifi(’é‘L‘/U:)
139.3843}? likfii’flfii 1

D .4541le E] 20,000 71:731th [:1 20,000-29,999 7‘1:
1:1 30,000-39,999 77: Cl 40,000-49,999 7‘1: [3 50,000 Twit/U:

Bauxaaaa) Dru/treaties: magi/ear

1:1 ififitlj 1:] 55130 E] 131$
1:] Eli [3 if E] liliii I

 

 

223

 

2:11.136}: 2232M
1.132221222301222 (2&2

 

 

 

 

[:1 222(2): L1 E1412; D22~ [3:222:22
2. 12223522 WfirlfliflifliwfxEm’a :90 (22
13121 [32 3 71 [)4 5 a [:16 72):) 1:]87X752LLLJ:
3. 12322222222222 = (213.)
[3 SE. [:1 2A [:1 3A E] 4A E] 5A2»:
4. 2222129017112 1"“2 = (2232.)
D2A<2r§k> DaM’aifiuflZ-ifi/Ma) E] 22
I] 112752 E] 12E:
5. 17122392212 D2222 [12.362-
6. 16.2222122892222222 = (22)
E1 2A222222 E] 222-23211222 D 212
[:1 2122222 E 2222222 [3 22232
[32182:
7. 22122222212222.21122221191122112 r122
12 t2 2 it? 2 12 122 (E
2% 2 12 12 i2 {2 2 12
1121. i2 :2: 7F 12 2
2221223922 0 1 2 3 5 7
22211922628922 0 1 2 3 5 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. 1.1922222211222922222—1292222) =
D 2: E12

9. lfliffii’ffié‘fiiiflfilfiiifllfififi’flfifl i
1:] 2 CPS

224

 

 

$3236}

 

521T filth Ai‘éfiflfié’éfi’fijfifi WTZJ‘UWEE 21222232$W2ffigi

 

E
$
E

H

WE%"$

2
E

2

W m

E

[a]
2

222

 

WHWWED

 

WHEWWWXARWEm2

 

EIDlfigflflfflfifi

 

2222 222222

 

mum2222

 

WHEWTWWfi$W

 

WRWWWWWWW

 

WHEWWWWWA2EXW222W$W

 

WUéfiéfigfiWfifi

 

TMWW2AWL$

 

E22W2Wa 222

 

W2WWWWW2222W

 

272222

 

TUWWWWWWEbm

 

E22WWWP2AAWWEE

 

W22WW§2WWWWREW

y—sI—‘n—s—np—sy—tp—t—Ap—Ip-a—Ip—‘p—g—s—p—o

 

WEEEW2E§$W§¢Z2®U£2W ‘ 232.222 ‘ ”MIMI? ‘
2%)

~

A A A-hA-hA-bA-bA-h'kh-AA-b-b

 

W22WWWWWW§ £22222

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

 

 

2T§W2WW$WWWW£§MWi2222 WE 2
W2

b.)

 

 

 

W22WWW222W22

 

 

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

 

DJ

 

 

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

 

O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\OO\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\

 

\l\)\l\l\l\)\l\)\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l

 

 

225

 

 

 

 

Wéfiflffififi’fi ’ [EE‘FWEIZQ ~ EtEfiFnfiE

 

 

ELtFFql

 

IEEBEI‘EE

Egg :1 1 EV . . _ __
EEWEBEBEJ‘TWIEEB’JEEBETWQ EFF;

   

 

EEEE

GEE->1

Em
EEEE

ME
EEE

 

EWEEEEEEE

 

EWEEEEEEEE’EUEEEEWEE

 

EWWEEEEE

 

EEEEEEEE

 

EWEEEEEEEEEEEE~E

 

EWE EEE

 

fimfifijgflngEWE@U%Wfi$ EEWEE'

JLa

p—n

 

EEWEEWEE

 

EEEEEWEEEEEEEE

 

EEEEEEEEE

 

EEEEEEEEEEEE

 

EWUEEEEEEEEEE

~Hflp—fip—A

 

EE EEAEEEEEEEEEEEWmDEEWE’
EEEEE)

 

EEWWEEWEWEEWEY

 

EWEEEEEEE

 

EWEEEEEEEEEWEE

 

KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWEE

 

EWEEEEEEEEEEE

 

EWEEEEEEEEEEEWWE

pulp—tg—apdy—‘p—g

 

£152.83

EEféEAAg) EEEEWU: EEWEEEEE ’ EEK]

pd

 

EEEEEEEEEEWEE

 

EEEE’JB’JJ’FE’fiIE ‘ EMOEEEEEE’

 

EEEEEEEEE

 

EEEEEEE'EEEHEEEEEWEE

 

 

EEEEEEEEEWEWEEL

 

y—fi—Hy—‘fl

 

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

 

wwwww w wwwwww u.) wwwww w wwwwwwémgfifififig

 

Ab-h-b-hA-D-A-h-h-b-hbA-bA-b-B-bA-b-bhhh

 

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMU’OM

 

O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\

 

\l\l\l\)\l\l\l\l\)\l\l\l\l\l\l\)\)\l\l\l\)\l\)\l\l

 

 

226

 

 

1.115“!an

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WWWEWWEW 1 23 4 6 7
fiEWfiTSXEE fiffilqmufimln up: 1 2 3 4 6 7
WWWWWWW meEW 1 23 4 6 7
fl =W
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW=
fiinfiWffiEflW
Z<fifiWWfiWEifi
EflW3FWfii- W
W W W
W
WWWWWW WHWWWWWW WW 12 3415 67
WWWWfiWWWHWWWW WWWWWWWW 1 23 4‘56 7
EWWW
WWWWWWWWHWWWW’WWWWWWWW 1 23 4'56 7
WWWW
WWfigfiiWWHWWWW’WWWWWWWW 1 23 4‘56 7
WWWWWHWW'WWWWW§WWWW$WWWW=
fiinfiWffifiEW
Z<WfifiWfifiEiW
WEW?FWn% W
W W W
W
WWW? 'WWWWWWWW WWWW 1 23 4‘56 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

227

 

 

 

 

%t%wiifififi

fiflfiwxm—im’flfifimxwfimmmfim:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fi§$ffififfifiIfi
d\flfifl%fifiméfl
maaxgam fié
1?: HI E
%
éfifl@% 1 23 4 6
fi%kmfiflflwfififi 1 3 4 6
Eflfiééfifimkfifi 1 3 4

 

 

Z§fl3%§¥Utt¥EEE "F5}E§%Hfi§fifififi%5‘°

{an

fiEEEEfiEEZEfiSZEEEBEZ§f§HEi%)KEa ’flfifififllfi

uLIIJ

'WfiéflmR!

@13fiflfififlfiiffimmMfifififlfifififiwfiéflfiflM%Wfim¥

228

fi. . - "was ,- -
l
4w

 

 

Appendix D: Photos of Incentives

 

3
i

 

1%

 

 

 

Museum souvenir 1: Magnetic bookmarks designed for one special exhibit during
survey

 

 

— A 7' v , r-v-r . _nflm

Museum souvenir 2: A collapsible flying disc (also used for a hand fan)

229

 

Appendix E: Results of Pilot Study

Table E-l. Demographic Characteristics of Museum Respondents (n = 389)

 

 

Variable Frequency Percent (%)
Ticket type
Adult (regular) 224 57.6
Discount (student aged 20 years or more, government
employee) 94 24.2
Member with Dinosaur card 16 4.1
Member with Family card 55 14.1
Gender
Male 164 42.2
Female 225 57.8
Age
20-29 189 48.6
30-39 146 37.5
40-49 50 12.9
50-59 3 0.8
60-64 1 0.3
Current residence
Local(Taichung City/County) 156 40.1
Northern Taiwan (Keelung, Taipei, Taoyuan, Hsinchu) 132 33.9
Central Taiwan (Miaoli, Changhua, Nantou, Yunlin) 54 13.9
Southern Taiwan (Chiayi, Tainan, Kaohsiung, Pingtung) 39 10.0
Eastern Taiwan (Yialn, Hualien, Taitung) 5 1.3
Island County (Penghu, Kinmen, MaZu) 3 0.8
Marital status
Single, never married 179 46.0
Married with no children 22 5.7
Married with children 187 48.1
Other 1 0.3
Education level
Completed junior high school or less 5 1.3
Completed senior high school 31 8.0
Completed College 287 73.8
Completed graduate school or more 66 17.0
Missing value 0 0
Monthly income
No income 87 22.4
5 NT $20,000 68 17.5
NT $20,000-29,999 62 15.9
NT $30,000-39,999 60 15.4
NT $40,000-49,999 51 13.1
NT $50,000 or more 61 15.7
Missing value 0 0

 

230

 

 

Table E—l. (cont’d)

 

 

Variable Frequency Percent (%)
Occupation
Government employee 25 6.4
Private sector employee 107 27.5
Self-employed 52 13 .4
Unemployed 13 3 .3
Teacher 30 7.7
Student 82 21.1
Retired 1 0.3
Housewife 27 6.9 F
Other 52 13.4 ‘ ‘

 

231

 

 

lablc‘

Var

Fre

Table E—2. Museum Visit Behavior (n = 389)

 

 

Variable Frequency Percent (%)
Frequency
Two or more times per year 182 46.8
One time per year 82 21.1
Once in two years 20 5.1
Once in three years or more 105 27.0
Missing value 0 0.0
Number of visits per year
1 time 105 27.0
2-3 times 1 18 30.3
4-5 times 61 15.7
6-7 times 20 5.1
8 times or more 84 21.6
Missing value 1 0.3
Accompanying number
Only myself 13 3.3
2 people 215 55.3
3 people 71 18.3
4 people 55 14.1
5 people or more 34 8.7
Missing value 1 0.3
Companion (multiple choice)
Family without children 82 20.9
Family with children 131 33.4
Colleague(s) from work 13 3.3
Friend(s) 157 40.1
Only myself 9 2.3
Overnight staying
Yes, overnight trip 1 1 1 28.5
No, day trip 275 70.7
Missing value 3 0.8
Length of stay
Less than 1 hour 94 24.4
1 to less than 2 hours 125 33.1
2 to less than 3 hours 95 24.4
3 to less than 4 hours 42 10.8
4 to less than 5 hours 28 7.2
More than 5 hours 5 1.3

 

232

 

 

Table E—2. (cont’d)

 

 

 

Variable Frequency Percent (%)
Information
Family Word-of-Mouth 101 26.0
Friend or Colleague WOM 93 23.9
Internet 78 20.1
Radio station or TV program 12 3.1
Brochure/flyer 45 1 1.6
Newspaper or magazines 27 6.9
Other 26 6.7
Missing value 7 1.8
NMNS member
Yes 71 18.3
N0 318 81.7
Membership in other museum(s)
Yes 23 5.9
NO 365 93.8
Missing value 1 0.3

 

233

 

Table E—3. Summary of Item Analysis of Motivations for Visiting Museum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1...... Cm 05m“ 51m... mm... C2133???" 333:3; “11°51...

item deleted or deleted
Pusl l 1.62“" 0.538 -0.79 0.30 0.875 0.599 Accepted
PusZ 855‘“ 0.333 - l . 14 1.64 0.882 0.394 Accepted
Pus3 1009‘" 0.512 -1.29 2.72 0.876 0.596 Accepted
Pus4 1317*" 0.604 -1 .24 2.48 0.872 0.667 Accepted
PusS 1248*" 0.519 -.l39 -0.15 0.876 0.566 Accepted
Pus6 1 1.24"" 0.579 -1 .22 2.50 0.874 0.646 Accepted
Pus7 1302*" 0.559 -1.22 2.50 0.874 0.618 Accepted
Pus8 8.88“" 0.404 -1 .22 2.50 0.879 0.477 Accepted
Pus9 764‘" 0.382 -0.83 0.73 0.880 0.408 Accepted
Pusll 12.12“" 0.525 -0.30 -0.07 0.876 0.571 Accepted
Pu12 1 1.83“" 0.521 -0.80 0.49 0.875 0.589 Accepted
Pul3 13.13"" 0.520 -0.77 1.20 0.877 0.575 Accepted
Pul4 1245*" 0.532 - l . 14 1.45 0.875 0.601 Accepted
Pu15 1070"" 0.469 -0.64 0.52 0.877 0.522 Accepted
Pu16 1079‘" 0.488 -0.66 0.84 0.878 0.559 Accepted
Pul7 1397*" 0.588 -0.75 0.37 0.873 0.653 Accepted
Pu18 966"" 0.397 -0.53 0.43 0.881 0.454 Accepted
Pul9 10.00"" 0.463 -l.154 2.32 0.878 0.531 Accepted
PullO 1302*" 0.547 -0.54 -0.04 0.874 0.612 Accepted
Pull 1 13.17"“ 0.526 -0.55 0.05 0.875 0.596 Accepted

Criteria 2 3.0 2 0.400 -3 < sa< 3 -8 < kb< 8 2 0,880c 2 0.450 Accepted

 

Note. All values of Critical Ratio are significant at a = 0.001 level. All values of Pearson correlation are
significant at a = 0.01 level. The bold numbers are below the criteria.

a: “5” indicates skewness.

b: “k” indicates kurtosis.

c: Cronbach's alpha of overall motivation construct.

"p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

234

Table E—4. Summary of Item Analysis of Past Experience

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Cronbach's Item
Item C22? cfearsol fig“ Skewness Kurtosis alpha if '23:? accepted
item deleted g or deleted
pEla 15.954**“‘ 0.734" -1.235 2.164 0.743 0.821 Accepted
PE2 18.150*** 0.859" -1.686 3.474 0.743 0.821 Accepted
Criteria 2 3.0 2 0.400 -3 < s < 3 -8 < k < 8 2 (1336b 2 0.450
a: “PE” indicates past experience.

 

 

 

b: Cronbach’s alpha of Perception of Value construct.

"p <0.01, m p <0.001.

235

 

 

 

Table E—S. Summary of Item Analysis of Perception of Service Quality

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m... Cm 05336:“ SW... Kano... Cilllfil" 5:31;; “3:3...
item deleted or deleted
Tanl l 192““ 0.502 -0.590 -O.206 0.944 0.527 Accepted
Tan2 13 20*" 0.593 -0.893 0.651 0.942 0.623 Accepted
Tan3 1151‘" 0.544 -0.709 0.194 0.943 0.572 Accepted
Tan4 13.43 **"' 0.655 -0.960 1.120 0.942 0.698 Accepted
Tan5 l 138*" 0.629 -0.928 1.274 0.942 0.665 Accepted .
Tan6 8.95 * * * 0.412 -0.797 0.461 0.945 0.445 Accepted 3
Resl 1431*" 0.633 -0.718 0.328 .0942 0.669 Accepted
ResZ 1173*" 0.512 -0.398 0.232 0.943 0.530 Accepted
Res3 1479*" 0.630 -0.431 -0.340 0.942 0.661 Accepted P ..
Res4 12.97“” 0.590 -1.161 1.966 0.942 0.633 Accepted 1
ResS 1464*“ 0.605 -l.143 2.476 0.942 0.653 Accepted
Empl 1428*" 0.576 -O.904 0.956 0.943 0.61 1 Accepted
Emp2 1826* ** 0.686 -0.662 0.424 0.942 0.727 Accepted
Emp3 1357*" 0.587 -0.231 -0.048 0.943 0.608 Accepted
Emp4 12.95"“ 0.622 -0.853 0.864 0.942 0.664 Accepted
EmpS 1616*" 0.674 -0.519 -0.025 0.942 0.708 Accepted
Emp6 16.37“” 0.700 -0.627 0.058 0.941 0.734 Accepted
Coml 15 98*" 0.623 -0.498 -0.329 0.942 0.655 Accepted
Com2 1338*" 0.536 -0.327 -0.813 0.943 0.566 Accepted
Com3 1920*“ 0.700 -0.802 1.101 0.941 0.738 Accepted
Com4 15.67" * 0.650 -0.726 0.197 0.942 0.703 Accepted
Com5 15.41 *" 0.658 -0.726 0.197 0.942 0.706 Accepted
Com6 12.24" * 0.596 -0.627 -0. 130 0.942 0.642 Accepted
Conl 1363*" 0.626 -0.41 1 0.305 0.942 0.671 Accepted
Con2 1 154*" 0.51 1 -0.631 0.090 0.944 0.527 Accepted
Con3 1526*" 0.662 -O. 141 -0.822 0.942 0.708 Accepted
Con4 17.66" * "' 0.661 -0.504 0.302 0.942 0.690 Accepted
Con5 15.15" " 0.608 -0.590 -0.206 0.942 0.63 1 Accepted
Criteria 2 3.0 2 0.400 -3 < s < 3 -3 < k < 8 2 0,944a 2 0.450

 

a: Cronbach's alpha of Perception of Service Quality construct.
"p < 0.01, "* p < 0.001.

 

236

Table E—6. Summary of Item Analysis of Perception of Value

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'I’ l Cronbach's Item
Item Cratio Jumfign Skewness Kurtosis alpha it‘ 5:32;.- accepted
"°"' item deleted 3 or deleted
pyla 24.41 1"" 0.782 -0.747 0.100 0.924 0.875 Accepted
PV2 24.078"* 0.875 -0.923 0.776 , 0.890 0.934 Accepted
PV3 25.710*" 0.870 -0.892 0.769 0.892 0.933 Accepted
PV4 23.604"* 0.804 -0.794 0.448 0.913 0.891 Accepted
Criteria 2 3.0 2 0.400 -3 < s < 3 -8 < k < 8 2 0927b 2 0.450 Accepted
21: “PV” indicates Perception of Value.
b: Cronbach's alpha of Perception of Value construct.
"p < 0.01, "* p < 0.001.
Table E—7. Summary of Item Analysis of Loyalty
'l' l Cronbach's Item
Item Cratio crumItion Skewnels Kurtosis alpha if :2?in accepted
item deleted g or deleted
Loyla 22.851"* 0.753 -l.238 1.637 0.642 0.910 Accepted
Loy2 23.053*" 0.668 -0.961 0.449 0.750 0.864 Accepted
Loy3 24.120*" 0.609 -0.240 -0.532 0.831 0.810 Accepted
Criteria 2 3.0 2 0.400 -3 < s < 3 -8 < k < 8 2 0309b 2 0.450 Accepted
a: “Loy” indicates Loyalty.
b: Cronbach's alpha of Loyalty construct.
"p < 0.01, "”" p < 0.001.
Table E-8. Summary of the Measurement Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha)
Measurement Scale Number of Items Cronbach’s alpha ((1)
Motivations 20 0.880
Past Experience 2 0.886
Perception of Service Quality 28 0.944
Perception of Value 4 0.927
Loyalty 3 0.809

 

 

 

237

REFERENCES

238

 

REFERENCES

Alaeddinoglu, F ., & Can, A. S. (2009). Developing international market entry strategy or

cultural tourism of Turkey. International Journal of Human Sciences, 16(1),
509-527.

Alghamdi, A. (2007). Explicit and implicit motivation towards outbound tourism: 0
study of Saudi tourists. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Glasgow,
Glasgow, United Kingdom.

Allen, E. (2001). Can the neglect of defining and evaluating service quality in museums
be effectively addressed by SER VQUAL? Unpublished MA Thesis, The
Nottingham Trent University.

Alt, M. B. (1980). Four years of visitor surveys at the National History Museum.
Museums, 80, 10-19.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1991). Predicting the performance of measures in a
confirmatory factor analysis with a pretest assessment of their substantive
validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 732-740.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A

review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3),
411-423.

Andreu, L., Kozak, M., Avci, N., & Cifter, N. (2005). Market segmentation by
motivations to travel. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 19(1), 1-14.

Antanassopoulos, A., Goumaris, S. P., & Stathakopoulos, V. (2001). Behavioral
responses to customer satisfaction: An empirical study. European Journal of
Marketing, 35(5/6), 687-708.

Antonacopoulou, E., & Gabriel, Y. (2001). Emotion, learning and organizational change.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14(5), 43 5-45 1.

Ap, J ., & Crompton, L. (1998). Developing and testing a tourism impact scale. Journal
of Travel Research, 37(2), 121-130.

Athiyaman, A., & O'Donnell, B. (1995). Antecedents and consequences of educational
service quality. Australasian Association for Institutional Research, 4(1).

Retrieved from http://www.aair.org.au/jir/lVlay95/Athiyaman.pdf

Atilgan, E., Akinci, S., & Aksoy, S. (2003). Mapping service quality in the tourism
industry. Managing Service Quality, 13(5), 412-422.

239

 

 

Babbie, E. (2001). Survey research method (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bachman, S. J ., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). The usefulness of selected variables for
predicting activity loyalty. Leisure Sciences, 13, 205-220.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. (2006). Antecedents and purchase consequences of

customer participation in small group brand communities. International journal
of research in marketing, 23(1), 45-61.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. (2002). Intentional social action in virtual communities.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(2), 2-21.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Lee, K.-H. (2002). Multiple routes for social influence: The role of
compliance, internalization, and social identity. Social Psychology Quarterly,
65(3), 226-247. t

 

Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions.
Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785-804.

Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals
of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868-897.

Baloglu, S., Pekcan, A., Chen, S., & Santos, J. (2003). The relationship between
destination performance, overall satisfaction, and behavioral intention for distinct

segments. Current Issues and Development in Hospitality and Tourism
Satisfaction, 1 7(1), 149-165.

Baloglu, S., & Uysal, M. (1996). Market segments of push and pull motivations: a
canonical correlation approach. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 8(3), 32-38.

Bansal, H., & Eiselt, H. A. (2004). Exploratory research of tourist motivations and
planning. Tourism Management, 25(3), 387-396.

Barros, C. P., Butler, R., & Correia, A. (2010). The length of stay of golf tourism: A
survival analysis. Tourism Management, 31, 13-21.

Bauer, H. H., F alk, T., & Hammerschmidt, M. (2006). eTransQual: a transaction
process-based approach for capturing service quality in online shopping. Journal
of Business Research, 59(7), 866-875.

Beard, J ., & Ragheb, M. (1983). Measuring leisure motivation. Journal of Leisure
Research, 15(3), 219-228.

Beeho, A., & Prentice, R. (1997). Conceptualizing the experiences of heritage tourists: A

240

case study of New Lanark World Heritage Village. Tourism Management, 18(2),
75-87.

Beeho, A. J ., & Prentice, R. C. (1995). Evaluating the experiences and benefits gained
by tourists visiting a socio-industrial heritage museum: An application of ASEB
grid analysis to Blists hill open-air museum, the ironbridge gorge museum,
United Kingdom. Museum Management and C uratorship, 14(3), 229-251.

Bentler, P., & Chou, C. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological
Methods & Research, 16(1), 78-117.

Berry, G., Shostack, & Upah, G. Emerging perspectives on services marketing, american
marketing association. Chicago, IL.

Bicknell, S., & Farmelo, G. (1993). Museum visitor studies in the 905: Science Museum.
Bigne, J. E., Sanchez, M. I., & Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables
and after purchase behavior: inter-relationship. Tourism Management, 22(6),

607-616.

Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings
and employee responses. The Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 69-82.

Black, G. (2005). The engaging museum, developing museums for visitor involvement:
Rutledge.

Bloemer, J ., & Kasper, H. (1995). The complex relationship between consumer
satisfaction and brand loyalty. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16(2), 311-329.

Board, W. T. (1984). Survey of visitors to the Big Pit Mining Museum Blaenafon.
Cardiff: Wales tourist board.

Bogari, N. B., Crowther, C., & Marr, N. (2003). Motivation for domestic tourism: A case
study of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Tourism Analysis, 8(2-4), 137-141.

Bojanic, D. (1996). Consumer perceptions of price, value and satisfaction in the hotel
industry: An exploratory study. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 4,
5-22.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

Bolton, R. N. (1998). A dynamic model of the duration of the customer's relationship

with a continuous service provider: The role of satisfaction. Marketing Science,
17(1), 45-65.

Bolton, R. N., & H., D. J. (1991). A multistage model of customers' assessments of

241

service quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research, 1 7(4), 375-3 84.

Boomsma, A., & Hoogland, J. (2001). The robustness of LISREL modeling revisited.
Structural equation modeling: Present and future, 139-168.

Bourdieu, T. (1991). The love of art: european art museums and their public. Cambridge:
Polity Press.

Bowman, D., & Narayandas, D. (2001). Managing customer-initiated contacts with

manufacturers: The impact on share of category requirements and word-of-mouth
behavior. Journal of marketing Research, 38(3), 281-297.

Bramwell, B. (1998). User satisfaction and product development in urban tourism.
Tourism Management, 19(1), 35-47.

Brunt, P. R. (1990). Tourism trip decision-making at the sub-regional level with special
reference to southern England. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Dorset
Institute.

Bryant, J. (1988). The principles of marketing: A guide for museum, London:
Association of Independent Museum.

Buchanan, T. (1983). Toward an understanding of variability in satisfactions within
activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 15(1), 39-51.

Burns, R., Graefe, A., & Absher, J. (2003). Alternate measurement approaches to

recreational customer satisfaction: Satisfaction-only versus gap scores. Leisure
Sciences, 25(4), 363-380.

Burton, C., & Scott, C. (2003). Museum: challenges for the let century. International
Journal of Arts Management, 5(2), 56-68.

Byme, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with Lisrel, Prelis, and Simplis:
Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Cai, L. A., Morrison, A., Braunlich, C., & O Leary, J. T. (1997). Analyzing the US
pleasure travelers to China/Hong Kong. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 4(2), 49-61.

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.

Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of the
SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of retailing, 66(1), 33-55.

242

 

Car

Ca

C:

Carter, R., & Beeton, R. (2004). A model of cultural change and tourism. Asia Pacific
Journal of Tourism Research, 9(4), 423-442.

Caruana, A., Money, A., & Berthon, P. (2000). Service quality and satisfaction-the

moderating role of value. European Journal of Marketing, 34(11/12), 1338-1353.

Castro, C., Martin Armario, E., & Martin Ruiz, D. (2007). The influence of market
heterogeneity on the relationship between a destination's image and tourists'
future behavior. Tourism Management, 28(1), 175-187.

Chadee, D., & Mattsson, J. (1996). An empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in
tourism. The Service Industries Journal, 16(3), 305-320.

Chambers, M. (1984). Is anyone out there: audience and communication? Museum News,

June, 47-54.

Chen, C., & Tsai, M. (2008). Perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty of TV travel

product shopping: Involvement as a moderator. Tourism Management, 29(6),
1166-1171.

Chen, C.-F. (2008 ). Investigating structural relationships between service quality,
perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions for air passengers:
evidence from Taiwan. Transportation Research Part A, 42(4), 709-717.

Chen, C. F., & Chen, F. S. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and
behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31(1), 29-35.

Chen, C. F., & Tsai, D. C. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect
behavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28(4), 1115-1122.

Chen, T.-H., & Lu, T. (2006). Visitor demand and willingness to pay for interpretive
service: An example of the botanical garden, National Museum of Natural
Science. Museum Studies, 20(4), 7-25.

Chang, T. Z., & Wildt, A. R. (1994). Price, product information, and purchase intention:
an empirical study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(1), 16-27.

Chiang, Y.-C. (2002). Using the technique of importance-performance analysis to
evaluate interpreters and interpretive media in National Science and Technology
Museum. Unpublished MA Thesis, National Taichung University, Taichung,
Taiwan.

Chiou, H. J. (2002). Quantitative research and statistical analysis. Taipei, Taiwan:
Wunan Publications.

243

 

 

Chinese Association of Museums. (2009). Museum information Retrieved February
20th, 2009, from
http://www.cam.org.tw/big5/museum02.asp?itemtext=%A8p%A5%DF

Choi, T. Y., & Chu, R. (2001). Determinants of hotel guests' satisfaction and repeat
patronage in the Hong Kong hotel industry. Hospitality Management, 20(3),
277-297.

Churchill, G. A. (1979). A pradi gm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of marketing Research, 16, 64-73.

Churchill, G. A., & Iacobucci, D. (2002). Marketing research: methodological
foundations (8th ed.): South-Westem, Dryden.

Churchill, G. A., & Surprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the determinants of
customer satisfaction. Journal of marketing Research, 19(4), 491-504.

Cina, C. (1989). Creating an effective customer satisfaction program. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 6(4), 31-40.

Clawson, M., & Knetsch, J. (1966). Economics of outdoor recreation. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.

Clemons, D. S., & Woodruff, R. B. (1992). Broadening the view of consumer (dis)
satisfaction: a proposed means-end disconfirmation model of CS/D. Marketing

Theory and Applications, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL,
209-216.

Colbert, F. (2002). Entrepreneurship and leadership in marketing the arts. In R.
Rentschler (Ed.), The New wave: Entrepreneurship and the Arts. Melbourne:
Deakin University.

Cole, S. T., & Illum, S. F. (2006). Examining the mediating role of festival visitors'
satisfaction in the relationship between service quality and behavioral intentions.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 12(2), 160-173.

Combs, A. (1999). Why do they come? Listening to visitors at a decorative arts museum.
Curator, 42(3), 186-197.

Conway, T., & Whitelock, J. (2007). Relationship marketing in the subsidized arts: the
key to a strategic marketing focus? European Journal of Marketing, 41(1/2),
199-222.

Cooper, C., Fletcher, J ., Gilbert, D., & Wanhill, S. (1993 ). Tourism: Principles and
practice. UK: Pitman Publishing.

244

 

Cowell, D. (1984). The marketing of services. Heinemann: London
Crandall, R. (1980). Motivations for leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 12(1), 45-54.

Creigh-Tyte, S. W., & Selwood, S. (1998). Museums in the UK: Some evidence on scale
and activities. Journal of Cultural Economics, 22(2/3), 151-165.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches: Sage.

Crompton, J ., L. (1979). An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination

and the influence of geographical location upon that image. Journal of Travel
Research, 17(4), 18-23.

Crompton, J. (1992). Structure of vacation destination choice sets. Annals of Tourism
Research, 19(3), 420-434.

Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research,
6(4), 408-424.

Crompton, J. L., Mackay, K. J ., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1991). Identifying dimensions of
service quality in public recreation. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 9(3), 15-27.

Cronin, J ., Brady, M., Brand, R., Hightower, R., & Shemwell, D. (1997). A
cross-sectional test of the effect and conceptualization of service value. Journal
of Services Marketing, 11(6), 375-391.

Cronin, J ., Brady, M., & Hult, G. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and
customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments.

Journal of retailing, 76(2), 193-218.

Cronin Jr, J ., & Taylor, S. (1992). Measuring service quality: a reexamination and
extension. The Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hermanson, K. (1995). Intrinsic motivation in museums: What
makes visitors want to learn? Museum News, 35(7), 146-160.

Curry, A. (1999). Innovation in public service management. Managing Service Quality,
9, 180-190.

Danaher, P. J ., & Mattsson, J. (1994). Customer satisfaction during the service delivery
process. European Journal of Marketing, 28(5), 5-16.

Dann, G. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
4(4), 184-194.

245

Davidow, M. (2003). Have you heard the word? The effect of word of mouth on
perceived justice, satisfaction and repurchase intentions following complaint

handling. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaint
Handling, 16, 67-83.

Davies, A., & Prentice, R. (1995). Conceptualizing the latent visitor to heritage
attractions. Tourism Management, 16(7), 491-500.

De Rojas, C., & Camarero, C. (2008). Visitors' experience, mood and satisfaction in a

heritage context: Evidence from an interpretation center. Tourism Management,
29(3), 525-537.

De Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., Lemmink, J ., & Mattson, J. (1997). The dynamics of the
service delivery process: A value-based approach. International journal of
research in marketing, 14(3), 231-243.

Decrop, A. (2000). The antecedents and consequences of vacationers' dis/satisfaction:
Tales from the field. Tourism Analysis, 5, 203-209.

Deng, W.-J., & Lee, Y.-C. (2006). Kano model application for identification of Taipei
Fine Arts Museum critical visitor service quality attributes. Museology Quarterly,
20(4), 27-45.

Dholakia, U., & Bagozzi, R. (2004). Motivational antecedents, constituents and
consequents of virtual community identity. Virtual and collaborative teams:
Process, technologies, and practice, 252-267.

Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual
framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99-1 13.

Ding, L., Velicer, W. F ., & Harlow, L. L. (1995). Effects of estimation methods, number
of indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling

fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2(2),
119-143.

Dodds, W., Monroe, K., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store
information on buyers' product evaluations. Journal of marketing Research,
28(3), 307-319.

Driver, B. L. (1976). Toward a better understanding of the social benefits of outdoor
recreation participation. In (Ed.), (pp. 163-189.). Southern States Recreation
Research Applications Workshop, Asheville, NC: US. Dept. of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Drummond, S., & Yeoman, I. (2001). Measurement of service quality. In I. F rochot

246

 

(Ed.), Quality Issues in Heritage Visitor Attractions (pp. 154-171). Oxford:
Butterworth.

Drummond, S., & Yeoman, I. (2001). Quality issues in heritage visitor attractions:
Butterworth-Heinemann.

Bean. (2004). The inventory of recreation values for rivers and lakes of Canterbury New
Zealand.

Echtner, C. M., & Brent Ritchie, J. R. (1991). The meaning and measurement of
destination image. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(2), 2-12.

Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D., & Miniard, P. W. (1986). Consumer behavior: Dryden
Press.

Enterprise, S. (1999). New horizons: International benchmarking and best practice for
visitor attractions: Scottish Enterprise.

Evanschitzky, H., & Wunderlich, M. (2006). An examination of moderator effects in the
four-stage loyalty model. Journal of Service Research, 8(4), 330-345.

Falces Delgado, C., Sierra Diez, B., Becerra Grande, A., & Brinol Tumes, P. (1999).
HOTELQUAL: Una escala para medir la calidad percibida en servicios de
alojamiento. Estudios Turisticos, 1 3 9, 95-110.

F alk, J. (1998). Visitors: Who does, who doesn't and why. Museum News, 77(2), 38-43.

Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (1992). The museum experience. Howells House,
Washington, DC.

Faullant, R., Matzler, K., & Fuller, J. (2008). The impact of satisfaction and image on
loyalty: the case of Alpine ski resorts. Managing Service Quality, 18(2), 163-178.

Fielding, K., Pearce, P., & Hughes, K. (1992). Climbing Ayers Rock: relating visitor
motivation, time perception and enjoyment. Journal of Tourism Studies, 3(2),
49-57.

Fishbein, M. (1967). Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: Wiley.

Ford, D. H. (1987). Humans as self-constructing living systems: A developmental
perspective on behavior and personality. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fomell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of marketing
Research, 18(3), 382-388.

Frochot, I. (2001). Measurement of service quality. In S. Drummond & I. Yeoman (Eds),

247

 

Quality Issues in Heritage Visitor Attractions (pp. 154-171). Oxford:
Butterworth.

Frochot, I. (2004). An investigation into the influence of the benefits sought by visitors
on their quality evaluation of historic houses' service provision. Journal of
Vacation Marketing, 10(3), 223-23 7.

F rochot, 1., & Hughes, H. (2000). HISTOQUAL: The development of a historic houses
assessment scale. Tourism Management, 21(2), 157-167.

Gabbott, M., & Hogg, G. (1998). Consumers and Services. Chichester: John Wiley.

Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and
commitment in customer relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70-87.

Getty, J. M., & Thompson, K. N. (1994). The relationship between quality, satisfaction,
and recommending behavior in lodging decisions. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 2(3), 3-22.

Gil, S. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2009). Understanding the museum image formation
process: A comparison of residents and tourists. Journal of Travel Research,
47(4), 480-493.

Gitelson, R. J ., & Crompton, J. L. (1984). Insights into the repeat vacation phenomenon.
Annals of Tourism, 11(2), 199-218.

Goeldner, C. R., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2006). Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies:
Wiley.

Gomez-Jacinto, L., Martin-Garcia, J ., & Bertiche-Haud' Huyze, C. (1999). A model of

tourism experience and attitude change. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4),
1024-1027.

Gronroos, C. (1982). Strategic management and marketing in the service sector, Swedish
school of economics and business administration. Helsinki.

Gronroos, C. (1997). Value-driven relational marketing: from products to resources and
competencies. Journal of Marketing Management, 13(5), 407-419.

Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of
component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 265-275.

Gummesson, E. (1993). Quality management in service organization, an interpretation
of service quality phenomenon and a synthesis of international research: ISQA.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data

248

 

analysis with readings. New York: Publishing.

Hanqin, Z., & Lam, T. (1999). An analysis of Mainland Chinese visitors’ motivations to
visit Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 20(5), 587-594.

Harrison, J. (1997). Museums and touristic expectations. Annals of Tourism research,
24(1), 23-40.

Harrison, P., & Shaw, R. (2004). Consumer satisfaction and post-purchase intentions: an

exploratory study of museum visitors. International Journal of Arts Management,
6(2), 23-32. 1

q, izét' '

Hennessey, S., Yun, D., MacEachern, M., & MacDonald, R. (2007). An examination of
the effects of perceived quality, price-value, and satisfaction on golf tourists'
behavioral intentions: A structural model. In (Ed.), (pp. 84—96). Canada.

 

 

{I} “h I'LY‘I-l‘

Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. .
Sociological Methods and Research, 11(3), 325-344.

Homack, S. R. (2001). Understanding what Anova Post Hoc tests are, really. Paper
presented at the Annual meeting of the Southwest Educational research
Association, New Orleans.

Hamburg, C., & Giering, A. (2001). Personal characteristics as moderators of the
relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty-an empirical analysis.
Psychology and Marketing, 18(1), 43-66.

Hong, K.-W. (2003). The role of involvement in an integrated satisfaction model: The
case of special event tourism. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The

Pennsylvania State University.

Hood, M. G. (1983). Staying away-why people choose not to visit museums. Museum
News, 61(50-57).

Howard, J ., & Sheth, J. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior: Wiley New York.

Hoyle, R., & Panter, A. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. Structural
equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications, 158-176.

Hsieh, L. F ., Lin, L. H., & Lin, Y. Y. (2008). A service quality measurement architecture
for hot spring hotels in Taiwan. Tourism Management, 29(3), 429-438.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure

analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.

249

 

Huang, C.-Y., Cheng, J.-C., Pu, C.-C., Yen, s.-c., & Huang, H.-T. (1999). Visitor
survey of National Science and Technology Museum. Museum Studies, 3(1),
52-69.

Huang, 8., & Hsu, C. (2009). Effects of travel motivation, past experience, perceived
constraint, and attitude on revisit intention. Journal of Travel Research, 48(1),
29-44.

Huang, Y.-K. (2006). A Study of the Relationship among Tourism Motivation,
Destination Image and Satisfaction- The Case of T ienwei Highway Garden.
Unpublished MA Thesis, National Chiayi University.

Hudson, 8., Hudson, P., & Miller, G. A. (2004). The measurement of service quality in
the tour operating sector: a methodological comparison. Journal of Travel
Research, 42(3), 305-312.

Hughes, H. L. (1998). Theatre in London and the inter-relationship with Tourism.
Tourism Management, 19(5), 445-452.

Huo, Y., & Miller, D. (2007). Satisfaction measurement of small tourism sector
(museum): Samoa. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 12(2), 103-117.

Hwang, F.-M. (2003). Theories and application of Structural Equation Modeling Taipei,
Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book Inc.

Hwang, S. N., Lee, C., & Chen, H. J. (2005). The relationship among tourists’
involvement, place attachment and interpretation satisfaction in Taiwan’s
national parks. Tourism Management, 26(2), 143-156.

Iso-Ahola, S. E., & Weissinger, E. (1990). Perceptions of boredom in leisure:
conceptualization, reliability, and validity of the leisure boredom scale. Journal
of Leisure Research, 22(1), 1-17.

Jamrozy, U., & Uysal, M. (1994). Travel motivation variations of overseas German
visitors. Global tourist behavior, 135-160.

J ang, S. C., & Cai, L. A. (2002). Travel motivations and destination choice: A study of
British outbound market. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 13(3),
111-133.

J ang, S. C., & Feng, R. (2007). Temporal destination revisit intention: The effects of
novelty seeking and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 28(2), 580-590.

Jansen-Verbeke, M., & Van Redom, J. (1996). Scanning museum visitors-urban tourism
marketing. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 364-3 75.

250

Pa

 

 

Jayanti, R. K., & Ghosh, A. K. (1996). Service value determination: An integrative
perspective. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 34(4), 5-25.

Johns, N., & Clark, S. L. (1993). Customer perception auditing. Museum Management
and Curatorship, 12(2), 367-3 80.

Johnson, A. (1990). The heritage industry: Panacea for derelict industrial landscapes,
or an inappropriate response to economic problems. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Jesus College, Oxford.

Johnson, P. S. (2003). Museums. In R. Towse (Ed.), Handbook of Cultural Economics
(pp. 315-320). Northampton: Edward Elgar.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1984). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural

relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least squares
methods: Scientific Software.

J urowski, C., & Gursoy, D. (2004). Distance effects on resident attitudes. Annals of
Tourism Research, 31(2), 296-312.

Kaplanidou, K. (2006). The impact of sport tourism event image on destination image
and intentions to travel: A structural equation modeling analysis. Unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Kau, A., & Lim, P. (2005). Clustering of Chinese tourists to Singapore: an analysis of
their motivations, values and satisfaction. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality
Research, 7(4-5), 231-248.

Kaufman, J. E. (1988). Leisure and anxiety: A study of retirees. Activities, Adaptation &
Aging, 11(1),1-10.

Kaul, S. (2007). Measuring retail service quality: Examining applicability of
international research perspectives in India. Vikalpa, 32(1), 1-19.

Kawashima, N. (1999). Knowing the public. A review of museum marketing literature
and research. Museum Management and C uratorship, 1 7(1), 21-39.

Kelly, R. F. (1993). Vesting objects and experiences with symbolic meaning-Summary
of a special session. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 232-234.

Kennedy, C. (2001). Cultural tourism. The definition of cultural tourism Retrieved
December 7th, 2009, from
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/OO/ckennedl/definition.html

Kerlinger, F. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.

251

 

Kerstetter, D. L., Confer, J. J ., & Bricker, K. (1998). Industrial heritage attractions:
Types and tourists. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 7(2), 91-104.

Kerstetter, D. L., Confer, J. J ., & Graefe, A. R. (2001). An exploration of the
specialization concept within the context of heritage tourism. Journal of Travel
Research, 39(3), 267-274.

Khan, M. (2003). ECOSERV ecotourists’ quality expectations. Annals of Tourism
Research, 30(1), 109-124.

Kim, H., Cheng, C. K., & O’Leary, J. T. (2007). Understanding participation patterns
and trends in tourism cultural attractions. Tourism Management, 28(5),
1366-1371.

 

Kim, K. (2006). Travel behaviors of United States university students: Travel
involvement, push motivations, pull motivations, satisfaction, and destination
loyalty. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University.

Kim, K. (2008). Analysis of structural equation model for the student pleasure travel
market: motivation, involvement, satisfaction, and destination loyalty. Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing, 24(4), 297-313.

Kim, K., Jogaratnam, G., & Noh, J. (2006). Travel decisions of students at a US
university: Segmenting the international market. Journal of Vacation Marketing,
12(4), 345-357.

Kim, N. S., & Chalip, L. (2004). Why travel to the FIF A World Cup? Effects of motives,
background, interest, and constraints. Tourism Management, 25(6), 695-707.

Kim, S. S., & Lee, C. K. (2002). Push and pull relationships. Annals of Tourism
Research, 29(1), 257-260.

Kim, S. S., Lee, C. K., & Klenosky, D. B. (2003). The influence of push and pull factors
at Korean national parks. Tourism Management, 24(2), 169-180.

Klenosky, D. B. (2002). The pull of tourism destinations a means-end investigation.
Journal of travel Research, 40(4), 385-395.

Kline, R. B. (2004). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling: The
Guilford Press.

 

Knutson, B., Wullaert, C., Patton, M., & Yokoyama, F. (1990). LODGSERV: a service
quality index for the lodging industry. Hospitality Research Journal, 14(2),
277-284.

252

 

Koran, J ., Koran, M. L., & Longino, S. (1986). The relationship of age, sex, attention,
and holding power with two types of science exhibits. Curator, 29(3), 227-244.

Kotler, N., & Kotler, P. (1998). Museum strategy and marketing: designing missions,
building audiences, generating revenue and resources: Jossey-Bass.

Kotler, N., & Kotler, P. (2000). Can museums be all things to all people? missions, goals,
and marketing role. Museum Management and C uratorship, 18(3), 271-287.

Kotler, P. (1979). Strategies for introducing marketing into nonprofit organizations. The
Journal of Marketing, 43(1), 37-44. 33;,

Kotler, P. (1982). Marketing for non-profit organization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall Inc.

 

Kozak, M. (2001). Repeaters' behavior at two distinct destinations. Annals of Tourism 1
Research, 28(3), 784-807. ‘

Kozak, M. (2002). Comparative analysis of tourist motivations by nationality and
destinations. Tourism Management, 23(3), 221-232.

Kuo, P.-C. (2005). A visitor study of the museum of contemporary art, Taipei with
emphasis on their involvement and flow experience. Unpublished MA Thesis,
Tainan National University of the Arts, Tainan, Taiwan.

Lages, C., Lages, C. R., & Lages, L. F. (2005). The RELQUAL scale: a measure of
relationship quality in export market ventures. Journal of Business Research,
58(8), 1040-1048.

Lai, F ., Hutchinson, J ., Li, D., & Bai, C. (2007). An Empirical Assessment and
Application of SERVQUAL in Mainland China's Mobile Communications
Industry. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 24(3),
244-262.

Laws, E. (2001). The Analysis of quality for heritage site visitor. In S. Drummond & I.
Yeoman (Eds.), Quality Issues in Heritage Visitor Attractions, Butterworth
Heinemann.

Lee, C. K., Lee, Y. K., & Lee, B. K. (2005). Korea’s destination image formed by the
2002 World Cup. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 839-858.

Lee, I.-Y., & Lin, Y.-N. (2008). Study on the satisfaction of exhibition guide service and
willingness to revisit among museum visitors: An example of the Shihsanhang

Museum. Museology Quarterly, 22(1), 93-105.

Lee, J ., & Beeler, C. (2007). The relationships among quality, satisfaction, and future

253

 

intention for first-time and repeat visitors in a festival setting. Event Management,

10(4), 197-208.

Lee, J ., Graefe, A., & Bums, R. (2004). Service quality, satisfaction, and behavioral
intention among forest visitors. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 17(1),
73-82.

Lehtinen, U., & Lehtinen, J. (1982). Service quality: a study of quality dimensions.
Service Management Institute, Helsinki.

Leichter, H. J ., Hensei, K., & Larsen, E. (1989). Families and museums: Issues and
perspectives. Marriage and Family Review, 13(4), 15-50.

Lewis, R., & Booms, B. (1983). The marketing aspects of service quality. In L. Berry, G.
Shostack & G. Upah (Eds.), Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing.
Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

Li, Y. F. (2006). A Study on the Relationships among Visitors' Traveling Motivation,
Satisfaction for Interpretive Servivces, and Loyalty for Whale Watching.
Unpublished MA Thesis, National Taichung University, Taichung.

Li, M. N. (2006). An introduction to Amos and its uses in scale development: Graphics
and basic. Taipei: Psychological Publishing Co., Ltd.

Lin, Y.-A. (2002). A Study on consumers' satisfaction toward service quality of museum-
A case study ofNational Scientific Museum. Unpublished MA Thesis, NanHua
University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

Li, Y. F. (2006). A study on the relationships among visitors' traveling motivation,
satisfaction for interpretive servivces, and loyalty for whale watching.
Unpublished MA Thesis, National Taichung University.

Lin, Y. N. (2006). Leisure—A function of museums? The Taiwan perspective. Museum
Management and Curatorship, 21(4), 302-316.

Litwak, J. (1993). Enhancing museum learning by facilitating the visitor social agenda.
In K. N. Thompson (Ed.), Visitor studies: Theory, research, and practice 5 (pp.
11 1-115): Visitor Studies Association, Jacksonville.

Liu, W. Z. (2003). An investigation of teachers of middle and primary schools using
museum resources in the Palace Museum Retrieved February 28th, 2009, from
http://www.cam.org.tw/big5/publish__034.htm

Lovelock, C., & Wright, L. (2002). Principles of service marketing and management
(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

254

 

 

Lu, H. Y. (2003). Study of teachers of middle and elementary schools using museum
resources-A case of the National Palace Museum. Museum Newsletter, 34.
Retrieved from http://www.cam.org.tw/big5/publish_034.htm

Luk, S. T. K., & Layton, R. (2002). Perception gaps in customer expectations: Managers
versus service providers and customers. The Service Industries Journal, 22(2),
109-128.

Lynch, D. (2006). Measuring perceptions of service quality within the attractions sector
of the Victorian tourism industry. Unpublished MA Thesis, University of
Ballarat, Ballarat.

Mackay, K. J ., & Crompton, J. L. (1988). A conceptual model of consumer evaluation of
recreation service quality. Leisure Studies, 7(1), 40-49.

Maher, J ., & Clark, J. (2005). Variations in the perceived importance of SER VQUAL
dimensions: A comparison between retail banking and a museum. In (Ed.), (pp.
51-54). Debra Zabreznik, Kananaskis, Alberta.

Maher, J. K., Clark, J ., & Motley, D. G. (2004). Social marketing advances in research
and theory conference. Measuring service quality in an arts organization. In D.
Zabreznik & A. Kananaskis (Ed.), (pp. 51-54).

Mannell, R. C., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1987). Psychological nature of leisure and tourism
experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3), 314-331.

Mansfeld, Y. (1992). From motivation to actual travel. Annals of Tourism Research,
19(3), 399-419.

Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. The Journal of
Marketing, 41(1), 77-79.

Martin Armario, E. (2008). Tourist satisfaction: An analysis of its antecedents Retrieved
January, 15th, 2010, from
http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/dcfichero_articulo?codigo=275 1 774&orden=0

Maslow, A. (1970). Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Reisman, FK (1978). A guide to the

diagnostic teaching of arithmetic, Second Edition, Columbus: Charles E. Merrill
Publishing.

Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism economic, physical and social impacts.
Longman: Harlow.

Matzler, K., Fuller, J ., Renzl, B., Herting, S., & Spath, S. (2008). Customer satisfaction

with alpine ski areas: The moderating effects of personal, situational, and product
factors. Journal of Travel Research, 46(4), 403-413.

255

 

Matzler, K., Hattenberger, G., Pechlaner, H., & Abfalter, D. (2005). Lifestyle
segmentation, vacation types and guest satisfaction: The case of Alpine skiing
tourism. In C. Cooper, C. Arcodia, D. Solnet & M. Whitford (Eds.), Creating
Tourism Knowledge (pp. 127-137).

Matzler, K., Renzl, B., & Rothenberger, S. (2006). Measuring the relative importance of
service dimensions in the formation of price satisfaction and service satisfaction:

A case study in the hotel industry. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism, 6(3), 179-196.

Mayo, E. J ., & Jarvis, L. P. (1981). The psychology of leisure travel: Eflective marketing
and selling of travel services: Boston: CBI Publishing Company.

Mazursky, D. (1989). Past experience and future tourism decisions. Annals of Tourism
Research, 16, 333-344.

McDougall, G. H., & Levesque, T. (2000). Customer satisfaction with services: putting
perceived value into the equation. Journal of Services Marketing, 14, 392-410.

McFadyen, K., Harrison, J. L., Kelly, S. J ., & Scott, D. (2001). Measuring service
quality in a corporatised public sector environment. Journal of Nonprofit &
Public Sector Marketing, 9(3), 35-51.

McIntosh, A. J ., & C. Prentice, R. (1999). Affirming authenticity consuming cultural
heritage. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), 589-612.

McKercher, B., & Du Cros, H. (2002). Cultural tourism: The partnership between
tourism and cultural heritage management: Routledge.

McLean, F. (1994). Services marketing: the case of museums. The Service Industries
Journal, 14(2), 190-203.

McManus, P. M. (1991). Museum visitor research: A critical overview. Journal of
Education in Museums, 12, 4-8.

McManus, P. M. (1987). It's the company you keep...The social determination of
learning-related behavior in a science museum. International Journal of Museum

Management and C uratorship, 6, 263-270.

Merriman, N. (1991). Beyond the glass case: The past, the heritage and the public.
Leicester: Leicester University Press.

Middleton, V. T. C. (1988). Marketing and travel and tourism. Oxford, UK: Heinemann.

Miller, J. (1997). Cultural tourism worthy of note. Hotel and Motel Management,

256

212(15), 7.

Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W. (2001). Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase
behavior: Investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics. Journal
of marketing Research, 38(1), 131-142.

Moscardo, G. (1996). Mindful visitors heritage and tourism. Annals of tourism research,
23(2), 376-397.

Moscardo, G. M., & Pearce, P. L. (1986). Historic theme parks: An Australian
experience in authenticity. Annals of tourism research, 13(3), 467-479.

Moutinho, L. (1987). Consumer behavior in tourism. European Journal of Marketing,
21(10), 2-44.

 

Mylonakis, J ., & Kendristakis, E. (2006). Evaluation of museums service quality: A
research study of museums and galleries visitors’ satisfaction. Tourism and
Hospitality Management, 12(2), 37-54.

Myriam, J.-V., & Rekom, J. V. (1996). Scanning museum visitors: Urban tourism
marketing. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 364-3 75.

National Museum of Natural Science. (2008). Annual statistical report of the National
Museum of Natural Science Retrieved January 23rd, 2009, from
http://www.nmns.edu.tw/common/B-pub/report/StatisticalReport_2008.pdf

National Museum of Natural Science. (2008) Report of the investigation of museum
visitors’ cultural experience. Taichung, Taiwan: Department of Business at
National Cheng Chi University.

National Statistics of Taiwan Service. (2008 ). Annual tourism information Retrieved
January 13th, 2009, from
http://www.stat.gov.tw/lp.asp?CtNode=670&CtUnit=403&BaseDSD=7

National Statistics, Taiwan (R.O.C.) (2010). Demographic statistics Retrieved March
11th, 2010, from
http://wwwl .stat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xltem=15408&CtNode=3623&mp=3

Neal, J. D. (2003). The effect of length of stay on travelers' perceived satisfaction with
service quality. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 4(3/4),
167-176.

Neal, J. D., Sirgy, J. M., & Uysal, M. (1999). The role of satisfaction with leisure

travel/tourism services and experiences in satisfaction with leisure life and
overall life. Journal of Business Research, 44(3), 153-164.

257

 

Neal, J. D., Sirgy, M. J ., & Uysal, M. (2004). Measuring the effect of tourism services on

travelers’ quality of life: Further validation. Social Indicators Research, 69(3),
243-277.

Neal, J. D., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2007). The effect of tourism services on travelers'
quality of life. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 154-163.

Nowacki, M. (2005). Evaluating a museum as a tourist product using the SERVQAUL
method. Museum Management and C uratorship, 20, 23 5-250.

Nunnally, J. (1978). Sychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oh, C., Uysal, M., & Weaver, P. A. (1995). Product bundles and market segments based
on travel motivations: A canonical correlation approach. International Journal of

Hospitality Management, 14(2), 123-137.

Oh, H. (1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: A holistic
perspective. Hospitality Management, 18(1), 67-82.

Oh, H. (2000). Diner's perceptions of quality, value and satisfaction. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quality, 41(3), 58-66.

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of
satisfaction decisions. Journal of marketing research, 1 7(4), 460-469.

Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? The Journal of Marketing, 33-44.

Oliver, R. L., & Bearden, W. O. (1985). Disconfirmation processes and consumer
evaluations in product usage. Journal of Business Research, 13(3 ), 23 5-246.

Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1),
78-84.

Orwig, R. A., Pearson, J ., & Cochran, D. (1997). An empirical investigation into the
validity of SERVQUAL in the public sector. Public Administration Quarterly,
21(1), 54-68.

Ostrowski, P. L., O' Brien, T. V., & Gordon, G. L. (1993). Service quality and customer
loyalty in the commercial airline industry. Journal of Marketing, 22(2), 16—24.

Packer, J. (2004). Motivational factors and the experience of learning in educational

leisure settings. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane.

258

 

Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. (2002). Motivational factors and the visitor experience: A
comparison of three sites. Curator, 45(3), 183-198.

Parasuraman, A. (1997). Reflections on gaining competitive advantage through customer
value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 154-161.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1994). Reassessment of expectations as a
comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for further
research. The Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 111-124.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Malhotra, A. (2005). ES-QUAL: A multiple-item
scale for assessing electronic service quality. Journal of Service Research, 7(3),
213.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service
quality and its implications for future research. The Journal of Marketing, 49(4),
41-50.

Parasuraman, A_., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple item
scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing,
64(1), 12-40.

Parasuraman, R., Bahri, T., & Molloy, R. (1991). Adaptive automation and human
performance: I. multi-task performance characteristics (Tech. Rep No.
CSL-N91-1), Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, Cognitive
Science Laboratory.

Park, H., & Baek, S. (2007). Measuring service quality of online bookstores with
WebQual. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4553, 95-103.

Patterson, P. G. (1993). Expectations and product performance as determinants of
satisfaction for a hi gh-involvement purchase. Psychology & Marketing, 10(5),
449-465.

Pearce, P. (1991). Travel stories: An analysis of self-disclosure in terms of story
structure, valence, and audience characteristics. Australian Psychologist, 26(3),
172-175.

Peng, T.-L. (2008). Investigating museum service quality and users' satisfaction -‘ a case
stuay of preschool teacher' utilization of 0 children museum of art for school
outdoor education. Unpublished MA Thesis, National Tainan University.

Perdue, R. R. (1985). Segmenting state travel information inquirers by timing of the

destination decision and previous experience. Journal of Travel Research,
23(Winter), 6-11.

259

 

Petrick, J. (2004). The roles of quality, value, and satisfaction in predicting cruise
passengers' behavioral intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4), 397-407.

Petrick, J ., & Backman, S. (2002). An examination of the determinants of golf travelers'
satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 40(3), 252-258.

Petrick, J. F. (1999). An examination of the relationship between golf travelers'
satisfaction, perceived value and loyalty and their intentions to revisit.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation Clemson University, Clemson, SC.

Pizam, A., & Mansfeld, Y. (1999). Consumer behavior in travel and tourism: Routledge.

Plaza, B. (2000). Guggenheim museum's effectiveness to attract tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 27(4), 1055-1058.

Plog, S. (1973). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. The Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 14(3), 13-16.

Postma, A., & Jenkins, A. K. (1997). Improving the tourist's experience: Quality
management applied in tourist destinations. Quality management in urban
tourism: Chichester: Wiley.

Prentice, R. (2001). Experiential cultural tourism: Museums & the marketing of the new

romanticism of evoked authenticity. Museum Management and Curatorship,
19(1), 5-26.

Prentice, R., Davies, A., & Beeho, A. (1997). Seeking generic motivations for visiting
and not visiting museums and like cultural attractions. Museum management and
curatorship, 16(1), 45-70.

Prentice, R., Guerin, S., & McGugan, S. (1998). Visitor learning at a heritage attraction:
a case study of discovery as a media product. Tourism management, 19(1), 5-23.

Prideaux, B., & Kininmont, L. J. (1999). Tourism and heritage are not strangers: A study
of opportunities for rural heritage museums to maximize tourism visitation.
Journal of Travel Research, 37(3), 299-303.

Pyo, S., Mihalik, B., & Uysal, M. (1989). Attraction attributes and motivations: A
canonical correlation analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(2), 277-282.

Raajpoot, N. (2004). Reconceptualizing service encounter quality in a non-westem
context. Journal of Service Research, 7(2), 181-201.

Ragheb, M. G. (1980). Interrelationships among leisure participation, leisure satisfaction
and leisure attitude. Journal of Leisure Research, 12(2), 138-149.

260

 

 

Ragheb, M. G. (1993). Leisure and perceived wellness: A field investigation. Leisure
Sciences, 15(1), 13-24.

Ragheb, M. G., & Griffith, C. A. (1982). The contribution of leisure participation and
leisure satisfaction to life satisfaction of older persons. Journal of Leisure
Research, 14(4), 295-306.

Ramsden, P. (1991). Report on the course experience questionnaire trial Performance
Indicators in Higher Education. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing
Service.

Reicheld, F. (1996). The loyalty ejfect: The hidden force behind growth. profits and
lasting value. Unpublished MA Thesis, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
MA.

Reynolds, P. (1999). Design of the process and producer interface heritage visitor
attractions: An operation management perspective. In A. Leask & I. Yeoman
(Eds.), (pp. 110-126). London: Cassell.

Richards, G. (1996). Cultural tourism in context. In G. R. (ed.) (Ed.), Cultural Tourism
in Europe. Wallingford: CABI.

Richards, G. (2001). Cultural attractions and European tourism: CABI.

Richards, G. (2002). Tourism attraction systems exploring cultural behavior. Annals of
Tourism Research, 29(4), 1048-1064.

Richards, G. (2007). Cultural tourism: global and local perspectives: Routledge.

Ross, D., Elizabeth, L., & Iso-Ahola, S. (1991). Sightseeing tourists' motivation and
satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(2), 226-237.

Rubenstein, R., & Loren, J. (1996). Cultural heritage audience studies: sources and
resources, Rubenstein and association for heritage policy and research division:
Department of Canadian Heritage.

Russell, R. V. (1987). The importance of recreation satisfaction and activity participation
to the life satisfaction of age-segregated retirees. Journal of Leisure Research,
19(4), 273-283.

Ryan, C. (2002). The tourist experience. In C. Ryan (Ed.), From motivation to
assessment: London: Continuum.

Ryan, C., & Cliff, A. (1997). Do travel agencies measure up to customer expectation?

An empirical investigation of travel agencies' service quality as measured by
SERVQUAL. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 6(2), 1-31.

261

 

Sargeant, A. (1999). Marketing management for nonprofit organizations: Oxford
University Press.

Sasser, W., Olsen, R., & Wyckoff, D. (1978). Management of service operations: Text,
cases, and readings: Allyn and Bacon New York.

Schmoll, G. A. (1977). Tourism promotion. London: Tourism lntemational Press.

Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J ., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J.
(1993). Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments
and a quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of

paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19(2),
3 8 5-4 1 7.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lornax, R. G. (1996). A beginner's guide to structural equation
modeling. Mahwah, NJ.

Severt, S., Wang, Y., Chen, P., & Breiter, D. (2007). Examining the motivation,
perceived performance, and behavioral intentions of convention attendees:
evidence from a regional conference. Tourism Management, 28(2), 399-408.

Shahin, A. (2004). SERVQUAL and model of service quality gaps: A framework for
determining and prioritizing critical factors in delivering quality services. Journal
of Management, 9(3), 1-30.

Shelby, B., & Heberlein, T. A. (1984). A conceptual framework for carrying capacity
determination. Leisure Sciences, 6(4), 433-451.

Shelley, L., & Polonsky, M. (2002). Do charitable causes need to segment their current
donor base on demographic factors?: An Australian examination. International
Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(1), 19-29.

Shen, C.-C., & Ho, T.-S. (2007). A study on the relationships among the tourist's
expectations, experience, length of stay, and expenditures in Wusanto reservoir.
Tamsui Oxford Journal of Tourism, 5, 1-16.

Shen, C.-C., & Tseng, T.-H. (2006). The relationship among tourists' motivation, service
quality, satisfaction and loyalty at Hot Spring Restaurant. Journal of Sport,
Leisure and Hospitality Research, 1(2), 65-89.

Shoemaker, S., & Lewis, R. C. (1999). Customer loyalty: the future of hospitality
marketing. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18(4), 345-3 70.

Shonk, D. J. (2006). Perceptions of service quality, satisfaction and the intent to return
among tourists attending a sporting events. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,

262

Ohio State University.

Shumacker, R. E., & Lornax, R. G. (1996). A beginner's guide to structural equation
modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Silberberg, T. (1995). Cultural tourism and business opportunities for museums and
heritage sites. Tourism management, 16(5), 361-365.

Simon, S., & Paper, D. (2007). User acceptance of voice recognition technology: an
empirical extension of the technology acceptance model. Journal of
Organizational and End User Computing, 19(1), 24-50.

Simpson, K. (2000). Customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions in a rural
community museum environment. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality
and Tourism, 1(3), 1-27.

Sirakaya, E., & Woodside, A. (2005). Building and testing theories of decision making
by travelers. Tourism Management, 26(6), 815-832.

Sirikit, A. (2000). Service quality, customer behavioral intentions, and customer
retention of telecommunication services in Thailand. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Nova Southeastern University.

Smith, M. K. (2004). Seeing a new side to seasides: Culturally regenerating the English
seaside town. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6(1), 17-28.

Sneegas, J. J. (1986). Components of life satisfaction in middle and later life adults:

Perceived social competence, leisure participation, and leisure satisfaction.
Journal of leisure Research, 18(4), 248-258.

Snepenger, D., King, J ., Marshall, B, & Uysal, M. (2006). Modeling Iso-Ahola's
motivation theory in the tourism context. Journal of Travel Research, 45(2),
140-149.

Sokolowski, W. S., & Salamon, L. M. (1999). The United States. In S. L. M, H. K.
Anheier, R. List & S. Toepler (Eds.), Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the
Nonprofit Sector: Wojciech Sokolowski and Associates, John Hopkins Center for
Civil Society Studies, Baltimore, MD.

Sonmez, S., & Graefe, A. (1998). Determining future travel behavior from past travel
experience and perceptions of risk and safety. Journal of Travel Research, 3 7(2),
171-177.

Sonmez, S., & Graefe, A. (1998). Influence of terrorism risk on foreign tourism
decisions. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), 112-144.

263

Stebbins, R. A. (1996). Cultural touriSm as serious leisure. Annals of Tourism Research,
23(4), 948-950.

Stevens, R, Knutson, B., & Patton, M. (1995). DINESERV: A tool for measuring
' service quality in restaurant. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 36(2), 56-60.

Stratman, J ., & Roth, A. (2002). Enterprise resource planning (ERP) competence
constructs: Two-stage multi-item scale development and validation. Decision
Sciences, 33(4), 601-628.

Suh, S. H., Lee, Y. H., Park, Y., & Shin, G. C. (1997). The impact of consumer
involvement on the consumers' perception of service quality-focusing on the
Korean hotel industry. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 6, 33-52.

Sullivan, A. (2001). The heart is willing, but the economy isn't. Baron 's, 81, 23-24.

Sung, H. (2004). Classification of adventure travelers: behavior, decision making, and
target markets. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4), 343.

Tabachnick, B. G., & F idell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5 ed.). Boston:
Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.

Taiwan Tourism Bureau Ministry. (2006). Statistics release: visitor statistics Retrieved
June 2lst, 2008, from http://admin.taiwan.net.tw/english/statistics/release.asp

Taiwan Tourism Bureau Ministry. (2009). Annual report on tourism fiom 2002 through
2008 Retrieved August 2nd, 2008, from http://admin.taiwan.net.tw/indexc.asp

Tam, J. (2004). Customer satisfaction, service quality and perceived value: an integrative
model. Journal of Marketing Management, 20, 20(7-8), 897-917.

Tam, J. L. M. (2000). The effects of service quality, perceived value and customer
satisfaction on behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure
Marketing, 6(4), 31-43.

Tarn, J. L. M. (1999). The effects of service quality, perceived value and customer
satisfaction on behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 6(4), 3 1-43.

Teare, R. (1994). Consumer decision making. In R. Teare, J. Mazanec, S.
Crawford-Welch & S. Calver (Eds.), Marketing in hospitality and tourism: a

consumer focus. London: Cassell.

The lntemational Council of Museums. (2001). Development of the Museum Definition
according to [COM Statutes (2007-1946) Retrieved March 11th, 2009, from

264

http://icom.museum/hist_def__eng.html

Thyne, M. (2001). The importance of values research for nonprofit organizations: the
motivation-based values of museum visitors. International Journal of Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 6(2), 116-130.

Tian-Cole, S., Crompton, J ., & Wilson, V. (2002). An empirical investigation of the
relation- ships between service quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions
among visitors to a wildlife refuge. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(1), 1-34.

Tibe, J., & Snaith, T. (1998). From SERVQUAL to HOLSAT: holiday satisfaction in
Varadero, Cuba. Tour Manage, 19(1), 2-34.

Tonge, J ., & Moore, S. A. (2007). Importance-satisfaction analysis for marine-park
hinterlands: A Western Australian case study. Tourism Management, 28(3),
768-776.

Tsiotsou, R., & Vasioti, E. (2006). Using demographics and leisure activities to predict
satisfaction with tourism services in Greece. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure
Marketing, 14(2), 61-67.

Tufts, S., & Milne, S. (1999). Museums: A supply-side perspective. Annals of Tourism
Research, 26(3), 613-631.

Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice.
Annals of Travel Research, 1 7(3), 432-448.

US. Census Bureau. (2009). Service annual survey, arts, entertainment, and recreation
services Retrieved May, 15th, 2009, from
http://www.census.gov/svsd/www/services/sas/sas__data/sas7l .htm

US. Travel Association. (2003). The historic/cultural traveler Retrieved February 17th,
2009, from http://www.tia.org/Pubs/pubs.asp?PublicationID=16

Uysal, M., & Hagan, L. (1993). Motivations of pleasure travel and tourism. In M. Khan,
M. Olsen & T. Var (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of hospitality and tourism (pp.
798-810). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Uysal, M., & J urwski, C. (1994). An empirical testing of the push and pull factors of
tourists motivations. Annals of Tourism Research, 21 (4), 844-846.

Van Iwaarden, J ., Van der Wiele, T., Ball, L., & Millen, R. (2003). Applying
SERVQUAL to web sites: an exploratory study. International Journal of Quality
and Reliability Management, 20(8), 919-935.

VandeWalle, D., Brown, S., Cron, W., & Slocum Jr, J. (1999). The influence of goal

265

orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field
test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 249-259.

Vaske, J. J ., Dooney, M. P., Heberlein, T. A., & Shelbey, B. (1982). Differences in
reported satisfaction ratings by consumptive and non-consumptive recreationists.
Journal of Leisure Research, 14(3), 195-206.

Vogt, C., & Fesenmaier, D. (1995). Tourists and retailers' perceptions of services.
Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4), 763-780.

Walker, J. L. (1995). Service encounter satisfaction: conceptualized. Journal of Services
Marketing, 9(1), 5-14.

Walonick, D. S. (2004). Survival Statistics: StatPac, Inc.

Wang, C., & Wu, L. (2009). Perceived value, corporate image and customer loyalty in
the context of varying levels of length of relationship Retrieved March 13th,
2010, from http://bai2009.org/file/Papers/ 1 183.doc

Wang, H.-C. (2001). An importance-performance analysis of the quality of the
museum-case study of the National Palace Museum. Unpublished MA Thesis.

Wang, W. K. (1999). Educational research methodology. Taipei, Taiwan: Wu-Nan
Publishing Co.

Wang, X., Zhang, J ., Gu, C., & Zhen, F. (2009). Examining antecedents and
consequences of tourist satisfaction: A structural modeling approach. Tsinghua
Science & Technology, 14(3), 397-406.

Watson, A., Meade, A., Surface, E., & VandeWalle, D. (2007). Are goal orientation
comparisons appropriate between American and Korean groups ? Paper
presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, New York.

Weirmair, K., & Fuchs, M. (1999). Measuring tourist judgment on service quality.
Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 1004-1021.

Williams, C. (1998). Is the SERVQUAL model an appropriate management tool or
measuring service delivery quality in the UK leisure industry? Managing Leisure,
3(2), 98-110.

Williams, C., & Buswell, J. (2003). Service quality in leisure and tourism. UK: CABI.

Wirtz, J ., Mattila, A., & Tan, R. (2000). The moderating role of target-arousal on the

impact of affect on satisfaction-An examination in the context of service
experiences. Journal of retailing, 76(3), 347-365.

266

 

Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: The next source of competitive advantage.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 139-153.

Woodside, A., & Lysonski, S. (1989). A general model of traveler destination choice.
Journal of Travel Research, 27(4), 8-14.

Woodside, A., & MacDonald, R. (1994). General system framework of customer choice
processes of tourism services. In R. V. Gasser & K. Weiermair (Eds.), In Spoilt
Lop Choice, Decision- making. Kultur Verlag, Austria: Haworth Press, Inc.

 

World Tourism Organization. (2001) Global forecasts and profiles of market segments. ‘33
Tourism 2020 vision (Vol. 7). Madrid: World Tourism Organization. '1
Wu, H. C., Huan, T. C., & Chiu, T. L. (2004). The study of travel motivation,
expectation, experience, satisfaction and willingness to revisit of Yushan 2
National Park. Journal of National Parks, 14(2), 23-41. E 4:

Wu, J ., DeSarbo, W. S., Chen, P. J ., & Fu, Y. Y. (2006). A latent structure factor
analytic approach for customer satisfaction measurement. Marketing Letters,
17(3), 221-238.

Wu, M.-L. (2001). SPSS and the application and analysis of statistics. Taipei, Taiwan:
Sung Gang computer book limited company.

Wu, M.-L. (2008). Structural Equation Modeling-the application of Simplis. Taipei,
Taiwan: Wu-Nan Publishing Co.

Wu, M.-L., & Tu, C.-T. (2006). SPSS and the application and analysis of statistics.
Taipei, Taiwan: Wu-Nan Publishing Co.

Yang, J .-Y. (2005). The impact of diflerential pricing on price fairness, emotions and
behavioral responses. Unpublished MA Thesis, Feng Chia University,
Taichung, Taiwan.

Yi, Y. (1990). A critical review of consumer satisfaction. In V. A. Zeithaml (Ed.),
Review of Marketing (pp. 68-123.). Chicago, IL: American Marketing
Association.

Yoon, Y. (2002). Development of a structural model for tourism destination
competitiveness from stakeholders' perspectives. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

 

Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and

satisfaction on destination loyalty: a structural model. Tourism Management,
26(1), 45-56.

267

You, X., O'Leary, J ., Morrison, A., & Hong, G. S. (2000). A cross-cultural comparison
of travel push and pull factors: United Kingdom vs. Japan. International journal
of hospitality & tourism administration, 1(2), 1-26.

Yucelt, U. (2000). Marketing museums: An empirical investigation among museum
visitors. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 8(3), 15-24.

Yuksel, A. (2001). Managing customer satisfaction and retention: A case of tourist
destinations, Turkey. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 7(2), 153-168.

Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of
service quality. The Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46.

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end
model and synthesis of evidence. The Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22.

Zhang, H. Q., Qu, H., & Tang, V. M. Y. (2004). A case study of Hong Kong residents'
leisure travel. Tourism Management, 25(2), 267-3 73.

Zils, M. (2000). Museums in the world: Munich, Germany: K. G. Saur.

268