. A3111! 1

. L trait.
paw?

semen
ﬁzé. W

t.

O

., in! _ . \ . . , . .. A ., . . . : . ‘ , . ‘. . ‘ _ .. Iii gnu-3.1L: .PJuo.
3&1? . .. , _ g .V .. .. _ .n . . , . . . .. . . .3 . ‘ . .nnwlyérﬁvﬁuwpwwvunﬁwru‘u u:
u‘ <

, ..§MN{ (.‘.... “ﬂaw.
pgsvmw _. ,, . “Gum.

1. b. u}\l
'31:;
A. .

:n‘uaml. 1
1 . .

. 4... . . . , . . .. .. ‘.

y . ,, , . . v 4 ,. ..
f... . 1 C4 . . . ‘ . . . . ; 1 . v

: .31.. r‘, 3, . . . . . . . .. 1.

“"4": v. I . ‘ . _ .. ,. . A l.‘ . hug!

. . u ,. ‘

. . .

4 ..‘a n , . i

.52.: gym“

. . . . I.

JuNr.

$91.13.

9...... 1..
a. .‘
x. i: 5 .3:
!} 1&3»!

to .ul‘x
1}

mi»-

. ‘ 1“.

5.1-33.9!!!) ;

u;¢\.1..:.‘.. ‘ 1)....
X. (bu!hnﬂn§|.w rm
1 v.

 

|.r.. a. . . u. {.I

“.9?— v A l .2. . o It . {1.3.

. I. .er )1... .51 .. r to ‘ Fl!!! .1 ti.

. . . I tram“. ‘r. g. x . I... .1. I! .. ~. flit-l ‘5... .315 g 3‘. v

. .v 7. T, I. l I! a .l. li‘é?.nnl»1xul‘i].:llh l .
. $RI.1.VI ‘llf {3| .Iutv.

‘ . . 5.33....
. . err; .YAD.
{£13.

:1, a,
‘ . 3‘s“?

3 2.3!»;
3:39"... .

l {

It

 

"‘ W9; a

 

 

 

‘ I
T“ E S l 5 M CHPGAN STATE LIBRARIES

‘3ch lllll!lllllllllll/lIll/lllllllllllllllllllllllll

3 1293 01812 7088

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Hospitality Employees' Values and Service Interactions:
A Potential Tool For Industry And Education

presented by

Tsao-Fang Yuan

has beeh accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degreein Park, Recreation & Tourism

ESOU PCGS

 

_Q4‘7‘é (ﬂ. Mr:
/ / Major profefér ﬂ
maﬁa?” '7 ;,_/7 ? 7

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State

University

 

 

PLACE iN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

Au’éo 2 2005

 

F

'0
#101

 

‘\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

use mm.“

 

 

HOSPITALITY EMPLOYEES’ VALUES AND SERVICE INTERACTIONS:
A POTENTIAL TOOL FOR INDUSTRY AND EDUCATION

By

Tsao-Fang Yuan

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Park, Recreation, and Tourism Resources

1 999

ABSTRACT

HOSPITALITY EMPLOYEES’ VALUES AND SERVICE INTERACTIONS:
A POTENTIAL TOOL FOR INDUSTRY AND EDUCATION

By

Tsao-Fang Yuan

This research was designed to develop, test, and reﬁne an instrument to measure
hospitality employees’ value orientations in relation to their service behavior toward
domestic and international guests. To conceptualize the relationship between individual
value systems and subsequent interactional behaviors: acceptance, formality,
superoridination, communication and association; the research model was based on two
theories of cross-cultural psychology: Individualism and Collectivism and Social
Distance Theory. The behaviors provided the basis for the items included in the initial
form of the instrument’s Service Interaction Scale. Samples selected for this study were
students of the tourism and hospitality programs from two midwestem universities and
hotel employees from nine hotels in four cities in Michigan. Expert review, small group
interviews, bivan’ate correlations, factor analysis, alpha tests, and measures of central
tendency were used to test and reﬁne the instrument. As a result, a 17-item Service
Interaction Scale, a 3-item Social Distance Scale, and a 32-item Individualism-
Collectivism Scale comprised a modestly valid and reliable instrument.

The study generated several conclusions. First, idiocentrists and allocentrists
were distinguished among this sample of hospitality students and employees.
Idiocentrists were generally college educated, younger, and male; allocentrists were

generally hotel employees, older, and female. Second, both idiocentrists and allocentrists

perceived smaller social distance with domestic groups versus international groups; they
identiﬁed relatives and close friends as immediate ingroups and neighbors, local
acquaintances, and US. visitors as members of distant ingroups. German, French, and
Japanese tourists were seen as outgroup members. Third, different service behaviors
toward domestic and international guests were found among respondents from both value
groups. Although allocentrists were found to be more accepting and willing to associate
with both domestic ingroup and international outgroup guests than idiocentrists,
respondents from both value groups were more likely to serve domestic guests in a more
open and direct manner than that used with international guests. These ﬁndings were
unexpected. According to Individualism and Collectivism theory, idiocentrists should
have treated all the guests identically while allocentrists should have shown preferential
treatment to ingroup guests. These unexpected ﬁndings may reﬂect this sample’s
understanding of service interactions as business behaviors that, as such, differ from the
common social behaviors examined in previous studies. Lastly, having taken hospitality
courses and having previously served and interacted with foreigners were found to
inﬂuence idiocentrists’ communication service and allocentrists’ association service
behaviors toward guests.

This results indicate that the instrument is a potential tool for guiding
professionals in managing their employees, selecting appropriate workers for particular
types of work, and improving service techniques and cross—cultural interactions
throughout their staff. As an educational tool, the instrument is valuable for monitoring
and gathering information on value orientations and, subsequently, the potential service

behaviors of the future workforce, that is, students.

Copyright by
Tsao-Fang Yuan
l 999

To My Parents

Mr. Chih-Chung Yuan &
Mrs. Su-Ching Fu

For their long loving support.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am indebted to acknowledge many people who have helped, encouraged, and
supported me in completing this task and pursuing my doctoral degree. To each of them,
I thank you for making me realize what I can be.

Foremost, sincere thanks to my parents, who sacriﬁced themselves to provide
endless support and love for their daughter to prove herself. Without them, this graduate
effort could never have come into being.

I am especially grateful to Dr. Joseph Fridgen, my program advisor and research
committee chair, for his expert guidance and his consistent encouragement throughout the
course of this research endeavor and my graduate study. His support will always be
appreciated.

I am deeply thankful to Dr. Donald Holecek, Dr. Bonnie Knutson, and Dr. Robert
Woods, three members of my Research Committee, who generously shared their time,
insights, and support in his or her own way during this research study.

I would also like to express my thanks:

To Dr. Russell Bell, Dr. Roger Calantone, Dr. Frederic Dimanche, Dr. Abraham
Pizam, Dr. Michael Sciarini, Dr. Pete Stevens, and Dr. Muzzo Uysal for their expert
reviews of the measuring instrument developed in this study.

To Dr. Harry Triandis for his kindness of sharing the value scale and his
invaluable comments and suggests.

To Dr. Kuan-Chou Chen and Dr. Joseph LaLopa for their assistance in

administering the survey and collecting data for this research.

vi

To Wen-Huei Chang for his insightful statistical comments and suggestions,
especially in the last phases of this work.

To hundreds of students and hotel workers, and many graduate students of the
Department of Park, Recreation, and Tourism Resources for their time and feedback in
ﬁlling out the instrument in each development phase.

To Shawn Chen, Jimmy Chou, Tony Jou, Lorna Lo, Wei-Ling Song, Lih—Chyun
Sun, Xiamei Xu, Sinji Yang and their families for always being there for me when I
needed them.

To Su-Chieh F u, my aunt, for taking my place to take care of my parents while I
was away from home.

Finally, to my husband, Jim Bristor, and his family who never failed to show their

unqualiﬁed support and encouragement.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1
Cultural Differences And Host-Guest Interactions ................................. 2
Cultures, Value Systems, And Value Orientations ................................ 3
Value Systems In Tourism Research ................................................ 4
Problem Statement ..................................................................... 5
Theoretical Framework ................................................................ 7
Social Distance Theory ......................................................... 7
Idiocentrism and Allocentrism Theory ....................................... 8
Rokeach Value Theory ......................................................... 10
Synergy of Rokeach Value Theory and Idiocentrism-
Allocentrism Theory .................................................... 10
Conceptual Model ..................................................................... 11
Study Objectives ...................................................................... 13
Summary ............................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................... 15
Social Distance Theory ............................................................... 15
Antecedent Factors of Social Distance ...................................... 16
Ingroup and Outgroup Distinction ........................................... 18
Idiocentrism And Allocentrism Theory ............................................ 19
Individualism and Collectivism .............................................. 21
Deﬁnitions ............................................................... 21
Attributes of Individualism and Collectivism ........................ 23
Consequential Behavior toward Ingroup and Outgroup ............ 26
Antecedent Factors of Individualism and Collectivism ............ 29
The Change of Value Orientations .................................... 31
Rokeach Value Theory ............................................................... 32
Attributes of Rokeach’s Values .............................................. 32
Functions of Rokeach’s Values .............................................. 34
Socioeconomic Variables and Value Differences ......................... 35
Summary ............................................................................... 36
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY AND INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT ........................ 38
Review Of Scale Constructing Procedure .......................................... 38
Instrument: Modiﬁed And Developed .............................................. 42
Acquisition And Modiﬁcation Of Existing Scales ......................... 42
The Rokeach Value Survey (RVS) .................................... 42
The Individualism-Collectivism Scale (IC) .......................... 44

viii

Scale Items And Scoring Systems ........................................... 44

The Social Distance Scale (SD) ....................................... 44

The Service Interaction Scale (SIS) ................................... 46

Selection Of Samples And Sampling Method ............................. 47

Selection Of Item Target Groups ............................................ 48

Background And Demographic Questions ................................. 49

Pretest Of The Initial Scales ........................................................ 50

Expert Review Of Prototype Scales ................................................ 51

Reﬁnement Of The Initial Instrument ............................................. 53

First Pilot Test ......................................................................... 57

The Sample ...................................................................... 57

Implementation Of The Test .................................................. 57

Item Analyses And Item Selection Of First Pilot Test .................... 59

The Social Distance Scale (SD) ....................................... 59

The Service Interaction Scale (SIS) .................................. 61

The Reﬁnement Of Instrument For First Pilot Test ....................... 64

Second Pilot Test ...................................................................... 66

The Sample ..................................................................... 66

Implementation of the Test .................................................... 68

Item Analyses And Item Selection Of Second Pilot Test ................. 70

The Social Distance Scale (SD) ....................................... 70

The Service Interaction Scale (SIS) .................................. 70

The Reﬁnement Of Instrument For Second Pilot Test ..................... 70
CHAPTER 4

INSTRUMENT TESTING AND FINDINGS ............................................ 73

Final Instrument Test ................................................................. 73

The Sample ...................................................................... 73

Data Collection ................................................................. 74

Item Analyses And Instrument Reﬁnement ................................. 76

The Social Distance Scale (SD) ........................................ 76

The Service Interaction Scale (SIS) ................................... 76

The Rokeach Value Survey (RVS) .................................... 78

Assessment Of Reliability ............................................................ 79

Assessment Of Validity ............................................................... 8O

Convergent Validity Of The Social Distance Scale (SD) .................. 8O

Convergent Validity Of The Service Interaction Scale (SIS) ............ 83

Findings ................................................................................ 87

Value Groups .................................................................... 87

Social Distance Comparisons ................................................ 89

Between Value Group Comparison ................................... 89

Within Value Group Comparison ..................................... 91

Comparison with Other Study ......................................... 94

Service Behavior Comparisons .............................................. 94

Service With Background Experiences ..................................... 99

Service And Hospitality Courses ..................................... 100

ix

Service And Job Training ............................................. 102

Service And Interactions With International Guests .............. 102
Summary ...................................................................... 104
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .............................................. 107
Conclusions .......................................................................... 107
Implications ........................................................................... 1 l6
Implications For Professionals .............................................. 116
Implications For Educators .................................................. 118
Implications For Future Research .......................................... 120
LIST OF REFERENCES .................................................................. 124
APPENDICES
Appendix
A. The Rokeach Value Survey .................................................... 137
B. Interview Questions With Hospitality Students ............................. 138
C. Simpliﬁed Questionnaire Of First Pilot Test .................................. 139
C .1 Subscale Items And Wording Direction Of The SIS For First Pilot
Questionnaire ................................................................... 141
C2 Item Analyses Of The SIS Subscales For First Pilot Test ................. 142

D. Items Of The SD And The SIS For Second Pilot Test Questionnaire... 146

D.1 Subscale Items And Wording Direction Of The SIS For Second Pilot

Test Questionnaire .............................................................. 148
D2 Items Analysis Of The SIS For Second Pilot Test .......................... 149
E. Simpliﬁed Questionnaire For Final Test ...................................... 154
El Subscale Items And Wording Direction Of The SIS For Final Test

Questionnaire .................................................................... 1 59
E2 Item Analyses Of The SIS Subscales For Final Test ........................ 160

Table

2.1

2.2

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.4

3.5

3.6

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Comparison Of Individualism And Collectivism Attributes. . . . . 24
Comparison Of Behavioral Relationships Toward Outgroup
Members Between Individualism and Collectivism ................... 27
Sample Proﬁles Of First Pilot Test ....................................... 58
Item Analyses Of The SD For First Pilot Test ........................... 60
Scale Reliability Of The SIS Subscales For First Pilot Test .......... 62
SIS Factor Analysis For Six Target Groups — First Pilot Test ........ 65
Sample Proﬁles Of Second Pilot Test .................................... 67
Item Analyses Of The SD For Second Pilot Test ....................... 69
Item Analyses Of The SIS Subscales For Second Pilot Test .......... 71
Sample Proﬁles Of The Final Test ........................................ 75
Item Analyses Of The SD For Final Test ................................ 77
Scale Reliability ((1) Of The SIS Subscales For Final Test ............ 77
Central Tendency Analyses Of The RVS Values (18 Values)... . . . .. 79

Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between The SD And IC Scales... 82

Pearson Correlation Coefﬁcients Between Subscales Of The SIS
And IC By Target Groups .................................................. 84

Proﬁles Of Idiocentrists And Allocentrits ............................... 88

Social Distance Comparisons Among Eight Target Groups By The
SD Scale Means Between Two Value Groups .......................... 90

Social Distance Comparisons Among Eight Target Groups By The
SD Scale Means Within Each Value Groups ............................. 92

xi

4.10

4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

4.16

4.17

4.18

4.19

Social Distance (Mean) Comparison Among Target Groups For

Respondents Of Hui’s (1984) Study And The Current Study. . 94
Acceptance Subscale Mean Scores For Two Value Groups ............ 96
Association Subscale Mean Scores For Two Value Groups ............ 96
Superordination Subscale Mean Scores For Two Value Groups. 96
Communication Subscale Mean Scores For Two Value Groups ...... 97

Mean Comparisons Among Eight Target Groups In
Communication Subscale For Each Value Group ........................ 97

Mean Comparisons Of The SIS’s Subscales Between Respondents
Who Had Hospitality Courses And Who Did Not For Two Value
Groups ........................................................................ 101

Mean Comparisons Of The 818’s Subscales Between Respondents
Who Interacted Foreigners And Who Did Not For Two Value

Groups ........................................................................ 103
Summary Of Scale Development Results For The Instrument ....... 105
Summary Of Service Behavior Findings For The Two Value

Groups ........................................................................ 106

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1.1 Conceptual Model Of Values And Service Interactions
Of Hotel Service Providers ................................................ 12

xiii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The rapid development of international tourism in recent decades has brought the
people of the world closer together. The volume of world tourist arrivals is over four
times larger today than the volume three decades ago. For its part, the United States
shared 48.9 million international visits in 1997, which generated over 98 billion US.
dollars in travel receipts, as well as supported over 1 million full-time jobs. By the turn
of the century, it is predicted there will be 57.2 million visitors to the United States and
123 billion US. dollars in travel receipts (Marano, 1998). This grth trend in travel
creates a multitude of cross-cultural encounters between international tourists and host
tourism service providers, especially in hotel businesses. Since service is an intangible
product that is consumed and evaluated at the same time it is delivered, how and what
service is offered by hotel front-line employees has a profound inﬂuence upon the
decision of guests to return to that business (Martin & Lundberg, 1991). Thus, an
understanding of host hotel employees’ service interaction with diverse cultural guests

presents an urgent issue to the profession in many countries.

Cultural Differences And Host-Guest Interactions

International tourism has been recognized as a business of trade as well as a form
of cultural exchange between countries (Gunn, 1988; Pearce, 1982). As millions of
pe0ple travel from one nation to another, contacts between the host tourism service
providers and tourists from an array of diverse cultures become manifestations of cultural
exchange. For years, host and tourist interaction has been studied by anthropologists,
cross-cultural psychologists, sociologists concerned with tourism, and researchers within
the tourism and hospitality profession (Cohen, 1972; de Kadt, 1976; Fumham, 1984;
Garnio & Sneed, 1991; Knox, 1982; Lu, Crompton, & Reid, 1989; Nash & Smith, 1991;
Pearce, 1982; Pizam, Milman & King, 1994; Smith, 1989; Sutton, 1967). Their studies
indicate that, while tourism creates economic, environmental and social beneﬁts for the
host nations, negative impact is also generated due to cultural conﬂicts. Negative
outcomes include increasing crime rates and cultural degradation in the host community,
stereotyping, resentment, distrust toward tourism development and tourists by the host
community, as well as dehumanization and commercialization of host-guest
relationships. Their research further suggests that cultural differences derived from value
systems, social norms, collective lifestyles, communication styles, moral conduct,
individual behaviors and expectations are elements that determine the outcomes of host
and tourists’ interactions. They contend that personal value system is the basis for the
development and display of each culture because of its effects on the beliefs, attitudes,

and behaviors of both tourists and service providers.

Cultures, Value Systems, And Value Orientations

“Culture” has been used in so many contexts that its meaning is often
multifaceted. In cross-cultural studies, culture is generally considered as a system of life
ways, patterns, and orientations, which includes traditional customs, beliefs, attitudes and
out-of-awareness values and conduct (Triandis & Brislin, 1980). From the geographical
point of view, culture frequently refers to “country” or a location (Triandis, 1995).
Nevertheless, in the realm of international tourism, culture often refers to a combination
of a country and its unique living styles so that a country can be easily identiﬁed by the
images of its particular living patterns (Nash & Smith, 1991; Pizarn & Sussmann, 1995).

Value, as the basis of culture, refers to a standard guiding an individual or a
group’s mode of conduct and end-state of existence (Kluckhohn, 1951; Kluckhohn and
Strodtbeck, 1961; Rokeach, 1976). Others (Smith, 1963; Williams, 1968) consider it a
single belief for guiding judgments across speciﬁc objects and situations, and a criterion
for justifying one’s own actions and attitudes (Allport, et al., 1960; Feather, 1975;
Hofstede, 1980). A value system, however, is deﬁned (Rokeach, 1976) as a learned
organization of rules of an individual used for making choices and for resolving conﬂicts
between two or more modes of behavior or end-states of existence. While the value
system differs from person to person within an individual culture (or country), values also
vary across cultures (or countries) (Hofstede, 1980; Kim, Hunter, et al., 1996; Triandis,
1995). For instance, American and German cultures are found to be more self-prioritized
value oriented, whereas Japanese and Chinese cultures are more group-prioritized value
oriented (Hui & Triandis, 1986). Kluckhohn (1951) considered value orientation as a

way to deal with cultural variations across countries as it stems from basic values that

subsequently inﬂuence human behavior. He sees value orientation as “complex but
deﬁnitely patterned principles which give order and direction to the ever-ﬂowing
stream of human acts and thoughts as these relate to the solution of common human
problems” (p. 4). As the evidence of these research efforts suggests, whether at the
national or individual levels, value systems or value orientations are the core of every

culture and function as a guide to human behavior and to solve problems across cultures.

Value Systems In Tourism Research

While personal value systems have been associated with one’s attitudes and
behaviors (F inegan, 1994; Munson, 1984; Henry, 1976), many tourism studies have also
linked value systems to the traveler’s leisure activities (Beatty, et al., 1985; Jackson,
1973; Pizam & Calantone, 1987), choice of vacation activity (Madrigal & Kahle, 1994),
selection of vacation destinations (Dalen, 1989; Klenosky, et al., 1993; Muller, 1991;
Pitts and Woodside, 1986; Shih, 1986), travel styles (Madrigal, 1995), and preferences
for restaurant services (Boote, 1981). Further, research has identiﬁed different value
systems between managers within a restaurant organization and between managers and
college hospitality students (McCleary & Vosburgh, 1990). In addition, Pizam and his
colleagues (1997) have discovered that nationality and associated culture and personal
value systems sometimes overshadow hotel (organizational) cultures. That is, a person’s
personal value system has a greater inﬂuence on her/his behavior than that of the
organizational culture within the hospitality setting. Such ﬁnding deviates from the
common assumption that organizational cultures have strong control over employees’

behaviors; instead hospitality employees display their own national cultures and personal

value systems. Results of previous studies provide evidence that personal value systems
have a strong association with the attitudes and behaviors of tourists and tourism service

providers.

Problem Statement

As tourism market competition increases internationally, the US. tourism and
hospitality industry faces a dual challenge: the need to respond to direct competition here
in the US. from foreign counterparts and the need to attract and retain culturally diverse
customers (Farmer, 1995; Reisinger & Turner, 1997). Nevertheless, the service
encounter between diverse cultures creates a problem for modern tourism. That is, there
is often a discrepancy between tourism service standards held by the guests and those
standards held by host service providers (Hobson, 1990). Researchers have indicated that
international tourists visit the host country and carry along their own “cultural baggage”
(Pearce, 1982; Sharnes & Glover, 1989). As a result, the service received is often judged
by the tourist’s own cultural standards. Service providers of the host country, in the same
vein, deliver service to tourists based on their cultural values. Consequently, a gap
between expected and delivered service is generated (Armstrong, et al., 1997; Fumham,
1984), and often dissatisfaction with service results from inappropriate service
interactions between host service providers and international guests (Reisinger & Turner,
1997).

To address these challenges, Shames & Glover (1989) suggested that research
should enhance the profession’s understanding of the effects of one’s own culture on the

host-guest relationship. They noted: “culture determines what the service provider and

consumer perceive as needs, what and how they will communicate, what they value and
how they will react to each other” (p. 2). Thus, the manner in which host-guest
interactions are handled becomes an important issue for the tourism and hospitality
industry. This is especially so for hotel businesses, since how front-line staff manage the
host-guest interaction has a direct inﬂuence on the guest’s satisfaction or dissatisfaction
with the service offered (Dev & Olsen, 1989; Heskett, et al., 1990; Martin & Lundberg,
1991; Sparks & Callan, 1992).

Pearce and Stringer (1991) suggested that research should begin with examining
the value systems of the participants encountered. Reisinger and Turner (1997) also
contended that personal value systems of hospitality employees, derived from their own
cultures, could substantially inﬂuence their service behaviors while interacting with
guests, especially those guests coming from different cultures/countries. In addition, the
understanding of employees’ value systems, hotel staff's in particular, in relation to their
service interactions would assist managers as they recruit and select suitable candidates to
work at the service interface of cross-cultural interaction. In the long run, this
understanding contributes to the service quality across a range of hotel settings and thus
enhances the success of hospitality businesses (Lundberg & Woods, 1990).

A review of related literature indicated that there is no existing instrument
available to measure hotel service providers’ behavior that relates to personal value
systems as they interact with domestic and international guests. Therefore, this study
attempts to generate such an instrument to explore the relationships between hotel
employees’ values and service interactions. This in turn could be a potential tool used for

the hospitality industry and the academy.

Theoretical Framework

Since values direct a person’s attitudes, beliefs, behavioral intentions, and
behaviors, varied value systems or value orientations can result in different kinds of
individual conduct. For instant, some people behave in order to beneﬁt themselves, while
others behave not only to beneﬁt themselves but also the people around them. Many
theories have been devoted to disclosing the nature of the relationship between values
and human behavior. From the discipline of psychology two theories are most suitable
for this study, namely the Idiocentrism and Allocentrism theory and the Rokeach’s value
theory. In order to explore a service provider’s varied service behavior displayed toward
different guests, perceived differences between different groups of guests also needs to be
identiﬁed. To do so, the Social Distance theory was adopted. These three theories are

discussed as follows, starting with the Social Distance theory.

Social Distance Theory

Bogardus (1928) developed a measurement of social distance which suggests that
“distance” reﬂects a degree of social acceptance that exists between a given person and
certain other person(s) or group(s) (Triandis & Triandis, 1962; Miller, 1991). Rokeach
(1962) contends that social distance indicates the degree of perceived similarity,
including cultural, racial, attitudinal similarities, between a respondent and a target
person. In other words, the more alike two people are, the smaller the social distance
between them; the closer the relationship they form, the more likely they are to be

classiﬁed in the same social group. Later, building upon the notion of social distance,

Triandis (1988) considered individuals who share homogenous cultural norms, beliefs,
and values as members of an “ingroup,” while “outgroup” members are those excluded
from the ingroup. As a result, the concept of social distance reﬂects an individual’s
identiﬁcation of others as members of the ingroup or outgroup.

The idea of social distance has been applied widely to distinguish between ethnic
groups, races, religions (Bogardus, 1958), occupations (Wilkinson, 1929), and
nationalities (Lewin, 1936). Triandis and Triandis later explored social distance between
Americans and Greeks in their 1962 study. Their ﬁndings indicate that the average social
distance obtained from the members of a given social group is determined, in part, by the
values and norms of the ingroup. They noted: “it is very likely that a person may be
aware of several ingroups arranged in concentric circles, for instance, his professional
groups, neighborhood, social class, state, nation His social distance norms may be
inﬂuenced by all these ingroups, in various degrees” (Triandis & Triandis, 1962, p. 2). In
addition, Triandis (1961) suggested that prejudice and discrimination are special cases of
the research on social distance since they result from the differences in the belief systems

of the two agents.

Idiocentrism and Allocentrism Theory

Idiocentrism-Allocentrism is a psychological construct that illustrates two
different individual value orientations within a culture (here referring to a country).
Idiocentrism is considered as a value orientation presented by individuals whose
behaviors are primarily motivated by individual preferences, needs, and rights.

Allocentrism is referred to as another value orientation expressed by individuals whose

behaviors are prioritized by their group’s goals and needs (Triandis, Leung, et al., 1985).
Triandis (1995) contends that the measurement of Idiocentrism-Allocentrism (IC) is most
useful in identifying and separating people who possess self-prioritized value orientation
from those who possess a group-prioritized value orientation. He also indicates that
research could delineate the full distribution of idiocentrism and allocentrism in every
society and culture, whether it is oriental (e.g., Chinese and Japanese) or western (e.g.,
American and German) culture.

Researchers further found that the Idiocentrism-Allocentrism construct is useful
in explaining interpersonal interaction behaviors of each of these two value groups
toward others from a wide range of cultural backgrounds. In previous studies
(Gudykunst & Kim, 1984; Triandis, 1995, 1989; Triandis, McCusker, et a1, 1990),
researchers have compared seven types of social behaviors displayed toward members of
ingroup and outgroup between people of two value groups. Those behaviors are:
association (e.g., to help, to support, to like), dissociation (e.g., to ﬁght with, to avoid),
communication (e.g., to talk openly, easy to talk with), superordination (e.g., to order to
do something, to criticize), subordination (e.g., to obey, to ask for help), intimacy (e. g., to
pet, to kiss), and formality (e.g., sit at a table according to rank). Results revealed that
pe0ple possessing allocentrism (allocentrists) tended to show more association,
subordination, intimacy, formality, and less dissociation and superordination toward
members of their ingroup than members of the other value group. Unlike the
allocentrists, people possessing idiocentrism (idiocentrists) were likely to behave toward
people of all kinds in a more equal manner despite the value group to which those people

belonged.

Rokeach Value Theory

The Rokeach Value Survey (RVS) is one of the most widely used value
instruments for identifying individuals’ value systems that guide individuals’ daily lives.
Like the Idiocentrism-Allocentrism theory, the Rokeach’s value theory is used to divide
individuals whose lives are self-centered from those whose lives are society-centered
(Rokeach, 1973). Rokeach argues that people’s attitudes and behaviors will vary from
each other depending on how they prioritize personal and social values. A person who is
self-centered may emphasize values such as a comfortable life, self-respect, pleasure,
salvation and accomplishment, whereas, an individual who is society-centered may focus
more on family security, equality, and national security. Rokeach (1973) concludes that
“values are determinants of virtually all kinds of behavior that is called social behavior
of social action, attitudes and ideology, evaluations, moral judgments and justiﬁcations of
self and others, comparisons of self with others, presentations of self to others, and
attempts to inﬂuences others” (p. 24). In short, the Rokeach Value Survey assesses a
person’s value system that serves as a criterion or standard for personal activities and

expression of needs.

Synergy of Rokeach Value Them and Idiocentrism-Allocentrism Theory

Synergy is a research process that utilizes different research techniques to seek
statistically signiﬁcant correlation between the results of one study and the results of
other studies (Hofstede & Bond, 1984). In other words, synergy could be complementary

of one research to another, as well as a way of validating both studies.

10

Given the similar characteristics presented previously between the Rokeach value
theory and the Idiocentrism-Allocentrism Theory, a synergy study (Hofstede & Bond,
1984) discovered that the individualism and collectivisml were strongly and positively
correlated (r = .81, p < .01) to Rokeach’s value factors (modiﬁed by Ng and et al., 1982).
In addition, Johnston (1995) discovered individualism and collectivism as the underlying
dimensions of Rokeach’s values. In light of the ﬁndings, this study adopted the Rokeach

Value Survey as a tool of validity test for the Individualism and Collectivism scale.

Conceptual Model

As stated, this study attempts to generate an instrument that measures a hotel
service provider’s values and subsequent service attitudes, intentions, and behaviors
toward guests from diverse cultural backgrounds. The conceptual model for developing
the instrument in this study was based upon the review of tourism and hospitality
literature, and on Social Distance theory, Idiocentrism-Allocentrism theory, as well as
Rokeach’s value theory. Figure 1.1 presents the research model for this study.

It is theorized that hotel service providers can be classiﬁed into groups of
idiocentrists and allocentrists by the measurement of Individualism and Collectivism
(IC), or into self-centered individuals and society-centered individuals as determined by
the Rokeach Value Survey (RVS). Service behavior of each value group toward a guest
would be inﬂuenced by their perception of the guest as a member of an ingroup or of a
more distant outgroup. Both idiocentrist and allocentrist employees would perceive

smaller social distance toward domestic guests than toward international guests. In other

 

' The terms when the Idiocentrism and Allocentrism constructs are used to compare across cultures.

11

Model Steps Research Activity

 

Hotel Service Providers

 

 

 

 

 

Divide Use of established
/\ instrument
Idiocentrist Value Group Allocentrist Value Group
(By IC) (By IC)
or or
Self-Centered Society-Centered
Value Group Value Group
(By RVS) (By RVS)

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
 
       
    
 
  
 

Development of
new scale

Ingroup Distance Outgroup Distance

(By SD) (By SD)

     
    

 

 

Assess Development of
new scale
Service Behavior Service Behavior Service Behavior Service Behavior
To Ingroup To Outgroup To Ingroup To Outgroup
(By SIS) (By SIS) (By SIS) (By SIS)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1.1 Conceptual Model Of Values And Service Interactions
Of Hotel Service Providers

12

words, members of either value group would identify domestic guests as ingroup
members and international guests as outgroup members.

In light of the inﬂuence of value orientations, different service behavior would be
displayed toward ingroup guests and outgroup guests by idiocentrist and allocentrist
employees. Such services would be measured by another new scale developed in this
study, the Service Interaction Scale (SIS). Idiocentrist employees are expected to show
similar service behaviors while serving both domestic guests (ingroups) and international
guests (outgroups). While allocentric employees are expected to show different service

behaviors toward the two different guest types.

Study Objectives

Given the nature of the research problem and this conceptual framework, the
following research objectives were established.

1. Generating an instrument that measures the value orientations of hotel service
providers and their service interaction behaviors toward domestic and international
guests that could be a potential tool used for hospitality professionals and educators.

2. Developing, testing, and reﬁning a social distance scale that measures ingroup and
outgroup social distance for hotel service providers.

3. Developing, testing, and reﬁning a service interaction scale that measures hotel
service providers’ behaviors toward domestic and international guests.

4. Outlining the utility and implications of the new instrument for professionals and

educators of the hospitality industry, as well as implications for future research.

13

Summary

Approaching the turn of the century, a challenge faced by the tourism and
hospitality industry is how to best serve guests from a wide variety of cultural
backgrounds. The solution has to begin with a very basic understanding of the service
behavior of front-line service providers. A psychological perspective to assess service
interactions is adopted to explore the relationship between an individual’s value
orientation and the social behaviors exhibited toward others with different cultural
backgrounds. However, an adequate instrument to measure such service phenomena
does not exist. Therefore, this research was designed to develop an instrument that could
be a potential instrument to be used in the hospitality industry and academy. This chapter
illustrated the background issues and sources of the research problem, as well as the three

theoretical perspectives that were used to frame the research.

14

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, the three theories utilized in this study are reviewed in detail. The
Social Distance theory depicts the identiﬁcation of ingroups and outgroups based upon
individual’s perception of distinct social distance toward various groups of people. The
review of idiocentrism and allocentrism value orientations provides details of attributes
and social behaviors manifested by members of these two value groups. A third portion
of this chapter presents the Rokeach’s value theory, which could divide study

respondents into value groups according to their value systems.

Social Distance Theory

Social distance is a perceived degree of social acceptance between two persons,
between persons and groups, or between groups. Such distance, including personal
distance and social behavior distance, can be measured by endorsement of certain
statements that involve a person, an organization, a country, or a community (Miller,
1991; Triandis & Triandis, 1962). Bogardus (1928) initiated an ordinal scale of social
distance that assesses the distance between a person and ethnic groups. The scale asks
subjects to rate the degree of social distance for 39 ethnic targets on seven attributes.

Since Bogardus’ pioneering work, the concept and method of social distance have been

15

applied to measure distances of belief (Rokeach, 1962), race, religion, occupation
(Bogardus, 1959; Wilkinson, 1929), region, sex, parent-child interaction, education,
social class, and nationality (Kleg & Yamamoto, 1995; Levvin, 1936; Triandis &
Triandis, 1962). Results of the previous research indicate social distance often varies in

relation to those variables listed above.

Antecedent Factors of Social Distance

Triandis and Triandis (1960) suggested that the concept of conformity to group
norms contributes to the understanding of the forming of social distance, since social
distance perceived by a member of a given social group is partially determined by the
norms of such group. Such norms were referred to as “a special class of beliefs about
appropriate or acceptable behavior” (Ehrlich, 1973, p. 71). In their study, Triandis and
Triandis (1962) found that conformity to group norms accounted for one-third of the
variance in social distance in their data. They explained that “every society has
established norms concerning the social distance that is ‘correct’ towards various classes
of people, and specify what is the appropriate distance towards people with certain
characteristics, for example, age, sex, occupation, race, religion, nationality, political
views, and philosophy views” (p. 2). Therefore, individuals’ perceived distance toward
certain outgroups are partial reﬂections of the social distance prescribed by the groups to
which they belong.

Triandis and Triandis continue by suggesting that an individual’s social distance
might also be inﬂuenced to various degrees by many types of ingroups, such as

professional group, neighborhood, social class, state, nation, or racial group. Such an

16

inﬂuence is derived from the amount of emphasis each group places on various
determinants of social distance, which has an effect on the distance deﬁnition of an
individual. Race and social class were found to be more important determinants than
religion and occupation for “white” Americans, whereas, religion and nationality were
most important determinants for Greek subjects. In addition, Triandis and Triandis
(1962) noted that the size of the ingroup could also have an impact on a person’s social
distance norms. That is, if the ingroup is very narrow, the social distance norms of this
group may involve a large distance toward certain outgroups.

Triandis and Triandis’ analysis ﬁrrther showed the socioeconomic background of
the subjects has substantial association with the subjects’ emphasis on certain variables
that determine social distance. For example, upper-class individuals emphasized religion
more than did lower-class individuals; middle-class individuals emphasized occupations;
and lower-class individuals emphasized race determinants. Moreover, J erabek and de
Man’s (1994) found that subjects with limited education and low family income
perceived greater social distance between themselves and members of other groups due to
their closedness of mind and lack of knowledge toward other groups.

Another factor that enhances the understanding of social distance was introduced
by Rokeach (1962). He hypothesizes that the “social distance is the degree of similarity
between a dependent and stimulus person. That is, the more similar two people are the
closer is the relationship they form” (p. 187). The similarity Rokeach referred to is a
degree of perceived similarity, by which people think they are similar to each other, in
terms of cultures, races, values, and attitudes. In other words, the more similar the target

persons are perceived to be by the subjects, and the smaller the social distance between

17

them, the more likely the subjects are to perceive the target persons as ingroup members
(Obot, 1988). Findings of Gudykunst and Kim’s (1984) study supported this hypothesis
using both within country and cross-nation data.

It needs to be noted here that prejudice has been found in relation to large social
distance toward some social groups. Triandis (1961) contended that prejudice is a special
case of research on social distance, because prejudice is considered as an acceptance or
rejection of a relationship involving different degrees of social distance, such as
accepting a person as a neighbor or a student in one’s university. His contention is
incompatible with the core prejudice deﬁnition, which is an unfavorable ethnic attitude
being directed against an entire group or its individual members (Ehrlich, 1973).
Triandis further stated that some insecure individuals in each culture prefer the status quo
and are more likely to adopt a conservative view than a change-requiring view.
Subsequently, these insecure individuals conform to their groups’ stereotypes against
some social and cultural groups (Allport, 1954). Hence, it is not uncommon to ﬁnd that
middle-class individuals are less prejudiced than lower-class individuals (Wilson, 1996;

Triandis & Triandis, 1960).

Ingroup and Outgroup Distinction

Using the concept of social distance, individuals identify those people who have
similar cultural norms, beliefs, and values as ingroup members, whereas outgroup
members are those excluded (Triandis, 1995). Triandis (1988) noted that ingroups are
“groups of individuals about whose welfare a person is concerned, with whom that

person is willing to cooperate without demanding equitable returns, and separation from

18

whom leads to anxiety Outgroups are groups with which one has something to divide,
perhaps unequally, or are harmful in some way, groups that disagree on valued attributes,
or groups with which one is in conﬂict” (p. 75). In other words, members of ingroups
share a sense of common fate that is linked to the social environments around them and in
which they are heavily involved. Outgroup individuals would have no such bond with
the members of a certain group (Triandis, 1995). Several studies (Linville, et al., 1996;
Triandis, McCusker, et al., 1990; Vanbeselaere, 1988) have found evidence of subjects
perceiving ingroups to be homogeneous because of familiar and similar behaviors of
other members. Outgroups were perceived as heterogeneous because no signiﬁcant
behavioral similarity was identiﬁed. Resulting from these attributes, distinction between
ingroup and outgroups emerge. Researchers have found that US. college students
evaluated ingroups more positively than outgroups (Branscombe, et al., 1993), and that
discriminatory behavior was attributed most strongly to outgroups over ingroups (Moy, et

al., 1996).

Idiocentrism And Allocentrism Theory
Various value theories have been developed and utilized in many studies to
explain human conduct, such as personality, attitudes, and behaviors. Among these are
Idiocentrism and Allocentrism, psychological constructs proposed by Triandis and his
colleagues (1985) that are used to describe personal value orientations within a culture.
Triandis (1995) noted that “in every culture there are people who are allocentrist, who

believe, feel, and act very much like collectivistsl do around the world. People who are

 

' The terms Individualism-Collectivism are used to describe different value orientations between cultures.
Individualists are those who possess individualism. Collectivists are people who possess collectivism.

19

idiocentrist believe, feel, and act the way individualists do around the world in every
culture we get the full distribution of both types” (p. 5). Expressed differently,
idiocentrists and allocentrists can be found in both individualist cultures (e.g., the United
States, Australia) and collectivist cultures, (e.g., China, Japan; Triandis, McCusker, et al.,
1990)

According to the study ﬁndings of Triandis, and Chan, et al. (1995), Idiocentrism
and Allocentrism may be part of every individual, but are used more or less frequently
depending on the environment in which people are operating (e.g., society, company).
Thus, environments that lead to idiocentrist responses are those that contain
Individualism attributes in which cultural norms reinforce independence, detachment,
equity; while, allocentrist responses resulted from those environments which are
comprised of Collectivism attributes that emphasize interdependence, solidarity, and
equality. Given that Idiocentrism and Allocentrism share similar properties with
Individualism and Collectivism, and that the majority of the research pertaining to the
two value orientations were done in terms of Individualism and Collectivism, the best
way to illustrate Idiocentrism and Allocentrism is through the review of Individualism-
Collectivism theory (Triandis, Leung, et al.; 1985). The following sections illustrate
deﬁnitions, attributes, antecedent factors, consequential behaviors, and the change of

value orientations in detail.

20

Individualism and Collectivism
Deﬁnitions

The concepts of individualism and collectivism have been popular since 19703.
In her book, Kagitcibasi (1997) stated that the historical precursors of individualism and
collectivism recognized by cross-cultural psychologists are Tonnies’s “Gemeinschaft”
and “Gesellschaft” (1957, 1988) which translated as community and society. From the
views of sociology, Parsons (1951) distinguishes individualism from collectivism by
deﬁning individualism as self-orientation and collectivity as (group)-orientation
behaviors. He refers to self-orientation behavior as “an actor’s pursuing of any interest
private to himself or to a small group,” and collectivity-orientation behavior as the
“actor’s obligation to pursue the common interests of the collectivity ” (p. 60). It is
obvious that Parsons regards individualism and collectivism as central to social
behaviors.

Interest in studying individualism and collectivism became popular with
Hofstede’s Culture ’3 Consequences (1980). Hofestede studied work values of over one
hundred thousand IBM employees of 66 nationalities, and formulated the construct of
individualism-collectivism as one of the four dimensions of work values that is used to
identify cultures across nations. Hofstede (1991) deﬁnes individualism as “a society in
which the ties between individuals are loose; everyone is expected to look after himself
or herself and his or her immediate farmly only.” Collectivism, on the other hand, is “a
society in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive ingroups,
which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for

unquestioning loyalty” (p. 260-261). His study (Hofstede, 1980) argued that most

21

western countries were individualist cultures emphasizing the values of power,
competition, and personal achievement, while, most Asian, Central American, and
Middle Eastern countries were found to be collectivist cultures focusing on values such
as subordination, hierarchy, and harmony. For instance, the United States, Australia,
Great Britain, and British controlled areas were areas of high individualistic cultures, yet
China, Venezuela and Colombia fell into the category of high collectivistic cultures. In a
later study, Bond (1988a) studied the values of college students in twenty-one countries
and found similar results.

Via Hofstede’s conceptualization, individualism and collectivism were revived
and adopted by researchers as cultural variables. Anthropologist Hsu (1981)
distinguished cultural differences between Americans and Chinese and discovered that
conformity is a theme that differs between American and Chinese ways of life.
Americans’ emphasis on independence results in a resentment of conformity that
contrasts with Chinese beliefs on conformity. In Chinese society, conformity ”not only
tends to govern all interpersonal relations, but it also enjoys social and cultural approval”
(Hsu, 1981, p. 136). As a result, Americans were found to be more aggressive,
independent, self-centered when compared to Chinese. Ho (1979) considered this
difference as a reﬂection of “the fundamental contrast in cultural orientations between the

two groups on the collectivist-individual dimension” (p. 148).

22

Attributes of Individugismg and Collectivism

Through Triandis and his colleagues’ research, the salience of the individualism-
collectivism construct was achieved. Hui and Triandis (1986) initiated the INDCOLZ, a
sixty-three item ﬁve-point scale that measures individualist and collectivist value
orientation of a culture, which has been widely adopted in many studies. Their research
ﬁndings formed a consistency of meaning and attributes for this construct (Hui, 1984;
Hui & Triandis, 1986; Triandis, Bontempo, et al., 1986; Triandis, McCusker, et al.,
1990). In essence, individualism and collectivism are value orientations that can be
referred to as two clusters of personal attitudes, beliefs, feelings, emotions, ideology, and
actions. Based upon related research ﬁndings, six attributes of the two value constructs
are summarized as follows and tabulated in Table 2.1.

1. Implications of one’s own actions for other people. Individualists perceive the self
as a basic unit of the society, and are only responsible to the self or a few other people
(e.g., their immediate family). Thus, they place personal goals and interests higher than
those of the ingroup, then decide and act on the principle of personal beneﬁts. In reverse,
collectivists consider the implications of their actions for the entire collective group
because the group is regarded as the basic unit. They deﬁne ingroup in a broader way
than do individualists; collectivists include not only the immediate family but also
relatives, friends, neighbors, coworkers, and sometimes the whole society (depending on
the situation). They pay more attention to ingroup than to the self, therefore subordinate

personal goals to the group’s goals, needs and views (Schwartz, 1990, 1994; Triandis,

 

2 Later, Triandis (I995) reﬁned the lNDCOL to a thirty-two item, nine-point scale, the 1C. The subscale
reliability alphas were in the range of .73 to .82. The IC scale is an element of the instrument developed in
this study.

23

Table 2.1 Comparison Of Individualism And Collectivism Attributes.

 

 

Attributes Individualism Collectivism
Goals & Interests Personal Ingroup
Family Structure Immediate Extended
Discretion for Action Personal Ingroup
Locus of Decision-Making Situational Ingroup
Emphasis on Belonging Self Ingroup
Membership Small ingroup Large ingroup
Sharing of Resources Independent Shared
Interdependency Low High
Involvement in Other’s Lives Low High
Ingroup Social Support Less More

 

Bontempo, et al., 1988: Yamaguchi, 1994).

2. Sharing of material beneﬁts. Since individualists endorse autonomy and self-
sufﬁciency, they act on an individual basis, possess individual resources, and enjoy
individual beneﬁts. In contrast, collectivists consider sharing material resources as social
networking. They perceive loaning, borrowing, and giving as ways of building and
maintaining ingroup relationships and would strive hard to maintain those relationships
(Markus & Kitayarna, 1991).

3. Sharing of non-material resources, such as affection, time, and fun. Individualists
believe that persons should only take care of the self, thus are less likely to share and
receive non-material resources. In contrast, collectivists expect reciprocal social supports
from their ingroup members since such behavior is a means of strengthening

interdependence of the group (Kim, et al., 1994).

24

4. Sensitivity to social inﬂuence. Individualists have many small size ingroups,
therefore rely less on any one group. Since their social behaviors are guided by personal
attitudes, needs, rights, and contracts (Miller, 1994), if conformity is required they simply
switch groups. Collectivists, on the contrary, regulate their social behaviors by group
norms, duties, obligations, and conform to high authority in order to avoid being rejected
or to keep the harmony of the group (Bond & Smith, 1996; Bontempo & Rivero, 1992;
Gerganov, et al., 1996; Lobel & Rodrigues, 1987).

5. Sharing of outcomes. Individualists endorse independence and believe in doing
one’s own thing, thus their behaviors usually do not affect other people and vice versa.
Collectivists, however, believe people are interwoven together, and that an individual’s
misbehavior could harm the group; therefore, a person’s failure or success is shared by
the entire ingroup (Hui & Triandis, 1986; Triandis, McCusker, etal., 1990).

6. Feeling of involvement in and contribution to the lives of others. Since most
individualists detach themselves from other individualists they generally feel less
involved in other’s lives with the exception of only a few people (e. g., immediate family).
Unlike the individualists, collectivists share resources, others’ behavioral outcomes, and
social supports. Inevitably, they become heavily involved in other group members’ lives,
such as children’s choice of ﬁiends, studies, marriage, and jobs (Hui & Triandis, 1986).

In sum, the deﬁning themes of individualism are independence, emotional
detachment, self-beneﬁt, and personal achievement, whereas the deﬁning themes of
collectivism are interdependence, conformity, solidarity, and ingroup achievement. The

attribute proﬁles of individualism and collectivism suggest that the constructs are sound

25

devices to distinguish cultural differences via value orientations as well as the

consequential social behaviors, in within- and cross-cultural contexts.

Consequential Behavior toward Igroup and Outgroup

Given the inﬂuences of distinct focuses of the two value orientations,
individualists and collectivists exhibit different social behaviors toward members of
ingroup and outgroup. Triandis (1995) suggested that social behavior of individualism
and collectivism is a function of social distance. Individualists (e.g., Americans) and
collectivists (e. g., Chinese) act differently on social matters depending on whether the
target persons are ingroup or outgroup members (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990;
Table 2.2). By their deﬁnitions (Hui, 1984; Hui & Triandis, 1986; Triandis, 1988, 1995),
ingroups are people who are similar in social class, social status, race, belief, attitudes,
and values (e.g., family, schoolmates, coworkers) whereas outgroups are those excluded
(e. g., strangers, foreigners). As a result of emphasizing ingroup coherence, collectivists
place sharp distinctions between ingroup and outgroup members. They perceive larger
social distances, in terms of goals, rules, and values, between ingroup and outgroup
members. Unlike their counterparts, individualists have many ingroups that consist of
only a few members. The inﬂuence of the ingroup becomes narrower and less
signiﬁcant, thus it is likely that they perceive equal distances between themselves and
members of ingroups other than immediate ingroups.

Given the previous arguments, researchers (Bond & Smith, 1996; Triandis, 1995;
Triandis, McCusker, et al., 1990) have examined six types of consequential social

behaviors displayed toward members of ingroup and outgroup that may differ between

26

Table 2.2 Comparison Of Behavioral Relationships Toward Outgroup
Members Between Individualism And Collectivism.

 

 

Behavior Individualism Collectivism
Tolerance More Less
Acceptance More Less
Confrontation Open Less Direct
Endorsement of rules Low High
Communication Style Universal Superior
Communicating with Less Difﬁcult More Difficult
Strangers
Establishment of Relationships Easy Difﬁcult
with Strangers

 

individualists (e.g., Americans) and collectivists (e.g., Chinese, Hong Kong residents).
These social behaviors are: ( 1) association — to help, support, like, admire and respect
others; (2) dissociation - to ﬁght with, avoid associating with others; (3) superordination
— to order others to do something, criticize others; (4) subordination — to obey, ask for
help from others; (5) intimacy — to pet, kiss others; and (6) formality -— to send written
invitations to others, to sit at a table according to rank. Results revealed that both value
groups showed similar patterns in association and intimacy toward ingroup and outgroup
members, with more association and intimacy to ingroups than outgroups. Yet,
collectivists showed more dissociation to outgroup than ingroup members than is the case
with individualists. This evidence is consistent with collectivists’ behavior of making a
sharp distinction between ingroups and outgroups. Findings also showed that

collectivists exhibited more superordination to outgroups, more subordination to

27

ingroups, and less subordination to outgroups than the individualists did. These ﬁndings
are all compatible with collectivists’ emphasis on group cohesion and individualists’
focus on independence. Although signiﬁcant cultural differences were found in the
formality behaviors toward ingroups and outgroups, both individualists and collectivists
tend to be formal to outgroup members. Nevertheless, as social distance increased
beyond a certain level, individualists showed less formality to outgroups than the
collectivists did.

Other distinct attributes paint different perspectives about individualists and
collectivists on other interpersonal interactions. Collectivists were found to be less
patient, less accepting and less tolerant of outgroup members than were individualists
(Bond, 1988b). Collectivists also practiced different rule standards with ingroups and
outgroups -- stricter rules were extended to outgroups compared to ingroups. In a
different way, individualists were likely to extent equal rule standards to either ingroup
and outgroup members (Hui & Triandis, 1986; Triandis, Bontempo, et al., 1988; Triandis,
Leung, et al., 1985; Triandis, McCusker, et al., 1993). In terms of forming friendships,
individualists make friends with fewer speciﬁc persons when advantages are involved,
whereas collectivists’ friendships are predetermined by stable relationships formed early
in life. It takes a long time for collectivists to trust strangers in order to include them as
friends (Gudykunst & Kim, 1984). As a result, it is more difﬁcult for collectivists to
establish relationships with strangers than for their individualist counterparts.

Researchers ﬁrrther discovered that communication styles are functions of the
type of relationship between two value groups (Gudykunst, Yang, & Nishida, 1987;

Gudykunst, Yoon, et al., 1987; Kim, Hunter, et al., 1996). For the sake of group

28

cohesion, collectivists tended to show superior communication style toward outgroup
members than the ingroups, whereas individualists employed universal communication
style toward ingroups and outgroups (Gudykunst, Gao, et al., 1992). To keep harmony,
collectivists take an indirect communication style with the ingroup in order to avoid
direct confrontation with ingroup members. Yet, a more active conﬁontation style would
be applied to outgroup members because of the distinction between ingroups and
outgroups. Direct confrontation, however, is accepted and widely practiced in
individualist cultures when dealing with members of ingroups and outgroups (Gudykunst,
Ting-Toomey, & Chua, E., 1988). This conduct in turn creates more difﬁculty for
collectivists when communicating with strangers than for individualists (Berger &

Gudykunst, 1989; Gudykunst, Nishida, et al., 1986).

Antecedent Factors of Individugﬁsm aLnd Collectivism

According to Triandis (1995), in primitive society people relied on the group to
survive, thus collectivism was important and popular in that context. However, as the
environment evolves, collectivism is less clearly advantageous and people become more
individualist. Researchers have identiﬁed that modernity, affluence, and cultural
complexity are determining factors of individualism. Since, as the economy develops,
more life choices are available and fewer skills are required for basic living, people
become more independent, competitive, and power-oriented. Thus, factors such as
industrialization, upper socioeconomic status, and high pay occupations positively relate
to individualism (Hofstede, 1980; Reykowski, 1994; Topalova, 1997). People who live

in urban areas are found to have more openness to innovations, and self-direction values

29

result from a wide exposure to mass media and a spectrum of opportunity in life (Cha,
1994; Georgas, 1993; Ma & Schoeneman, 1997; Mishra, 1994). In addition, Schwartz
(1992) discovered that young people were more prone to be individualists than their
elders because of their risk-taking and openness tendencies. The same value pattern was
observed with educated populations in many countries, where the higher the education
level, the more self-reliant and achievement motivated people became. For example,
college students tended to be more individualistic than average members of other
populations in most countries (Cha, 1994; Kohn, et al., 1990; Mishra, 1994; Reykowski,
1994). Studies further provide evidence that male subjects were more likely to be
individualists as they tended to value personal achievement, equity, competition, self-
directed values (Sinha, et al., 1994; Triandis, 1995).

Triandis (1995) contended that when one relies heavily on speciﬁc groups and
prefers to reﬂect cultural homogeneity, the individual is prone to collectivism. According
to the research discussed above, one could ﬁnd more collectivists in highly populated
cultures that are isolated from other cultures, as these individuals share limited resources
with large groups of others. They are more likely to reside in underdeveloped and
developing areas, and belong to less wealthy and lower socioeconomic classes. Triandis
(1995) also pointed out that collectivists are more likely to be older members of a
population because they are reserved and less open to changes compared to the younger
generations. In addition, women were found to be more collectivistic than men since
they were trained traditionally to take care of family and think of members of family

prior to themselves.

30

The Change of Value Orienta_rt_i_o_rl§

Several researchers (Hsu, 1983; Noricks, Aglers, et al., 1987; Triandis, 1995;
Yang, 1988) have found that changes in antecedent factors, such as the change of how
people make a living, movement from rural to urban settings, changes in afﬂuence and
mobility, as well as exposure to mass media are conducive to the shifts from collectivism
to individualism. For example, prior to World War 11, Japan was extremely collectivist
because the society was very cohesive and few personal choices existed within society.
After the war, westernization may have inﬂuenced many Japanese toward individualist
orientations. Such change is evident in younger generations which are more independent
and pleasure seeking compared to the older members which tend to remain in traditional
collectivist culture (Hayashi, 1992; Iwao, 1993; Markus & Kitayarna, 1991).

Triandis (1995) also argued that speciﬁc situations and environments could
inﬂuence people to exhibit social behaviors that differ from their value orientations. For
instance, more individualism is manifested at a party or bar since these settings offer
more opportunities for expression. More collectivism could be expected in church
because stricter prescribed behavior is expected. In addition, traveling and living abroad
leads people to individualism since they have to make many decisions by themselves.
The different occupations and jobs that a person engages in may also have an affect on
value tendencies depending on whether the job includes teamwork or individual effort.
The more teamwork one does, the more attention one pays to the needs of others, and that
leads to more collectivism. Thus, it is conceivable that despite the distinctive attributes

and consequential outcomes individualism and collectivism produce, shifts in

31

individualism and collectivism can occur as factors change the dynamics of particular

social and cultural situations.

Rokeach Value Theory

The Rokeach Value Survey (RVS) is recognized as the best-known and most used
tool to study values in the ﬁeld of psychology (Berry, Poortinga, et al., 1992). The
instrument comprises one set of eighteen terminal values and one set of eighteen
instrumental values (Appendix A). It measures personal value systems by asking
subjects to rank each set of values separately in the order of importance they place on
each value. The theory and method has been applied by many disciplines to differentiate
various political (Mayton & Vickers, 1988), religious (Ball-Rokeach, Rokeach, & Brube,
1984), generational, educational (McCleary & Vosburgh, 1990), and cultural (Feather,

1975, 1987) groups, as well as social attitudes (Braithwaite & Law, 1985).

Attributes of Rolgach’s Values

Rokeach (1968) considers a value to be an enduring prescriptive or proscriptive
belief that a speciﬁc end-state of existence or mode of conduct is personally or socially
preferable to other end-states or modes of conduct. Those preferable values also are the
important principles guiding one’s behavior throughout life. Rokeach (1973) contends
that human values should emphasize both enduring and changing characteristics, because
if values are completely stable, individual and social change would be impossible as time
progresses. Yet, values should not be completely unstable, otherwise the continuity of

human personality and society would not be possible. Besides, as life experience and

32

maturation increases, one is more likely to possess more than one set of values that are
organized into a value system. In this system, each value competes with the others in its
importance or preference; thus all values are integrated accordingly into a hierarchically
organized system (Bearden, Netemeyer, & Mobley, 1993; Rokeach, 1973).

Rokeach argues that each individual possesses two sets of values, terminal (end-
states of existence) and instrumental (modes of conduct). Terminal values contain a type
of self-centered values (e.g., salvation, peace of mind) focusing on intrapersonal
relationships, while the other type, society-centered values focuses on interpersonal
relationships (e.g., world peace, brotherhood). People differ from one another in the
priority they place upon personal or social values; that in turn differentiates people’s
attitudes and behaviors from one another (Rokeach, 1973, 1976). Instrumental values,
the means to achieve end-states, do not necessarily include values that concern end-states
of existence, as Rokeach (1973) pointed out. Certain kinds of instrumental values,
namely moral values, have interpersonal relationships as a focus (e. g., honesty,
responsibility); when violated, a feeling of guilt for wrongdoing is aroused. The other
kinds of instrumental values, called competence or self-actualization values, have
intrapersonal relationship as a focus (e.g., logical, intelligently), and do not especially
relate to morality; when they are violated, a feeling of shame about personal
incompetence occurs.

As for the relations between terminal and instrumental values, Rokeach (1973)
noted that people might experience a conﬂict between two terminal values, between two
instrumental values, or between a terminal and an instrumental value. That is because

when a particular situation activates one value that might conﬂict with a converse value

33

that has similar importance to a person in that situation, for example, to behave honestly
and lovingly, or to act politely and to offer intellectual criticism. When an increase in
one social value leads to an increase in other social values and a decrease in personal
values, conﬂict can occur. The last kind of conﬂict might take place because there isn’t a
simple one-on-one relationship between the two terminal values and the two instrumental

values (Rokeach, 1973).

Functions of Rokeach’s Values

Derived from the attributes described, Rokeach (1968, 1973) suggested that
values and value systems serve several functions. First, values serve as behavioral
standards that guide people’s ongoing conduct. In other words, an individual’s behavior
is based upon his or her personal values. A value system ﬁmctions as a general plan that
resolves conﬂicts and helps a person make decisions. Hence, the value system is
employed when one takes particular positions on social issues, favors one particular
political or religious ideology over others, evaluates or judges ourselves and others, or
persuades and inﬂuences beliefs, attitudes, values, and actions of others. Another
function is that the content of certain terminal and instrumental values is adjustment-
oriented. It is assumed that humans possess adjustment-oriented values (e. g., conformity)
because individuals differ in the importance they place on these values competing with
other values and also because individuals utilize these values as a way of adapting to
group pressure. The third function is that values can be seen as attitudes that fulﬁll ego-
defensive needs. Since values are culturally representative, they help ensure that personal

conducts are justiﬁed by the culture, smoothly and effortlessly. The last function relates

34

to self-actualization and knowledge owing to value study which involves the search for
meanings and the need to understand and to enhance a better organization of perception

and belief for a self (Katz, 1960; Rokeach, 1973).

Socioeconomic Variables and Value Differences

In Rokeach’s ﬁndings (1973), American men and women differ in values
possessed. Men give more weight to masculine values3 such as a comfortable life, a
sense of accomplishment, ﬁeedom, social recognition, and an exciting life than women
do. Conversely, women more strongly regard feminine values such as salvation, inner
harmony, wisdom, self-respect, a world at peace, and happiness than did their male
counterparts. Similarly, Ryker (1992) found that male college students highly valued a
comfortable life, an exciting life, pleasure, and social recognition, while female students
ranked the values -- a world at peace, equality, inner harmony, and self-respect higher
than men.

In addition to gender differences, Rokeach (1973) also discovered that people’s
values differ between levels of income, educational, and racial identiﬁcation. Owing to
the inﬂuence of distinctive living situations, people of less afﬂuence rated the following
values higher than more afﬂuent persons: clean, comfortable life, salvation, true
ﬁiendship, helpful, obedient and polite. Conversely, the afﬂuent valued: a sense of
accomplishment, family security, inner harmony, wisdom, being capable, intellectual, and
logical values higher than less afﬂuent. Rokeach argued that the different value

preferences between the rich and the poor result from whether the values are possessed

 

3 Dio and colleagues (1996) interpreted that masculinity and femininity are labels that differentiate men and
women by certain characteristics they possess.

35

by individuals in their living environments. In other words, low ranked values are those
already possessed by the individuals in their life, thus are taken for granted; whereas,
those values people strive for are high ranked values.

According to Rokeach’s ﬁndings (1973), the value pattern obtained from various
educational levels is basically the same as that found for Americans in different income
groups. Yet, education is suggested to be a better social status indicator than income,
since the value gap appeared larger between the educated and the less-educated than
between the rich and the poor. In addition, Rokeach indicated that, in American society,
persons of low socioeconomic status are more religious, more conformist, more
concerned with ﬁiendship than with love, less concerned with responsibility, and less
concerned with competence and self-actualization compared to persons of higher status.

In sum, Rokeach’s instrument is sound for differentiating various groups that have
distinct value systems that relate to a wide range of social attitudes and behaviors.
Researchers (Braithwaite & Law, 1985) suggest the tool is economical since the
assessment can be achieved relatively easily and simply. Also, the constructs of Rokeach
values are so soundly deﬁned and applicable across a wide range of speciﬁc situations,

thus they are preferred by researchers for many studies within and across nations.

Summary
The above review illustrates details of attributes, antecedent factors, functions,
and consequential conducts and changes for each of the three theories utilized in this
study. It provides a framework for developing the instrument needed for this study.

Social Distance theory clariﬁes why and how humans form their ingroups and outgroups,

36

as well as those behavioral biases derived from such a distinction. Idiocentrism and
Allocentrism theory portrays two personal value orientations existing in every culture,
which predominately prescribe one’s distinct behavior, especially toward members of
ingroups and outgroups. Parallel to Idiocentrism and Allocentrism, Rokeach’s theory
also distinguish individuals from one another via two types of personal value
orientations, namely self-centered and society-centered value systems in terminal values,

or moral and competence value systems in instrumental systems.

37

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

AND INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT

The goal of this study was to build an instrument to assess hotel employee’s
values that relate to their behaviors when serving an array of domestic and international
guests. To construct such a device, four scales were needed, two of which were existing
scales and adopted ﬁom the discipline of cross-cultural psychology. The other two scales
were developed in the course of this research. Given the complexity of the instrument
set, the methodology used will be presented in three parts. The ﬁrst part is a literature
review of scale/instrument construction procedure. The second part illustrates the
process of scale construction including the acquisition and modiﬁcation of existing scales
and the development of the two new scales. The ﬁnal scale test that will be discussed in

the next chapter.

Review Of Scale Constructing Procedure
The main task of this study was to develop needed instruments, two new scales in
particular. To achieve this goal, the guidelines of DeVellis’ scale development (1991)
and Spector’s scale construction (1992) were combined and adopted. The procedure of

developing a scale and its considerations is summarized in the following ﬁve steps.

38

Step 1: Determine What to Measure

DeVellis and Spector suggested that the ﬁrst step for research is to know clearly
what is to be measured. This requires a sound theory to set boundaries around the
phenomenon to be investigated. Such boundaries narrow the content of the scale to the
intended domains, and the construct of interest can be clearly and precisely deﬁned. In

turn, the level of speciﬁcity or generality of the construct is more apparent for measuring.

Step 2: Generate an Item Pool

The next step in constructing a scale is to generate a pool of items that reﬂects the
scale’s purpose. Since the function of a scale is determined by those items included, the
content of each selected item should reﬂect the construct of interest and be sensitive to
the true score of the latent variable underlying the construct. DeVellis suggested that the
initial number of items preferably should be over-inclusive. By using a greater number
of redundant items, the content that is homogeneous to the items will emerge while the
irrelevancy will cancel out. The other advantage for having more initial items is that it
serves as insurance against poor internal consistency that reveals the strength of the items
correlating with one another in a scale. That, in turn, assures the ﬁtness and soundness of
the scale. Nevertheless, the initial pool size suggested is approximately only ﬁfty percent
larger than the ﬁnal scale, instead of three or four times larger, because lengthy items

usually introduce complexity that would diminish clarity.

39

Step 3: Determine the Response Format and Scoring System

The response format is related to how true scores can be obtained as scale theory
requires. In other words, the scale items should be scorable and compatible with the
theoretical orientation. As DeVellis and Spector suggested, the Likert scale is the most
common item format used to measure opinions, beliefs, attitudes and intentional
behaviors. In this format, the item is presented as a declarative sentence with response
options of varying degrees of agreement to the statement. The selection of an odd or
even number of response options depends on the goals of the investigator and the
phenomenon being studied. In addition, the response options should be worded in a
fashion of roughly equal intervals and graduation between each agreement so that
respondents can judge their answers accurately. Then, a scoring system should be

developed in accordance with the response format.

Step 4: Having Initial Items Reviewed and Pilot Tested

As the original items are developed, they should be presented to a group of people
who are knowledgeable in the content area for review. This process accomplishes several
purposes that maximize the content validity of the scale. First, the experts can conﬁrm or
invalidate the deﬁnitions of the phenomenon. Second, they can evaluate the clarity and
conciseness of the items. Third, they can point out and suggest ways of tapping the
phenomenon that the investigator failed to include. However, the ﬁnal decision in
accepting or rejecting the advice provided by the experts should be the investigator’s or
scale developer’s responsibility, because as DeVellis indicated, the experts might not

understand the principles of scale construction or the theory upon which the construct of

40

interest is based. In spite of this, the investigator should careﬁrlly study the suggestions
provided and make decisions on how to best use them.

After revising the initial items, the scale should be pilot-tested on small number of
potential sample subjects. Subjects will be asked to critique the items by indicating the
ambiguity or confusion in items, as well as which items should be excluded due to their
irrelevancy to the dimension tested. Items are reﬁned after the pilot test in an effort to
eliminate unsuitable items and to add new items, which might strengthen the scale’s

validity. This step might be reiterated several times to optimize the scale.

Step 5: Administer and Analyze the Items

In this step, a prototype scale has been developed, and it needs to be administered
to a study sample. The size of the sample in scale development depends on the number
of items, according to DeVellis. In order to obtain the adequacy of the items, the sample
should be sufﬁciently large to eliminate subject variance. A size of 100 to 200
respondents is commonly used in social science studies.

Once data are collected, item analysis should then be employed to choose a set of
items that forms an internally consistent scale. In other words, the ultimate quality
sought in a set of items is one in which each item has a high correlation with the true
score of the latent variable. Item-total correlation, item variance, item mean, and
Cronbach reliability alpha are common statistical techniques used to reﬂect internal
consistency reliability. The higher the coefﬁcients the more reliable the scale. At this
point, in addition to testing reliability, scale validity should also be carried out to verify

that the scale performs as the theory predicted. Convergent validity is a common

41

approach used in psychological studies used to verify theoretical hypotheses. Factor
analysis is another technique used for scale validation in exploring the scale’s
dimensionality. A series of similar reﬁnement process may be reiterated until the optimal
result is reached. Thus, a ﬁnal instrument/scale is established.

The ﬁve-step guidelines set forth essential elements and considerations for

developing a scale which were closely followed in this study.

Instruments: Modiﬁed And Developed
Acquisition And Modiﬁcation Of Existing Scales
The Rokeach Value Survey (RVS)

To use the Rokeach Value Survey, permission was obtained from the publishing
company that reproduces and distributes the RVS. The original RVS was comprised of
eighteen terminal values and eighteen instrumental values, and each value was classiﬁed
as either a self-centered or society-centered value (Rokeach, 1973). By ranking all value
items in the order of their importance to respondents and comparing the difference of
ranking scores between self- and society-centered value systems, one’s value system can
be determined. Test-retest reliability usually ranges in the .70 area or higher.
Nevertheless, such a procedure presented a drawback to the current study due to the
ranking procedure that required roughly twenty minutes to complete the thirty-six items
(Rokeach, 1973). Given that multiple scales were needed in the desired instrument set,
the completion of each scale had to be limited to a reasonable time so that respondents

could maintain their interest and focus on the scales.

42

For this study, the response format of the RVS was altered to a seven-point Likert
style rating system which many researchers (Braithwaite & Law, 1985; Hofstede &
Bond, 1984; McCleary & Vosburg, 1990; Ng, 1982; Thompson, Levitov, & Miederhoff,
1982) regard to be more theoretically and methodologically sound than a ranking system.
The researchers have argued that the ranking method forces respondents to place one
value on top of the others, thus overlooks the possibility that two or more terminal or
instrumental values might be weighted equally. The rating style otherwise allows this
possibility to take place. Also, the rating procedure was found to produce a more reliable
factor analytical result (mean communalityl = .70, standard deviation = .80) than that of
the ranking procedure (mean communality = .41, standard deviation = .09) on which
scale development often relied (Thompson, Levitov, & Miederhoff, 1982). In this study,
to score the values, the subjects were asked to rate a value by checking a number between
1 point (= very unimportant) and 7 point (= very important), which indicated the level of
importance of that value in their life, in the space provided under the seven-point Likert
scale for each of the thirty-six values (Appendix A).

The identiﬁcation of a subject possessing a self-centered or society-centered value
system was determined in several steps: (1) summing up the mean scores of self-centered
values and society-centered values separately in each category of terminal values and
instrumental values; (2) standardizing each mean sum; and (3) subtracting the score of
self-centered values ﬁom that of society-centered values. If the difference is positive, the
subject is likely to have a society-centered value system, while a negative difference

indicates a self-centered value system.

 

' Communality of factor analysis is the lower bound estimates of reliability (Thompson, 1980).

43

The Individualiam-Collectivism Scale (IC)

The IC scale was obtained ﬁ'om the author who constructed the scale, Dr. Harry
Triandis of the University of Illinois. This updated version consists of Individualism and
Collectivism, two subscales encompassing thirty-two value items. It is considered
superior to the old version (INDCOL, Hui, 1984) due to its higher scale alpha coefﬁcients
(in the .73 to .82 range; Triandis, 1995).

In this study, the IC items were modiﬁed to a seven-point Likert rating scale.
Subjects were instructed to rate their levels of agreement or disagreement with item
statements. Each item had scores in the range from 1 point (= Strongly Disagree) to 7
points (= Strongly Agree). As suggested by Triandis, two personal value orientations,
Idiocentrism and Allocentrism, can be obtained via the procedure of summing the mean
scores of all items of Individualism and Collectivism subscales separately, followed by
standardizing the scores and subtracting one subscale’s mean sum from the other. When
one’s Individualism mean sum is greater than Collectivism mean sum, the person is more
likely to be an idiocentrist as opposed to being an allocentrist, and vise versa.

Consequently, the two value groups can be identiﬁed within the samples under study.

Scale Items And Scoring Systems
In addition to obtaining existing measurements, two new scales needed to be
developed in this study. The ﬁrst important task of building a scale is to identify the
items and factors representing the phenomenon to be measured. The development

procedure for the scale item for the new scales is presented below.

44

The Social Distance Scale 1 SD)

Based upon the relevant literature and precedent social distance scales developed
by Bogardus (1959) and Triandis and Triandis (1962), three items were created for the
current SD scale. The items were formatted as three questions which asked the degree of
similarity subjects perceived between themselves and an array of target people in terms
of their general views, opinions and beliefs, and their goals in life. For example, “How
similar are your views to the following people?” These items were designed to measure
social distance between subjects and eight groups of target people, namely parents, close
ﬁiends, relatives, neighbors, coworkers, acquaintances from the local area, U.S. tourists
from other states, as well as tourists from other countries. To achieve variability and high
generality, simple instructions were provided so that subjects were free to decide on the
sex, age, and other background information of their imaginary target individuals.

Subjects replied to each item by checking a number in the space provided under a
given seven-point Likert scale where “Totally Similar” equaled 7 and “Totally
Dissimilar” equaled 1. In other words, if subjects perceived their goals as totally similar
to those of their parents, they would indicate a ‘7’. However, if they perceived their
beliefs as totally dissimilar to those of the tourists coming from another country, a ‘1’
would be scored. As a result, a total score of 168 was possible on the SD scale. To
compare social distance among target groups, the total scale mean score of each target
group was computed then compared with each of the other target groups. By doing so,

respondents’ ingroups and outgroups could be identiﬁed.

45

The Service Integergion Scale (SIS)

Drawing from Individualism and Collectivism theory as well as the related
literature of tourism, recreation, and hospitality discussed in the preceding chapters, ﬁve
factors were identiﬁed for this scale that distinguish different behaviors displayed by
people of two value orientation groups toward their ingroup’s and outgroup’s members.
The ﬁve factors of the SIS were deﬁned operationally as follows.

Factor 1.Acceptance is the effort to accommodate guest behavior and cultures by
showing interest in listening to guest stories, knowing guest cultures, accepting
guest cultural behavior, making new ﬁiends, trusting guests, and sharing
resources with guests;

Factor 2. Formality is the tendency to keep a distance from guests by being formal,
emotionally detached, and not being relaxed toward guests;

Factor 3. Superordination is the tendency to display superior attitudes and behaviors to
guests by showing disappointment, an unpleasant attitude, being bossy, and
being critical of guests;

Factor 4. Communication is the effort to deal with guests directly in a verbal form by
confronting directly and displaying communication barriers to guests (e. g.,
language difﬁculty);

Factor 5.Association is the effort to associate with guests by offering help, showing
personable attitudes and willingness to contact guests.

These ﬁve factors formed the content domains. An extensive instruction was
provided to subjects to guide them to imagine themselves as employees of a quality hotel

which serves different guests from all areas, then to rate the degree of agreement or

46

disagreement with each service behavior stated in the question. An example also was
provided to instruct the respondents on how to mark their answers. That is, to check a
number in the space provided under a seven-point scale next to ﬁve target groups (close
friends, relatives, acquaintances from the local area, tourists ﬁ'om your country, and
tourists from another country) for each item. To avoid response bias, the SIS item
statements were worded from both a positive and negative direction. For instance, the
ﬁrst item stated in a positive direction was that “it is important to always show positive
feelings toward customers especially when interacting with ...” Item seven was stated in
a reverse direction -- “to be a good service provider means sticking to the rules and does
not include giving extra help to customers if they are ...” A seven-point Likert style
rating system was applied to measure each item in which “Strongly Disagree” equaled 1
and “Strongly Agree” equaled 7. A total of 33 items were created for this ﬁrst form of

SIS.

Selection Of The Samples And Sampling Method
Since the instrument was designed for hospitality employees, hotel staff in
particular, eligible subjects for this research sample had to ﬁt the criteria of having either
experience of working in the hospitality industry or having knowledge and training of
serving customers in the same environment. The experience of interacting with people
from other countries (or cultures) was viewed as a supplementary condition to evaluate
the ﬁtness of the sample rather than as a criterion. Thus, it was included in the

background questions about respondents.

47

In this study, hotel employees and university students majoring in hospitality,
hotel, and restaurant management were sampled in an attempt to represent the hospitality
working population. The rationale for recruiting university students as current research
sample were: (1) they had attained substantial knowledge and formal training regarding
customer service in hospitality settings compared to the general population; (2) they were
potential employees in the hospitality industry; and (3) they were readily available and
have been used commonly for scale construction purposes (Spector, 1992).

A convenience sampling approach was used due to limited funding and because
such a technique has been utilized in many cases of scale construction (DeVellis, 1991).
The employee sample was recruited from hotels with over one hundred and ﬁfty rooms
located in four cities in the State of Michigan. Managers at hotels were asked ahead of
time if they would voluntarily participate in the research project. The student sample was
from the School of Hospitality Business (HB) at Michigan State University (MSU) in
East Lansing, Michigan. Students from the Department of Restaurant, Hotel,
Institutional and Tourism Management (RHIT) at Purdue University (Purdue) were also

included in the ﬁnal test of the instrument.

Selection Of Item Target Groups
To develop the Social Distance scale, various types of people were needed as
target groups. Those target groups selected for this study were determined based upon
the social distance theory developed by Bogardus (1959) and Triandis et a1. (1962). Both
had discovered that people perceived their parents, spouses, close ﬁiends, relatives,

neighbors, coworkers, acquaintances from the local areas, and tourists from the host

48

country as members of the ingroup. As one moves down this continuum of people each
group’s social distance increases. Foreigners usually were identiﬁed as outgroup
members and were perceived as being the most distant from among all groups stated
above. For this study, it was assumed that tourist groups ﬁom other countries would be
seen as members of outgroups and be perceived as having greater social distances from
the service provider compared to members of an ingroup.

In this study, international guests were ﬁrst clustered as one target group in the
response choice. Later, following a suggestion from a reviewer, the category of
international guests was broken down to three groups since different countries have
different cultures and international tourists may be perceived differently by each subject.
The three groups selected were German tourists, Japanese tourists, and French tourists.
Tourists from these countries were chosen because, for a long time, they have provided
the largest number of long haul tourists to the US. (TIA, 1995). Thus, it was assumed
that hotel employees were likely to serve these guests more frequently than guests from
different countries. Also, the cultures and behaviors of those guest groups would be

familiar to hotel employees more than those of guests from other countries.

Background And Demographic Questions
In order to further understand and analyze the relationship between subjects’
value orientations and their service behaviors, it is useful to collect subjects’ socio-
demographic and service backgrounds as well as their experiences of contact with foreign
cultures. Thirteen background questions were constructed. To understand the nature of

cultural inﬂuences that subjects may have experienced, subjects were asked the thirteen

49

questions about their nationalities, birthplaces, and years of residency in those locations
where they had resided. Cross-cultural experiences also were assessed by asking the
frequency of their trips abroad, and the extent of contact with people from other
countries. It was assumed that these experiences could effect subjects and their
subsequent service behaviors direct and indirect to international guests. In light of
previous research ﬁndings, demographic variables, questions about ethnic background,
age, gender, education attainment were included. Such questions as current educational
status, current and past work experiences also were listed for exploring the relationship

between past experience and service behaviors.

Pretest Of The Initial Scales

Once the SD and SIS were developed, they were mailed to Dr. Triandis for
content and format review. Dr. Triandis agreed with identifying ingroup and outgroup
members via the SD scale prior to measuring service behaviors (by the SIS), and
commented that both scales appeared appropriate. He also made wording changes on
some items of the SD and SIS scales.

In late August 1995, the ﬁrst version of the instrument, a self-administered
questionnaire consisting of the IC, RVS, SD, SIS, and background questions, was given
to six graduate students (3 females, 3 males) in the Department of Park, Recreation, and
Tourism Resources (PRTR) at Michigan State University, to check for content clarity.
All of these students either had served customers in restaurant or hotel settings or had
experience interacting with people from other countries in personal circumstances. The

average completion time for the questionnaire was 30 minutes.

50

Most students commented that it required too much time to do the task, thus
making it difficult to keep on track once they moved beyond two sections. In fact, two
students did not complete the questionnaire. All six students ﬁnished section A, and the
IC scale. The variation in their answers was observed for this section. In the section B,
the Rokeach value items, most of the responses tended to be “Very important” for the
values listed. In other words, most students responded in a similar pattern -- their scores
skewed toward the high end of the seven-point rating scale. Such an outcome conﬁrmed
the concern posed by many researchers that individuals could weigh more than one value
equally important in their value systems. As for the SD scale, some students suggested
that the questions regarding views, grimona, beliefs, and goals should be stated more
speciﬁcally so that comparisons could be made more directly. For the SIS, variations
were found among students’ responses on ﬁve subscales (factors), within and between
the target groups. All six students completed background questions and agreed that those
would be helpful for in-depth analyses.

In this small pretest, length of the instrument was found to be problematic. Yet,
in order to develop and validate the SIS, the other three scales were theoretically linked
and required. Consequently, instead of eliminating a scale, it was decided the best way to
shorten the size of the instrument was to reduce the number of scale items in selected

scales.

Expert Review Of Prototype Scales

As students completed the pretest, the SD and SIS were mailed to six university

51

professors2 of hospitality, hotel, and tourism across the country to check for content
validity3 as well as to evaluate scale format. Besides the scales, they received a statement
of the study purpose, a summary of the theories upon which the two scales were based
and deﬁnitions of the 818’s subscales (factors). Two reviewers commented that both
scales were very appropriate in terms of content and format. Other reviewers indicated
the study was needed and timely; however, some problems were noted in the two scales.
Three reviewers indicated that item wording was the most difﬁcult task in developing
these two scales. They thought such words as views, opinions, beliefs, and gcals asked
about in the SD scale were vague and ambiguous, thus needed to be stated more
speciﬁcally, or to provide deﬁnitions in the instructions. Wording needed improvement
in the SIS to avoid conﬁrsion among respondents. Reviewers suggested providing
operational deﬁnitions or giving information within each of the item statements to
respondents. They also suggested that the instrument be simpliﬁed.

Two reviewers commented that the sample subjects must be selected carefully to
assure they had the appropriate background experiences of interacting with international
tourists. One reviewer reported that it was necessary to determine respondent’s ethnic
background because of its impact on the respondent’s answers. Yet, another reviewer
questioned the need for such a question because it was sensitive and might inﬂuence

respondent’s answers, especially those from the business community. Reviewers

 

2 The six professors were Dr. Russell Bell, School of Hotel Administration, Cornell University; Dr.
Frederic Dimanche, School of Hotel, Restaurant, and Tourism Administration, University of New Orleans;
Dr. Abraham, Pizam, Tourism Administration, Hospitality Management Department, University of Central
Florida; Dr. Michael Sciarini, School of Hospitality Business, Michigan State University; Dr. Pete Stevens,
Department of Hotel of Restaurant Administration, University of Tennessee-Knoxville; and Dr. Muzzo
Uysal, Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University.

3 Content validity concerns item sampling adequacy, that is, the extent to which a speciﬁc set of items
reﬂects a content domain (DeVellis, 1991).

52

commented on the single international target group indicating that respondents would
become confused given that prior research has found that people display different
attitudes toward tourists of different nationalities. Therefore, it was suggested that
speciﬁc nationalities of foreign tourists be listed (Pizam et a1, 1997).

Three reviewers questioned the dimensionality of some categories under the 818’s
subscales. They perceived that some categories only consisted of one item whereas
others contained more than one item. Given that this might create problems later in
obtaining more stable results and generating reliable alpha coefﬁcients, it was suggested
that more items to be included in each category. In addition, some reviewers thought that
two items of the SIS did not appear to have uni-dimenationality, which might provide
contradicting deﬁnitions. A ﬁnal suggestion was to conduct a pilot test before testing the
scales. Despite the criticism, all six reviewers concluded the content was proper for the

hotel setting.

Reﬁnement Of The Initial Instrument

Drawing from the comments and suggestions of the students and expert
reviewers, a small group of eleven undergraduate students (6 females, 5 males) in a
hospitality course at MSU was interviewed. The interview collected in-depth information
regarding personal service behavior and experience with various types of guests. In turn,
information collected was used to examine the deﬁnitions of the SIS’s factors and items.
First, a written questionnaire was given to the students to answer pertaining to their views
of positive and negative service to domestic and international guests. Other questions

asked which services provided would give the impression that the service provider is

53

friendly, unfriendly, personable, respectful, and showing dislike (Appendix B). Later, the
students were interviewed verbally as a group to solicit their answers about service based
upon their knowledge attained from education and past experiences serving customers in
' hotel and restaurant settings.

In their written responses, detailed service behaviors were provided. In terms of
positive and negative service, most answers were compatible with the deﬁnitions of
factors (subscales) in the original SIS. For example, “to give them what they want or
expect”, “listen to them”, “respect them”, “make eye contact” were illustrative of positive
service. “Avoid the situation”, “do other things while serving them”, and “being rude”
were negative service behaviors. When interviewed verbally and asked speciﬁcally about
their experiences in serving international guests, many students indicated that knowing
the languages and understanding the cultures of the foreign guests had facilitated and
enhanced their service. Most importantly, while the students acknowledged that all
guests should be served equally regardless of whom they are, many did admit that special
care and attention should be directed to foreign guests compared to domestic guests.
Examples of different service (positive and negative) delivered to guests from different
countries also were provided by the students.

Once the Social Distance and Service Interaction scales were revised based upon
feedback received from these students, they were reviewed again for content and face
validity purpose by a professor of Michigan State University4 who is widely known as an

expert in scale construction and survey questionnaire development and was familiar with

the theories involved in this study. In addition to positive feedback and some wording

 

‘ Dr. Roger Calantone is a professor of Marketing and Logistics Department, Michigan State University.

54

corrections, he suggested a proper way to word the items to validate the content, that was
to proofread scale items line by line with hotel workers. Thus, the clarity and reality of
item statement could be obtained. His comments and suggestions were adopted to reﬁne

the scales. A new questionnaire then was ready for the ﬁrst ﬁeld pilot test (Appendix C).

The Refinement of Initial Instrument

Given that the main task of this study was to develop two new scales, the
questionnaire developed for the ﬁrst pilot test did not include the Rokeach Value Survey
(RVS) and Individualism and Collectivism (IC) scales since these scales had been well
established and thus there was no need to test them at this stage of development. In this
way, subjects could focus on the new scales, the SD and SIS. This questionnaire
encompassed three sections. The ﬁrst section was the SD scale that included three items
and each had eight target groups to respond to (see Appendix C, section A). The items
were worded speciﬁcally so that the subjects could make their comparisons precisely.
For instance, the term “belief” in the initial form was changed to “your beliefs about
family values” and the “goal” was altered to “your education goals”. To allow subjects to
respond with clarity and focus, eight target speciﬁc groups were used. They included
German, Japanese, and French tourists as three international groups and close friends,
neighbors, acquaintances, relatives, and US. visitors from other states as ﬁve domestic
groups.

The second section was the SIS that retained the initial ﬁve subscales but
extended the number of items from twenty-one in the initial form to thirty-three items

(Appendix C, section B). Subscale Acceptance had eight items, the Formality subscale

55

contained ﬁve items, the Communication subscale had seven items, the Superordination
subscale had three items, and nine items were included in the Association subscale (see
Appendix C. 1). Target groups for each item were divided equally into three domestic
groups (relatives, local acquaintances, and US. visitors) and three international groups
(German, French, and Japanese). The six were selected because it was important to
include diverse groups of people whom the subjects could clearly distinguish one from
the other in terms of social distance. Based upon the literature, it was expected that
subjects would perceive smaller social distance between themselves and their relatives,
followed by local acquaintances, then the US. visitors from other states. Subjects also
were expected to perceive smaller social distance between themselves and the German
tourists, French tourists, followed by Japanese tourists. Both scales retained the seven-
point Likert rating system as applied in the initial version given that response variation
was able to obtain under this system.

In order to collect more information for later analysis, the third section consisted
of ﬁfteen questions pertaining to subject’s background that were similar to those in the
previous version. Finally, a letter to the subjects was inserted that addressed the study’s
purpose and solicited the subject’s consent to participate in this study by completing the
survey. Prior to the ﬁrst pilot study, three front-desk employees of the Marriot hotel in
East Lansing, Michigan, had proofread the questionnaire. They conﬁrmed that item
wording was appropriate and the content was commonly seen in their work environment.
After being revised based upon their feedback, the questionnaire was deemed ready for

testing.

56

First Pilot Test

The Sample

Students were sampled from a hospitality course (HB 307) at MSU. This upper
level hospitality course focused on human resource management and development of
interpersonal skills in a culturally diverse workplace. Of the eighty-seven participants
sampled, female students (52.9%) numbered slightly more than the male classmates
(46%). The majority of the students were aged between 21 and 25 (58.6%) and were
mostly juniors (59.8%) and seniors (33.3%). The employee sample was recruited from
three hotels located in the city of East Lansing, Michigan. Of the eighteen respondents,
most were male employees (66.7%). Although the age of employees was distributed
broadly across all age categories, ﬁfty percent of them, were between the ages of 21-30

(Table 3.1).

Implementation Of The Test

In February 1996, one hundred and ﬁve self-administered questionnaires were
distributed to students in HB 307 of MSU. The survey was conducted in a classroom
setting and monitored by the investigator. The students were encouraged to ask questions
regarding clarity of item statements. Eighty-seven copies were collected which resulted
in a 82.8% response rate. Prior to the pilot study in the hotels, a letter was addressed to
each hotel general manager in order to solicit cooperation. Once the permission was
granted, thirty questionnaires were mailed and delivered to the general manager offices of
those hotels. Each general manager was responsible for distributing and collecting the

questionnaires from his/her employees. Hotel employees either ﬁlled out the

57

Table 3.1 Sample Proﬁles Of First Pilot Test.

 

Students Employees
(N) (°/o) (N) (°/o)
Total Distributed 105 100.0 30 100.0
Collected 87 82.8 18 60.0
Sources Class: Hotels:

MSU HB307 87 Marriot 5

Park Inn 7

Kellogg 6

Center

Gender Female 46 52.9 6 33.3
Male 40 46.0 12 66.7
Age 19-20 36 41.4 3 5.6
21-25 51 58.6 4 22.2
26-30 0 0.0 5 27.8
31-40 0 0.0 2 l 1.1
41-52 0 0.0 4 22.2
Education Freshman l I .1 l 5 .6
Levels Sophomore 4 4.6 5 27.8
Junior 52 59.8 5 27.8
Senior 29 33.3 6 33.3
Graduate 0 0.0 l 5.6

 

Note: Missing cases are not shown in this table.

58

questionnaires at work or at home. A total of eighteen questionnaires were collected,

which yielded a 60% response rate.

Item Analyses And Item Selection Of First Pilot Test

The data of the student and the hotel employee were combined for item analyses.
According to DeVellis (1991) and Spector (1992) the common measure of a sound scale
is determined by the level of internal consistency5 obtained across scale items. Internal

consistency was measured using Cronbach reliability alpha and item-total correlation.

The Socialg Distance Scale (SD)

For this scale, each of the three items was analyzed with each of the eight target
groups. Table 3.2 presents results of the item analyses. Strong item-total correlation
coefﬁcients6 (ranged between .41 to .66) and high levels of subscale reliability (ranged
from .67 to .79) for eight target groups emerged for the SD. To determine social
distance, the total scale mean of each of the eight target groups was computed and
compared. Signiﬁcant differences were observed among the mean scores of eight target
groups. As expected, results showed that respondents perceived greater similarity (i.e.,

short social distance) from their domestic target groups (e. g., scale mean for close ﬁiends

 

5 Item-total correlation is a bivariate correlation of an item to the sum of the rest of the items in a subscale
(factor). The rationale is that when an item correlates highly with the rest of the set of items, it is a
legitimate scale item. In reverse, a low correlation coefﬁcient is an indication of a poor item (Spector,
1992). After repeating the analytical procedure several times to discard bad items, the subscale (factor)
reliability coefficient will be raised due to the remaining good items comprising a sounder subscale
(factor).

6 Spector (1992) suggested that a strong item-total correlation coefficient (r) would be above .40, and a high
scale reliability coefﬁcient (or) usually reaches .70 and above.

59

Table 3.2 Item Analyses Of The SD For First Pilot Test.

 

Target Groups Item No. Item-Total Scale Total Scale

Correlation Reliabilig M_e_a_a
(r) (a)

ING 5.1
Relatives 1 .60
2 .52
3 .55

.73 5.4
Close Friends 1 .56
2 .61
3 .41

.71 5.9
Neighbors 1 .50
2 .66
3 .53

.73 4.6
Acquaintances I .45
From Local 2 .55
Area 3 .48

.67 4.8
US. Visitors 1 .64
From Other 2 .63
States 3 .64

.79 4.6

OUG 3.8
German Tourists I .51
2 .57
3 .44

.69 3.9
France Tourists I .55
2 .57
3 .55

.73 3.9
Japanese Tourists I .55
2 .50
3 .47

.69 3.7

(N=105)

Notes: 1. Please refer to Appendix C, section A for items. 2. ING = ingroup cluster,
OUG = outgroup cluster. 3. The SD is a six-point scale, where 1 = totally dissimilar,
7 = totally similar.

 

60

= 5.9, relatives = 5.4, and local acquaintances = 4.8) than the international guests
(German and French tourists = 3.9, and Japanese tourists = 3.7) on the scale of 1 (=
totally dissimilar) to 7 (= totally similar). When combined and compared ingroup targets
as an ingroup cluster (ING, scale mean = 5.1) and outgroup targets as an outgroup cluster
(OUG, scale mean = 3.8), a signiﬁcant difference was found between the scale means of
these two clusters (p < .05 level). This suggested that respondents perceived the domestic
groups as their ingroups whereas the international target groups were seen as members of
outgroups. These ﬁndings are consistent with the theory of social distance that holds that
a person perceives oneself as more similar to people from his/her own culture/country
than those from other cultures/countries. Given the satisfactory performances of high
internal consistency and ability to distinguish social distance among groups, all three

items were kept in the SD scale.

The Service Interaction Scale (SIS)

Like the SD scale, items on the 818’s ﬁve subscales (factors) were analyzed with
each of the six target groups, respectively, and the item analyses procedure was reiterated
in two steps to seek the optimal result. Step 1 analyses revealed that while each item
correlated to their subscales (item-total correlation), all subscales achieved moderate
levels of reliability (alphas were from .46 to .70) except for the Superordination (alphas
were in the .28 to .31 range) (see Table 3.3 and Appendix 02 for details). Given the low
item-total correlations and reliability alphas, the Superordination subscale was dropped
from the step 2 analysis. Items in the other four subscales then were analyzed. By

examining the item-total correlation coefﬁcients, and subscale reliability improvement

61

Table 3.3 Scale Reliability Of The SIS Subscales For First Pilot Test.

 

 

 

Step 1 Analyses Step 2 Analvses
Subscales Target Scale (Dropped Scale
(Item No.) Groups Reliabilig Item No.) Reliability
(a) (0!)
Acceptance ACQ .43 (12, 13) .64
(4, 5, 6, 12, USV .40 .66
13, I9, 20, REL .28 .59
30) JAP .51 .70
FRE .48 .69
GER .47 .68
Formality ACQ .5 l (29) .52
(7, 8, 21, 26, USV .45 .47
29) REL .56 .57
JAP .52 .55
FRB .56 .57
GER .53 .57
Communication ACQ .58 (27) .61
(9, 10, II, 22, USV .60 .62
27, 28, 32) REL .48 .50
JAP .59 .61
FRE .61 .62
GER .60 .63
Superordination ACQ .31 (1, I6, 23) dropped
(1, 16, 23) USV .29 dropped
REL .28 dropped
JAP .27 dropped
FRE .28 dropped
GER .28 dropped
Association ACQ .43 (3, 24) .59
(2, 3, 14, 15, USV .46 .61
I7, 18, 24, REL .40 .54
25, 31) JAP .43 .59
FRE .40 .58
GER .52 .56

(N =105)

 

Notes: 1. Please refer to Appendix C, section B for items. 2. In target groups, ACQ =
local acquaintances, USV = US visitors from other states, REL = relatives, JAP =
Japanese tourists, FRE = French tourists, and GER = German tourists.

62

when deleting low coefﬁcient items, one to two items were discarded ﬁ'om each subscale
in the step 2 analyses. Consequently, an improvement was shown in the reliabilities of
all subscales (alphas were from .47 to .70).

One issue needs to be addressed in regard to appropriate scale reliability level for
this study. Given that the current study is an experimental attempt to generate an
instrument that could be used in the future in the hospitality industry and in educational
situations, the level of scale reliability of the Service Interaction Scale (SIS) was allowed
to vary from the common standard (.70) which is used as a criteria for retaining scale
items. While lowering reliability, it provided for a more varied set of service phenomena
to be tested. In addition, according to Cronbach’s discussion of “bandwidth versus
ﬁdelity7” (1990, p. 208-210), when questions (items) are equally important, obtaining
rough answers to most of them is more proﬁtable than answering just one or two
questions (items) precisely. In doing this, obtaining high homogeneity of scale items is
expected to be difﬁcult. Given that the SIS encompassed complex items that measure
service attitudes, beliefs, behavioral intentions, and behaviors, the moderate alphas
obtained in the four subscales were considered acceptable in this study.

In addition to the preceding analyses, in order to examine scale dimensionality
exploratory factor analysis8 was employed on the 818’s items with each of the target
groups, respectively. In other words, six factor analyses of the SIS were canied out.

Initial factors were extracted then rotated to ﬁnal factors using the varimax rotated

 

7 Cronbach refers to bandwidth as the number of questions asked, while ﬁdelity was referred to as the
accuracy of the information, which is the reliability of the answers obtained.

’ The technique of factor analysis allows identifying the underlying pattern of relationships in the items
investigated.

63

method. Given the multiple target groups for each scale item, resulting factors obtained
in each target group across six groups were uneven (Table 3.4). The numbers of factors
obtained were between ﬁve to ten. Thus, no uniﬁed pattern of factors could be identiﬁed
for the SIS. However, despite the complex factor patterns, it was possible to observe
scale dimensions of the SIS by comparing the items included in each factor across six
target groups. As can be seen in Table 3.4, most of the items that emerged in factor I
across target groups were from the Acceptance and Association subscales of the SIS. For
example, item 4, 6, 19, 30 were in the Acceptance subscale, and item 14, 15, 18, 31 were
in the Association subscale. Given the deﬁnitions of the two subscales were similar in
terms of resource sharing, their scale items were found in the same factor was
understandable. Also, items in factor 11 across six target groups were mostly from the
subscale Communication (e.g., item 9, 11, 28, 32). In sum, the results of factor analyses
did not contribute to the evaluation of item dimensionality for the SIS. Item reﬁnement
for each subscale thus was subjected to the techniques of item-total correlation and

reliability alpha analysis.

The Refinement Of Instrument For First Pilot Test

To reﬁne the SD scale, item 2 was worded more speciﬁcally to ask respondents to
compare their “moral values” with those of each of the eight target groups. Item 3 was
altered to compare “your opinions of educating children” with that of each of the target
groups. As for the SIS, some items that remained in the four subscales were reworded for

clarity (Appendix D, & Appendix D.l). In addition, following the guidelines of DeVellis

64

Table 3.4 SIS Factor Analysis For Six Target Groups — First Pilot Test.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EL ACQ US! GEE EBB m
Accounted
W 63.91 67.86 68.61 68.90 66.42 65.83
Factgr Item Np. (Loadings)
I I9 (.72) 15 (.79) 19(.75) 15 (.77) 15 (.78) I9 (.77)
15 (.64) 19 (.72) 2 (.70) 19 (.74) 2 (.73) 30 (.69)
2 (.58) 30 (.70) 15 (.69) 2 (.70) I9 (.72) 15 (.69)
31 (.55) 31 (.54) 6 (.64) 4 (.66) 5 (.68) 31 (59)
6 (.52) 6 (.50) 30 (.54) S (.65) 4 (.67)
30 (.51) I4 (.41) 31 (.53) 6 (.60) 6 (.62)
18 (.49) 5 (.53) 3O (.58) 30 (.54)
14 (.46) I4 (.50) I8 (.50) 18 (.47)
4 (.44) 18 (.45) 31 (.45) 31 (.40)
20 (.42)
II 21 (.48) 32 (.51) 11 (.57) II (.61) 32 (.62) 7 (.73)
32 (.44) 32 (.52) 32 (.60) 21 (.53) 8 (.71)
ll (.41) 9 (.51) 21 (.53) 8 (.49)
7 (.40) 28 (.40) 7 (.43) 7 (.43)
9 (.38) 26 (.36)
28 (.36)
26 (.34)
Ill 17 (.41) 17 (.64) 17 (.66) 17 (.59) I7 (.59) 17 (.55)
25 (.56) 28 (.45)
2 (.54)
IV 10 (.44) 10 (.78) 10 (.44) 10 (.57) 22 (.37) 10 (.77)
22 (.59) 22 (.39) IO (.58) 18 (.63)
32 (.49)
ll (.43)
V 8 (.55) 8 (.75) 20 (.41) 8 (.60) 14 (.56) 25 (.35)
7 (.68) 14 (.45) 25 (.41) I4 (.74)
25 (.38)
VI 5 (.44) 5 (.76) 26 (.55) 20 (.37) 4 (.71)
4 (.74) 5 (.68)
2 (.52)
6 (.37)
VII 22 (.42) 21 (.54) 22 (.45) 22 (.68)
26 (.63)
21 (.57)
VIII 28 (.45) ll (.73) 21 (.48) 9 (.67)
28 (.51)
18 (.38)
VIII] 25 (.56) 9 (.62)
X 26 (.84)
Total Factors 9 IO 8 6 5 8
(N = 95)

 

Notes: 1. Please refer to Appendix C, section B for items. 2. Number in parenthesis represents the item
loading above .35. 3. Numbers have been rounded in some instances.

65

and Spector’s, new items were added to the SIS in order to increase scale reliability. A
decision to retain the Superordination subscale was made because its domain reﬂected
actual practice; the literature supported the concept; and the student in-depth interview
conducted in earlier stages of this research clearly identiﬁed the concept. However, all
items of the Superordination subscale were reworded in an attempt to obtain better
internal consistency. As a result, a total of thirty-nine items comprised the new SIS. In
examining responses of ﬁrst pilot test, it appeared that respondents tended to score the
neutral point (i.e., a “4” in the scale of l to 7 point) on most items in both the SD and SIS
scales. To avoid this, the seven-point response choice was replaced by a six-point Likert
rating system for all four scales -- the IC, RVS, SD, and SIS. The new system provided
no neutral point. As for the background questions, all 15 questions functioned
appropriately in obtaining information needed, therefore, no changes were made. The
new questionnaire, the entire instrument, for the second ﬁeld pilot test consisted of ﬁve

sections, namely, the SD, SIS, RVS, IC, and background questions.

Second Pilot Test
The Sample
In this ﬁeld study, the student sample was recruited from a hospitality course
(HB489) at MSU in the summer of 1996. The course focused on knowledge and skills in
resolving complex management problems and industry policy issues. Of the students,
most were seniors (52%) and a majority of them were aged between 21-30 years old

(52%; Table 3.5). More females (57.1%) than male students (42.9%) were in this

66

Table 3.5 Sample Proﬁles Of Second Pilot Test.

 

Students Employees
(N) M) (N) (%)
Total Distributed 60 100.0 40 100.0
Collected 21 35.0 14 35.0
Sources Class: Hotels:
MSU HB489 21 Radisson 6
Sheraton 8
Gender Female 12 5 7. 1 10 71 .4
Male 9 42.9 3 21 .4
Age 19-20 I 4.8 l 7.1
21-25 4 19.0 2 14.3
26-30 7 33 .3 2 14.3
3 1-45 3 14.3 5 35.7
46—50 3 14.3 I 7.1
Education Freshman 0 0.0 2 5.6
Levels Sophomore l 4.8 2 27.8
Junior 8 38.1 0 0.0
Senior 1 1 52.4 6 33.3
Graduate 1 4.8 0 0.0

 

Note: Missing cases are not shown in this table.

67

sample. Compared to the students, the employee sample from two hotels of Lansing,
Michigan, were older (28.6% aged 21-30, and 35.7% aged 31-45) and more were females

(71.4%).

Implementation Of The Test

In May 1996, when sixty self-administered questionnaires were left with two HB
professors at MSU, both agreed to administer the survey to students in their classes.
Twenty-one questionnaires were collected because only one professor conducted the
survey; this resulted in a response rate of 35%. During the same timeﬁ'ame, forty
questionnaires were delivered to the general manager ofﬁces of two hotels in the city of
Lansing, Michigan. The managerial ofﬁces were responsible for distributing
questionnaires and collecting them from their hotel employees. Between the two hotels a
total of fourteen usable surveys (35%) were returned. Possible reasons for the low return
rate could be that it was summer, a peak season for the industry and a time when many
employees switch work places. The other possible reason was that employees lacked an
interest in engaging in a survey since too many other surveys had taken place in their
working environment (comments by the hotel managers). The third reason might relate
to the nature of the questions which some regarded as too sensitive and thus refused to

participate, as reported by the staff in charge of the survey in one hotel.

68

Table 3.6 Item Analyses Of The SD For Second Pilot Test.

 

Target Groups Item No. Item-Total 8&1:
Correlation Reliability
(r) (a)
Close Friends 1 .53
2 .49
3 .70
.70
Neighbors l .65
2 .71
3 .81
.85
Acquaintances 1 .44
From Local 2 .73
Area 3 .73
.78
Relatives 1 .49
2 .82
3 .64
.79
US. Visitors 1 .22
From Other 2 .61
States 3 .68
.67
Japanese Tourists I .52
2 .57
3 .62
.74
German Tourists I .64
2 .82
3 .69
.84
France Tourists I .42
2 .73
3 .69
.77

(N=35)

 

Note: Please refer to Appendix D for items.

69

Item Analyses And Item Selection Of Second Pilot Test
The Social Distance Scale (SD)

As can be seen in Table 3.6, in spite of the small size of returned questionnaires,
item-total correlations and scale reliabilities of the SD scale with all target groups
reached satisfactory levels, alphas were from .67 to .85. Results once again conﬁrmed

the SD was an internally consistent scale, thus no changes were made.

The Service Interaction Scale (SIS)

Item analysis of the SIS resulted in dropping three to six items in each of the ﬁve
subscales (Table 3.7, and Appendix D.2 for comprehensive version). The scale
reliabilities of all subscales for each of the target groups improved after item removal.
Alphas were in the .42 to .80 range, but most were above .70 level. These ﬁndings

indicated that the SIS, as structured, was reliable.

The Refinement Of Instrument For Second Pilot Test

Based upon the pilot test, the size of the SIS items were reduced from 39 to 20
items (see Appendix E.l for item wording direction). To keep the instrument short, the
number of target groups was limited to four groups; two domestic ingroups (relatives and
US. visitors from other states), and two international outgroups (Japanese tourists and
French tourists). Selection of these target groups was determined by their social
distances that were found very different from one another in the literature. It was
assumed that subjects could easily distinguish between these four distinct target groups.

Items of the RVS were also reduced to the eighteen terminal values. Terminal

70

Table 3.7 Item Analyses Of The 818 Subscales For Second Pilot Test.

 

 

 

Step 1 Analyses Step 2 Analyses
Subscales Target Scale (Dropped Scale
(Item No.) Groups Reliability Item No.) Reliabilig
(a) ((1)
Acceptance ACQ .68 .73
(I, 7, 13, 19, USV .68 (7, I9, 25) .80
25, 26, 31, 32) REL .71 .74
JAP .71 .79
FRE .70 .79
GER .70 .77
Formality ACQ .40 .68
(2, 8, I4, 20, USV .36 (2, 8, 33) .65
27, 33) REL .51 .74
JAP .13 .55
FRE .I I .56
GER .09 .53
Communication ACQ .60 .65
(3, 4, 9, 15, USV .51 (4, 15) .60
21, 28, 34) REL .61 .71
JAP .34 .48
FRE .29 .45
GER .27 .43
Superordination ACQ .62 .77
(10, I7, 22, 29, USV .60 (10, I7, .77
35, 37, 38) REL .60 22, 28) .75
JAP .59 .75
FRE .59 .76
GER .59 .72
Association ACQ .41 (6, ll, 12, .79
(5, 6, ll, 12, USV .42 I6, 23, 36) .76
16, 18, 23, 24, REL .49 .74
30, 36) JAP .48 .74
FRE .48 .72
GER .48 .74

(N=35)

 

Notes: 1. Please refer to Appendix D for items. 2. In target groups, ACQ = local
acquaintances, USV = US visitors from other states, REL = relatives, JAP = Japanese
tourists, FRE = French tourists, and GER = German tourists.

71

values were used as a short version of a value measure that still produced items
encompassing self-centered and society-centered values (Rokeach, 1973). The
demographic question on respondent origins was dropped since it proved to be
inaccurate. The four scales were re-arranged in the questionnaire due to the sensitivity of
the SIS items that required high concentration and patience to complete. The 3 item SD
was placed in the ﬁrst section, followed by the 20 item SIS. The 32 item IC was in the
third section, followed by the 18 item RVS, and ﬁnally the survey ended with the 14 item

background questions. A cover letter completed the survey package (Appendix E).

72

CHAPTER 4

INSTRUMENT TESTING AND FINDINGS

This chapter presents the test results for the newly developed scales that measure
the value systems of hotel employees in relation to their service behavior toward
domestic and international guests. It also presents the analytical results of applying this
instrument to the two groups being studied as subjects, hospitality students and hotel
employees. Also presented are scale reliability and validity assessments. Finally,
descriptive analyses of idiocentrist and allocentrist value groups, social distance scores,

and service behaviors are provided.

Final Instrument Test

The Sample

In the ﬁnal instrument test, the sample included students from Michigan State
University (MSU) and Purdue University (Purdue) as well as hotel employees from the
Michigan cities of Lansing, Frankenmuth, and Detroit. The MSU students were from two
undergraduate courses in the School of Hospitality Business (HB 307 and HB 489) as
well as graduate students in that school. At Purdue, the students were from two courses
in the Department of Restaurant, Hotel, Institutional and Tourism Management (RHIT).

One course (RHIT 34]) covered management and policy issues as well as cost control for

73

 

food, labor, and supplies in hospitality settings. The other course (RHIT 371) covered
the principles, practices, and philosophies of the tourism business. Of the 170 students
who participated in this ﬁnal test, most were between 21 to 25 years of age (59.4%);
female students were in the majority at 52.9% compared to male students (45.3%).
Among the 55 hotel employees studied, female employees (56.9%) appeared in the
sample more than their male coworkers (41.4%). Although the age ranged up to 55, the
respondents clustered in younger age categories compared to the employee samples in the

previous pilot studies (Table 4.1).

Data Collection

Respondents were asked to complete the instrument questionnaires between
December 1996 and January 1997. A total of 250 questionnaires were distributed to
students. While this investigator monitored the survey in two MSU classes, the
instructors in the two Purdue classes were in charge of the survey distributed to their
students. Guidelines for administering the survey were provided to the Purdue instructors
to assure a standardized administration. Together, I70 questionnaires were collected, a
68% return rate. In the same time frame, 200 questionnaires and survey guidelines were
delivered to the hotels whose managerial ofﬁces were responsible for distributing and
collecting the surveys. To encourage participation, a rafﬂe was set up for the hotel
sample. The drawing included a $50 gift certiﬁcate for those who returned the
questionnaires before a speciﬁed deadline. F ifty-ﬁve questionnaires were collected,

comprising a 27% return rate.

74

 

Table 4.1 Sample Proﬁles Of The Final Test.

 

Samvles Students insular/m
(N) (%) (N) (%)
Total Distributed 250 100.0 200 100.0
Collected 170 68.0 55 27.0
Sources Classes: Hotels:
MSU HB 489 9 Bavarian Inn 22
HB 307 73 Double Tree 5
HB Grads 4 Ritz-Carlton 12

Holiday Inn 19
Purdue RHIT 341 44
RHIT 371 40

Gender Female 90 52.9 33 56.9
Male 77 45.3 24 41.4

Age 19-20 46 27.1 6 10.9
21-25 101 59.4 12 21.8

26-30 6 3.5 12 21.8

31-35 3 1.8 10 18.2

36-40 1 0.5 6 10.9

41-50 0 0.0 5 9.1

51-55 1 0.5 3 5.5

Education High School 0 0.0 13 23.6
Levels Freshman 4 2.3 9 16.4
Sophomore 27 1 5.8 14 25.5

Junior 66 38.8 9 16.4

Senior 69 40.6 I 1 .8

Graduate 2 1 .2 l 1 .8

 

Note: Missing cases are not shown in this table.

75

Item Analyses And Instrument Refinement
The Social Distance Scale (SD)

The Social Distance Scale measures an individual’s perceived cultural similarities
and difference toward a target person (group). Results of the item analyses show that
items strongly correlate to the subscales, with all target groups having item-total
correlation coefﬁcients between .47 and .77 resulting in scale reliabilities ranging from
.73 to .82 (Table 4.2). The outcome suggests that the SD was a sound measurement

instrument containing reliable items.

The Service Interaction Me (SIS)

The Service Interaction Scale measured the service behavior of idiocentrists and
allocentrists toward domestic and international guests. Results of this test yielded a
different set of ﬁndings than the pilot study outcomes of this same scale. Both item-total
correlation and subscale reliabilities dropped dramatically from those of previous pilot
tests (see Table 4.3 and Appendix E.2 for the comprehensive versions). The item-total
correlation coefﬁcients were between .02 and .51; the alpha levels were from a low of .10
in the Formality subscale to a high of .67 in the Acceptance subscale. Because of the
low item-total correlations and disappointing reliabilities, the Formality subscale was
discarded from any further analyses and was excluded from the ﬁnal SIS. The
reliabilities of the Superordination subscale varied between .28 to .33, which normally
would be deemed low reliability scores in most psychometric studies. Reasons for the
low alphas could be twofold. First, the result might relate to the reduction in items from

the second pilot test (39 items) to the ﬁnal test (20 items), given that when a scale has

76

 

Table 4.2 Item Analyses Of The SD For Final Test.

 

‘ Item-Total Scale
Target Groups Item No. Correlation Reliabilig
(r) (a)

Relatives I .68 .79
(REL) 2 .71

3 .49
Close Friends 1 .63 .75
(CLF) 2 .65

3 .47
Neighbors l .70 .80
(NEI) 2 .71

3 .55
Local Acquaintances l .66 .80
(ACQ) 2 .69

3 .57
US. Visitors 1 .68 .82
(U SV) 2 .71

3 .63
German Tourists I .65 .80
(GER) 2 .75

3 .51
French Tourists I .67 .82
(FRE) 2 .77

3 .61
Japanese Tourists I .58 .73
(JAP) 2 .65

3 .47

4
(N = 225)

 

Note: Please refer to Appendix E, section A for items.

Table 4.3 Subscale Reliability (0:) Of The SIS For The Final Test.

 

 

Target SlS’s Subscales

Groups Acceptance F ormaligy Communication Superordination Association
REL .51 .21 .53 .28 .50
USV .46 .20 .50 .30 .46
FRE .60 .10 .47 .33 .42
JAP .67 .17 .45 .33 .47
(N = 225)

 

Note: Please refer to Appendix E, section B for items.

77

fewer items the scale reliability suffers (Cronbach, 1990). Second, as discussed in the
preceding chapter, the SIS contained complex items measuring many aspects of service
behavior; high reliability scores might not be achievable under these conditions. Despite
the low alpha score, it is still useful to include the Superordination subscale for further
analyses, given that its items capture the service phenomena reported in the tourism and
hospitality literature and reﬂect the ﬁndings from the in-depth interviews with a student-
panel conducted earlier in this study. Since this study is a ﬁrst attempt to construct an
instrument to assess the relationship between hospitality service providers’ values and
their service interactions with culturally diverse guests, it seemed useful to proceed with
the analysis even through the alphas were low. Nonetheless, the low reliability of the
subscale is recognized. Consequently, the SIS was ﬁnalized with seventeen items in four
subscales, namely, the Acceptance, Superordination, Communication, and Association

subscales.

The Rokgch Value Survey (RVS)

The Rokeach Value Survey, used to measure an individual’s value system, failed
to display distinct patterns of personal value systems. Respondents reported no variation
among the mean scores of the eighteen values. As shown in Table 4.4, all values were
rated similarly with means showing a low of 4.86 to a high of 5.69; mode scores skewed
to 5 and 6 on a six-point scale (1 = very unimportant, 6 = very important). As a result,
the RVS was ruled out from further analyses and use as an additional tool to test the

validity of the Individualism and Collectivism scale.

78

Table 4.4 Central Tendency Analyses Of The RVS Values (18 Values).

 

 

Standard
Value§ Means _1v_Io_de_§ Deviations Variance
A comfortable life 5.26 5.00 .88 .78
An exciting life 5.22 5.00 .91 .83
A sense of accomplishment 5.41 6.00 .84 .70
A world at peace 4.87 5.00 1.17 1.37
World of beauty 4.98 5.00 1.04 1.09
Equality 5.07 5.00 1.14 1.29
Family security 5.63 6.00 .76 .58
Freedom 5.60 6.00 .78 .60
Happiness 5.69 6.00 .75 .57
Inner harmony 5.48 6.00 .87 .76
Mature love 5.57 6.00 .82 .68
National security 5.09 5.00 .99 .99
Pleasure 5.43 6.00 .90 .81
Salvation 4.86 5.00 1.42 2.01
Self-respect 5.62 6.00 .72 .52
Social recognition 4.96 5.00 1.04 1.08
True ﬁiendship 5.67 6.00 .75 .56
Wisdom 5.43 6.00 .90 .82

 

Notes: 1. Please refer to Appendix E, section D for items. 2. Each item was rated with a six-point
scale where I = very unimportant, 6 = very important.

Assessment Of Reliability
In the course of scale development, reliability was tested for the SD and SIS
scales because the item analyses involved the calculation of scale alphas and the
establishment of internal consistency (e. g., item-total correlations). The SD scale
appeared reliable and the SIS’s reliabilities reached acceptable levels in three of the four
subscales. As for the reliabilities of the third measurement, the Individualism-
Collectivism scale (IC), it also achieved satisfactory reliability levels in which the alpha

for Individualism was .77 and the alpha for Collectivism subscale was .80.

79

 

Assessment Of Validity

During the scale development process, a panel of six reviewers and two experts
on scale construction examined the content and face validity of the SD and SIS. In
addition, three hotel employees also reviewed the clarity of the scale items and how well
they represented reality. Apart from comments on item wording and ambiguity, the
reviewers and experts agreed that the new scales were feasible for measuring service
behavior in a hotel setting. Convergent validity is a common technique used in validating
the construct of a new scale. If a scale has construct validity, the new scale correlates to
established scales that measure similar constructs or concepts (Spector, 1992). For this
study, convergent validity was assessed via the examinations of correlations between the
1C and SD scales as well as between the IC and SIS. Since the two new scales were
derived from the concepts of social distance and social behavior reﬂected in the
Individualism and Collectivism theories, these scales should measure the same

constructs. Accordingly, various correlations would be expected form these tests.

Convergent Validity Of The Social Distance Scale (SD)

To test the validity of the Social Distance Scale, the scale means for each of the
target groups were correlated to the IC’s two subscales, Individualisml and Collectivism.
In light of the distinct value orientations of Individualism and Collectivism in dealing
with ingroup and outgroup members (chapter two), neutral correlations were expected

between Individualism and the SD on both ingroup and outgroup targets because of

 

' Individualism and collectivism are terms used for two value constructs or for subscales of the instrument
(IC). Individualists and collectivists are terms describing people who possess those value orientations
when comparing cultures or across countries, while idiocentrists and allocentrists are terms describing
people who possess those value orientations within a culture or country.

80

 

Individualism’s emphasis on equity in interpersonal relationships. Nonetheless, stronger
correlations might occur between Individualism and groups of relatives or close ﬁiends
because they could be perceived as immediate ingroup members compared to other
ingroups (such as other US. visitors). On the other hand, stronger positive correlations
were expected between the Collectivism and the SD for ingroup targets than outgroup
targets.

As expected, and illustrated in Table 4.5, the relationship between the SD scale
and Individualism yielded no strong correlations across eight target groups. In fact, all
the correlation coefﬁcients were extremely small or zero correlations. As for negative
correlations that emerged, they reﬂected the contradiction between attributes of the SD
and Individualism. That is, a given social distance was indicative of perceived similarity
or closeness to a target, while Individualism was characterized by independence or
detachment. The negative correlations observed were thus compatible with the respective

theories.

Signiﬁcant correlations were found between the SD and Collectivism on three
ingroup target groups: relatives (r = .17), close friends (r = .22), and neighbors (r = .18).
While those correlations are supported by theory, they tended to be modest and were not
as strong as expected. Insigniﬁcant and small correlations were observed between
Collectivism and ACQ (r = .12) and USV (r = .12), which were not predicted by the
theory; thus, the result showed no conﬁrmation of validity for these two domestic guest
groups. The most surprising ﬁnding was the unexpected stronger correlations that

emerged between Collectivism and the SD for the three international groups, which also

81

 

Table 4.5 Pearson Correlation Coefﬁcients Between The SD And [C Scales.

 

 

 

 

IC Subscales
Target
SD Gm Individualism Collectivism
(r) (r)
REL -.03 .17“
CLF -.03 .22*
NEI -.04 .18“
ACQ -.02 .12
USV .04 .12
GER .00 .18*
FRE .02 .19“
JAP .00 .16*
ING -.02 .21“
OUG .00 .18“
(N = 225)

 

Notes: 1. * signiﬁcant correlation, p < .05. 2. The SD is a six-point scale, where

I = totally dissimilar, 7 = totally similar. 3. REL = relatives, CLF = close friends,
NEI = neighbors, ACQ = local acquaintances, USV = US. visitors, GER =
German tourists, FRE = French tourists, JAP = Japanese, ING = ingroup cluster,
OUG = outgroup cluster.

contradicted theory. The ﬁndings suggest that this current sample did not view
international guests as outgroup members, as theory would have indicated.
Consequently, these test results revealed weak validity between the SD and Collectivism
subscale. Nevertheless, when the data are combined, the ingroup targets forming the
ingroup cluster (ING) and all outgroup targets forming the outgroup cluster (OUG) reveal
higher correlations between Collectivism and ING (r = .21) and a slightly lower score
between Collectivism and OUG (r = .18). While there was not as marked a difference

between the ING and OUG’s correlations as theory predicted, the more positive

82

 

correlation shown for the ingroup and the neutral or small scores expected for the
outgroup reveal scores in reﬂecting the expected pattern. Those scores point to the right
direction between Collectivism and the SD on ingroup and outgroup correlations; that is,
allocentrists behave more favorably toward ingroups than outgroups. In summary, the
resulting correlations between the SD and IC scales indicate that the SD is partially valid.
Given the satisfactory performance of identifying ingroups and outgroups in pilot tests
and the high reliability scores observed there, it seemed reasonable to continue to use the
SD instrument in future analysis despite these modest validity scores. Of course, all

ﬁndings are considered with these modest scores in mind.

Convergent Validity Of The Service Interaction Scale (SIS)

Table 4.6 presents correlation coefﬁcients between the subscales of the IC and the
SIS for the four target groups. Given that the behaviors of individualists reveal equal
treatment toward all groups of guests, neutral correlations would be expected between the
Individualism and the SIS scores for the four target groups. Also, an Individualist is
more likely to be independent and detached from people other than members of his or her
immediate ingroup; therefore, the correlations between the Individualism subscale and
the Acceptance and Association subscales were expected to be negative. As can be seen
in Table 4.6, the correlation coefﬁcients derived between Individualism and the target
groups across four types of services were in accordance with this theory.

According to theory, those individuals high on Collectivism have a tendency to

behave more favorably toward members of ingroups rather than outgroups. Higher

83

 

Table 4.6 Pearson Correlations Between The SIS’s Subscales And IC’s Subscales By

 

 

 

 

Target Groups.

SIS Target IC Subscles
Subscales Groups Individualism Collectivism
Acceptance REL -.10 .35 *
(Accecpt Behavior/ USV -.O4 .28 *

ulture)
FRE -.11 .40 "
JAP -.12 .32 *
Superordination REL -.07 -.28 *
(Display Superior USV -.02 -.26 *
Behavior/Attitude)
FRE -.05 -.25 *
JAP -.02 -.27 "'
Communication REL -.O7 -.04
(Display Open/Direct USV -.Ol -.01
Communication)
FRE .02 . -.08
JAP .05 -.09
Association REL -.06 .26 *
(Associate And Provide USV -.06 .29 *
Help Willingly)
FRE -.03 .33 *
JAP -.04 .32 "'
(N = 225)

 

Notes: 1. "‘ signiﬁcant correlation, p < .01. 2. USV = US visitors, REL = relatives,
JAP = Japanese tourists, FRE = French tourists. 3. Brief deﬁnition is presented in
parenthesis for each SIS subscales. 4. Coefﬁcients had been rounded up in some
instances.

84

 

positive correlations were expected between the subscale and the SIS scores of guests
who were relatives (REL) or US. visitors (U SV). Lower correlations would be
anticipated between the Collectivism subscale and the two international guest groups
across four types of services on the Service Interaction Scale. As the theory suggests,
strong positive coefﬁcients were found between the Collectivism and Acceptance
subscale on guests of relatives (r = .35) and US. visitors (r = .28; Table 4.6); however,
the high correlations yielded between these two subscales on French (r = .40) and
Japanese guests (r = .32) were not supported by the theory. Rather, lower to neutral
scores were expected. Similar correlation patterns occur on the Superordination and
Association subscales, with high scores observed for the two ingroup guests (REL &
USV) as well as with the two outgroup guests (FRE & JAP). Because Superordination
is deﬁned as service provided with a sense of superiority and collectivists emphasize on
interrelationship and harmony, negative correlations in this case were conceivable.

The other unexpected ﬁnding was the neutral to slightly negative correlation
emerging between Collectivism and the Communication subscale for REL (r = -.04) and
USV (r = -.01). These scores were expected to be high negative scores, given that
collectivists would not openly and directly confront their ingroup members, as theory
indicated. On the contrary side, the more neutral scores shown for FRE (r = -.08) and
JAP (r = -.09) outgroup guests were consistent with theory because collectivists are more
likely to display direct and open confrontation toward outgroup members than toward
ingroup members. It is speculated that the items related to communication service might
have been perceived as too assertive and respondents might not have been comfortable

revealing such strong feelings.

85

Although the strong coefﬁcients that emerged between Collectivism and outgroup
guests for Acceptance, Superordination, and Association were not consistent with the
theory, there are three possible explanations for these high correlations. First, the social
distance convergent validity test revealed that higher correlations emerged between the
SD and Collectivism on three outgroup targets (Table 4.5); thus, the service favoritism
shown toward international guests is conceivable. Second, the high correlations for more
distant international groups could result from the familiarity this sample group may have
already had with international guests. As discussed later in this chapter, it was learned
that these samples did have greater contact with international guests. As the theory
indicates, the more familiar a person is with another culture, the closer the relationship
that would be formed between him or her and a person from another culture; thus, the
more likely international visitors could be identiﬁed as ingroup members. Hence, higher
correlations might be observed between Collectivism and international groups. Third,
the high scores shown across the four target groups could be the result of the
respondents’ desire not to reveal their actual service behavior toward different guests.
Such social desirability could result from their understanding of the golden rule of
hospitality service, that is, serve all guests the same. To. show their adherence to that
rule, the respondents provided similar scores for each target group.

The results of the convergent validity tests for the SD and the SIS indicate that
both scales were only partially valid given the unexpected ﬁndings between the two
scales and the IC for outgroup targets. Normally, with such weak validity scales, no
further analysis would be attempted; however, the intent of this study was to understand

students’ and hotel workers’ service behavior toward domestic and international guests

86

 

using new instruments and instruments adopted from other cross-cultural studies. Thus,
it was useful to explore how the scales performed in subsequent analyses. Also, given
that two-thirds of the validity tests worked well for the SD and the SIS, continued
analyses were justiﬁed; however, it is important to note the strengths and weaknesses of

the new scales so the results are interpreted with caution.

Findings
The instruments were judged ﬁrnctional if the following outcomes emerged: (1)
the respondents could be divided into two value groups; (2) the social distance scores
varied with different target groups as perceived by respondents in each value group; and
(3) different service behaviors were displayed toward different ingroup and outgroup

guests by respondents from each of the two value groups.

Value Groups

By using the Individualism and Collectivism scale (IC), idiocentrist and
allocentrist value groups were successfully differentiated among the respondents
following Triandis’ instructions to dichotomize the difference between standardized
mean scores of the IC’s Individualism and Collectivism subscales (refer to chapter three).
If respondents reported higher scores on the Individualism than on the Collectivism
subscale, they were likely to be idiocentrists. Otherwise, they were likely to be
allocentrists. In this sample, the sizes of the two value groups obtained were nearly equal

(allocentrists = 51.2%, idiocentrists = 48.8%). A greater percentage of allocentrists

87

Table 4.7 Proﬁles Of Idiocentrists And Allocentrists.

 

 

Samples Idiocentrists Allocentrists
N % N %
Combined 103 48.8 108 51.2
Employees 18 17.4 33 30.5
Students 85 82.5 75 69.4
Gender
Male 60 58.3 37 34.5
Female 43 41.7 70 65.4
Age
18-20 27 26.2 22 20.3
21-25 59 57.2 58 53.7
26—30 7 6.8 7 6.5
31-35 3 3.0 9 8.5
36-40 3 3.0 4 3.7
41-60 1 1.0 8 7.4
Education Levels
High School 3 2.9 9 8.3
College/ 98 95.2 97 89.8
University
Master 2 1.9 2 1.8

 

Note: Missing cases are not shown in this table.

88

(64.7%) than idiocentrists (35.5%) were found among hotel employees, whereas a larger
portion of idiocentrists (53.1%) than allocentrists (46.7%) emerged from the student
sample (Table 4.7). In regard to gender, male respondents (58.3%) tended to be
idiocentrists while more allocentrists were found among the female respondents (64.8%).
The majority of idiocentrists and allocentrists were between the ages of 18 and 25,
although allocentrists were found to be slightly older (average age = 25.19) than
idiocentrists (average age = 22.74, Student t = —2.587, p < .01). Moreover, the data show
that most respondents in both groups attained an education at the college/university level,
especially in the idiocentrist group (over 95%). These ﬁndings were compatible with the
literature which suggests that males are inclined to be idiocentrists and females tend to be
allocentrists, and that people become more allocentrist as they age. Additionally, the
higher level of education attained, the more likely a person is to be an idiocentrist (Cha,
1994; Kohn, et al., 1990; Mishra, 1994; Reykowski, 1994; Schwartz, 1992; Triandis,

McCusker, et al., 1990).

Social Distance Comparisons
Between Value Group Compm
To measure social distance, the SD scale means were compared across eight
target groups between and within idiocentrist and allocentrist value groups. Comparing
the value groups, allocentrists reported a smaller social distance (meaning more similarity
in cultural characteristics) between themselves and each of the domestic target groups
except the US. visitors, than idiocentrists did (Student t test, p < .05; Table 4.8). Such

ﬁndings were in accord with the theory. Signiﬁcant differences also were observed in

89

Table 4.8 Social Distance Comparisons Among Eight Target Groups By
The SD Scale Means Between Two Value Groups.

 

 

Target

Qrgppp Idiocentrists Allocentrists
REL 4.727 5.003 *
CLF 4.636 5.018 *
NEI 3.700 4.044 *
ACQ 3.666 3.943 *
USV 3.761 3.883 *
GER 3.120 3.461 "'
FRE 3.098 3.368 *
JAP 3.081 3.396 "'

 

Notes: 1. *Student t signiﬁcant difference between two value groups on each
target group, p < .05. 2. The higher the number, the smaller the social distance.
3. REL = relatives, CLF = close friends, NEI = neighbors, ACQ = local
acquaintances, USV = US. visitors, GER = German tourists, F RE = French
tourists, JAP = Japanese tourists.

outgroup comparisons, with allocentrists reporting a smaller perceived social distance
between themselves and each of the three outgroup targets compared to the distance
perceived by their idiocentrist counterparts. In other words, allocentrists in the current
sample perceived more similarity between themselves and international guests than their
idiocentrist respondents. Given that most hotel employees of this sample were
allocentrists, such perceptions of similarity could be derived from their frequent contacts
with international guests at work. In addition, students in the sample were from
universities that enroll large numbers of foreign students; hence, high familiarity among

students could be formed from constant exposure to international students.

90

Consequently, small social distances could be reported. Such a result was conﬁrmed by
Triandis’ study (1995) that indicates that allocentrists tend to perceive smaller social
distance between themselves and target groups compared to idiocentrists. This makes
sense, since allocentrists emphasize interrelationships whereas idiocentrists focus on

independence and detachment in their relationships.

Within Value Group Comparison

Further analyses revealed more information regarding idiocentrists’ and
allocentrists’ perceived social distance toward the eight target groups. As theory
indicated, both idiocentrists and allocentrists would perceive increasing social distances
across ingroup and outgroup target groups. In addition, members of both idiocentrist and
allocentrists groups would identify those closer and more familiar targets as ingroup
members, while outgroup members would be those more distant and unfamiliar targets.
As shown in Table 4.9, three comparison patterns were observed. First, signiﬁcant
differences in social distance were found among target groups for each idiocentrist and
allocentrist group. Idiocentrists perceived smaller social distances between themselves
and each of the ingroups compared to each of the outgroups (Tukey test, p < . 01). For
example, relatives (row) were assigned a smaller social distance than German (mean
difference = 1.607), French (mean difference = 1.629), and Japanese (mean difference =
1.646) guests (columns). Visitors from other US. states (row) were also assigned a
perceived smaller social distance than that of the German (mean difference = 1.516),
French (mean difference = 1.538), and Japanese (mean difference = 1.555) groups

(columns). Second, idiocentrists perceived smaller social distances between themselves

91

Table 4.9 Social Distance Comparisons Among Eight Target Groups By The SD Scale Means Within Each
Value Group.

 

Idiocentrists (N = 103)

 

ANQVA Sum pf Sguares g1_f Mean Squares F Value 2

Between Groups 296.692 7 42.385 42.217 .000

Within Groups 782.087 779 1.004

Total 1078.780 786

Post Hoc - Tukey REL Ci __E_I ACQ USV GER FE ﬂ

(Mean Difference)
.091 1.027 " 1.061 ‘ .966 “ 1.607 " 1.629 " 1.646 "

CLF _ .936 s .970 r .874 r 1.516 . 1.538 r 1.555 .
NEI _ .033 .061 .580 . .601 s .618 *
ACQ _ .095 .546 r .568 r .585 '
usv _ .641 . .663 r .680 *
GER _ .021 .038
FRE _ .017
JAP

 

Allocentrists (N = 108)

AN VA Sum of Sguares ﬂ Mean uares F Valug 2

Between Groups 329.173 7 47.025 50.672 .000

Within Groups 775.832 836 .928

Total 1105.004 843

Post Hoc - Tukey REL CLF __E_1 ACQ USV ER Eﬂ JAP

(Mean Difference)
REL .015 .958 ‘ 1.059 " 1.119 " 1.541 “ 1.634 ‘ 1.606 "

CLF _ .974 r 1.074 5 1.135 r 1.557 r 1.650 r 1.622 8
NE] _ .100 .160 .582 . .675 s .647 '
ACQ _ .060 .482 r .575 s .547 .
usv _ .422 r .515 r .486 *
GER _ .092 .064
FRE _ .028
JAP

 

Notes: 1. ‘ Signiﬁcant difference between a target group in row and a target group in column, p < .01.
2. REL = relatives, CLF = close friends, NEI = neighbors, ACQ = local acquaintances, USV = US. visitors,
GER = German tourists, FRE = French tourists, JAP = Japanese tourists.

92

and relatives and close ﬁiends than between themselves and neighbors, local
acquaintances, and US. visitors ( p < .01). The third pattern was that the results of the
ANOVA and Tukey tests showed no signiﬁcant differences existed between REL (row)
and CLF (column); among NEI, ACQ, and USV; and among the three international
groups. In other words, idiocentrists perceived those as three homogeneous subgroups.

Three similar patterns emerged from the analysis of allocentrists’ responses. Each
ingroup target was assigned smaller social distance scores than that of each of the
outgroup targets. Relatives and close friends were assigned smaller social distances than
NEI, ACQ, and USV ingroups, and the scores of the three outgroups. As a result, REL
and CLF; NEI, ACQ, and USV; GER, FRE, and JAP were identiﬁed as three
homogeneous subgroups by the allocentrists. In addition, the perception of social
distance increased down the continuum of guest groups, from ingroups to outgroups for
both idiocentrist and allocentrist respondents (Table 4.8).

The preceding results were similar to the ﬁndings of past research (Triandis et al.,
1990; Triandis, 1995), showing that respondents generally perceived more similarity to
their ingroups than outgroups; that relatives (REL) and close ﬁiends (CLF) were
perceived as more immediate ingroup members than extended ingroups such as neighbors
(NEI) and acquaintances (ACQ); that international visitors were most likely to be seen as
outgroups when compared to domestic guests; and that allocentrists were prone to
perceive smaller social distance between themselves and all target groups compared to

the idiocentrists.

93

Comparison with Another Study

In comparing the social distances of various target groups obtained in this study to
those collected in Hui’s research (1984, p. 31), idiocentrists and allocentrists in this study
reported similar patterns of perceived social distance scores as those reported in Hui’s
sample (Table 4.10). That is, relatives and close friends/co-workers were seen as closer
in terms of social distance than neighbors, acquaintances, and visitors from other states or
strangers. Also, people of the same country were seen as ingroup members and were
perceived as more similar compared to foreigners (or German, French, and Japanese

guests in the current study) identiﬁed as outgroup members.

Table 4.10 Social Distance (Mean) Comparison Among Target Groups For Respondents Of Hui’s (1984) Study

 

And The Current Study.
Current Study ﬂ CLF E & __S¥ _E_R ELF; LA_P
Idiocentrists 4.72 4.63 3.70 3.66 3.76 3.12 3.09 3.08
Allocentrists 5.00 5.01 4.04 3.94 3.88 3.46 3.36 3.39
Hui’s Study ELL CAVE. MEI ACQ SIB E9_R
Sample 4.28 4.53 5.30 6.40 7.14 8.02

 

Notes: 1. Current study used a six-point scale, where 1 = Strongly dissimilar, 6 = strongly similar. Hui’s study used a
nine-point scale, where 1 = extremely intimate, 9 = extremely distance. 2. REL = relatives, CLF = close friends, NEI =
neighbors, ACQ = local acquaintances, USV = US. visitors, GER = German tourists, FRE = French tourists, JAP =
Japanese, CWK = co-worker, STR = stranger, FOR = foreigner.

Service Behavior Comparisons
A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was implemented to disclose service

behavior displayed toward the four guest groups for idiocentrists and allocentrists. As

94

found in the Acceptance subscale (Table 4.11), there was a main effect of value groups
(F = 64.037, p < .000). In other words, service behavior provided by idiocentrists and
allocentrists was found to be different. The Student t tests revealed that allocentrists were
more likely to accept their guests’ behavior than idiocentrists were across each of the four
guest groups (p < .05). However, no signiﬁcant differences were found for target group

effect or for the interaction effect in the analysis of variance.

A similar pattern was repeated for the Association subscale (Table 4.12). The
main effect of value groups was found signiﬁcant (F = 52.989, p < .000) while no
signiﬁcant group or interaction effects were observed. Thus, allocentrists indicated that
they were more likely to associate with each of the domestic and international guest
groups than were idiocentrists (Student t test, p < .05). As for the Superordination
subscale (Table 4.13), the ANOVA revealed no signiﬁcant mean effects or interactions.
There was no difference in service behavior displayed toward domestic and international

guests between and within idiocentrists and allocentrists.

With regard to the Communication subscale (Table 4.14), the ANOVA results
showed a signiﬁcant difference in target group effect. In other words, idiocentrists and
allocentrists displayed different communication behaviors toward the different guest
groups. The Post Hoc Tukey test (Table 4.15) further discovered that idiocentrists were
more likely to openly and directly confront their relatives and US. visitors (rows) than
French and Japanese guests (columns; p < .05). In like manner, allocentrists indicated
that they would be more likely to display direct and open confrontation toward the two

domestic guest groups than toward the two international guest groups.

95

Table 4.11 Acceptance Subscale Mean Scores For Two Value Groups.

 

REL ESE EILE IQ.

Idiocentrists Mean 4.506 4.700 4.562 4.470
Std. .858 .758 .928 1.039

N 101 102 101 102

Allocentrists Mean 5.003 4.975 5.084 5.024
Std. .735 .723 .744 .826

N 106 106 106 106

(Mean Difference) -.496 ‘ -.275 " -.522 ‘ -.533 "‘

 

Notes: 1. REL = relatives, USV = US. visitors, FRE = French tourists, JAP = Japanese
tourists. Std. = standard deviation. 2. A two-way ANOVA was implemented, the main effect of
value group was signiﬁcant, F = 64.037, p < .000. “ Student t significant difference, p < .05.

Table 4.12 Association Subscale Mean Scores For Two Value Groups.

 

REL ILSIL ER_E LAX

Idiocentrists Mean 4.600 4.438 4.375 4.340
Std. .909 .929 .908 1 .003

N 102 102 102 102

Allocentrists Mean 5.036 4.875 4.843 4.826
Std. .861 .865 .848 .870

N 104 104 104 104

(Mean Difference) -.435 " -.436 “ -.468 “ -.486 "‘

 

Notes: 1. REL = relatives, USV = US. visitors, FRE = French tourists, JAP = Japanese
tourists. Std. = standard deviation. 2. A two-way ANOVA was implemented, the main effect of
value group was signiﬁcant, F = 52.989, p < .000. "‘ Student t signiﬁcant difference, p < .05.

Table 4.13 Superordination Subscale Mean Scores For Two Value Groups.

 

R_E_L_ ESL .PLRE JAP;

Idiocentrists Mean 3.029 2.961 2.857 2.906
Std. 1 .002 1.002 1.024 1 .026

N 103 103 103 103

Allocentrists Mean 2.883 2.814 2.828 2.813
Std. .987 .982 .979 .933

N 106 106 107 107

(Mean Difference) .146 .147 .029 .093

 

Notes: 1. REL = relatives, USV = US. visitors, FRE = French tourists, JAP = Japanese
tourists. Std. = standard deviation. 2. A two-way ANOVA was implemented, no signiﬁcance was
found in main effects or interactions.

96

Table 4.14 Communication Subscale Mean Scores For Two Value Groups.

 

&L

Idiocentrists Mean 4.138
Std. 1.007

N 101

Allocentrists Mean 4.180
Std. .978

N 105

(Mean Difference) -.042

USV

4.017
.921
101

3.965
.919
104

.052

IE LAB
3.655 3.672
.974 .953
101 100
3.594 3.577
.977 .999
105 105
.061 .095

 

Notes: 1. REL = relatives, USV = US. visitors, FRE = French tourists, JAP = Japanese tourists.
Std. = standard deviation. 2. A two-way ANOVA was implemented, the main effect of target group

was found signiﬁcant.

Table 4.15 Mean Comparisons Among Eight Target Groups In Communication Subscale For

Each Value Group.

 

Idiocentrists (N = 103)

 

ANOVA Sum of Sguarea d_f Mean Squares F Value I_’
Between Groups 18.063 6.021 6.467 .000
Within Groups 371.478 399 .931
Total 389.542 402
Post Hoc — Tukey REL SV FE ﬂ
(Mean Difference)
_ .121 .483 * .466 "‘
USV _ .362 " .345
FRE _ .017
Allocentrists (N = 108)
ANOVA Sum of Sguares Mean Sguares F Value 2
Between Groups 27.386 9.129 9.716 .000
Within Groups 389.899 415 .940
Total 417.285 418
Bog Hoe - Tukey REL USV 5% ﬂ
(Mean Difference)
_ .215 .589 " .603 “
USV .371 "‘ .388 ‘
FRE .017

 

Notes: 1. " Post Hoe Tukey test signiﬁcant difference between a target group in row and a target group in column,
p < .05. 2. REL = relatives, USV = US. visitors, FRE = French tourists, JAP = Japanese tourists.

97

The results provided information that was only partially unexpected according to
the theory. Accepting and associating service behaviors toward domestic guests by
allocentrists was expected; however, the high correlation scores between Collectivism
and the SIS for the two international groups were unexpected. Yet, such scores supported
the speculation that the allocentrists in this study did not perceive French and Japanese
guests as members of such distant outgroups as the literature would indicate. The overall
accepting and associating service behaviors displayed toward all guest groups showed
that this allocentrist group is likely to treat guests in a friendlier manner than idiocentrists
do. Such a ﬁnding is also consistent with the earlier analysis of social distance, given
that allocentrists generally perceive smaller social distance between themselves and all
guest groups compared to idiocentrist respondents. Nevertheless, the items in the
Superordination subscale did not reveal information regarding the service behavior of
idiocentrists and allocentrists exhibited toward different guests given that no signiﬁcant
differences were found. These ﬁndings could be the result of social desirability, with
respondents not wanting to report superior and arrogant service attitudes and behaviors

toward particular guests in their responses.

Unexpected ﬁndings were also observed for idiocentrists and allocentrists in that
respondents from both value groups showed more favoritism in communication toward
international guests compared to domestic guests. Contrary to the theory, idiocentrists
revealed different communication service styles toward different guests rather than a
universal service manner, and allocentrists were expected to avoid confrontation with

ingroup guests rather than display the direct communication behavior found in this study.

98

Again, high familiarity toward international guests could be a factor that facilitated such a
result.

In summary, given the performance of the IC, SIS, and SD scales, the instrument
developed did not shed as much light on varied service behaviors toward domestic and
international guests as the theory could have suggested. Rather, unexpected ﬁndings
emerged in many areas, especially the better-than-expected service behavior exhibited
toward international guests by the current sample, idiocentrists and allocentrists alike.
The ﬁndings could be a result of weak reliability and validity for the SIS scale or such
ﬁndings could shed new light on the expected behavior of hospitality workers and the
nature of service interaction between providers and guests. Regardless of interpretation,
the instrument deﬁnitely needs to be reﬁned to better explain the relationship between
value orientations of service providers and their behavior toward culturally different

guests.

Service With Background Experiences

Given these unexpected ﬁndings, further analyses were made to determine if
differences between the service behavior of idiocentrists and allocentrists varied toward
target groups when three personal background variables are considered. Given the
ﬁndings that small social distances were perceived for outgroup targets, which might
have resulted from the familiarity the respondents had with international guests, the
variable of interacting or serving foreign tourists was selected (see Appendix E, section
B, and Q11 for the wording of the question). The other two variables were whether the

respondent had on-job training or hospitality courses (Q9). These two variables are

99

signiﬁcant because they have a direct relationship to educational and professional

training and its inﬂuence on employees’ service behavior.

Service And Hospitality Courses

Table 4.16 lists the comparisons of mean scores of SIS’s subscales toward target
groups between respondents who had taken hospitality courses and those who had not for
each value group. As can be seen, among the twelve comparisons (columns), service
differences were found only on the Communication subscale across all guest groups for
idiocentrists. Those idiocentrists who had not taken the courses dealt with their guests,
ingroups and outgroups alike, in a more direct and open manner than those idiocentrists
who had had course training. Such a ﬁnding raises several questions. Is the open manner
perceived to be positive or negative? If positive, then this ﬁnding indicates that the
workforce is hospitable to guests even without formal education training. If the
interaction is perceived as negative, however, then the ﬁnding is a wanting to the industry
of the importance and need to provide formal hospitality course training to workers in

order to enhance service techniques and quality.

As for allocentrists, among twelve comparisons, signiﬁcant differences were
observed only in the Association subscale. Those who had not had background courses
indicated that they were more likely to offer help and associate (Association subscale)
with their guests from other US. states (Student t, p < .05), France (p < .01), and Japan (p
< .05) than would those allocentrists who had courses. Although the ﬁndings were not

anticipated by the theory, the discovery is encouraging. Even without formal course

100

Table 4.16 Mean Comparisons Of The SIS’s Subscales Between Respondents Who Had Hospitality Courses
And Who Did Not For Two Value Groups.

Idiocentrists (N = 103)

Target Had Acceptance Superordination Communication Association
Groups Coum
(Mean)
REL Y(es) 4.545 3.012 3.982 4.524
N(o) 4.511 3.055 4.766 ” 4.888
USV Y 4.770 2.917 3.852 4.327
N 4.533 3.092 4.733 " 4.902
FRE Y 4.620 2.756 3.485 4.321
N 4.411 3.240 4.388 " 4.638
JAP Y 4.548 2.829 3.503 4.302
N 4.222 3.259 4.400 “ 4.402

 

Allocentrists (N = 108)

Target Had Acceptance Superordination Communication Association
Grpaps ourses
(Mean)

REL Y(es) 5.002 2.904 4.150 4.985

N(o) 4.960 3.001 4.386 5.276
USV Y 4.950 2.866 3.979 4.771

N 5.026 2.844 4.080 5.241 "
FRE Y 5.066 2.914 3.558 4.721

N 5.073 2.838 3.806 5.214 ‘”“
JAP Y 4.991 2.900 3.538 4.706

N 5.053 2.817 3.800 5.196 "

 

Notes: 1. Student t signiﬁcant difference between yes and no groups. " p < .01. " p < .05. 2. REL = relatives,
USV = US. visitors, FRE = French tourists, JAP = Japanese tourists.

101

training, allocentrists would break their value norms to provide help to guests, even

guests who are not part of an immediate ingroup.

Service And Job Training

No signiﬁcant service differences were found between respondents within each
value group in regard to job-training background. Job-training background does not
appear to be an inﬂuential variable for distinguishing service behavior within each value

group in this study.

Service And Interactions With International Guests

Comparing the scores of respondents with and without this “interaction” variable,
idiocentrists who had had this interaction experience indicated that they would accept the
cultures and behaviors of all four guest groups more so than idiocentrists who did not
have this experience (Student t tests, p < .05; Table 4.17). Allocentrists who had such
experiences, however, indicated that they would be more likely to accept only the
behavior of the two ingroup guests and associate only with their relatives as guests
compared to allocentrists who did not have experience with international guests. The
ﬁndings revealed that previous interaction with foreigners produced differential effects
on idiocentrists and allocentrists. It seems that such experience facilitates idiocentrists’
acceptance of all guests, but does not encourage allocentrists to accept the culture and
behavior of distant ingroups and international guests.

In addition, a regression analysis was used to seek the most inﬂuential personal

variables, among the three variables observed in respondent’s service behavior for the

102

Table 4.17 Mean Comparisons Of The SIS’s Subscales Between Respondents Who lnteracted Foreigners
And Who Did Not For Two Value Groups.

 

Idiocentrists (N = 103)

Target Had Acceptance Superordination Communication Association
Group§ Interaction
(Mean)
REL Y(es) 4.622 "‘ 2.995 4.202 4.623
N(o) 4.154 3.000 3.890 4.556
USV Y 4.833 ” 2.882 4.011 4.457
N 4.327 3.043 3.990 4.363
FRE Y 4.734 " 2.770 3.631 4.436
N 3.972 2.927 3.636 4.136
JAP Y 4.614 " 2.816 3.640 4.408
N 3.936 3.058 3.690 4.000

 

Allocentrists (N = 108)

Target Had Acceptance Superordination Communication Association
9m mm
(Mean)
REL Y(es) 5.007 ‘ 2.858 4.136 5.195 ’
N(o) 4.685 2.984 4.447 4.678
USV Y 5.090 " 2.766 3.984 4.996
N 4.600 2.952 3.961 4.678
FRE Y 5.115 2.816 3.617 4.945
N 4.961 2.952 3.647 4.678
JAP Y 5.040 2.775 3.592 4.230
N 4.952 3.047 3.619 4.678

 

Notes: 1. Student t signiﬁcant difference between yes and no groups. ” p < .01. ‘ p < .05. 2. REL = relatives,
USV = US. visitors, FRE = French tourists, JAP = Japanese tourists.

103

two value groups. However, only a few (14 comparisons) signiﬁcant differences were
observed among the 96 service interactions. No profound ﬁndings were observed from
the analysis of the demographic background variables and relationship to selected service

behaviors.

Summary

Results from the ﬁnal test and analytical procedures indicate that the new scales,
the Social Distance Scale and Service Interaction Scale, achieved moderately acceptable
reliability and validity scores. Table 4.18 summarizes the results of the instrument
development process. The instruments were tested for their utility in exploring study
objectives. Two value orientation groups, idiocentrists and allocentrists, were
distinguished among the study respondents. Ingroups and outgroups were clearly
distinguished via the Social Distance scale. As theory predicted, smaller social distances
were assigned to domestic guest groups while larger social distances were assigned to
international guest groups. The utility of the Service Interaction Scale was assessed
between and within idiocentrist’s and allocentrist’s responses. Differences in service
behavior provided to varied types of guests emerged in many aspects between the

respondents of the two value groups (Table 4.19).

104

Table 4.18 Summary Of Scale Development Results For The Instrument.

 

Scale Reliabilig Validig Utilig Result
IC Highly reliable Not tested Differentiated Included in the
Two value groups analysis
RVS Not tested Not tested Failed to differentiate Not used in the
value systems analysis
SD Highly reliable Partially valid Identiﬁed ingroups Included in the
and outgroups analysis
SIS Moderately Partially valid Identiﬁed varied Included in the
reliable service beliefs, analysis

attitudes and behaviors

 

Note: [C = Individualism and Collectivism Scale, RVS = Rokeach Value Survey,
SD = Social Distance Scale, SIS = Service Interaction Scale.

105

Table 4.19 Summary Of Service Behavior Findings For The Two Value Groups.

 

 

Value
Variable Group Theog Suggests in in
Acceptance Idio Equally accept all guest groups No signiﬁcant differences found
Allo Accept domestic guests more No signiﬁcant differences found
likely than foreign guests
1. vs. A. Allo would acce tall uest Found consistent ﬁndings
groups more so anl io
Superordination Idio Display equal service attitudes No signiﬁcant differences found
toward all guest groups
Allo Display more superior service No signiﬁcant differences found
attitudes toward foreign guests
than domestic guests
1. vs. A. Allo display superior service No signiﬁcant differences found
attitudes toward foreign guests
more so than Idio
Communication Idio Display open and direct style Displayed open and direct style
toward all guests toward domestic guests more
than toward foreign guests
Allo Display open and direct style Displayed open and direct style
toward foreign guests more toward domestic guests more
than toward domestic guests than toward foreign guests
1. vs. A. Display open and direct style No signiﬁcant differences found
toward foreign guests more
so than Idio
Association Idio Equally associate with all guest No signiﬁcant differences found
groups
Allo Associate more toward domestic No signiﬁcant differences found
guests than toward foreign guests
1. vs. A. Allo would associate with all Found consistent ﬁndings
guest groups more so than Idio
Hospitality Idio Improve service behaviors Idio without this background were more
Courses toward all guest groups likely to openly and directly confront all
guests
Allo Improve service behaviors Allo without this background were more
toward foreign guests likely to associate with distant domestic
guests and foreign guests
On-Job Idio Improve service behaviors No signiﬁcant impact found
Training toward all guest groups
Allo Improve service behaviors No signiﬁcant impact found
toward foreign guests
Interacting Idio Improve service behaviors Idio who had this experience were more
Foreigner toward all guest groups likely to accept all guest groups
Experience Allo Improve service behaviors Allo who had the experience were more
toward foreign guests likely to accept and associate with domestic

guests than foreign guests

 

Note: Idio = Idiocentrists, A110 = Allocentrists, 1. vs. A. = comparison between two value groups.

106

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Based upon the ﬁndings presented in the previous chapters, conclusions are drawn
centered on instrument development and implications for instrument use. In addition,
implications are drawn for professionals and educators in the hospitality and tourism

industries. Finally, implications for future research are outlined.

Conclusions

The ﬁrst part of the conclusion section addresses the development of the
instrument. In this study, an instrument was developed to measure hospitality
employees’ personal value orientations and their service attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors
toward an array of domestic and international guests. The instrument was devised with
modest reliability and validity including two new scales, the Service Interaction Scale
(SIS) and the Social Distance Scale (SD), as well as an existing scale, Individualism and
Collectivism (IC). The analyses of convergent validity revealed that the SIS and SD
scales correlated signiﬁcantly with the Individualism and Collectivism scale in several
areas; however, inconsistent correlations were observed between the two scales and the
IC for international target groups. Although the reliability and validity scores of the two
scales were only partially acceptable, the two scales were applied further to test their

usefulness because of two considerations. The ﬁrst is the exploratory nature of this

107

study; it was beneﬁcial to investigate how the scales related to each other and key
demographic and experience variables. The second consideration is that a full analysis
could be informative because this study is the ﬁrst attempt to develop an instrument that
assesses hospitality employees’ varied service behaviors toward domestic and
international guests. Nevertheless, the analytical results of the application should be
interpreted cautiously because of the modest reliability and validity of the two scales.
Although further validation is needed to determine the nature of the results, useful
preliminary information is provided by this study.

The Rokeach Value Survey (RVS), included in initial instrument, failed to
function as a valid research tool because of the modiﬁed scoring method; that is, scoring
was changed from a ranking to a rating system. This change did not elicit results that
differentiated among the personal value systems of respondents. The use of a rating
system conﬁrmed the argument that respondents consider more than one value equally
important to their lives, such a scoring system was unable to distinguish two personal
value systems originally designed by Rokeach. Thus, utilizing the RVS as an external
validity tool for the two value orientation groups differentiated by the Individualism and
Collectivism scale was not possible. The loss of the RVS, however, does not jeopardize
the instrument in a psychometrical sense because the IC is a well-validated measurement
instrument.

In this study, the purpose of developing the instrument was to examine the
relationship of culture to service providers’ behavior. It is assumed that personal value

systems, derived from cultural settings, play a role in a hospitality employee’s service

108

behavior. Thus, the second part of conclusion section is drawn from the test results of the
instrument used to validate that assumption.

First, the Individualism and Collectivism (IC) scale satisfactorily differentiates
idiocentrist and allocentrist value groups in this study sample. Consistent with the
literature, idiocentrists were predominately male, college-educated, and younger,
whereas, many female, older respondents, and working employees were more likely to be
in the allocentrist group. These ﬁndings suggest that service providers in the hospitality
industry are the same as other societal groups studied in previous research. The ﬁndings
do not deﬁnitely pinpoint a male worker as an idiocentrist or an older worker as an
allocentrist; they do, however, provide a general reference in regard to individual
characteristics and subsequent behaviors of employees in the hospitality industry. That
is, each value orientation generally inﬂuences an individual’s way of interacting with
certain groups of people. For example, idiocentrist employees tend to be self-oriented
and judge other people as equal and are thus likely to provide service with universal style
to all types of guests. Conversely, allocentrists tend to be group-oriented and pay more
attention to their ingroups than outgroups; thus, they are more likely to provide service
with different styles depending on whom the guests are. As the industry searches for
better ways to understand its employees, knowing the demographic proﬁles of individuals
in each value group could facilitate the identiﬁcation of potential employees that better ﬁt
industry needs. The ﬁndings in this study provide evidence that the Individualism and
Collectivism scale could serve as a potential tool for the industry to identify employees’

value orientations and their service intentions.

109

Second, the ﬁndings related to social distance support the theory that the current
sample classiﬁed its guests either as members of an ingroup or outgroup. Both
idiocentrists and allocentrists identiﬁed relatives and close ﬁiends as an immediate
ingroup, others from the same country as a distant ingroup, and all international guests as
members of an outgroup. Since no information was provided to the respondents
indicating that the assessment was a social distance or classiﬁcation measurement; the
results suggest that regardless of a person’s value orientation or occupation (student or
hotel worker), dividing others into social ingroups or outgroups members may be a
subconscious behavior. Thus, generalizing these ﬁndings suggests that hospitality
employees identify their guests as members of ingroups or outgroups based on perceived
cultural similarities and differences.

This discovery should be given attention because ingroup and outgroup
classiﬁcations are partially associated with stereotyping. This stereotyping is based upon
the perceived similarities and differences between one group’s customs, rules, and daily
behaviors compared to a target person (or group). If more similarities are recognized, a
target person is classiﬁed as an ingroup member. If more differences are recognized, the
target person is identiﬁed as an outgroup member. This kind of stereotyping could have
positive or negative effects. Identifying guests as members of an ingroup or outgroup
could facilitate employees’ service quality. When guests’ similar or different in cultural
customs are identiﬁed, employees are more likely to deliver services aligned with the
guests’ cultures. On the other hand, when classifying ingroup and outgroup guests, the
differences between ingroup and outgroup guests could be emphasized, leading to

discrimination, misunderstanding, resentment, and dehumanized services as recorded in

110

the literature (chapter one). This study illustrates the necessity of understanding an
employee’s classiﬁcation process in order to utilize interventions such as training to
enhance employees’ service quality for all guests. The results of this study indicated that
the Social Distance Scale is a feasible device to meet that purpose.

Third, differences in service attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors displayed toward
domestic and international guests were found when comparing idiocentrist and
allocentrist respondents. Allocentrists were found to be more accepting of guests and
more willing to associate with guests of all types than were idiocentrists. It seems that
regardless of the type of guests with whom they interacted, overall, allocentrists in this
study tended to become closer to their guests and show more enthusiasm to guests than
did idiocentrists. The ﬁndings do not necessarily indicate that idiocentrist employees
treat guests badly, only that allocentrists express more general helpfulness than their
idiocentrist colleagues, probably because idiocentrists tend to focus on themselves more
than on other people. The ﬁndings certainly do not suggest that idiocentrists would be
poor employees; rather, the ﬁndings indicate that personnel managers should consider
such differences when designing recruitment, training, and management programs.
Personnel managers should also consider allocentrist and idiocentrist traits when deciding
on-job responsibilities for particular employees.

Different services toward ingroup and outgroup guests were found between
idiocentrist and allocentrist respondents in this study. The respondents in both value
groups demonstrated that they were more comfortable when using direct and open
comments communicating with domestic guests than with international guests. Such

service behavior toward international guests might result from high familiarity with

111

foreign cultures in respondents’ working and study environments. Consequently, the
respondents reported that they would be less aggressive in their communications with
international guests who caused minor disturbances. Since the respondents already are
familiar with the cultures of domestic guests, they would know how to communicate with
domestic guests in ways that might control their behavior. Thus, these ﬁndings present
encouraging information to the industry in that the workforce would be hospitable to their
guests, particular to those who come from far away. However, the ﬁndings of this study
should be taken into consideration when designing training programs to assure that
employees properly communicate with all guests, from a broad array of origins.

Also, to further examine other possible reasons for the respondents’ different
service behaviors, a Student t test was conducted on the mean scores of SIS’s subscales
for each value group against three personal background variables. These background
variables were taking of hospitality courses, the receipt of on-job training, and having
served or interacted with foreigners in prior work situations. Although no profound
ﬁndings were discovered from most analyses, a few signiﬁcant service differences were
observed among respondents from the two value groups.

As the literature and theory suggests, hospitality course training improves
employees’ service behaviors toward guests. This study found that idiocentrist
respondents who had not taken hospitality courses indicated that they would exhibit open
and direct communication with all types of guests more so than those who had
background hospitality courses. Allocentrist respondents who did not have formal
training in hospitality reported that they would be more likely to associate with guests

from other US. states (distant ingroups) and from foreign countries (outgrups) than

112

allocentrists who did have such training. Even without formal education, employees
from both value groups are hospitable and serve their guests well. However, the quality
of these interactions is not clear. Idiocentrists without formal training are more likely to
occasionally offend guests because of their tendency to speak directly even in situations
where indirect communication would be more appropriate. Allocentrists, although very
open with guests, may not associate as appropriately as is ideal. Although enthusiastic,
allocentrists may offend by misreading the behavior of international guests and thus
respond inappropriately. There are important messages here. Formal education needs to
focus on assisting idiocentrists on how to communicate with guests in appropriate ways,
understanding directness and frankness to best match the job-related situation. As a
consequence, idiocentrists would be less likely to offend their guests or cause unpleasant
confrontations. The ﬁndings indicated that allocentrists were willing to associate with a
broad range of guests. F ormal courses and interactional training could build upon these
associative tendencies and ﬁrrther enhance service to all guests. Cultural speciﬁc courses
might be most useful to employees that serve a speciﬁc cultural guest repeatedly.

Prior interaction with foreigners improves service behavior toward international
guests. Speciﬁcally, the results reported here indicate that idiocentrists who had prior
experience with foreigners would be more likely to tolerate a broad range of guest
behaviors than those who had not had such prior experience. Yet, such an experience did
not facilitate allocentrists’ service behavior toward international guests; ﬁndings showed
that they would still be more likely to accept and associate with domestic guests over
international guests. It is interesting that allocentrists did not beneﬁt from this prior

experience and their subsequent service toward international guests. Should this be a

113

consistent ﬁnding in other studies, it means that speciﬁc training may be necessary, since
familiarity may not be enough to break down cross-cultural barriers in the service
situation. Hospitality training programs might offer more opportunities for employees to
interact with people from different cultures and clarify how proper service is to be
delivered to a range of diverse cross-cultural situations.

The third variable, on—job training, was expected to improve service behavior;
however, no signiﬁcant impact was found for this variable. On-job training did not
appear to be an inﬂuential variable in service providers’ behavior in this study for either
value group. This does not mean that on-job training is not important to employees.
Other ﬁndings suggest the continued importance and need for training, but the simple
yes/no variable on training used in this study shed little light on the role training could
play and how it should be administered.

The service behaviors of the idiocentrists and allocentrists toward ingroup and
outgroup guests that differed from the theoretical assumptions on which this study relied
may be explained as follows.

The service interaction behaviors studied in this research might differ from other
types of social interactions previously researched in other cross-cultural settings. It could
be that service is seen as a business behavior by idiocentrist and allocentrist sample.
Consequently, the social behavior patterns deﬁned for the two value groups in previous
research might be different in the hospitality service context. Such an assertion is
supported by previous studies that indicate that individualism and collectivism are differ
by context, situation, and relationship speciﬁc factors (Chen, et al., 1998; Matsurnoto, et

al., 1997; Triandis, 1995). These studies found that people act according to the situation

114

in which the interaction is taking place. In hospitality settings, idiocentrists and
allocentrists could behave as their profession demands defying more general cross-
cultural expectations. Thus, the results of this study could provide new ﬁndings about
how idiocentrist and allocentrist subgroups within hospitality settings respond to a
diverse guest clientele.

As mentioned previously, some of the ﬁndings could result from the effect of
social desirability. Respondents in this study might not want the investigator to know
about their “true” behaviors toward different types of guests. Respondents may have
provided responses that were socially acceptable and in contrast with theoretical
expectations. While a social desirability bias occurs in most research and does not
necessarily change answers, this study examined those service behaviors directly related
to the job performance of the sample. Thus, the sensitivity of the study might have
increased the possibility of a social desirability bias.

It is also possible that this sample did not provide different services to their
ingroup and outgroup guests because they faithfully followed the golden rule of service
that all guests should be served the same. Most respondents indicated that they did not
discriminate among guests because they were trained to serve everyone in an identical
service manner, regardless the guests’ cultural background. Thus, the sample responded
with as few variations in their answers as possible. Nevertheless, uniﬁed service style
does not serve every guest well, especially the international guest with different needs
and expectations. Industry professionals need to note this fact in order to plan sound
strategies to serve all guests with quality, even if that requires somewhat different types

of service behaviors for international guests.

115

Implications

Implications For Professionals

The ﬁrst impression guests have from an attraction, hotel, or restaurant is
determined by the service of front-line staff. Hence, it is crucial to assess employees’
service behaviors as they interact with guests from all cultural backgrounds. Since value
orientation has a role in inﬂuencing hotel employees’ service behavior, as proven in this
study, it is possible that personal value systems might override service codes and
practices established by management; thus, training and management personnel need to
be aware of this fact. Instead of working against the fact, more effort should be devoted
to understanding and incorporating the effects of personal value systems into training and
management programs. Given the ﬁndings of this study, the instrument developed in this
study could potentially serve to facilitate training and management programs that
increase cross-cultural understanding. Various kinds of training programs include group
discussion, role-playing, the rotation of working positions, grouping employees with
different value orientations, and seminars on cultural issues provided by experts
specializing in cross-cultural training or even by employees who are ﬁ'om different
countries. Through these training opportunities, in conjunction with the instrument,
employees could enhance their understanding of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors about
themselves and other people. In turn, such an understanding would facilitate an
employee’s acceptance of and handling of relationships with coworkers and guests from

varied various cultural backgrounds.

116

The most signiﬁcant implication, however, is that hospitality professionals should
realize the impact of personal value orientations on service behavior. Different cultures
have different value systems that directly inﬂuence not only the service providers but also
the service receiver. This is evident in this study’s ﬁndings in regard to social distance
theory as well the ﬁnding that different service behaviors were affected by different
cultures (value systems). It is very possible that a service standard could be perceived
differently between the hospitality employees and the guests from different cultures, as
stated by Hobson (1990). Hence, cultural sensitivity and value systems need to be
emphasized and incorporated into service training programs. Through training and use of
the instrument and other programs listed in the previous sections, employees could
understand the demands of different guests as associated with their cultural standards. As
service providers become culturally sensitive, less misunderstanding and confrontation
would occur between them and guests. In turn, personally tailored service could be
provided to different guests.

The instrument could also provide insights to management, allowing them to
understand their employees better. As the hospitality industry faces the pressing problem
of high employee turnover (Iverson & Deery, 1997), the managers of hospitality
businesses seek ways to retain their best employees. While many practitioners advocate
improving employee and organizational relationships, some speciﬁcally suggest
understanding and then incorporating employees’ values into the corporate culture
(Walkup, 1997). The instrument developed here not only could reveal information
regarding an employee’s personal values but also provide a reference for potential service

behaviors. Once management recognizes and blends employees’ values into corporate

117

values and then develops strategies with their workers for the good of the company,
workers would feel enthusiastic and respected, and deem their organization a worthy
workplace.

The fact that people have different value orientations that may shape their service
behavior should also be taken into consideration when recruiting new employees and
placing staff in different work positions. In light of the ﬁndings that allocentrists showed
more accepting and associating behavior toward guests than did idiocentrists suggests
that the instrument has the potential to serve as a personnel selection device to screen
suitable individuals according to their personal value orientations and potential
intentional service behavior. With this information along with other personality trait
assessments in the recruitment process, recruiting staff could better select individuals for

particular work situations.

Implications For Educators

Three speciﬁc implications are provided for educators in the tourism and
hospitality industries. The ﬁrst one is derived from an observation during the instrument
development process. Many students being surveyed sensed that the instrument was
designed to examine their discrimination against different guests and commented that
they did not practice discrimination toward any guests. If fact, their responses of social
distance clearly indicated that domestic guests were differentiated from international
guests as ingroups and outgroups, respectively. Also, as shown in the ﬁndings, different
service behaviors resulted, in part, from the perception of social distance. Students who

do not fully comprehend the meaning of “social distance” and ingroup and outgroup

118

distinctions could confuse it with “discrimination.” In this study, dividing people into
ingroups and outgroups was found to be a fact that was carried out quite automatically by
the respondents. As proper service gets its importance in dealing with culturally diverse
guests, educators need to teach students, with the help the instruments designed here, how
to distinguish between discriminative service and proper service, since they have
different meanings. It is negative to perform discriminative service to any guests,
whereas it is perfectly correct to provide different service to different guests according to
their cultural customs and needs. It is necessary to train students to recognize and
properly provided culturally appropriate service behavior. But, this assumes proper
training and being able to provide service to groups being perceived as socially distant.
The other implication relates to the golden rule - “serve all guests the same,”
which many students claimed they were taught and practiced. However, such a service
concept will no longer be adequate for guests of the new century. As modern technology
improves, more frequent travel will occur and more guests from different countries and
cultures will visit this country. Those international visitors will bring their own service
standards (Hobson, 1990; Pearce, 1982; Sharnes & Glover, 1989). If students receive
training for uniﬁed service for guests regardless of cultural background, dissatisfaction
and conﬂicts could occur because those service practices were not designed for diverse
cultures. Students in the tourism and hospitality disciplines need to prepare themselves
better to serve international guests properly. Through training and use of the instrument
along with other school curricula emphasizing cultural differences and cultural
sensitivity, students can be prepared to face the challenge of diversity with a more

accepting attitude and greater competency as they ﬁnish school and enter the workforce.

119

Lastly, in light of the ﬁndings that personal value orientations shift with
educational attainment, international cultural exploration, age maturation, and
modernization, hospitality and tourism educators need to keep monitoring students’ value
orientations and subsequent service behaviors. The instrument could serve as a tool to
accomplish such a goal. The information gathered not only can beneﬁt educators in
designing curricula but can also be shared with professionals to enhance the
understanding of their future workforce. Therefore, both educators and professionals in
the industry can be pro-active toward the service behaviors of future employees,

especially on the issue of cultural sensitivity.

Implications For Future Research

This study is a preliminary early step in exploring the personal values that relate
to service behaviors among hospitality employees. With service behavior being as
complex as it is, the ﬁndings of this study surely are not comprehensive. Further research
is necessary.

First, given that selected ﬁndings of this research were inconsistent with the
Individualism and Collectivism theory, further studies are needed to explain whether
these ﬁndings were caused by imperfect instruments or whether they represent new
ﬁndings speciﬁc to hospitality settings and the hospitality workforce. As researchers
(Chen, et al., 1998; Matsumoto, et al., 1997; Triandis, 1995) have indicated, an
individual’s value orientation status changes as surrounding environments are altered.

Comparison studies could be conducted in various tourism and hospitality settings, such

120

as gift shops, restaurants, country inns, or amusement parks to assess the stability and
utility of the instrument and the service behavior across workers, settings, and guests.

In addition, to validate and reﬁne the SIS, different samples should be studied.
Given different service behaviors reported by the current sample compared to other
ﬁndings reviewed in the literature, the instrument needs to be replicated with samples
from different parts of the country or areas that receive high volumes of tourists from
diverse cultures, either other US. states or other countries. Also, research needs to
include different levels of service employees, such as managerial staff and front-line
workers, to assess service patterns across employee positions and responsibilities. In
light of the ﬁndings that more male respondents were found in the idiocentrist value
group and more female respondents in the allocentrist group, future research samples
need to involve speciﬁc gender comparisons.

Finally, when replicating the study, it is suggested that the format of the Service
Interaction Scale be modiﬁed to measure one speciﬁc target at a time. Subjects will be
asked to direct their answers toward a particular target guest group (e. g., German tourists)
with all questions ﬁrst, then repeat all questions for another target group (e.g., Japanese
tourists) in another section. No more than three targets should be measured in one survey
so that the subjects do not lose their focus on the selected target groups. Such a
modiﬁcation would reduce the effects of social desirability. It was noted that the mean
scores of SIS’s subscales, across the four target groups, did not show variations as large
as expected; this could have resulted, in part, from the effect of social desirability.
Because the respondents might have mistaken the comparison between four target groups

for each item as a discrimination assessment, they may have held back in their answers,

121

offering socially acceptable responses that inﬂuenced the estimates of “true” scores.
Separating item target groups in different sections would reduce such a bias.

In summary, cultural difference is conﬁrmed to be an important factor in
hospitality service interaction between service providers and guests, for both domestic
and international guests. Different value orientations appear to inﬂuence people’s service
behaviors. Cultural factors should be taken into account in managing and enhancing
hospitality services, especially the service provided to international guests as the industry

prepares itself for the new millenium.

122

REF RENCES

123

LIST OF REFERENCES

Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of PLeiudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Allport, G. W., Vernon, P. E., & Lindzey, G. (1960). A Study of Vary; Boston:
Houghton Mifﬂiln.

Armstrong, R. W., Mok, C., Go, F. M., & Chan, A. (1997). The importance of cross-
cultural expectations in the measurement of service quality perceptions in the
hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitam Management, 16, 2, 181-190.

Ball-Rokeach, S., Rokeach, M., & Grube, J. (1984). The Great American Values Test.
New York: Free Press.

Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Mobley, M. F. (1993). Handbook of Marketing
Saale: Multi-Item Mea_sures for Marketing_and Consumer Behavior Research.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Beatty, S. E., Kahle, L. R., Homer, P. M., & Mirsa, S. (1985). Alternative measurement
approaches to consumer values: The list of values and the Rokeach Value Survey.
P_sychology and MaLketing,_3, 181-200.

Berger, C. R., & Gudykunst, W. B., (1989). Uncertainty and communication. In Devin,
B (Ed.), Progress in Communication Sciences, v.10. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cmsa-Cultural
Psychology: Research and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bogardus, E. S. (1928). Immigration and Race Attitudes. Boston, MA: Heath.
Bogardus, E. S. (1959). Social Distance. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch.

Bond, M. H. (Ed.). (1988a). The Cross-Cultural Challenge to Social Psycholpgy.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bond, M. H. (1988b). Finding universal dimensions of individual variation in multi-
cultural studies of values: The Rokeach and Chinese value survey. Journal of
Personamy and Socgrl Psychology,55, 1009-1015.

Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies

using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 1
(Jan.), 111-137.

124

Bontempo, R., & Rivero, J. C. (1992). Cultural variation in cognition: The role of self-
concept in the aﬂtude behavior link. Paper presented at the meetings of the
American Academy of Management, Las Vegas, Nevada, August.

Boote, A. S. (1981). Market segmentation by personal values and salient product
attributes. Jourrarl of Advertising Research, 21 (February), 29-35.

Braithwaite, V. A., & Law, H. G. (1985). Structure of human values: Testing the
adequacy of the Rokeach Value Survey. Jomal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49, 1, 250-263.

Branscombe, N. R., Wann, D. L., Noel, J. G., & Coleman, J. (1993). In-group or out-
group extremity: Irnportance of the threatened social identity. Personality &
Socialﬁ Psychology Bulletin, 19, 4, 381-388.

Cha, J. (1994). Aspects of individualism and collectivism in Korea. In U. Kim, H. C.
Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon, (Eds.), Individualism and
Collectivism: Theory, Methodﬁ and Applications (pp. 157-174). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.

Chen, C. C., Meindl, J. R., and Hui, H. (1997). Deciding on equity or parity: A test of
situational , cultural, and individual factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Q, 115-129.

Cohen, E. (1972). Toward a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39, 1,
164-182.

Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentialiof Psychological Testing (5"1 ed.). New York: Harper
Collins.

Dalen, E. (1989). Research into values and consumer trends in Norway. Tourism
Management, 10, 183-186.

de Kadt, E. (1976). Tourism: Pa_ssport to Development? Washington, DC: Oxford
University Press.

Dev, C. S., & Olsen, M. D. (1989). Applying role theory in developing a framework for
the management of customer interactions in hospitality businesses. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 8. 1, 19-33.

DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Sgale Development: Theory and Applications. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.

Dio, L. D., Saragovi, C., Koestner, R., & Aubé, J. (1996). Linking personal values to
gender. Sex Roles,34. 9/10, 621-636.

125

Ehrlich, H. J. (1973). The Social Psychology of Preiudice. New York: John Wiley &
Sons

Farmer, G. (1995). US. expected to lose share of world tourism market. Newsletter of
the Travel apd Touriam Reseapch Associiion, 26, 1.

Feather, N. (1975). Values in Education and Society. New York: Free Press.

Feather, N. (1987). Gender differences in values: Implications of expectancy value
model. In F. Halish & J. Kuhl (Eds.), Motiygtion, Intentiowd Volition (pp. 31-
45). New York: Springer-Verlag.

F inegan, J. (1994). The impact of personal values on judgments of ethical behavior in
the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 747—755.

Furnham, A. (1984). Tourism and culture shock. Annals of Tourism Research, 11, 41-
57.

Gamio, M. O., & Sneed, J. (1992). Cross-Cultural training practices and needs in the
hotel industry. Hospitality Research Journal, 15, 3, 13-26.

Gerganov, E. N., Dilova, M. L., Petkova, K. G., & Paspalanova, E. P. (1996). Culture-
speciﬁc approach to the study of individualism/collectivism. European Journal of
Sociaﬂ’sychology, 26, 2 (Mar.-Apr.), 277-297.

Georgas, J. (1993). Ecological-social model of Greek psychology. In U. Kim, H. C.
Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon, (Eds), Individualism and
Collectivism: Theory, Method and Applications (pp. 56—78). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

 

Gudykunst, W. B., Gao, G., Schmidt, K. L., Nishida, T., Bond, M. H., Wang, G., &
Barraclough, R. (1992). The inﬂuence of individualism-collectivism, self-
monitoring, and predicted-outcome value on communication in ingroup and
outgroup relationships. Jom of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23, 2, 196-213.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. (1984). Communicating with Strangers: An Approach to
Intercultural Communication. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1986). The inﬂuence of cultural variability on
perceptions of communication behavior associated with relationship terms.
Human Communication Research 13, 147-166.

 

Gudykunst, W. B., Ting-Toomey, S., & Chua, E. (1988). Culture and Interpersonal
Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

126

Gudykunst, W. B., Yang, S. M., & Nishida, T. (1987). Cultural differences in self-
consciousness and self-monitoring. Communication Research, 14, 7-36.

Gudykunst, W. B., Yoon, Y. C., & Nishida, T. (1987). The inﬂuences of individualism-
collectivism on perceptions of communication in ingroup and outgroup
relationships. Communication Monoggaphs, 54, 295-306.

Gunn, C. A. (1988). Tourism Planning. (2“‘1 ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Hayashi, C. (1992). Belief systems and the Japanese way of thinking. Proceedings of
the 22Ind International Congress of Applied Psychology, Kyoto, Japan, v. 3, pp. 3-
28. Hove, U.K.: Erlbaum.

Henry, W. A. (1976). Cultural values do correlate with consumer behavior. Journal of
MarketinLResgrrch, 13, 121-127.

Heskett, J. L., Sasser, W. E. Jr., & Hart, C. W. L. (1990). Service Brea_kthrougl_r_s_:
Changing the Rules of the Game. New York: The Free Press.

Ho, D. (1979). Psychological implications of collectivism: With special reference to the
Chinese case and Maoist dialectics. In L. Eckensberger, W. Lonner, & Y.
Poortinga, (Eds), Cross-Cultural Contribution_s to Psychology. Amsterdam:
Swets & Zeitlinger.

Hobson, P. (1990). Visitor welcome programs - a positive step in helping to promote
cross-cultural relations. Visions in Leisure and Buysyinesaﬁ, 1, 15-27.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Worlg
Related Values. London: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions: An independent
validation using Rokeach’s Value Survey. Journal of Cross-Culm Psychology,
1;, 4, 417-433.

Hsu, F. L. K. (1981). Americans and Chinese: Passage to Differences (3rd ed.).
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Hsu, F. L. K. (1983). Rugged Individualism Recogaidered. Knoxville: University of
Tennessee Press.

Hui, C. H. (1984). Individualism-Collectivism: Theory, Measurement, and Its Relation

to Reward Allocation. UMI Dissertation Abstragta. Ann Arbor. MI: UMI
Dissertation Service.

127

Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross—
cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 17, 2, 225-248.

Iverson, R. D., & Decry, M. (1997). Turnover culture in the hospitality industry.
Humg Resource Management Journal, 7, 4, 71-82.

Iwao, S. (1993). The Japanese Women: Traitiorgrl Image and Changing Realig. New
York: Free Press.

Jackson, G. (1973). A preliminary bicultural study of value orientations and leisure
attitudes. Jougrl of Leisure Resegch, 5. 10-22.

Jerabek, I., & de Man, A. F. (1994). Social distance among Caucasian-Canadians and
Asian, Latin-American and Easter European immigrants in Quebec: A two-part
study. SociaLBehavior & Personality, 22, 3, 297-303.

Jetten, J ., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1996). Intergroup norms and intergroup
discrimination: Distinctive self-categorization and social identity effects. Journal
of Personality & Social PaLchologle, 6, 1222-1233.

Johnston, C. S. (1995). The Rokeach Value Survey: Underlying structure and
multidimensional scaling. Journal of Psychology, 129, 5, 583-597.

Kagitcibasi, C. (1997). Individualism and Collectivism. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, &
C. Kagitcibasi. (2nd ed.), H_andbooL of Cross-Cultural Psychology (v.3, pp. 1-
49). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion
Qparterly, 24, 163-204.

Kim, M., Hunter J. E., Miyahara, A., & Horvath, A. (1996). Individual- vs. culture-level
dimensions of individualism and collectivism: Effects on preferred conversational

styles. Communication Monoggaphs, 63, I, 28-49.

Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S., & Yoon, C. (Eds). (1994).
Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Application. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Kleg, M., & Yamamoto, K. (1995). Ethnic and racial social distance: Seven decades
apart. Psychological Reports, 76. 1, 65-66.

Klenosky, D. B., Gengler, C. E., & Mulvey, M. S. (1993). Understanding the factors
inﬂuencing ski destination choice: A means-end analytic approach. Journal of
Leisure Research, 25, 362-379.

128

Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value orientations in the theory of action. In T.
Parsons E. Shils (Eds). Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Knox, J. M. (1982). Resident-visitor interaction: A review of the literature and general
policy alternatives. In F. RaJotte, (Eds.), The Impact of Tourism Development in
the Paciﬁc.

Kohn, M. L., Sehoenbach, C., Schooler, C., & Slomczynski, K. M. (1990). Position in
the class structure and psychological functioning in the United States, Japan and
Poland. American Journﬂf Sociology, 95, 964-1008.

Lewin, K. (1936). Social psychological differences between the United States and
Germany. Characteristic Personﬂty, 4, 265-293.

Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Yoon, C. (1996). Perceived covariation among the
features of ingroup and outgroup members: The outgroup covariation effect.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 70, 3, 421-436.

Lobel, S. A., & Rodrigues, A. (1987). Allocentrism and idiocentrism among Brazilian
university students. Interdisciplinaria, 8, 1, 25-40.

Lu, W., Crompton, J. L., & Reid, L. M. (1989). Cultural conﬂicts: Experiences of US
visitors to China. Tourism Management, (December), pp. 322-332.

Lundberg, C., & Woods, R. (1990). Modifying restaurant culture: Managers as cultural
leaders. International Journal of Contemporary Hoapitalig Management, 4, 4-12.

Ma, V., & Schoeneman, T. J. (1997). Individualism versus collectivism: A comparison
of Kenyan and American self-concepts. Basic & Applied Social Psycholo l9,
2, 261-273.

Madrigal, R. (1995). Personal values, traveler personality type, and leisure travel style.
Jogal of Leisure Research, 27, 2, 125-142.

Madrigal, R., & Kahle, L. R. (1994). Predicting vacation activity preferences on the
basis of value-system segmentation. Journal of Travel Research, 32, 3, 22-28.

Marano, H. (1998). 1998 Outlook on International Travel to the US. Proceediags of
Twenty-Third Annual TIA Marketing Outlook Forum. 13-21. Washington, DC:
The Travel Industry Association of America.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Cultural variation in the self-concept. In J.

Strauss, & G. R. Goethals (Eds), The Self: Interdisciplinary Approaches (pp.l8-
48). New York: Springer Verlag.

129

Martin, R. J., & Lundberg, D. (1991). Human Relations for the Hospitalinl Indasary.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Matsurnoto, D., Weissman, M. D., Preston, K., Brown, B. R., and Kupperbusch, C.
(1998). Context-speciﬁc measurement of individualism-collectivism on the
individual level: The individualism-collectivism interpersonal assessment
inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 6, 743-767.

Mayton, D. M., & Vickers, D. L. (1988). Value-attitude relationships regardiaganemy
images of the USSR. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western
Psychological Association (68th, Burlingame, CA, April 28-May 1).

McCleary, K. W., & Vosburgh, R. M. (1990). Towards a better understanding of the
value systems of food service managers and hospitality students. International
Journal of Hosaitality Management, 9, 2, 111-123.

Miller, D. C. (1991). H_andbool_< of Research DesigLand Social Measurement (5th eds.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Miller, J. G. (1994). Cultural diversity in the morality of caring: Individualism-oriented
versus duty-oriented interpersonal codes. Cross-Cultural Research, 28, 39.

Mishra, R. C. (1994). Individualism and collectivism orientations across generations.
In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon, (Eds),
Individualismﬁand Collectivism: Theory, Method and Applications (pp. 225-238).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moy, J., & Ng, S. H. (1996). Expectation of outgroup behavior: Can you trust the
outgroup? European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 2, 333-340.

Muller, T. E. (1991). Using personal values to deﬁne segments in an international
tourism market. International Marketing Review, 8, 57-70.

Munson, M. (1984). Personal values: Considerations on their measurement and
application to ﬁve areas of research inquiry. In R. E. Pitts, & A. G. Woodside,
(Ed.), Personal Values and Consumer Psychology. Lexington, MA: Harvard.

Nash, D., & Smith, V. L. (1991). Anthropology and tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 18, 12-25.

Ng, S. H. (1982). Choosing between the ranking and rating procedures for the

comparison of values across cultures. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12,
169-172.

130

Ng, S., Hossain, A., Ball, P., Bond, M., Hayashi, K., Lim, S., O’Driscoll, M., Sinha, D.,
& Yang, K. (1982). Human values in nine countries. In R. Rath, H. Asthana, D.
Sinha, & J. Sinha (Eds.), DiversitLand Unity in Cross-Cultural Psychology (pp.
196-205). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Norick, J. S., Agler, L. H., Bartholomew, M., Howard-Smith, S., Martin, D., Pyles, S., &
Shapiro, W. (1987). Age, abstract thinking and the American concept of person.
American Anthropologist, 89, 667-675.

Obot, I. S. (1988). Value systems and cross-cultural contact: The effect of perceived

similarity and stability on social evaluations. International Journg of Intercultural
Relations 12, 363-379.

 

Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Pearce, P. L. (1982). Tourists and their hosts: Some social and psychological effects of
inter-cultural contact. In Bochner's Cultures in Contact: Studies in Cross-Cultural
Interaction (pp. 199-222). New York: Pergamon Press.

Pearce, P. L., & Stringer, P. F. (1991). Psychology and tourism. Annuals of Tourism
Resaarch, 18, 136-154.

Pitts, R. E., & Woodside, R. G. (1986). Personal values and travel decisions. Journal of
Travel Research, 25, 1, 20-25.

Pizam, A., & Calantone, R. (1987). Beyond psychographics - values as determinants of
tourist behavior. International Journal of Hospiality Management, 6, 3, 177-181.

Pizam, A., Mihnan, A., & King, B. (1994). The perceptions of tourism employees and
their families toward tourism: A cross-cultural comparison. Tourism

Management, 15, 1, 53-61.

Pizam, A., Pine, R., Mok, C., & Shin J. Y. (1997). Nationality vs. industry cultures:
Which has a greater effect on managerial behavior? International of Hospitality
Management, 16, 2, 127-145.

Pizam, A., & Sussmann, S. (1995). Does nationality affect tourist behavior? Annals of
Tourism Research, 22, 4, 901-917.

Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. (1997). Cross-cultural differences in tourism: Indonesian
tourists in Australia. Tourism Management, 18, 3, 139-148.

Reykowski, J. (1994). Collectivism and individualism as dimensions of social change.
In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon, (Eds),
IndiviMism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, aad Applications (pp. 276-292).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

131

Rokeach, M. (1962). Belief versus race as determinants of social distance: Comment on
Triandis’ paper. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 1, 187-188.

Rokeach, M. (1968, Winter). The role of values in public opinion research. Public
Opinion Merly, 32, 547-549.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.

Rokeach, M. (1976). Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values: A Theory of Organization and
Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rubino, J. A. (1998). Aligning personal values and corporate values: A personal and
strategic necessity. Employr_nent Relations Today, Autumn, 25, 3, 23-35.

Ryker, J. A. (1992). Value priority differences between males and females [on-line].
Abstract from ERIC database. ERIC item: ED 351274.

Schwartz, S. H. (1990). Individualism-collectivism. Critique and proposed reﬁnements.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 139-157.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna, (ed.). Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology (v.25, pp. 1-66). New York: Academic Press.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism and collectivism: New cultural
dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & C.
Yoon, (Eds.), Iadividualism and Collectivis_m: Theory, Method, and Application
(pp.85-122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Shames, G. W., & Glover, W. G. (1989). World-Class Service. Maine: Intercultural
Press.

Shih, D. (1986). VALS as a tool of tourism market research: The Pennsylvania
experience. Journal of Travel Research 24, 4, 2-11.

 

Sinha, J. B., Daftuar, C. N., Gupta, R. K., & Mishra, R. C. (1994). Regional similarities
and differences in people’s beliefs, practices and preferences. _P_sychology &
Developing Societies, 6, 2, 131-150.

Smith, M. B. (1963). Personal values in the study of lives. In R. W. White (Ed.), m
Study of Lives (pp. 325-347). New York: Atherton Press.

Smith, v. L. (1989). Hosts aad Guests: The Anthropology of Touri_s_rp. (2nd ed.).
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

132

Sparks, B., & Callan, V. J. (1992). Communication and the service encounter: The value
of convergence. International Journal of Hospitaliﬁ Management, 11, 3, 213-
224.

Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated Rating Scale Conatruction: An Introduction. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Sutton, W. A. (1967). Travel and understanding: Notes on the social structure of touring.
International Jourmrl of Comparative Sociology, 8, 2, 218-223.

The Travel Industry Association of America (TIA). (1995). 1996 Outlook for Travel a_nd
Tourism. Proceedings of the Travel Industry Association of America’s Twentieth
National Outlook Forum. Washington, DC.

Thompson, B., Levitov, J. E., & Miederhoff, P. A. (1982). Validity of the Rokeach
Value Survey. Educational and Psychological Mea_surement, 42, 89-105.

Toennies, F. (1957). Community and Society. East Lansing: Michigan State University
Press.

Toennies, F. (1988). Communication antd Society. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Topalova, V. (1997). Individualism/collectivism and social identify. Journal of
Communiﬂ & Applied Social Psychology, 7, 1, 53-64.

Triandis, H. C. (1961). A note on Rokeach’s theory of prejudice. Journal of Abnormal
Social Psychology, 62, 1, 184-188.

Triandis, H. C. (1972). The Analysis of Subiective Culture. New York: Wiley.

Triandis, H. C. (1988). Collectivism vs. individualism: A receonceptualization of a basic
concept in cross-cultural psychology. In G. Venna, & C. Bagley, (Eds.), Cross-
Cultural Studies of Personality, Attitudes and Cognition (pp. 60-95). London:

Macmillan.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts.
Psychological Review, 96, 3, 506-520.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & Collectivisg. Colorado: Westview Press.

Triandis, H. C., & Brislin, R. W. (1980). Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Vol.
5. New York: Allyn and Bacon.

133

 

 

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Betancourt, H., Bond, M., Leung, K., Brenes, A.,
Georgas, J. , Hui, C. H. , Marin, G., Setiadi, B., Sinha, J. B. R, Verma, J.,
Spangenberg, j., Touzard, H., & de Montrnollin, G. (1986). The measurement of
etic aspects of individualism and collectivism across cultures. Australian Journal
of Psychology. 38, 257-267.

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asia, M., & Lucca, N. (1988).
Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup
relationships. Journal of Persaraliﬂ and Social Psychology, 54, 323-338.

Triandis, H. C., Chan, D., Bhawuk, D., Iwao, S., & Sinha, J. (1995). Multimethod
probes of allocentrism and idiocentrism. International Joumal of Psychologya30,
4, 461-480.

Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M. J., & Clack, F. L. (1985). Allocentric versus
idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation. Journal of
Research in Personality, 19, 395-415.

Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., Betancourt, H., Iwao, S., Leung, K., Salazar, J. M.,
Setiadi, B., Sinha, J. B. P., Touzard, H., & Zaleski, Z. (1993). An etic-emic
analysis of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
_2_4_, 366-383.

Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of
individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo 59,
5, 1006-1020.

Triandis, H. C., & Triandis, L. M. (1960). Race, social class, religion, and nationality as
determinants of social distance. Journal of Abnormal and Social PsychomV. 61.
1, 110-118.

Triandis, H. C., & Triandis, L. M. (1962). A cross-cultural study of social distance.
Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 76, 21, 1-21.

Walkup, C. (1997). Build a positive culture by including personal values. Nation’s
Restaarant News. June 9‘“, 31, 23, p. 70.

Wilkinson, F. (1929). Social distance between occupations. Sociological Social
Research, 13, 234-244.

Williams, R. M. (1968). Values. In E. Sills (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the
Soﬁl Sciences (pp. 283-287). New York: Macmillan.

Wilkinson, F. (1929). Social distance between occupations. Sociology Social Research,
l_3_, 234-244.

134

Wilson, T. C. (1996). Cohort and prejudice: Whites’ attitudes toward Blacks, Hispanics,
Jews, and Asians. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 2, 253-274.

Vanbeselaere, N. (1988). Reducing intergroup discrimination by manipulating
ingroup/outgroup homogeneity and by individuating ingroup and outgroup
members. Communication & Cognition, 21, 2, 191-198.

Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Empirical evidence on collectivism among the Japanese. In U.
Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & C. Yoon, (Eds.), Individualism
and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Application (pp.l75-188). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Yang, K. (1988). Will societal modernization eventually eliminate cross-cultural

psychological differences? In M. Bond, (ed.). The Cross-Cultural Challenge to
Social Psycholagy (pp. 67-85). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

135

APPENDICES

136

Appendix A

The Rokeach Value Survey

Please check a number indicating how important each of the following values is to YOU, as a
guiding principle in YOUR life. There are no right or wrong answers, your personal opinion
is what counts. If you feel very important mark a ‘1 in the space provided under 7; if you feel
very unimportant, mark a ‘i in the space provided under 1; if the value is neither important nor
unimportant to you, than check a 4.

95”.“.9‘999’39?‘

A comfortable life (a prosperous life)

An exciting life (a stimulating, active life)

A sense of accomplishment (lasting contribution)
A world at peace (free of war and conﬂict)
World of beauty (beauty of nature and the arts)
Equality (brotherhood, equal opportunity for all)
Family security (taking care of loved ones)
Freedom (independence, free choice)
Happiness (contentedness)

Inner harmony (freedom from inner conﬂict)
Mature love (sexual and spiritual intimacy)
National security (protection from attack)
Pleasure (an enjoyable, leisurely life)
Salvation (saved, eternal life)

Self-respect (self-esteem)

Social recognition (respect, admiration)
True friendship (close companionship)
Wisdom (a mature understanding of life)
Ambitious (hard-working, aspiring)
Broadminded (open-minded)

Capable (competent, effective)

Cheerful (lighthearted, joyful)

Clean (neat, tidy)

Courageous (standing up for your beliefs)
Forgiving (willing to pardon others)

Helpful (working for the welfare of others)
Honest (sincere, truthful)

Imaginative (daring, creative)

Independent (self-reliant, self-sufﬁcient)
Intellectual (intelligent, reflective)

Logical (consistent, rational)

Loving (affectionate, tender)

Obedient (dutiful, respectful)

Responsible (dependable, reliable)
Self-controlled (restrained, self-disciplined)

137

Very
Unirnportant
1 2 3

———>

 

Appendix B

Interview Questions With Hospitality Students

Terms

Direct service interactions - face to face services providing to customers.

Direct service providers — doorman, bellboys, front-desk clerks, cooks, maids, waitresses/waiters,
operators, store sellers, bartenders, room service providers.

Service behaviors - service providers’ service acts, attitudes, facial expressions, emotional
expressions, gestures, and conversational languages.

Questions

15.

l6.
17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.
24.

25.
26.
27.

28.

What are ﬁve msitive examples of how to serve customers?

.09-99‘?

What are ﬁve negative examples of how to serve customers?

Give examples of the ﬁve best service behaviors that the customer knows the service provider
is helpful?

Give examples of the ﬁve best service behaviors that the customer knows the service provider
is friendly?

Give examples of the ﬁve best service behaviors that the customer knows the service provider
is personable?

Give examples of the ﬁve best service behaviors that the customers know the service provider
resmcts them?

Give examples of the ﬁve best service behaviors that the customers know the service provider
dislikes them?

Give examples of the ﬁve best service behaviors that the customer knows the service provider
is unﬁ'iendl

Give examples of the ﬁve best service behaviors to deal with over-demandig customers?
Give examples of the ﬁve best ways to talk to the customers when they do something wrong
(i.e., misuse hotel properties, annoy other people, express inappropriate behaviors)?

What are the ﬁve msitive ways to serve foreign customers?

What are the ﬁve negative ways to serve foreign customers?

Have you worked in the hospitality industry? If yes, what kind of position(s) did you hold?
For how long?

Have you had the experiences of interacting with either a foreigner or a foreign customer? If
yes, under what situations? What is the person’s nationality? If no, have your relatives or
friends had this experience?

138

Appendix C

Simpliﬁed Questionnaire Of First Pilot Test

Section A.

Instructions: This section asks you about the similarity of your beliefs, opinions, and goals to that of the following
people based on your experience, knowledge, and impression. Please circle a number indicating your answer to each of
the following questions.

I. How similar are ypp; piliefs pup; fgmily value; to that of the following people?

 

Totally dissimilar = l D Totally similar = 7
Close friends I 2 3 4 5 6 7
Japanese tourists from Japan I 2 3 4 5 6 7
Neighbors l 2 3 4 5 6 7
German tourists from Germany 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Acquaintances ﬁom the local area I 2 3 4 5 6 7
French tourists from France I 2 3 4 5 6 7
Relatives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
US. visitors from other states I 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. How similar is ypur lifggylg to that of the following people?
3. How similar are your edpcgtignal gppls to that of the following people?

Section B.

Instructions: This section asks your opinions regarding service behaviors when serving distinct customers person-to-
person. There are no right or wrong answers for these questions. It is your feelings and opinions that count. Your
answers are extremely important to us and will help us understand hospitality behavior.

While answering the questions, imagine yourself as a hospitality employee working at a quality hotel. You serve
customers coming from different areas and countries everyday. Since each employee has his or her own personal way
in serving customers, please reﬂect on how would you act or interact with these customers while answering the
following questions.

I. I will try to provide fast service and little conversation when interacting with unappreciated guests who are:

 

Strongly disagree = l + Strongly agree = 7
Acquaintances from the local area
U.S. visitors from other states
Relatives
Japanese tourists from Japan
French tourists from French
German tourists from Germany

Inn—a—II—II—i
NNNNNN
wwwwww
hhdbAuB-h
MMMMMM
@QO‘GOO‘
\I\I\I\l\l\l

I will always go out of my way to get guests want when I am interacting with:

When interacting with a guest, I am careful to express my enthusiasm toward:

I like listening to the guests’ stories particularly if they are:

I am always interested in asking my guests about their hometowns and their cultures when they are:

I don’t feel comfortable helping guests with their extra requests, particularly when they are:

Close and personal service is not the best way to serve guests in a formal manner if they are:

Being a service provider, I should not behave in a relaxed manner to my guests if they are:

I tend to talk more about myself to guests who share the same feeling and opinions. These guests are often:

It is reasonable not to correct guests’ inappropriate behavior in order to prevent an unpleasant conﬂict for:
When guests do something to annoy other guests, 1 will try to make them realize what they did by giving them
hint, instead of telling them openly if they are:

I like to help the guests get their extra needs only when I feel they are honest people when they are:

Even if the behavior is somewhat inappropriate in my working environment (i.e., raising their voices in a dining
room), it does not bother me when the guests behave differently from my cultural norms if they are:

I would rather serve more guests than spend a lengthy amount of time listening to guests who are:

-QWQGM§WN
‘~.°. I l I I I I O

_—
zero

1“

139

15. In order to provide a more personal service style, I enjoy doing whatever it takes to make guests happy if they are:

16. I tend to tell my guests that certain tours are inappropriate if they are:

17. I shall help the guests get what they want only when I am on duty, and they are:

18. I like using body language (i.e., patting, shaking hands) to show my guests I enjoy serving them, when they are:

19. It is in my nature to easily accept my guest as friends if they are:

20. It is difficult for me to spend time listening to the family affaires of:

21. 1 am the kind of person that is always cautious not to upset my guests, by saying as little as possible if they are:

22. A good way resolve an unpleasant situation, caused by the guests, is to apologize, immediately, and then provide
something on the house to calm them down, especially if they are:

23. I like to instruct guests about the best ways to enjoy their vacation, if they are:

24. When the service requested is against the rules, I will “bend” the mics to help guests only if they are:

25. I avoid greeting the guests from the hotel when I am off duty, if they are:

26. In order to provide quality service, I tend to not show my personal emotions to:

27. When my style of service is not understood, I feel it is difficult for me to talk to:

28. I tend to argue with the guests about their mistakes if they are:

29. Even if my guests share my views, I will never tell my life story to them if they are:

30. It is always easy for me to make friends wit my guests if they are:

31. I will always address a guest by name to “personalize” my services to:

32. It is difﬁcult for me to directly tell guests to behave themselves when they do something wrong, if they are:

33. Guests accept my special efforts to serve them if they are:

Section C.
Instruction: Questions in this section provide background information which is used to describe the study sample.
Please mark (‘1) or ﬁll in the appropriate space provided.

 

 

1. What is your nationality? (your country name)
2. Where is your birth place? (city) (state) (country)
3. How many years did you live in the area or region of your birth? years

4. If your nationality is the United States, what is your ethnic background? (If not US,
skip to question 5)

 

 

_( l) Aﬁ'ican American _(2) Caucasian American _(3) Hispanic American
_(4) Asian American _(5) Native American _(6) Other. Specify

5. Predominately, where do your ancestor originate from? (country)

6. What is your age?

7. What is your gender? _ (l) female _ (2) male

8. What is your highest education level?

[2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011121314151617181920
-- Primary school ---Junior Highm-High school-mUniversity/College-Master--Ph.D.-
9. If you are currently a student in college/university, (If not, skip to question 9)
a Are you? _(1) freshman _(2) sophomore _(3) junior _(4) senior _(5) graduate student
b. What is your major?
c. Do you plan to work in the hospitality/tourism industry after you graduate? _(1) yes _(2) no
10. Have you had a hospitality courses? _(1) yes, how long? years months _(2) no
b. job training? ___(1) yes, how long? years months _(2) no
I 1. Have you worked in tourism/hospitality industry? _(1) yes _(2) no (Skip to question 11)
If yes, a How long have you worked in this industry? years months
b. What was (is) the title of your last or current position? (please write down the title)
c. About how long have you worked in that position? years
d. Are (were) you a _ full time? _ part time/hourly employed in that position?
12. Have you interacted with and/or served international tourists in the past? _(1) yes _(2) no
13. Have any of your family members or friends interacted with international travelers, guests, or visitors?
_(1) yes, who? (i.e. parent, roommate) _(2) no
14. Have you been to these two countries?
a Canada_( 1) yes _(2) no b. Mexico _(1) yes _(2) no
15. Have you been to other countries other than Canada or Mexico?
_(1) yes, a. how many times?
b. how many different countries?
c. in what regions the countries located ?

 

 

_(2) no

140

Appendix C]

Subscale Items And Wording Direction Of The SIS For First Pilot Test Questionnaire

 

Subscales Item No. Wording Direction
Acceptance 4 Positive
5 Positive
6 Negative
1 2 Negative
1 3 Positive
19 Positive
20 Negative
30 Positive
Formality 7 Negative
8 Negative
2 1 Negative
26 Negative
29 Negative
Communication 9 Positive
10 Positive
1 1 Positive
22 Positive
27 Positive
28 Positive
32 Positive
Superordination 1 Positive
16 Positive
23 Positive
Association 2 Positive
3 Negative
14 Negative
1 5 Positive
1 7 Negative
1 8 Positive
24 Positive
25 Negative
3 1 Positive

 

Note: Please refer to Appendix C, section B for items.

141

Appendix 02

Item Analyses Of The SIS Subscales For First Pilot Test

 

(Pooled Sample N = 105)

522%

Acceptance

Target
Groups

ACQ

USV

REL

JAP

FRE

GER

Item No.

Step 1 Analy,s_es

Item-Total
grit—elation

(r)

142

Scale
Reliabili
(a)

.43

.40

.28

.51

.48

a If Item
DLICEEQ

.36

Step 2 Analyses

Item-Total
Mam

(r)

.42

.43

.45

dropped

dropped
4

.56
.52
36

dropped
dropped
.33

.52
.52

dropped

Scale
Reliabili
(a)

.64

.66

.59

.70

.69

(Appendix C.2 continued)

 

Fonnality ACQ

USV

JAP

FRE

GER

Communication ACQ

USV

I3
19
20
3O

.47

.51

.45

.56

.52

.56

.53

.58

.60

.51

.46
.41

.48
.41
.46
.45
.52

.43
.34
.37
.38
.47

.51
.48
.49
.52
.51

.47
.40
.45
.46
.54

.51
.43
.49
.50
.56

.47
.40
.45
.46
.56

.55
.54
.51
.58

.52
.51

.57
.55

.60
.60
.55
.51

.45
.39
.50

dropped
.5 1

.37

.38

.68

.52

.47

.57

.55

.57

.57

.61

.62

(Appendix C.2 continued)

 

JAP

FRE

GER

Superordination ACQ

Association

USV

JAP

FRE

GER

ACQ

22
27
28
32

144

.48

.59

.61

.60

.31

.29

.28

.27

.28

.28

.33

.33
.36
.42

dropped
.36
.45

dropped
dropped
dr0ppod

dropped

dropped
dropped

dropped
dropped
dropped

dropped
dropped
dropped

dropped
dropped
dropped
dropped
dropped

.52
dropped

.38
.19

.50

.61

.62

.63

(Appendix C.2 continued)

 

18
24
25
31

USV 2

14
15
17
18
24
25
31

JAP 2

FRE 2

GER 2

.23

.28
.21

.44
-.23
.35
.35
.18
.25
.06
.30
.28

-.12

.43

.46

.40

.43

.40

.52

.24
dropped
.36
.31

.51
dropped
.34
.39
.27
.21
dropped
.36
.36

.35
dropped
.32
.42
.16
.21
dropped

.31
.29

.50
dropped
.30
.45
.23
.25
dropped
.34
.23

.49
dropped
.35
.42
.26
.21
dr0pped

.28
.19

.40
dropped
.33
.39
.24
.20
dropped

.30
.24

.59

.61

.54

.59

.58

.56

 

Notes: 1. Please refer to Appendix C, section B for items.
2. In target groups, ACQ = local acquaintances, USV = US visitors from other states, REL = relatives, JAP = Japanese
tourists, FRE = French tourists, and GER = German tourists.

145

9° 9N??? 9°10

Appendix D

Items Of The SD And The 818 For Second Pilot Test Questionnaire

The Social Distance Scale

How similar are yggr pgligﬁ gmut family vglues to that of the following people?
Totally dissimilar Totally similar

1 2 3 4 5 6
Close friends Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl
Japanese tourists from Japan El Cl Cl Cl Cl C]
Neighbors D Cl E] Cl 0 Cl
German tourists from Germany 0 Cl 0 Cl Cl Cl
Acquaintances from the local area Cl Cl Cl C] Cl Cl
French tourists from France Cl Cl D D D D
Relatives D Cl E] El Cl E]
US. visitors from other states Cl Cl Cl Cl C1 C1

How similar are your moral values to that of the following people?
How similar are yogr ppinions of egggating childgn to that of the following people?

The Service Interaction Scale

. I like listening to the guests’ stories particularly if the guests are:

Totally disagree Totally agree
1 6

Acquaintances from the local area
U.S. visitors from other states
Relatives

Japanese tourists from Japan
French tourists from France
German tourists from Germany

01313000
000000”
0001300“
0001300“
000000“
01313000

Close and personal service is not the best way to serve guests in a formal setting, if they are:
When guests do something to annoy other guests. I should make them realize what they did by giving
them hints instead of telling them openly. if they are:

I tend to talk about myself to guests to share similar feelings and opinions. These guests are often:
I will always go out of my way to help guests get what they want when I am interacting with:
It is in my nature to easily accept my guests as friends if they are:
It is difﬁcult for me to spend time listening to the family affairs of my guests, when they are:
Being a good service provider. I should always serve my guests in a very formal way instead of
making jokes or being causal, especially if the guests are:
It is difﬁcult for me to directly tell guests to behave themselves when they do something wrong,
particulariy if they are:

. To serve unappreciative guests. the best way to keep away from them is to provide fast service and

little conversation, particularly if they are:

. I shall help guests get what they want only when I am on duty and they are:

. I never have difﬁculty making friends with my guests if they are:

. I am always interested in asking my guests about their hometowns and their lifestyles. when they are:
. In order to provide quality service. I tend to show my personal emotions to guests. particularly if they

are:

. I would never argue with guests about their mistakes if they are:
. When a service request is against the rules, I will never do it unless I have approval from my

supervisor, even if the requests are from:

. To better serve them. I tend to tell my guests that what they did today was inappropriate, if they are:
. I would rather serve a larger group of other guests than spend a lengthy amount of time listening to

146

19.
20.
21.

23.

24.
25.

26.
28.
29.

31.

32.

33.

35.

37.

39.

guests who are:

I ignore my guests' unique cultural behaviors because it is my duty to get my job done ﬁrst. Even if
they are:

To provide a standard level of service means that I should not express my emotions to the guests
particularly if they are:

In order to prevent an unpleasant conﬂict. 1 will never correct guests’ inappropriate behaviors. if they
are:

I always feel obligated to fellow guests’ extensive requests, when they are:

I like using body language (i.e. patting, shaking hands) to show my guests I enjoy serving them, when
they are:

I avoid greeting guests from the hotel when I am off duty. when they are:

I can't tolerate guest behaviors which disrupt the order in my working environment. Especially when
the guests are:

I don’t feel comfortable helping guests with their extra requests. particularly when they are:

Being a service provider, I should not behave in a relaxed manner in front of my guests if they are:
When my style of service is not understood, I feel it is difﬁcult for me to continue to talk to guests.
when they are:

To protect the hotel's reputation, I should always fulﬁll the orders of bossy guests if they are:

In order to provide a more personal service style, I enjoy doing whatever it takes to make guests
happy if they are:

I ﬁnd it interesting when guests' behavior is different from our regular expectations. when they are:

I don't help guests with extra needs because I don’t want them to take advantage of my kindness,
especially if they are:

I am the kind of person that is always cautions not to make jokes with my guests. I say as little as
possible if they are:

To better serve guests, 1 will not serve them when I know there is a communication difﬁculty. Instead,
I will get someone else to serve them ﬁrst. if they are:

Because of my service position. I should always apologize to guests for any unsatisfactory service
provided to them in the hotel, especially if the guests are:

I will always address a guest by name to "personalize' my services if they are:

Because serving guests is my job I would never be upset by demanding and unappreciative guests,
even if they are:

I like telling my guests the best ways to enjoy their vacation until they accept my suggestions,
particularly if they are:

Guests accept my special efforts to serve them if they are:

147

 

Appendix D]

Subscale Items And Wording Direction Of The SIS For Second Pilot Test Questionnaire

 

Subscales Item No. Wording Direction
Acceptance 1 Positive
7 Negative
1 3 Positive
19 Negative
25 Negative
26 Negative
3 1 Positive
32 Negative
F orrnality 2 Positive
8 Positive
14 Negative
20 Positive
27 Positive
33 Positive
Communication 3 Negative
4 Positive
9 Negative
1 5 Negative
2 1 Negative
28 Negative
34 Negative
Superordination 1 0 Positive
1 7 Positive
22 Negative
29 Negative
35 Negative
37 Negative
38 Positive
Association 5 Positive
6 Positive
1 1 Negative
12 Positive
16 Negative
18 Negative
23 Positive
24 Negative
30 Positive
36 Positive

 

Note: Please refer to Appendix D for items.

148

Item Analyses Of The SIS Subscales For Second Pilot Test

Appendix D.2

 

(Pooled Sample N = 35)

Subscales

Acceptance

Target
Groups

ACQ

USV

JAP

FRE

GER

Item No.

Step 1 Anslyses

Item-Total
Correlation

(r)

Reliabiligy

149

Scale

(01)

.68

.68

.71

.71

.70

a If Item
Deleted

.57
.66
.67
.66
.71
.63
.63
.60

.61
.69
.64
.69
.71
.63
.65
.60

.62
.69
.71
.71
.72
.66
.66
.67

.66
.69
.67
.72
.73
.64
.69
.63

.67
.68
.66
.71
.73
.61
.67
.61

.68
.67

(r)

.69
dropped
.43
dropped
dropped
.28
.53
.56

.73
dropped
.64
dropped
drooped
.50
.46
.64

Step 2 Anﬂyses

Item-Total
Correlation

Scale
8M3!
(a)

.73

.80

.74

.79

.79

(Appendix D.2 continued)

 

F ormality ACQ

USV

JAP

FRE

GER

Communication ACQ

USV

.44
.27
.15
.63

.73

-.06
.12
.44
.41
.39
-.13

-.01
-.05
.31
.43
.30
.06

..04
.11

.50
.50
.08

-.06
-.26

.27
.10
.17

-.O9
-.25
.13
.31
.15
-.08
-.22
.29
.09
.14
.29

.49
.01

.50
.44

.38

150

.70

.40

.36

.51

.13

.11

.09

.60

.6 1
drOpped
dropped

.77

.68

.65

.74

.55

.56

.53

.65

(Appendix 02 continued)

 

JAP

FRE

GER

Superordination ACQ

USV

REL

15
21
28
34

15
21
28
34

15
21
28
34

15
21
28
34

15

28
34

10

22
29
35
37
38

10
17

29
35
37
38

10
17

-.02

-.10
.43
.39
.37

.62
-.01
.37
-.02
.59
.49
.33

.19
-.19

-.08
.40
.12
.20

.20
-.23
.32
-.08
.42
.09
.13

.16
-.25
.36
-.04
.37
.09
.13

.24
.01
.35
.71
.41
.43
.31

.21

.34
.68
.40
.40
.22

.19
.10

151

.51

.61

.34

.29

.27

.62

.60

dropped
24

dropped
.49

.27
.55
dropped
.38

dropped

.60

.71

.48

.45

.43

.77

.77

(Appendix D.2 continued)

 

Association

JAP

FRE

GER

ACQ

USV

-. 19
.26
-.01
.26
.54
.39

.35
.21

.08
-.16
.31

152

.60

.59

.59

.59

.41

.42

dropped

.72
dropped
dr0pped
dropped
dropped
.66
dropped
.49
.52
dropped

.62
dropped
dropped
dropped
dropped
.60
dropped
.49
.55
dropped

.48

dropped
dropped
dropped
drooped
.50

.75

.75

.76

.72

.79

.76

(Appendix D.2 continued)

 

23 .14 .49 dropped
24 .28 .45 .57
30 .55 .37 .58
36 .53 .36 dropped
.49 .74
JAP 5 .30 .43 .54
6 .1 1 .48 dropped
1 1 .10 .49 dropped
12 .10 .48 dropped
16 -. 15 .58 dropped
18 .37 .40 .46
23 .02 .51 dropped
24 .37 .40 .61
30 .52 .35 .53
36 .45 .36 dropped
.48 .74
FRE 5 .30 .43 .54
6 .06 .49 dropped
1 1 . 10 .49 dropped
12 .10 .48 dropped
16 -. 12 .57 dropped
18 .32 .41 .39
23 .09 .49 dropped
24 .36 .40 .60
30 .51 .35 .54
36 .46 .35 dropped
.48 .72
GER 5 .32 .43 .53
6 .08 .49 dropped
1 1 .07 .50 dropped
12 .08 .50 dropped
16 -. 13 .57 dropped
18 .23 .45 .43
23 .09 .49 dropped
24 .43 .38 .64
30 .59 .33 .56
36 .45 .36 dropped
.48 .74

 

Notes: 1. Please refer to Appendix D for items. 2. In target groups, ACQ = local acquaintances, USV = US visitors
from other states, REL == relatives, JAP = Japanese tourists, FRE = French tourists, and GER = German tourists.

153

Appendix E

Simpliﬁed Questionnaire For Final Test

 

Hospitality Employee Values and Service Interaction Survey J

4

Dear Colleague,

The purpose of this study is to understand YOUR views, as hospitality service providers, of how service should be
provided while interacting with customers. Your answers will contribute to the understanding of this relationship and
consequently beneﬁt the development of tourism and hospitality businesses.

You have been randomly selected from current MSU School of Hospitality Business students to participate in this
survey. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this study by completing and returning this
questionnaire. Thus, your cooperation is much appreciated. Also, you are assured that all information you provide will
be kept in strict conﬁdence. After the study is completed, your questionnaire will be destroyed. You shall remain
anonymous in any report of the study ﬁndings.

For any further questions regarding this study, please contact Tsao-Fang Yuan at Department of Park, Recreation, and
Tourism Resources, Michigan State University. East Lansing. (Phone number 353-5190).

Sincerely,
Research Advisory Committee:
Joseph D. Fridgen, Ph.D.
Tsao-Fang Yuan Donald F. Holecek, Ph.D.
Ph.D. Candidate Bonnie J. Knutson, Ph.D.
Research Investigator Robert H. Woods, Ph.D.
Section A.

Instructions: This section asks you about the similarity of your beliefs, opinions. and values to that of the
following people based on your experience, knowledge. and impression. Please check (I) a number in the
box indicating your answer to each of the following questions.

For each question please indicate your answers as follows:

Totally dissimilar ; Totally similar

1 2 3 4 5 6
1. How similar are yogr bsliefs smut family values to those of the following people?

Close friends

Japanese tourists from Japan
Neighbors

German tourists from Germany
Acquaintances from the local area
French tourists from France
Relatives

U.S. visitors from other states

DDDDDDDD‘
DDDDDDDDN
DDUDDUDD”
C]Cl[:]l:lClElClCl“s
CIDCJDCIDDCJ‘”
DDDDDDDDO’

154

2.
3.

How similar are ypgr mpgl valpg to those of the following people?
How similar are r inl ed n hild n to those of the following people?

Section B.

instructions: This section asks your opinions regarding proper service when serving distinct customers
person-to-person. Since each employee has his or her own personal way in serving customers, please
reflect on how you would act or interact with these customers while answering the questions. There are no
right or wrong answers for these questions. It is your feelings and opinions that count. Please keep in
mind that this is not a discrimination study. Your answers are extremely important to us and will help us
understand hospitality behaviors occur under different circumstances. Please check (I) a number in the
box indicating your answer to each of the following questions.

For each statement indicate your answers as follows:

Totally disagree L _ Totally agree
1 2 3 4 5 6

I like listening to the guests' stories particularly if the guests are:

1 2 3 4 5 6
US. visitors from other states Cl 0 Cl Cl Cl Cl
Japanese tourists from Japan D 0 Cl E] El D
Relatives C] D Cl Cl Cl Cl
French tourists from France Cl Cl E] El Cl Cl

When guests do something to annoy other guests. I will make them realize what they did by giving
them hints instead of telling them openly, if they are:

I will always go out of my way to help guests get what they want when I am interacting with:

Being a service provider, I should not behave in a relaxed manner in front of my guests if they are:
I am always interested in asking my guests about their hometowns and their lifestyles, when

they are:

To provide quality service, I tend to show my personal emotions to guests, particularly if they

are:

I like to serve a larger group of other guests than spend a lengthy amount of time listening to
guests who are:

When my style of service is not understood, I feel it is difﬁcult for me to continue to talk to guests.
when they are:

In order to prevent an unpleasant conﬂict, I will not correct guests' inappropriate behaviors. if they
are:
I avoid greeting guests from the hotel when I am off duty. when they are:

. I don’t feel comfortable helping guests with their extra requests, particulariy when they are:

It is difﬁcult for me to directly tell guests to behave themselves when they do something wrong,
particulariy if they are:

To provide a standard level of service means that I should not express any emotions to the guests
particularly if they are:

To protect the hotel’s reputation, I always fulﬁll the orders of bossy guests if they are:

To provide a more personal service style. I enjoy doing whatever it takes to make guests

happy if they are:

I ﬁnd it interesting when guests’ behavior is different from our regular expectations. when they are:
I would never be upset by demanding and unappreciative guests. especially if they are:

I tend not to serve guests when I know there is a communication difﬁculty. Instead.

I will get someone else to serve them ﬁrst, if they are:

I should always apologize to guests for any unsatisfactory service provided to them in the hotel.
especially if the guests are:

I don't help guests with extra needs because I don't want them to take advantage of my kindness.
especially if they are:

155

Section C.

Instruction: In this section. we want to know if you agree or disagree with the statements presented. Please
circle a number indicating your level of agreement with each statement. If you strongly agree. circle a 6; if
you strongly disagree, circle 1. There are no right or wrong answers. Your answers are what count.

 

Strongly disagree A _ Strongly agree

1. My happiness de nds very much on 1 2 3 4 5 6
the happiness of hose around me

2. \Mnning is everything . 1 2 3 4 5 6

3. I usually sacnﬁce my self-Interest for 1 2 3 4 5 6
the beneﬁt of my group

4. It anno 3 me when other people perform 1 2 3 4 5 6
bettert an I do

5. It is important for me to maintain 1 2 3 4 5 6
harmony within my group .

6. It is rm ortantto methat I do my job 1 2 3 4 5 6

7. I like s anng little things wrth my 1 2 3 4 5 6
"9'9th . . . .

8. I enjoy working In situations involving 1 2 3 4 5 6
competition.

9. The well-being of my co-workers is 1 2 3 4 5 6
Important to me .

10. 10 en do “my own thing”. . 1 2 3 4 5 6

11. If a relative were In ﬁnancral difﬁculty, 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 would help wrthin my means

12. Competition rs the law of nature 1 2 3 4 5 6

13. If a co-worker gets a pnze I would 1 2 3 4 5 6
feel proud

14. tBeing a unique individual is important 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 me

15. To me, pleasure is spending time 1 2 3 4 5 6
with others

16. When another person does better than 1 2 3 4 5 6
I do, I get tense and aroused

17. Children should be taught to place duty 1 2 3 4 5 6
before Ieasure .

18. Wrthou competition It is not possible 1 2 3 4 5 6
to have a ood socrety .

19. I feel goo when l cooperate wrth others 1 2 3 4 5 6

20. Some people emphasrze winning; I am 1 2 3 4 5 6
not one of them

21. It isjmportant to me that I respect 1 2 3 4 5 6
decrsrons made by my group

22. I rather depend on myself than on others 1 2 3 4 5 6

23. Family members shpuld stuck together, 1 2 3 4 5 6
no matter what sacriﬁces are requrred

24. I rely on myself most of the time; I rarely 1 2 3 4 5 6
rely on others

25. Parents and children must stay together. 1 2 3 4 5 6
as much as possible

26. M personal Identity independent from 1 2 3 4 5 6
o ers rs very Important to me

27. It is my duty 0 take care of my family, 1 2 3 4 5 6
ever: when I have to sacnﬁce what I
wan

28. {my personal identity is very important 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 me

29. l tahm a unique person. separate from 1 2 3 4 5 6
o ers

30. I respect the majority’s wishes in groups 1 2 3 4 5 6
ofw rch I am a member

31. I enjoy being unique and different 1 2 3 4 5 6
from others .

32. It is important to consult close friends 1 2 3 4 5 6
and. get their Ideas before making a
decrsron.

Section D.

instruction: Please circle a number indicating how important each of the following values is to YOU. as a
guiding principle In YOUR life. There are no right or wrong answers, your personal opinion is what counts.
If you feel the value is very important circle a 6; if you feel the value is very unimportant, circle 1.

156

Very unimportant < ; Very important

 

1. A comfortable life 1 2 3 4 5
(a prosperous life)
2. An exciting life 1 2 3 4 5
(a stimulating. active life)
3. A sense of accomplishment 1 2 3 4 5
(lasting contribution)
4. A world at peace 1 2 3 4 5
(free of war and conﬂict)
5. World of beauty 1 2 3 4 5
(beauty of nature and the arts)
6. Equality 1 2 3 4 5
(brotherhood. equal opportunity for all)
7. Family security 1 2 3 4 5
(taking care of loved ones)
8. Freedom 1 2 3 4 5
(independence, free choice)
9. Happiness 1 2 3 4 5
(contentedness)
10. Inner harmony 1 2 3 4 5
(freedom from inner conﬂict)
11. Mature love 1 2 3 4 5
(sexual and spiritual intimacy)
12. National security 1 2 3 4 5
(protection from attack)
13. Pleasure 1 2 3 4 5
(an enjoyable. leisume life)
14. Salvation 1 2 3 4 5
(saved, eternal life)
15. Self-respect 1 2 3 4 5
(self-esteem)
16. Social recognition 1 2 3 4 5
(respect. admiration)
17. True friendship 1 2 3 4 5
(close companionship)
18. Wisdom 1 2 3 4 5

(a mature understanding of life)

Section E.

QGOO’QQGO’QQQO’QO’O’QGQ

Instruction: Questions in this section provide background information which is used to describe the study

sample. Please mark (‘1) or ﬁll in the appropriate space provided.

 

 

 

1. What is your nationality? (country)
2. Where is your birth place? (country)
3. How many years did you live in the area or region of your birth? years
4. If your nationality is the United States. what is your ethnic background? (If not US. skip to
question 5)
_(1) African American _(2) Caucasian American
_(3) Hispanic American _(4) Asian American
_(5) Native American _(6) Other. Specify
5. What is your age?
6. Are you? _ (1) female _ (2) male

7. What is your highest education level?

12345 6753ﬁﬁﬁﬁﬁ1—5ﬁ ﬁﬁﬁié

--— Primary school -- -Junior High- -High school- -Universitleollege- -Master— -Ph. D.-
8. If you are currently a student in college/university, (If not, skip to question 9)
a. Are you? _(1) freshman _(2) sophomore _(3) junior _(4) senior
_(5) graduate student

157

b. What is your major?
C. Do you plan to work in the hospitality/tourism industry after you graduate?

_(1) yes _(2) no

 

 

 

 

9. Have you had a. hospitality courses? (1) yes, how long? years months
(2) no
b. job training? (1) yes. how long? years months
(2) no
10. Have you worked in tourism/hospitality industry? _(1) yes _(2) no (Skip to question 11)
If yes. a. How long have you worked in this industry? years months
b. What was (is) the title of your last or current position?
(please write down the title)
c. About how long have you worked in that position? years months

(I. Were (are) you a full time? part time/hourly employed in that position?
11. Have you interacted with and/or served international tourists in the past?

 

 

_(1) yes, who? (is. Japanese. German)
_(2) no

12. Have any of your family members or friends interacted with international travelers. guests. or visitors?
_(1) yes, who? (1.6. parent. roommate)
_(2) no

13. Have you been to these two countries?
a. Canada:_(1) yes _(2) no b. Mexico:_(1) yes _(2) no

14. Have you been to other countries other than Canada or Mexico?
_ (1) yes. a. how many times?

b. how many different countries?
_ (2) no

Thank You Very Much For Your Help.

158

Appendix E]

Subscale Items And Wording Direction Of The SIS For Final Test Questionnaire

 

Subscales Item No. Wording Direction
Acceptance 1 Positive
5 Positive
1 1 Negative
1 6 Positive
20 Negative
F ormality 6 Negative
13 Positive
14 Positive
Communication 2 Negative
8 Negative
9 Negative
12 Negative
1 8 Negative
Superordination l 4 Negative
1 7 Negative
19 Negative
Association 3 Positive
7 Negative
10 Negative
1 5 Positive

 

Note: Please refer to Appendix E for items.

159

Appendix E.2

Item Analyses Of The SIS Subscales For Final Test

 

(Pooled Sample N = 225)

Subscale Responding Item No. Item-Total Scale
Group Correlation Reliability
0) (or)
Acceptance USV 1 .28
5 .26
1 1 .26
16 .09
20 .35
.46
JAP 1 .51
5 .48
1 l .44
I6 .22
20 .51
.67
REL 1 .35
5 .30
1 1 .28
16 .17
20 .33
.51
FRE I .44
5 .41
1 I .40
16 .16
20 .38
.60
Fonnality USV 4 .09
6 .02
13 .22
.20
JAP 4 .03
6 .03
13 .22
.17
REL 4 .1 1
6 .00
13 .24
.21
F RE 4 .02
6 .03
13 15
.10
Communication USV 2 .23
8 .33
9 .33
12 .33
18 .14
.50
JAP 2 .06
8 .23

160

(Appendix E.2 Continued)

 

FRE

Superordination USV

JAP

FRE

Association USV

JAP

FRE

10
15

.26
:04
.21

.34
.38
.15

.14
.38
.25
.32
.17

.24
.15
.26

.14
.18

.23
.10
.15

.25
.12
.20

.23
.19
.38
.26

.35
.11

I30
.32
.24

.44
.20

.29
.14
.33
.21

.25

.53

.47

.30

.33

.28

.33

.46

.47

.50

.42

 

Note: Please refer to Appendix E, section B for items.

161

"71111111111111111111111115