International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477 488

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journa l h o me page: www.elsev ier .com

Hospit an

Nathaniea The Universit ssie HaStatesb The Universit sie HaStates

a r t i c l

Keywords:Hospitality maLiterature reviSynthesisContent analyResearch direc

arkeentifyed baodolds arentat

1. Introdu

Periodicterms of anpublished studies have analyzed the hospitality marketing litera-ture in an effort to capture temporal trends in subject/focus andmethodology. Crawford-Welch and McCleary (1992) were the rstto undertake such a task, reviewing articles from 1983 to 1989.Bowen and Sparks (1998) updated this study, reviewing hospitalityjournals from 1990 to 1997. Most recently, Oh et al. (2004) reviewedthe literatutrend withsynthesize Because theupdate. Moconduct resthesis condconducted lished in 20executed prmatic chanattacks of Sin addition for an assesextensive m

CorresponE-mail add

1 Tel.: +1 86

s studls froith

ne tresearch relating to marketings function and/or its environment.Marketing research articles are also included. Articles meeting oneor more of these criteria are categorized according to research focusand target industry. Additionally, six methodological dimensionsare identied and categorized.

The purpose of this research is twofold. First, we review the lit-

0278-4319/$ doi:10.1016/j.re for the period of 20022003. Thus, since 1992, thein the hospitality literature has been to review andrelevant articles approximately once every six years.

most recent review appeared in 2004, we suggest anre importantly we assert that, due to time needed toearch and navigate the journal review process, the syn-ucted by Oh and colleagues was likely based on researchduring the last millennium. That is, manuscripts pub-022003 were likely based on research designed andior to the year 2000. Since that time, we have seen dra-ges in world markets (e.g., the growth of e-commerce,eptember 11, 2001, and increased globalization). Thus,to an updated review of the literature, there is also needsment of how hospitality scholars have adapted to thearket changes impacting the eld.

ding author. Tel.: +1 865 974 6243/363 7895; fax: +1 865 974 5236.resses: nline@utk.edu (N.D. Line), rrunyan@utk.edu (R.C. Runyan).5 974 4594; fax: +1 865 974 5236.

erature and compare our results to the ndings of Oh et al. (2004)to bring the literature current. Relevant similarities and distinc-tions among trends are discussed, and future research directionsare proposed. Second, we synthesize this research emphasizing themost popular topics and trends. From these analyses, we present anoverall state of the literature and propose potential directions forfuture research. It is our hope that readers of this article will betterunderstand the current state of hospitality marketing research andbegin to conceptualize studies that will advance the literature forscholars and practitioners alike.

2. Methods

We rst identied the leading journals in the hospitality eld.To this end, we selected the top four journals per McKercher et al.s(2006) rankings; Cornell Hospitality Quarterly (CHQ), InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management (IJHM), Journal of Hospitality &Tourism Research (JHTR), and International Journal of Contempo-rary Hospitality Management (IJCHM). According to McKercher et al.(2006), only these four journals rated 50% or higher in terms

see front matter 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.ijhm.2011.07.006ality marketing research: Recent trends

l D. Linea,, Rodney C. Runyanb,1

y of Tennessee Knoxville (USA), Retail, Hospitality, and Tourism Management, 220a Je

y of Tennessee Knoxville (USA), Retail, Hospitality, and Tourism Management, 245 Jes

e i n f o

rketingew

sistions

a b s t r a c t

This article reviews the hospitality m2008 to 2010 for the purposes of id274 articles are reviewed and classias well as on a number of other methare discussed. Important topical trenproposed. We conclude with the preshospitality marketing research.

ction

ally, it is necessary for scholars to review their eld in overall progression of the literature. Since 1992, three

Thijournathose wwe de/ locate / i jhosman

d future directions

rris Building, 1215 West Cumberland, Knoxville, TN 37996-1911, United

rris Building, 1215 West Cumberland, Knoxville, TN 37996-1911, United

ting research published in four top hospitality journals froming signicant trends and gaps in the literature. A total ofsed on research topic, industry focus, and analysis techniqueogical criteria. Signicant topical and methodological trendse synthesized and specic directions for future research areion and discussion of an organizational framework for future

2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

y reviews the research published in selected hospitalitym the years 20082010. We limit the articles selected toa focus on hospitality marketing. As did Oh et al. (2004),he scope of hospitality marketing as inclusive of any

478 N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477 488

of aggregate importance. Additionally, these journals are mostlyconsistent with the journals reviewed by Oh et al. (2004). Theonly difference is our use of IJCHM instead of Journal of Hospi-tality and Leisure Marketing. From these journals, we identied atotal of 492010. Of thmarketing.

The nexcle. Before to ensure tselected anthose of Ohon Oh et alfurther broment. In geof the hospnal contentgeneration ors (e.g., OhIn approachto dene thposes, whilpurposes.

In orderexpert in threview. Bastion of eme(2004) codeone categorelectronic mcorporate wsocial mediPR/crisis mketing categ

Both auting relevanwell as in adisagreemeauthors. In tthe selectedtent. In casassignmentin questionappropriate

After theresearch wing applicatmarketing tthe same tofocus analyidentify und

The metponents. W(empirical size, responUsing Oh egories to thwe created study/contepling frameby Oh et al.ple size andstudies thaseparate caquota sampseparately.

Table 1Hospitality marketing literature: topical focus analysis.

n %

Marketing environment 101 36.9sumerrceiverceivetisfacpectarvice rformployperiersuasssonasumercisionotivatformaoveltytitudeting fuagemarket nsumneralsinesysicaanding/brand extensions 11 4.0tronic marketing 19 6.9ebsite 6 2.2distribution/travel websites 6 2.2chnology adoption 7 2.6cial media/networking 0 0.0lic relations 20 7.3isis management 3 1.1een initiatives 8 2.9R 9 3.3rnal marketing 47 17.2powerment/training 7 2.6ployee relationships 2 0.7ployee behavior/satisfaction 35 12.8

iring 3 1.1and, pricing, and selling 30 10.9rsonal selling 1 0.4recasting 5 1.8icing/revenue management 18 6.6les promotions 2 0.7vertising 4 1.5ting research 3 1.1arch methodology 1 0.4rmation technology 2 0.7ry/philosophy of science 0 0.0

ical review

et al. (2004) used the classication scheme employed byrnal of Marketing for its published studies. Using a simi-ee-tiered coding schema, we rst classied each study ast to marketings environment, function, or research. Theseries were then organized into subcategories and, nally, byTable 1 shows the number of studies coded into each cate-ubcategory, and topic as well as the percentage of the totalch component respectively occupies. Readers should noter the purposes of appropriately comparing our results to pre-ndings, percentages (and percent changes) are reported in

of the total number of hospitality marketing articles includedpertinent time period, not the total number of articles pub-within the selected timeframe.

ndings for the overall classication of articles publisheden 2008 and 2010 are almost identical to the ndings of Oh004). Current topics relating to the marketing environmente marketing function comprised 36.9% and 62% of the total,tively. Marketing research topics accounted for only 1.1% of6 articles published between January 2008 and Mayis total, 274 (55%) were deemed relevant to hospitality

t step was to identify the topical focus of each arti-coding the articles, a coding scheme was developedhat (1) a comprehensive list of marketing topics wasd (2) our results could be meaningfully compared to

et al. (2004). The coding scheme was largely based.s (2004) instrument, although some categories wereken down to allow for a more ne-grained assess-neral, these changes reect macro-shifts in the focusitality marketing environment as suggested by jour-. Use of post hoc analyses for the purposes of categoryare commonly reported in literature review endeav-

et al., 2004; Runyan and Droge, 2008; Werner, 2002).ing the coding schematic in this way, we were ablee topical focus more narrowly for synthesizing pur-

e keeping intact the most recent metric for comparison

to ensure a valid instrument, we sent a copy to ane eld of hospitality and tourism marketing for furthered on the experts feedback and the post hoc identica-rgent trends, several changes were made to Oh et al.sbook. For example, whereas Oh et al. (2004) had onlyy for e-commerce topics, our codebook incorporates anarketing subcategory with four distinct topical foci:ebsite design, e-distribution, technology adoption, anda/networking. A similar process was followed for theanagement, demand/pricing/selling, and internal mar-ories (see Table 1).hors were involved in each step of the process for select-t articles (i.e., identication and inclusion/exclusion) asll decisions pertaining to category modications. Anynt was discussed and ultimately agreed upon by bothhe subsequent coding process, articles were coded into

categories based on keywords and title/abstract con-es where this information was not sufcient for the

of an article to one (and only one) category, the article was discussed until agreement was reached as to its

classication. topical review, we reviewed the context in which theas applied. Such an analysis is important, as market-ions are not homogenous across industries. While someopics may be highly pursued within a certain industry,pic may be under-researched in others. The industry-sis is intended to document such instances as well as toer-researched industries.hodological review includes an analysis of six com-e coded each article based on the type of researchor conceptual), study design, sampling frame, samplese rate, and the main analysis used for each study.t al. (2004) as a framework, we added several cate-e study design and sample type analyses. For example,separate categories for interview/focus group and casent methodologies. Similarly, we expanded the sam-

category to include several groups that were not used (2004) and added a not applicable code for the sam-

response rate categories. Finally, rather than omittingt, by design, do not necessitate sampling, we created ategory to keep track of such occurrences. Additionally,les and non-random convenience samples were coded

ConPePeSaExSePeEmExPeDi

ConDeMInNAt

MarkeManMCoGeBuPhBr

ElecWE-TeSo

PubCrGrCS

InteEmEmEmH

DemPeFoPrSaAd

MarkeReseInfoTheo

3. Top

Oh the Joular thrrelevancategotopic. gory, sthat eathat, fovious terms in the lished

Ourbetweet al. (2and threspec perceptions 77 28.1d value 11 4.0d risk/safety 2 0.7tion 24 8.8tions 4 1.5quality 12 4.4ance evaluation/service encounter 9 3.3eecustomer relationships 9 3.3ntial value 6 2.2ion 0 0.0nce 0 0.0

characteristics 24 8.8 making 12 4.4ion 6 2.2tion search 0 0.0/variety seeking 1 0.4

5 1.8nctions 170 62.0ent, planning, and strategy 54 19.7segmentation/positioning/targeting 11 4.0er relationship marketing/loyalty 10 3.6

marketing strategies 10 3.6s relationship management 5 1.8l distribution/franchising 7 2.6

N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477 488 479

the total. Oh et al. (2004) noted a similar pattern of 35.1%, 62.9%,and 2%, respectively, suggesting that the overall composition of theliterature has remained unchanged in the time elapsed between thetwo studies. We discuss the contents of each topic in the followingsections.

3.1. Market

RegardinBowen andmarketing rates this cand consumsition remaemployee-cnecessitatesumer beha(1998), Oh evibrant groanalyses (+increased 1growth has

Howeveappears to in several immost widely(8.8%), the pdeclined bySimilarly, re(3.3%) decrin other ca20022003research earepresentedin each. ResFinally, we the study oand persuarepresentedextensivelyassess the dtality marke

3.2. Market

Studies ve subctronic mardemand/pris more spcomponentof researchunchanged of the categmaking up35.3% of thpercentagecan primarpositioningliterature (the manageas PR (+5.2managemen

The momarketing (ceptual dom

Table 2Hospitality marketing literature: target industry analysis.

Target industry n %

Tour/recreatlodgin

linesrant/fe clubal/eve

/timention/al

park

al/mu

ted.e claas tak

wit den

servn (pterming tus, amajoain

yee r2 IM

noterkete Ohresead thi

grower no

by tical ve temeana

easedtion

resea hery Ohportas is aconc

rget

le 2 summarizes the results of the target industry anal-e dene the target industry as the industry for which

ajor implications of a study are intended. In addition totegories identied by Oh et al. (2004), we expanded ouris to include an additional six industries that were eitherrized more generally or were not specically targeted dur-

period 20022003: tour/recreation services, private clubs,ls/events, spas, resorts/timeshares, and hospitals. Perhapslly, hotel/lodging (40.1%) and restaurant/foodservice (31.8%)ted for a majority of the industries targeted from 2008 toesearch on festivals and other events (6.6%) were the thirdommonly targeted industry (although it should be noted thating environment

g the marketing environment, Oh et al. (2004) and Sparks (1998) allowed for one subcategory of theenvironment, consumer behavior. Our analysis sepa-ategory into two dimensions, consumer perceptionser characteristics. Although the overall topical compo-ins similar, we added categories for decision-making,ustomer relationships, and experiential value (asd by post hoc analysis). Comparing their results for con-vior literature to the ndings of Bowen and Sparkst al. (2004) found that such literature had experiencedwth (p. 428) in the period between their respective14.4%). Because consumer behavior research has only.8% in the years since, our analysis indicates that this

stabilized.r, while the growth of consumer behavior researchhave leveled out, its topical composition has shiftedportant ways. While customer satisfaction is still the

pursued topic in the marketing environment literatureercentage of articles dealing with satisfaction issues has

4.6%, the greatest decrease for any topic in the category.search on performance evaluations/service encounterseased by 2.9%. These decreases were offset by growthtegories that received comparatively less attention in. Most notably, perceived value and attitude/motivationch appears a total of 11 times. Neither of these topics was

in the previous review, indicating a growth in interestearch on decision making (4.4%) also increased by 2.3%.note that, similar to the previously reviewed period,f novelty/variety seeking behavior, information search,sion (n = 1, n = 0, and n = 0, respectively) were under-

in our review. Given that these topics have not been studied over the last decade, future research shouldegree to which these areas are still relevant to hospi-ters.

ing functions

on the function of marketing were separated intoategories: management/planning/strategy; elec-keting; public relations; internal marketing; andicing/selling. Although this sub-categorization schemeecically dened than that of Oh et al. (2004), the

categories are still largely the same. While the amount on marketing functions (62%) has remained virtuallysince the previous analysis, the internal compositionory has shifted. Oh et al. (2004) determined that topics

management, planning, and strategy accounted fore sampled articles. Our analysis indicates that this

has decreased by one half to 17.6%. This decreaseily be attributed to decreases in the segmentation,, and targeting literature (11.1%) and CRM/loyalty6.7%). Thus, research seems to be shifting away fromment/planning/strategy domain in favor of topics such%), internal marketing (+14.1%), and pricing/revenuet (+4.5%).

st notable of these shifts is the increase in internalIM) literature. Because this topic occupies a broad con-ain, a brief discussion of our conceptualization of IM is

Hotel/CruiseRestauPrivatFestivSpa ResortConveHospitThemeCasinoAirlineGener

warrancould bcare wsider IM(1990)qualityisfactiowas deFollowIM foccles, a The rememploother 1(1998)nal maBecausof IM to heefastest

Oth(fueledthe topOf the managenue mto incrapplicaketingndingused bare imarticlein the

3.3. Ta

Tabysis. Wthe mthe caanalyscategoing thefestivanaturaaccoun2010. Rmost cion services 4 1.5g 110 40.1

0 0.0oodservice 87 31.8

2 0.7nt 18 6.6

2 0.7share 2 0.7conference 5 1.8

2 0.7 2 0.7

12 4.44 1.5

ltiple industries 24 8.8

Depending on the research focus, IM-related literaturessied as either a management or marketing issue. Thus,en to include in our review only those studies that con-hin a marketing context. Specically, we adopt Georgesition of IM as a strategic weapon to help achieve highice delivery and thereby achieve greater customer sat-. 63). Thus, all of the literature classied as IM-focusedined to have some bearing on customer satisfaction.his denition, we identied 47 articles as having ann increase of 14.1% from 20022003. Of these 47 arti-rity (n = 35) focused on employee behavior/satisfaction.ing three classications, empowerment/training (n = 7),elationships (n = 2), and hiring (n = 3), account for the-focused articles. In their review, Bowen and Sparks

a lack of empirically based studies that address inter-ing (p. 134) and called for an increase in their pursuit.

et al. (2004) subsequently found only one occurrencerch, our ndings suggest that it has taken some times call. Presently, however, IM appears to be one of theing topical areas in hospitality marketing research.table ndings include a 5.2% increase in PR literaturehe growing interest in green marketing initiatives) andshift among the demand, pricing and selling literature.opics in the latter category, all but one, pricing/revenuent, were characterized by decreases. Pricing and rev-gement literature, however, increased 4.5% due mainly

interest in revenue management outside its traditional in the hotel industry. Finally, it is worth noting that mar-rch was again pursued less vigorously. We mention thise for two reasons: rst, it was one of three categories

et al. (2004); second, research on methods and theorynt to any scholarly eld. The distinct absence of such

noteworthy phenomenon, a point to which we returnlusion.

industry review

480 N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477 488

Table 3Selected results from cross-tabulation of topic and dominant industry.

Topic Dominant industries n/total %

Perceived vaService qualPerformanceevaluationencounter

Satisfaction Market segmtion/positstrategy

Pricing/revemanagem

Decision maGreen initiatTechnology Employeebehavior/s

Empowerme

a None in re

a majority oIJHM). Othetargeted niaccounted the relativeof researchsuggests thless-undersinquiry.

Next, weindustry focall industriemore extenfound that 2and 11 of thindustries. Hity are not industries, awe found thogy adoptiothe hotel/lothe restaurtopic/indusings suggesindustries, attempt to nement.

4. Method

Table 4 sis. In geneempirical inempirical, u66% reportin both stubased reseaalthough thspecicallyare conspic

Concern(66.8%), incand intervie(9.1%) eachous period.

Table 4Hospitality marketing literature: methodological analysis.

n %

f studiricalceptuadesignary rviewndary data 25 9.1eriment 8 2.9tent analysis/literature review 11 4.0

study/commentary 11 4.0hi 0 0.0er 11 4.0ing framels/lodgingests 21 7.7ployees 32 11.7

anagers/owners 15 5.5operties 24 8.8

Total hotel/lodging 93 33.9aurant/foodserviceests 32 11.7ployees 18 6.6

anagers/owners 1 0.4operties 11 4.0

Total restaurant/foodservice 62 22.6nosests 5 1.8ployees 4 1.5

Total casinos 9 3.3ortsests 5 1.8ployees 1 0.4

Total airports 6 2.2rganizers/meeting planners 5 1.8embers 2 0.7show attendees 18 6.6ts/university employees 27 9.9s 2 0.7al/cross-industries/others 27 9.9

24 8.8e sizeller than 100 54 19.7350 105 38.3600 40 14.6850 7 2.6er than 850 32 11.7

36 13.1nse rateer than 10% 14 5.120% 21 7.730% 16 5.840% 15 5.550% 14 5.1lue Foodservice 6/11 55ity Foodservice 9/12 75

/serviceFoodservice 7/9 78

Foodservice/lodging 21/24 88enta-

ioningFoodservice/lodging 7/11 64

nueent

Foodservice/lodging 15/18 83

king Foodservice/lodging/event 8/12 67ives Lodging 5/8a 63adoption Lodging 4/7a 57

atisfactionLodging 23/35 66

nt/training Lodging 4/7a 57

staurant/foodservice.

f this literature (n = 16) came from a single 2010 issue ofr than these three industries, only casinos (4.4%) werene times or more. The other nine industries combinedfor the remaining 8.3% of the total literature. Despitely low incidence of occurrence, however, the presence

targeting these industries in top hospitality journalseir relevance to the eld. Research targeting relativelytood industries represents a potential area for future

examined the cross-tabulations of research topic andus. While we concede that not all topics are relevant tos, our analysis suggests that some topics are pursuedsively in some industries than in others. For example, we1 of the 24 published studies on customer satisfactione 12 on service quality targeted the hotel or restaurantowever, issues relating to satisfaction and service qual-

unique to these industries, but rather to all hospitalitynd thus should be explored more broadly. Additionally,at issues relating to website marketing (n = 4), technol-n (n = 4), and green initiatives (n = 5) mainly targeteddging industry while ignoring potential applications inant industry (n = 0 combined). Other disproportionatetry research trends are illustrated in Table 3. These nd-t that even among relatively well-studied topics andgaps in the literature still exist. Future research shouldidentify and ll these gaps to prevent theoretical con-

Type oEmpCon

Study PrimInteSecoExpConcaseDelpOth

SamplHoteGuEmMPr

RestGuEmMPr

CasiGuEm

AirpGuEm

Tour oClub mEvent/StudenExpertGenerN/ASamplSma100351601LargN/A

RespoLow10213141ological review

summarizes the results of the methodological analy-ral, hospitality marketing research is overwhelmingly

nature. In total, 93.8% of the reviewed literature wasp from the 91% reported by Oh et al. (2004) and theed by Bowen and Sparks (1998). Thus, despite callsdies for theory building via increases in conceptuallyrch, empirical study remains dominant. Additionally,e incidence of longitudinal data collection was not

coded, our review indicated that longitudinal methodsuously absent in hospitality marketing research.ing study design, the eld survey was most prevalentreasing 2.9% since 20022003. Use of secondary dataw/focus group methodologies were employed 25 times. Use of secondary sources increased 5% over the previ-

The change in the incidence of interview/focus group

Higher thaQuota/conN/A

Main analysDescriptivFactor/cluRegressionAnalysis oSEM/pathTime serieQualitativOther

Horizontal lin

methodolotied in pre

We nexsion of samanalysis. Wy257 93.8

l 17 6.2

eld survey 183 66.8s focus group 25 9.1n 50% 46 16.8venience 56 20.4

88 32.1is methodse 33 12.0ster 22 8.0/logit-logistic regression 66 24.1f (co)variance 48 17.5

61 22.3s/simulation 13 4.7e 58 21.2

10 3.6

es indicate a summation of subcategory results.

gy is unknown, as this category was not explicitly iden-vious research.t reviewed the sample type of each study. Our discus-ple type should not be confused with the industry focuse characterized a studys sample type based on the

N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477 488 481

population from which the sample was taken. Although there issome overlap with the industry focus coding in some categories, thesample type analysis is differentiated by the specic attention paidto the attributes of the respondents. For example, the sample takenfor a study from a popualso come fstudents aring a wide assume thathis distinctwere taken ter were tasampled wi

Of note 10% of the rCross-sectiothat single-ment erroret al., 2003as generalimore frequwhen possiobjectives pbias-correcmeasureme

Concern100350 obally taken fSamples larconsumptiogeneral, resprevious pe2003 reportDespite thisthat the gestudies pro

Finally, wcounted mthe generaltor analysesdid we codally, becausresearch fowhich multsis shows thmost frequone quarterused analysysis (22.3%of ANOVA/Ative and facand 8.5%, rethat hospittechniques

5. Synthes

In this setopical analcuss all 274trends idengive preferethe numberwe recogni

of articles published earlier in the period of analysis (i.e., articlespublished in 2008 are more likely to be cited than those publishedin 2010), the reader should note that this approach was merelyintended to ensure that important research was not omitted from

.

nsum

Emothin tcustoticeutorles iitchiisit i(Webe aned bdditere itionaKim ung

the reseion stratight

p. Fuelatiitionsatise pert of g, 2008)e resicatehosp

withl. (2factiariaben ms cult

Perceeconin thodsen pental e in, 200sit ining eonagfactiing e010)ile a ted

simil2008n petargeting the hotel industry may not necessarily comelation of hotel customers. Data for these studies couldrom frontline employees and managers. Additionally,e often used as a sampling frame for studies target-variety of industries. In these cases, it is erroneous tot the target industry and the sample type coincide. Givenion, we found that approximately one-third of samplesfrom the hotel industry, and slightly less than one quar-ken from the restaurant industry (specic subgroupsthin these industries can be seen in Table 4).in the above analysis is the nding that less thaneviewed articles collected data from multiple sources.nal data collection is potentially troubling givensource data are commonly associated with measure-

attributable to common method biases (Podsakoff). In order to enhance methodological rigor, as wellzability, we suggest that hospitality scholars shouldently obtain data from multiple industry sourcesble. For situations in which study conditions and/orrohibit data collection from multiple sources, other

ting methods such as temporally separating variablents (Podsakoff et al., 2003) should be considered.ing sample size, most studies utilized a sample size ofservations. Sample sizes smaller than 100 were gener-or studies using interview/focus group methodologies.ger than 850 typically came from previously establishedn panels or from corporate database information. Inponse rates were reported more frequently than in theriod. Only 19.5% of the studies reviewed from 2002 toed response rates, compared to 46% from 2008 to 2010.

increase, however, we conclude, as did Oh et al. (2004)neral lack of reports on exact response rates in manyhibits detecting signicant trends (p. 429).e analyzed analysis methods for each study. We only

ethods that were used to test hypotheses or present arguments of the research. Thus, we did not code fac-

used to validate constructs in a structural model, nore for methods used as manipulation checks. Addition-e more than one analytical tool is often used in theund in top-tier journals, this was the only category iniple counts of the same study were allowed. Our analy-at regression, specically multiple regression, was theently employed method of analysis, present in almost

of the reviewed literature. The next most frequentlyis method was structural equation modeling/path anal-), an increase of 13.6% over the previous period. UseNCOVA increased almost 5% while the use of descrip-tor/cluster/discriminant methods decreased by 17.1%spectively. Such shifts are encouraging as they indicateality scholars are employing more rigorous analyticalin their analyses.

is of signicant topical trends

ction, we discuss signicant trends emergent from theysis. Due to space limitations, it is not possible to dis-

articles. We limit our synthesis to articles followingtied for the period of review. Within each topic, wential treatment to the most important ndings based on

of citations per GoogleScholars citation count. Whileze that this approach may bias our discussion in favor

review

5.1. Co

5.1.1. Wit

ing to most ncontribExamping/swand revstates positivmediat

In ation winstituscale ((Namkwithin(2009)discussdemonships ma grouthese r

Addsis on includconcepand JanLam, 2Chinesies indin the factionOh et aof satisating vhas bevariou

5.1.2. A s

value rant/fobetweeronmeand thand Huto revimediatre-patrof satismediatet al., 2

Whconducreportet al. (betweeer behavior

ion and satisfactionhe study of the marketing environment, issues pertain-omer satisfaction were the most widely pursued. Theable trend in this category is the role of emotion as a

to satisfaction, especially in the restaurant industry.nclude: the role of negative emotions in complain-ng/negative WOM (Mattila and Ro, 2008); satisfactionntention (Han et al., 2009); and pre-consumption mooder and Sparks, 2009), as well as the identication ofd negative emotions tied to customer satisfaction asy service quality (Ladhari et al., 2008).ion to emotion, several other key drivers of satisfac-dentied including positive relationships between thel factors of Stevens and Knutsons (1995) DINESERVet al., 2009d) and restaurant atmospherics and serviceand Jang, 2008). Hyun (2009) supports these ndingschain-restaurant industry, while Heide and Gronhaugsarch of key hotel atmospheric elements extend thisto the hotel industry. Hanai et al. (2008), however,ed that, at least in the hotel industry, these relation-

be moderated by whether one is travelling alone or inture studies should continue to identify moderators ofonships.ally, four studies were conducted with specic empha-faction within the domain of Chinese culture. Theseceptions of hotel attributes (Gu and Ryan, 2008); theface and food appeal (Kim et al., 2009d; Namkung008); collectivism and complaint behavior (Cheng and; and American customers perceptions of U.S.-basedtaurants (Liu and Jang, 2009). The results of these stud-

that, while satisfaction is still a widely surveyed topicitality marketing literature, a unifying theory of satis-

denitive antecedents and outcomes remains elusive.004) came to similar conclusions noting that the studyon is complicated by the presence of numerous moder-les. Our analysis suggests that, although some progressade, research on satisfaction becomes more complex asural and industry-specic parameters are introduced.

ived value and satisfactiond stream of literature explored the role of perceivede generation of satisfaction, especially in the restau-rvice industry. Findings include a positive relationshiprceived value and satisfaction (Ryu et al., 2008); envi-antecedents of perceived value (Han and Ryu, 2009);uence of poor service quality on perceived value (Chen9). A number of related studies related perceived valuetentions and/or loyalty. Notable ndings include theffect of customer satisfaction on perceived value ande intentions (Ryu et al., 2008); the partial mediationon and customer loyalty (Han and Ryu, 2009); and theffect of hedonic versus utilitarian aspects of value (Ryu.majority of the research concerning perceived value waswithin a restaurant/foodservice setting, several studiesar ndings in other industries. In the hotel industry, Kim) found that perceived value mediates the relationshiprceived quality and revisit intention. Similarly, Yoon

482 N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477 488

et al. (2010) found a relationship between quality, value, and sat-isfaction among festival attendees (see also Kim et al., 2010b foran extension to food-centered events). Our ndings suggest that,although perceived value has been widely studied, applicationsoutside thebe further e

5.1.3. ServiService q

and applicaorder to bethe customof employeis increasinmeasuring (2010) usedempowermcustomer peMavondo (2managers aleadership tion that leExtending focused on torder to betassociated ever, that Cdoes not neRather, thisfurther indiaction.

5.1.4. PerfoA recurr

the study ofrelated withMupandawbehavior wimpact of sethis study. Hare, in fact,dispositionresults conlier study (inuence infound that self-preservOther studitip size. Lyniors that canonly one stuin an extensstudied servder, and eth

5.2. Manag

5.2.1. SegmAlthoug

ture was limappears to beach were cfoodserviceapproach, icialty coffeestudied issu

2009; Gil et al., 2009). Concerning hotels, Victorino et al. (2009)demonstrated the applicability of the technology readiness index asa segmentation tool for hotel demand. Another two studies soughtto better clarify the denitions of specic hotel sectors, English bou-

otelnder

induand m, 20

Relato kinss reting s be

lite. Witring studiing sorhiTour010tel inere taurating

Brannal tr

is thng wsed earcd on

withel fr, espion is

mulearchman. Top2010tionndining al pie

thethat ndinrecee of igni

ectro

heirh, Oase,dvane arept pt fromon li

tha restaurant industry have not kept pace and should thusxplored.

ce qualityuality literature appears to be less focused on debatetion of the SERVQUAL model than in previous years. Intter understand the role that quality service plays iner experience, researchers have turned to examinationse interactions with customers and the delivery of whatgly termed emotional labor. For example, instead ofservice quality via the SERVQUAL scale, Gazzoli et al.

a hierarchical approach model, nding that employeeent and job satisfaction lead to signicant increases inrceptions of service quality. And although Nasution and008) found differences between service values amongnd customers, Clark et al. (2009) found that empoweringstyles can facilitate the type of employee satisfac-ads to service quality commitment among employees.these concepts further, Kim and Ok (2010) explicitlyhe customer orientation of service employees (COSE) inter understand the customer-related outcome variableswith employee satisfaction. It should be noted, how-hi and Gursoy (2009) found that employee satisfactioncessarily directly impact a rms nancial performance.

relationship is mediated by customer satisfaction, acation of the importance of employee-customer inter-

rmance evaluationing theme in the performance evaluation literature is

tipping behavior. The contention that tip sizes are cor- service quality is still a topic of debate. Mayward andana (2009), for example, found that previous tippingas the dominant factor inuencing tipping rates. Thervice quality on tipping behavior was not identied inowever, Lynn and Sturman (2010) found that tip sizes

reliably correlated with service ratings and that otheral differences should be viewed as confounding. Theseict to a certain degree with the results from an ear-Lynn, 2009) that dispositional tendencies actually candividual motives for tipping. Specically, Lynn (2009)intrinsic motives are associated with larger tips, whileational motives are more closely linked to smaller tips.es on tipping found that server behavior can inuencen and McCall (2009) present a number of such behav-

be generalized to a variety of restaurants. Interestingly,dy examined tipping from the perception of the server:ive survey of restaurant servers, McCall and Lynn (2009)er perceptions of customers tipping based on age, gen-nicity.

ement, planning, and strategy

entation, targeting, and positioningh the segmentation, targeting, and positioning litera-ited compared to the previous period, recent researche more diverse, spanning four industries. Three studiesonducted in the foodservice and hotel industries. In the

industry, Tan and Lo (2008) pursued a benet-baseddentifying four distinct segments of patrons for a spe-house chain. The other two restaurant-focused articleses relating to the creation of wine lists (Berenguer et al.,

tique h(Alexacasino2009) and Ki

5.2.2. Tw

businemarkeperhappitalitythememeasuThese acterizand Voand Laet al., 2and hoCRM wthe resinteres

5.2.3. A

eraturebrandiaddresing resfocusecernedon hotchisingexceptamong

Resbrand varied(King, convenous brapromisceptuauniedissues co-bra2009) practichave s

5.3. El

In tresearction phmust aIn somhave ksubjecadoptifactorss (Lim and Endean, 2009) and Taiwanese love motels et al., 2010). Similar research was conducted in thestry regarding the late life gambler market (Chhabra,the development of the casino industry in Macao (Loi10).

ionship marketingds of relationship marketing research were prevalent,lationship marketing (BRM) and customer relationship(CRM). BRM was less extensively pursued than CRM,cause such issues are often addressed outside the hos-rature. Additionally, BRM research lacked a unifyinghin the CRM literature, specic attention was given tothe success of loyalty programs in varying industries.es addressed various topics including the factors char-uccessful loyalty programs across industries (McCalles, 2010); loyalty within the casino industry (Hendler, 2008); loyalty programs within the hotel industry (Hu); and a comparison of loyalty programs in the airlinedustries (DeKay et al., 2009). More general studies on

conducted in the hotel industry (Lo et al., 2010) and innt industry (Asatryan and Oh, 2008), the latter with anapplication of psychological ownership theory.

dingend within the management, planning, and strategy lit-e incidence and nature of branding research. Althoughas directly addressed, the subject was also indirectlywithin the franchising literature. In general, franchis-h appears to be more unied than research explicitlybranding. The franchising literature was primarily con-

international diversication (e.g., Tang and Jang, 2010anchising). Issues explicitly relating to domestic fran-ecially within the U.S. were largely ignored. A notable

the work of Roh and Chois (2010) analysis of efciencytiple brands within the same franchise.

explicitly focusing on branding was loosely unied byagement topics. Specic applications, however, wereics ranged from general internal brand management) to the specic application of customer equity in the

industry (Severt and Palakurthi, 2008). Although vari-g topics were explored, several unique studies providevenues for future research. For example, in a rare con-ce on hospitality-specic branding, Xu and Chan (2010)

hotel branding literature, identifying several criticalhave yet to be investigated. Additionally, research ong (Guillet and Tasci, 2010) and rebranding (Hanson et al.,ived only one publication each. Given the increasingboth, especially in the hotel industry, these two areascant potential for future research.

nic marketing

discussion of electronic marketing and e-commerceh et al. (2004) noted that such research was in its incep-

and that as time progresses, new marketing theoriesce in accordance with new technological developments.eas such as technology adoption in hotels, scholarsace. Four studies of the hotel industry addressed this

several different perspectives. Noting an absence ofterature in the hotel industry, Lim (2009) identiedt lead to general technology adoption as well as the

N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477 488 483

intensity of adoption. Other research was more specic in the typeof technology adoption that was measured. Specic technologicaldomains represented were website and e-mail adoption (Hashimet al., 2010), biometric adoption (Murphy and Rottet, 2009), andinformationanalyzed tenew gaminabsent werheavy indus

Researchmajority ofies for this cdistributionliferation ovia third paperhaps no(2009) revieof customeneeded frathis topic wdistributionand Jeong (sites, ndinhotel-owneQuan (2008antees. Futuonly to the

Despite research, oresearched.declining insuch as buimpaired (included anroom sales (exploit sear

While suof e-marketexplosion oin recent yeing applicatAdditionallhotel/lodginquite specioften difcuthat future other indus

5.4. Public r

Public resocial respoowing to thmore sustable (Wagnestill in the were explofocused on responsiblecorporate gbe attributeIncreased Chotel indusrant industr2010), and

Despite the increase in such research, opportunities for growthexist. First, future research should address green/CSR-related issuesnot only from industry implementation and performance perspec-tives but also from a customer perspective. Relatively little is known

ing timag

wass e-mry ha

maolicy, onlis m

on t

man

studthe romf thed, pemeic p

totalana

ries ( to r

and nue

a poer, suhoming sloredeldonoughe hh coewed

a stis. Yanaly(200ect palysn relnt, wdusetc. p

terna

Job sa stud

marratio

satid noa indotivh stloyechertenti system acceptance (Huh et al., 2009). Nisbet (2009)chnology adoption at the consumer level in a study ong machine payment technologies at casinos. Noticeablye studies on technology adoption in other technology-tries such as restaurants.

on various facets of Internet marketing made up a the rest of the e-marketing literature. Half of the stud-ategory explored subject matter relevant to electronic

from a variety of perspectives. Given the recent pro-f the sale of travel products, especially hotel rooms,rty intermediaries, the attention paid to this issue ist surprising. Taking a theory-building approach, Wenwed the literature concerning the purchase intentionsrs for online travel products, conceptualizing a much-mework for the topic in general. Empirical study ofas generally focused on consumer perceptions of e-

practices and/or website specic practices. Morosan2008) examined user perceptions of reservation webg that consumers favor intermediary websites overd websites for reservation bookings, and Carvell and) demonstrated the ineffectiveness of current rate guar-re research should address the value of such metrics notrm, but also to the consumer.the increase in technology adoption and e-distributionther e-marketing issues were relatively under-

Research on general website design appears be favor of better understanding specic website usersyers/browsers (Rong et al., 2009) and the visuallyMills et al., 2008). Additional e-marketing research

analysis of the impact of online user reviews on hotelYe et al., 2009) and a study on the extent to which hotelsch engine marketing (Murphy and Kielgast, 2008).ch research marks progress, several important aspectsing have been largely ignored. For example, despite thef social media and the emergent Web 2.0 phenomenonars, very little attention has been given to the market-ions of these phenomena within the hospitality eld.y, a majority of the e-marketing literature targets theg industry. Because research on technology is oftenc, especially with respect to industry application, it islt to generalize ndings across industries. We suggestresearch expand discussions of e-marketing to includetries, especially the restaurant/foodservice industry.

elations

lations issues such as green marketing and corporatensibility appear to have experienced growth, perhapse recent shift in the overall business climate towardsinable (Chabowski et al., 2010) and socially responsi-r et al., 2009) behavior. As many of these issues areearly stages of research development, most studiesratory in nature. Research in this category was mainlyissues related the development of green and/or socially

goals and how the implementation of policy may affectoals. In general, results suggest that such practices cand to favorable rm-level outcomes across industries.SR in general was found to have positive impacts on thetry (Kang et al., 2010; Lee and Park, 2009), the restau-y (Kang et al., 2010), the airline industry (Lee and Park,the casino industry (Lee and Park, 2009).

regardbrand eraturesuch aindustpaid toment pIndeedon cris(2008)try.

5.5. De

Theacross sales p4.4% odemanmanagacademof the enue mindustspread2008),of revelines ishowevtries (Tregardbe exp(e.g., B

Althgeted tresearcthe skductedanalysin an aHarris imperfyear anprice iagemehotel inparks,

5.6. In

5.6.1. The

of anyprolifeior andthat dithe ideict, mresearcof empand Anand rehe effect of such practices on customer satisfaction,e, etc. (see Lee and Heo, 2009). Second, while PR lit-

more contextually diverse than other emerging topicsarketing, specic study of PR in restaurant/foodservices lagged behind. Finally, very little attention has beenrketing issues related to strategy and crisis manage-

shifts in response to the events of September 11, 2001.y two such studies appear: Vassilikopoulou et al. (2009)anagement in the hotel industry, and Eisendrath et al.he effects of the attacks on the Las Vegas gaming indus-

d, pricing, and selling

y of demand, pricing, and selling largely decreasedcomponent categories. Personal selling, advertising,otion, and forecasting topics combined accounted for

total literature and 40% of the literature specic toricing, and selling. By contrast, pricing and revenuent, due to the growth of revenue management as anursuit (Anderson and Xie, 2009) accounted for 6.6%

literature and 60% of the category. Traditionally, rev-gement has been practiced in the hotel and airlineCross et al., 2009), though recently its application hasestaurants (Thompson, 2009), spas (Kimes and Singh,even theme parks (Heo and Lee, 2009). The extensionmanagement to industries other than hotels and air-sitive trend in the literature. Key questions still exist,ch as whether its practice is even benecial in all indus-pson, 2009). Additionally, issues of fairness perceptionpecic revenue management tactics should continue to, with particular attention paid to moderating factorsa and Kwansa, 2008).

h only one study on revenue management explicitly tar-otel industry (Noone and Mattila, 2009), general pricingncerning hotels was more common. For example, noting

distribution of hotel prices, Hung et al. (2010) con-udy on pricing determinants using quantile regressionng et al. (2009) modied the model of Kano et al. (1984)sis of strategic pricing policy, while Van der Rest and8) modied Nashs (1975) decision rule in a study onricing. More generally, Enz et al. (2009) conducted a 6-is of the hotel industry, investigating the dynamics ofation to demand and revenue. As with revenue man-e suggest that pricing research not be limited to thetry. The unique pricing structures of spas, casinos, themeresent interesting avenues for future research.

l marketing

tisfactiony of internal marketing represented the largest increaseketing subcategory, with growth largely due to then of research on topics relating to employee behav-sfaction. Indeed, most of the research in this categoryt specically operationalize job satisfaction focused onirectly via considerations of stress, workfamily con-

ations, performance, turnover, etc. The growth of thisream indicates an increased belief that internal issuese satisfaction and quality of work life (e.g., Kandasamyi, 2009) have a direct impact on customer satisfactionon.

484 N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477 488

A relatively large amount of attention was given to the rolesof stress and conict as antecedents of job satisfaction. This issuewas approached from several angles, providing a relatively thor-ough discussion of the topic. Kim et al.s (2009b) research on themoderatingsatisfactionsatisfactionfor male antors were a(Young andict percepintentions however, dinherently cient worStudying th(2008) simsupport. Roused qualitfor the impThus, over antecedentships wereto worklifresearch wotors that afand performsonality anmitigating tior/perform

5.6.2. OrganA secon

issues of c(OCB). As wtionships wthat such cosidered witwith Raubstralized org(2009c) andof leader-milar conclusdemonstratIn additiondemonstraton OCB. Otexogenous nancial peof commitm

Researchemployee mglobal econdelivery as and Ko, 20nature of emhotels. Althbased in tervariables su(2008) undespecic to hvation, theyprocess of maddress theketing, a to

Practice

Emotally, to prwest

The plan

eman, 1ere

(e.g.hersployeucts ecentual

thadentrnouces asionture erfor

clus

em hospn ofe screseaarketent tcro-level, we propose an organizing framework that linksf these three foci to theory and practice. Fig. 1 represents there of hospitality marketing research in a fractal-like illus-

with theory proposed as an integrative component from comes the empirical research that leads to practical appli-

In concluding our work, we discuss Fig. 1 in terms of (1) thee of marketing research and how this should be addressed) the nature of the relationships proposed within the frame-nd why these relationships should be considered as the elditality marketing moves forward.

arketing research

dearth of domain-specic hospitality marketing theory isvidence and cause of an increasing disconnect between role of gender and organizational levels in the stress- relationship found that the effect of role stress on job is greater for female and supervisory employees thand non-supervisory employees. General personality fac-lso found to inuence the stressorstrain relationship

Corsun, 2009) while workfamily/familywork con-tions were found to subsequently increase turnover(Karatepe and Uludag, 2008). Chiang et al. (2010),emonstrated that job-related demands need not bestressful, especially when the employee receives suf-klife balance support from his or her organization.e other side of this relationship, Karatepe and Bekteshiilarly demonstrated the positive role of family socialunding out this research stream, Wong and Ko (2009)ative methods to outline the critical factors necessarylementation of a successful worklife balance program.the course of our relatively short analytical period,s and outcomes of stress/conictsatisfaction relation-

studied empirically, and an organizational approache balance was proposed. In the future, this stream ofuld benet from further exploration of moderating fac-fect the relationship between employee stress/strainance. A better understanding of the role that per-

d other work- or non-work related variables play inhe effects of stressors and strains on employee behav-ance is a key area for future empirical research.

izational citizenship behaviord stream of internal marketing research focused onommitment and organizational citizenship behaviorith stress and conict, a number of nomological rela-ere examined with at least the implicit assumptionnstructs affect job satisfaction. OCB was generally con-hin the context of organizational attributes, beginning

(2008) demonstration of the negative impacts of a cen-anizational structure on OCB. Subsequently, Kim et al.

Kim et al. (2010a) both studied OCB within the contextember exchange (LMX) relationships and came to sim-ions as did Raub (2008). Likewise, Kim et al. (2010a)ed the mediating role of envy in LMX relationships.

to managerial relationships, Cho and Johanson (2008)ed the impact of employee/organizational commitmenther studies considered OCB and/or commitment in anrole. For example, Fisher et al. (2010) found that hotelrformance levels differed based on organizational levelsent, job satisfaction, and OCB.

conducted at the individual level emphasizedotivation and empowerment. Issues related to the

omic downturn (Cheng-Hua et al., 2009) and servicea competitive advantage (Chiang and Jang, 2008; Wong09) raised several questions concerning the uniqueployment within the hospitality industry, particularlyough many of these studies continue to be problem-ms of connecting employment practices with outcomech as satisfaction and productivity, Chiang and Jangrtook a unique endeavor to build a theory of motivationotel employees. Using an expectancy theory of moti-

established a ve-component theory explaining theotivating hotel employees. We suggest future research

issue of theory building for all areas of hospitality mar-pic to which we return in the conclusion.

5.6.3. Fin

pared the ne2008).effort, desiredFeldmtry whsmileresearcon emconstruum. Rconceptentionanteceand buresourdepresthe nawith p

6. Con

Therecentfunctiodate ththree and mrepresthe maeach ostructutrationtheorycation.absencand (2work aof hosp

6.1. M

Theboth eMarketing Environment

TheoryTheory

ecitcarPecitcarP

Fig. 1. Structure of hospitality marketing research.

ional laborwe turn to the emerging eld of emotional labor. Com-eviously discussed topics, this area represents one of

elds of inquiry within the hospitality literature (Kim,impacts of emotional labor, typically dened as thening, and control needed to express organizationallyotion during interpersonal transactions (Morris and996), are particularly relevant to the hospitality indus-many individuals are paid to deliver service with a, Karatepe and Aleshinloye, 2009; Kim, 2008). As such,

are increasingly studying the effects of emotional labore engagement and burnout. Until recently, these twowere perceived to be on opposite ends of a contin-t research, however, suggests that the two may be

ly distinct (Kim et al., 2009a) and supports the con-t these constructs are unique entities with distincts (e.g., DiPietro and Pizam, 2008 on employee alienationt; Karatepe and Olugbade, 2009 on job and personalnd engagement; Shani and Pizam, 2009 on work-related

and burnout). Future research should continue to probeof these constructs and their nomological relationshipsmance- and satisfaction-based constructs.

ion

ergent research trends reveal that a vast majority ofitality marketing research is geared towards either the

marketing or to its environment. Such ndings vali-hema proposed by Oh et al. (2004) that includes as itsrch foci marketing function, marketing environment,ing research. Based on the observation that these focihe three streams of hospitality marketing research at

N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477 488 485

marketing research and the overall framework of hospitality mar-keting research. We found, as did Oh et al. (2004), that marketingresearch was grossly underrepresented (>2%) compared to theother two foci. Because the topical makeup of this stream includesmethodologdisconnect pitality schothere are mmologies, tbuilding a bcross-cultudomain.

6.1.1. BuildCategori

towards inties of reseThe next stmeta-analycal studies, example ofceded. In Tameta-analyanalysis, hoinformation2008). Unfoexcluded frofor meta-anally suggesand that reincluded in

6.1.2. CrossThe met

towards thcommonly orientationature. Receits predictiv2002). Utilizing that themethodologThe proper for measureUnfortunatular measucross-cultujournals. Asance as it rmarketing c

6.2. Theory

Marketinown uniquements, Hutbut rather aars are pra(1963) suggbecause it iples. In the that the quprinciples cdevelopmecharacterist

scholars to develop and establish theories unique to the eld ofhospitality marketing.

In addition to general marketing theory, hospitality schol-ars also rely heavily on theories drawn from psychology and/or

ics.ove m h

chary be an. In oannes top

is gomehara

addlogyp doausem-bate ine liteg tippality lly ddepeuest

our felivem inere troblome

intereaseed, wnd jreseas thgestic thch w

turn of hodditiions r hosr disry-sp

proilizendusr dist thautio

prov conscipladerlly, w, espt thaed ion, hon. Trve aical and theory/philosophy of science research, suchis troubling. Although we are not advocating that hos-lars attempt to drive the growth of new methodologies,ethodological issues that are germane to all episte-

wo of which come readily to mind. First is the goal ofody of knowledge about a domain, and the second isral applications of key measurement scales used in that

ing knowledgezing and synthesizing extant research is the rst stepegrating related research endeavors and allowing bod-arch to be constructed (Runyan and Droge, 2008).ep in constructing a body of knowledge is a formalsis, requiring a well-dened topic, numerous empiri-and common constructs across studies. Our study is an

such a categorization, as are the syntheses that pre-ble 1, we identify several such topics that may warrantsis. In order for research to be included in a meta-wever, scholars must report the appropriate statistical

(i.e., p, d, r, f, and/or t-statistics) (Runyan and Droge,rtunately, it is not uncommon that this information ism nal publication drafts. Thus, as a corollary to our callalytic research in hospitality marketing, we addition-t that scholars be diligent in their statistical reportingviewers and editors insist that such information be

published material.

-cultural applicationhodological goal of most domains has recently movede examination of the cross-cultural validity of scalesused within the domain. For example, entrepreneurial

is a frequently utilized scale in the management liter-ntly, it has been used in cross-cultural settings to teste ability in non-Western settings (e.g., Marino et al.,ing such scales cross-culturally is important, but ensur-

scales are cross-culturally valid is an equally importanty issue, often ignored in research (Runyan et al., 2010).method of establishing cross-cultural validity is to testment invariance (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998).ely, such tests are rarely enacted. Indeed, although pop-rement scales of hospitality phenomena are employedrally, invariance research is absent in top hospitality

such, we suggest that future studies address invari-elates to the cross-cultural employment of hospitalityonstructs.

building

g has long been accused of a failure to develop its body of theoretical knowledge. Based on such indict-chinson (1952) argued that marketing is not a science,

practice and that, by implication, marketing schol-ctitioners rather than true scientists. Similarly, Buzzellested that marketing should not be considered a sciences not organized around a body of theories and princi-years since, scholars have refuted these claims arguingestion for marketing is not whether such theories andurrently exist but whether the conditions exist for theirnt (e.g., Hunt, 1991). We agree that such conditions areic of marketing phenomena, and that it is the role of

economed abalso frouniquears madomaisive mthat, amatterof phentry is cthat, inpsychodevelo

Becprobleadvocacite thcerninhospitculturavaries ber of qbringsfood dthe norAre ththese pa phen

Thean incdiscussment aof this than itwe suga specapproalem ofnature

In aconditties foin otheindustplinarythat uttality ibroadesuggescontribservicein suchinterdithe bro

Finaologiessuggescombincollectstructithat se We argue that each of the three research foci identi-should stem not from only from tangential elds butospitality-specic marketing theories. By exploring theacteristics of the hospitality industry, hospitality schol-ble to uncover theoretical frameworks particular to thisrder for hospitality marketing to be viewed in the cohe-r presented in Fig. 1, hospitality scholars must ensureical trends change and evolve over time, the subjectrounded (when possible) in domain-specic theoriesna under consideration. Because the hospitality indus-cterized by a number of unique attributes, we suggestition to availing theories borrowed from marketing,, sociology, etc., hospitality marketing scholars begin tomain-specic theories as well.

many areas of hospitality marketing research are stillsed in nature, it is in these areas that we most stronglycreased theory-building endeavors. As an example, werature from the marketing environment stream con-ing behavior: Tipping exists almost exclusively in thedomain. More importantly, it is both contextually andriven. Because the degree to which tipping is expectednding on aspects of service delivery and culture, a num-ions emerge. For example, why do we tip someone whoood to us while we are seated, but do not tip for the samered across a counter while we are standing? Tipping is

the U.S.A., but why is it not the same in other countries?ipping differences within regions of the U.S.A.? Thatems are still poorly understood may suggest tipping isnon in need of theoretical explanation.rnal marketing literature would also benet fromd attention to domain-specic theory building. Ashile empirical research on topics such as work engage-

ob embeddedness has increased in recent years, muchrch remains focused on the problem of turnover, rathereoretical nature. Although such research is valuable,

future research should focus on the advancement ofeory of hospitality employee embeddedness. Such anould ensure that scholars do not emphasize the prob-over to the point that an explication of the theoreticalspitality employee retention becomes secondary.on to necessitating domain-specic theory, the uniqueinherent in the hospitality industry present opportuni-pitality scholars to contribute to theory developmentciplines. Using borrowed theory primarily to addressecic problems has the potential to stie interdisci-gress. As such, we also call for an increase in researchs the distinctive circumstances inherent in the hospi-try to contribute to theoretical advancement in thoseciplines from which theory is so often borrowed. Wet hospitality research has the potential to make suchns in a number of areas such as branding, e-marketing,ision, and management to name only a few. An increasetributions by hospitality scholars would enhance theinary relationship between hospitality marketing and

disciplines to which it is related.e identify a need for an increase in qualitative method-ecially for the purposes of construct development. Wet the dearth of qualitative study in hospitality research,with the previously noted lack of longitudinal dataas impeded the task of hospitality-specic theory con-heory ows from sound constructs (Summers, 2001)s descriptors of observed phenomena, and qualitative

486 N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477 488

methodology is most often called for when building theory. Exam-ples of industries that have under-utilized qualitative research arecruise lines and private clubs. Both are settings ripe for ethno-graphic study. For example, because passengers on cruise lines area captive aphers could(bar, restauto consumetions, and tcould obserin-depth pi

These artheoretical the marketdevelop in tas discussedindebted toical and meresearchersissues, theythe disciplinfor the eldally.

6.3. Future

Our resethe years 20trend startenumber of not withinresearch atton hospitalto comparetive to otheleft to futucal emphasworthwhilepublished ihospitality taking an inresearch trehospitality-

Acknowled

The authvalidating t

References

Alexander, M.ental phenHospitality

Anderson, C.K.Hospitality

Asatryan, V.S.,cation in t(3), 3633

Beldona, S., Kwover dema(4), 5946

Berenguer, G.,as a differ28 (1), 86

Bowen, J., Spaimplicatioment 17 (2

Buzzell, R.D., 166170.

Carvell, S.A., Quan, D.C., 2008. Exotic reservationslow-price guarantees. Interna-tional Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 162169.

Chabowski, B.R., Mena, J.A., Gonzalez-Padron, T.L., 2010. The structure of sustainabil-ity research in marketing, 19582008: a basis for future research opportunities.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0212-7

ine Fi-T., Huomer-et indu4), 535., Lame cusnal of ua, Tormanstry. C, D., 2nal of , GursperforagemC.-F., JrnatioF.F.T., k life brnatioJohanormanf Hos.A., Haloyee231.d-Weresearnal of .G., Hirth of y Qua., Tohpitalit, R.B., stry. Jth, D.egas:ing vo., Canis. Cor., McPwith China

G., Howerm

indusW., 19lopinarch 2rengubeverent 2

yan, C. InterB.D., Thts f163.

Back,sit intnal of

Ryu, Komer ospita., Ogucain reels. In

B., Mats on

N.H., by M1941., Groell Ho, F., Lalty. Co., Leee par453.udience for a set but nite period of time, ethnogra- conceivably observe consumers in multiple settingsrant, gambling, exercising, etc.). To gain such accessrs in other settings would require multiple days, loca-ravel by the researcher. On a cruise line, the researcherve behaviors in a single location, thus painting a morecture for the purposes of construct development.e but four examples of important methodological andissues/trends that are addressed extensively withining and management domains but have been slow tohe sub-domain of hospitality-specic research. Indeed,, much of the current hospitality marketing research is

marketing, psychology, and economics for its theoret-thodological frameworks. However, when hospitality

ignore domain-specic theoretical and methodological cede the direction of the eld to scholars from outsidee. The development of unique frameworks is essential

of hospitality marketing to move forward profession-

research

arch synthesizes hospitality marketing research from08 to 2010 for the purposes of continuing the researchd by Crawford-Welch and McCleary (1992). Although aissues have been addressed, several important issues

the scope of the present research warrant futureention. First, because our research focused specicallyity marketing, space considerations limited our ability

the incidence of hospitality marketing topics rela-r topics published in the selected journals. Thus, it isre researchers to determine the extent to which topi-is has changed across previous syntheses. Moreover, a

addition to our research would be to analyze articlesn top-ranked services marketing journals that use theindustry as a research setting. In that way, rather thanward view, a broader perspective may be gained onnds that are currently not adequately considered in thespecic literature.

gement

ors would like to thank Muzaffer Uysal for his help inhe research topic coding schematic.

, Chen, C.C., MacLauren, A., OGorman, K.D., 2010. Love motels: ori-omenon or emergent sector? International Journal of Contemporary

Management 22 (2), 194208., Xie, X., 2009. Room-risk management at Sunquest Vacations. Cornell

Quarterly 50 (3), 314324. Oh, H., 2008. Psychological ownership theory: an exploratory appli-he restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 3286.ansa, F., 2008. The impact of cultural orientation on perceived fairnessnd-based pricing. International Journal of Hospitality Management 2703.

Gil, I., Ruiz, M.E., 2009. Do upscale restaurant owners use wine listsentiation strategy? International Journal of Hospitality Management95.rks, B., 1998. Hospitality marketing research: a content analysis andns for future research. International Journal of Hospitality Manage-), 125144.1963. Is marketing a science? Harvard Business Review 41, 3240,

(OnlChen, P.

custoutl22 (

Cheng, Sof thJour

Cheng-Hperfindu

ChhabraJour

Chi, C.G.cial Man

Chiang, Inte

Chiang, worInte

Cho, S., perfnal o

Clark, Demp209

Crawforand Jour

Cross, Rrebitalit

DeKay, FHos

DiPietroindu

EisendraLas Vgam

Enz, C.Atime

Fisher, Riors and 404.

Gazzoli,emprant

George, deveRese

Gil, I., Beand agem

Gu, H., Rtion

Guillet, insig143

Han, H.,reviJour

Han, H.,custof H

Hanai, Tto gtrav

Hanson,effec

Hashim,tion(1),

Heide, MCorn

Hendlerloya

Heo, C.Ythem446rstTM)., H.-H., 2009. How determinant attributes of service quality inuenceperceived value: an empirical investigation of the Australian coffeestry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management551., T., 2008. The role of customerseller relationship in the intentiontomer to complain: a study of Chinese restaurateurs. InternationalHospitality Management 27 (4), 552562.., Shyh-Jer, C., Shih-Chien, F., 2009. Employment modes, high-ce work practices, and organizational performance in the hospitalityornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (4), 413431.009. Are late life gamblers a lucrative market in gambling tourism?Hospitality & Tourism Research 33 (2), 245254.oy, D., 2009. Employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction, and nan-mance: an empirical examination. International Journal of Hospitalityent 28 (2), 245253.ang, S., 2008. An expectancy theory model for employee motivation.nal Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 313322.Birtch, T.A., Kwan, H.K., 2010. The moderating roles of job control andalance practices on employee stress in the hotel and catering industry.nal Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (1), 2532.son, M.M., 2008. Organizational citizenship behavior and employeece: a moderating effect of work status in restaurant employees. Jour-pitality & Tourism Research 32 (3), 307326.rtline, M.D., Jones, K.C., 2009. The effects of leadership style on hotels commitment to service quality. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (2),

lch, S., McCleary, K.W., 1992. An identication of the subject areasch techniques used in ve hospitality-related journals. InternationalHospitality Management 11 (2), 155167.gbie, J.A., Cross, D.Q., 2009. Revenue managements renaissance: athe art and science of protable revenue generation. Cornell Hospi-rterly 50 (1), 5681., R.S., Raven, P., 2009. Loyalty programs: airlines outdo hotels. Cornelly Quarterly 50 (3), 371382.Pizam, A., 2008. Employee alienation in the quick service restaurantournal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 32 (1), 2239., Bernhard, B.J., Lucas, A.F., Murphy, D.J., 2008. Fear and managing in

an analysis of the effects of September 11, 2001, on Las Vegas Striplume. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 49 (2), 145162.na, L., Lomanno, M., 2009. Competitive pricing decisions in uncertainnell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (3), 325341.hail, R., Menghetti, G., 2010. Linking employee attitudes and behav-business performance: a comparative analysis of hotels in Mexico. International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (3), 397

ancer, M., Park, Y., 2010. The role and effect of job satisfaction andent on customers perception of service quality: a study in the restau-

try. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 43 (1), 5677.90. Internal marketing and organizational behavior: a partnership ing customer-conscious employees at every level. Journal of Business0 (1), 6370.er, G., Ruiz, M.E., 2009. Wine list engineering: categorization of foodage outlets. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Man-1 (1), 6084.., 2008. Chinese clientele at Chinese hotelspreferences and satisfac-national Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (3), 337345.asci, A.D.A., 2010. Travelers takes on hotel-restaurant co-branding:or China. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 34 (2),

K.-J., Barrett, B., 2009. Inuencing factors on restaurant customersention: the roles of emotions and switching barriers. InternationalHospitality Management 28 (4), 563572.., 2009. The roles of the physical environment, price perception, andsatisfaction in determining loyalty in the restaurant industry. Journallity & Tourism Research 33 (4), 487510.hi, T., Ando, K., Yamaguchi, K., 2008. Important attributes of lodgingspeat business: a comparison between individual travels and groupternational Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 268275.ttila, A.S., ONeill, J.W., Kim, Y., 2009. Hotel rebranding and rescaling:nancial performance. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (3), 360370.Murphy, J., Purchase, S., OConnor, P., 2010. Website and e-mail adop-alaysian hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management 2996.nhaug, K., 2009. Key factors in guests perception of hotel atmosphere.spitality Quarterly 50 (1), 2943.Tour, K.A., 2008. A qualitative analysis of slot clubs as drivers of casinornell Hospitality Quarterly 49 (2), 105121., S., 2009. Application of revenue management practices to thek industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (3),

N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477 488 487

Hu, H.-H., Huang, C.-T., Chen, P.-T., 2010. Do reward programs truly build loyaltyfor lodging industry? International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (1),128135.

Huh, H.J., Kim, T., Law, R., 2009. A comparison of competing theoretical models forunderstanding acceptance behavior of information systems in upscale hotels.Internatio

Hung, W.-T., industry: qagement 2

Hunt, S.D., 19Marketing

Hutchinson, K286293.

Hyun, S.S., 20brand for529539.

Kandasamy, I.itative stu337.

Kang, K.H., LeeresponsibiInternatio

Kano, N., Seraquality. Jo

Karatepe, O.Mexhaustiontality Man

Karatepe, O.Mfacilitationnational Jo

Karatepe, O.Mhotel empagement 2

Karatepe, O.Mand hotel e27 (1), 30

Kim, H.J., 2008of burnout

Kim, H.J., Shintive analyof Hospita

Kim, P.B., Murzational leInternatio

Kim, S., ONeillThe effectcitizenship530537.

Kim, W., Ok, inuencesHospitality

Kim, W., Ok, CcitizenshipQuarterly

Kim, W.G., Jinequity anTourism R

Kim, W.G., Ng,tomer satiof Hospita

Kim, Y.G., Suhsonality trand festiv226.

Kimes, S.E., Sin50 (1), 82

King, C., 2010. to internatality Man

Ladhari, R., Brudining beh27 (4), 563

Lee, S., Heo, Camong USpitality Ma

Lee, S., Park, Sachieve th28 (1), 105

Lee, S., Park, S.companies

Lim, W.M., 20technology(5), 6106

Lim, W.M., Enistics of UKManageme

Liu, Y., Jang, S., 2009. Perceptions of Chinese restaurants in the U.S.: what affectscustomer satisfaction and behavioral intentions? International Journal of Hos-pitality Management 28 (3), 338348.

Lo, A.S., Stalcup, L.D., Lee, A., 2010. Customer relationship management for hotels inHong Kong. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22

1391, Kim,ell Ho., 200cedeny Man, McCahey? ., Sturmnal of L., Strationaegic a1451A.S., R

respoarch 3d, L.J.,rnatio., Lyn

s. Inte., Vo

eworer, Bism M., Han. Corn, C., J

Web

.A., Fetional, H.C., ne mat 20 (1, H.C.,d in biagemg, Y.,

A quitalit., 197untin, H.Nagers nal of ., 200ing mitalit.M., Mt of ponal Joim, B.ents iagemff, P.Mes in ded re, 2008rganiznal of ., Choichise:y Man

Li, G.ers an478.

R.C., in crtruct..2010

R.C., DutureHan, HfactioIntern432.Han, urantntionsnal Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (1), 121134.Shang, J.-K., Wang, F.-C., 2010. Pricing determinants in the hoteluantile regression analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Man-9 (3), 378384.91. Modern Marketing Theory: Critical Issues in the Philosophy of

Science. South-Western, Cincinatti, OH..D., 1952. Marketing as science: an appraisal. Journal of Marketing 16,

09. Creating a model of customer equity for chain restaurantmation. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4),

, Ancheri, S., 2009. Hotel employees expectations of QWL: a qual-dy. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (3), 328

, S., Huh, C., 2010. Impacts of positive and negative corporate sociallity activities on company performance in the hospitality industry.nal Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (1), 7282.ku, N., Takahashi, F., Tsuji, S., 1984. Attractive quality and must-beurnal of Japanese Society for Quality Control 14 (2), 3948.., Aleshinloye, K.D., 2009. Emotional dissonance and emotional

among hotel employees in Nigeria. International Journal of Hospi-agement 28 (3), 349358.., Bekteshi, L., 2008. Antecedents and outcomes of work-family

and family-work facilitation among frontline hotel employees. Inter-urnal of Hospitality Management 27 (4), 517528.., Olugbade, O.A., 2009. The effects of job and personal resources onloyees work engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Man-8 (4), 504512.., Uludag, O., 2008. Affectivity, conicts in the work-family interface,mployee outcomes. International Journal of Hospitality Management41.. Hotel service providers emotional labor: the antecedents and effects. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 151161., K.H., Swanger, N., 2009a. Burnout and engagement: a compara-sis using the Big Five personality dimensions. International Journallity Management 28 (1), 96104.rmann, S.K., Lee, G., 2009b. Moderating effects of gender and organi-vel between role stress and job satisfaction among hotel employees.nal Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4), 612619., J.W., Cho, H.-M., 2010a. When does an employee not help coworkers?

of leader-member exchange on employee envy and organizational behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (3),

C., 2010. Customer orientation of service employees and rapport: on service-outcome variables in full-service restaurants. Journal of

& Tourism Research 34 (1), 3455.., Lee, M.J., 2009c. Antecedents of service employees organizational

behaviors in full-service restaurants in Korea. Cornell Hospitality50 (2), 180197.-Sun, B., Kim, H.J., 2008. Multidimensional customer-based brandd its consequences in midpriced hotels. Journal of Hospitality &esearch 32 (2), 235254.

C.Y.N., Kim, Y.-S., 2009d. Inuence of institutional DINESERV on cus-sfaction, return intention, and word-of-mouth. International Journallity Management 28 (1), 1017., B.W., Eves, A., 2010b. The relationships between food-related per-aits, satisfaction, and loyalty among visitors attending food eventsals. International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (2), 216

gh, S., 2008. Spa revenue management. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly95.One size doesnt t all: tourism and hospitality employees responsel brand management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospi-agement 22 (4), 517534.n, I., Morales, M., 2008. Determinants of dining satisfaction and post-avioral intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management573..Y., 2009. Corporate social responsibility and customer satisfaction

publicly traded hotels and restaurants. International Journal of Hos-nagement 28 (4), 635637..-Y., 2009. Do socially responsible activities help hotels and casinoseir nancial goals? International Journal of Hospitality Management112.-Y., 2010. Financial impacts of socially responsible activities on airline. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 34 (2), 185203.09. Alternate models framing UK independent hoteliers adoption of. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 2118.dean, M., 2009. Elucidating the aesthetic and operational character-

boutique hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitalitynt 21 (1), 3851.

(2), Loi, K.-I.

CornLynn, M

antetalit

Lynn, M.are t

Lynn, MJour

Marino, of nastrat(4),

Mattila, tionRese

MaywarInte

McCall, Mtion

McCall, Mfram

McKerchTour

Mills, J.Esites

Morosantion292.

Morris, Jemo

Murphyengimen

MurphycateMan

Namkunent?Hosp

Nash, J.FAcco

NasutionmanJour

Nisbet, SgamHosp

Noone, Beffecnati

Oh, H., KopmMan

Podsakobiasmen

Raub, S.on oJour

Roh, E.Yfrantalit

Rong, J.,chas466

Runyan,tioncons6520

Runyan,the f

Ryu, K., satistry. 416

Ryu, K., restainte469.59. W.G., 2010. Macaos casino industry: reinventing Las Vegas in Asia.spitality Quarterly 51 (2), 268283.9. Individual differences in self-attributed motives for tipping:ts, consequences, and implications. International Journal of Hospi-agement 28 (3), 432438.ll, M., 2009. Techniques for increasing servers tips: how generalizableCornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (2), 198208.an, M., 2010. Tipping and service quality: a within-subjects analysis.

Hospitality & Tourism Research 34 (2), 269275.ndholm, K., Steensma, H.K., Weaver, K.M., 2002. The moderating effectl culture on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation andlliance portfolio effectiveness. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 2661.o, H., 2008. Discrete negative emotions and customer dissatisfac-nses in a casual restaurant setting. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism2 (1), 89107.

Mupandawana, M., 2009. Tipping behavior in Canadian restaurants.nal Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4), 597603.n, A., 2009. Restaurant servers perceptions of customer tipping inten-rnational Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4), 594596.orhies, C., 2010. The drivers of loyalty program success: an organizingk and research agenda. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51 (1), 3552.., Law, R., Lam, T., 2006. Rating tourism and hospitality journals.anagement 27 (6), 12351252., J.-H., Clay, J.M., 2008. Accessibility of hospitality and tourism web-ell Hospitality Quarterly 49 (1), 2841.eong, M., 2008. Users perceptions of two types of hotel reserva-sites. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 284

ldman, D.C., 1996. The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of labor. Academy of Management Review 21 (4), 9861010.Kielgast, C.D., 2008. Do small and medium-sized hotels exploit searchrketing? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Manage-), 9097.

Rottet, D., 2009. An exploration of the key hotel processes impli-ometric adoption. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitalityent 21 (2), 201212.Jang, S., 2008. Are highly satised restaurant customers really differ-ality perception perspective. International Journal of Contemporaryy Management 20 (2), 142155.5. A note on cost-volume-prot analysis and price elasticity. Theg Review 50 (2), 384386.., Mavondo, F.T., 2008. Customer value in the hotel industry: whatbelieve they deliver and what customer experience. InternationalHospitality Management 27 (2), 204213.9. The role of employees in encouraging customer adoption of newachine payment technologies. International Journal of Contemporaryy Management 21 (4), 422436.attila, A.S., 2009. Hotel revenue management and the Internet: the

rice presentation strategies on customers willingness to book. Inter-urnal of Hospitality Management 28 (2), 272279.-Y., Shin, J.-H., 2004. Hospitality and tourism marketing: recent devel-n research and future directions. International Journal of Hospitalityent 23 (5), 425447.., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common methodbehavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recom-medies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5), 879903.. Does bureaucracy kill individual initiative? The impact of structureational citizenship behavior in the hospitality industry. InternationalHospitality Management 27 (2), 179186., K., 2010. Efciency comparison of multiple brands within the same

data envelopment analysis approach. International Journal of Hospi-agement 29 (1), 9298., Law, R., 2009. A contrast analysis of online hotel web service pur-d browsers. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (3),

Ge, B., Dong, B., Swinney, J.L., 2010. Entrepreneurial orienta-oss-cultural research: assessing measurement invariance in the

Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice (January), doi:10.1111/j.1540-.00436.x.roge, C., 2008. Small store research streams: what does it portend for? Journal of Retailing 84 (1), 7794.., Jang, S., 2010. Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values,n and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant indus-ational Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22 (3),

H., Kim, T.-H., 2008. The relationships among overall quick-casual image, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral. International Journal of Hospitality Management 2 (3), 459

488 N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 477 488

Severt, K.S., Palakurthi, R., 2008. Applying customer equity to the convention indus-try. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 20 (6),631646.

Shani, A., Pizam, A., 2009. Work-related depression among hotel employees. CornellHospitality Quarterly 50 (4), 446459.

Steenkamp, J-B.E.M., Baumgartner, H., 1998. Assessing measurement invariance incross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 25, 7890.

Stevens, P., Knutson, B., 1995. DINESERV: a tool for measuring service quality inrestaurants. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly 36 (6), 5661.

Summers, J.O., 2001. Guidelines for conducting research and publishing in market-ing: from conceptualization through the review process. Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science 29 (4), 405415.

Tan, A.Y.F., Lo, A.S.Y., 2008. A benet based approach to market segmentation: acase study of an American specialty coffeehouse chain in Hong Kong. Journal ofHospitality & Tourism Research 32 (3), 342362.

Tang, C.-H., Jang, S., 2010. Does international diversication discount exist in thehotel industry? Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 34 (2), 225246.

Thompson, G.M., 2009. (Mythical) revenue benets of reducing dining duration.Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (1), 96112.

Van der Rest, J-P.I., Harris, P.J., 2008. Optimal imperfect pricing decision-making:modifying and applying Nashs rule in a service sector context. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 170178.

Vassilikopoulou, A., Siomkos, G., Chatzipanagioutou, K., Triantallidou, A., 2009.Hotels on re: investigating consumers responses and perceptions. Interna-tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 21 (7), 791815.

Victorino, L., Karniouchina, E., Verma, R., 2009. Exploring the use of the technologyreadiness index for customer segmentation. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (3),342359.

Wagner, T., Lutz, R.J., Weitz, B.A., 2009. Corporate hypocrisy: overcoming the threatof inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing73 (6), 7791.

Weber, K., Sparks, B., 2009. The effect of preconsumption mood and service recoverymeasures on customer evaluations and behavior in a strategic alliance setting.Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 33 (1), 106125.

Wen, I., 2009. Factors affecting the online travel buying decision: a review. Interna-tional Journal of Hospitality Management 21 (6), 752765.

Werner, S., 2002. Recent developments in international management: a reviewof 20 top management journals. Journal of Management 28 (3), 277305.

Wong, S.C-K., Ko, A., 2009. Exploratory study of understanding hotel employeesperception on worklife balance issues. International Journal of HospitalityManagement 28 (2), 195203.

Xu, J.B., Chan, A., 2010. A conceptual framework of hotel experience and customerbased brand equity: some research questions and implications. InternationalJournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22 (2), 174193.

Yang, C.-C., Cheng, L.-Y., Sung, D., Withiam, G., 2009. Strategic-pricing policybased on analysis of service attributes. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (4),498509.

Ye, Q., Law, R., Gu, B., 2