A reflection on the previous uses of the KMV model

Several observations have been identified to result from an in-depth review of previous studies using the KMV model (Zineldin & Jonsson 2000; Friman et al. 2002; Cote & Latham 2003; Bowen & Shoemaker 2003; MacMillan et al. 2005; Li, Browne & Wetherbe 2006). First, it can be observed that since it first introduction in 1994 the KMV model has been consistently used as a generic model applicable in many business contexts with slight modifications. The term “generic” is introduced here in order to highlight the fact that the antecedents proposed by Morgan and Hunt (1994) are in fact broad concepts that have provided guidance for over more than a decade for other researchers to specify concepts that suit the particular nature of their research. For example, the “relationship bond”, that has been added to the conceptual model by Zineldin and Jonsson (2000), is arguably a social aspect of relationship benefit (also known as social benefit). Moreover, the concept “a lack of quality alternative” in the study of Li, Browne and Wetherbe (2006) is another aspect of termination costs. Furthermore, the term “stickiness intention” used in the study by

Li, Browne and Wetherbe (2006) is the reverse concept of the propensity to leave proposed by Morgan and Hunt as one of the consequences of a lack of commitment.

Furthermore, antecedents and consequences of trust and commitment are common areas that have been modified according to the context of the particular study, while the central part of the model (trust and commitment) remain untouched in most studies (with the exception of the study by MacMillan et al. (2005). This, in turn, means that it can be argued that antecedents and consequences of trust and commitment might be varied, depending on the context of the study, but trust and commitment should remain as the integral part of a successful relationship regardless of the context. Despite the various attempts to add or remove some of the original antecedents proposed by Morgan and Hunt (1994), it should be noted that certain antecedents have been used repeatedly by most studies. For example, communication and opportunistic behaviour have been kept in every modified model, while other antecedents including termination cost, relationship benefit and shared value are kept in the majority of the modified models.

Additionally, the concept of shared values is not tested in those studies investigating a business-to-customer relationship (Bowen & Shoemaker 2003; Li, Browne & Wetherbe 2006). Bowen and Shoemaker (2003) assert that shared values are an important determinant of trust and commitment, but are difficult to measure due to the complexity of the concept. In contrast to Bowen and Shoemaker (2003), Li, Browne and Wetherbe (2006) exclude shared values from their model, arguing that this concept is less relevant to the development of business-to-customer relationships than to the development of business-to-business relationships.

Finally, the comparison of results from most studies indicates that each antecedent of trust and commitment can be weaker or stronger, depending on the context of the study. For example, in the study of Bowen and Shoemaker (2003), relationship benefit is found to have a strong influence on commitment, while it is found to have no significant impact on commitment in the Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) study.

4.5 The present research

The present research has a number of unique features compared with the previous studies discussed above. First, it is conducted in a location where understanding the needs of domestic tourists (generally with the same cultural background) is as difficult as understanding those of international tourists. At one level, it should be appreciated that, in common with other international destinations (such as Bali, Fiji and the Maldives), the majority of tourists arriving at accommodation establishments on Samui Island are international tourists. Indeed, according to the Tourism Authority of Thailand (2005), almost 90% of resort guests are international tourists. Consequently, understanding how to develop strong relationships with international tourists, in this case Australian tourists, is vital for the survival of island resorts. However, it is essential to realise that the importance of developing strong relationships with local tourists, in this case Thai tourists, should not be overlooked. Although Thai tourists are the minority of the tourist population on Samui Island, they are still an important and sustainable source of tourists who can be relied on during difficult times. In Phuket, for example, Thai tourists supplemented the destination’s revenue during the SARS period when the number of international tourists dropped dramatically. Consequently, resort operators need to understand how to develop relationships with

Australian and with Thai tourists, implying that more subtle, flexible strategies, will need to be implemented.

Although the Bowen and Shoemaker’s (2003) study has already investigated the development of host-guest relationships in a hotel context, they have focused only on business travelers. According to Mattila (1999), business travelers are not suitable respondents in a cross-national study such as this, because it is found that ‘business travelers acted as a relatively homogenous target market regardless of cultural background’, whereas leisure travelers are likely to be more heterogeneous according to their culture (p.384). Since the major aim of the present investigation is to identify the influence of cultural differences on the development of trust and commitment, leisure travelers are selected as the target respondents for this study and in consequence a resort is considered to be an appropriate site for this study.

Resort guests, who are commonly traveling for leisure purposes, are selected as the respondents rather than business travelers for the present investigation, because it is considered that whilst this group of consumers provides many economic benefits, at the same time they present several unique challenges for hospitality managers. They are arguably less price sensitive, and that in turn allows resort operators to add more margin into the price without affecting sales, but this group of customers are very difficult to maintain, as they are willing to switch to other properties even when they are satisfied with the current property. According to Huffadine (1999), the main reason for staying at a resort is to be pampered and to enhance enjoyment and well- being. As a result, it is likely that many resort guests would feel tempted to try out a new property regardless of their satisfaction levels with their current service provider.

Consequently, being able to understand how to develop a successful host-guest relationship in a resort context in the face of this apparent lack of customer loyalty is likely to provide a significant competitive advantage for hospitality managers.