Tour Leader–Member Exchange (TLMX): Scale Development and Validation

Abstract

Exchanges between tour leaders and tour members can affect the smooth operation of a group tour, yet measures of this relationship have not been addressed by previous studies. The main purpose of this study is to develop a reliable and valid scale of the TLMX relationship from the perspectives of both tour leaders and tour members. The initial items of the scale were obtained from in-depth interviews based on the critical incident technique and with rigorous content analysis. First, an Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed by investigating 221 tour leaders, and six factors were identified: harmony, trust, concerted effort, respect, information sharing, and tolerance. Second, the validity of the derived TLMX scale was then tested by confirmatory factor analysis on a sample of 432 tour members. The scale serves as a useful tool for tour members to measure the extent of TLMX and provide management implications for travel agencies.

Keywords

tour leader tour member exchange package tour scale development

Introduction

Group package tours (GPTs) are popular as a mode of overseas travel in Asia (Tsaur and Teng 2017). GPTs combine products and services provided by various tourism-related sectors, including travel agencies, airlines, tourist attractions, hotels, and the catering and transportation industries (Wang et al. 2007). Statistics indicate that the number of Taiwanese people who travel abroad has reached 10 million, and 35.0% of these people have participated in GPTs (Taiwan Tourism Bureau 2019). Estimates in the literature indicate that the GPT market in the Asia–Pacific region will achieve an output value of US$689.5 billion by 2030 (Allied Market Research 2020). They differ from other forms of tourism, such as solo travelers or backpackers, in that a tour leader accompanies and provides tour services to the group and members travel as a group (Wang, Hsieh, and Huan 2000). A GPT is a temporary organization consisting of a tour leader and tour members who live together during the tour. Their behavior and interaction with each other can affect the mood of the entire group. For example, tour members being kind and assisting the tour leader may facilitate interactions between the two (Liu and Tsaur 2014). Therefore, cooperation and interaction between the tour leader and tour members is essential in tour groups and can affect a travel agency’s reputation (Heung 2008).

The relationship between tour members and leaders resembles the relationship between customers and front-line employees in that the production and consumption of services are inseparable, making the customer-employee exchange (CEX) an indispensable part of the service (Ma and Qu 2011). Through exchanges, employees can enrich the customer’s service experience and improve customer satisfaction (Namasivayam and Mattila 2007). CEX refers to the degree of relational norms between the service provider and customer (Keith, Lee, and Leem 2004). Relational norms can serve as a protection strategy to prevent potentially negligent service delivery and ensure high-quality services (Heide and John 1992). Macneil (1980) indicates that good exchange relations between customers and service providers depends on the norms or behavior expectations between the two sides. These norms and expectations restrict the interaction between customers and service providers to prevent transgressive behavior and thereby enhance exchange relations between the two sides (Larson 1992). This exchange relationship can affect the mood and abilities of service providers (Li and Hsu 2016). It also has implications for the sustainable development of the industry (Sierra and McQuitty 2005).

Tour leader–member exchange (TLMX) occur in tour group operations. The tour leader and tour members acknowledge their relationship, which involves mutual trust (e.g., trust in the leader) (Cheng et al. 2017), mutual respect (e.g., respect for each other’s area of expertise) (Yan and Ho 2017), compliance with norms (e.g., punctuality, no unauthorized departures from the group) (Tsaur, Cheng, and Hong 2019), and even mutual understanding (e.g., tolerating minor mistakes by the tour leader) (Liu and Tsaur 2014). In other words, an exchange relationship exists between a tour leader and tour members. Moreover, unlike the short-term consumption pattern in other industries, a tour itinerary can range in from several days to several weeks in length. Tour members and the leader spend longer periods together in a more intimate environment relative to a general consumption pattern. Consequently, the normative relationship between tour leader and members should be more pronounced. Few studies, however, have discussed the significance of this relationship.

Previous studies have explored the connotation and measurement of the “CEX.” However, they focus on general consumption patterns (Keith, Lee, and Leem 2004; Ma and Qu 2011) and not the “one (leader) to many (members)” common service model for groups. GPTs are a form of group activity in which the tour leader and members must agree to complete the tour together and establish intangible and tangible relational norms. Previous studies have not explored exchanges between tour leaders and members. Therefore, clarifying the influence of this exchange relationship and developing a TLMX scale would fill a gap in the literature. Developing a TLMX scale would, first, enable tour leaders to evaluate their exchange relationship with each tour member; second, assist travel agencies in identifying correlations between the exchange relationships and tour members’ satisfaction to develop tour leader training sessions and enhance tour leader qualities; and third, improve the quality of GPTs and serve as a reference for future studies seeking to verify casual relationships and expand knowledge in the field of tourism.

Literature Review

We first reviewed the social exchange theory, which involves exchange relationships between individuals. Subsequently, we explored the exchange relationships between employees in an organization and customers. Finally, through a literature review, we identified an exchange relationship between tour leaders and tour members.

Social Exchange Theory

Social exchange theory is grounded in exchange behaviorism. It holds that individuals will rationally evaluate their own interests in the context of transactions or exchanges and seek to maximize self-interests. According to this theory, exchange behavior will only occur when there is interest (Homans 1958, 1961). Blau (1964) categorizes exchange relationships into economic exchanges and social exchanges. The former is contractual: both sides of the transaction have clear and specific obligations. In the latter, neither side stipulates specific obligations or rules, but each side expects some form of reciprocation from the other (Kankanhalli, Tan, and Wei 2005; Rousseau and McLean Parks 1993). Furthermore, trust and relationships are vital constructs in social exchange theory. Because it is not always possible to guarantee an appropriate return for a favor in a person-to-person exchange, the individual needs to establish a friendly relationship to convince the other party that they will not evade the obligations in the relationship (Blau 1964; Cropanzano, Rupp, and Byrne 2003).

Social exchange theory has been widely applied in earlier studies on management and organizational behavior. Most of these studies discuss the relationship, type, and degree of relationships between organizations and members (Brandes, Dharwadkar, and Wheatley 2004), organizational justice (Aryee, Budhwar, and Chen 2002), and the quality of interaction in exchange relationships (Liden and Maslyn 1998). More recently, it has been used to interpret the exchange relationships between service providers and customers in the process of service contacts. For example, the emotional exchange between customers and service personnel is critical to industry improvement of service operations and revenue. Earlier studies have found that a high degree of trust and commitment in the exchange relationship between customers and employees positively affects customers’ perceived risk, loyalty, and future consumption intentions (Bettencourt 1997; Briggs and Grisaffe 2010; La and Choi 2012). Furthermore, closer and more harmonious employee-customer interactions can improve performance and perception of value on both sides (Gremler, Gwinner, and Brown 2001). In sum, social exchange theory looks closely at the “mutual relationship” between exchange partners and how mutual trust, commitment, and dependence in this “relationship” influence the effectiveness of interaction. In a tour group, the interactions between leaders and members are similar to those of a small society. During the tour, both parties engage in different types of exchanges to achieve a common goal, forming a social exchange model.

Customer-Employee Exchange (CEX)

Customer-employee exchange (CEX) emerged from the relational exchange concept proposed by Macneil (1980). It refers to a long-term transactional relationship between buyer and seller in which the conditions of the transaction are related to past interactions and expectations of future development. Both sides establish a foundation for future cooperation based on explicit or implicit trust and planning (Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh 1987). CEX relationships are indispensable to service because production and consumption of the service are inseparable (Ma and Qu 2011). Macneil (1980) indicates that when two parties of a “relationship exchange” enter into a contract, they usually internalize solidarity and value the special exchange relationship, connotation, and fairness of distribution. They also hope their investment can be recovered and that long-term rewards can be obtained through ongoing exchanges.

Keith, Lee, and Leem (2004, 18) defines CEX as the extent to which relational norms characterize the relationship between a service provider and customer. In the development process, exchange partners internalize the norms of the relationship. Transaction mechanisms become ethical controls leading to “trust” between the two sides and creating a basis to improve development of the relationship (Barney and Hansen 1994). CEX involves the dimensions of solidarity, harmonization, and information exchange (Keith, Lee, and Leem 2004). Solidarity refers to the degree to which an exchange is considered important and sustained; harmonization to the degree to which the parties in the exchange trust each other and can resolve conflicts; and information exchange to the two-way exchange of information between the parties to the exchange.

Most past studies on CEX approach the topic from one of two directions: examination of the connotation of the CEX (e.g., Keith, Lee, and Leem 2004; Macneil 1980); and the causation of CEX. For example, Li and Hsu (2016) finds that CEX directly affects the innovative behavior of front-line service personnel. Ma and Qu (2011) notes that CEX can encourage service personnel to demonstrate organizational citizenship behavior. Kim and Qu (2020) confirms that good CEX can heighten employee demonstration of role-prescribed and extra-role service behaviors. In addition, some empirical studies show that CEX has a significant impact on employees’ well-being, attitude, and work behavior (Li and Hsu 2016; Zimmermann, Dormann, and Dollard 2011).

In summary, although they are both expected relationships between service providers and customers, we considered CEX and TLMX relationships to be different. For example, TLMX services include both group and individual services and require tour leaders and members to spend more time together; in addition, TLMX services provided by tour leaders are related to all aspects of the group’s life on the tour. Therefore, the expected and normative relationships that occur between tour leaders and members differ from the expected and normative relationships present in short-term product sales.

Tour Leader–Member Exchange

Unlike the CEX model, a tour leader simultaneously provides exchange services to multiple group members during a tour. Tour groups also have the characteristics of co-living and social dynamics (Liu and Tsaur 2014). Foster (1986) describes tour groups as a kind of “short-lived society” characterized by informal, equal, and cordial interaction with each other. The intensity and quality of the interactive experience inspires a sense of belonging and contributes to group cohesion (Huang and Hsu 2010). The experience gradually brings the members together into a group. The tour leader plays an indispensable role in this process by arranging this short journey, encouraging interaction, and developing the social dynamics of the group (Quiroga 1990; Sharpe 2005).

Tour leaders play an important role in promoting group interaction. Their performance can affect the company’s image, tour member loyalty, and public reputation (Cheng, Chen, and Wu 2020; Duke and Persia 1996; Teng and Tsaur 2021). The tour leader encourages member interaction to build the friendly relations needed to ensure the smooth progress of the tour and members’ happiness (Cohen 1985). Mancini (2001) also believes that a tour leaders require the ability to care well for all group members and enhance interaction between members. They should also be able to handle incidents independently and have the ability and sensitivity to accurately manage travel time and communication with members. Zhang and Chow (2004) indicates that tour leaders able to provide quality service during a tour (e.g., in handling problems and getting group members out of trouble) are likely to earn the trust of the group members and increase the confidence of the members to visit unfamiliar tourist destinations. In addition, Liu and Tsaur (2014) notes that demonstration of friendship, care, and encouragement by tour members to the tour leader during an emergency can foster closer relations and deepen affinity between the two sides.

During a tour, tour members rely on the tour leader to translate explanations by local guides, as well as regulate interaction between the tour group and the local community and cultural environment (Hwang and Lee 2019; Yu, Weiler, and Ham 2002). Tsaur and Tu (2019) believes that tour leaders should use their knowledge and awareness of local culture and cultural norms to help themselves and group members to better understand and adapt to the local culture. Just as tour leaders share their extensive travel experience and knowledge with tour members, so do group members share information and knowledge with the tour leader and other group members to make the trip more memorable and enjoyable (Chang et al. 2020). Interaction between a tour leader and members naturally involves a two-way exchange of information. In addition, Liu and Tsaur (2014) indicates that a tour leader may encounter things or languages beyond their ability when leading a group. To ensure a smooth journey, group members may assist the tour leader with translations or negotiations. Consequently, the two sides could form a cooperative relationship to achieve a common goal.

Furthermore, several studies have explored the interactive relationships between tour leaders and members. Chang et al. (2020) discussed the effects of tour member–leader fit and tour rapport on tour experience. They explained that, to ensure a smooth journey, leaders must satisfy the needs of tour members and obtain the members’ cooperation and feedback to gain a sense of achievement, exchange ideas with those of different backgrounds, and establish satisfactory interpersonal relationships with the tour members. Teng and Tsai (2020) investigated the value of cocreation for tour members; they reported that members should follow leaders’ instructions and complete the journey with others. However, this cocreation value is only present when the tour members have a satisfactory interactive relationship with tour leaders.

The above phenomena show that tour leaders and members have the opportunity to be in long-term interaction in which the exchange relationship is necessarily frequent (Ap and Wong 2001; Chang et al. 2020). Mossberg (1995) stresses the importance of understanding the relationship between the tour leader and tour members. This is a two-way exchange relationship in which tour members must rely on the service and assistance of the tour leader throughout the process (Wang, Hsieh, and Huan 2000). Tour leaders also rely on the cooperation and assistance of the tour members (Chang et al. 2020). Holloway (1981) mentions that interaction among members of a tour group is the key element of the members’ experience from participating in the group. However, previous studies on tour leaders and members have not explored the TLMX, though a few studies have looked at possible exchange relationships in tour groups. Based on established theories and concepts of exchange relations, this study defines TLMX as “the extent to which relational norms characterize the relationship between a tour leader and tour members during a group tour.”

Overview of Scale Development

The scale for this study was developed in steps largely following scale development models proposed by DeVellis (2003), Churchill (1979), and Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams (2000). This model is simple, clear, and widely adopted by researchers. We applied qualitative and quantitative methods to ensure the validity and reliability of the scale. The benefit of employing qualitative methods is that they enable a broad understanding of TLMX (Xenikou and Furnham 1996). Therefore, we established the initial items through a literature review and in-depth interviews. A quantitative survey was conducted to verify the effectiveness of the TLMX scale, and we developed the scale using a systematic method (Churchill 1979). The scale was developed in three studies: study 1. qualitative research and item generation, study 2. data collection (one) and purification of measure, and study 3. data collection (two) and reanalysis of measures (shown in Figure 1).

Study 1: Qualitative Research and Item Generation

The initial items were developed using TLMX categories obtained through content analysis of in-depth interviews. The items were present according to the scale development principles proposed by DeVellis (2003). After the initial items were completed, their content validity and adequacy were evaluated by an expert panel.

In-depth Interviews

In study 1, Data was collected for this study through semi-structured in-depth interviews and focus groups to fully understand the significance of leader-member exchanges. In the semi-structured interviews, respondents were all surveyed in the same manner and with the same questions (DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree 2006). In-depth interviews can reveal and probe the significance of human behavior and clarify otherwise undiscernible issues (Arksey and Knight 1999). Focus groups can synergistically reveal information unexposed by individual in-depth interviews (Stewart and Shamdasani 1998). In addition, we employed the critical incident technique (CIT) to collect data on notable and unique incidents that occurred during the tour service process (Grove and Fisk 1997). CIT is widely applied in job analysis and psychology. In recent years, it has also been used extensively in studies on service context (e.g., Bitner, Booms, and Mohr 1994; Harris and Reynolds 2004; Liu and Tsaur 2014), making it highly suited to the present study.

This study begins with a literature review. According to Keith, Lee, and Leem (2004), we then develop interview items based on attributes involved in the study of exchange relationships. The meaning of TLMX needed to be clearly defined to duly reflect the concept and connotation of TLMX. On a theoretical basis with these constituent attributes, this study defines TLMX as the extent to which relational norms characterize the relationship between a tour leader and tour members during a group tour. Relational norms refer to the extent to which people seek to maintain and enhance interpersonal relationships. They are the common values and expectations of appropriate behavior in the relationship between the tour leader and tour members. The following questions were asked during the interview:

Questions for interviews with tour leaders

Please share your experience leading groups. What kind of relationship do you expect to maintain with tour members when leading a group? Please provide examples.

Please share your experience leading groups. What actions do you take to maintain or enhance a good relationship between you and the tour members? Please provide examples.

Can you share any other information related to the research topic? Please provide examples.

Questions for interviews with tour members

Please share your experience participating in tour groups. What type of relationship do you expect to maintain with the tour leader during the tour? Please provide examples.

Please share your experience participating in tour groups. What actions do you take to maintain or enhance a good relationship between you and the tour leader? Please provide examples.

Can you share any other information related to the research topic? Please provide examples.

The data for this study was collected by semi-structured interviews conducted from July to September 2020. Licensed travel agencies able to arrange domestic and international GPTs were asked to each recommend three to five tour leaders willing to undergo in-depth interviews. Of the 20 tour leaders consenting to the interview, nine participated in the focus groups. The travel agencies also recommended 20 tour members with GPT experience. Of these members, 12 participated in individual in-depth interviews and eight participated in focus groups for data collection. The numbers of respondents are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Data Collection Methods.

No.	Method	Participants	Number of Participant
1	In-depth interviews	Tour members	11
2	Focus group	Tour members	9
3	In-depth interviews	Tour leaders	12
4	Focus group	Tour leaders	8

Content Analysis of In-depth Interviews

Data for this study was subjected to content analysis. Content analysis is a research method used to subjectively interpret textual material through systematic coding and identification of themes or patterns. This study analyzed respondent data according to the three-stage criteria proposed by Patton (2002): First, two judges with experience in leading tour groups were asked to independently screen items from the transcribed information. The basic analysis unit of the TLMX was confirmed based on the respondent’s experience in leading and participating in tour groups. After each screening, the two judges discussed the selected items and discussed and screened the analysis units on which they were in disagreement or had doubts. We finally obtained 288 analysis units with full consensus.

In the second stage, the two judges performed inductive content analysis on the 288 analysis units. Judge A and Judge B classified all items into meaningful and interpretable categories. Each item was compared with other items and then combined or separated based on similarity or differences of meaning with the analysis units. The two judges grouped duplicate or similar cards under the same dimension through complex card classification. The 288 analysis units were grouped into 22 categories related to TLMX, which in turn were classified into six higher-order categories. A reliability test was then performed. Kassarjian (1977) recommends that the reliability value exceed 80% to be confirmed as a valid qualitative research result. Therefore, Judge C, who is proficient in qualitative content analysis, conducted the reliability test for this study. Results showed that the inter-rater reliability of all items was 0.83 (240/288); the reliability of the high-order categories was 0.91 (20/22), indicating good reliability of the classification procedure.

Based on the content analysis results, the 22 categories were converted into sentences as the initial items in formulating the TXM scale. Two professors experienced in scale development and three professors with experience in tourism industry or tour guiding profession then performed the content validity and assessment of content and relevance to determine the completeness and suitability of the items and dimensions. They further assessed and reviewed the suitability of the classification attributed to each item of the scale and offered suggestions on rewording items to further clarify meaning. The final questionnaire contained 22 items revised by experts and scholars. (see Table 2)

Table 2.

Potential Indicators of Tour Leader–Member Exchange.

Scale Items
1. I and tour members can interact freely.
2. I and tour members care about each other.
3. I and tour members maintain good interaction.
4. I and tour members treat each other honestly.
5. I and tour members solve problems sincerely.
6. I and tour members are mutually trustworthy.
7. I and tour members are like friends.
8. I and the tour members are mutually friendly.*
9. I usually help the tour members to resolve awkward situations.*
10. I and tour members follow the rules of the tour group.
11. I and tour members cooperate.
12. I and tour members help each other.
13. I and tour members respect each other.
14. I and tour members respect each other’s professionalism.
15. I and tour members care about each other’s self-esteem.
16. I and tour members learn from each other.
17. I and tour members discuss new things.
18. I and tour members share our travel experiences.
19. I and tour members mutually share information.
20. I and tour members communicate.
21. I appreciate the individual needs of tour members.
22. I am appropriately tolerant of tour member misbehavior.

Items deleted during exploratory factor analysis.

Study 2: Data Collection (One) and Purification of Measures

Scale purification mainly involved reduction of the initial scale items to ensure the retained items had good discriminability. Item analysis and reliability analysis were performed on the first samples collected. The factor structure and interpretation level of the TLMX scale was elucidated through exploratory factor analysis (EFA).

Data Collection (Sample One)

Measurement analysis was performed on the 22 initial items in the first formal questionnaire survey to confirm whether measurements for the TLMX scale meet expectations (Hinkin, Tracey, and Enz 1997). Items were measured with a Likert five-point scale scoring from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Convenience sampling and snowball sampling were used to survey tour leaders in the first sample of this study. The questionnaires were distributed mainly through the social networks of the researchers and their friends, travel agencies, and tour leader associations. To reduce hesitancy to answering the survey, respondents were informed that answers would remain anonymous and information obtained would be used strictly for academic research. The survey was conducted from January 1–31, 2021. Due to the impact of COVID-19 during that time, the surveyed tour leaders were asked to answer the questions based on their most recent experience leading a tour group. A total of 250 tour leader questionnaires were collected, of which 221 were considered valid (a validity rate of 88.4%).

The majority of respondents were female (51.6%) and married (62.9%). The largest age group was 51–60 years old (42.1%), followed by 41–50 years old (27.6%). Most of the respondents had a university education (65.2%) and led foreign language tours (74.9%). Respondents with less than five years of tour leading experience accounted for the largest share (29.9%), followed by 20 years above (24.9%). Tours in Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR, and Mainland China accounted for the largest share (22.4%), followed by Europe (18.4%).

Item Reduction and Exploratory Factor Analysis

This study performed EFA with SPSS 21.0 statistical analysis software; used principal axis method, the most common technique, for factor extraction; and varimax for rotation, with factors composed from eigenvalues greater than 1. To enhance rigor and conciseness, items with analysis results showing a factor loading exceeding 0.5 were retained (Hair et al. 2010). Two redundant items were eliminated based on the above-stated criteria, including: “I and the tour members are mutually friendly” and “I usually help the tour members to resolve awkward situations,” leaving 20 items. The EFA produced six factors for the TLMX scale. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index was 0.873; Bartlett’s test of sphericity achieved a significant level (χ² = 3762.863, df = 190, p < .001); total cumulative explained variance reached 78.03%; and the reliability of all factors exceeded 0.7, indicating internal consistency and aptness for measurement of all factors. The six factors are: (1) Information sharing, (2) Trust, (3) Harmony, (4) Concerted effort, (5) Respect, and (6) Tolerance. Information sharing refers to the extent to which two parties engage in the exchange of experience, ideas, and information; Trust refers to the extent of confidence one party has in the trust and integrity of an exchange partner; Harmony refers to the extent to which two parties maintain good mutual interaction and resolve conflicts; Concerted effort refers to the degree of unity between the two sides to jointly achieve the established goals of the tour group through means; Respect refers to the degree of positive respect and importance shown by one side to an exchange partner; Tolerance refers to the degree of forbearance and understanding that both parties are willing to show each other. The results of the factor analysis and the associated statistics are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Exploratory Factor Analysis-Sample One (Tour Leader) (N = 221).

Factor/Item	M	FL	Eigenvalue	Variance (%)	Cronbach’s α
Factor 1. Information sharing			8.15	18.98	0.93
I and tour members mutually share information.	4.21	0.89
I and tour members share our travel experiences.	4.29	0.86
I and tour members communicate.	4.28	0.83
I and tour members discuss new things.	4.33	0.73
I and tour members learn from each other.	4.38	0.73
Factor 2. Trust			2.55	15.41	0.92
I and tour members treat each other honestly.	4.16	0.85
I and tour members are mutually trustworthy.	4.25	0.85
I and tour members solve problems sincerely.	4.39	0.80
I and tour members are like friends.	4.22	0.75
Factor 3. Harmony			2.45	12.44	0.93
I and tour members maintain good interaction.	4.12	0.87
I and tour members care about each other.	4.06	0.83
I and tour members can interact freely.	4.05	0.82
Factor 4. Concerted effort			1.45	12.32	0.94
I and tour members help each other.	4.42	0.84
I and tour members follow the rules of the tour group.	4.34	0.82
I and tour members cooperate.	4.31	0.82
Factor 5. Respect			1.25	10.80	0.89
I and tour members care about each other’s self-esteem.	4.58	0.79
I and tour members respect each other.	4.51	0.77
I and tour members respect each other’s professionalism.	4.46	0.74
Factor 6. Tolerance			1.01	8.08	0.89
I appreciate the individual needs of tour members.	4.03	0.84
I am appropriately tolerant of tour member misbehavior.	4.03	0.83

Note: M = mean; FL = factor loading.

Study 3: Data Collection (Two) and Reanalysis of Measures

The TLMX scale was established after the above procedures and analysis. However, Churchill (1979) recommends conducting a second survey on the simplified items and re-testing the reliability and validity of the simplified scale on different samples. This study therefore conducted a second questionnaire survey and further analysis to solidify the TLMX scale. We added four additional items for tourism satisfaction in this stage to test the criterion-related validity of the scale.

Data Collection (Sample Two)

The study used convenience sampling and snowball sampling in the second survey. The survey was answered by individuals who had participated in groups tours. The questionnaires were distributed primarily through the researchers’ social networks and friends and travel agencies. The second sample was collected from March 1 to April 5, 2021. Due to the impact of COVID-19 at this time, respondents were asked to base answers on their most recent experience as participants in a group tour. The survey first asked respondents to answer the following questions: travel date, destination, days of stay, tour group size, and unique qualities of the tour leader. The questions were designed to help participants recall their travel experience (Maréchal 2016) and reduce recall bias by systematically stimulating memories and asking them to reconstruct that experience (Wood and Moss 2015). Questionnaires were sent to 450 tour members and 440 responses were obtained. After excluding questionnaires invalidated for indiscriminate or overly incomplete responses, a total of 432 valid responses were obtained, representing an effective response rate of 98.2%.

The majority of respondents for this survey were female (60.9%) and unmarried (74.8%). The biggest age group was 21–30 years old (57.6%), followed by 31–40 years old (27.8%). The majority of respondents had a university education (63.7%). The biggest occupation category was services (29.6%), followed by the industrial and commercial sector (25.2%). In terms of group tour experience, most of the respondents had participated in five or fewer tours (65.7%), followed by 6–10 tours (21.8%). Northeast Asia accounted for the largest share of the respondents’ most recent tour routes (35.9%), followed by Southeast Asia (30.3%).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Churchill (1979) recommends conducting a second questionnaire survey on tour members using the simplified items and re-testing the reliability and validity of the simplified scale for different samples. The main purpose of this phase was to perform CFA and reliability analysis and measure criterion-related validity and known group validity on the samples collected in the second survey. Table 4 shows the CFA results for the 20 items and six factors for Sample 2. The standardized factor loading for all measured variables ranged from 0.70–0.93. All achieved statistical significance (p < .001), indicating the aptness of all 20 items to represent measurement in the TLMX scale for the six factors in this study. Each fitness index was χ²/df = 2.836, GFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.86, NFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.065, RMR = 0.034. All index values met the model fit standard proposed by Greenspoon and Saklofske (1998), indicating good fit for the six-factor TLMX constructs. The AVE of each factor ranged from 0.68 to 0.79. All values exceeded the 0.5 standard, signifying the good convergence validity of all scale factors.

Table 4.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis—Sample Two (n = 432).

Factor/Item	M	FL	CR	AVE	Cronbach’s α
Harmony			0.87	0.68	0.86
The tour leader and I can interact freely	3.87	0.85
The tour leader and I care about each other	3.52	0.79
The tour leader and I maintain good interaction	4.04	0.84
Trust			0.91	0.71	0.90
The tour leader and I treat each other honestly	3.84	0.86
The tour leader and I solve problems sincerely	4.04	0.86
The tour leader and I are mutually trustworthy	3.91	0.86
The tour leader and I are like friends	3.62	0.79
Concerted effort			0.86	0.67	0.84
The tour leader and I follow the rules of the tour group	4.46	0.74
The tour leader and I cooperate	4.35	0.89
The tour leader and I help each other	4.13	0.81
Respect			0.92	0.79	0.92
The tour leader and I respect each other	4.44	0.93
The tour leader and I respect each other’s professionalism	4.43	0.89
The tour leader and I care about each other’s self-esteem	4.35	0.85
Information sharing			0.90	0.63	0.90
The tour leader and I learn from each other	3.98	0.84
The tour leader and I discuss new things	3.66	0.74
The tour leader and I share our travel experiences	3.81	0.70
The tour leader and I mutually share information	3.81	0.74
The tour leader and I communicate	3.99	0.94
Tolerance			0.81	0.68	0.79
I appreciate the tour leader’s hard work	4.38	0.89
I tolerate mistakes made by the tour leader during the tour	4.03	0.75

Note: M = mean; SFL = factor loading; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

Criterion-related Validity

Huang and Hsu (2010) finds a positive relationship between CEX and customer satisfaction. Lopez (1980) further notes that harmony and interaction between a tour leader and the members can affect the travel satisfaction of the tour members. Therefore, this study adopts the customer satisfaction scale proposed by Oliver (1997). Criterion-related validity of the tourist satisfaction level was tested based on data from the second tour member sample. The relevance of the six types of TLMX and satisfaction criteria items were tested by Pearson correlation analysis (see Table 5). The six types of TLMX and tourist satisfaction are significantly related (p < .001), indicating the good predictive validity of the TLMX scale established by this study.

Table 5.

Criterion-Related Validity Analysis.

Tour Leader–Tour Member Exchange	Satisfaction
Harmony	0.673***
Trust	0.682***
Concerted effort	0.684***
Respect	0.639***
Information sharing	0.616***
Tolerance	0.625***

***

p < .001.

Model Comparison

According to the EFA and CFA, the TLMX scale contained six factors and 20 items. To further verify whether the six-factor structure was superior to those of other models, we compared the goodness-of-fit of three models: (1) a single-factor model, (2) a six-factor model identified in EFA and CFA, (3) a second-order six-factor model.

The single-factor model was used to test whether the TLMX scale could be used to measure a common factor rather than six individual factors. In the model, all included variables were reflected in a common TLMX factor. In the six-factor model, we applied the EFA results as a basis. The second-order six-factor model is an extension of the six-factor model, indicating that in addition to the original six factors, the TLMX scale has higher-order factor explanation. That is, the six factors can be aggregated into a potential higher-order concept. The data presented in Table 6 reveals that the goodness-of-fit of the single-factor and second-order six-factor models was less satisfactory. Therefore, the two models were excluded from our discussions. We considered the six-factor model to have the most satisfactory factor structure for measuring TLMX.

Table 6.

Summary of Model Comparisons.

Model	χ²	df	GFI	AGFI	NFI	CFI	RMSEA	RMR
Single-factor model	2,150.853	170	0.559	0.456	0.700	0.716	0.164	0.071
Six-factor model	422.611	149	0.901	0.861	0.941	0.961	0.065	0.034
Second-order six-factor model	818.025	164	0.812	0.759	0.886	0.906	0.096	0.063

Known-Group Validity

The different sample groups in this study were evaluated for known-group validity and differences in the mean number of the six types of TLMX. Differences would indicate the known-population validity of the TLMX scale (Bearden and Richard 1999). The interaction between tour leader and tour members can vary according to the gender and age of the tour leader and tour members (Chang et al. 2020). Consequently, the study analyzed the known-group validity based on the items of the TLMX scale.

According to Chang et al. (2020), the tour members sampled in this study were divided into two sample groups: males (Group 1; n = 169) and females (Group 2; n = 263). Variances between these groups in the exchange relationship scores for the six TLMX dimensions were compared through t-tests of independent samples. As shown in Table 7, the study found significant differences between the two groups in the presentation of TLMX. Scores for exchanges between the female tour members and tour leaders in the three factors of concerted effort, respect, and tolerance were significantly higher than those for the male tour members. This confirms acceptable known-group validity for the TLMX scale established by this study.

Table 7.

Known-Group Validity Analysis.

Tour Leader–Tour member exchange	Gender
Tour Leader–Tour member exchange	Male (N = 169) Mean (SD)	Female (N = 263) Mean (SD)	t-test
Harmony	3.78 (0.77)	3.88 (0.75)	−1.09
Trust	3.80 (0.81)	3.84 (0.78)	−0.90
Concerted effort	4.15 (0.71)	4.42 (0.62)	−3.99***
Respect	4.24 (0.74)	4.51 (0.62)	−4.01***
Information sharing	3.79 (0.82)	3.84 (0.84)	−0.62
Tolerance	4.06 (0.78)	4.30 (0.65)	−3.33**

p < .01, ***p < .001.

Discussion

The purpose of this study is to develop a set of scale tools for “TLMX.” The study first generated a 22-item pool through literature review, in-depth interviews, and content analysis, as a basis for the development of the TLMX scale. Scale items were purified on Sample 1 (tour leaders) and scale reliability and validity were verified on Sample 2 (tour members). Lastly, we confirmed the six dimensions and 20 measurement items of the scale. The dimensions are: harmony, trust, concerted effort, respect, information sharing, and tolerance.

Harmony is an important component in TLMX, including interacting freely with members and showing mutual care. Since tour groups involve joint action, tour leaders promote interaction between the tour members and care for the needs of each tour member to enhance the harmonious atmosphere of the group and avoid conflict between participants during a tour. This finding is consistent with Chang et al. (2020). Scholars believe that a tour leader should enhance harmony among tour members by promoting interaction between the members and properly caring for the tour members. Moreover, harmony in tour group may surpass that of general individual service contacts to a certain extent due to the dynamic group character of tour groups. The tour leader serves in a one-to-many (tour members) context. The tour members also play an interactive role in service contacts. Furthermore, friendly treatment between the two sides creates a sense of comfortable interaction and sincerity in resolving problems.

Trust is another crucial quality in TLMX, including sincerity toward each other, sincerity in resolving problems faced by the other side, trustworthiness to the other side, and mutual friend-like relations. It is more evident than in short-term consumer service contacts since tour leader and tour members form a longer term relationship. When both sides feel they are mutually trustworthy and sincere, group members can more easily build shared emotional ties. This is similar to the finding in Zhang and Chow (2004) that a tour leader can earn the trust of the tour members by their ability to handle problems and their sincerity in associating with tour members. Teng and Tsai (2020) notes that tour members can build a high degree of mutual trust when they feel treated friendly and politely. In other words, the trust exchange relationship of the tour group is based on the descriptive expectations between the members. Actions such as mutual care and greetings between the tour leader and tour members facilitates friend-like relations.

The third dimension is concerted effort, including compliance with the tour rules, mutual assistance, and working in coordination. It is especially apparent in tour groups due to their essential quality of organizational operations. The tour leader and tour members are bound by rules of mutual expectation about how things are done, for example: arriving punctually at meeting points and not leaving the group without permission during the tour (Tsaur, Cheng, and Hong 2019). There are also descriptive norms on what each side should be able to do, for example: mutual assistance and cooperation.

The fourth dimension is respect. This includes respecting each other and considering the self-esteem of the other side. Behavior detrimental to the self-esteem of both sides hinders the ability of the two sides to cooperate and assist each other to achieve the exchange effect. Wong and Lee (2012) notes that the leader and group members should establish a relationship of mutual respect to maintain the atmosphere of the tour group. From this we can ascertain a need for the tour leader and group members to maintain mutual respect. The smooth progress of the tour depends both on the tour members respecting the professionalism of the tour leader and the tour leader considering tour members’ self-respect.

The fifth dimension is information sharing. Examples include sharing travel experiences, learning from each other, and communicating. Few previous studies on CEX relationships take into account information sharing. This is because the main consumer behavior of general customers is the receipt of services or information (Bettencourt and Brown 1997). Although there is unidirectional enjoyment of services or information in tour groups, a group, by nature, involves an interactive sharing and exchange in which the tour members and tour leader stand on the same operating platform. The service provider (tour leader) shares and provides information so the tour members can learn (Wong and Lee 2012). The tour members also share their views and experiences such that the tour leader also learns from the tour members. The two sides can even discuss and share knowledge to learn together. This result is consistent with the finding of Liu and Tsaur (2014) that, not only do tour leaders share experience and knowledge with tour members during a trip, but the tour members sometimes share information with the tour leader and other tour members.

Lastly, tolerance is an important component in TLMX. Negative interactions occasionally occur during a trip and affect the group. At such times, the ability of the tour leader and group members to show mutual tolerance can ensure the smooth progress of the tour (Wu 2007). This dimension differs from CEX due to the nature of group travel, which requires tour group members to get along and interact over long periods of time.

Conclusion

Theoretic Implication

Exchange relations, including the development of constructs and scales and the establishment of causal models, have been well explored by previous studies on organizational management. Studies have also looked at applications of the concept of exchange relations in consumer fields (Keith, Lee, and Leem 2004; Li and Hsu 2016). However, current concepts of exchange relations cannot fully measure the TLMX. This study contributes to academic knowledge in three respects. First, it explores new territory in the application of social exchange theory to the tourism industry, combining qualitative interviews and quantitative empirical methods, developing the concept and connotation of TLMX, and establishing measurement tools. The study is novel by its development of a scale, comprising 20 items and six dimensions, to effectively measures exchange relations between tour leaders and tour members. The findings contribute to the literature on the theory of exchange relations and interaction between tour leaders and tour members.

Secondly, although the six dimensions of the TLMX and CEX have different names, the information they measure overlaps. Both can be used to estimate the degree of harmony and trust between two parties, the exchange of information during consumption, and the degree to which a satisfactory relationship has been developed. However, TLMX can affect both individuals or organizations and operations within an entire tour group. Therefore, our results were different from those obtained using CEX. Furthermore, only our study has discovered respect as an influential dimension. This dimension was likely influential because tour members are often from different socioeconomic backgrounds, are from different cultures, and have different living habits; this increases the likelihood of verbal or physical conflicts occurring during a trip. Tour leaders and members should maintain a relationship of mutual respect to ensure a smooth trip (Tsaur, Cheng, and Hong 2019). In addition, tolerance was a unique dimension of GPTs. GPTs are a form of long-term consumption, and tour leaders and members are together for long periods of time. When emergencies occur during the trip, mutual tolerance and consideration are required to reduce tension (Liu and Tsaur 2014). Accordingly, these two dimensions are critical in developing and maintaining TLMX. Lastly, this study synthesizes the different perspectives of tour leaders and tour members in the development of a TLMX scale applicable to both to tour members and tour leaders. The TLMX scale developed in this study can serve as a tool for elucidating the causal relationships among TLMX in future studies.

Managerial Implication

This study has established reliable and valid tools for measuring TLMX. Tourism operators can use the TLMX scale to objectively understand the associations and interactions between tour leaders and members during a tour. The managerial implications for tour groups management are two-fold. First, the exchange relationship between tour leaders and tour members can help the leader to provide high-quality service and give tour members a positive travel experience. Travel agencies can ask tour members to fill out a post-tour survey using the scale developed in this study to assess the quality of tour member-leader exchange relations and control tour group quality. Second, tour leaders can use this scale to assess their level of exchanges with the tour members and provide them a reference for developing and adjusting their tour leading ability. Additionally, tour leaders can use the dimensions and items of the scale to review their exchanges relations with tour members and facilitate the smooth progress of the tour. For example, the tour leader can refer to the approaches in the scale items to quickly win tour member trust, including by sincerely treating tour members, sincerely resolving issues faced by tour members, and associating with tour members like a friend, to narrow the divide between the two sides. Third, the scale indicators can help travel agencies to develop training courses or formulate relevant norms as a reference for tour leaders during a tour.

Limits and Suggestions for Future Research

Every effort was made to ensure rigor in the research process during this study. Nevertheless, some limitations apply. Taiwan tour leaders and tour members were the target group for this study, which could limit the generalizability of the results. We recommend that future research study other countries or areas as the target groups. Secondly, the study focused on typical exchange relations between tour leaders and tour members without accounting for the impact of tour group type and duration. We suggest that future studies can further explore differences based on tour group type (e.g.,: shopping tours and professional theme tours) and length of itinerary on Tour leader–member exchange relations. In addition, TLMX can affect the tour leader and tour members. This exchange relationship may affect the tour leader’s emotional labor and work outcomes. It may also affect tour member perception of the tour leader’s tour guiding performance, service quality, and satisfaction. We suggest that future studies can look at these relationships.

Supplemental Material

sj-doc-2-jtr-10.1177_00472875221109826 – Supplemental material for Tour Leader–Member Exchange (TLMX): Scale Development and Validation

Supplemental material, sj-doc-2-jtr-10.1177_00472875221109826 for Tour Leader–Member Exchange (TLMX): Scale Development and Validation by Sheng-Hshiung Tsaur, Tien-Ming Cheng and Ci-Yao Hong in Journal of Travel Research

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jtr-10.1177_00472875221109826 – Supplemental material for Tour Leader–Member Exchange (TLMX): Scale Development and Validation

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jtr-10.1177_00472875221109826 for Tour Leader–Member Exchange (TLMX): Scale Development and Validation by Sheng-Hshiung Tsaur, Tien-Ming Cheng and Ci-Yao Hong in Journal of Travel Research

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (R.O.C.) (Grant No: MOST 108-2420-H-415 -001 -DR).

ORCID iDs

Sheng-Hshiung Tsaur

Tien-Ming Cheng

Ci-Yao Hong

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Sheng-Hshiung Tsaur is professor in the Department of Marketing and Tourism Management, National Chiayi University, Chiayi City, Taiwan. His research interests include construct development and theory building in the disciplines of tourism, hospitality and leisure.

Tien-Ming Cheng is professor in the Department of Marketing and Tourism Management, National Chiayi University, Taiwan. He has published over 20 refereed papers in the areas of tourism management, sustainable tourism, festival tourism, and marine leisure education.

Ci-Yao Hong is Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Marketing and Tourism Management, National Chiayi University, Chiayi City, Taiwan. His research interests include tour operations, leisure management and visitors’ behavior management.

References

Allied Market Research. 2020. “Group Travel Market in Asia-Pacific to Garner $689.5 Billion by 2030: AMR”. https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2020/10/08/2105275/0/en/Group-Travel-Market-in-Asia-Pacific-to-Garner-689-5-Billion-by-2030-AMR.html

Wong

K. K. F.

2001. “Case Study on Tour Guiding: Professionalism, Issues and Problems.” Tourism Management 22 (5): 551–63. doi:10.1016/s0261-5177(01)00013-9

Arksey

Knight

P. T.

1999. Interviewing for Social Scientists: An Introductory Resource With Examples. London: SAGE.

Aryee

Budhwar

P. S.

Chen

Z. X.

2002. “Trust as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Organizational Justice and Work Outcomes: Test of a Social Exchange Model.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 23 (3): 267–85. doi:10.1002/job.138

Barney

J. B.

Hansen

M. H.

1994. “Trustworthiness as a Source of Competitive Advantage.” Strategic Management Journal 15 (S1): 175–90. doi:10.1002/smj.4250150912

Bearden

W. O.

Richard

G. N.

1999. Handbook of Marketing Scale. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Bettencourt

. 1997. “Customer Voluntary Performance: Customers as Partners in Service Delivery.” Journal of Retailing 73 (3): 383–406. doi:10.1016/s0022-4359(97)90024-5

Bettencourt

L. A.

Brown

S. W.

1997. “Contact Employees: Relationships Among Workplace Fairness, Job Satisfaction and Prosocial Service Behaviors.” Journal of Retailing 73 (1): 39–61. doi:10.1016/s0022-4359(97)90014-2

Bitner

M. J.

Booms

B. H.

Mohr

L. A.

1994. “Critical Service Encounters: The Employee’s Viewpoint.” Journal of Marketing 58 (4): 95–106. doi:10.1177/002224299405800408

10.

Blau

P.M.

1964. Social Exchange Theory. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

11.

Brandes

Dharwadkar

Wheatley

2004. “Social exchanges within organizations and work outcomes: The importance of local and global relationships.” Group & Organization Management 29 (3): 276–301. doi:10.1177/1059601103257405

12.

Briggs

Grisaffe

2010. “Service Performance—Loyalty Intentions Link in a Business-to-Business Context: The Role of Relational Exchange Outcomes and Customer Characteristics.” Journal of Service Research 13 (1): 37–51. doi:10.1177/1094670509345683

13.

Carlson

D. S.

Kacmar

K. M.

Williams

L. J.

2000. “Construction and Initial Validation of a Multidimensional Measure of Work–Family Conflict.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 56 (2): 249–76. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713

14.

Chang

S-Y.

Tsaur

S-H.

Yen

C-H.

Lai

H-R.

2020. “Tour Member Fit and Tour Member–Leader Fit on Group Package Tours: Influences on Tourists’ Positive Emotions, Rapport, and Satisfaction.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42:235–43. doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.01.016

15.

Cheng

J-C.

Chen

C-Y.

Yen

C-H.

Teng

H-Y.

2017. “Building Customer Satisfaction With Tour Leaders: The Roles of Customer Trust, Justice Perception, and Cooperation in Group Package Tours.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 22 (4): 395–407. doi:10.1080/10941665.2016.1271816

16.

Cheng

T-M.

Chen

M-T.

C-H.

2020. “Tour Conductor Playfulness: Conceptualizing and Scale Development.” Journal of Travel Research 60 (1): 197–207. doi:10.1177/0047287519888284

17.

Churchill

G. A.

1979. “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs.” JMR, Journal of Marketing Research 16 (1): 64–73. doi:10.1177/002224377901600110

18.

Cohen

1985. “The Tourist Guide: The Origins, Structure and Dynamics of a Role.” Annals of Tourism Research 12 (1): 5–29. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(85)90037-4

19.

Cropanzano

Rupp

D. E.

Byrne

Z. S.

2003. “The Relationship of Emotional Exhaustion to Work Attitudes, Job Performance, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (1): 160–9. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.160

20.

DeVellis

R. F.

2003. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

21.

DiCicco-Bloom

Crabtree

B. F.

2006. “The Qualitative Research Interview.” Medical Education 40 (4): 314–21. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x

22.

Duke

C. R.

Persia

M. A.

1996. “Performance-Importance Analysis of Escorted Tour Evaluations.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 5 (3): 207–23. doi:10.1300/j073v05n03_03

23.

Dwyer

F. R.

Schurr

P. H.

1987. “Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships.” Journal of Marketing 51 (2): 11–27. doi:10.1177/002224298705100202

24.

Foster

G. M.

1986. “South Seas Cruise a Case Study of a Short-Lived Society.” Annals of Tourism Research 13 (2): 215–38. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(86)90038-1

25.

Greenspoon

P. J.

Saklofske

D. H.

1998. “Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale.” Personality and Individual Differences 25 (5): 965–71. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(98)00115-9

26.

Gremler

D. D.

Gwinner

K. P.

Brown

S. W.

2001. “Generating Positive Word-of-mouth Communication Through Customer-employee Relationships.” International Journal of Service Industry Management 12 (1): 44–59. doi:10.1108/09564230110382763

27.

Grove

S. J.

Fisk

R. P.

1997. “The Impact of Other Customers on Service Experiences: A Critical Incident Examination of ‘Getting Along.’” Journal of Retailing 73 (1): 63–85. doi:10.1016/s0022-4359(97)90015-4

28.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

29.

Harris

L. C.

Reynolds

K. L.

2004. “Jay Customer Behavior: An Exploration of Types and Motives in the Hospitality Industry.” Journal of Services Marketing 18 (5): 339–57. doi:10.1108/08876040410548276

30.

Heide

J. B.

John

1992. “Do Norms Matter in Marketing Relationships?” Journal of Marketing 56 (2): 32–44. doi:10.1177/002224299205600203

31.

Heung

V. C. S.

2008. “Effects of Tour Leader’s Service Quality on Agency’s Reputation and Customers’ Word-of-Mouth.” Journal of Vacation Marketing 14 (4): 305–15. doi:10.1177/1356766708094752

32.

Hinkin

T. R.

Tracey

J. B.

Enz

C. A.

1997. “Scale Construction: Developing Reliable and Valid Measurement Instruments.” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 21 (1): 100–20. doi:10.1177/109634809702100108

33.

Holloway

J. C.

1981. “The Guided Tour a Sociological Approach.” Annals of Tourism Research 8 (3): 377–402. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(81)90005-0

34.

Homans

G. C.

1958. “Social Behavior as Exchange.” American Journal of Sociology 63 (6): 597–606. doi:10.1086/222355

35.

Homans

G. C.

1961. “The Humanities and the Social Sciences.” American Behavioral Scientist 4 (8): 3–6. doi:10.1177/000276426100400802

36.

Huang

Hsu

C. H. C.

2010. “The Impact of Customer-to-Customer Interaction on Cruise Experience and Vacation Satisfaction.” Journal of Travel Research 49 (1): 79–92. doi:10.1177/0047287509336466

37.

Hwang

Lee

J. H.

2019. “Relationships Among Senior Tourists’ Perceptions of Tour Guides’ Professional Competencies, Rapport, Satisfaction With the Guide Service, Tour Satisfaction, and Word of Mouth.” Journal of Travel Research 58 (8): 1331–46. doi:10.1177/0047287518803199

38.

Kankanhalli

Tan

B. C.

Wei

K. K.

2005. “Contributing Knowledge to Electronic Knowledge Repositories: An Empirical Investigation.” MIS Quarterly 29:113–43. doi:10.2307/25148670

39.

Kassarjian

H. H.

1977. “Content Analysis in Consumer Research.” Journal of Consumer Research 4 (1): 8–18. doi:10.1086/208674

40.

Keith

J. E.

Lee

D-J

Leem

R. G.

2004. “The Effect of Relational Exchange Between the Service Provider and the Customer on the Customer’s Perception of Value.” Journal of Relationship Marketing 3 (1): 3–33. doi:10.1300/j366v03n01_02

41.

Kim

2020. “Effects of Employees’ Social Exchange and the Mediating Role of Customer Orientation in the Restaurant Industry.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 89:102577. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102577

42.

Larson

1992. “Network Dyads in Entrepreneurial Settings: A Study of the Governance of Exchange Relationships.” Administrative Science Quarterly 37:76–104. doi:10.2307/2393534

43.

Choi

2012. “The Role of Customer Affection and Trust in Loyalty Rebuilding After Service Failure and Recovery.” Service Industries Journal 32 (1): 105–25. doi:10.1080/02642069.2011.529438

44.

Liden

R. C.

Maslyn

J. M.

1998. “Multidimensionafity of Leader-Member Exchange: An Empirical Assessment Through Scale Development.” Journal of Management 24 (1): 43–72. doi:10.1177/014920639802400105

45.

Hsu

C. H. C.

2016. “Linking Customer-Employee Exchange and Employee Innovative Behavior.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 56:87–97. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.04.015

46.

Liu

J. S.

Tsaur

S-H.

2014. “We Are in the Same Boat: Tourist Citizenship Behaviors.” Tourism Management 42:88–100. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2013.11.001

47.

Lopez

E. M.

1980. “The Effect of Leadership Style on Satisfaction Levels of Tour Quality.” Journal of Travel Research 18 (4): 20–3. doi:10.1177/004728758001800403

48.

Macneil

I. R.

1980. The New Social Contract. 10. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

49.

2011. “Social Exchanges as Motivators of Hotel Employees’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Proposition and Application of a New Three-Dimensional Framework.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (3): 680–8. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.12.003

50.

Mancini

2001. Conducting Tours. 3rd ed. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning.

51.

Maréchal

2016. “Modelling the acquisition of travel information and its influence on travel behaviour”, PhD diss, Imperial College London. https://doi.org/10.25560/41835

52.

Mossberg

L. L.

1995. “Tour Leaders and Their Importance in Charter Tours.” Tourism Management 16 (6): 437–45. doi:10.1016/0261-5177(95)00052-p

53.

Namasivayam

Mattila

A. S.

2007. “Accounting for the joint effects of the servicescape and service exchange on consumers’ satisfaction evaluations.” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 31 (1): 3–18. doi:10.1177/1096348006292996

54.

Oliver

R.L.

1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Customer. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

55.

Patton

M. Q.

2002. “Two Decades of Developments in Qualitative Inquiry: A Personal, Experiential Perspective.” Qualitative Social Work 1 (3): 261–83. doi:10.1177/1473325002001003636

56.

Quiroga

1990. “Characteristics of Package Tours in Europe.” Annals of Tourism Research 17 (2): 185–207. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(90)90083-4

57.

Rousseau

D.M.

McLean Parks

1993. “The Contracts of Individuals and Organizations.” Research in organizational behavior 15:1–43.

58.

Sharpe

E. K.

2005. “Delivering Communitas: Wilderness Adventure and the Making of Community.” Journal of Leisure Research 37 (3): 255–80. doi:10.1080/00222216.2005.11950053

59.

Sierra

J. J.

McQuitty

2005. “Service Providers and Customers: Social Exchange Theory and Service Loyalty.” Journal of Services Marketing 19 (6): 392–400. doi:10.1108/08876040510620166

60.

Stewart

D.W.

Shamdasani

P.N.

1998. “Focus Group Research: Exploration and Discovery.” In Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods, edited by Bickman

Rog

, 505–26. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

61.

Taiwan Tourism Bureau. 2019. “2019 Annual Survey Reports on R. O. C. Outbound Travelers.” https://admin.taiwan.net.tw/upload/contentFile/auser/b/annual_2019_htm/en/01_3_Domestic-Travel.html

62.

Teng

H.-Y

Tsai

C-H.

2020. “Can Tour Leader Likability Enhance Tourist Value Co-creation Behaviors? The Role of Attachment.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 45:285–94. doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.08.018

63.

Teng

H-Y.

Tsaur

S-H.

2021. “Charismatic Tour-Guiding: Scale Development and Validation.” Journal of Travel Research. Published online October 17. doi:10.1177/00472875211039556.

64.

Tsaur

S-H.

Cheng

T-M.

Hong

C-Y.

2019. “Exploring Tour Member Misbehavior in Group Package Tours.” Tourism Management 71:34–43. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.018

65.

Tsaur

S-H.

Teng

H-Y.

2017. “Exploring Tour Guiding Styles: The Perspective of Tour Leader Roles.” Tourism Management 59:438–48. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2016.09.005

66.

Tsaur

S-H.

J-H.

2019. “Cultural Competence for Tour Leaders: Scale Development and Validation.” Tourism Management 71:9–17. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.017

67.

Wang

K-C.

Hsieh

A-T.

Chou

S-H.

Lin

Y-S.

2007. “GPTCCC: An Instrument for Measuring Group Package Tour Service.” Tourism Management 28 (2): 361–76. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2006.04.017

68.

Wang

K-C.

Hsieh

A-T.

Huan

T-C.

2000. “Critical Service Features in Group Package Tour: An Exploratory Research.” Tourism Management 21 (2): 177–89. doi:10.1016/s0261-5177(99)00047-3

69.

Wong

J-Y.

Lee

W-H.

2012. “Leadership Through Service: An Exploratory Study of the Leadership Styles of Tour Leaders.” Tourism Management 33 (5): 1112–21. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.11.022

70.

Wood

E. H.

Moss

2015. “Capturing Emotions: Experience Sampling at Live Music Events.” Arts and the Market 5 (1): 45–72. doi:10.1108/am-02-2013-0002

71.

C. H-J.

2007. “The Impact of Customer-to-Customer Interaction and Customer Homogeneity on Customer Satisfaction in Tourism Service—the Service Encounter Prospective.” Tourism Management 28 (6): 1518–28. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.02.002

72.

Xenikou

Furnham

1996. “A correlational and factor analytic study of four questionnaire measures of organizational culture.” Human Relations 49 (3): 349–71. doi:10.1177/001872679604900305

73.

Yan

H-K.

2017. “Impression Management of Tour Leaders.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 22 (4): 422–35. doi:10.1080/10941665.2016.1276086

74.

Weiler

Ham

2002. “Intercultural Communication and Mediation: A Framework for Analysing the InterculturaChinesetence of Chinese Tour Guides.” Journal of Vacation Marketing 8 (1): 75–87. doi:10.1177/135676670200800108

75.

Zhang

H. Q.

Chow

2004. “Application of Importance-Performance Model in Tour Guides’ Performance: Evidence From Mainland Chinese Outbound Visitors in Hong Kong.” Tourism Management 25 (1): 81–91. doi:10.1016/s0261-5177(03)00064-5

76.

Zimmermann

B. K.

Dormann

Dollard

M. F.

2011. “On the Positive Aspects of Customers: Customer-Initiated Support and Affective Crossover in Employee-Customer Dyads.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 84 (1): 31–57. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02011.x

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.13 MB

0.03 MB