PASOS DE PRODUCCIÓN DEL CUERO

This section identifies significant differences between the Australian and Thai respondents. The Mann-Whitney U test has been used to test the first nine research propositions. These propositions relate to research question one (RQ1): Do Australian and Thai tourists have similar host-guest experiences during their holiday?

6.4.1 Termination costs

The significant differences between Australian tourists and Thai tourists in this section (at p<0.05) were noted in: (1) I will lose a friendly and comfortable relationship if I change holiday resorts and (2) If I change holiday resort, I will have to spend a lot of time explaining my needs to the staff. Consequently, the proposition

experience different levels of termination costs was supported. It can be noted that the Australian and Thai respondents are statistically different on only two out of six variables in this section. Australians have more concern about losing a friendly and comfortable relationship if they change holiday resorts than Thais. However, Thais have more concern than Australians about having to spend a lot of time explaining their needs to the staff if they change holiday resorts.

Table 6.2:

The Mann-Whitney U Test

of the significant differences in level of termination costs between Australian tourists and Thai tourists

Variables Nationality N Skewness Mean

Std.

Deviation z-test

Sig. (2-tailed) Australian 300 -0.359 4.2 1.8

I will lose a friendly and comfortable relationship if I change holiday resorts.

Thai 299 0.191 3.5 2.0

-4.679 0.000

Australian 298 -0.127 3.8 1.8 In general it would be a

hassle changing holiday resorts.

Thai 300 -0.02 4.1 1.9

-1.600 0.11

Australian 298 -0.102 3.8 1.8 I will waste a lot of time if

I change holiday resort.

Thai 300 -0.063 4.1 1.9

-1.738 0.082

Australian 299 -0.537 4.6 1.8 If I change the holiday

resorts, there is a risk that the new resort/staff won’t be as good.

Thai 300 -0.474 4.7 1.8

-0.322 0.748

Australian 300 0.024 3.6 1.9 It take me a great deal of

time and effort to get used to a new holiday resort.

Thai 300 0.04 3.9 1.9

-1.677 0.094

Australian 300 0.153 3.5 1.9 If I change holiday resort, I

will have to spend a lot of time explaining my needs to the staff.

Thai 300 -0.03 3.9 1.9

-2.638 0.008

Source: Data analysis (2008)

Higher mean scores on ‘losing friendly relationship’ from the Australian data indicates that Australians are more concerned about losing friendly and comfortable

relationships if they change holiday resorts. There are several possible reasons for this, Australians may be more likely to develop a friendly relationship with service staff during a service encounter than their Thai counterpart. This could be because Australians come from a low-power distance and informal society. In Australian society, the attitude ‘I am the boss … I am paying you aren’t I’ is typically not acceptable (Sharp 1992, p.108). Relationships between Australians at all levels of society are informal, and therefore they are likely to behave in an easy-going approachable manner when interacting with service providers. This, in turn, will encourage resort employees to loosen up and to develop a friendly relationship with them.

In contrast to the practices prevalent in Australian society, Thai society is underpinned by a high-power distance and a formal culture where a guest is likely to behave in a manner that reflects their perceptions of their position in society during a service encounter. As a result, they are less likely to develop a friendly relationship with service staff. Higher mean scores on ‘a need to explain’ from the Thai data indicates that Thais are more concerned than Australians about spending a lot of time explaining their needs to the staff at new holiday resorts.

6.4.2 Relationship benefits 6.4.2.1 Special treatment benefits

The significant differences between Australian tourists and Thai tourists in this section (at p<0.05) were noted in: (1) I get discounts or special deals that most guests don’t get, (2) I am placed higher on the priority list when there is a list, (3) The resort uses information from my prior stay to customise services for me, (4) I get faster

circumstances, Australian and Thai tourists are likely to experience different levels of special treatment benefits was supported.

Table 6.3:

The Mann-Whitney U Test

of the significant differences in level of special treatment benefit between Australian tourists and Thai tourists

Variables Nationality N Skewness Mean

Std.

Deviation z-test

Sig. (2-tailed) Australian 298 -0.843 5.4 1.4

I get the resort’s highest level of service.

Thai 299 -0.764 5.2 1.6

-1.203 0.229

Australian 298 0.258 3.3 2.0 I get discounts or special

deals that most guests don’t get.

Thai 300 -0.176 4.1 1.9

-5.42 0.000

Australian 293 0.161 3.4 2.0 I am placed higher on the

priority list when there is a list.

Thai 299 -0.190 4.1 1.8

-4.574 0.000

Australian 279 0.009 3.6 2.0 The resort uses information

from my prior stay to customize services for me.

Thai 296 -0.406 4.6 1.6

-5.878 0.000

Australian 292 0.260 3.3 2.0 I get faster service than

most guests.

Thai 295 -0.249 4.3 1.8

-6.113 0.000

Source: Data analysis (2008)

It is notable that Australians are statistically different than Thais across most aspects of special treatment benefits (except ‘I get the resort’s highest level of service’). The mean scores show that apart from getting the resort’s highest level of service, Australians feel that they receive special treatment benefits less often than their Thai counterparts. One of the reasons could be that Thai people come from a high-power distance and collectivist society, where an in-group or powerful member is expected to be treated differently to others. In Thai society where the culture is characterised by collectivism and high-power distance, it is common practice to take care of a regular

guest before any other guests, regardless of where they are in the queue (faster service).

A good example of the practice used by a service provider in a collectivist and high- power distance society is provided by Warden et al. (1999):

‘… there are no signs or other written policies stating that more important customers will be served ahead of less important customers. These restaurants also follow a first-come-first-served policy, but such a policy is necessarily influenced by the power distance characteristics of the culture the restaurant functions with in, resulting in more important customers being served, or expecting to be served, ahead of less important customers irregardless [sig.] of arrival time’ (p.447)

These types of cultural distinction are evident in Thailand where many people accept such practices. Even if they feel that it is unacceptable for someone to jump the queue, they are inclined to accept the practice in order to maintain harmony. On the other hand, Thai people who are powerful or have a special relationship with service providers, rarely hesitate to take full advantage of their relationship by insisting on faster or special services. This is not acceptable in Australian society, because Australians feel that everyone should be treated in an equal manner and expect people to be dealt with on a first-come, first-served, basis. They are likely to become very frustrated if other people jump the queue (monochronic) and are likely to confront those people without fear of losing face (low uncertainty avoidance).

6.4.2.2 Social benefits

There are no significant differences between Australian and Thai respondents on the level of social benefits (at p<0.05). It can be noted that although there are some differences between Australian and Thai respondents regarding the level of social