Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. xx, No. xx, pp.

214–239,
2013 0160-7383/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

TOURISM INVOLVEMENT, WORK

ENGAGEMENT AND JOB
SATISFACTION AMONG FRONTLINE
HOTEL EMPLOYEES
Chien Mu Yeh
Tamkang University, Taiwan

Abstract: This study examined the relationship among tourism involvement, work engage-ment and
job satisfaction in the hotel industry. Data was gathered from 336 frontline employ-ees of 20
international hotels in Taiwan and was analyzed via structural equation modeling. Findings show
that tourism involvement is positively related to work engagement, while both tourism involvement
and work engagement are positively related to job satisfaction. Work engagement was found to
partially mediate the relationship between tourism involvement and job satisfaction. Implications for
hotel managers, limitations and future research direc-tions are discussed. Keywords: tourism
involvement, work engagement, job satisfac-tion. 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
The core product of hotel firms is services (Kusluvan, 2003; Lashley
& Lee-Ross, 2003; Richard & Sundaram, 1994). Despite services being
intangible, hotel frontline employees ‘‘produce tangible services’’ via direct
interaction with customers (Gonzalez & Garazo, 2006; Harris, 2012;
Kusluvan, Kusluvan, Ilhan, & Buyruk, 2010; Smith, 1994). It is for this
reason that frontline employees are critical elements of service quality. To
better serve customers, hotel firms must understand atti-tudes and values
that frontline employees should have in their jobs. Previous research has
demonstrated that high performing tourism-related firms were characterized
by engaged or satisfied frontline employees (Kusluvan et al., 2010; Lam &
Ozorio, 2012; Salanova, Agut,
& Peiro, 2005; Slatten & Mehmetoglu, 2010). Engaged employees pro-vide
better service, which can increase customer loyalty (Salanova et al., 2005).
Satisfied frontline employees can maintain high performance and deliver
quality services (LaLopa, 1997; Kusluvan, 2003).
 Due to the known effect of work engagement and job satisfaction on firm
performance, tourism scholars have attempted to identify ante-cedents of
work engagement and job satisfaction (Kusluvan et al., 2010; Slatten &
Mehmetoglu, 2010). The current study, however, ex-plores a factor that has
not been widely examined in the tourism liter-ature: tourism involvement.
Using tourism involvement to predict tourism employees’ work outcomes is
a fair extension of tourism re-search because work life is correlated to
tourism (Dik & Hansen, 2008; McCabe, 2009; McCabe & Stokoe, 2010).
Tourism provides ‘‘an alternative experience of time, that is, time off or
holiday time, which appears as an alternative rhythm, free from constraints
of the daily tempo’’ (Wang, 2000, p. 216). It has positive effects on tourism
participants’ work and overall lives (Dolnicar, Yanamandram, & Cliff, 2012;
Neal, Uysal, & Sirgy, 2007; Sirgy, 2001, 2002; Sirgy, Kruger, Lee, & Yu,
2011). Individuals who enjoy freedom in tourism activities are more likely
to feel a great degree of control and to gain a sense of intrinsic motivation
(Crane, 2011; Witt & Ellis, 1987). They are also more inclined to experience
satisfaction, pleasure and enjoyment in all domains of their lives, including
their work (Gilbert & Abdullah, 2004; Neal et al., 2007; Sirgy et al., 2011).
Therefore, it seems appropriate to consider that highly tourism-involved
employees demonstrate better work outcomes than low tourism-involved
employees.
When investigating the influence of tourism involvement on work-re-lated
outcomes, one has to take into account that tourism involvement is not just
simple participation in vacations. In contrast to the effect of vacation, which
fades out rapidly (De Bloom, Geurts, Taris, Sonnentag, Weerth, & Kompier,
2010), Havitz and Dimanche (1990) define tour-ism involvement as a
person’s perceived relevance of tourism activities and the motivational state
with regard to them. Tourism involvement encompasses an individual’s
long-term attitudes toward tourism activi-ties. These attitudes in turn
influence an individual’s behavior over time. Studies have reported that
people with different levels of tourism involvement demonstrate divergent
tourism behaviors, such as infor-mation searching, decision making and
experience sharing (Jamrozy, Backman, & Backman, 1996; Park & Kim,
2010; Zalatan, 1998). Some even adjust their lifestyle, such as travelling and
spending more (Clements & Josiam, 1995; Kim, Scott, & Crompton, 1997)
to become more involved in tourism-related activities. Therefore, tourism
involve-ment has enduring rather than short-term effects on tourists (Havitz,
Dimanche, & Bogle, 1994; Havitz & Mannell, 2005).
Many studies have found a close relationship between tourism, qual-ity of
life and working life of tourists (Dann, 2001; Etzion, 2003; Fritz &
Sonnentag, 2006; Kuhnel & Sonnentag, 2011; Lounsbury & Hoopes, 1986;
Neal, Sirgy, & Uysal, 1999; Neal et al., 2007; Rook & Zijlstra, 2006; Sirgy
et al., 2011; Sonnentag, 2003; Sonnentag & Zijlstra, 2006; Westman &
Eden, 1997). In general, positive effects of tourism on tour-ists’ overall life
and working life have been found. Despite the positive implications of
tourism on working life, examinations of the effects of tourism involvement
on specific work outcomes have been limited. The current study focuses on
work engagement and job satisfaction as fac-
tors of work outcomes due to their known effect on firm performance.
Moreover, researchers have made significant contributions to identify-ing
correlates of work engagement (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Schaufeli
& Bakker, 2004; Saks, 2006) but it has been unclear whether work
engagement can mediate the relationship between tourism involvement and
job satisfaction.
The current study therefore aims to close these gaps by investigating the
relationship between tourism involvement and work engagement; studying
the relationship between work engagement and job satisfac-tion; examining
the relationship between tourism involvement and job satisfaction; and
exploring the mediating effect of work engage-ment on the relationship
between tourism involvement and job satisfaction.
In developing and testing this model, the current study makes both
theoretical and practical contributions to tourism literature. From a
theoretical perspective, the current study is the first to explore the di-rect
and indirect relationships among tourism involvement, work engagement
and job satisfaction in the tourism domain. Results of the current study can
contribute not only to the knowledge regarding the factors that foster
employees’ work engagement and job satisfac-tion but also to literature on
both tourism involvement and tourism hu-man resource management.
Moreover, a critical review conducted by Kusluvan and his colleagues
(2010) found that work engagement and job satisfaction of employees in the
tourism industry are mainly influenced by demographic, organi-zational and
work-related factors. Most of these studies took place in the context of the
workplace. This may lead to the misunderstanding that work engagement
and job satisfaction can only be enhanced in the workplace. However, the
positive effect of tourism on attitude and behavior at work is clear (Fritz &
Sonnentag, 2006). Such effect is important because it allows managers to
enhance work outcomes through tourism. Surprisingly, this issue has gained
little attention in the tourism literature. The current study explores whether
attitudes to-ward tourism can influence specific work outcomes in the
workplace. It therefore contributes to the tourism literature by linking work
and non-work domains.
Furthermore, as mentioned above, the positive effect of tourism fades out
quickly. It may be argued that, in the long term, employees need other
opportunities besides tourism activities to enhance their work attitude and
behavior. Until now, however, most of the existing studies emphasize short-
term effects of tourism. They regard tourism as a short break from work. In
this sense, the current study contributes to tourism literature by examining
whether tourism can have enduring effects on tourists depending on
different levels of involvement. More-over, studies on tourism involvement
often use tourists as sampling units. Few studies have directly used a sample
of hotel frontline employees to investigate their tourism involvement.
From a practical perspective, identifying the effects of tourism
involvement has direct implications for hotel mangers. If the contribu-tions
of tourism involvement on work engagement and job satisfaction
can be confirmed, it may be meaningful for hotel managers to encour-age
frontline employees to get more involved in tourism. Hotels can also
organize tourism activities to increase employees’ work engage-ment and
job satisfaction.
This article is organized by first presenting the literature review relat-ing
to tourism involvement, work engagement and job satisfaction. These are
covered first as they provide the theoretical fundamentals for examining the
hypotheses. The methodology section describes the sampling, instruments
and methods of data analysis. A profile of the respondents and the statistical
results are then presented. In the discussion, the implications of the results,
limitations of the study, rec-ommendations for future research and final
conclusions are explained in detail.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Tourism Involvement
Early studies on involvement can be traced back to the work con-ducted
by Sherif and Cantril (1947). Since then, involvement has been defined
variously in the context of marketing. Houston and Rothschild (1978), for
instance, proposed the notions of situation involvement, enduring
involvement and response involvement. Finn (1983) identi-fied three
orientations of involvement: product-, subject- and re-sponse-centered
involvement. Park and Young (1986) classified involvement into affective
and cognitive involvement. Furthermore, Andrews, Durvasula, and Akhter
(1990) argued that intensity, direction and persistence are major properties
of involvement. Laaksonen (1994) argued that there are three ways of
generating involvement:
cognitive-based, individual-state and response-based approaches.
While there is no conclusive definition, the general view of involve-ment
is a self-concept that relates people’s values to an issue, idea or activity
(Sherif & Cantril, 1947). That is, involvement is people’s per-ceived
connection with a stimulus object in light of their interests and values
(Zaichkowsky, 1985). Involvement with something can influ-ence people’s
attitudes and behaviors (Slama & Tashchian, 1985). When people are highly
involved with something, they have intense attitudes toward it. These
attitudes then influence people’s future con-ducts (Sherif, Kelly, Rodgers,
Sarup, & Tittler, 1973). In other words, involvement does not simply mean
participation, since it has an endur-ing effect on participants (Houston &
Rothschild, 1978).
Havitz and Dimanche (1990, p. 180) defined tourism involvement as ‘‘a
psychological state of motivation, arousal or interest between an individual
and recreational activities, tourist destinations or related equipment, at one
point in time, characterized by the following ele-ments: importance,
pleasure value, sign value, risk probability and risk consequences’’. Havitz
and Dimanche (1990) further proposed that tourism involvement is
positively related to the frequency of searching, evaluating and participating
in tourism activities.
 Tourism scholars have studied various aspects of involvement by using
different conceptualizations. In Gursoy and Gavcar’s (2003) study, three
dimensions of tourism involvement were found: Plea-sure—the pleasure
value of a vacation, Risk Probability—the likelihood of mispurchasing a
vacation, and Risk Importance—the perception of importance of negative
outcomes due to mispurchasing a vacation. These three dimensions had
significant and positive impacts on tour-ists’ destination knowledge.
Madrigal, Havitz, and Howard (1992) sam-pled married couples to examine
their involvement in family holidays. The authors found that one dimension
—pleasure/importance—was positively associated with married couples’
gender role ideology and education level. Another dimension—sign value—
was positively re-lated to age. Zalatan (1998) studied wives’ involvement in
tourism deci-sion-making processes. His results demonstrated that wives
were more involved than husbands in pre-vacation planning, such as
choosing the destination, restaurants and lodgings, searching for travel
information, and budgeting for shopping expenditure. Some researchers
used involvement profiles to segment tourists (Cai, Feng, & Breiter, 2004;
Dimanche, Havitz, & Howard, 1993; Fesenmaier & Johnson, 1989; Gur- soy
& Gavcar, 2003), casino gamblers (Lee, Lee, Bernhard, & Lee, 2009; Park,
Yang, Lee, Jang, & Stokowski, 2002), cycle tourists (Ritchie, Tkaczynski, &
Faulks, 2010) and tourism shoppers (Hu & Yu, 2007).
Several studies investigated the relation between involvement and various
tourism issues. Jamrozy et al. (1996) studied a group of nat-ure-based
tourists. They found that tourists who were highly involved in nature-based
tourism were more inclined to become opinion lead-ers. They adopted more
travel information sources and took more nat-ure-based trips. They tended to
share their travel experience and information after their trips. With regard to
tourism decision making, Clements and Josiam (1995) found that highly
tourism-involved indi-viduals were likely to travel more and select overseas
destinations. Moreover, Hwang, Lee, and Chen (2005) indicated that
tourists’ per-ceived place attachment positively influenced tourists’
involvement. A positive association between tourism involvement and
interpretation satisfaction was also found. Kim et al. (1997) reported that
highly in-volved bird-watching tourists tended to go bird watching often,
spent more money on birding equipment and became members of birding
organizations. In addition, Park and Kim (2010) reported that highly
tourism-involved people preferred to consider previous experience and
others’ recommendations as information sources.

Work Engagement
Work engagement refers to a positive status of mind at one’s work-place.
The concept of engagement was initially defined by Kahn (1990) as ‘‘the
harnessing of organizational members’ selves to their work roles’’ (p. 694).
Kahn (1990) further stated ‘‘in engagement, peo-ple employ and express
themselves physically, cognitively, and emo-tionally during role
performances’’ and ‘‘in disengagement, people
withdraw and defend themselves physically, cognitively and emotion-ally
during role performances’’ (p. 694). Therefore, work engagement refers to a
concept that addresses the divergence among employees and the amount of
energy and commitment they have for work (Kahn, 1990). Engaged
employees are physically, cognitively and emotionally involved in their
work and have an energetic and effective connection with their work (Kahn,
1990; Maslach & Leiter, 1997). In contrast, dis-engaged employees are
physically less involved in work and emotion-ally disconnected with co-
workers (Kahn, 1990).
While Kahn (1990) developed a conceptual framework, Schaufeli and his
colleagues (2002) developed an operationalized concept of engage-ment.
According to Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzales-Roma, and Bakker (2002),
work engagement refers to ‘‘a positive fulfilling, work-related state of mind
that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption’’ (p. 74). Vigor is
defined as ‘‘high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the
willingness to invest efforts in one’s work and persis-tence even in the face
of difficulties’’, while dedication refers to ‘‘a sense of significance,
enthusiasm, inspiration, pride and challenge (p. 74). Absorption refers to
‘‘being fully concentrated and deeply engrossed in one’s work, whereby
time passes quickly and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from
work’’ (p. 75).
Studies on work engagement have demonstrated a positive relationship
with various work-related outcomes and organizational performance, such as
low burnout (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli et al., 2002), low
turnover intention (Saks, 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), low work stress
(Britt, Castro, & Adler, 2005), better employee productivity, finan-cial
performance, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship
behavior and customer satisfaction (Richman, 2006; Saks, 2006).
In recent years, research on work engagement in the tourism sector has
been increasingly carried out. For example, Salanova et al. (2005) found that
engaged frontline hotel employees contributed to service climate and
customer loyalty. Karatepe and Olugbade (2009), on the other hand,
reported that trait competitiveness enhanced hotel front-line employees’
work engagement. Employees working for quick-ser-vice restaurants were
more likely to be engaged in their jobs if they were high in
conscientiousness (Kim, Shin, & Swanger, 2009). Also in the restaurant
industry, Pienaar and Willemse (2008) suggested that coping strategies are
related to work engagement of frontline employ-ees. More recently, Slatten
and Mehmetoglu (2011) discovered that in the hospitality industry, work
engagement was predicted by role bene-fit, job autonomy, and strategic
attention. Work engagement was also found to predict innovative behavior.
Moreover, Leung, Wu, Chen and Young’s (2011) study indicated that work
engagement was linked to workplace ostracism and personality traits.

Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is one of the most studied issues in the human re-source
literature. It can be defined as ‘‘the pleasurable emotional state
resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating ones’ job
values’’ (Locke, 1969, p. 317). In hotel firms, frontline employees have
direct interaction with customers. Customer percep-tion, satisfaction and
loyalty are developed during such interactions. Frontline employees should
themselves be satisfied in order to deliver quality service and to satisfy
customers (Spinelli & Canavos, 2000).
An extensive review of human resource management in the tourism and
hospitality sector conducted by Kusluvan et al. (2010) explained that the
factors contributing to job satisfaction generally included hu-man resource
management practices of tourism firms, job design, job characteristics,
organizational environment and industry structure. Dienhart and Gregoire
(1993), in a study of quick-service restaurants, found that to enhance
employees’ perception of customer focus, man-agers should increase
employees’ job satisfaction, job involvement, and job security. Ghiselli,
LaLopa, and Bai (2001) examined job satisfaction levels of food-service
managers. Their findings showed that managers were satisfied with work
activities, social service, job security and ethical values. Moreover, salary
levels were found to affect job satisfaction.
In the hotel sector, Aksu and Aktas (2005) concluded that middle-and
upper-level managers generally felt satisfied with their jobs, includ-ing
working conditions and extrinsic and intrinsic job satisfaction, de-spite
usually having long working hours, working under poor physical conditions,
gaining little support from coworkers and earning insuffi-cient wages.
Chuang, Yin, and Dellmann-Jenkins (2009) reported that hotel chefs felt
most satisfied with work itself and supervision, while most dissatisfied with
growth, recognition and company policy. Gal-lardo, Sanchez-Canizares,
Lopez-Guzman, and Jesus (2010) discovered that wages, relationship with
coworkers and supervisors, and work itself were important indicators of job
satisfaction.
Karatepe and his colleagues (2006) reported that self-efficacy can predict
job satisfaction of hotel frontline employees. LaLopa (1997) indicated that
when employees felt satisfied with their work, they were more willing to be
committed to their resorts and to stay longer in their jobs than those who
were dissatisfied. Lam, Zhang, and Baum (2001) suggested that to increase
job satisfaction, hotel managers should orga-nize training workshops and
development plans, particularly for new and highly-educated employees.
Moreover, Liao, Hu, and Chung (2009) found that leader-member
relations had an important influence on job satisfaction of frontline
employees in tourist hotels. Nadiri and Tanova’s (2010) study showed that
organizational justice was the key factor affecting job satisfaction. Spi-nelli
and Canavos (2000) concluded that employees felt satisfied if they were
involved in decision making processes, gained appropriate job train-ing and
employee benefits, and had an effective manager. The authors also
indentified that satisfied employees had satisfied customers.

Tourism Involvement and Work Engagement

According to recovery theory, removal of work demand facilitates a
recovery from work (Meijman & Mulder, 1998). Recovered employees
who can gain job resources in the recovery process are willing to exert effort
on work tasks and dedicate themselves to work (Hobfoll, 1998, 2001;
Sonnentag, 2003). Resources are ‘‘objects, personal characteris-tics,
conditions or energies’’ (Hobfoll, 1989, p. 516) that facilitate and motivate
employees’ performance in a workplace (Wright & Hob-foll, 2004).
Employees who are not sufficiently recovered from work feel less vigorous
and have fewer resources to perform their job. When employees lack
sufficient resources to perform work tasks, they are more likely to disengage
from work (Leung et al., 2011).
However, when employees conserve and restore resources, they can
handle work tasks more effectively and increase work engagement (Leung et
al., 2011; Karapepe & Olugbade, 2009; Wright & Hobfoll, 2004). Tourism
has been recognized as a great opportunity to recover from work demands
(De Bloom et al., 2010; McCabe, 2009). It provides employees with a sense
of escapism and release from work tension (Rubinstein, 1980). Getting
involved in tourism can contribute to employees’ recovery and acquisition of
resourses that foster work engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004;
Sonnentag, 2003). Therefore, it is plausible to assume that highly tourism-
involved employees have a high tendency to engage in their work.
Accordingly, the first hypothe-sis is developed as follows.
H1: Tourism involvement is positively related to work engagement.

Work Engagement and Job Satisfaction

Work engagement is a positive work-relevant experience and condi-tion
of mind (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Sonnentag, 2003). Empirical studies
support a general belief where work engagement contributes to positive
work and organizational variables (e.g., job satisfaction and performance)
(Harter et al., 2002; Saks, 2006; Sonnentag, 2003). According to Schaufeli
and Bakker (2004), engaged employees experi-ence positive state of mind
and emotions at the workplace. Such posi-tive experiences can be beneficial
to work outcomes (Sonnentag, 2003).
Moreover, engaged employees generally gain sufficient job resources
(Hobfoll, 1998, 2001). Abundant resources can reduce stress brought by job
demands, which is negatively related to job satisfaction (Alarcon
& Edwards, 2011; Macklin, Smith, & Dollard, 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker,
2004). Several empirical studies have reported that work engagement fosters
job satisfaction (Alarcon & Edwards, 2011; Giallonardo, Wong,
& Iwasiw, 2010; Kamalanabhan & Prakashsai, 2009; Saks, 2006). There-
fore, H2 is accordingly developed as follows.
H2: Work engagement is positively related to job satisfaction.

Tourism Involvement and Job Satisfaction

The rationale for studying tourism involvement in relation with job
satisfaction is based on spillover theory. This theory refers to satisfied
experiences within a specific life domain (e.g. leisure domain) which
spill over to satisfaction with the overall domain (Diener, 1984; Sirgy,
2002). During the involvement process, people feel freedom, control and a
sense of intrinsic motivation. They obtain the experience of satis-faction and
enjoyment (Unger & Kernan, 1983; Witt & Ellis, 1987), and this positive
experience then spills over to people’s working life.
Some studies have examined the spillover effect of tourism on behaviors
at work (Neal et al., 2007; Sirgy et al., 2011). Most support the argument
that tourism has a positive spillover effect on well-being and job satisfac-
tion. This study posits that tourism involvement has a spillover effect on job
satisfaction. The following hypothesis is developed accordingly.
H3: Tourism involvement is positively related to job satisfaction.

The Mediating Effect of Work Engagement

Given that tourism involvement is expected to promote work engage-ment
and work engagement is expected to predict job satisfaction, it is logical to
anticipate that work engagement can mediate the relationship between
tourism involvement and job satisfaction. Indeed, this accords with a
number of management and tourism studies in which work engagement
mediates the relationship between antecedent and conse-quent variables
(Leung et al., 2011; Maslach, Schaufelli, & Leiter, 2001; Rich, Lepine, &
Crawford 2010; Saks, 2006; Salanova et al., 2005; Schaufeli & Bakker,
2004; Sonnentag, 2003). Therefore, H4 is as follows.
H4: Work engagement mediates the relationship between tourism
involvement and job satisfaction.

METHODOLOGY
Sampling
From a total list of 70 international hotels from the Tourism Bureau (a
dependent of the Ministry of Transportation and Communication, Taiwan),
20 hotels voluntarily participated in this study. Participating hotels were
given assurance of confidentiality. A total of 500 question-naires with cover
letters were sent to human resource departments or staff of these
participating hotels. Frontline employees of food and bev-erage,
housekeeping, and front-desk departments were included in the sample. The
human resource departments/staff were asked to deliver questionnaires to
their frontline employees with the assurance that the respondents were
randomly selected. Respondents were asked to com-plete the questionnaires
in a self-reported manner. A total of 347 ques-tionnaires were returned with
anonymity. 11 questionnaires were eliminated due to missing data. A total of
336 (67.2%) valid question-naires were collected.

Instruments
All instruments were originally designed in English. As the respon-dents
were Taiwanese, all questions were translated into Mandarin. A backward
and forward translation approach was used to ensure the
translation was accurate (Hayashi, Suzuki, & Sasaki, 1992). Ten hotel
frontline employees were then invited to participate in a pilot study. They
were asked to examine the wording and clarity of the survey ques-tions, but
participants did not raise any concerns.
The scale used to collect data regarding tourism involvement was adapted
from Gursoy and Gavcar’s (2003) Consumer Involvement Pro-file scale.
The Consumer Involvement Profile scale includes three dimensions
(Pleasure, Risk Probability and Risk Importance) with 11 items and has been
widely applied in both tourism and leisure contexts (Dimanche, Havitz, &
Howard, 1991; Gursoy & Gavcar, 2003; Hwang et al., 2005; Jain &
Srinivasan, 1990; Jamrozy et al., 1996; Kim et al., 1997; Park, 1996). Work
engagement was measured by using the Utr-echt Work Engagement Scale
(Schaufeli, et al., 2002). The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale has three
dimensions (Vigor, Dedication and Absorption) with 17 items and has been
widely used by tourism researchers (Karatepe & Olugbade, 2009; Kim et al.,
2009; Pienaar & Willemse, 2008). A 20-item short form of the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire was utilized to measure job satisfaction. The
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire has two dimensions—Intrinsic
Satisfaction and Extrinsic Satisfaction (Hirschfeld, 2000; Weiss, Dawis,
England,
& Lofquist, 1967). It is a widely used and reliable scale. Many research-ers
have successfully applied the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire to
investigate job satisfaction in the tourism sector (Dienhart & Greg-oire,
1993; Fisher, McPhail, & Menghetti, 2010; Ghiselli, LaLopa, & Bai, 2001;
Gunlu, Aksarayli, & Percin, 2010; Hancer & George, 2003).

Data Analysis
A confirmatory factor analysis, descriptive statistics, independent t-tests,
and structural equation modeling were conducted to analyze the data.
Convergent validity was assessed based on the findings of the confirmatory
factor analysis. Descriptive analysis was employed to describe the sample
profiles. An independent t-test was carried out to identify differences in
work engagement and job satisfaction be-tween the highly tourism-involved
group and the less tourism-involved group. To determine the level of
tourism involvement, the overall score of tourism involvement was divided
at the 50th percentile into a high and a low tourism involvement (Chang &
Gibson, 2011). Simi-larly, the scale score of work engagement was divided
at the 50th per-centile into a highly work-engaged and a less work-engaged
group. An independent t-test was used to identify the differences in job
satisfac-tion between these two groups. Finally, structural equation modeling
was carried out to determine the relationship between variables.

RESULTS
Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Validity and Reliability
A series of confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to examine the
underlying dimensional structure, assess the fit of each construct
and determine construct validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). An item was
eliminated if it was heavily cross-loaded on diverse factors (Byrne, 2001).
Consequently, three items from Tourism Involvement, eight items from
Work Engagement and nine items from Job Satisfaction were elimi-nated.
The initial scale items and the items removed during the pro-cess of
confirmatory factor analysis are displayed in the Appendix. The outcomes of
the final confirmatory factor analysis are shown in Table 1. The fit indices
exhibited an accepted level in both the Tour-ism Involvement construct (v 2 =
106.94, df = 17, p = 0.000, GFI = 0.919,
AGFI = 0.828, NFI = 0.971, TLI = 0.960, CFI = 0.976, SRMR = 0.017)
2
and Work Engagement construct (v = 110.158, df = 24, p = 0.000,
GFI = 0.931, AGFI = 0.871, NFI = 0.964, TLI = 0.957, CFI = 0.971,
SRMR = 0.024), while the results generated low fit statistics for the
Job Satisfaction construct (v2 = 718.569, df = 43, p = 0.000,
GFI = 0.743, AGFI = 0.605, NFI = 0.820, TLI = 0.780, CFI = 0.828,
SRMR = 0.061).
Although the fit statistics for the Job Satisfaction construct were not
adequate, the magnitudes of standardized factor loading for all items used by
the current study were between 0.727 and 0.982 (Table 2). These values
exceeded the commonly accepted threshold of 0.7 sug-gested by Hair,
Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006). All t-val-ues were significant,
ranging from 13.706 to 41.618. The variances extracted ranged from 0.688
to 0.941. All exceeded the 0.5 rule of thumb. Composite reliabilities ranged
from 0.897 to 0.970. These reached 0.7, suggesting adequate reliability.
Hence, the above evidence supports the convergence validity of each
construct.
Prior to conducting model tests, the discriminant validity had to be
examined to ensure that all constructs in the model were distinct from other
constructs. First, the correlations between dimensions were calculated (Table
3). All of the correlations were below 0.80, at which discriminant validity
may occur (Quintal, Lee, & Soutar, 2010). Sec-ond, to assess discriminant
validity, Hair et al. (2006:778) suggested that a test should be conducted to
‘‘compare the variance-extracted percentages for any two constructs with the
square of the correlation estimate between these two constructs. The
variance-extracted esti-mates should be greater than the squared correlation
estimate’’. Table 3 shows that the average variances extracted from any pair
of fac-tors were greater than the corresponding inter-construct squared cor-

Table 1. Results of confirmatory factor analysis

Construct v2 GFI AGFI NFI TLI CFI SRMR

Tourism 106.94 p = 0.000 0.919 0.828 0.971 0.960 0.976 0.017

Involvement
Work 110.158 p = 0.000 0.931 0.871 0.964 0.957 0.971 0.024
Engagement
Job Satisfaction 718.569 p = 0.000 0.743 0.605 0.820 0.780 0.828 0.061
 Table 2. Standardized loading, t values, composite reliability and average variance
extracted

Constructs and items Standardized t-Values Average Variance Composite

loading Extracted Reliability

Pleasure 0.941 0.970

TV1 0.958 –
**
TV3 0.982 40.952
Risk Probability 0.861 0.961
TV6 0.955 –
**
TV7 0.939 37.735
**
TV8 0.871 27.642
**
TV9 0.945 36.648
Risk Importance 0.939 0.969
TV10 0.969 –-
**
TV11 0.969 41.618
Vigor 0.887 0.940
WE1 0.919 –
**
WE2 0.964 29.642
Dedication 0.744 0.897
WE9 0.858 –
**
WE10 0.862 20.312
**
WE11 0.867 20.528
Absorption 0.766 0.928
WE13 0.924 –
**
WE14 0.931 30.173
**
WE15 0.745 17.950
**
WE16 0.887 26.281
Intrinsic Satisfaction 0.688 0.952
SA1 0.742 –
**
SA2 0.757 14.329
**
SA3 0.801 15.285
**
SA4 0.896 17.369
**
SA5 0.924 17.986
**
SA6 0.895 17.339
**
SA8 0.840 16.118
**
SA11 0.727 13.706
**
SA12 0.858 16.517
Extrinsic Satisfaction 0.844 0.915
SA17 0.970 –
**
SA18 0.864 20.236

**
p < 0.01.

relation estimates. This test supported the discriminant validity of each

construct.
In order to examine common method bias, the current study fol-lowed the
recommendations made by Podsakoff and his colleagues (2003). Podsakoff,
Mackenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003, p. 899) ar-
 Table 3. Correlations and average variance extracted

Pleasure Risk Risk Vigor Dedication Absorption Intrinsic Extrinsic

Probability Importance Satisfaction Satisfaction

Pleasure (0.941)
Risk 0.701** (0.861)
Probability
**
Risk 0.758 0.740** (0.939)
Importance
** **
Vigor 0.408 0.480 0.535** (0.887)
Dedication 0.401** 0.494** 0.510** 0.771** (0.744)
Absorption 0.459** 0.476** 0.580** 0.750** 0.797** (0.766)
Intrinsic 0.484** 0.522** 0.497** 0.621** 0.657** 0.499** (0.688)
Satisfaction
** ** ** ** ** **
Extrinsic 0.483 0.412 0.380 0.489 0.538 0.477 0.670** (0.844)
Satisfaction

Average variances extracted are on diagonal.

*
p < 0.01.

gued that when ‘‘a researcher cannot obtain the predictor and crite-rion
variables from different sources, cannot separate the measure-ment context,
and cannot identify the source of the method bias, it is best to use a single-
common method-factor approach to statistically control for method biases’’.
The current study met the above criteria and therefore used the Harman’s
single-factor test to examine com-mon method bias.
This test proposes that common method bias is a vital problem if one
individual factor emerges after a factor analysis and one general factor
makes up for the most of the covariance among the measures (Podsakoff et
al., 2003). The outcomes of an exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that
all of the items in the current study were loaded on four different factors and
no dominant factor accounted for the major-ity of the covariance among the
variables. Comparing with that of the three-construct model in the current
study, the fit statistics for a single-factor test were not acceptable (v 2 =
7249.541, df = 350, p = 0.000, GFI = 0.323, AGFI = 0.215, NFI = 0.440,
TLI = 0.407, CFI = 0.451, SRMR = 0.133). These results revealed that
common method bias was not a severe problem in the current study.

Sample Profile and Independent t-tests

Of the 336 respondents, 223 (66.4%) were female and 113 (33.6%) were
male. The most frequently occurring age group was between 20 and 25 years
old (39.3%). 35.7% were between 26 and 30 years old, 15.5% were between
31 and 35 years old, 6% were between 36 and 40 years, and only 3.6% were
over 41 years old. 147 frontline employees were working in food &
beverage departments (43.8%), followed by housekeeping departments
(42.3%) and front desk (14%). The aver-age tenure was 2.4 years.
The mean scores of tourism involvement, work engagement and job
satisfaction were 3.66, 3.73 and 3.45 respectively. The standard devia-
tion of tourism involvement was 0.79. Work engagement and job satis-
faction had standard deviations of 0.69 and 0.67 respectively. As shown in
Table 4, the average scores of work engagement and job satisfaction in the
highly tourism-involved group (n = 178) were 4.08 and 3.77 respectively.
Conversely, the less tourism-involved group (n = 158) had lower means of
work engagement (3.34) and job satisfaction (3.09). An independent t-test
showed that the highly tourism-involved group had significantly higher
means than the less tourism-involved group in work engagement (t = 11.55,
p = 0.01) and job satisfaction (t = 10.73, p = 0.001). Moreover, the highly
work-engaged group had a significantly higher job satisfaction mean than
the less work-engaged group (t = 12.07, p = 0.01).

Evaluation of the Hypothesized Relationships

To test the hypothetical relationships, structural equation modeling was
conducted by taking the maximum likelihood estimation method. The
2
overall fit of the structural model was as follows: v = 110.154, df = 17, p =
0.000, GFI = 0.928, AGFI = 0.848, NFI = 0.943, TLI = 0.920, CFI = 0.951,
SRMR = 0.035. These results provide evidence of good model fit. The
results of the structural equation model are illustrated in Table 5. As
hypothesized, tourism involvement had a positive and significant effect on
work engagement (b = 0.641, t value = 11.169, p = 0.001). Hypothesis 1
was supported. Hypothesis 2 predicted that work engagement was positively
related to job satisfaction. As shown in Table 5, the results provide empirical
support for this relationship (b = 0.591, t value = 9.034, p = 0.001).
Hypothesis 3 suggested that tour-ism involvement had a significant positive
correlation with job satisfac-tion of hotel frontline employees. Table 5
indicates that this relationship was both positive and significant (b = 0.269, t
va-lue = 4.256, p = 0.001).

Table 4. T Test Results

Variable n Work Engagement Job Satisfaction S.D. t value

Mean Mean

Tourism Involvement
Highly involved 178 4.08 0.57
**
Less involved 158 3.34 0.60 11.55
Tourism Involvement
Highly involved 178 3.77 0.69
**
Less involved 158 3.09 0.41 10.73
Work Engagement
Highly engaged 158 3.84 0.59
**
Less engaged 178 3.11 0.53 12.07
**
p < 0.01.
 Table 5. Results of Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis Effects Standardized t-value Accept/Reject

Regression
Weight
**
H1 Tourism Involvement 0.641 11.169 Accept
fi Work Engagement
**
H2 Work Engagement 0.591 9.034 Accept
fi Job Satisfaction
**
H3 Tourism Involvement 0.269 4.256 Accept
fi Job Satisfaction

**
p < 0.01.

Tourism involvement was hypothesized to affect job satisfaction through

work engagement. As mentioned earlier, the fit of this struc-tural model was
acceptable and therefore it supported the role of work engagement as a
mediator (Hair et al., 2006). The direct, indirect and total effects of tourism
involvement on job satisfaction were 0.269, 0.379 (0.641 · 0.591) and 0.648
(0.269 + 0.379) respectively. The indi-rect effect (0.379) had a greater effect
than the direct effect (0.269), evidencing that work engagement was an
important mediator influenc-ing job satisfaction. However, the direct
relationship between tourism involvement and job satisfaction was still
found to be significant. In other words, partial rather than full mediation of
work engagement was supported (Hair et al., 2006). Moreover, the result of
Sobel’s test indicated that the indirect path (i.e., tourism involvement fi work
engagement fi job satisfaction), was statistically significant (Sobel’s z =
6.994, p = 0.000). Based on the above evidence, Hypothesis 4 was partially
supported.

DISCUSSION
An extensive number of empirical studies have examined the effect of
tourism on tourists’ life and the antecedent of work engagement as well as
job satisfaction. However, little research attention has focused on the effect
of tourism involvement on work engagement and job sat-isfaction. In
awareness of this research gap, the current study examined the relationship
among tourism involvement, work engagement, and job satisfaction.
As expected, tourism involvement had a significant and positive rela-
tionship with work engagement. This result has not been reported in other
published articles and therefore extends understanding of the ef-fect of
tourism on work outcomes. Further, it suggests that recovery theory was a
useful guideline for investigating the relationship between tourism
involvement and work engagement. Frontline hotel employees may become
more engaged in their work if they are more involved with
tourism because they can get more resources and feel more vigorous after
being involved with tourism. That is, highly tourism-involved employees
are more likely to restore resources into work than less tour-ism-involved
employees.
The current study also confirmed a positive relationship between work
engagement and job satisfaction, providing empirical support to existing
literature (Alarcon & Edwards, 2011; Giallonardo et al., 2010;
Kamalanabhan & Prakashsai, 2009; Saks, 2006). This finding pro-vides
evidence that employees engaged in work are more likely to expe-rience job
satisfaction. Consistent with the hypotheses, the findings showed that
tourism involvement was not only directly related to front-line employees’
job satisfaction, but also indirectly through their work engagement. The
findings also support the notion that highly tourism-involved frontline
employees feel more satisfied with their work. The current study extended
spillover theory by focusing on the positive ef-fects of tourism on job
satisfaction. According to spillover theory, tour-ism can have a positive
effect on working life (Neal et al., 2007; Sirgy et al., 2011). The current
study found that higher employee involve-ment with tourism had positive
spillover effects on job satisfaction. Past tourism research has not aimed at
investigating this connection. Thus, the current study is unique in exploring
the relationship between tour-ism involvement and job satisfaction from the
perspective hotel front-line employees.
Based on the above findings, job satisfaction was found to be posi-tively
affected by tourism involvement and work engagement. The cur-rent study
went further by demonstrating that work engagement mediated the effect of
tourism involvement on job satisfaction. The re-sult demonstrated that
tourism involvement had an indirect positive relation with job satisfaction
via increased work engagement. In accor-dance with earlier studies, work
engagement was an important media-tor between antecedent and consequent
variables (Leung et al., 2011; Maslach et al., 2001). This finding supports
the notion that recovery from work via involving with tourism allows
employees to restore job resources, show dedication, and experience
satisfaction in their work. That is, if a highly tourism-involved employee is
present, he or she is more engaged in work, which in turn promotes job
satisfaction.
The findings demonstrate that the indirect effect of work engage-ment
was stronger than the direct effect of tourism involvement on job
satisfaction. This implies that employees who are involved with tourism and
engage in work feel more satisfied than those who are only involved with
tourism. That is, the effect of tourism involvement on job satisfaction is
enhanced via work engagement. Thus, the current study shows that highly
tourism-involved employees generally maintain a higher level of work
engagement than less tourism-involved employees and that the former show
greater levels of satisfaction with their job. This empirical relationship had
not yet been found in the tourism literature.
There are several theoretical implications of the current study. First, based
on the empirical evidence, tourism involvement directly and indirectly
(through work engagement) influenced job satisfaction.
The relationship between tourism involvement and job satisfaction was
better evidenced since work engagement was a mediator. This implies that
there may be some mediators that could be included in the cur-rent model to
better predict job satisfaction. Second, the current study found that recovery
theory was a useful theoretical framework to ex-plain the relationship
between tourism involvement and work engage-ment. As such, recovery
theory may be extended from only explaining the positive effect of recovery
on work to include tourism involvement as a predictor of work outcomes.
Similarly, spillover theory may be extended from only considering the
positive effect of leisure experience on life to examining the direct effect of
tourism involvement on specific work outcomes. The Con-sumer
Involvement Profile scale has been used often to assess the tour-ists’
involvement, so the current study tested this scale on a sample of hotel
employees. The findings of confirmatory factor analysis demon-strated that
the Consumer Involvement Profile scale is a valid and reli-able scale. This
implies that the Consumer Involvement Profile scale can be utilized not only
for tourism marketing research but also in tourism human resource
management research. Finally, the results demonstrated the enduring effect
of tourism involvement on tourists’ behavior. As the current study showed
the relation between tourism involvement on work engagement and job
satisfaction, it contributes to the literature on the effect of tourism on work
outcomes.
The significant effects of tourism involvement found in this study indicate
several managerial implications for hotel firms. Tourism involvement is a
useful tool to enhance work engagement and job sat-isfaction. Hotel firms
should focus on selecting employees who have a high degree of tourism
involvement. Therefore, hotel managers can in-clude tourism involvement
assessments in the selection process. In addition, it may be useful to include
the practice of tourism in manage-ment training. It is recommended to train
hotel managers to be aware of the issue of managing an appropriate work-
life balance.
Hotels should also work to examine whether their managers and pol-icies
sufficiently encourage employees to get involved in tourism activ-ities.
Hotel firms can enhance employees’ tourism perceptions by disseminating
tourism information and benefits in internal meetings, seminars or training
events. Furthermore, hotel firms can organize reg-ular activities to directly
help employees get involved in tourism-related activities. Managers need to
realize that their encouragement will sig-nificantly influence frontline
employees’ work engagement and job satisfaction.
Moreover, the positive effect of work engagement on job satisfaction
implies that hotel firms need to provide frontline employees with job
resources to promote work engagement. Training programs could be helpful
for informing hotel managers about resources, such as partic-ipative
management and team building, to enhance employees work engagement.
Attention should also be paid to whether employees re-cover from work.
Hotel firms can set up regulations that restrict work-ing overtime and
encourage employees to take a vacation regularly. With a high level of work
engagement, hotel employees can experience
positive emotions in their places of work. This leads to better job
satisfaction.
Additionally, the indirect effect of work engagement implies that hotel
managers need to do more than simply promote tourism involvement if the
managers wish to increase employees’ satisfaction. Since the effect of
tourism involvement on job satisfaction is enhanced when employees be-
come engaged in work, hotel managers should implement strategies as
mentioned above to increase employees’ level of tourism involvement and
simultaneously build a work environment that foster employees’ work
engagement, such as increasing job resources. Managers should then be able
to retain engaged employees in their hotels. Such employ-ees could be
offered more opportunities for tourism involvement, which would ultimately
result in more job satisfaction.

Limitations and Future Research

Although the results of the current study confirmed that tourism
involvement may enhance work engagement and job satisfaction in the
context of hotel firms, there are a number of limitations. First, gi-ven the
cross-sectional nature of the current study, the interpretation of the results is
limited. A longitudinal design in future studies would be more powerful in
identifying relationships among the constructs of the current study. Second,
the study investigated the hypothesized rela-tionships by using a sample of
frontline employees in the Taiwanese hotel industry. The generalizability of
the findings to other employee categories, industries and countries needs
further investigation. Future research may find that different employee
groups have different levels of tourism involvement, which in turn influence
work attitudes and behavior differently.
Additionally, the findings derived from self-reported outcomes raise
questions. The current study used Harman’s single-factor test to exam-ine
common method bias. The findings indicate that the common method bias
was not a serious problem in the current study. However, future research
should take advantage of numerous sources, such as supervisor feedback,
coworker evaluation and objective appraisal data, to minimize this limitation
and capture consistent outcomes. Finally, it should be noted that the current
study explored limited work-related outcomes of hotel frontline employees.
Future research should investi-gate other work-related variables, such as
organizational commitment and organization citizenship behavior.

CONCLUSIONS
Tourism involvement is a significant, yet under-examined issue with
respect to work engagement and job satisfaction among hotel frontline
employees. This study identified a significant relationship among tour-ism
involvement, work engagement and job satisfaction, suggesting a new way
of managing human resources in the tourism industry. Hotel firms should
understand the conditions that contribute to work
engagement and job satisfaction, since engaged and satisfied employ-ees can
provide enhanced quality of service.
APPENDIX A
Tourism Involvement Scale (Gursoy and Gavcar, 2003)

Dimension Item

Pleasure/Interest (TV1) It gives me pleasure to involve with

tourism
(TV2) Involving with tourism is like buying a
*
gift for myself
(TV3) Tourism is somewhat of a pleasure to
me
*
(TV4) I attach great importance to tourism
*
(TV5) One can say tourism interests me a lot
Risk Probability (TV6) Whenever one participates in a tourism
activity, one never really knows whether it is
the one that should participate
(TV7) When I face a variety of tourism choices,
I always feel a bit at loss to make my choice
(TV8) Choosing a tourism destination is rather
complicated
(TV9) When one participates in a tourism
activity, one is never certain of one’s choice
Risk Importance (TV10) It is really annoying to participate in a
tourism activity that is not suitable
(TV11) If, after I participate in a tourism
activity, my choice proves to be poor, I would
be very upset
*
Item deleted during the confirmatory factor analysis procedure.
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES: Schaufeli, et al., 2002)

Dimension Item

Vigor (WE1) When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to

work
(WE2) At my work, I feel bursting with energy
(WE3) At my work, I always persevere, even when things do
*
not go well
(WE4) I can continue working for every long period at a
*
time
*
(WE5) At my job, I am very resilient, mentally
*
(WE6) At my job, I feel strong and vigorous
 *
Dedication (WE7) To me, my job is challenging
*
(WE8) My job inspires me
(WE9) I am enthusiastic about my job
(WE10) I am proud of the work that I do
(WE11) I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose
*
Absorption (WE12) When I am working, I forget everything else around me
(WE13) Time files when I am working
(WE14) I get carried away when I am working
(WE15) It is difficult to detach myself from my job
(WE16) I am immersed in my work
*
(WE17) I feel happy when I am working intensely
*
Item deleted during the confirmatory factor analysis procedure.
MSQ Job satisfaction scale (Weiss et al., 1967)

Dimension Item

Intrinsic Satisfaction (SA1) Ability utilization

(SA2) Achievement
(SA3) Activity
(SA4) Authority
(SA5) Creativity
(SA6) Independence
*
(SA7) Moral values
(SA8) Responsibility
*
(SA9) Security
*
(SA10) Social service
(SA11) Social status
(SA12) Variety
*
(SA13) Co-workers
*
Extrinsic Statisfaction (SA14) Advancement
*
(SA15) Company policies and practices
*
(SA16) Compensation
(SA17) Recognition
(SA18) Supervision—human relations
*
(SA19) Supervision—technical
*
(SA20) Working condition
*
Item deleted during the confirmatory factor analysis procedure.
 REFERENCES
Aksu, A. A., & Aktas, A. (2005). Job satisfaction of managers in tourism: Cases in the
Antalya region of Turkey. Managerial Auditing Journal, 20(5), 479–488.
Alarcon, G. M., & Edwards, J. M. (2011). The relationship of engagement, job
satisfaction and turnover intentions. Stress and Health, 27(3), 294–298.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
411–423.
Andrews, J. C., Durvasula, S., & Akhter, S. H. (1990). A framework for conceptualizing
and measuring the involvement construct in advertising research. Journal of
Advertising, 19(4), 27–40.
Britt, T. W., Castro, C. A., & Adler, A. B. (2005). Self-engagement, stressors, and health:
A longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(11), 1475–
1486.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum. Cai, L. A., Feng, R., & Breiter, D. (2004). Tourist purchase decision
involvement and information preferences. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2), 138–
148. Chang, S., & Gibson, H. (2011). Physically active leisure and tourism connection:
Leisure involvement and choice of tourism activities among paddlers. Leisure
Sciences, 33(2), 162–181.
Chung, N. K., Yin, D., & Dellmann-Jenkins, M. (2009). Intrinsic and extrinsic factors
impacting casino hotel chefs’ job satisfaction. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21(3), 323–340.
Clements, C. J., & Josiam, B. M. (1995). Role of involvement in the travel decision.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 1(4), 337–348.
Crane, A. (2011). Getting away from it all: Exploring freedom in tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 38(4), 1495–1515.
Dann, G. M. S. (2001). Senior tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(1), 235–238.
De Bloom, J., Geurts, S. A. E., Taris, T. W., Sonnentag, S., De Weerth, C., & Kompier,
M. A. J. (2010). Effects of vacation from work on health and well-
being: Lots of fun, quickly gone. Work and Stress, 24(2), 196–216. Diener, E.
(1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575. Dienhart, J. R., &
Gregoire, M. B. (1993). Job satisfaction, job involvement, job
security, and customer focus of quick-service restaurant employees. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Research, 16(2), 29–43.
Dik, B. J., & Hansen, J. C. (2008). Following passionate interests to well-being.
Journal of Career Assessment, 16(1), 86–100.
Dimanche, F., Havitz, M., & Howard, D. (1991). Testing the involvement profile scale in
the context of selected recreational and touristic activities. Journal of Leisure
Research, 23(1), 51–66.
Dimanche, F., Havitz, M., & Howard, D. (1993). Consumer involvement profiles as a
tourism segmentation tool. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 1(4), 33–
52.
Dolnicar, S., Yanamandram, V., & Cliff, K. (2012). The contribution of vacations to
quality of life. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 59–83.
Etzion, D. (2003). Annual vacation: Duration of relief from job stressors and
burnout. Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal, 16(2), 213–226.
Fesenmaier, D. R., & Johnson, B. (1989). Involvement-based segmentation: Implications
for travel marketing in Texas. Tourism Management, 10(4), 293–300.
Finn, D. (1983). Low involvement isn’t low involving. Advances in Consumer
Research, 10, 419–424.
Fisher, R., McPhail, R., & Menghetti, G. (2010). Linking employee attitudes and
behaviors with business performance: A comparative analysis of hotels in Mexico
and China. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(3), 397–404.
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery, well-being, and performance-related
outcomes: The role of workload and vacation experiences. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(4), 936–945.
Gallardo, E., Sanchez-Canizares, S. M., Lopez-Guzman, T., & Jesus, M. M. N. (2010).
Employee satisfaction in the Iberian hotel industry. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(3), 321–334.
Ghiselli, R. F., LaLopa, J. M., & Bai, B. (2001). Job satisfaction, life satisfaction and
turnover intent among food-service managers. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 28–37.
Giallonardo, L. M., Wong, C. A., & Iwasiw, C. L. (2010). Authentic leadership of
preceptors: Predictor of new graduate nurses’ work engagement and job satisfaction.
Journal of Nursing Management, 18(8), 993–1003.
Gilbert, D., & Abdullah, J. (2004). Holidaytaking and the sense of well-being.
Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 103–121.
Gonzalez, J. V., & Garazo, T. G. (2006). Structural relationships between organizational
service orientation, contact employee job satisfaction and citizenship. International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 17(1), 23–50.
Gunlu, E., Aksarayli, M., & Percin, N. S. (2010). Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment of hotel managers in Turkey. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 22(5), 693–717.
Gursoy, D., & Gavcar, E. (2003). International leisure tourists’ involvement profile.
Annals of Tourism Research, 30(4), 906–926.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).
Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hancer, M., & George, R. T. (2003). Job satisfaction of restaurant employees: An
empirical investigation using the Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Research, 27(1), 85–100.
Harris, L. C. (2012). Ripping off tourists: An empirical evaluation of tourists’ perceptions
and service work (mis)behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 1070–1093.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit level relationship
between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business out-comes: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279.
Havitz, M. E., & Dimanche, F. (1990). Propositions for testing the involvement construct
in recreational and tourism contexts. Leisure Sciences, 12(2), 179–195.
Havitz, M. E., Dimanche, F., & Bogle, T. (1994). Segmenting the adult fitness market
using involvement profiles. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,
12(3), 38–56.
Havitz, M. E., & Mannell, R. C. (2005). Enduring involvement, situational involvement,
and flow in leisure and non-leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(2),
152–177.
Hayashi, C., Suzuki, T., & Sasaki, M. (1992). Data analysis for comparative social
research: International perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Hirschfeld, R. R. (2000). Validity studies: Does revising the intrinsic and extrinsic
subscales of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form make a
difference?. Educational Psychological Measurement, 60(2), 255–270.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing
stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1998). Stress, culture, and community: The psychology and physiology of
stress. New York: Plenum.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the
stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 50(3), 337–370.
Houston, M. J., & Rothschild, M. L. (1978). Conceptual and methodological perspectives
in involvement. In S. C. Jain (Ed.), Research frontiers in marketing: Dialogues
and directions (pp. 184–187). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Hu, B., & Yu, H. (2007). Segmentation by craft selection criteria and shopping
involvement. Tourism Management, 28(4), 1079–1092.
Hwang, S. N., Lee, C., & Chen, H. J. (2005). The relationship among tourists’
involvement, place attachment and interpretation satisfaction in Taiwan’s national
parks. Tourism Management, 26(2), 143–156.
Jain, K., & Srinivasan, N. (1990). An empirical assessment of multiple operation-
alizations of involvement. Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 594–602.
Jamrozy, U., Backman, S., & Backman, K. (1996). Involvement and opinion leadership
in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(4), 908–924.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
Kamalanabhan, T. J., & Prakashsai, L. (2009). Employee engagement and job
satisfaction in the information technology industry. Psychological Reports,
105(3), 759–770.
Karatepe, O. M., Uludag, O., Menevis, I., Hadzimehmedagic, L., & Baddar, L. (2006).
The effects of selected individual characteristics on frontline employee performance
and job satisfaction. Tourism Management, 27(4), 547–560.
Karatepe, O. S., & Olugbade, O. A. (2009). The effects of job and personal resources on
hotel employees’ work engagement. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 28(4), 504–512.
Kim, S., Scott, D., & Crompton, J. (1997). An exploration of the relationships among
social psychological involvement, behavioral involvement, commit-ment and future
intensions in the context of bird watching. Journal of Leisure Research, 29(3),
320–341.
Kim, H. J., Shin, K. H., & Swanger, N. (2009). Burnout and engagement: A comparative
analysis using the Big Five personality dimensions. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 28(1), 96–104.
Kuhnel, J., & Sonnentag, S. (2011). How long do you benefit from vacation? A closer
look at the fade-out of vacation effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
32(1), 125–143.
Kusluvan, S. (2003). Employee attitudes and behaviors and their roles for tourism and
hospitality. In S. Kusluvan (Ed.), Managing employee attitudes and behaviors
in the tourism and hospitality industry (pp. 25–50). New York: Nova Science
Publishers.
Kusluvan, S., Kusluvan, Z., Ilhan, I., & Buyruk, L. (2010). The human dimension: A
review of human resources management issues in the tourism and hospitality
industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 51(2), 171–214.
Laaksonen, P. (1994). Consumer involvement: Concepts and research. London:
Routledge.
LaLopa, J. M. (1997). Commitment and turnover in resort jobs. Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Research, 21(2), 11–16.
Lam, D., & Ozorio, B. (2012). Linking employees’ personalities to job loyalty.
Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4), 2203–2206.
Lam, T., Zhang, H., & Baum, T. (2001). An investigation of employees’ job satisfaction:
The case of hotels in Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 22(2), 157–165.
Lashley, C., & Lee-Ross, D. (2003). Organization behavior for leisure services. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Lee, C. K., Lee, B. K., Bernhard, B. J., & Lee, T. K. (2009). A comparative study of
involvement and motivation among casino gamblers. Psychiatry Investigation,
6(3), 141–149.
Leung, S. M., Wu, L. Z., Chen, Y. Y., & Young, N. (2011). The impact of workplace
ostracism in service organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Manage-
ment, 30(4), 836–844.
Liao, S. H., Hu, D. C., & Chung, H. Y. (2009). The relationship between leader-member
relations, job satisfaction and organizational commitment in inter-national tourist
hotels. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(8),
1810–1826.
Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction?. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 4(1), 309–336.
Lounsbury, J. W., & Hoopes, L. L. (1986). A vacation from work: Chances in work and
nonwork outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 392–401.
Macklin, D. S., Smith, L. A., & Dollard, M. F. (2006). Public and private sector work
stress: Workers compensation, levels of distress and job satisfaction, and the
 demand control support model. Australian Journal of Psychology, 58(3), 130–
143.
Madrigal, R., Havitz, M., & Howard, D. (1992). Married couples’ involvement with
family vacations. Leisure Sciences, 14(4), 285–299.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout. CA: Jossey, Bass.
Maslach, C., Schaufelli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 397–422.
McCabe, S. (2009). Who needs a holiday? Evaluating social tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 36(4), 667–688.
McCabe, S., & Stokoe, E. (2010). Have you been away? Holiday talk in everyday
interaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 1117–1140.
Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In H. T. Drenth
& C. J. D. Wolff (Eds.). Handbook of work and organizational psychology (Vol.
2, pp. 5–33). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
Nadiri, H., & Tanova, C. (2010). An investigation of the role of justice in turnover
intentions, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior in hospi-tality
industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(1), 33–41.
Neal, J. D., Sirgy, M. J., & Uysal, M. (1999). The role of satisfaction with leisure
travel/tourism services and experiences in satisfaction with leisure life and overall
life. Journal of Business Research, 44(3), 153–165.
Neal, J. D., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2007). The effect of tourism services on travelers’
quality of life. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 154–163.
Park, S. (1996). Relationship between involvement and attitudinal loyalty constructs in
adult fitness programs. Journal of Leisure Research, 28, 233–250.
Park, S., & Kim, D. Y. (2010). A comparison of different approaches to segment
information search behavior of spring break travelers in the USA: Experience,
knowledge, involvement and specialization concept. International Journal of
Tourism Research, 12(1), 49–64.
Park, C., & Young, S. (1986). Consumer response to television commercials: The impact
of involvement and background music on brand attitude formation. Journal of
Marketing Research, 23(1), 17–24.
Park, M., Yang, X., Lee, B., Jang, H. C., & Stokowski, P. A. (2002). Segmenting casino
gamblers by involvement profiles: A Colorado example. Tourism Management,
23(1), 55–65.
Pienaar, J., & Willemse, S. A. (2008). Burnout, engagement, coping and general health of
service employees in the hospitality industry. Tourism Management, 29(4), 1053–
1063.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Quintal, V. A., Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. N. (2010). Tourists’ information search: The
differential impact of risk and uncertainty avoidance. International Journal of
Tourism Research, 12(4), 321–333.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and
effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635.
Richard, M. D., & Sundaram, D. S. (1994). A model of loading repeat choice intentions.
Annals of Tourism Research, 21(4), 745–755.
Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce: How can you create it?.
Workspan, 49(1), 36–39.
Ritchie, B. W., Tkaczynski, A., & Faulks, P. (2010). Understanding the motivation and
travel behavior of cycle tourists using involvement profiles. Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing, 27(4), 409–425.
Rook, J. W., & Zijlstra, F. R. H. (2006). The contribution of various types of activities to
recovery. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(2),
218–240.
Rubinstein, C. (1980). Vacations expectations, satisfactions, frustrations, fantasies.
Psychology Today, 14, 62–66.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiro, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work
engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of
service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217–1227.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their
relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293–315.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzales-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The
measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor
analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.
Sherif, M., & Cantril, H. (1947). The psychology of ego-involvement: Social attitudes and
identifications. NY: Wiley.
Sherif, M., Kelly, M., Rodgers, H., Sarup, G., & Tittler, B. I. (1973). Personal
involvement, social judgment and action. Journal and Personality and Social
Psychology, 27(3), 311–327.
Sirgy, J. M. (2001). Handbook of Quality of Life Research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer.
Sirgy, J. M. (2002). The psychology of quality of life. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer.
Sirgy, M. J., Kruger, P. S., Lee, D. J., & Yu, G. B. (2011). How does a travel trip affect
tourists’ life satisfaction?. Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 261–275.
Slama, M. E., & Tashchian, A. (1985). Selected socioeconomic and demographic
characteristics associated with purchasing involvement. The Journal of Market-
ing, 49(1), 72–82.
Slatten, T., & Mehmetoglu, M. (2010). Antecedents and effects of engaged frontline
employees: A study from the hospitality industry. Managing Service Quality,
21(1), 88–107.
Slatten, T., & Mehmetoglu, M. (2011). What are the drivers for innovative behavior in
frontline jobs? A study of the hospitality industry in Norway. Journal of Human
Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 10(3), 254–272.
Smith, S. L. J. (1994). The tourism product. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 582–
595.
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look
at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(3), 518–528.
Sonnentag, S., & Zijlstra, F. R. H. (2006). Job characteristics and off-job activities as
predictors of need for recovery, well-being and fatigue. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(2), 330–350.
Spinelli, M. A., & Canavos, G. C. (2000). Investigating the relationship between
employees satisfaction and guest satisfaction. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 41(6), 29–33.
Unger, L., & Kernan, J. (1983). On the meaning of leisure: An investigation of some
determinants of the subjective experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(4),
381–392.
Wang, N. (2000). Tourism and modernity: A sociological analysis. Oxford: Elsevier
Science.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,
Industrial Relations Center.
Westman, M., & Eden, D. (1997). Effects of a respite from work on burnout:
Vacation relief and fade-out. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 516–527.
Witt, P. A., & Ellis, G. D. (1987). Leisure diagnostic battery and user’s manual.
State College, PA: Venture.
Wright, T. A., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2004). Commitment, psychological well-being and job
performance: An examination of conservation of resources theory and job burnout.
Journal of Business and Management, 9(4), 389–406.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12(3), 341–351.
Zalatan, A. (1998). Wives involvement in tourism decision processes. Annals of
Tourism Research, 25(4), 890–903.
Submitted 17th March 2012. Resubmitted 23rd August 2012. Resubmitted 17th
December 2012. Final version 22nd January 2013. Accepted 4th February 2013.
Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Adele Ladkin