The Impact of Culture On Hotel Ratings: Analysis of Star-Rated Hotels in China

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/232882954
The Impact of Culture on Hotel Ratings: Analysis of Star-Rated

Hotels in China
Article in Journal of China Tourism Research · July 2011

DOI: 10.1080/19388160.2011.599239
CITATIONS READS
11 966
3 authors:
Daniel Leung Hee “Andy” Lee

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University The University of Queensland
44 PUBLICATIONS 1,071 CITATIONS 38 PUBLICATIONS 821 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Rob Law
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
542 PUBLICATIONS 17,118 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Tourism Big Data Analysis and mining View project
Consumer Generated Media View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Leung on 24 March 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of China Tourism Research, 7: 243–262, 2011
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1938-8160 print / 1937-8179 online
DOI: 10.1080/19388160.2011.599239
The Impact of Culture on Hotel Ratings: Analysis

of Star-Rated Hotels in China
文化对酒店评级的影响-分析中国星级酒店
DANIEL LEUNG
HEE ANDY LEE
ROB LAW
The influence of cultural values on consumer behavior is well documented in tourism
studies, yet limited research is reported on the link between cultural values and hotel
ratings. In Chinese culture, “face” prevails in every aspect of interpersonal relationship
and hinders aggressive behaviors in public, whereas the American society values
decision making based on honesty and independence more than what is derived from
giving face. The difference in this cultural value is likely to be a critical component of
idiosyncratic ratings by companies from different cultural backgrounds. This study
compares the ratings on a hotel guide published by the Chinese government and one
Chinese online and three U.S. online distribution channels. Based on four a priori
comparisons of ratings among the five channels, the hotel ratings on the Chinese
sources are considerably higher than those on the U.S. channels, which can be
attributed to the unique value of “giving face” in Chinese culture.
KEYWORDS. Face, culture, hotel rating, star-rated hotels, China

过往的旅游研究已充分证明文化价值对消费者行为的影响，然而，有关文化价
值和酒店评级两者之间的关系的研究则不多。在中华文化中，“面子”普遍存在
于人际关系的各个范畴，並妨碍公众场所的攻击行为；而美国社会在決策上则
重视诚实和独立多于“面子”。这种文化价值的差异很可能是导致不同文化背景
的公司给特殊评级的重要原因。本研究比较了中国政府出版的旅游指南和一个
中国在线跟三个美国在线销售渠道的评级。基于对这五个渠道作出的四个评级
先验比较，显示中国渠道的酒店评级大大高于美国渠道的评级，这可归因于中
华文化之中“给面子”的独特价值。
关键词: 面子, 文化, 酒店评级, 星级酒店, 中国
Introduction
Since the introduction of the open door policy by Deng Xiao-ping in 1978, China’s
tourism industry has experienced phenomenal growth; in particular, international
travel to China has sustained more than 30 years of double-digit growth
Daniel Leung is a research student of the School of Hotel and Tourism Management at The
Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China (E-mail: leung.daniel@polyu.
edu.hk).
Hee Andy Lee is Assistant Professor of the Schoolof Hotel and Tourism Management at The Hong
Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China (E-mail: hmandyle@polyu.edu.hk).
Rob Law is Professor of the School of Hotel and Tourism Management at The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China (E-mail: hmroblaw@polyu.edu.hk).
243
244 Daniel Leung, Hee Andy Lee, and Rob Law
(H. Q. Zhang, Yan, & Ye, 2008). By 2009, China had received more than 53 million
tourist arrivals, who spent over US$40 billion (China National Tourism
Administration [CNTA], 2009; World Tourism Organization [WTO], 2009).
Together with the rapid growth of the tourism industry, the hotel sector in China
increased in size by 7,550% between 1979 and 2000. In 2008, China was home to
14,099 tourist hotels with 1,591,379 rooms, representing a twofold increase in the
number of hotels in 8 years (Table 1). Such a growth in capacity posed challenges to
the control of service quality as well as the coordination of the hotel industry (Liu &
Liu, 1993; Lu & Feng, 2010). To enhance the management and service standards of
tourist hotels in China, in 1988 the CNTA established its official rating system for
hotels (H. Q. Zhang, Chong, & Ap, 1999). China was among the first countries to found
and implement an official hotel rating system that successfully provides a clear and
consistent differentiation among hotels for international guests (Pine & Phillips, 2005;
Yu, 1992).
The official rating systems are useful for consumers or travel agents to gauge the
availability of services and amenities on destination hotel properties (Barth & Walsh,
1997; Narangajavana & Hu, 2008). However, with the emergence of Internet-based
travel Websites, nonofficial rating systems administered by professional associations
provide an alternative collective view of the hotels in a destination in a way that is easy
to understand, and many online distribution channels have widely adopted them in the
Internet era (Starkov & Price, 2007).
Though these nonofficial rating systems enrich the palette of hotel classification,
there is no universal hotel rating standard in the electronic space. Because online
distribution channels rate hotels based on their own established evaluation standards
and perception of evaluation panel, the multiple appearance of the same hotel on
different online distribution channels with different ratings is commonly witnessed
(Denizci Guillet & Law, 2010). Hotel ratings aim to serve as a guideline for the
comparison of hotels (Narangajavana & Hu, 2008). Because idiosyncratic ratings
among multiple channels may confuse consumers, a clear understanding of the different
rating systems is needed. Despite the multiple appearance of the same hotel on different
Table 1. Hotel Growth in China, 2000–2008.

Hotels
Year Total 5-Star 4-Star 3-Star 2-Star 1-Star Rooms Beds
2000 6,029 117 352 1,899 3,061 600 594,678 1,144,791
2001 7,358 129 441 2,287 3,748 753 816,260 1,533,053
2002 8,880 175 635 2,846 4,414 810 897,206 1,729,460
2003 9,751 198 727 3,166 4,864 796 992,804 1,887,740
2004 10,888 242 971 3,914 5,096 665 1,237,851 2,366638
2005 11,828 281 1,146 4,291 5,497 613 1,332,083 2,571,664
2006 12,751 302 1,369 4,779 5,698 603 1,459,836 2,785,481
2007 13,583 369 1,595 5,307 5,718 594 1,573,784 2,969,434
2008 14,099 432 1,821 5,712 5,616 518 1,591,379 2,934,758
Note. Adapted from The Yearbook of China Tourism Statistics, by China National Tourism
Administration (2001, p. 92; 2002, p. 92; 2003, p. 92; 2004, p. 92; 2005, p. 92; 2006, p. 94; 2007,
p. 94; 2008b, p. 120; 2009, p. 90), Beijing, China: Zhongguo Lu you chu ban she.
Journal of China Tourism Research 245
online distribution channels with different ratings, the issue of comparing hotel ratings
among different channels has received limited attention from hospitality researchers
and practitioners.
Vine (1981) suggested that the selected evaluation standards applied by a country
are the reflection of its national traditions. The variation of evaluation standards
among countries can be attributed to cultural differences. Cser and Ohuchi (2008)
supported this and found some country-specific criteria that are related to the culture
of the corresponding countries in their study comparing the structures and character-
istics of official hotel classification systems. Previous cross-cultural research suggested
that individuals who were fostered by different cultures may have different thinking
styles or habits that shape their cognitive processes in different ways (Nisbett, 2003;
Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). Given that national culture is a crucial
determinant in tourist behavior, numerous tourism and hospitality studies showed the
link between national cultures and hotel services evaluation (Mattila, 1999b, 2000),
hotel room pricing (Mattila & Choi, 2006), and destination perceptions (Reisinger &
Mavondo, 2006). Regarding the issue of hotel rating systems, Denizci Guillet and Law
(2010) compared the ratings of hotels in Hong Kong across different third-party travel
Websites from different contexts; however, the association between cultural difference
and inconsistency in ratings was not highlighted.
Given the existence of many different ratings among official and nonofficial
information sources originated from Mainland China and the United States, little
attention has been paid to examine whether hotel rating is homogeneous across
different distribution channels. This study makes an initial attempt to compare the
ratings of hotels in China on Chinese sources (CNTA and Ctrip.com) and U.S. sources
(Expedia.com, Hotels.com, and Priceline.com) and to discuss the association between
the variation in ratings and cultural difference.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows. The next section introduces
the selected online information sources and reviews the literature related to the hotel
rating system. Then we explain the methodology adopted in this study. The research
findings are presented and discussed, followed by some conclusions, limitations, and
suggestions for future research.
Literature Review
Online Distribution Channels

Since the emergence of the Internet and its applications to travel and tourism in 1980s,
the synergistic interaction between information communication technologies (ICTs)
and tourism has brought fundamental changes to the industry (Buhalis & Law, 2008;
Ho & Lee, 2007). Buhalis (1998) suggested that ICTs not only empower consumers to
identify, customize, and purchase tourism products but they support the globalization
of the industry by providing effective tools for suppliers to develop, manage, and
distribute offerings worldwide. In the presence of a network of global suppliers and
widely distributed consumers, the distribution of travel-related products is ideally
suitable for online channels (Morrison, Taylor, & Douglas, 2004). eMarketer (2007)
estimated that online travel sales will grow from the 2006 level of US$79 billion to US
$146 billion in 2010. As a major sector of the tourism industry, hoteliers worldwide
generally accept bookings over the Web. Starkov and Price (2007) estimated that one
third of all hotel bookings would be completed online in 2007 and the statistic would
reach 45% by the end of 2010.
In response to the increasing demand for online services, hotels have recently
revolutionalized their marketing and sales activities from solely relying on traditional
channels to both online and offline channels (Law, Chan, & Goh, 2007). Several papers
highlighted the hotel industry’s adoption rate of the Internet as a distribution channel
(Buick, 2003; Garces, Gorgemans, Sanchez, & Perez, 2004). Nowadays, most hotels
have established their Websites for global promotion, marketing, and online
transaction.
Starkov and Price (2003) categorized online distribution channels into three types:
the merchant model, commissionable model, and opaque model. In a merchant model,
hotels assign inventory to intermediate Websites that mark up the rates and then sell the
rooms without receiving any commission (Law et al., 2007). Hotels.com is one of the
merchant model intermediaries found in Texas. Hotels.com is a U.S.-based operating
company of Expedia Inc., which offers more than 70,000 properties worldwide with
unbiased hotel reviews from discerning guests who have stayed at the property (Hotels.
com, 2010a). In contrast, in a commissionable model, hotels pay the agents a certain
percentage of commission for selling their rooms. Expedia.com, another branded site
affiliated with Expedia Inc., adopted this business model. Expedia.com, headquartered
in Bellevue, Washington, features airline tickets, hotel reservations, car rental, cruises,
and many other in-destination services from a broad selection of partners (Expedia.
com, 2010a). Ctrip.com is another example of commissionable model intermediary in
the Chinese context. It is headquartered in Shanghai, China, offering members with
comprehensive services including hotel reservations, air ticketing, package tours, and
corporate travel management (Ctrip.com, 2010a). In an opaque model, consumers
purchase hotel rooms by stating their preferred rate and service quality without know-
ing the brand until the actual payment is made. Priceline.com, headquartered in
Connecticut, adopts an opaque model. Priceline.com is a leading U.S. online travel
service for value-conscious leisure travelers, which is owned and operated by Priceline.
com Inc. (Priceline.com, 2010a).
Hotel Rating Systems

According to a study jointly conducted by the World Tourism Organization and the
International Hotel and Restaurant Association, hotel rating system is the mechanism
in which accommodation establishments of the same type (e.g., hotels,

motels, and inns) have been conventionally broken down into classes,
categories or grades according to their common physical and service char-
acteristics and established at government, industry or other private levels.
(WTO & IH&RA, 2004, as cited in Narangajavana & Hu, 2008, pp. 36–37).
To be specific, it is a system that provides assessment of the quality standards and

provision of facilities and service of hospitality properties. To report the attained
quality level of a hotel, the star system is the most universally recognized symbol for
grading (Callen, 1993; Cser & Ohuchi, 2008).
The rating systems can be categorized into two groups: official and nonofficial (Liu
& Liu, 1993). Official rating systems are established and managed by the tourism
authorities of the countries. China is one of the countries with its official hotel rating
system. During the late 1980s, the Chinese hotel industry witnessed tremendous growth
in both demand and supply. Although hotel development prospered, the adequate
provision of luxury class hotels remained a challenge (Liu & Liu, 1993). To handle
this lack and the wide variation in the quality of hotel facilities and services, in 1988 the
CNTA established its hotel rating system to provide consistent standards for the hotel
industry, and the rating system has been implemented nationwide (Liu & Liu, 1993).
The rating system evaluates the overall quality of a hotel in terms of physical features
and services on the basis of six aspects, which are architecture and level of service,
facilities, maintenance, sanitation and hygiene, service quality, and guest satisfaction
(Yu, 1992). Assessment of physical features is made on the availability of the required
facilities and range of services, and the other aspects are evaluated by a local tourism
bureau with a comprehensive quality assessment scoring system (Liu & Liu, 1993).
Then a hotel is star-rated based on the overall assessment score of service quality and
physical features out of a total of approximately 4,348 points. There is a minimum score
for each criterion in each star category that must be achieved to be accredited for a
certain star rating (Table 2). The assessment procedure for hotel star rating is fully
amended by the CNTA (Yu, 1992), and the star rating of a hotel is valid for 2 years. To
assist star-rated hotels in China with their marketing efforts, the CNTA regularly
publishes a star-rated hotel directory. Yu (1992) provided a detailed checklist with
scoring of the Chinese official hotel rating system, and he concluded that the selected
standards are determined by a host country’s cultural perceptions.
Although official hotel rating systems carry a unified view about hotels so that
service quality and physical features of hotels in the same star rating band would be
almost identical around the nation, official hotel rating systems have been criticized for
not reflecting today’s customers’ wants and needs (Callen, 1995). Alternatively, more
customers tend to rely on hotel ratings on nonofficial rating systems provided by private
organizations or regional tourist boards during travel decision making (Cser & Ohuchi,
2008; Vine, 1981; Zhong, Chen, & Xie, 2010). Ctrip.com, the largest Chinese online
travel distribution channel (Huang & Law, 2002; Ye, Law, & Gu, 2009), and the other
three online distribution channels in this study offer star rating information on hotels
around the world. Unlike official hotel rating systems, nonofficial hotel rating systems
by online distribution channels neither fully disclose the influence of each criterion on
overall hotel rating nor guarantee its accuracy. Evaluation standards among the online
distribution channels are summarized in Table 3.
Table 2. Minimum Points for Each Star Group in China’s Official Hotel Rating System.
Star Sanitation and Service Guest
Group Facilities Maintenance Hygiene Quality Satisfaction
1-Star 80 1,285 1,035 1,215 14
2-Star 120 1,285 1,035 1,215 14
3-Star 220 1,314 4,058 1,242 15
4-Star 300 1,357 1,092 1,282 17
5-Star 330 1,357 1,092 1,282 18
Maximum 400 1,428 1,150 1,350 20
Note. Adapted from regulation of tourist hotel rating in China, by China National Tourism
Administration, 2000, Beijing, China: China Travel and Tourism Press, p. 612.
248
Table 3. Hotel Rating Systems of Selected Online Distribution Channels.

Evaluation Standards
Room Size, Furnishing, Level of Guest
Channels Origin Description Location Amenities Service Comments Others
Ctrip. Mainland The Ctrip diamond rating system is based pri- [ [ [ [
com China marily on the CNTA’s scale, Ctrip.com mem-
bers’ comments, and reviews from Ctrip’s own
specialist (Ctrip.com, 2010b)
Expedia. United The star rating teams of Expedia.com determine [ [ [ [ Décor
com States each hotel star rating using a wide array of Renovation
factors including amenities, guest services, and
customer feedback (Expedia.com, 2010b)
Hotels. United Hotels.com assesses hotel ratings based on the size [ [ [
com States and location of premise, level of service, and
amenities provided, but guest comments are not
included (Hotels.com, 2010b)
Priceline. United Priceline.com classifies all participating hotels in [ [ [ Reputation
com States Asia by using a number of factors in evaluation,
such as size of rooms, furnishings, hospitable
service, reputation, and others (Priceline.com,
2010b)
Note. The weight of each standard on a hotel rating is unknown.
Although hotel ratings are assessed based on similar criteria in each country and
each online channel, little effort has been devoted by either researchers or practitioners
to examine the differences among the star ratings. Denizci Guillet and Law (2010)
compared the ratings of hotels in Hong Kong across different international third-party
travel Websites, but no official data were involved, leading to potentially biased
findings.
Culture and Evaluation

Because the tourism industry has become more internationally and culturally diverse, it is
crucial for tourism and hospitality managers to understand the cultural context of
consumer behavior (Y. Zhang, Ma, Li, Zhao, & Gao, 2009). Scholars in tourism and
consumer behavior disciplines commonly define culture as the “collective programming
of the mind which distinguishes one group of people from another” (Hofstede, 1994, p. 4).
Considerable evidence in social psychology indicates that psychological processes are
culturally contingent (Fiske, Kitayama, Markus, & Nisbett, 1998). One’s national culture
provides norms for thinking, feeling, and acting that shape their cognitive processes in
different ways (Nakata & Sivakumar, 2001; Nisbett, 2003; Nisbett et al., 2001). Culture
thus describes the criteria for what is good or bad (Ueltschy, Laroche, Tamilia, &
Yannopoulos, 2004) and is commonly agreed to be a crucial factor affecting how the
consumption of a product or service is evaluated (Hendon, Hendon, & Herbig, 1999).
In tourism and hospitality literature, researchers such as Mattila (1999a) and
Stauss and Mang (1999) have found that cultural factors play an important role in
consumers’ evaluations of service. For example, the Mainland Chinese visitors were
least satisfied with hotel services in Hong Kong among all inbound tourists (Yeung &
Leung, 2007), and this phenomenon is attributed to the issue of cultural distance
(Mattila, 1999a; K. F. N. Tsang & Ap, 2007). Cultural distance refers to “the distance
or proximity to cultural norms prevailing in the tourism receiving country from tourists
cultures” (Weiermair, 2000, p. 404). Generally speaking, the less differences there are in
cultural background, the less likely the behavior of each participant is to be misunder-
stood and less cultural conflicts will exist (Reisinger & Turner, 1997). However, cultural
influence on service evaluation is controversial. Stauss and Mang empirically found
that cultural distance had no significant negative impact on the evaluation of service
quality. Similarly, Hartman, Meyer, and Scribner (2009) had similar findings in their
study on consumer perceptions of intercultural service evaluation.
In China, face permeates every aspect of interpersonal relationships in order to
create a harmonious social atmosphere (Bond & Lee, 1981). In consumer behavior,
Chinese people believe that a person’s own aggressive behavior in public may result in
him or her losing face. Chinese people thus tend not to complain even if products or
services do not conform to their expectation (Y. L. Lee & Sparks, 2007). In contrast,
American culture is founded by philosophical and scientific theory of Western culture
(A. S. L. Tsang & Prendergast, 2009). American people tend to be frank and indepen-
dent, and face giving does not permeate in social interaction in American society
(A. S. L. Tsang & Prendergast, 2009).
Theoretically, product reviews or evaluation reflects cultural values because cul-
ture directs people’s judgment and the criteria for what is good or bad (A. S. L. Tsang &
Prendergast, 2009; Ueltschy et al., 2004). There is a substantial body of literature in
various disciplines suggesting cultural influence as a possible reason why consumers
and managers in different countries make different decisions (Arora & Fosfuri, 2000;
Kacen & Lee, 2002; Tahir & Larimo, 2004). As shown in Table 3, both origins and
evaluation standards are not identical among online distribution channels. Though the
research evidence is limited, given the expected variation between Chinese culture and
American culture, it seems that the inconsistency in hotel ratings is associated with
cultural aspects. However, to the best of our knowledge, this association has been
underemphasized by researchers. This study should thus provide significant insights
into the impact of culture on affecting how Chinese and U.S. channels perceive the hotel
industry in China.
Methodology
This study is exploratory in nature. China was chosen for the data collection because
the Chinese hotel industry is ranked second in terms of number of rooms and has the
second fastest growth rate in the world (World Travel and Tourism Council, 2008). The
ratings of the hotels in this study were collected from five channels. Among these five
channels, three adopted one of the international online business models categorized by
Starkov and Price (2003): Hotels.com (merchant model), Expedia.com (commission-
able model), and Priceline.com (opaque model). To improve the generalizability of the
findings from this study, all three models were used to represent indirect online
distribution channels. To examine the impact of culture on hotel ratings by comparing
the ratings of Chinese and U.S. channels, CNTA and Ctrip.com were included in the
analysis.
The data collected comprised hotel rating information from the CNTA, Ctrip.com,
Hotels.com, Expedia.com, and Priceline.com. The hotel rating information was agency
rating, which each channel provides as a reference. Though some channels provide
consumer ratings, such ratings were not collected. The CNTA biannually publishes the
China Star-Rated Hotel Guide, a directory of star-rated hotels in China. As per the
official hotel information and rating systems, the name of the hotel and star rating
information from the CNTA were collected based on the latest version of the guide and
regarded as the base of the data set (CNTA, 2008a). Hotel rating information from the
other four online distribution channels was based on the ratings set by each site’s own
rating mechanism, rather than on customer ratings to avoid the large discrepancy
between ratings of Website professionals and customers. The ratings from the four
online channels were made on a 5-point scale. As Ctrip.com provides a 6-point
diamond scale rating; the rating was transformed to a 5-point scale by combining
5-and 6-diamond hotels into a luxurious hotel group. Noninteger star/diamond ratings
such as 2.5 or 3.5 stars/diamonds were rounded down to the closest integer to ensure the
consistency of data. After identifying the information sources and hotels, the data on
the hotel ratings were collected in March 2010. The investigators visited each online
distribution channel Website and recorded the hotel name and star ratings of all hotel
offerings into the data set. To ensure validity, all of the data were monitored and cross-
verified by different researchers. During the data collection phase, it was found that
some hotels were listed on some channels but not on others and that star rating
information was not available for some hotels. For consistency, hotels without a rating
or with a zero rating were coded as missing data and excluded from the analysis.
To examine the difference of ratings on Chinese and U.S. channels, four individual
tests with different combinations of channels were conducted. Independent sample
t-tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA), at a 0.05 significance level, were used to
determine whether there were significant differences among the various groups of
Chinese and U.S. channels.
The sample for this study was the hotels commonly listed in the following sources:
China star-rated hotel guide directory published by the CNTA, Ctrip.com, Expedia.
com, Hotels.com, and Priceline.com. The China Star-Rated Hotel Guide directory lists
all hotels in China (CNTA, 2008a). As the largest travel Website in China, Ctrip.com
appears to be the most frequently used of the four online distribution channels by hotels
in China. In total, 76% of the total hotels in all provinces and cities were available on
Ctrip.com. Of the international online intermediaries, Expedia.com and Hotels.com
each listed about one third of the hotels. A comprehensive review of different sources
showed that only 34 hotels were commonly listed across the five sources. Thus, these
commonly listed 34 hotels were included for analyses in order to provide validity and
reliability. The following section presents the findings.
Research Findings
A cross-tabulation and comparison charts were generated for the Chinese channels and
U.S. channels (Tables 4 and 5). The ratings of the CNTA and Ctrip.com were found to
be very similar, primarily because Ctrip.com adopts the CNTA’s rating scale (Ctrip.
com, 2010b). In general, the Chinese channels provided higher ratings for hotels in
China than the U.S. channels. As indicated in Table 5, the star ratings of all 34 hotels
given by the CNTA and Ctrip.com were equal to or higher than the ratings given by the
three U.S. channels. It is also noteworthy that three hotels rated as 5-star by the CNTA
were regarded as 3-star establishments by the U.S. channels.
Four a priori comparisons were conducted to examine the hotel ratings among
different combinations of the five channels. Test 1 compared whether the hotel ratings
differed significantly between Chinese and U.S. channels. Test 2 compared whether
hotel ratings differed between the Chinese online distribution channels and the
U.S. online distribution channels. Test 3 compared the ratings between official and
Table 4. Cross-Tabulation of the Star/Diamond-Rating Information

on the Selected Channels.
CNTA Ctrip.com
Channels Star Rating 3-Star 4-Star 5-Star 3-Diamond 4-Diamond 5-Diamond
Expedia.com 3-Star 1 5 1 6 1
4-Star 12 12 12 12
5-Star 3 3
Hotels.com 3-Star 1 4 1 5 1
4-Star 13 12 13 12
5-Star 3 3
Priceline.com 2-Star 3 1 3 1
3-Star 1 10 2 11 2
4-Star 4 7 4 7
5-Star 6 6
Note. The 5-diamond group comprises luxurious hotels in the categories of 5- and 6-diamond.
Table 5. Comparison of the Star Ratings of the Chinese and U.S. Channels.
Chinese Official Source Chinese Nonofficial Channel
Rating on Rating Rating on Rating on Rating on Rating on
CNTA Is On CNTA Is Ctrip.com Ctrip.com Ctrip.com
Higher CNTA Is Lower Is Higher Is Equal Is Lower
Than Equal To Than Than To Than
Expedia.
com 18 16 0 19 15 0
Hotels.
com 17 17 0 18 16 0
Priceline.
com 23 11 0 24 10 0
Note. Number represents the number of instances found for each case.
nonofficial sources. Finally, test 4 examined the difference in ratings between the
Chinese official and the Chinese nonofficial sources. The results of the independent
t-tests and ANOVAs demonstrated the existence of some significant differences. As
presented in Table 6, among the 34 hotels that were commonly listed on all five
channels, the average rating on the Chinese sources was significantly higher than that
on the U.S. channels, t(139.126) ¼ 7.151, p < .01. This finding implies that the hotel
rating evaluator has a significant impact on hotel ratings.
Test 2 compared nonofficial star ratings between Chinese and U.S. online channels
and generated results similar to those for test 1. Compared with that given by the
international channels, the average rating on the Chinese online distribution channel
was considerably higher, t(73.447) ¼ 6.221, p < .01. This demonstrates a significant
difference in hotel ratings between Chinese and U.S. online distribution channels.
Despite the existence of star ratings on official (government) and nonofficial
(private) channels (K. Lee, 2002; Liu & Liu, 1993; Narangajavana & Hu, 2008),
previous studies in the hospitality literature have rarely examined the difference
between these two types of channels. To fill this research gap, test 3 compared the
ratings of the official source and nonofficial channels and found a significant difference
between the two groups, t(56.397) ¼ 4.372, p < .01. As a whole, it is somewhat
surprising to note that nonofficial channels provided a lower average rating for hotels
in China, despite the fact that a high star rating encourages requests for premium room
rates and subsequent commissions for online channels (Israeli, 2002). To further
comprehend the impact of culture on the difference in star ratings between official
and nonofficial channels, test 4 employed independent t-tests to determine the differ-
ence in ratings between the two Chinese sources. However, no significant difference was
found, t(65.328) ¼ -0.227, p ¼ .821.
Although the Internet and e-business have prospered in China in the last few years
(Li & Buhalis, 2006), the descriptive statistics demonstrate that room distribution varies
across online channels, and the presence of the same star-rated hotels on multiple online
channels was uncommon. Although this study examined only a small set of hotels in
China, a significant difference in hotel ratings between the Chinese and U.S. channels
Table 6. Analysis of Variance of the Star Ratings on Different Channels.
A B C D E
Chinese Chinese U.S. U.S. U.S.
CNTA Ctrip.com Expedia.com Hotels.com Priceline.com
Test N M SD N M SD N M SD N M SD N M SD t p Findings
Test 1 Chinese (N ¼ 34, M ¼ 4.46, SD ¼ 0.528) International (N ¼ 34, M ¼ 3.78, SD ¼ 0.591) 7.151 .000 Chinese > International
34 4.44 0.561 34 4.47 0.507 34 3.88 0.537 34 3.91 0.514 34 3.56 0.927 A > C (df ¼ 0.559)**
A > D (df ¼ 0.529)**
A > E (df ¼ 0.882)**
B > C (df ¼ 0.588)**
B > D (df ¼ 0.559)**
B > E (df ¼ 0.912)**
C > E (df ¼ 0.324)*
D > E (df ¼ 0.353)*
Test 2 Chinese private International (N ¼ 34, M ¼ 3.78, SD ¼ 0.591) 6.221 .000 Chinese private > International private
(N ¼ 34,
M ¼ 4.47,
SD ¼ 0.507)
34 4.47 0.507 34 3.88 0.537 34 3.91 0.514 34 3.56 0.927 B > C (df ¼ 0.588)**
B > D (df ¼ 0.559)**
B > E (df ¼ 0.912)**
C > E (df ¼ 0.324)*
D > E (df ¼ 0.353)*
Test 3 Government Private (N ¼ 34, M ¼ 3.96, SD ¼ 0.524) 4.372 .000 Government > Private
(N ¼ 34,
M ¼ 4.44,
SD ¼ 0.561)
Test 4 Chinese government Chinese private -0.227 .821 Chinese government ¼ Chinese private
(N ¼ 34, (N ¼ 34,
253
M ¼ 4.44, M ¼ 4.47,
SD ¼ 0.561) SD ¼ 0.507)
Note. N represents the number of hotels available on the corresponding channel. M represents the mean star rating on the corresponding channel.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
was apparent. This finding strongly indicates that background and culture have a
significant influence on hotel ratings.
Discussion
Cultural Values Encoded in Rating Systems

The objectives of this study were to compare the hotel ratings among online distribution
channels and to examine whether culture can be attributed to the differences in hotel
ratings. As shown in Table 6, the hotel ratings from Chinese sources were significantly
higher than those on the U.S. channels (test 1), and hotel ratings on the Chinese online
distribution channels were significantly higher than those on the U.S. online distribu-
tion channels (test 2). Moreover, hotel ratings from the Chinese official sources were
significantly higher than those from nonofficial sources (test 3). However, no significant
difference was found in hotel ratings between the Chinese official source and the
Chinese nonofficial source (test 4). These findings suggest that hotel ratings from
Chinese sources (i.e., the CNTA and Ctrip.com) are significantly higher.
In a study comparing the frameworks of different national hotel classification
systems, Cser and Ohuchi (2008) found a variance among the standards of different
countries. By comparing star ratings among online distribution channels, the findings
of this study indicate that a similar variance in star ratings exists across different online
channels, which may be attributable to the absence of identical evaluation criteria and
rating systems in the online environment.
As shown in Table 3, each distribution channel utilizes similar evaluation standards
for hotel ratings. Consequently, it is less evident that evaluation standards would lead to
different ratings for a hotel. Even though different channels adopt exactly identical
standards, a hotel is less likely to receive the same hotel rating from different channels
due to the heterogeneity of evaluators. Because the evaluators of different channels are
not identical in terms of cultural values, personal requirements, and other factors,
heterogeneous evaluators cannot ensure uniform evaluations, so the variation of rat-
ings on the same hotel naturally exists. This study does not disagree that different hotel
rating criteria are accountable for slightly different hotel ratings but also tries to discuss
what makes asynchronous assessment for hotel ratings among different channels.
Because people from different countries have different personal requirements and
conceptions of service quality, it is difficult to synthesize them and develop a universal
rating system for hotels across the world, especially because the human element is
generally involved in evaluating and designating hotels. Because people’s behavior and
decisions are guided by the deep effects of national culture (Reisinger & Turner, 2003),
cultural differences are thus likely to be a critical component of this phenomenon of
idiosyncratic ratings.
Hofstede (1994) suggested that national cultures mainly differ in the four dimen-
sions of power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus feminin-
ity, and uncertainty avoidance. Tsaur, Lin, and Wu (2005) characterized Chinese
culture based on Hofstede’s dimensions as having a high power distance, low individu-
alism, and moderate uncertainty avoidance (see Table 7). Due to this collectivism and
high power distance, Chinese people perceive themselves to be equally important to
society and acknowledge the well-being brought by unequal hierarchical order. Thus,
the Chinese perceive exposing a person’s mistake in public to be an aggressive act that
provokes social disorder, creates disharmony (Mok & Defranco, 1999), and results in
Table 7. Comparison of Cultural Dimension Among China, U.S., and World Average.
China U.S. World Average
Power distance 80 40 55
Individualism (collectivism) 20 91 43
Masculinity (femininity) 50 62 50
Uncertainty avoidance 32 46 64
Long term orientation 118 29 45
Note. Adapted from Geert Hofstede cultural dimensions, by G. Hofstede, 2010, from http://
www.geert-hofstede.com.
in-group members losing face (Y. L. Lee & Sparks, 2007). Because saving the face of
others is extremely important in maintaining good interpersonal relationships in
Chinese society, Chinese people tend to preserve others’ face in social encounters
(Mok & Defranco). In the tourism context, researchers also note that Chinese people
are inclined to take private actions (Naisbitt, 1998) to reach a state of harmony or adopt
unassertive solutions to assure guanxi with others, even if they are dissatisfied (Heung &
Lam, 2003; Pitta, Fung, & Isberg, 1999). Such cultural aspects as guanxi and the
collectivism characteristics would result in Chinese people giving more favors to their
members than outsiders (Heung, Tsang, & Cheng, 2009; Li & Buhalis, 2008).
Assessment of Chinese hotels by Chinese evaluators thus would be more favorable
than by non-Chinese evaluators or assessment of non-Chinese hotels by Chinese
evaluators.
Influenced by Confucius’s emphasis on harmony, conflict avoidance, and resolving
issues through mediation (Moise, 1995), the evaluation committees of the CNTA may
perceive giving lower star ratings to hotels in public to be a source of shame to the hotels
and even as a loss of face for the Chinese hotel industry. This may explain why the
CNTA offers relatively higher ratings to hotels in China than the international chan-
nels. Because the ratings on Ctrip.com are established based on CNTA’s scale, their
average rating is also comparatively higher. The cultural norm of the Chinese to seek
harmonious relationships influences the hotel rating system and gives a high rating to
hotels even if their quality may not be up to standards, which could be regarded as an
act of “giving face” to others. In contrast, this giving face culture may not prevail in
Western countries, which have been characterized as assertive (Peabody, 1985). For
example, the strong individualism characteristic of Americans makes them feel that it is
their responsibility to complain and that such an act will lead to an improvement in
quality in the future (Richins & Verhage, 1985). On recognizing poor hotel service
quality in China (N. Tsang & Qu, 2000), the expert teams of the three online channels
may have attempted to encourage the hotels to improve their service by giving them
relatively lower average ratings. Given the prominent influence of culture in dictating
ideas and behavior (Reisinger & Turner, 2003), it is suggested that the variation in hotel
ratings between Chinese and U.S. channels derives from their different cultural values.
Another major finding is the difference in hotel ratings between official (govern-
ment) and nonofficial (private) channels. Test 3 showed that the government authority
gave a higher average rating to hotels in China, which may again be attributable to a
desire to preserve face. Official hotel ratings are usually established and conducted by
the government agencies responsible for tourism or the hotel industry and aim to
provide updated information on the quality of hotels (Liu & Liu, 1993; Narangajavana
& Hu, 2008). As official indicators of hotel service quality, giving a low official average
rating to hotels may serve to depreciate or humiliate the local hotel industry. In
addition, some consumers perceive hotel ratings to be a reflection of hotel service
quality (Holloway, 1994). Low official ratings may thus negatively affect their percep-
tion of the hotel industry in their country as a whole.
To save face for the hotel industry in its country and to avoid losing face itself by
threatening another party’s face in public, a government authority may give a relatively
higher rating to hotels within its country. To Chinese people, face is particularly impor-
tant because they put great emphasis on interpersonal relationships (Hwang, 1987).
Chinese people are also conscious of giving face to others (Chang & Holt, 1994).
Hence, it is likely that the Chinese government is more willing to engage in this giving
face behavior.
Online Distribution of Hotels in China

Empirical data from this study reveal that only 34 out of 12,751 hotels in China utilized
all four online channels. This implies that hotel managers in China appear not to fully
utilize online channels. With the ongoing changes in technology and consumer behavior,
hotels around the world are increasingly relying on effective online distribution channels
to maximize their revenue (O’Connor, 2002; Tso & Law, 2005). However, selling hotel
rooms on multiple online distribution channels is not a prevalent method among hotels in
China. Ma, Buhalis, and Song (2003) found hotel distribution in China to be heavily
reliant on traditional or offline channels, with little use of the Internet in hotel operations.
Compared to U.S. online channels, hotel managers in China generally use Ctrip.com
as a distribution channel to sell their inventory in an attempt to capture the growing
potential of the Internet. In October 2000, Ctrip.com acquired Beijing Modern Express,
one of the biggest hotel reservation centers in China. This acquisition enriched its hotel
database and enabled Ctrip.com to become the largest online travel and hotel reservations
supplier in China (Huang & Law, 2002). It is thus not surprising that around 76% of
tourist hotels in China can be found on Ctrip.com. According to the latest China online
travel booking report by iResearch (China Internet Watch, 2010), Ctrip.com was the top
online travel booking Website, accounting for 55.6% of the total online travel booking
revenue in the country. However, hotel managers did not utilize other distribution
channels included in this study to extend its sales. Although some Chinese consumers
may have unrealistic expectations of Internet applications, growing awareness and market
demand in the future will lead China’s tourism into an information technology-intensive
era (Ma et al., 2003). From the revenue management perspective, given the lower
transaction costs involved in using online agencies (Choi & Kimes, 2002) and the ability
to reach a network of widely distributed consumers on the Internet (Morrison et al., 2004),
hotel managers in China should utilize online channels to maximize hotel revenue.
Conclusions and Implications
Conclusions
Because hotel room rate and star rating are the major attributes affecting hotel selection
among customers (E. W. K. Tsang & Yip, 2009; Wong & Lam, 2001), many online
distribution channels introduce their own hotel rating system and publicize the ratings
to their affiliated members. However, little effort has been devoted to the issue of the
idiosyncratic hotel ratings among online intermediaries. This study found inconsistent
ratings on different online channels. For consumers, the presence of inconsistent ratings
among different online channels would be confusing and lower the Internet’s function
as a guideline for service quality (Mikeshina, 2006). For hoteliers, star rating is an
indicator of service quality, and the confusing message of inconsistent ratings would
have a negative effect on consumers’ perceptions of the quality of their hotel and even
affect business.
This study suggested that such inconsistent rating is attributed to cultural influence
on hotel rating evaluation. Though hotel rating standards were almost similar among
distribution channels, rating of a hotel is idiosyncratic between Chinese channels and
U.S. channels. This study did not directly measure culture and its impact on rating
evaluation but deduced that culture could be accountable for different ratings between
the channels. Due to the principle of harmony and the norm of preventing others from
losing face in public, the ratings given by the CNTA and Ctrip.com were considerably
higher to give face to the Chinese hotel industry. In contrast, in Western culture a lower
rating is perceived to be a way of encouraging service improvement, which explains why
the ratings on Expedia.com, Hotels.com, and Priceline.com were relatively lower. The
comparison of the ratings of Chinese and U.S. channels in this study should help
hospitality researchers to better understand the importance of culture in determining
how hotels are rated, given that people from different contexts have different cultural
backgrounds and preferences.
Contributions and Limitations

Because star rating is the symbol of the reputation and service quality of hotels in China
(Xue & Cox, 2008), the current findings are crucial for hotel managers in China to be
aware that obtaining a high star rating on one channel does not necessarily mean that
their hotel is perceived to be luxurious by all channels. Similarly, customers visiting a
destination that has presumably a different culture need to understand that the rating of
the destination hotels might not match what they expect from the hotels in their home
countries. Expectation–disconfirmation theory suggests that it is important to eliminate
negative discrepancy, which results in customer dissatisfaction (Anderson & Sullivan,
1993; Oliver, 1977). If a hotel rating is inflated in a certain online channel, customers
who book a room via the channel will be more dissatisfied due to the inflated expecta-
tion. Hence, hoteliers must continuously review their star rating on the distribution
channels with which they do business to ensure that a unified image is provided to avoid
customer confusion and unnecessary dissatisfaction. This study found that a limited
number of hotels were commonly listed on U.S. online channels. This implies that
Chinese hotel managers do not fully utilize their distribution channels outside of the
nation. From the revenue management perspective, Zong, Tang, Huang, and Ma
(2008) suggested that the hotel star rating has the most significant impact on price
dispersion, and hotels with higher star rating could charge more flexible room rates.
Hotel managers in China should thus allocate more resources to facilities or services
improvement in order to upgrade their hotels to higher star categories, thereby gen-
erating more revenue.
This study cannot claim to be widely generalizable, because it is limited to the
hotels and channels selected for analyses. Because the study examined the impact of
culture on the rating of hotels commonly available in the five channels, only a limited
number of hotels were included for analyses. An examination of more data with more
hotels and variables could generate more meaningful insights on this research topic. In
addition, only five channels were selected for study, yet a substantial number of
distribution channels are available in the online environment (O’Connor, 2002; Tso
& Law, 2005). It would thus be beneficial for future research to include additional
Chinese (e.g., Elong.com) and international (e.g., Travelocity.com) channels to make
the findings more generalizable. Another limitation of this study is its cross-sectional
design, because the ratings on online channels are updated periodically. It is suggested
that future research employ the methodology used here to collect annual data so that
any fluctuations in hotel ratings can be examined.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on
an early version of this article. This study was partly supported by an internal grant
funded by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
References
Anderson, E., & Sullivan, M. (1993). The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction
for firms. Marketing Science, 12(2), 125–143.
Arora, A., & Fosfuri, A. (2000). Wholly owned subsidiary versus technology licensing in the
worldwide chemical industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(4), 555–573.
Barth, J. E., & Walsh, J. (1997). An empirical approach to developing classification and rating
schemes. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 5(1), 15–29.
Bond, M. H., & Lee, P. W. H. (1981). Face-saving in Chinese culture: A discussion and
experimental study of Hong Kong students. In A. Y. C. King & R. P. L. Lee (Eds.), Social
life and development in Hong Kong (pp. 289–304). Hong Kong, China: The Chinese University
Press.
Buhalis, D. (1998). Strategic use of information technologies in the tourism industry. Tourism
Management, 19(5), 409–421.
Buhalis, D., & Law, R. (2008). Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20
Years on and 10 years after the Internet—The state of eTourism research. Tourism
Management, 29(4), 609–623.
Buick, I. (2003). Information technology in small Scottish hotels: Is it working? International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(4), 243–247.
Callen, J. R. (1993). An appraisal of UK hotel quality grading schemes. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 5(5), 10–18.
Callen, J. R. (1995). Hotel classification and grading schemes, a paradigm of utilization and user
characteristics. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 14(3/4), 271–283.
Chang, H. C., & Holt, G. R. (1994). A Chinese perspective on face as inter-relational concern. In
S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues
(pp. 95–132). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
China Internet Watch. (2010). Top online travel booking Websites in China. Retrieved from http://
www.chinainternetwatch.com/519/top-chinese-online-travel-booking-websites/
China National Tourism Administration. (2001). The yearbook of China tourism statistics 2001.
Beijing, China: Zhongguo Lu you chu ban she.
China National Tourism Administration. (2008a). China star-rated hotel guide 2007–2008.
Beijing, China: China Travel and Tourism Press.
China National Tourism Administration. (2008b). The yearbook of China tourism statistics 2008.
Choi, S., & Kimes, S. E. (2002). Electronic distribution channel’s effect on hotel revenue manage-
ment. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43(3), 23–32.
Cser, K., & Ohuchi, A. (2008). World practices of hotel classification systems. Asia Pacific
Journal of Tourism Research, 13(4), 379–398.
Ctrip.com. (2010a). Company profile. Retrieved from http://pages.english.ctrip.com/webhome/
purehtml/en/footer/CompanyProfile.html
Ctrip.com. (2010b). What does the diamond rating mean? Retrieved from http://pages.english.
ctrip.com/webhome/purehtml/en/faq/hotel.html#09
Denizci Guillet, B., & Law, R. (2010). Analyzing hotel star ratings on third-party distribution
Websites. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(6), 797–813.
eMarketer. (2007). U.S. online travel: The threat of commoditization. Retrieved from http://www.
emarketer.com/Reports/All/Emarketer_2000387.aspx
Expedia.com. (2010a). About Expedia.com. Retrieved from http://www.expedia.com/daily/ser-
vice/about.asp?rfrr=-1087
Expedia.com. (2010b). ESR hotels. Retrieved from http://www.expedia.com/daily/home/vendor/
esr.asp
Fiske, A., Kitayama, S., Markus, H., & Nisbett, R. (1998). The cultural matrix of social
psychology. In D. Gilbers, S. Markus, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology
(4th ed., pp. 915–981). New York, NY: Guilford.
Garces, S., Gorgemans, S., Sanchez, A. M., & Perez, M. P. (2004). Implications of the Internet—
An analysis of the Aragonese hospitality industry 2002. Tourism Management, 25(5), 603–613.
Hartman, K. B., Meyer, T., & Scribner, L. L. (2009). Retail and service encounters: The inter-
cultural tourist experience. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(2&3), 197–215.
Hendon, D. W., Hendon, R. A., & Herbig, P. (1999). Cross-cultural business negotiations.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Heung, V. C. S., & Lam, T. (2003). Customer complaint behaviour towards hotel restaurant
services. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(5), 283–289.
Heung, V. C. S., & Tsang, N., & Cheng, M. (2009). Queuing behavior in theme parks: A comparison
between Chinese and Western tourists. Journal of China Tourism Research, 5(1), 41–51.
Ho, C. I., & Lee, Y. L. (2007). The development of an e-travel service quality scale. Tourism
Management, 28(6), 1434–1449.
Hofstede, G. (1994). Culture and organizations: Software of the mind, Intercultural cooperation
and its importance for survival. London, England: Harper Collins Publishers.
Hofstede, G. (2010). Geert Hofstede cultural dimensions. Retrieved from http://www.geert-hof-
stede.com
Holloway, J. C. (1994). The hospitality sector: Accommodation and catering services. In J. C.
Holloway (Ed.), The business of tourism (4th ed., pp. 117–129). London, England: Pitman.
Hotels.com. (2010a). About us. Retrieved from http://www.hotels.com/customer_care/about_us.
html
Hotels.com. (2010b). Star ratings explained. Retrieved from http://www.hotels.com/customer_-

care/star_rating.html
Huang, T., & Law, R. (2002). Internet and tourism—Part X: Ctrip.com. Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing, 13(4), 109–114.
Hwang, K. K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology,
92(4), 944–974.
Israeli, A. A. (2002). Star rating and corporate affiliation: Their influence on room price and
performance of hotels in Israel. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 21(4), 405–424.
Kacen, J. J., & Lee, J. A. (2002). The influence of culture on consumer impulsive buying behavior.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(20), 163–176.
Law, R., Chan, I., & Goh, C. (2007). Where to find the lowest hotel room rates on the Internet?
The case of Hong Kong. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19
(6), 495–506.
Lee, K. (2002). China hotel boom. China Business Review, 29(6), 4–9.
Lee, Y. L., & Sparks, B. (2007). Appraising tourism and hospitality service failure events: A
Chinese perspective. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 31(4), 504–529.
Li, L., & Buhalis, D. (2006). E-commerce in China: The case of travel. International Journal of
Information Management, 26(2), 153–166.
Li, L., & Buhalis, D. (2008). Influential factors of Internet users booking online in China’s
domestic tourism. Journal of China Tourism Research, 4(2), 172–188.
Liu, Z. Q., & Liu, J. C. (1993). Assessment of the hotel rating systems in China. Tourism
Management, 4(6), 440–452.
Lu, Z., & Feng, Z. (2010). Perceptions of Chinese and international tourists on China hotel
service quality. Journal of China Tourism Research, 6(1), 73–82.
Ma, J. X., Buhalis, D., & Song, H. (2003). ICTs and Internet adoption in China’s tourism
industry. International Journal of Information Management, 23(6), 451–467.
Mattila, A. S. (1999a). The role of culture and purchase motivation in service encounter evalua-
tions. Journal of Service Management, 13(4/5), 376–389.
Mattila, A. S. (1999b). The role of culture in the service evaluation process. Journal of Service
Research, 1(3), 250–261.
Mattila, A. S. (2000). The impact of culture and gender on customer evaluations of service
encounters. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 24(2), 263–273.
Mattila, A. S., & Choi, S. (2006). A cross-cultural comparison of perceived fairness and satisfac-
tion in the context of hotel room pricing. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25
(1), 146–153.
Mikeshina, N. (2006). How stars are born. Retrieved from http://www.gvasawyer.com/v2/press.
asp?WCI=45
Moise, E. E. (1995). Modern China: A history. London, UK and New York, NY: Longman.
Mok, C., & Defranco, A. L. (1999). Chinese cultural values: Their implications for travel and
tourism marketing. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 8(2), 99–144.
Morrison, A. M., Taylor, J. S., & Douglas, A. (2004). Website evaluation in tourism and
hospitality: The art is not yet started. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 17(2/3),
233–251.
Naisbitt, J. (1998). Asia megatrends. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Nakata, C., & Sivakumar, K. (2001). Instituting the marketing concept in a multinational setting:
The role of national culture. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(3), 255–275.
Narangajavana, Y., & Hu, B. (2008). The relationship between the hotel rating system, service
quality improvement, and hotel performance changes: A canonical analysis of hotels in
Thailand. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 9(1), 34–56.
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently . . .
and why. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought:
Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310.
O’Connor, P. (2002). An empirical analysis of hotel chain online pricing strategies, cognizant
communication corporation. Information Technology and Tourism, 5(2), 65–72.
Oliver, R. (1977). Effects of expectation and disconfirmation on post-exposure product evalua-
tion: An alternative interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 480–486.
Peabody, D. (1985). National characteristics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Pine, R., & Phillips, P. (2005). Performance comparisons of hotels in China. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 24(1), 57–73.
Pitta, D. A., Fung, H. G., & Isberg, S. (1999). Ethical issues across cultures: Managing the
differing perspectives of China and the USA. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(3), 240–256.
Priceline.com. (2010a). Corporate profile. Retrieved from http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.
zhtml?c=72780&p=irol-homeProfile&t=&id=&
Priceline.com. (2010b). Priceline.com incorporated Web site terms and conditions. Retrieved from
http://www.priceline.com/customerservice/faq/ShowHelp.asp?faq=ext%28AIRPOP_TERMS%29
Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2006). Cultural consequences on travel risk perception and safety.
Tourism Analysis, 11(4), 265–284.
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. (1997). Cross-cultural differences in tourism: Indonesian tourists in
Australia. Tourism Management, 18(3), 139–147.
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. W. (2003). Cross-cultural behaviour in tourism: Concepts and analysis.
Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Richins, M., & Verhage, B. J. (1985). Cross-cultural differences in consumer attitudes and their
implications for complaint management. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2(3),
197–206.
Starkov, M., & Price, J. (2003). In search of the Internet intelligence report that makes sense,
growing online distribution drives demand for new intelligence tools. Retrieved from http://www.
hotel-online.com/News/PR2003_1st/Jan03_InternetTools.html
Starkov, M., & Price, J. (2007). Internet marketing and distribution trends impacting the hospitality
industry from 2007–2010. Retrieved from http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2007_2nd/
Jun07_MktgTrends.html
Stauss, B., & Mang, P. (1999). Culture shocks’ in inter-cultural service encounters? Journal of
Service Management, 13(4/5), 329–346.
Tahir, R., & Larimo, J. (2004). Understanding the location strategies of European firms in Asian
countries. Journal of the American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 102–109.
Tsang, A. S. L., & Prendergast, G. (2009). Does culture affect evaluation expressions? A cross-
cultural analysis of Chinese and American computer game reviews. European Journal of
Marketing, 43(5/6), 686–707.
Tsang, E. W. K., & Yip, P. S. L. (2009). Competition, agglomeration and performance of Beijing
hotels. Service Industries Journal, 29(2), 155–171.
Tsang, K. F. N., & Ap, J. (2007). Tourists’ perceptions of relational quality service attributes: A
cross-cultural study. Journal of Travel Research, 45(3), 355–363.
Tsang, N., & Qu, H. (2000). Service quality in China’s hotel industry: A perspective from tourists
and hotel managements. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12
(5), 316–326.
Tsaur, S. H., Lin, C. T., & Wu, C. S. (2005). Cultural differences of service quality and behavioral
intention in tourist hotels. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 13(1), 41–63.
Tso, A., & Law, R. (2005). An empirical study of online pricing practices for Hong Kong hotels.
In A. J. Frew (Ed.), Information and communication technologies in tourism 2005 (pp. 328–337).
New York, NY: Springer.
Ueltschy, L. C., Laroche, M., Tamilia, R. D., & Yannopoulos, P. (2004). Cross-cultural invariance
of measures of satisfaction and service quality. Journal of Business Research, 57(8), 901–912.
Vine, P. A. L. (1981). Hotel classification—Art or science? International Journal of Tourism
Management, 2(1), 18–29.
Weiermair, K. (2000). Tourists’ perceptions towards and satisfaction with service quality in the
cross-cultural service encounter: Implications for hospitality and tourism management.
Managing Service Quality, 10(6), 397–409.
Wong, K., & Lam, C. Y. (2001). Predicting hotel choice decisions and segmenting hotel con-
sumers: A comparative assessment of a recent consumer based approach. Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing, 11(1), 17–33.
World Tourism Organization. (2009). Tourism highlights. Madrid, Spain: UNWTO Publications.
World Travel and Tourism Council. (2008). China: The 2008 travel and tourism economic
research. London, England: World Travel and Tourism Council.
Xue, X. H., & Cox, C. (2008). Hotel selection criteria and satisfaction levels of the Chinese
business traveler. Journal of China Tourism Research, 4(3/4), 261–281.
Ye, Q., Law, R., & Gu, B. (2009). The impact of online user reviews on hotel room sales.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(1), 180–182.
Yeung, S., & Leung, C. (2007). Perception and attitude of Hong Kong hotel guest–contact
employees towards tourists from mainland China. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 9(6), 395–407.
Yu, L. (1992). Seeing stars: China’s hotel-rating system. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 33(5), 24–27.
Zhang, H. Q., Chong, K., & Ap, J. (1999). An analysis of tourism policy development in modern
China. Tourism Management, 20(4), 471–485.
Zhang, H. Q., Yan, Q., & Ye, H. (2008). A comparative analysis of the mechanism of policy
change in China’s travel agency and hotel sectors. Journal of China Tourism Research, 4(3/4),
229–247.
Zhang, Y., Ma, Y., Li, C., Zhao, X., & Gao, Y. (2009). An analysis of international tourists’
perceptions of China. Journal of China Tourism Research, 5(1), 52–64.
Zhong, J., Chen, X., & Xie, L. (2010). China hotel quality competitiveness assessment: A quality
competition index approach. Journal of China Tourism Research, 6(2), 123–163.
Zong, J., Tang, F. F., Huang, W., & Ma, J. (2008). Online pricing dispersion of Chinese hotels.
Journal of China Tourism Research, 4(3/4), 248–260.
View publication stats

The Impact of Culture On Hotel Ratings: Analysis of Star-Rated Hotels in China

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Impact of Culture On Hotel Ratings: Analysis of Star-Rated Hotels in China

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The Impact of Culture on Hotel Ratings: Analysis of Star-Rated

Article in Journal of China Tourism Research · July 2011

Daniel Leung Hee “Andy” Lee

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tourism Big Data Analysis and mining View project

Consumer Generated Media View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Impact of Culture on Hotel Ratings: Analysis

KEYWORDS. Face, culture, hotel rating, star-rated hotels, China

关键词: 面子, 文化, 酒店评级, 星级酒店, 中国

Table 1. Hotel Growth in China, 2000–2008.

Online Distribution Channels

Hotel Rating Systems

in which accommodation establishments of the same type (e.g., hotels,

To be specific, it is a system that provides assessment of the quality standards and

Table 3. Hotel Rating Systems of Selected Online Distribution Channels.

Culture and Evaluation

Table 4. Cross-Tabulation of the Star/Diamond-Rating Information

Channels Star Rating 3-Star 4-Star 5-Star 3-Diamond 4-Diamond 5-Diamond

Cultural Values Encoded in Rating Systems

Online Distribution of Hotels in China

Conclusions and Implications

Contributions and Limitations

Hotels.com. (2010b). Star ratings explained. Retrieved from http://www.hotels.com/customer_-

View publication stats

Potrebbero piacerti anche