Tourist Behavior in the Cruise Industry Post-COVID-19: An Examination of Service Quality, Corporate Image, and Intentions to Pay and Revisit

Abstract

The COVID-19 outbreak has had detrimental consequences on the cruise industry due to the suspension of commercial cruise trips, and these effects remain apparent in Saudi Arabia. The offered service quality (SQ) in the post-COVID-19 era seems to be a critical element for improving customer experiences and satisfaction, enhancing destination attractiveness, increasing revenue, and maintaining repeat business. The current study aimed to assess the impact of service quality on tourists’ satisfaction and corporate image as well as the intention to pay for cruise trips and revisit the destination among 315 tourists in Saudi Arabia. Service quality was measured using five subscales of the SERVQUAL scale, including reliability, tangibles, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. Tourists’ satisfaction was significantly influenced by four domains of SQ, whereas the intention to pay more, intention to revisit the destination, and corporate image were significantly predicted by ≤3 domains of SQ. The study’s findings can help the cruise industry to improve its offerings and create more personalized and engaging experiences that meet the changing needs of customers in the recovery period after the COVID-19 outbreak.

1. Introduction

In recent times, there has been a significant upsurge in the popularity of cruise travel. As per the Cruise Line International Association’s (CLIA) statistical data, the global cruise industry witnessed an influx of nearly 30 million passengers in 2019, generating employment for 1.8 million people across the globe and contributing over USD 1540 billion to the global economy. However, the outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in 2020 led to the suspension of commercial cruise operations, thereby dealing a severe blow to the industry. The ensuing suspension of cruise operations from mid-March to September 2020 resulted in massive global economic losses of USD 77 billion and job losses of 518,000 [1]. Indeed, the cruise industry is slowly but steadily recovering from the pandemic’s effects. As the industry prepares for post-COVID operations, it is imperative to understand how service quality in cruise trips affects tourist satisfaction, corporate image, intention to pay, and intention to revisit.

In the literature, service quality is often conceptualized as the extent to which the provided services meet or exceed customer expectations. Accordingly, customer satisfaction is achieved when the delivered service quality matches or surpasses the expected level of quality [2]. One widely accepted measure of service quality is SERVQUAL, which assesses quality through various dimensions, including tangibles, responsiveness, reliability, empathy, and assurance [3,4]. Prior research has established that perceived on-board service quality significantly affects passenger satisfaction [5]. From another perspective, in the realm of tourist decision-making processes, destination image has been widely recognized as a crucial factor [6,7,8]. Positive perceptions and impressions of a destination are likely to influence visitors’ preferences for that particular destination [8]. The concept of destination image has two significant effects on tourist behaviors, namely influencing the decision-making process and shaping the processes of experiencing (attending), evaluating (satisfaction), and forming future intentions (revisit and recommend) [9,10]. Actually, tourist satisfaction, in turn, has been recognized as a crucial factor in repeat purchase behavior and positive word-of-mouth recommendations [11]. Studies have shown that satisfaction has been linked to the intention to pay more and destination loyalty among tourists [11]. Moreover, recent studies have highlighted a strong association between satisfaction and loyalty, indicating that satisfied tourists are more likely to exhibit loyalty towards a destination [12].

However, there is a dearth of research specifically examining the impact of service quality on the determinants of tourist satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the cruise industry, particularly in the context of the post-COVID-19 landscape. Indeed, based on behavioral theory and existing scholarly literature on perceived crisis management, it is evident that disasters and crises exert significant impacts on the local economy and the financial wellbeing of individuals residing in affected areas. Consequently, these effects have a subsequent influence on the development of attitudes, trust, and behavioral intentions [13,14]. An analysis of tourists’ perceptions of cruise travel during the pandemic revealed that the imposition of travel constraints yielded a positive impact on the negativity bias, and that perceived crisis management had a positive effect on attitude and trust, while negativity bias had a negative influence [15]. Research conducted in the aftermath of the pandemic indicated a heightened sense of responsibility and supportiveness among tourists when embarking on their journeys, specifically via five dimensions, including smart care, safety, comfort, pricing strategy, and social distancing, which collectively contribute to shaping tourists’ post-pandemic expectations [16]. Another recent investigation in Asia demonstrated that it is imperative to improve service quality parameters during the pandemic [17]. These included adhering strictly to the stipulated departure and arrival times outlined in the sailing schedules, optimizing the ratio of crew members to passengers to ensure personalized attention and service, and the establishment of a comprehensive training system for cruise personnel [17]. Collectively, the impact of the pandemic on these specific areas of service quality and customer behavior may inform policy to foster customer loyalty and support the positive image of corporations in the cruise industry [18].

In Saudi Arabia, while the scarcity of knowledge of the effect of service quality on the domains of behavioral intentions and tourist satisfaction remains applicable, studying the aforementioned behavioral attributes is critical for the cruise industry’s sustainable growth, improving customer experiences, enhancing destination attractiveness, increasing revenue, and maintaining repeat business. The Saudi Arabian cruise industry possesses distinct characteristics that differentiate it from other cruise destinations. Geographically, Saudi Arabia’s strategic location in the Arabian Peninsula offers access to the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf, providing diverse and captivating cruise itineraries. Culturally, Saudi Arabia’s rich history, vibrant traditions, and religious significance contribute to a unique cultural context that attracts a specific segment of cruise tourists seeking authentic experiences [19,20]. Furthermore, the country has been investing in tourism infrastructure development, with significant investments in cruise terminals, port facilities, and tourist attractions [21]. Market dynamics in Saudi Arabia are influenced by the growing domestic tourism market, increasing international tourism interest, and government initiatives such as Vision 2030, which aims to diversify the economy and boost tourism [22]. These factors collectively make the Saudi Arabian cruise industry an intriguing case for understanding tourist behavior.

In the post-COVID-19 era, identifying the specific dimensions of service quality that are critical for ensuring tourists’ attributes can help adapt the industry’s offerings to meet the new expectations, recover financially, restore confidence in tourists, and ensure the long-term sustainability. Despite the increasing scholarly attention given to the cruise industry since 2010 [11], research efforts have remained fragmented due to the multidisciplinary nature and relatively recent emergence of cruise tourism [23]. While several quantitative studies have investigated the dimensions of quality of service, service attributes, and perceived value [5,24,25,26], qualitative research focused on specific aspects of cruise lines, such as brand image and corporate sustainability [27,28,29]. Hence, it is necessary to bridge the research gap concerning the lack of quantitative research in this area, and this could ideally be attained using a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. The purpose of this research paper is to analyze the impact of service quality on tourists’ satisfaction and corporate image as well as their intention to pay for cruise trips and revisit the destination in the post-COVID-19 era. The findings of this study will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between service quality and other constructs, and the study’s insights will be beneficial for cruise companies, policymakers, and other stakeholders in the tourism industry to enhance service quality, improve customer satisfaction, and increase revenue in the post-pandemic era.

Following this introduction, the manuscript is organized as follows: in Section 2, we present a comprehensive literature review that explores the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the cruise industry and examines the relationship between service quality and various aspects of tourist behavior. Specifically, we discuss the influence of service quality on tourist satisfaction, its impact on corporate image, intentions to pay more (Section 2.4), and intentions to revisit the destination. Additionally, we explore the role of tourist satisfaction in shaping the corporate image. In Section 3, we provide an overview of the materials and methods employed in our study. This includes a detailed description of the study sample and data collection process, the construct measures utilized to assess the study variables, and the statistical analysis techniques employed. Moving forward, in Section 4, we present the results of our analysis. First, we describe the characteristics of the respondents. Then, we present the outcomes of the construct reliability and convergent validity assessments, as well as the outcomes of the discriminant validity assessment. Following the results, Section 5 engages in a thorough discussion of the findings, their implications, and their alignment with the research objectives. We also address the limitations of our study in this section, considering potential biases and areas for further investigation. In Section 6, we provide the conclusions drawn from our research and summarizing the key findings and their broader implications. Additionally, we discuss future implications for academia and industry, suggesting potential areas for further research and offering recommendations for cruise industry practitioners and policymakers.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Cruise Industry

The cruise industry’s sustainability has garnered significant skepticism, with deliberations focusing on its corporate social responsibility, environmental concerns, economic contributions, and detrimental impact on port destinations [30,31]. Given the growing consumer interest in ethical and environmental considerations pertaining to products and services [32], many researchers argue that sustainable development constitutes a future challenge for the cruise industry [33]. To address these concerns, the Cruise Line International Association (CLIA) [1] has pledged to engage in partnerships with local governments, implement staggered arrivals and departures, diversify excursion options, enable shoreside power usage, and promote local passenger spending at port destinations. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has placed great stressors on the cruise sector. Indeed, the pandemic has underscored the rapid transmission of the virus within confined and densely populated spaces, such as cruise ships. The outbreak highlighted the swift dissemination of the virus among passengers, leading to its transmission across various countries visited by the ships [34]. Furthermore, Gössling, Scott, and Hall [35] emphasized that prospective future cruise passengers are likely to vividly recall the distressing images of fellow passengers enduring prolonged quarantines onboard and the reluctance of different ports to allow passengers to disembark. These experiences undoubtedly present a significant challenge to the future provision of hospitality services onboard cruise ships. Actually, as the cruise industry is already grappling with the repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is imperative for it to enhance its reputation by improving service processes [29]. In this regard, endeavors to elevate service quality, foster innovation in management systems and strategies, and advance sustainability initiatives can aid in bolstering the industry’s image [36].

Therefore, it is necessary to explore the challenges imposed in the cruise industry in the post-pandemic era. Manolitzas et al. [37] conducted a study utilizing online user-generated content from CruiseCritics to investigate cruisers’ satisfaction using the Multicriteria Satisfaction Analysis Method (MUSA). Their findings revealed that cruise lines excel in providing satisfactory service and cabins, which are also considered important attributes by cruisers. This corroborates previous research that has identified service and dining as crucial criteria for cruisers’ satisfaction [38,39]. Additionally, the criterion of value for money was identified as an opportunity for action, suggesting that investments in this area by cruise companies can significantly enhance overall satisfaction among cruisers [37]. Surprisingly, contrary to the findings of other researchers [38], enrichment, entertainment, and fitness recreation were identified as service aspects that, despite not being highly performed by cruise lines, were not considered important for cruisers’ satisfaction. In a response to service quality improvement requirements, another study by Ajagunna et al. [40] showed that several Caribbean islands have made significant investments in upgrading their ports to cater to the needs of mega cruise ships during the recovery period after the outbreak given that tourism serves as their primary economic driver. These investments amount to millions of US dollars, but the timeline for the industry’s recovery remains uncertain at present.

In contrast to land-based tourism, which can more readily implement prompt reactive measures, the cruise industry demonstrated notable levels of customer loyalty and resilience during the downturn induced by the COVID-19 pandemic. To ensure the health and safety of passengers, crews, and visited communities, the industry implemented additional protocols aimed at enhancing public health on board. The post-pandemic phase presents an opportune moment for the cruise industry to redefine itself. One approach to achieve this transformation involves emphasizing its commitment to environmental regulations and sustainable practices rather than solely focusing on cost reduction and expanding ship sizes [41]. Most cruise ships have devised outbreak prevention plans tailored to their respective brands, adhering to guidelines set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and adopting industry best practices. Transparent and clear communication is vital to reduce risk perceptions and instill consumer confidence [18]. The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the previously unbroken narrative of growth and success within the cruise sector. The extent to which this disruption will be regarded as permanent or merely a temporary setback in the industry’s performance hinges on the industry’s ability to convince passengers and governments that cruising is a safe endeavor, particularly in terms of physical health. Convincing consumers, especially repeat cruisers, that the value of cruise ship travel outweighs the perceived risks associated with cruising will be crucial [42].

2.2. Service Quality and Its Impact on Tourist Satisfaction

In the marketing literature, service quality is a critical topic since customer satisfaction and retention directly relate to perceptions of service quality. The association between service quality and tourist satisfaction has long been established. Soleimani and Einolahzadeh [43] reported a strong positive association between service quality and tourist satisfaction. When it comes to the dimensions of service quality, Jayasinghe reported that tourism satisfaction and all the dimensions of service quality are strongly correlated [44]. Jayasinghe also found that the reliability dimension is the quality dimension with the strongest association with satisfaction [44]. Similarly, in another study, the reliability dimension had a significant influence on online customer satisfaction, according to Sharma and Malviya [45]. In another study that assessed the association between satisfaction and service quality, four dimensions, including empathy, responsiveness, assurance, and tangibility, were found to be predictors of satisfaction [46]. It is also necessary to consider people with disabilities in the provided services to ensure their satisfaction [47]. Melian et al. [48] suggested that the perceived value of accessibility can significantly influence satisfaction levels. Therefore, any research focused on understanding the role of accessibility in a destination should carefully consider this factor. Additionally, from a practical standpoint, prioritizing accessibility can yield benefits for destinations by enhancing overall visitor experiences.

In general, Zygiaris et al. also emphasized that service quality is a critical factor that affects satisfaction [49]. In addition, Zygiaris et al. added that satisfaction was impacted by the dimension’s empathy, assurance, reliability, responsiveness, and tangibles [49]. In contrast, a study in Syria reported opposite findings. According to Rahhal, a lack of significant association was found between empathy and tangibles service quality dimensions with satisfaction, and only reliability was significantly associated higher satisfaction among customers [50]. Though a few studies reported lack of association between service quality and satisfaction, the majority of studies support the existence of a relationship between service quality and satisfaction. Caruana also noted the importance of knowing and assessing the mediating variables that can play a role and affect satisfaction [19]. Collectively, we hypothesize that all the subscales of service quality would increase tourist satisfaction as follows:

Hypothesis 1a (H1a).

The reliability subscale of service quality significantly increases tourist satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1b (H1b).

The tangibles subscale of service quality significantly increases tourist satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1c (H1c).

The responsiveness subscale of service quality significantly increases tourist satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1d (H1d).

The assurance subscale of service quality significantly increases tourist satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1e (H1e).

The empathy subscale of service quality significantly increases tourist satisfaction.

2.3. Service Quality and Corporate Image

Corporate image is generally defined as the perception individuals have for a brand based on multiple signals such as their services and products [51]. The association between service quality and corporate or brand image has also been assessed by multiple studies. In the service quality model used by Yarimoglu [52], corporate image was classified as a dimension of service quality that influences customer perceptions. Jansri et al. explained that a positive and significant association was found between service quality and corporate image [53]. In addition, corporate image has a significant association with word of mouth, which is linked with tourist satisfaction [53]. As a marketing benchmark, Özkan et al. argued that corporate image and reputation can be used to evaluate the performance of an organization [54]. Moreover, Özkan et al. added that perceived service quality has an impact on the corporate image and reputation, and both factors can be used to measure the quality of corporate services [54]. Furthermore, Chien and Chi argued that among the variables that affect service quality and satisfaction, corporate image is an important mediator. In addition to the direct association between the two variables, a study by Alam and Noor reported an indirect correlation between service quality and corporate image as well as an impact on customer loyalty caused by the two factors [55]. On the other hand, a study in Pakistan argued that only service quality impacts customer loyalty, while corporate image has no significant association [56]. Based on the abovementioned observations, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 2a (H2a).

The reliability subscale of service quality significantly influences corporate image.

Hypothesis 2b (H2b).

The tangibles subscale of service quality significantly influences corporate image.

Hypothesis 2c (H2c).

The responsiveness subscale of service quality significantly influences corporate image.

Hypothesis 2d (H2d).

The assurance subscale of service quality significantly influences corporate image.

Hypothesis 2e (H2e).

The empathy subscale of service quality significantly influences corporate image.

2.4. Service Quality and Intention to Pay More

Service quality and intention to pay were also among the variables that were assessed by multiple prior research papers. According to Gadissa, a satisfied customer is likely to be more tolerant of price increases and willing to pay for benefits they receive [57]. Casidy and Wymer support this finding, as they reported a positive association between satisfaction from service quality and intention to pay more; however, they argued that the association between satisfaction and willingness to pay can be impacted by other confounding variables, such as financial, social, performance, and psychological risks [58]. On the other hand, Kim et al. reported a lack of association between purchase intentions and service quality [59]; however, satisfaction was correlated with intentions to pay. Homburg, Koschate, and Hoyer also found that satisfied customers are willing to pay more for the service, but many factors can influence this relationship [60]. A similar finding was reported by Dawi et al., who found a significant association between service quality, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions to pay for services [61]. In another study, Keiningham et al. argued that higher customer satisfaction does not always mean higher financial performance and described the association between the two variables as being complex [62]. According to Homburg, Koschate, and Hoyer, analyzing the variables that can mediate the relationship is essential to understand this association, as customers who pay more will result in a higher profitability [60]. Accordingly, the following hypotheses were developed based on the aforementioned review:

Hypothesis 3a (H3a).

The reliability subscale of service quality significantly influences the intention to pay more.

Hypothesis 3b (H3b).

The tangibles subscale of service quality significantly influences the intention to pay more.

Hypothesis 3c (H3c).

The responsiveness subscale of service quality significantly influences the intention to pay more.

Hypothesis 3d (H3d).

The assurance subscale of service quality significantly influences the intention to pay more.

Hypothesis 3e (H3e).

The empathy subscale of service quality significantly influences the intention to pay more.

2.5. Service Quality and Intention to Revisit the Destination

Satisfaction from the quality of services is not only associated with more willingness to pay, but it has been also linked with the intentions to revisit. In terms of language, accommodation, hospitality, and activities, service quality significantly impacts destination image, which influences revisit intention according to Tosun, Dedeoğlu, and Fyall [63]. Boro argues that SERVQUAL attributes are critical for measuring the association between service quality and intention to revisit the destination [64]. In terms of SERVQUAL attributes, the results from Boro’s study supported a positive correlation between customer satisfaction and their intent to revisit [64]. Another recent study by Wantara and Irawati assessed the direct and indirect association between multiple variables, including service quality, destination image, customer satisfaction, and revisit intention of tourists [65]. According to Wantara and Irawati, providing excellent service and a positive destination image contributes to tourist satisfaction and increases the likelihood of tourists returning again [65]. The study also reported a significant association between the quality of services offered and tourists’ intentions to revisit [65]. Moreover, Soleimani and Einolahzadeh found that travel agencies of good quality led to a high level of satisfaction and image of a destination, thus producing a strong tendency to revisit [43]. Soleimani and Einolahzadeh also noted that the relationship between service quality and intention to revisit the destination can mediated both word of mouth and satisfaction [43]. As customer satisfaction is considered to influence purchase intentions and behavior of travelers, travel agencies should strive to satisfy their passengers, Soleimani and Einolahzadeh argue [43]. Wantara and Irawati argued that repeat tourism, which is when the current visitor repeats their visit in the future, must be a target for the tourism sector to increase their profits and growth, as it requires less effort and is less costly when compared with relying on first-time visitors [65]. Though satisfaction is a major determinant of intentions to revisit a destination, multiple other variables must be considered and assessed that have the ability to influence tourists’ behavior.

Hypothesis 4a (H4a).

The reliability subscale of service quality significantly influences the intention to revisit the destination.

Hypothesis 4b (H4b).

The tangibles subscale of service quality significantly influences the intention to revisit the destination.

Hypothesis 4c (H4c).

The responsiveness subscale of service quality significantly influences the intention to revisit the destination.

Hypothesis 4d (H4d).

The assurance subscale of service quality significantly influences the intention to revisit the destination.

Hypothesis 4e (H4e).

The empathy subscale of service quality significantly influences the intention to revisit the destination.

2.6. The Influence of Tourist Satisfaction on Corporate Image

Since the 1950s, the concept of company image has been recognized as a significant topic in consumer behavior research [66]. Indeed, the tourism image emerges from the subjective impression as a response to the external environment of the tourism destination, which acts on the tourists’ brains to influence behavior. Therefore, this subjective domain is more important than objective reality [67,68]. Currently, company image continues to be regarded as an important factor and has garnered attention in the marketing field [69]. As Keller [70] elucidates, company image refers to a customer’s cognitive perception of a specific company, as reflected by the relationships that the company has established in the customer’s memory. Customers develop a positive or negative image of a company based on their direct or indirect experiences with the company’s products [71]. Customers who possess a favorable image of a company typically have a positive attitude towards the company and its products and services. They also tend to evaluate the company’s product and service performance favorably and engage in post-purchase behaviors that are ultimately beneficial to the company [69].

In the marketplace, a company’s distinctive features within its image differentiate it from its competitors [72]. It is commonly understood that company images have functional and symbolic characteristics [73]. The competition in the cruise travel industry has intensified in recent years [24,73], leading cruise line operators worldwide to focus on improving their company image within this competitive market environment. A positive and trustworthy company image has been shown to correlate with customer satisfaction and favorable behavioral intentions towards the company [66,70]. Within the cruise industry, Han et al. [74] found that service quality, image, and physical environment excellence were significant drivers of satisfaction and intention, with cruise line quality having the greatest impact on intention. Han and Hyun [75] indicated that a positive overall company image was associated with an increased desire for cruise travel and repeat cruising intention. Another study [76] identified two separate categories of image congruence: social image congruence and ideal social image congruence. The study showed that image congruence was positively related to affect and customer satisfaction. Collectively, we hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 5 (H5).

Tourist satisfaction significantly influences corporate image.

In general, the above hypotheses are summarized below in Figure 1.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Sample and Data Collection

Our study included tourists that experienced cruise trips after the COVID-19 pandemic. In selecting our sample, we delegated a market research company in Saudi Arabia to distribute the survey, and they used online surveys to collect data. We used online surveys to target tourists from different cruise routes in Saudi Arabia in the most popular cruise journeys (e.g., Cruise Saudi; http://www.cruisesaudi.com/, accessed on 10 April 2023). These routes were as follows: Jeddah to Al-Ula, Mecca, Aqaba, Seaday, and Medina. We distributed the survey from December 2022 to February 2023; after distributing the survey, we collected 315 tourists out of 340, with a response rate of 92.6%.

3.2. Construct Measures

The survey consisted of a total of forty-two items and six scales. The first scale contained five items about demographic data. The second scale was used to measure service quality and tourist satisfaction, and it employed the SERVQUAL scale, a widely used construct measure. The SERVQUAL scale consists of five constructs adapted from Ladhari [77], Parasuraman et al. [78], and Babakus and Boller [79]. The constructs included reliability, tangibles, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. These constructs assess the quality of services a business or organization provides on cruise trips. The reliability construct measures how dependable the services meet tourists’ expectations on the cruise. The tangibles construct considers the physical appearance of the services offered by cruise members. Responsive measures show how quickly and efficiently the organization or business addresses tourists’ needs. Assurance assesses how confident tourists feel when interacting with cruise events during their holidays. Finally, empathy measures how well cruise service providers understand customer needs and provide personalized service to tourists. The third scale consisted of six items that measured tourist satisfaction, and it was adapted from Hassan and Salem [80]. Other scales included corporate image (two items), intention to pay more (three items), and intention to revisit the destination (four items); these items were adapted from other studies in the literature [17,81].

3.3. Statistical Analysis

Data analysis was carried out using RStudio (R version 4.2.2). We summarized categorical data as frequencies and percentages. A partial least squares structural equation modelling technique with bootstrapping was implemented to model the used constructs. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were used to express internal consistency reliability. Additionally, rhoC values were used to express composite reliability to address the basic assumptions of the Cronbach’s alpha testing that denotes equal indicator loadings [82], and rhoA was used as another conservative measure of internal consistency [83]. As for the convergent validity, we used average variance extracted (AVE) as a parameter of assessment of the degree to which each domain could converge to explain the indicators’ variances [84]. Regarding the discriminant validity, we compared the AVE square roots to the correlation between different constructs and used the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT) of correlations [85]. For the bootstrapped structural mode, we used a 1000 bootstrap method [86], and the results were expressed as beta coefficients and the respective 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). A p-value of 0.05 indicated statistical significance.

4. Results

4.1. Characteristics of the Respondents

The responses of 315 tourists were analyzed in the current study. More than a half of them were females (53.7%) and had a high school degree (52.1%). Almost one-third of them (35.2%) were aged 12 to 30 years. Additionally, 57.5% of the respondents had previously undergone two to three cruise trips (

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Parameter	Category	N (%)
Gender	Male	146 (46.3%)
	Female	169 (53.7%)
Age (years)	≤20	60 (19.0%)
	21 to 30	111 (35.2%)
	31 to 40	99 (31.4%)
	41 to 50	30 (9.5%)
	51 to 60	13 (4.1%)
	>60	2 (0.6%)
Education level	Junior high school (or below)	21 (6.7%)
	High school	164 (52.1%)
	College or university	95 (30.2%)
	Master	26 (8.3%)
	Doctorate	9 (2.9%)
Occupation	Student	87 (27.6%)
	Army, civil service, and education	97 (30.8%)
	Service industry	82 (26.0%)
	Self-employed	41 (13.0%)
	Other	8 (2.5%)
Number of cruise trips taken	1	111 (35.2%)
	2 to 3	181 (57.5%)
	4 to 5	20 (6.3%)
	≥6	3 (1.0%)

).

4.2. Outcomes of Construct Reliability and Convergent Validity

In the bootstrapped model, three items showed inadequate loadings to their respective constructs, including one item in the service quality reliability construct and two items in the intention to revisit construct (

Table A1. Description of the items and constructs used in the current study.

Construct	Item Code	Item
Service Quality (Reliability)	Rel_1	Itinerary and departure/arrival time compliance: When the cruise ship promises to do something by a certain time, it does so.
	Rel_2	When customers have problems, the cruise ship is sympathetic and reassuring.
	Rel_3	Cruise ship is dependable.
	Rel_4	Cruise onboard programs are on time: Cruise ship provides its services at the time it promises to do so.
	Rel_5	Cruise ship keeps its records accurately.
Service Quality (Tangibles)	Tan_1	Ship facts: Cruise ship’s facilities have up-to-date equipment.
	Tan_2	Ship’s interior style, cabin, cleanness: Cruise ship’s facilities are visually appealing.
	Tan_3	Crew members’ appearance: Crew members are well-dressed and appear neat.
	Tan_4	Service materials, other cruise guests: The appearance of the physical facilities of cruise ship is in keeping with the type of services provided.
Service Quality (Responsiveness)	Resp_1	They tell customers exactly when services will be performed.
	Resp_2	Receive prompt service from crew members.
	Resp_3	Crew members are always willing to help customers.
	Resp_4	Crew members are too busy to respond to customer requests promptly.
Service Quality (Assurance)	Assurance_1	Customers can trust crew members.
	Assurance_2	Announcements for safety and lifeboat drills: Customers feel safe in their transactions with crew members.
	Assurance_3	Crew members are polite.
	Assurance_4	Crew members get adequate support from cruise lines to do their jobs well.
Service Quality (Empathy)	Emp_1	These cruise lines give customers individual attention.
	Emp_2	Crew members of cruise lines give customers personal attention.
	Emp_3	Crew members of cruise lines know what customers need.
	Emp_4	These cruise lines have customer’s best interests at heart.
	Emp_5	These cruise lines have operating hours convenient to all their customers.
Tourist Satisfaction	Satisfaction_1	The duration of the cruise trip was adequate for me to explore the attractions I wanted to explore.
	Satisfaction_2	The cruise ship serves my needs and expectations.
	Satisfaction_3	The safety precautions and measures are adequately taken before the cruise.
	Satisfaction_4	The quality of the food and services provided on board the cruise satisfied my needs.
	Satisfaction_5	The quality of service that I received was higher than I expected.
	Satisfaction_6	The quality of service that I received was as I imagined.
Corporate Image	Img_1	Has a good reputation in the eyes of tourists.
	Img_2	Has a good image in the minds of passengers.
Intention to Pay more	Pay_1	I would be willing to pay more money for additional activities on a cruise.
	Pay_2	I do not have a maximum amount of money I would be willing to spend on additional activities on a cruise.
	Pay_3	I intend to pay extra money for tourism activities on the cruise.
Intention to Revisit	Vis_1	I want to visit the cruise line within the next two years.
	Vis_2	The possibility for me to use the cruise line soon is high.
	Vis_3	The cruise line could be my next vacation place.
	Vis_4	I intend to travel on the cruise line sometime during my next vacation.

). The final model had excellent reliability indicators (

Table 2. Convergent validity and construct reliability.

Domains/Items	BFL	VIF	Alpha	rhoC	rhoA	AVE
Service Quality (Reliability)			0.859	0.905	0.866	0.707
Rel_1	0.734	1.529
Rel_2	0.900	2.937
Rel_3	0.844	2.466
Rel_4	0.868	2.298
Service Quality (Tangibles)			0.864	0.906	0.878	0.708
Tan_1	0.815	2.492
Tan_2	0.841	2.541
Tan_3	0.889	2.518
Tan_4	0.816	1.808
Service Quality (Responsiveness)			0.815	0.878	0.817	0.644
Resp_1	0.844	1.994
Resp_2	0.776	1.682
Resp_3	0.782	1.587
Resp_4	0.803	1.781
Service Quality (Assurance)			0.896	0.928	0.895	0.764
Assurance_1	0.790	1.670
Assurance_2	0.899	3.148
Assurance_3	0.889	3.404
Assurance_4	0.910	3.734
Service Quality (Empathy)			0.904	0.929	0.905	0.723
Emp_1	0.842	2.651
Emp_2	0.873	3.060
Emp_3	0.853	2.492
Emp_4	0.831	2.264
Emp_5	0.846	2.260
Tourist Satisfaction			0.876	0.906	0.878	0.617
Satisfaction_1	0.778	1.886
Satisfaction_2	0.803	2.073
Satisfaction_3	0.773	1.827
Satisfaction_4	0.768	1.820
Satisfaction_5	0.778	1.941
Satisfaction_6	0.805	1.996
Corporate Image			0.761	0.893	0.767	0.807
Img_1	0.910	1.606
Img_2	0.886	1.606
Intention to Pay More			0.846	0.907	0.847	0.764
Pay_1	0.879	2.234
Pay_2	0.881	2.330
Pay_3	0.860	1.800
Intention to Revisit			0.851	0.931	0.852	0.870
Vis_1	0.936	2.212
Vis_2	0.929	2.212

Alpha: Cronbach’s alpha; AVE: average variance extracted; VIF: variance inflation factor; BFL: bootstrapped factor loading.

). The loadings of the factors to their constructs were all adequate (above 0.50), and the rhoC and rhoA values were above the recommended threshold of 0.70 [82,83]. Additionally, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged between 0.761 and 0.904. Of note, AVE values ranged between 0.617 and 0.870, which denotes that the domains explained at least 61.7% of the indicator’s variance that constituted the domain [84].

4.3. Outcomes of the Discriminant Validity

Regarding the discriminant validity, the values of the square roots of AVE were compared to those of the shared variance between constructs as indicated by the inter-domain correlation. As shown in

Table 3. Outcomes of the discriminant validity.

Construct	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Tourist Satisfaction	0.786
2. Service Quality (Reliability)	0.670	0.841
3. Service Quality (Tangibles)	0.772	0.622	0.841
4. Service Quality (Responsiveness)	0.739	0.641	0.770	0.803
5. Service Quality (Assurance)	0.728	0.614	0.749	0.736	0.874
6. Service Quality (Empathy)	0.633	0.631	0.811	0.799	0.796	0.850
7. Corporate Image	0.781	0.560	0.656	0.649	0.705	0.662	0.898
8. Intention to Pay More	0.732	0.693	0.693	0.736	0.744	0.744	0.787	0.874
9. Intention to Revisit	0.767	0.644	0.690	0.707	0.694	0.750	0.715	0.756	0.933

The square roots of AVE are on the diagonal, and inter-domain correlations are on the lower triangle.

, the square roots of AVE were higher than the correlations between domains. Additionally, the bootstrapped HTMT values and the respective 95% CIs did not exceed 1 (

Table A2. Outcomes of the Model Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio.

Domain	B-HTMT Values (95% CI)
Satisfaction → Rel	0.769 (0.681 to 0.842)
Satisfaction → Tan	0.866 (0.806 to 0.914)
Satisfaction → Resp	0.941 (0.898 to 0.985)
Satisfaction → Assurance	0.897 (0.842 to 0.942)
Satisfaction → Emp	0.933 (0.893 to 0.968)
Satisfaction → Img	0.950 (0.881 to 1.024)
Satisfaction → Pay	0.961 (0.917 to 1.005)
Satisfaction → Vis	0.885 (0.816 to 0.945)
Rel → Tan	0.700 (0.602 to 0.782)
Rel → Resp	0.762 (0.665 to 0.849)
Rel → Assurance	0.693 (0.575 to 0.798)
Rel → Emp	0.713 (0.618 to 0.792)
Rel → Img	0.685 (0.557 to 0.790)
Rel → Pay	0.808 (0.702 to 0.897)
Rel → Vis	0.753 (0.664 to 0.838)
Tan → Resp	0.901 (0.832 to 0.956)
Tan → Assurance	0.829 (0.763 to 0.889)
Tan → Emp	0.899 (0.846 to 0.946)
Tan → Img	0.797 (0.695 to 0.891)
Tan → Pay	0.788 (0.700 to 0.861)
Tan → Vis	0.786 (0.704 to 0.864)
Resp → Assurance	0.976 (0.936 to 1.014)
Resp → Emp	0.929 (0.886 to 0.970)
Resp → Img	0.824 (0.730 to 0.910)
Resp → Pay	0.885 (0.813 to 0.946)
Resp → Vis	0.848 (0.773 to 0.915)
Assurance → Emp	0.880 (0.828 to 0.926)
Assurance → Img	0.851 (0.756 to 0.931)
Assurance → Pay	0.849 (0.779 to 0.910)
Assurance → Vis	0.789 (0.708 to 0.864)
Emp → Img	0.796 (0.703 to 0.882)
Emp → Pay	0.846 (0.784 to 0.904)
Emp → Vis	0.855 (0.788 to 0.915)
Img → Pay	0.977 (0.907 to 1.049)
Img → Vis	0.887 (0.787 to 0.976)
Pay → Vis	0.887 (0.814 to 0.955)

B-HTMT: bootstrap mean heterotrait–monotrait ratio; CIs: confidence intervals.

), which confirms the discriminant validity [85].

4.4. Structural Model

In the structural model, there was no risk of multicollinearity between different indicators since variance inflation factors (VIFs) were all below the threshold of 5 (Table 2) [87]. Results of the structural models showed that tourist satisfaction was independently associated with four domains of service quality, including the reliability (Beta = 0.14, 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.23, p = 0.001), responsiveness (Beta = 0.16, 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.28, p = 0.005), assurance (Beta = 0.20, 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.33, p = 0.001), and empathy (Beta = 0.36, 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.49, p < 0.0001). Notably, corporate image was significantly predicted by only one service quality construct (assurance, Beta = 0.27, 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.42, p = 0.002) and by tourist satisfaction (Beta = 0.62, 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.79, p < 0.0001). The intention to pay more was independently associated with the three domains of service quality, including reliability (Beta = 0.29, 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.41, p < 0.0001), assurance (Beta = 0.24, 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.39, p = 0.002), and empathy (Beta = 0.23, 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.40, p = 0.005), whereas the intention to revisit the destination was predicted by reliability (Beta = 0.22, 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.34, p < 0.0001) and empathy (Beta = 0.35, 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.57, p = 0.001,

Table 4. Results of the structural models.

Relationship	t Value	Beta (95%CI)	p-Value	Hypothesis	Status
Tourist Satisfaction
Rel → Sat	3.163	0.144 (0.054 to 0.232)	0.001	H1a	Accept
Tan → Sat	1.668	0.117 (−0.025 to 0.253)	0.058	H1b	Accept
Resp → Sat	2.59	0.160 (0.045 to 0.284)	0.005	H1c	Accept
Assurance → Sat	3.132	0.202 (0.078 to 0.333)	0.001	H1d	Accept
Emp → Sat	5.298	0.359 (0.230 to 0.491)	<0.0001	H1e	Accept
Corporate Image
Rel → Img	0.722	0.040 (−0.076 to 0.141)	0.235	H2a	Reject
Tan → Img	1.486	0.114 (−0.030 to 0.271)	0.069	H2b	Reject
Resp → Img	−1.155	−0.096 (−0.256 to 0.074)	0.876	H2c	Reject
Assurance → Img	2.933	0.268 (0.067 to 0.423)	0.002	H2d	Accept
Emp → Img	−1.382	−0.108 (−0.252 to 0.062)	0.916	H2e	Reject
Sat → Img	7.168	0.619 (0.448 to 0.785)	<0.0001	H5	Accept
Intention to Pay More
Rel → Pay	4.595	0.287 (0.157 to 0.407)	<0.0001	H3a	Accept
Tan → Pay	0.573	0.049 (−0.126 to 0.203)	0.283	H3b	Reject
Resp → Pay	1.498	0.134 (−0.023 to 0.325)	0.068	H3c	Reject
Assurance → Pay	2.975	0.239 (0.086 to 0.389)	0.002	H3d	Accept
Emp → Pay	2.562	0.226 (0.059 to 0.404)	0.005	H3e	Accept
Intention to Revisit
Rel → Vis	3.513	0.218 (0.105 to 0.344)	<0.0001	H4a	Accept
Tan → Vis	1.001	0.093 (−0.091 to 0.274)	0.159	H4b	Reject
Resp → Vis	1.511	0.128 (−0.036 to 0.286)	0.066	H4c	Reject
Assurance → Vis	1.294	0.103 (−0.049 to 0.249)	0.098	H4d	Reject
Emp → Vis	3.234	0.352 (0.143 to 0.572)	0.001	H4e	Accept

).

5. Discussion and Limitations

As a result of the heterogeneous, intangible, and perishable nature of services, it is an ambiguous and complex concept that is defined differently among individuals. Regardless, the importance of recognizing service quality factors that contribute to customer satisfaction is evident from our findings. Service quality factors have been extensively assessed in prior papers, and their results show inconsistent findings. The current study reported a positive association between reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy with the tourist satisfaction. Similar to our findings, a paper reported that customer satisfaction and the six aspects of service quality are strongly correlated, with the highest impact caused by tangibility, reliability, and responsiveness [88]. In another study by Thi et al., tangibles and responsiveness were the only factors that were reported to be significantly associated with service quality [89]. These inconsistencies are inevitable considering the use of different structural models in the studies that examined the effect of service quality aspects. In addition, service quality has been classified into a wide range of dimensions other than the ones examined in the current study, leading to different measurements of service quality [52]. Yarimoglu also explains that some of the service quality measures identified and used in prior studies depend on their impact on the physical environment, processes, and people elements [52]. Moreover, Kerdpitak and Heuer argued that service quality significantly contributes to changes in tourist satisfaction, along with other factors such as trust and personnel relationships [90].

As for the corporate image, Aydin and Özer found that consumers’ perceptions of corporate image are influenced by their perceptions of quality-of-service providers [91]. Similarly, Cheng et al. explained that tourists who are pleased with a hotel’s service are more likely to be satisfied with their stay, leading to a positive image of the hotel in the community [92]. The current study, however, reported assurance as the only service quality aspect influencing tourists’ image of the corporation. Quality assurance is vital to provide customer service, as it identifies recurring problems in customer interactions and provides tools for improving service quality. Thus, it can explain the significant association found in this study.

Importantly, Yu et al. [93] found that service quality has direct as well as indirect associations with intention to repurchase by impacting customer satisfaction, which is similar to our findings. Similarly, Slack, Singh and Sharma found that the empathy dimension had positive effects on multiple variables, including satisfaction and customer repurchase intention [94]. Hoch and Deighton explained that when a customer experiences high-quality service and a positive experience, he or she will willingly pay a higher price because of his favorable behavior toward the service provider [95]. The ability to provide care and personalization to each customer is an essential component of empathy, and therefore, higher empathy leads to higher satisfaction and willingness to pay. In contrast, Kim et al. reported a lack of significant association between all service quality dimensions with intention to purchase, though service quality dimensions were significantly associated with satisfaction, and satisfaction was significantly associated with the intention to purchase [59]. When it comes to the relationship between service quality dimensions with the intention to revisit, two dimensions, including reliability and responsiveness, were found to be significantly associated.

When it comes to the relationship of the service quality and intention to revisit, the current study reported that reliability and empathy were significantly associated with the intention to revisit. In another study in Malaysia [96], tangibles, assurance, and empathy were associated with significantly higher intentions to revisit, although reliability was not significantly associated. According to the study by Soleimani and Einolahza-deh, a good travel agency increases satisfaction and image of a destination, which ultimately leads to the desire to revisit [43]. In addition, a company’s service quality directly affects the customer’s satisfaction, and word-of-mouth is directly related to customer satisfaction and revisit intention [43]. Soleimani and Einolahzadeh argued that it is clear that word-of-mouth is directly and positively related to customer satisfaction, which leads to customers buying more, purchasing more frequently, trying new services, and providing honest suggestions for improvement [43]. It has also been confirmed by Liu and Lee that the mechanism of perceived quality is a cognitive response to the price of a service combined with a non-monetary price reaction of satisfaction that determines whether a person will visit a place [97].

When it comes to limitations, there is a likelihood of response bias caused by the participants. Since the current study used questionnaires as a data collection method, it is possible that respondents are hesitant to provide accurate information when filling out the questionnaires. Importantly, while the study’s findings contribute to understanding these relationships in the context of the post-COVID-19 era and the cruise industry in Saudi Arabia, they do not necessarily provide significant theoretical contributions beyond what is already known in other regions. Furthermore, the study focused solely on the impact of service quality on tourists’ satisfaction, corporate image, and intentions to pay and revisit, without considering other factors that may also influence these outcomes, such as price, destination attributes, and demographic variables. Based on the above limitations, it seems plausible to conducting longitudinal studies that track tourists’ behavior and perceptions over time would provide a more robust understanding of the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the cruise industry. This design would allow researchers to examine changes in service quality, customer satisfaction, and intentions to pay and revisit over the recovery period and beyond. Furthermore, complementing quantitative analysis with qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus groups, in a mixed-methods approach would provide richer insights into tourists’ experiences, perceptions, and motivations in the post-COVID-19 cruise industry. Future studies could also explore additional variables that may influence tourist behavior in the cruise industry post-COVID-19. For example, factors such as pricing strategies, safety measures, entertainment options, environmental sustainability, or destination marketing efforts could be incorporated to gain a more comprehensive understanding of tourists’ decision-making processes. Finally, while the relationships examined in the current study are well-established, future research could consider adopting alternative theoretical frameworks or models to analyze tourist behavior in the post-COVID-19 cruise industry. Exploring new theoretical perspectives may reveal novel insights and contribute to theoretical advancements in the field.

6. Conclusions and Future Implications

The quality of service affects the decision-making process of tourists as well as tourists’ loyalty and intention to pay more or repeat the visit. Therefore, understanding the nature of services provided is essential for measuring service quality and its dimensions effectively. In addition, the service industry must rely heavily on providing superior service quality to succeed in the long run. The current study reported an impact of different service quality dimensions on tourist satisfaction, corporate image, intention to pay more, and intention to revisit. The effect of the service quality dimensions was most notable on tourists’ satisfaction, followed by the intention to pay more, the intention to revisit, and, lastly, the corporate image. While not all the service quality aspects were significantly associated with each domain, the current findings show the importance of service quality dimensions on the tourist experience and satisfaction as well as impacting the different factors that affect tourism. The current study adds to the existing literature due to the scarcity of research papers that explore the relationship of each quality dimension with indicators for measuring competitiveness like satisfaction, corporate image, and others. Moreover, service quality has been understudied in Saudi Arabia when it comes to satisfaction and purchase intentions for non-profit organizations. Thus, the current study is important for the future vision of Saudi Arabia that involves massive movements and developments in the tourism sector.

Practically, the study’s findings emphasize the critical role of service quality in influencing tourists’ satisfaction and intentions. Cruise industry stakeholders can use this information to prioritize service quality improvements in areas identified as significant predictors of satisfaction and intentions, such as reliability, tangibles, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. Implementing training programs, investing in infrastructure and amenities, and adopting effective service delivery processes can help enhance service quality and ultimately improve customer experiences. It is also important to address the creation of personalized and engaging experiences for cruise tourists. Industry practitioners can utilize the findings to develop tailored offerings that cater to the diverse preferences and expectations of post-COVID-19 tourists. This may involve providing customized itineraries, innovative onboard activities, and interactive digital platforms that allow tourists to personalize their cruise experience. From another perspective, cruise companies should prioritize building a positive corporate image by consistently delivering high-quality services, fostering customer trust and loyalty, and demonstrating a commitment to health and safety measures.

Since tourism aspects are impacted by multiple direct and indirect factors, the findings will encourage more studies that further explore the impact of service quality dimensions on each factor separately using different quality models, to understand the impact on each factor, and suggest improvements that attract more tourists in the future. In addition, more studies should explore the effect of mediating variables like demographics on decision tourist decision making. When it comes to decision makers, the findings will help them to focus on improving tourists’ satisfaction by focusing on the interactions between tourists and employees, by focusing on service encounters and processes, and by focusing on the physical environment elements to attain the optimal service quality that customers expect. Customers’ intention to utilize cruise services in the post-COVID-19 period is contingent upon their trust in effective pandemic management. Notably, passengers prioritize financial and health management strategies over other relational-bonding approaches, recognizing their greater impact. Consequently, it is crucial for cruise operators to diligently implement comprehensive precautions before, during, and after cruise journeys to alleviate customer concerns [98]. From a managerial standpoint, it is evident that cruise companies will incur higher costs as a result of the new COVID-19 requirements [99]. Moreover, the reputation of cruise companies [100] and their communication efforts following a crisis [13] will play a pivotal role in the recovery of the cruise industry.