/Journal of Travel Rearch
/content/46/2/119The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0047287507304039
2007 46: 119Journal of Travel Rearch Haemoon Oh, Ann Marie Fiore and Miyoung Jeoung
Measuring Experience Economy Concepts: Tourism Applications
Published by:
On behalf of:
Travel and Tourism Rearch Association can be found at:
Journal of Travel Rearch Additional rvices and information for
/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
/subscriptions Subscriptions: /journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
/content/46/fs.html Citations:
Measuring Experience Economy Concepts:T ourism Applications
H AEMOON O H ,A NN M ARIE F IORE ,AND M IYOUNG J EOUNG
less by the elaborated physical characteristics of the site than by the powerful mental and emotional image or “pre-experi-ence”the tourist has for the expected experience at the desti-nation. Tourists flocked to the bridges of Madison County in rural Iowa to immer,at least temporarily,in the romantic fantasy involving the film’s two lovers more than to e the actual details of the bridge. In esnce,what tourists primar-ily ek and consume at destinations is engaging experiences accompanied by the goods and/or rvice components of the destinations. Hence,entire tourist destinations are beginning to be positioned as “experiences”(Richards 2001).
Experience has rved as a key construct in travel and tourism rearch as well as destination positioning. Central to MacCannell’s (1989) tourist experience,for example,is the tourist’s quest for an authentic experience; tourism des-tinations are viewed as a means to stage the authenticity that cannot be found in the tourist’s daily life. Searching for lf-identity as a tourist was an early classification criterion in the phenomenology of tourist experiences (Cohen 1979).The benefit chain of causality view of tourism motivations tends to position tourist experience as a construct that trans-forms destination ttings and activities into ultimate bene-fits and value that tourists obtain by visiting the destination (e Driver et al. 1987; H aas,Driver,and Brown 1980;Manning 1986). Similarly,
the hierarchical means-end
model of tourist experience is bad on the view that con-crete tourism activities are means to achieving abstract, intrinsic experiences (i.e.,the end) (Klenosky,Gengler,and Mulvey 1993). More recently,the nature of tourist experi-ence was the focus of analysis in understanding heritage tourism
behavior (Prentice,Witt,and H amer 1998) and destination-specific tourism motivations (Prentice 2004).
人民教师誓词Although experience has remained pivotal to tourism phenomenon and rearch,it has defied a unifying definition and operationalization. Prentice (2004) discusd veral cogent models of tourist motivations that are believed to shape the tourist’s experience,and concluded that the tourist’s experience and motivations are as diver as the characteristics of destinations and tourists. Whereas such a tourist- or destination-specific approach to understanding tourist motivation and experience may lead to enriched the-oretical expositions of tourist behavior,destination mar-keters are likely to find it uful to have available a generalized,theory-embedded framework for managing and benchmarking their offerings.
The prent rearch aimed to develop an initial mea-surement scale of tourists’destination lodging experiences, which may be modified to measure other types of tourist experience. To this end,Pine and Gilmore’s (1999; Gilmore and Pine 2002a,2002b) experience economy concepts (four realms of experience) were operationalized and tested using customers’lodging experience with rural bed-and-breakfasts (hereafter,B&B). Although Pine and Gilmore eloquently prented a practical,conceptual framework for understanding the nature of customer expe-rience in general,we have not found a corr
esponding mea-surement tool published. Adding to Pine and Gilmore’s perspectives on the experience economy,this study attempts to introduce relevant theoretical variables,such as arousal,memories,overall quality,and customer satisfac-tion,in an effort to test the predictive validity of guests’lodging experience for some important variables related to business success. Thus,this study rves two purpos:(1) to provide scales for measuring experience economy con-cepts and (2) to empirically test the predictive validity of experience economy concepts applied to the B&B lodging experience. Whereas the focus here is on B&B lodging experience,the scales were designed to be modifiable for application to other tourism ctors.
Guest experiences within the U.S. B&B industry pro-vided a desirable study tting for veral reasons. The nature of B&B accommodations is said to be highly experi-ential (McIntosh and Siggs 2005; Monty and Skidmore 2003). This specialist form of accommodation (Morrison et al. 1996) tends to offer guests unique opportunities to interact with local people,including the host,as well as pro-vide a n of hominess and novelty (Johnston-Walker 1999). Whereas recent rearch has indicated a rapid growth in demand for this nontraditional form of accommodations, further rearch is needed to fully understand the experien-tial aspects of the B&B accommodations (Johnston-Walker 1999; McIntosh and Siggs 2005; Zane 1997). Gilmore and Pine (2002b) ud lodging experi
孤立无援的意思ence,including B&B expe-rience,in anecdotal illustrations of experience economy concepts. Finally,lodging is an extension of the tourism experience,even if it may not be a primary motivating factor in travel decisions (McIntosh and Siggs 2005; Wight 1998).
THE EXPERIENCE ECONOMY
AND TOURISM
Tourism has principally been concerned with the tourist experience of visiting,eing,learning,enjoying,and living in a different mode of life (Stamboulis and Skayannis 2003). In this n,everything tourists go through at a destination can be experience,be it behavioral or perceptual,cognitive or emotional,or expresd or implied. To the stakeholders of tourism,such as tourists,destination marketers,local resi-dents,and policy makers,the nature and scope of the expe-rience offered by a destination and procesd by tourists determine the value of the destination. H ence,rearchers have emphasized understanding what the tourist experience is and how it is formed as a result of visiting a destination. The two-dimensional model of tourist values propod by Crick-Furman and Prentice (2000) exemplifies the nature of the tourist experience,whereas the “type”analysis by Uriely,Yonay,and Simchai (2002) and the analysis of bene-
fit determinants by Prentice,Witt,and Hamer (1998) reflect how the tourist experience was formed. Prentice (2004) also introduced two intrinsic motivation models,the romantic and mass tourism paradigms,to explain the diversity of tourist experiences by means of underlying tourist motiva-tions. As shown in the studies,it is indeed a challenging task to capture all elements experienced by a tourist at a des-tination in a conci measurement model for the purpo of asssing the performance or value of a destination.
Pine and Gilmore (1999; Gilmore and Pine 2002a, 2002b) propod the experience economy as an emerging paradigm for enhancing business performance across a wide range of industries,including tourism and hospitality. The experience economy concept has been introduced spo-radically to tourism rearch and it adds to the dimensions by which to interpret tourist experience (e.g.,Richards, 2001; Stamboulis and Skayannis 2003). Pine and Gilmore (1999,p. 12) defined experience from a business perspec-tive:“Experiences are events that engage individuals in a personal way”; but we surmi that they would define expe-rience from a consumer perspective as enjoyable,engaging, memorable encounters for tho consuming the events. According to Pine and Gilmore (1999),there are four realms (or dimensions) of experience differentiated by the level and form of customer involvement in business offer-ings,as depicted in Figure 1. Along the customer
participa-tion axis,passive participation of the customer in business (or destination) offerings characterizes the entertainment and esthetic dimensions,whereas educational and escapist dimensions reflect active participation. The tourist who passively participates in destination activities does not directly affect or influence the performance of the destina-tion (business),whereas an active participant will person-ally affect the performance or event that becomes part of his or her experience. Along the absorption-immersion axis, the tourist typically “absorbs”entertaining and educational offerings of a destination and “immers”in the destination environment resulting in esthetic or escapist experiences. Absorption in this context is defined as “occupying a person’s attention by bringing the experience into the mind”and immersion as “becoming physically (or virtu-ally) a part of the experience itlf”(Pine and Gilmore 1999,p. 31). Of cour,classifying tourist experiences into
120NOVEMBER 2007
the four dimensions bad on the two axes in Figure 1should not be adopted as a hard-and-fast rule becau,in reality,boundaries between the dimensions are often amor-phous. For instance,consider the conspicuous trend toward “edutainment”in managing science muums where educa-tional and entertainment experiences merge. However,each experience dimension standing alone is unique an
d con-tributes to the consummation of a destination experience,with an ideal combination of all four dimensions yielding an optimal tourist experience,according to Pine and Gilmore (i.e.,the sweet spot is Pine and Gilmore’s term for the optimal experience in Figure 1).
With educational experiences,a tourist absorbs the events unfolding before him at a destination,while actively partici-pating through interactive engagement of the mind and/or the body. Typically,tourists increa their skills and knowledge,either general or specific,through educational experiences at the destinations they visit. For instance,visitors to an art fes-tival may learn the historical background of knitting and weaving prented in various ways (brochures,conversations with the artist,etc.) and may increa their skills by trying to weave on a simple loom following the artist’s instructions.Some tourist destinations are designed exclusively for creat-ing an educational experience. Parents and children visiting the Living H istory Farm in Iowa are educated about 300years of farming history and attend demonstrations of histor-ical farm skills,such as rope making,spinning,weaving,wood carving,and chair caning. Thus,to truly create an edu-cational experience,a tourist must increa his knowledge and/or skills through educational events that actively engage the mind (for intellectual education) and/or the body (for physical training) (Pine and Gilmore 1999). Frequently,the educational experience of a trip has been measured to asss overall
tourist experiences with a target destination using such items as “I feel that I have learnt something of impor-tance”and “I have gained insight into ...”(e.g.,Prentice,
JOURNAL OF TRA VEL RESEARCH 121
Witt,and Hamer 1998). Prentice’s romantic paradigm (2004)points to tourists’intrinsic motivation to consume the extra-ordinary (i.e.,trip taking) as a means to lf-education and personal enlightenment.
In esthetic experiences,tourists enjoy being in the desti-nation environment without affecting or altering the nature of the environment prented to them. They passively appre-ciate,or are influenced by,the way the destination appeals to their ns,no matter the level of authenticity of the destination environment. Such experiences let them just be there. Many sighteing tourist activities reprent esthetic experiences. Tourists,for example,may come to Cape Cod just to enjoy the renity of the beach and rhythm of the Atlantic Ocean. The importance of the esthetic experience is well reflected in the concepts of rvicescape or atmospher-ics for rvices marketing (Bitner 1992; Lovelock and Wirtz 2004); that is,customers’patronage is highly influenced by the environmental characteristics of the business’physical tting and rvice. Hence,the esthetic experience is likely to be an important determinant of destination evaluations and the overall experience.
Entertainment provides one of the oldest forms of experi-ence and it is one of the most developed and pervasive in today’s business environment (Pine and Gilmore 1999).Much like the esthetic dime
nsion,entertainment requires that the offerings catch and occupy customers’attention and readiness. The entertainment experience occurs commonly when tourists passively obrve activities and/or perfor-mances of others,including listening to music and reading for pleasures at destinations. Watching and listening to an Elvis Presley impersonator singing at a local music festival or watching a clown ride a tall unicycle at an amument park are examples of the entertainment experience. Although some tourist experiences,such as a religious pilgrimage,may eschew entertainment offerings,in general they add to most destinations and enrich the experience. Although tourism rearchers have not been concerned specifically with program-oriented entertainment offerings at particular desti-nations,the entertainment experience has been measured as an outcome of a trip,as reflected in such measurement items as “fun”(e.g.,Crick-Furman and Prentice 2000).
The escapist experience requires greater immersion and participation than entertainment and educational experi-ences. Tourists participating in escapist experiences do not just embark from but also voyage to a specific place and participate in activities worthy of their time (Pine and Gilmore 1999). Escapist experience requires that the tourist affect actual performances or occurrences in the real or vir-tual environment. In general,tourism is a way for people to escape from their daily life and return to the routine after experiencing the extraordinary (i.e.,nonroutine life). The escapist experienc
e may be one of the most frequently listed or assumed motive in tourism rearch (e Prentice’s [2004] mass tourism paradigm). To Cohen (1979),a funda-mental reason for taking a trip was the arch for a mean-ingful life and/or for the lf center elwhere away from their daily life. To positive functionalists like Gross (1961),tourists’escape from their daily life is viewed as a “time-out”leisure activity that is necessary for healthy function-ing of their life and society. In contrast,Boorstin (1964) and MacCannell (1973) agree that people live inauthentic,alienated lives and occasionally escape such discontent lives in arch of an authentic,satisfying life during travels
to different cultures and countries. Tourists may want to escape their regular environments to suspend the power of norms and values that govern their ordinary lives or to think about their lives and societies from a different perspective (Turner 1973).
360p1路由器Despite its common inclusion as an important function of the destination in tourism rearch,the escapist experi-ence has not been clearly defined and measured for effective destination management. A clo look at the phenomenon of escape suggests that at least three components need to be considered for clear understanding. First,many people depart from their daily life just to distant themlves from the daily routines,no matter what the daily routines are, where they head,and what they do. They just want to get away. This type of escape centers on fleeing from or a个人经历范文
void-ing routines of daily life temporarily,taking a break,and returning refreshed and recreated. The cond type of escape is destination driven. People want to escape to a particular destination (the pull),regardless of their reasons to escape the daily life. They usually obtain an escapist experience bad on such a travel motivation. The third component of escape is tourists’active involvement in specific activities at the destination in which they become instrumental in orchestrating an escapist experience. In this mode,escaping the daily life and choosing a destination tend to become c-ondary decision issues as the tourist is motivated most by the opportunity to partake a different character or identity through active immersion in the target activities at the desti-nation. The getting-away,immersing-into-destination,and partaking-a-different-character components of escape imply different tourism behaviors and require different destination management approaches. All three are required in Pine and Gilmore’s approach to escapist experience applied to tourism.
Pine and Gilmore’s four realms of experience have recently been introduced to the tourism and hospitality liter-ature (e Gilmore and Pine 2002b; Stamboulis and Skayannis 2003). They provide a conceptual fit to the tourism context by encompassing various aspects of tourism experiences across different destinations. The four realms also offer practicality for destination management as they may be easily ud for destination evaluations. Nevertheless, most of Pine and Gilmore’s and o
ther rearchers’discus-sions on the experience economy have been largely concep-tual without providing scales for empirical measurement of the tourist experience. Given its potential ufulness for tourism rearch,general measurement scales of the experi-ence economy’s four realms of experience are needed for practical application as well as theoretical advancement.
政工人员Therefore, a practical goal in this study of tourist experiences was to develop measurement scales of tourist experiences that can satisfy the needs of two primary stake-holders:tourists and destination marketers. For both groups,measuring and understanding tourist experience is an important step toward enriching the value of a destina-tion becau such a process would provide feedback regard-ing destination management and performance. The prent study attempted to develop parsimonious scales and achieve a high level of both explanatory and predictive power. The measurement items of the scale were developed with careful consideration given to their level of abstraction or specificity (for related discussions,e Oh [2001] and Oh and Parks [1997]). In addition,the scales needed to offer a strong diagnostic ability for ea of u by destina-tion marketers.
THE EXPERIENCE ECONOMY IN THE
TOURISM DECISION PROCESS Becau Pine and Gilmore’s (1999) realms of experience focus on describing the goodness of destination offerings in four summary dimensions,it is uful to consider the poten-tial antecedents and conquences of the realms of experi-ence. In a general n,tourists are believed to hold personal values that permeate their life and that embed their choice of a specific destination and/or target tourist experi-ence (Madrigal and Kahle 1994). Such values,once directed at a specific target (i.e.,a trip to take),give ri to travel motives,which function as the “push”factor for the upcom-ing trip taking. Once travel motives coalesce,a t of rele-vant destinations is evoked along with the tourist’s attitude associated with each destination in the t. At this point,the expected value of the experience from a destination,known as the “pull”factor or travel motivation,often solidifies or weakens the tourist’s intention to choo the destination. Travel motives and motivations have been ud as key vari-ables for market gmentation studies on tourist experiences (e.g.,Loker-Murphy 1996; Prentice,Witt,and Hamer 1998).
Although tourism rearch on destination experiences has assumed that personal values were inextricably linked to tourist experiences,supporting empirical evidence is limited. Only a few rearchers have attempted to explicate how global person values reduce to perceptions of tourist experiences for a particular destination (e.g.,Klenosky, Gengler,and Mulvey 1993). Nonetheless,this
kind of person–environment relationship is argued to be unstable, inconsistent,and disconnected becau the environment (e.g.,the experience at a destination) is not a routine part of daily life for most people (Burningham and O’Brien 1994). Due to the infrequency of tourism experience in the life of most people,motive- or value-bad phenomenology of tourist experiences can be futile (Aitken and Bjorklund 1988). Moreover,values may not be considered as enduring through all activities of the person and,thus,tourist experi-ences may be driven instead by immediate goals and objec-tives of the tourist interacting with the focal environment or destination (Bagozzi and Warshaw 1990; Crick-Furman and Prentice 2000). Oh (2001) reasoned why a priori compari-son standards,such as expectations,importance,and personal values,often have little bearing on postexperience evalua-tions in the hospitality consumption context.嫉妒造句
In contrast,specific conquences of tourist experiences have drawn less rearch attention than the antecedents discusd above. While it is apparent that internalized bene-fits,such as mental or spiritual recreation,well-being,and fulfillment,may be long-term tourism benefits,more desti-nation- or individual travel-specific outcomes of the experi-ence have not been widely conceptualized,particularly in line with Pine and Gilmore’s conceptual framework. The rather transaction-oriented conquences are important for the sake of destination management becau t
大隋秦王hey provide travel marketers with not only diagnostic summary evalua-tions of destination offerings but also better understanding of the factors affecting the tourist’s future destination choice.
122NOVEMBER 2007
Pine and Gilmore (1999; Gilmore and Pine 2002a, 2002b) suggest that a well-staged experience leads to enhanced memory—that is,remembering a particular event—which will shape the tourist’s attitude toward the des-tination in a positive manner. They suggest practical strate-gies of offering tourists motifs or memorabilia to create vivid memories about the target-destination experience. At the heart of engineering Pine and Gilmore’s four realms of experience,therefore,is the creation of positive memories; fostering a memorable experience is esntial to a destina-tion’s ability to provide the four realms of experience. Memories involve both cognitive and affective readiness of relevant information both volitionally and involuntarily retrievable by the brain for specific purpos of information processing. Note that memories also tend to be strong when tourist experiences are disappointing. Negative destination experiences,such as critical rvice or product failures,will certainly lead to a vivid memory instilling a negative attitude toward the destination. In this n,memories are likely to act as an important filtering mechanism linking the experi-ence to other attitudinal outcomes of tourist experience.
Memories may be enhanced by the prence of nsorial experiences,as emotional events appealing to the ns tend to be remembered better than nonemotional events (Dolcos and Cabeza 2002). Sensorializing the target desti-nation to appeal to tourists’five ns is likely to result in additive effects on memories becau nsory-bad emo-tional information has privileged access to cognitive pro-cessing resources leading to stronger memory formation (Dolcos and Cabeza 2002; Pine and Gilmore 1999). One indicator of nsorial and/or emotive destination experi-ences is psychological arousal,which may be defined as the intensity of physiological respon to a stimulus on the con-tinuum from calmness to excitement. Coupled with its orthogonal,valence-impod unpleasantness–pleasantness dimension,the arousal dimension is known to render a mantic “circumplex”structure of affect (Bradley and Lang 1994; Feldman 1995; Mano and Oliver 1993; Rusll 1979, 1991). Arousal was found to create a positive halo effect in formation of attitudes immediately following evaluations (of a destination) (Bagozzi 1996; Eroglu,Machleit,and Davis 2003; Sanbonmatsu and Kardes 1988). Hence,given the fact that the experience economy framework mainly involves marketing actions of creating experiences that result in pos-itive memories,it is highly likely that the subquent (posi-tive) arousal will elicit positive evaluations.
冲刺业绩最牛口号In other rearch,perceived overall quality and customer (tourist) satisfaction have been ud as glo
bal evaluations immediately following a consumption experience or a des-tination visit (e Oh and Parks [1997] for a comprehensive review). Perceived quality is overall excellence of the target destination or experience (Zeithaml 1988),while customer satisfaction refers to the summary psychological state arising immediately from consumption experience (Oliver 1997). Together,overall quality and satisfaction can provide summary rational and emotional asssments of the focal destination experience (Oh 1999). Furthermore, satisfaction,which can be viewed as a main precursor of purcha-related attitudes,is known to result from positive arousal and affect after consuming both utilitarian and hedonic experiences (e Mano and Oliver 1993; Oliver, Rust,and Varki 1997; V oss,Spangenberg,and Grohmann 2003).
In esnce,experience of a destination involves all events,and activities offered to tourists become the source of value and evaluations for the destination. From a stand-point of the tourist decision-making process,the way tourists perceive a destination experience may be linked to prepurcha decision parameters,such as values,motives, and attitudes,although some rearchers have argued (as discusd earlier) that the link is not tenable. The experience staged at a destination is likely to result in strong (positive) memories,corresponding psychological arousal,positive perceptions of overall destination quality,and eventually tourist satisfaction. It should be noted,however,that due to t
he empirical nature of the relationships between the four realms of experience and the four propod conquences (i.e.,memory,arousal,perceived overall quality,and tourist satisfaction) the strength of the relationships may be contin-gent upon the destination’s thematic appeals. That is,certain destinations are staged intentionally to create an educational experience; in this ca,one should expect that the educa-tional performance of the destination accounts for more variance in the conquences than do the other three experience dimensions. The level of measurement with the experience economy framework that focus on the overall level of destination performance should be noted as well, although destination-specific marketing efforts and/or programs can be implemented and measured within each dimension of the experience.
METHODS
To develop a measurement scale for Pine and Gilmore’s four realms of experience,a multiphad study was con-ducted with the B&B industry as the rearch tting. Pine and Gilmore (1999; Gilmore and Pine 2002a,2002b) recently offered the experience economy as an emerging framework to understand and evaluate experiential con-sumptions across various industries and products. The con-cept has both conceptual and practical relevance to the tourism industry,but its applicability is quite limited due to the abnce of empirical measurement scales. This multi-phad r
earch project cloly followed Churchill’s (1979) procedure for developing a multivariate measurement scale for marketing constructs and Gerbing and Anderson’s (1988) guidelines for establishing measurement reliabilities. This rearch was phad quentially in order of reviews of related literature; discussions of the concept’s applicability to destination management via a doctorate minar cour for a mester; extensive direct discussions with Pine and Gilmore,coupled with their review and feedback on this study’s conceptualization and methods; a qualitative study for initial scale item generation; an investment need study with target B&B owners or operators; and a field survey with B&B guests.
This article reports major findings from the initial scale development efforts that include the preliminary qualitative study and,mainly,the B&B guest survey. Part of the invest-ment needs asssment study with the B&B owner/operators are ud to corroborate findings about the relative impor-tance of the four realms of experience. The B&B industry was ud for this pilot scale development study becau of its industry-wide marketing focus on the niche of experien-tial lodging and its rising managerial interests not only as a
JOURNAL OF TRA VEL RESEARCH123
