Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 1367–1386, 20110160-7383/$ - see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2011.03.009www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

EXPLORING THE ESSENCE OFMEMORABLE TOURISM EXPERIENCES

Vincent Wing Sun TungJ. R. Brent Ritchie

University of Calgary, Canada

Abstract: The concept of the tourism experience has become a focal point for current tour-ism research and management. While academic studies are increasingly examining tourism asa function of memorable experiences (ME), more research most be done to uncover theessence of what exactly makes certain experiences special, spectacular, and fittingly, memo-rable. This study sought to explore the essence of MEs based on research from the field ofpsychology, with a view to understanding the cognitive processes that impede individualsfrom paying attention to their experiences, as well as the conceptual processes of memory for-mation and retention. In-depth interviews revealed four key dimensions of MEs: affect, expec-tations, consequentiality and recollection. Finally, we propose several avenues for future researchon MEs. Keywords: memorable experience, tourism experience, psychology, memory,grounded theory. � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

INTRODUCTION

A recent editorial by the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journalof Hospitality Management has driven home perhaps the most funda-mental characteristic of the phenomenon we call ‘‘tourism’’; namely,the delivery of positive experiences to tourists. Pizam has gone one stepfurther, when he stated that ‘‘creating memorable experiences is theessence and the raison d’etre of the hospitality industry’’ (2010, p.343). Given the importance that foregoing statement attributes tomemorable experiences (ME) in hospitality and tourism, it is encour-aging that previous research has been done to provide an in-depthunderstanding of this key concept. For example, Gunter (1987) iden-tified a variety of properties common to leisure experiences based onwritten reports of MEs. Additionally, research has commonlyconsidered tourists’ positive MEs with outcome factors such as revisit-ing a destination and spreading positive word-of-mouth (Woodside,Caldwell, & Albers-Miller, 2004). Managerially, destination management

Vincent Wing Sun Tung is a Ph.D. candidate at the Haskayne School of Business, Universityof Calgary (Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Email <[email protected]>). His main researchinterests include tourism experiences, destination management, and cross-cultural market-ing. J.R. Brent Ritchie is the holder of the University of Calgary’s Professorship in TourismManagement. His main research interests include memorable experiences, destinationcompetitiveness, tourism policy, planning and development.

1367

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.03.009

1368 V.W.S. Tung, J.R.B. Ritchie / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 1367–1386

organizations have credited the delivery of MEs as fundamental to com-petitiveness and sustainability (Ritchie & Crouch, 2003).

Despite the widespread focus and acknowledgement of the impor-tance of MEs, more research must be done to uncover the specific ele-ments—that is, the essence—of what exactly makes certain experiencesspecial, spectacular, and fittingly, memorable. For instance, althoughmany studies have examined memory as the outcome of experiences,what exactly are the basic building blocks of memory itself? Further-more, what are the triggers for those memories and the conceptualunderpinnings that facilitate the formation and retention of thoseexperiences? What are the methodological challenges in memory re-search? Managerially, how can industry practitioners facilitate tourismexperiences that are particularly memorable?

It was with these concerns in mind that we pursued the followingobjectives. In the present study, we began by summarizing the wealthof literature on tourism experiences. This is divided into three sub-sections: first, research on tourism authenticity is explored as weconsidered this area as an appropriate entry point into tourism experi-ences given its prominence as a reoccurring theme in the last severaldecades. Next, scholarship on satisfactory tourism experiences is dis-cussed as we deemed it to have initiated considerable academic interestin many other facets of the experience literature. Finally, the link be-tween management and experiences is described with a focus on indus-try applications.

In the next part of this study, extant literature on MEs is examinedfrom a psychological standpoint. We began with an investigation of thelink between tourism experiences and memory in the context of vari-ous research and methodological considerations (i.e., storytellingand memory-work). Next, we examined core psychology on mindless-ness which provides a foundational basis in understanding the cogni-tive processes that impede individuals from paying attention to theirexperiences. Finally, we explored the conceptual underpinnings ofautobiographical memory—its formation processes and factors that af-fect memory retention.

By integrating research in psychology with our understanding oftourism experiences, we sought to understand the essence of what con-stitutes an experience that is especially memorable, and to ultimatelyconsider the difficult, yet highly important issue of how to facilitateMEs. While there is currently no consensus in the academic literatureas to the exact definition of tourism experiences, many scholars haveprovided insights into various definitional components. For example,Pine and Gilmore (1998) focused on the emotional, physical, spiritual,and intellectual impressions that are felt by individuals during anevent. Clawson and Knetsch (1966) incorporated the influences andpersonal outcomes that begin before the trip and after the tourist re-turns from the destination. Still, others focused on the roles of authen-ticity (Wang, 1999) and serendipitous moments (Cary, 2004). Inconsideration of these different definitional approaches, in this study,we defined tourism experiences as:

V.W.S. Tung, J.R.B. Ritchie / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 1367–1386 1369

‘‘An individual’s subjective evaluation and undergoing (i.e., affective,cognitive, and behavioural) of events related to his/her tourist activ-ities which begins before (i.e., planning and preparation), during(i.e., at the destination), and after the trip (i.e., recollection).’’

We further assert that the central role of tourism planners is to:

‘‘Facilitate the development of an environment (i.e., the destination)that enhances the likelihood that tourists can create their own mem-orable tourism experiences.’’

In brief, it is our view that due to the highly personal nature of thetourism experience, destination managers cannot directly deliver MEsto tourists since individuals recall experiences subjectively and un-iquely even though tourism planners may have provided objectivelyequivalent services, events, and activities. Thus, it is our goal to under-stand the underlying essence of MEs so that tourism planners can en-hance the probability of delivering to tourists those experiences that arespecial, cherished and truly memorable.

Literature Review

The trigger for widespread interest in the tourism experience litera-ture—and more specifically, authentic experiences—can be traced tothe early works of Boorstin, MacCannell, and Cohen. The quest to-wards understanding authentic experiences began when Boorstin(1964) first condoled of the ongoing loss of real travel due to thegrowth of mass tourism and tourists’ appetite and satisfaction for pseu-do-events. MacCannell, recognizing the role of the industry, sympa-thized for tourists and explained that while, ‘‘tourists make bravesorties out from their hotels hoping, perhaps, for an authentic experi-ence,. . .their paths can be traced in advance over small increments ofwhat is for them increasingly apparent authenticity proffered by touristsettings’’ However, his view was that tourists are not easily satisfied byexplicitly contrived events, but rather, were in a ‘‘search for authentic-ity of experiences’’ (1973, p. 589) by pointing out that ‘‘the concernsof moderns for the shallowness of their lives and inauthenticity of theirexperiences parallels concerns for the sacred in primitive society’’(1973, pp. 589–590). Cohen, although supportive of MacCannell’smain position towards authentic experiences, argued that authenticityis fluid, or emergent, as cultures and societies change over time unlikethe static, primitive state that MacCannell implied. Cohen (1979) tookanother approach to understanding the tourism experience using aphenomenology perspective and explained that travel motivations inand of itself do not fully describe the experience-seeking behavioursof tourists. He defined a tourism experience as the relationship be-tween people and their total world-view dependent on the locationof their centre with respect to the society to which they belonged.

In an effort to move the tourism field beyond the sole boundaries ofauthenticity of toured objects, Wang (1999) posited existential authen-ticity as tourist experiences are not based on objects, but rather on the


personal feelings involved in activities. This conceptualization has beenpraised with shifting the study of authenticity from toured objects toauthenticity as a function of the self (Kim & Jamal, 2007). However,as Cohen (2010) observed, some scholars have begun to argue thatthe concepts of existential authenticity and identity overlap with re-gards to notions of self, and as a result, the utility of authenticity inunderstanding tourism experiences is questionable (Olsen, 2007).Cutler and Carmichael argued that ‘‘authenticity is understood as onlybeing involved in the tourist experience if this is what is being soughtfrom the experience’’ (2010, p. 14). Nevertheless, scholars who sup-port the concept of authenticity explain that improved linkages ofthe concept to other themes in tourism will solidify its prominence.For instance, research that integrates the concepts of existentialauthenticity and mindlessness in relation to tourists’ storytelling ispromising (Pearce, 2007). In light of this view, further discussion onstorytelling and mindlessness are presented in the following sections.

Satisfactory Experiences

Our understanding of satisfaction is commonly examined as the out-come of tourism experiences. A satisfactory experience can be per-ceived as ‘‘the congruence of need and performance’’ whiledissatisfaction may be expressed as ‘‘the gap between expectationand experience’’ (Ryan, 1997). According to Ryan, tourism plannersmust moderate the level of risk at a destination through risk avoidanceor enhancement policies in an attempt to satisfy tourists’ motivations.This observation is in agreement with Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) con-cept of flow which emphasizes the balance between the perceived chal-lenges and risk of the task, and an individual’s perceived level of skillfor the task. An optimal level of flow will bring intense satisfactionmarked by ‘‘a sense of exhilaration, a deep sense of enjoyment thatis long cherished and that becomes a landmark in memory for what lifeshould be like’’ (1990, p. 3).

The challenge for tourism practitioners is to influence tourists’ atti-tudes and then correctly conceptualize and measure a satisfactoryexperience once it is understood. Many models that measure and pre-dict tourist satisfaction is founded on the early work of Noe (1987)based on the concepts of expressive and instrumental attributes.Expressive indicators involve the act of the experience itself (e.g.,swimming) while instrumental indicators act as facilitators towardsachieving that experience (e.g., pool) (Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Instru-mental factors, which are related to cognitive attributes, create dissatis-faction if they are absent (Mang, Tepanon, & Uysal, 2008) whileexpressive factors, which are more related to emotions, contribute tosatisfaction as they reflect the importance of emotions in memoryand event recollection (Coghlan & Pearce, 2010). In this sense, satisfac-tion is an attitude which embraces affective, cognitive and behaviouralelements (Pearce, 2005). In a recent study by Uysal and Noe (2003),the authors investigated the indicators of satisfaction in an outdoor


recreation and tourism setting, and concluded that both instrumentaland expressive factors collectively, as well as independently, contributeto overall tourist satisfaction.

Within the marketing realm, Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) con-trasted the prevailing view—at that time (the information processingmodel) —with an experiential view. They argued that satisfaction isone component of experiences in addition to the hedonic, symbolicand aesthetic nature of experiential consumption. Following this lead,Otto & Richie, 1995) examined satisfaction of tourism service experi-ences and asserted that different levels of overall satisfaction was dueto subjective, emotional and highly personal responses to various as-pects of the service delivery. Although Jennings and Nickerson(2006) have provided the most comprehensive assessment of and in-sights into the satisfactory quality experiences to date, there is no cur-rent consensus as to the definition of what constitutes ‘quality.’ Qualitycontinues to be used in a variety of contexts within the tourism litera-ture each denoting different associations (e.g., quality with respect todestination auditing). Nevertheless, the most prevalent relationshipis the connection of service quality to satisfaction (Ekinci, Riley, &Chen, 2001). Finally, Arnould and Price (1993) in their research ofwhite water rafting experience, revealed three key dimensions of anextraordinary experience: communion with nature, communitas withfriends, family and even strangers, and personal growth and renewalof self. These three themes are together significant in explaining over-all, positive satisfaction.

Managing Memorable Experiences

From a managerial standpoint, the landmark work by Pine andGilmore (1998) ignited widespread interest into a new managementparadigm which emphasizes the transition from service delivery toexperience creation. The motivation to design and stage MEs stemfrom the focus that an experience is subjectively felt by an individualwho is engaged with an event on an emotional, physical, spiritual,and/or intellectual level. The authors defined four realms of experi-ences: entertainment, educational, esthetic, and escapist. Pine andGilmore (1998) noted that escapist experiences involve ‘‘greater cus-tomer immersion. . .both active participation and immersion in theexperience’’ (p. 102). This coincides with Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990)concept of the flow experience as well as Cary’s (2004) descriptionof the serendipitous moment as the moment ‘‘that simultaneously pro-duces and erases the tourist-as-subject’’ (p. 63). Once this momentpasses and tourists ‘‘feel that they themselves have little or no effecton their experience. . .like a tourist who merely views the GrandCanyon from its rim’’, the escapist moment will transform into anesthetic experience (Pine & Gilmore, 1998, p. 102).

Pine and Gilmore (1998) provided five key points for which theycalled experience-design principles: theme the experience, harmonizeimpressions with positive cues, eliminate negative cues, mix in


memorabilia, and engage all five senses. Encouragingly, other scholarsand institutions studying tourism experiences have followed in theirfootsteps albeit with their own design principles. For example, in astudy by Morgan (2006), the author indicated that tourist’s positiveMEs were likely to come from abundant choices, moments of amaze-ment, shared experiences, fringes at the heart (i.e., informal eventsthat amaze tourists as much as the main event), local distinctiveness,and positive values (i.e., individuals must feel that their activities areworthwhile). From an institutional perspective, the Canadian TourismCommission (2004) investigated how a country might create MEs in or-der to fully engage tourists and increase customer loyalty. The reportfocused on four main points: first, the roles of tour guides in facilitat-ing MEs; second, the presence of local specialists who connect touristswith the local community; third, the element of surprise—positive andnegative, planned and spontaneous; and fourth, free time and flexibil-ity to allow for tourists’ self-discoveries.

Memories and Experiences

Following the foregoing discussion, it is now appropriate to turn ourattention to the link between memory and experiences. This link is notnew; as Cutler and Carmichael (2010) noted, this link dates back toearly work in environmental psychology (Fridgen, 1984). Since then,scholars have investigated the influences of tourism experiences withrespect to cognitive (Pearce & Foster, 2007), affective (Noy, 2004)and psychomotor (Arnould & Price, 1993) changes at the individual-level.

Many studies have centered on the interpretation of experiencesthrough the concept of narratives. Narratives, defined as ‘‘knowledgestructures that consist of a sequence of thematically and temporally re-lated events’’ subsume storytelling, the ‘‘anecdotes that have a begin-ning, a plot and an end’’ (Adaval & Wyer, 1998, p. 208). Storytellinghas emerged as a prominent type of narrative designed to directly ana-lyze consumers’ memories of their experiences (Woodside, 2010). AsSchank (1999) described, human memory is script-based, and individ-uals often fit interpretations of their experiences into stories. In thetourism literature, storytelling has been used to analyze stories andthemes in an interpretative setting (Moscardo, 2010). For instance,researchers often prompt participants to recall specific types of experi-ences (e.g., backpacking) in order to investigate the effects of the expe-rience on self-identity (Desforges, 2000), or on the role of tourismdevelopments such as service quality (Obenour, Patternson, Pedersen,& Pearson, 2006).

The importance of storytelling in understanding tourist experiencescan be attributed to several factors. According to Moscardo (2010),tourists create stories during their experiences and then present thesestories to others as memories of their trip. Additionally, stories told byothers (e.g., service staff that tourists interact with) affect the overalldestination’s brand (Hollenbeck, Peters, & Zinkham, 2008). As a


result, destination management should support the design and crea-tion of consistent tourist experience stories and themes (Pine & Gil-more, 1998). Furthermore, storytelling shapes memories andimpressions of events over time (McGregor & Holmes, 1999). Storiesare stored in and retrieved from one’s episodic memory and specificindices of stories such as the location and individuals involved in theexperience are not only the ‘touch points’ of narratives (Woodside,2010), but they are also the event-specific knowledge of episodic mem-ories which are the basic elements of memory formation (Conway &Pleydell-Pearce, 2000). Overall, it is in our view that storytelling actsto both consolidate and recover experiences from memory, and anappreciation of storytelling provides listeners with a deeper understand-ing of the intricate lives of storytellers and truly empowers researcherswith a heightened sense of awareness for details in these stories.

Memory-work

Since the late 80s, many scholars have expressed frustration in thelack of methodological developments in tourism research and havechampioned for a more critical assessment of traditional researchapproaches (Dann, Nash, & Pearce, 1988). Traditionally, tourismresearch has been studied by structured surveys, travel diaries, struc-tured or unstructured interviews, and observant participation (Volo,2010). More recently, experience research has been extended to utilizethe experiential sampling method (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) and mem-ory-work (Small, 1999).

In consideration of the many specific challenges associated withmemory research, the memory-work method has garnered consider-able academic interest as an appropriate method to investigate sociallyconstructed and culturally embedded phenomenon (Thomsen &Hansen, 2009). Although memory-work originated from an analysisof social constructions from a feminist theory perspective (Haug,1987), it is now generally used to examine and identify consumers’ pat-terns of experiences (Markula & Friend, 2005). Memory-work usesmemories as the initial data as ‘‘the underlying theory is that subjectivesignificant events, events which are remembered, and the way they aresubsequently constructed, play an important part in the constructionof self’’ (Crawford, Kippax, Onyx, Gault, & Benton, 1992, p. 37). Thisqualitative method stresses the active participation of the individual,the collapse of the barriers between subject and object of research,and the elimination of the hierarchy between experimenter and sub-ject such that the researcher becomes a member of the research groupand involves participants as co-researchers (Small, 1999). The result is acollective reflection, examination, and interpretation of memories(Crawford et al., 1992).

Despite the merits of memory-work, some scholars have, nonethe-less, expressed concerns with its shortcomings. First, there are limitsto generalizability since participant memories are constructed withina specific social context; thus, generalizations are limited to the level


of suggestion (Small, 1999). Second, memory-work can induce tensionfor both participants and researchers due to the power/powerless par-adox of researchers especially when participants are not met as equals(e.g., due to relative age, occupational status) (Cadman et al., 2007).Third, the procedural requirements of memory-work requires a consid-erable amount of time and commitment on the part of participants asthey are required to write elaborate, literary accounts of their memo-ries over-and-above a simple, basic description (Small, 1999). Despitethese criticisms, however, it is in our view that recognition of mem-ory-work is crucial in appreciating the methodological challenges asso-ciated with performing tourism experience research.

Following the foregoing discussion, we now examine the triggers formemory as well as the conceptual underpinnings that facilitate the for-mation and retention of memory based on psychology on mindless-ness-mindfulness and autobiographical memory.

Mindlessness-Mindfulness

The concept of mindlessness is a major theoretical development insocial cognition that has been applied in tourism research (Moscardo& Pearce, 1986). Mindlessness is ‘‘a single-minded reliance on informa-tion without an active awareness of alternative perspectives or alterna-tive uses to which the information could be put’’ (Langer, Hatem, Joss,& Howell, 1989, p. 140), When mindless, individuals ‘‘act like automa-tons who have been programmed to act according to the sense ourbehaviour made in the past, rather than the present’’ (Langer,2000). Familiarity and repetition, as well as premature cognitive com-mitments (e.g., stereotypes) substantiate mindlessness and impedeindividuals from paying attention to their experiences (Langer,1989). Thus, a mindless individual will not see the surrounding situa-tion as a new source of information (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000).The contrast to mindlessness is mindfulness, ‘‘a state of mind that re-sults from drawing novel distinctions, examining information fromnew perspectives, and being sensitive to context. . .[recognition] thatthere is not a single optimal perspective, but many possible perspec-tives on the same situation’’ (Langer, 1993, p. 44). Mindfulness is afunction of novelty, surprise, and variety, and gives individuals powerover their behaviours especially in situations where they feel that theyhave an opportunity to learn, control and exert influence (Langer &Piper, 1988).

Many studies in tourism have suggested using mindfulness as a toolfor managing tourist experiences at a destination (Frauman &Norman, 2004). For example, an emotion-mindfulness link exists—Moscardo (1988) observed that visitors spend longer and understandan exhibition better if there are emotion-eliciting exhibits on display.Additionally, mindfulness is associated with greater learning and satis-faction within a recreation-based setting; for example, visitors are moresatisfied from an educational experience if they are presented informa-tion (Moscardo, 1999). Overall, cues such as new or existing objects or


sources of information (e.g., signs, brochures, displays, and pamphlets)must be present in an environment in order to induce a mindful expe-rience (Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000). If an environment does not facil-itate a mindful experience, an individual’s state of mind will becharacterized by disengagement and inattentiveness (Langer, 1989).

Memory Formation and Retention

Autobiographical memory is defined as the recollection of experi-ences from one’s own life (Piolino, Desgranges, Benali, & Eustache,2002). There is an important distinction between the more generalclassification, episodic memory, and autobiographical memory. Auto-biographical memory is considered a specialized subset of episodicmemory due to the amount of self-referencing involved; that is, whilegeneral episodic memory can have a large proportion of referencingthat involves others, autobiographical memory primarily concernsknowledge of the self in the past (Baumgartner, Sujan, & Bettman,1992).

Autobiographical memory has been researched in many functionalareas of psychology such as cognitive, social, developmental, and neu-ropsychology. One of the more prominent models describing the fea-tures of autobiographical memories has been suggested by Conway andPleydell-Pearce (2000). In this model, autobiographical memories havethree main components: lifetime periods, general events, and event-specific knowledge (ESK). Lifetime periods form the basis of time withidentifiable beginnings and endings albeit these periods are often va-gue rather than discrete. For instance, individuals may reflect on theirmemories as ‘‘when I was five years old’’ or ‘‘during the time when Iwas in England.’’ General events encompass both single (e.g. trip toMexico) and repeated (e.g. daily strolls in the park) events linked to-gether by a common theme. Often referred to as mini-histories of activ-ities, general events represent vivid memories where an initialrecollection of a memory can cue the recall of a second, third, etc.memory forming an event cluster. The indexing of these general eventclusters form ESK which is based upon the recollection of highly spe-cific single details. For example, precise details could entail the actualwords spoken by a tourist during a service encounter. Storing numer-ous ESKs is cognitively demanding and links to general event structuresare lost rapidly unless they are rehearsed.

The formation and recall of autobiographical memory is a non-uniform process that is influenced by the demographic backgroundof an individual. Several critical elements are gender, age, and stageof the lifecycle. In a study by Pillemer, Wink, DiDonato, and Sanborn(2003), the researchers found that women frequently recollected morespecific life episodes than men. Women recalled more positive and un-ique events, rated their autobiographical memories as more vivid, andassigned higher importance to their experiences. With regards to age,Hamond and Fivush (1991) studied children’s memories of their tour-ism experience to Disneyland at 37 and 49 months of age. While all of


the children recounted a large amount of information about theirDisneyland experience, the authors found that older children re-counted more specific details of their Disneyworld experience thanyounger children. Finally, with regards to stage of lifecycle, Falk andDierking (1990) investigated the memories of museum professionalsin their young adulthood and found they often revealed the socialdimension of their experience (e.g. who they were with, what theydid together) as the most memorable aspect of their trip.

Study Methods

To achieve our study objectives, in-depth interviews were conductedbased on a series of open-ended questions aimed at capturing the def-inition and dimensions of MEs. These questions were initially derivedfrom the interview guide by Anderson and Shimizu (2007) in theirstudy of memory episodes from past World Exhibitions. The questionswere then examined by three expert academic judges from marketing,strategic management, and human resources. These judges providedcomments as to their wording and appropriateness. Based upon the re-ceived feedback, a revised set of questions was produced. The interviewguide was subsequently pre-tested with a sample of respondents(N = 30) to ensure that all the questions were clear and understand-able. The final version of the guide was obtained after taking into con-sideration the feedback from the pre-test sample.

The interviewer ensured that the questions were asked in aspecific order as an answer to a previous question could affect theresponse of the next. For example, respondents were first asked toprovide in detail an account of their ME. Next, they were askedto identify the factors they felt contributed to their ME. Finally, theywere asked to provide their own definition of what they thought aME entailed. If respondents were asked to define a ME first andthen to describe their memory of it, their recollections may bebiased in order to fit the definition they just provided. In additionto the open-ended questions, respondents were also asked to pro-vide general demographic information (e.g. age, gender, nationality,and marital status).

Data was gathered from respondents at a large Canadian university.The snowball sampling technique was used in an effort to obtain rep-resentation from individuals of various backgrounds. Respondentswere asked to provide contact information for up to five people whothey felt would be interested in sharing their MEs. The advantages ofthe snowball sampling technique includes penetration into a popula-tion which may be difficult to access, avoidance of experimenter selec-tion bias, and experimental ease of collecting data (Jackson, White, &Schmierer, 1996). The in-depth interviews were approximately 30 min-utes in length and were conducted in a quiet, private space (e.g., meet-ing room) in order to provide a thought-encouraging environment.Other respondents who could not be physically interviewed were inter-viewed via telephone.


A grounded theory approach was used to identify the dimensionsunderlying MEs. Grounded theory is an inductive, qualitative researchmethod that focuses on data depth and quality (Glaser & Strauss,1967). This was completed in three major stages. First, the interviewtranscript was coded using a data reduction process (Glaser & Strauss,1967). This process is valuable to qualitative researchers with mass dataor multiple cases, and involves moving from mass descriptive codes tofewer, conceptually abstract codes. Each time a word or phrase ap-peared that was indicative of a single concept (e.g. ‘‘self-discovery,’’‘‘spending time with friends’’) it was recorded. A word or phrase wasdeemed to indicate a single concept if it contained similar reference;for example, the concept of ‘‘spontaneity’’ could be captured by thephrase ‘‘participated in an unplanned activity,’’ or simply by the word‘‘spontaneous.’’ Second, a qualitative research software, NVivo 8, wasused to classify, sort and arrange the data. One of the main strengthsof the software is its ability to allow a researcher to develop dimensionsor sub-dimensions at any time during the analysis process, and to pro-vide the researcher with the flexibility to reduce, alter or enhance thedimensions whenever necessary. However, NVivo does not develop thetheory itself; rather, it is a tool that reduces administrative time spenton physically organizing data and allows researchers to focus theirattention on data analysis and theory development. The utilization ofsoftware for qualitative study increases the rigor of data analysis as deci-sion rules are explicitly shown in the software itself, thus, reducing lo-gistic errors in the dissemination of data that accompanies manualanalysis (Crowley, Harre, & Tagg, 2002). Third, the descriptive codeswere reduced to interpretative themes according to whether they werequalitatively similar or dissimilar in character (Miles & Huberman,1994). Although the iterative process of checking the codes against cat-egories used in extant research provided helpful validation of the sim-ilarities of the themes with prior literature, the authors were vigilant,however, of the need to remain open to the data in order to allowfor theoretical concepts to emerge rather than through preconceivedhypotheses from the literature (Hsu, Cai, & Wong, 2007).

The total sample consisted of 208 respondents (i.e., 110 females and98 males) and the ages ranged from 18 to over 80 years old, with themajority between the ages of 18 and 34. Over 60% of the intervieweeswere single and all had moderate to extensive tourism experiencesfrom a combination of business, leisure, and visiting friends andrelatives.

RESULTS

Four dimensions were identified which represents aspects of experi-ences that enable them to be particularly memorable. They are affect,expectations, consequentiality, and recollection.

With regards to affect, positive emotions and feelings associated withthe experiences (such as ‘‘happy/happiness’’ and ‘‘excited/excite-ment’’) were described by the majority of the respondents as a critical


component of their ME. Negative MEs were seldom recalled. Amongthe negative words elicited, the responses covered a range of emotionsincluding ‘‘fear,’’ ‘‘anger,’’ and ‘‘frustration.’’ After describing anemotion, respondents often provided more details of their tourismexperiences to support their claims. This was reflected in their per-sonal definitions of a ME as they often alluded to the significance ofthe emotion, such as: ‘‘an indescribable experience that flushes youremotions whenever you recall,’’ and ‘‘one with very good or bad expe-riences or one with a very happy or sad experiences.’’ Research hasshown that positive affect widens the scope of attention and increaseshappiness as well as psychological growth (Fredrickson & Branigan,2005). It also broadens exploratory behaviour and creates learningopportunities that confirm or correct initial expectations (Fredrickson,2001). Furthermore, positivity produces more accurate knowledgewhich becomes a lasting personal resource (Fredrickson & Losada,2005).

Expectations were reflected in responses made specifically about thefulfillment of intentions and/or descriptions of surprises encounteredduring the trip that was above and beyond tourists’ planned agendas.Many respondents conveyed planning for the trip prior to departureand explained that their expectations were often influenced by informa-tion from third parties such as tour operators, and family and friends whohave told them stories about their experiences at the destination. Still,other respondents simply suggested that their expectations were per-sonally envisaged; that is, based on a basic understanding of the desti-nation, they imagined the mix of activities they would participate in andthe level of comfort at the accommodation, for example. Many respon-dents did not emphasize any deliberate efforts taken to research or in-quire about the destination. A possible explanation for the vaguenessof expressed expectations is that tourists may have a desire to preservethe spontaneity or uniqueness of experiences (Abrahams, 1986) be-cause they do not wish to ruin the ‘surprise factor’ of their tourismexperience with pre-conceived expectations. In addition, tourists maybe motivated to imagine what their trip will be like in a general senseas expressed by this respondent: ‘‘experiencing Africa and everything ithad to offer’’—but ill-equipped to construct specific images (Arnould& Price, 1993).

During the trip, many respondents expressed gratitude that theirplans were fulfilled and/or expectations exceeded. Only a few unfortu-nate tourists described disappointment as they ‘‘felt that it wasted[their] vacation time.’’ After respondents stated the intentions of theirtrip, they often followed-up with a conclusion which discussed whetherthose expectations were met. More interesting, however, is the notionof unexpected surprises. Many described their MEs as having experi-ences that were beyond their expectations; that is, they experiencedevents that they did not plan for in their pre-trip agenda. For example,one respondent described: ‘‘unexpectedly, my return flight home wasserviced by same flight attendants and all of them [were] dying to findout how my new grandchild was and how [the] visit went.’’ This findingsupports a previous study by the Canadian Tourism Commission


(2004) which highlighted the importance of surprise as an integralpart of MEs. The intensity of positive surprises also influences word-of-mouth and overall satisfaction (Vanhamme, 2000).

Consequentiality refers to responses that suggested some sort of per-sonally perceived importance from the outcome of the trip. Thisdimension includes four main sub-dimensions—enhancing social rela-tionships, intellectual development, self-discovery, and overcomingphysical challenges. In the first sub-dimension, social development,respondents noted that it was the outcome of the interaction with oth-ers during the trip that was a significant factor in their MEs. This in-cluded improvements in current friendships, development of newfriendships, and increased appreciation of family and relatives. To clar-ify, the interaction component itself (e.g. trip with friends) is not theimportant element in a ME; that is, a ME is not merely visiting a desti-nation with family and friends. For example, in our lifetime, we oftenvisit numerous destinations with fellow tourists but the sole notion ofcompanionship does not make that trip especially memorable. Theinteraction component is the enabler of social development, which isa consequence of the interaction during the experience. Table 1 pro-vides examples of the social development sub-dimension by separatingthe interaction component from the consequence of that interaction.

The second sub-dimension, intellectual development, represents theacquisition of new knowledge of the destination. It involved many ref-erences such as learning the history, local culture, way-of-life, naturalphysiography, and language of the destination. Intellectual develop-ment at a novel destination was particularly frequent because almostevery aspect of the trip was a ‘‘fresh’’ and ‘‘an eye-opening, learningexperience.’’ This finding supports conclusions by a previous study

Table 1. Examples of Social Development

Context Example Interaction Consequence

Memory of trip withfiance in PuertoVallarta, Mexico

Argument that almost ruinedour relationship but at theend [we] worked out theproblem, and realized howmuch we loved each other.[A] pleasant outcome from aseemingly bad situation

With fiance Realized how muchthey loved eachother

Memory of trip withbest friends toCanmore, Alberta

This trip provided the feelingthat no one was watching usand no one unwanted waslistening to us. There was agreat deal of interpersonalbonding throughout the trip.This would not have beenpossible through a houseparty

With two bestfriends

Interpersonalbonding


of the extraordinary experience, where personal growth is ‘‘progressivemastery’’ and has elements of ‘‘feelings of awareness, achievement’’(Arnould & Price, 1993). The third sub-dimension, self-discovery, rep-resents permanent changes in respondents’ state of mind as a result oftheir tourism experience. They explained that their ME was: ‘‘an eyeopening experience that you learn more about the world and expandyour perspective in life. The memories of the experience will not disap-pear and will change the way you live your life’’. Also, it was ‘‘an expe-rience that emotionally affects your way of life that is a catalyst forchange and a transformation in beliefs.’’ The fourth sub-dimensionwas overcoming physical challenges. Respondents focused on a pro-gression in physical abilities by developing the skills and expertiseneeded to accomplish challenges during the trip. Others describedexperiences that challenged them physically such as ‘‘a tour to a placecalled Semuc Champey which included caving, tubing, hiking, cliff div-ing and swimming. It was physically stimulating, basically crazy [and]allowed me to do things I never have done before.’’

Finally, the fourth dimension of MEs, recollection, refers to statementsmade specifically about the efforts made and actions taken by respon-dents to remember the tourism experience and/or reflect back on thetrip. Responses contained numerous references to ‘‘telling stories,’’‘‘showing photographs,’’ and ‘‘purchasing souvenirs.’’ Additionally,respondents explained that they want to ‘‘re-experience the trip,’’and ‘‘go back and rebuild the memory.’’ More interesting however,is that these respondents often described their intention to revisit withindividuals who did not accompany them on their first trip; for exam-ple, many stated intentions to revisit with close friends or their signif-icant other since they experienced their original ME with family.Given our temporal definition of tourism experiences, recollectioninfluences mediation which exists throughout the experiential processand begins before, during, and after the trip. Meditation refers to thepeople and processes that facilitate the tourism experiences of otherindividuals (Tussyadiah & Fesenmaier, 2009). When respondents recol-lect their experiences through storytelling to family and friends, theywill influence the expectations of those who may be in the planningstage. Similarly, if respondents actually revisit the destination with oth-ers, it is likely that they will become on-site mediators who will directlyimpact everyone’s overall experience (Jennings & Weiler, 2006)

In contrast, a selection of respondents acknowledged that ‘‘memora-ble experiences just cannot be duplicated,’’ because it is ‘‘just not thesame as the first experience.’’ More insightfully, one respondent ad-vised that ‘‘you cannot relive the experience because memory adds fan-tasy to it. The memory itself is exotic.’’ Respondents generally gave twomain reasons for their decision to not revisit the destination. First,many respondents viewed a ME as an once-in-a-lifetime experience thatis purely unique and cannot be replicated. Many of these individualsexplained that ‘‘things change so quickly that if you go back, youmay ruin your memory of it,’’ and ‘‘don’t ever [want to] go back toruin this once-in-a-lifetime memory.’’ Second, many respondents ex-pressed interest in visiting another place in the world. Common


phrases include ‘‘[making] a conscious effort of not going to the sameplace twice,’’ and ‘‘won’t go back because I need to see the rest of theworld.’’ Research has shown that novelty seeking motivates many indi-viduals to travel and plays a significant role in tourist decision-making(Petrick, 2002). Tourists who continuously switch destinations are highnovelty-seekers (Feng & Jang, 2004) and may thrive on a variety of stim-ulations such as thrill, adventure and surprise (Lee & Crompton,1992). Nevertheless, it is important to consider tourists’ intentions torevisit from a temporal perspective as intentions often change overtime (Jang & Feng, 2007).

Practical Implications

Four dimensions were identified in respondents’ MEs: affect, expec-tations, consequentiality and recollection. Given our definition of tour-ism experiences as encompassing the entire trip from pre-, during, andpost-travel, the expectations and recollection dimensions closely relateto Clawson and Knetsch’s (1966) anticipation and return travel phases,respectively. Although these dimensions are seemingly outside the con-trol of the industry, tourism planners can still establish destination pol-icies designed to influence the outcomes of these factors. For instance,pre-travel intentions are found to influence tourists’ subsequent expec-tations fulfillment. While tourism planners can neither directly influ-ence the emotions that tourists feel during the experience, nor theconsequences of the experience (e.g., social development), they cannevertheless, use branding policies to deliver the promise of the typesof MEs that tourists can expect at their destination (Blain, Levy, &Ritchie, 2005). This will help establish realistic, achievable pre-tripintentions in the minds of tourists—and as a result, there will be a high-er probability that tourists will feel the tourism experience has fulfilledor exceeded their expectations.

Tourism planners are also encouraged to deliver positive, memora-ble surprises to tourists in order to supersede baseline expectations.As Abrahams (1986) pointed out, it can be argued that even today,increasingly sophisticated tourists are still subtly seeking surprises—they are purposefully awaiting and anticipating the unexpected, posi-tive surprises during their tourism experiences. Industry practitionerscould purposely retain pleasant surprises above-and-beyond the de-scribed details of guides and brochures.

The prevalence of recollection in the retention of MEs was clearlyindicated by the majority of respondents. To encourage memory recol-lection, tourism planners should establish and promote ‘‘memorypoints’’ at various sites in their destination so as to encourage a‘‘must-see’’ mentality for tourists. Financially, these memory pointscan attract tourists to purchase memorabilia such as souvenirs or gifts(e.g., souvenir shop at the exit of a museum). Psychologically, thesepoints can also help create memories in the minds of tourists thatcan be constantly reinforced via photographs or videos (Tussyadiah& Fesenmaier, 2009). The goal is to create a compilation of memory


points throughout tourists’ experiences so that they create numerousevent-specific memories about the destination which can be sharedwith family and friends once they return. In other words, experiencescould be ‘‘cached’’ so that tourism practitioners can take a proactiverole in eliciting these memory points after tourists have returned homeby focusing on the post-purchase stage of the consumption process.Through ongoing effective branding and marketing techniques, tour-ism planners can send postcards and online newsletter updates to occa-sionally spur memory recall and positive word-of-mouth. Tourismorganizations such as Carnival Cruise Lines for example, have createda blogging platform to encourage tourists to share their MEs with othercustomers. The company allows previous customers to write about theirexperiences in an attempt to attract future potential tourists throughpositive word-of-mouth.

Finally, the results also reflected a need for tourism planners to moreactively attract repeat visitation by dispelling tourist notions that ‘‘thenext trip will not be as memorable as the first’’ as tourists’ intentionsto revisit will change over time (Jang & Feng, 2007). DMOs need tocontinue re-inventing their destination by promoting new experiencesthat tourists can expect when they return, and new memories that theycan bring home through the development of new memory pointsthroughout the experience.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

The generalizability of the results is limited in two specific ways. First,the results should be verified using a more representative sample interms of age, occupation and nationality given that the scope of thestudy was conducted at a university in Canada. Second, since the in-depth interviews were conducted with no prior information regardingthe questions given to the interviewees, the interviewees may have for-gotten potentially important details of their tourism experiences. Thedepth and clarity of their responses may have been increased if theywere given an opportunity to reflect on their MEs and to potentiallyshow the researcher examples of their memorabilia’s (e.g. photo-graphs, souvenirs) as opposed to providing immediate feedback.

A direction for future research is to consider a ME from an evaluativestandpoint. The relationship of MEs to outcome variables such as levelof satisfaction and/or future behavioural intentions (e.g. revisitationand word-of-mouth) could be further explored. Although the resultsin this study suggested a direct, positive relationship between MEsand these two outcome variables, a quantitative study is needed to val-idate these implications and to assess the extent of these relationships.

From a psychology perspective, the cognitive evaluation processesthat respondents experienced when they differentiated, selected, andremembered only one tourism experience as memorable amongsttheir potential wealth of experiences would be another fascinatingextension of this study. For example, for a tourist who has had morethan ten tourism experiences in his/her lifetime, it can be inferred


that he/she must have a strong rationale to select only one experienceto be described as his/her ME and not another. In contrast, the se-lected ME may simply have been top-of-mind.

CONCLUSION

This study contributes to ongoing efforts in tourism scholarship tounderstand the essence of tourists’ MEs. A review of the literature inauthenticity, satisfactory experiences, and experience-managementprovided a detailed treatment of the scholarship that has precededour interest in experiences while an investigation of literature in story-telling and memory-work described the methodological considerationsin memory research. Additionally, literature in mindlessness-mindful-ness and autobiographical memory was reviewed with an aim of under-standing the triggers for, and the conceptual underpinnings thatfacilitate the formation and retention of memories. Qualitative datawas gathered and analyzed based on the principles of grounded theory.Four dimensions which represent aspects of experiences that enablethem to be particularly memorable were found: affect, expectations, con-sequentiality, and recollection. Recommendations were provided for prac-titioners into the actions that they could take to increase the likelihoodfor tourists to develop MEs. Overall, we hope that this study will furtherinspire interest in the important subject of MEs and encourage practi-tioners to facilitate the development of MEs that tourists will rememberfor years to come.

REFERENCES

Abrahams, R. D. (1986). Ordinary and extraordinary experience. In V. W. Turner& E. M. Bruner (Eds.), Anthropology of experience (pp. 45–72). Urbana andChicago: University of Illinois Press.

Adaval, R., & Wyer, R. S. Jr., (1998). The role of narratives in consumerinformation process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(3), 207–245.

Anderson, D., & Shimizu, H. (2007). Factors shaping vividness of memoryepisodes: Visitors’ long-term memories of the 1970 Japan world exposition.Memory, 15(2), 177–191.

Arnould, E., & Price, L. (1993). River magic: Extraordinary experience and theextended service encounter. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 24–45.

Baumgartner, H., Sujan, M., & Bettman, J. (1992). Autobiographical memories:Affect and consumer information processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology,1(1), 53–82.

Blain, C., Levy, S., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2005). Destination branding, insights andpractices from destination management organizations. Journal of TravelResearch, 43(4), 328–338.

Boorstin, D. J. (1964). The image: A guide to pseudo-events in America. New York:Harper & Row.

Cadman, K., Friend, L., Gannon, S., Ingleton, C., Koutroulis, G., McCormick, C.,Mitchell, P., Onyx, J., O’Regan, K., Rocco, S., & Small, J. (2007). Memory-workersdoing memory-work on memory-work: Exploring unresolved power. Retrieved January6, 2011 from <http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/dspace/handle/2100/411>.

Canadian Tourism Commission (2004). Defining tomorrow’s tourism product:Packaging experiences. Research Report, 2004–2007, 1–41.

Cary, S. H. (2004). The tourist moment. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 61–77.

http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/dspace/handle/2100/411


Clawson, M., & Knetsch, J. L. (1966). Economics of outdoor recreation. Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins.

Coghlan, A., & Pearce, P. (2010). Tracking affective components of satisfaction.Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(1), 42–58.

Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13, 179–201.Cohen, S. (2010). Searching for escape, authenticity and identity: Experiences of

‘lifestyle travellers’. In M. Morgan, P. Lugosi, & J. R. B. Ritchie (Eds.), Thetourism and leisure experience. Consumer and managerial perspectives (pp. 3–26).Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications.

Conway, M., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. (2000). The construction of autobiographicalmemories in the self-memory system. Psychological Review, 107(2), 261–288.

Crawford, J., Kippax, S., Onyx, J., Gault, U., & Benton, P. (1992). Emotion andgender: Constructing meaning from memory. London: Sage.

Crowley, C., Harre, R., & Tagg, C. (2002). Qualitative research and computing:Methodological issues and Practices in using QSR NVivo and NUD* IST.International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 5(3), 193–197.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience—steps towardenhancing the quality of life. New York: HarperCollins Publisher.

Cutler, S. Q., & Carmichael, B. A. (2010). The dimensions of the touristexperience. In M. Morgan, P. Lugosi, & J. R. B. Ritchie (Eds.), The tourism andleisure experience. Consumer and managerial perspectives (pp. 3–26). Bristol, UK:Channel View Publications.

Dann, G., Nash, D., & Pearce, P. (1988). Methodology in tourism research. Annalsof Tourism Research, 15(1), 89–103.

Desforges, L. (2000). Travelling the world: Identity and world biography. Annals ofTourism Research, 27(4), 926–945.

Ekinci, Y., Riley, M., & Chen, J. (2001). A review of comparisons used in servicequality and customer satisfaction studies: Emerging issues for hospitality andtourism research. Tourism Analysis, 5(2/4), 197–202.

Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (1990). The relationship between visitation frequency andlong-term recollection. In S. Bitgood, A. Benefield, & D. Patterson (Eds.),Visitor studies: Theory, research and practice (pp. 17–22). Jacksonville, AL: Centerfor Social Design.

Feng, R., & Jang, S. (2004). Temporal destination loyalty: A structural initiation.Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research, 9, 207–221.

Frauman, E., & Norman, W. C. (2004). Mindfulness as a tool for managing visitorsto tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 381–389.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology:The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56,218–226.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. A. (2005). Positive emotions broad the scope ofattention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 313–332.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complexdynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678–686.

Fridgen, J. D. (1984). Environmental psychology and tourism. Annals of TourismResearch, 11(1), 19–39.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.Gunter, B. G. (1987). The leisure experience. Selected properties. Journal of Leisure

Research, 19(2), 115–130.Hamond, N., & Fivush, R. (1991). Memories of Mickey Mouse: Young children

recount their trip to Disneyworld. Cognitive Development, 6(4), 433–448.Haug, F. (1987). Female sexualisation. London: Verso.Holbrook, M., & Hirschman, E. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption:

Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2),132–140.

Hollenbeck, C. R., Peters, C., & Zinkham, G. M. (2008). Retail spectacles andbrand meaning: Insights from a brand museum case study. Journal of Retailing,84(3), 334–353.

Hsu, C., Cai, L., & Wong, K. (2007). A model of senior tourism motivations—anecdotes from Beijing and Shanghai. Tourism Management, 28(5), 1262–1273.


Jackson, M., White, G., & Schmierer, C. (1996). Tourism experiences within anattributional framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(4), 798–810.

Jang, S., & Feng, R. (2007). Temporal destination revisit intention: The effects ofnovelty seeking and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 28, 580–590.

Jennings, G., & Nickerson, N. (2006). Quality tourism experiences. Burlington, MA:Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Jennings, G., & Weiler, B. (2006). Mediating meaning: Perspectives on brokeringquality tourism experiences. In G. Jennings & N. Nickerson (Eds.), Qualitytourism experiences (pp. 57–78). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Kim, H., & Jamal, T. (2007). Touristic quest for existential authenticity. Annals ofTourism Research, 34(1), 181–201.

Langer, E. J. (1989). Minding matters: The consequences of mindlessness-mindfulness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 137–173.

Langer, E. J. (1993). A mindful education. Educational Psychologist, 22, 43–50.Langer, E. J. (2000). Mindful learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science,

9(6), 220–223.Langer, E. J., Hatem, M., Joss, J., & Howell, M. (1989). Conditional teaching and

mindful learning: The role of uncertainty in education. Creativity ResearchJournal, 2, 139–150.

Langer, E. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2000). The construct of mindfulness. Journal ofSocial Issues, 56(1), 1–9.

Langer, E. J., & Piper, A. (1988). Television from a mindful/mindless perspective.Applied Social Psychology Annual, 8, 247–260.

Lee, T.-H., & Crompton, J. (1992). Measuring novelty seeking in tourism. Annals ofTourism Research, 19(4), 732–751.

MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space intourist settings. The American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589–603.

Mang, F., Tepanon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2008). Measuring tourist satisfaction byattribute and motivation: The case of a nature-based resort. Journal of VacationMarketing, 14(1), 41–56.

Markula, P., & Friend, L. A. (2005). Remember when. . .memory-work as aninterpretative methodology for sport management. Journal of Sport Manage-ment, 19, 442–463.

McGregor, I., & Holmes, J. G. (1999). How storytelling shapes memory andimpression of relationship events over time. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 76(3), 403–419.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). An expanded source-book: Qualitative data analysis.London: Sage.

Morgan, M. (2006). Making space for experiences. Journal of Retail and LeisureProperty, 5(4), 305–313.

Moscardo, G. M. (1988). Visitor studies at the Gallipoli and Sinai galleries, AustralianWar Memorial. Townsville: Department of Behavioural Sciences, James CookUniversity.

Moscardo, G. M. (1999). Making visitors mindful: Principles for creating sustainablevisitor experiences through effective communication. Champaign, IL: Sagamore.

Moscardo, G. M. (2010). The shaping of tourist experience. The importance ofstories and themes. In M. Morgan, P. Lugosi, & J. R. B. Ritchie (Eds.), Thetourism and leisure experience. Consumer and managerial perspectives (pp. 43–58).Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications.

Moscardo, G. M., & Pearce, P. L. (1986). Visitor centres and environmentalinterpretation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6, 89–108.

Noe, F. P. (1987). Measurement specification and leisure satisfaction. LeisureSciences, 9(3), 163–172.

Noy, C. (2004). This trip really changed me: Backpackers’ narratives of self-change.Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 78–102.

Obenour, W., Patternson, M., Pedersen, P., & Pearson, L. (2006). Conceptualiza-tion of a meaning-based research approach for tourism service experiences.Tourism Management, 27, 34–41.

Olsen, K. (2007). Staged authenticity: A grande idee?. Tourism Recreation Research,32(2), 83–85.


Otto, J., & Richie, J. (1995). Exploring the quality of the service experience. Atheoretical and empirical analysis. Advances in Services Marketing and Manage-ment, 4, 37–61.

Pearce, P. L. (2005). Tourist behaviour: Themes and conceptual schemes. Clevedon:Channel View Publications.

Pearce, P. L. (2007). Persisting with authenticity: Gleaning contemporary insightsfor future tourism studies. Tourism Recreation Research, 32(2), 86–89.

Pearce, P. L., & Foster, F. (2007). A ‘‘university of travel’’: Backpacker learning.Tourism Management, 28, 1285–1298.

Petrick, J. F. (2002). An examination of golf vacationers’ novelty. Annals of TourismResearch, 29(2), 384–400.

Pillemer, D., Wink, P., DiDonato, T., & Sanborn, R. (2003). Gender differences inautobiographical memory styles of older adults. Memory, 11(6), 525–532.

Pine, J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. HarvardBusiness Review, 97–107.

Piolino, P., Desgranges, B., Benali, K., & Eustache, F. (2002). Episodic andsemantic remote autobiographical memory in ageing. Memory, 10(4), 239–257.

Pizam, A. (2010). Creating memorable experiences. International Journal ofHospitality Management, 29(3), 343.

Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainable tourismperspective. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing.

Ryan, C. (1997). The tourist experience. A new introduction. London: Cassell.Schank, R. C. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.Small, J. (1999). Memory-work: A method for researching women’s tourist

experiences. Tourism Management, 20, 25–35.Thomsen, T. U., & Hansen, T. (2009). The application of memory-work in

consumer research. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 8, 26–39.Tussyadiah, I. P., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2009). Mediating tourist experiences:

Access to places via shared videos. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(1), 24–40.Uysal, M., & Noe, F. (2003). Satisfaction in outdoor recreation and tourism

settings. In E. Laws (Ed.), Case studies in tourism marketing (pp. 140–158).London: Continuum Publisher.

Vanhamme, J. (2000). The link between surprise and satisfaction: An exploratoryresearch on how best to measure surprise. Journal of Marketing Management,16(6), 565–582.

Volo, S. (2010). Bloggers’ reported tourist experiences: Their utility as a tourismdata source and their effect on prospective tourists. Journal of VacationMarketing, 16(4), 297–311.

Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of TourismResearch, 2(1), 349–370.

Woodside, A. (2010). Brand-consumer storytelling theory and research: Introduc-tion to a psychology & marketing special issue. Psychology & Marketing, 27(6),531–540.

Woodside, A., Caldwell, M., & Albers-Miller, N. (2004). Broadening the study oftourism: Introduction to the special issue on the consumer psychology oftravel/tourism behavior. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 17(1), 1–7.

Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation andsatisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26,45–56.

Submitted 9 August 2010. Resubmitted 14 January 2011. Final version 1 February 2011.Accepted 16 March 2011. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Philip L. Pearce

Documents

Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences