12
The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences: The development of a scale to measure the destination attributes associated with memorable experiences Jong-Hyeong Kim * School of Tourism Management, Sun Yat-sen University,135 Road Xin Gang Xi, 510275 Guangzhou, China highlights This study explored destination attributes that facilitate the formation of memorable tourism experiences (MTEs). A 10-dimensional construct (i.e., local culture, variety of activities, hospitality, infrastructure, environment management, accessibility, quality of service, physiography, place attachment, and superstructure) found to affect individualsMTEs. A scale instrument to measure each of the determinants of MTEs is developed. article info Article history: Received 10 June 2013 Accepted 17 February 2014 Keywords: Destination attributes Memorable tourism experiences Scale development Tourism experiences abstract Providing visitors with memorable tourism experiences (MTEs) is important for achieving success in the highly competitive tourism marketplace. To support destination managers, this paper developed a scale instrument that conceptualizes the attributes of destinations associated with MTEs. Following a rigorous scale development procedure, this study identied a 10-dimensional construct that affects MTEs. The data support this dimensional structure of the attributes of destinations affecting MTEs and the internal consistency and the validity (i.e., content, construct, convergent, and discriminant) of the scale. The theoretical and managerial implications of the studys results are discussed. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Destination attributes, an amalgam of the different elements that attract travelers (Lew, 1987) to a destination, are critically important for several reasons. First, tourists compare the attributes of destinations when selecting a specic destination. Specically, the ability of a destination to attract visitors depends on its perceived ability to provide individual benets. For example, tourists choose a destination with attributes that the tourists nd important (Turner & Reisinger, 1999). Previous research has iden- tied important tourism-related attributes and/or examined attri- butes that support the performance of tourism (e.g., Assaf & Josiassen, 2012). Second, the attributes of a destination signi- cantly inuence the formation of the image of the destination. According to Crompton (1979), the image of the destination is the sum of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that a person has of a destination(p. 18). This image signicantly affects touristsbe- haviors (e.g., Bigne, Sanchez, & Sanchez, 2001; Lee, Lee, & Lee, 2005). Previous researchers have studied the various aspects of the attributes of destinations in relation to the destinationsimages. For example, studies have focused on identifying the specic at- tributes of destinations that inuence the formation of the image of the destination. Some studies have shown that although the image of the destination is one of the strongest inuences on future behavior, touristsexperiences at a destination affect the formation of touristsimage of the destination (e.g., Beerli & Martin, 2004; Kim, Hallab, & Kim, 2012). Thus, individuals may change their perceptions of the destination after the trip based on these on-site experiences. Touristsexperiences at the destination are a more powerful driver of future behavior because these experiences determine customer satisfaction and memorable experiences. Tourists initially attracted by a destinations attributes engage in tourism-related activities and/or travel within the destination. The attributes then become experiential components, which affect the formation of visitorsexperiences. Given the importance of the experiential component of a destinations attributes, it is important * Tel.: þ86 20 8411 4584; fax: þ86 20 8411 4569. E-mail address: [email protected]. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Tourism Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.02.007 0261-5177/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Tourism Management 44 (2014) 34e45

The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences: The development of a scale to measure the destination attributes associated with memorable experiences

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences: The development of a scale to measure the destination attributes associated with memorable experiences

lable at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 44 (2014) 34e45

Contents lists avai

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences: Thedevelopment of a scale to measure the destination attributesassociated with memorable experiences

Jong-Hyeong Kim*

School of Tourism Management, Sun Yat-sen University, 135 Road Xin Gang Xi, 510275 Guangzhou, China

h i g h l i g h t s

� This study explored destination attributes that facilitate the formation of memorable tourism experiences (MTEs).� A 10-dimensional construct (i.e., local culture, variety of activities, hospitality, infrastructure, environment management, accessibility, quality of service,physiography, place attachment, and superstructure) found to affect individuals’ MTEs.

� A scale instrument to measure each of the determinants of MTEs is developed.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 10 June 2013Accepted 17 February 2014

Keywords:Destination attributesMemorable tourism experiencesScale developmentTourism experiences

* Tel.: þ86 20 8411 4584; fax: þ86 20 8411 4569.E-mail address: [email protected].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.02.0070261-5177/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Providing visitors with memorable tourism experiences (MTEs) is important for achieving success in thehighly competitive tourism marketplace. To support destination managers, this paper developed a scaleinstrument that conceptualizes the attributes of destinations associated with MTEs. Following a rigorousscale development procedure, this study identified a 10-dimensional construct that affects MTEs. Thedata support this dimensional structure of the attributes of destinations affecting MTEs and the internalconsistency and the validity (i.e., content, construct, convergent, and discriminant) of the scale. Thetheoretical and managerial implications of the study’s results are discussed.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Destination attributes, an amalgam of the different elementsthat attract travelers (Lew, 1987) to a destination, are criticallyimportant for several reasons. First, tourists compare the attributesof destinations when selecting a specific destination. Specifically,the ability of a destination to attract visitors depends on itsperceived ability to provide individual benefits. For example,tourists choose a destination with attributes that the tourists findimportant (Turner & Reisinger, 1999). Previous research has iden-tified important tourism-related attributes and/or examined attri-butes that support the performance of tourism (e.g., Assaf &Josiassen, 2012). Second, the attributes of a destination signifi-cantly influence the formation of the image of the destination.According to Crompton (1979), the image of the destination is “thesum of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that a person has of a

destination” (p. 18). This image significantly affects tourists’ be-haviors (e.g., Bigne, Sanchez, & Sanchez, 2001; Lee, Lee, & Lee,2005). Previous researchers have studied the various aspects ofthe attributes of destinations in relation to the destinations’ images.For example, studies have focused on identifying the specific at-tributes of destinations that influence the formation of the image ofthe destination. Some studies have shown that although the imageof the destination is one of the strongest influences on futurebehavior, tourists’ experiences at a destination affect the formationof tourists’ image of the destination (e.g., Beerli & Martin, 2004;Kim, Hallab, & Kim, 2012). Thus, individuals may change theirperceptions of the destination after the trip based on these on-siteexperiences. Tourists’ experiences at the destination are a morepowerful driver of future behavior because these experiencesdetermine customer satisfaction and memorable experiences.

Tourists initially attracted by a destination’s attributes engage intourism-related activities and/or travel within the destination. Theattributes then become experiential components, which affect theformation of visitors’ experiences. Given the importance of theexperiential component of a destination’s attributes, it is important

Page 2: The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences: The development of a scale to measure the destination attributes associated with memorable experiences

J.-H. Kim / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 34e45 35

to deliver pleasantly memorable tourism experiences (MTEs). Forexample, Tung and Ritchie (2011) noted that the critical role of adestination manager is to “facilitate the development of an envi-ronment (i.e., destination) that enhances the likelihood that tour-ists can create their own MTE” (p. 3). For this reason, destinationmarketers are under pressure to develop effective tourism pro-grams that deliver MTEs, but the managers lack the practicalguidelines to achieve their goal.

In previous MTE studies, researchers have discussed the com-ponents of MTEs (e.g., Kim, 2010; Kim, Ritchie, & McCormick, 2012;Tung & Ritchie, 2011). Kim, Hallab, et al. (2012) and Kim, Ritchie,et al. (2012) suggest that seven experiential factors (i.e., hedo-nism, novelty, knowledge, meaningfulness, involvement, localculture, and refreshment) lead to strong memorability. The previ-ous MTE model shed light on experiential factors in MTEs. How-ever, previous research has not explicitly discussed the way inwhich MTEs can be delivered from a practical point of view. Oneproblem in the extant tourism literature is a lack of information onthe attributes of a destination that affect the formation of MTEs.Such informationwould increase the understanding of MTEs and ofthe managerial practices necessary to deliver fulfilling MTEs. Theaim of this study is to identify the attributes of a destination thatwill potentially provide MTEs. More specifically, the objective is todevelop a valid and reliable framework for assessing the attributesof a destination associated with MTEs. The results of this study canbe expected to contribute to the previous literature by examiningthe antecedents of MTEs and the consequences of satisfactoryMTEs. This study also contributes to the field by providing practicalinformation that will enable destination managers to be betterprepared to deliver MTEs. To identify and understand the destina-tion attributes that strongly affect MTEs and lead to strongmemorability, this paper begins by reviewing the existing literatureconcerning memory and MTE.

2. Theoretical background

2.1. The psychology of memory

To better understand the components of MTEs and the mannerin which these experiences affect individuals and potentially leadtomemorability, the researcher reviewed the literature onmemory.The following sections include a general discussion of memory. Theprimary objective is to capture widely accepted research conclu-sions that are deemed applicable to understanding the memora-bility of the experiences of tourists. More specifically, I focusattention on a consideration of autobiographical memory, its gen-eral features and the process of its formation. In addition, the fac-tors that affect memory formation and retention are examined.With these factors in mind, the discussions follow the order ofsemantic and autobiographic memory and the influences onmemory performance.

2.1.1. Semantic and autobiographical memoryMemory can be categorized into semantic or episodic memory.

Tulving (1979) suggests that semantic memory is related toknowledge, whereas episodic memory is related to autobiograph-ical memory. In the context of tourism, visitors’ stored memory orthe knowledge of destinations, such as the images and attributes ofthe destination, is semantic memory, whereas an individual’smemory of his/her tourism experience is autobiographic memory.However, these two categorizations are considerably interdepen-dent because semantic memory is generally derived from episodicmemory. For example, people use semantic memory to store newinformation or concepts from their experiences, and episodicmemory then supports and underpins the semantic memories.

Moreover, the events encoded in episodic memory are normallyinterpreted against a background of semantic knowledge. Whensuch foreknowledge is lacking, remembering suffers (Bartlett,1932). From this discussion, it should be noted that although anindividual’s memory of tourism-related experiences is autobio-graphic memory, both semantic and autobiographic memory play arole in the memorability of previous tourism-related experiences.Considering that not all tourism experiences are ultimately trans-formed into ones’memories (Kim, Hallab, et al., 2012; Kim, Ritchie,et al., 2012), it is particularly important to know which specificfactors or contexts affect memory. Psychologists have found thatdifferent factors play an integral role in the formation of autobio-graphical memories, such as emotion and familiarity (Rubin, 2005;Wood & Conway, 2006; Zimmerman & Kelley, 2010). The followingsection specifically discusses several influences on memory per-formances, including memory formation, retention, and retrieval.

2.1.2. Influences on memory performanceMemory researchers have consistently reported that when

people are asked to recollect previous experiences from their lives,the experiences recalled most frequently are those that areemotional in nature (e.g., Davis & Schwartz, 1987; Dudycha &Dudycha, 1933; Kihlstrom & Harackiewicz, 1982; Waldfogel,1948). Contextual information, such as where and when an eventoccurred, is remembered less with the passing of time. Researchershave also suggested that the pleasantness and the emotionality ofpersonal events assist in the recall of these events (e.g., McGaugh,2004; Wood & Conway, 2006). In corroborating this notion,tourism researchers who studied post-tourism experiences foundthat although study participants could not vividly recall experi-ences such as where they went and when they returned home, theparticipants could remember affective feelings from their trip, suchas being sociable, pleasant, happy, irritated, guilty, sad, or worried(Larsen & Jenssen, 2004; Wirtz, Kruger, Scollon, & Diener, 2003).Wirtz et al. (2003) found that although research participantsremembered significantly more positive emotions experiencedduring their vacation than negative ones, the participants recalledboth types of emotions. Acknowledging the significant influence ofaffect on memory, researchers have examined how emotionsprompted by an event are related to the subsequent memories ofthat event. Substantial evidence indicates that individualsremember emotional information accurately and vividly (e.g.,Dewhurst & Parry, 2000; Kensigner & Corkin, 2003; Zimmerman &Kelley, 2010). Researchers suggest that the emotionality of an eventmotivates an individual’s information processing and is associatedwith a deliberate effort to remember the emotionally ladeneventd“I will remember this” (Zimmerman & Kelley, 2010)d andenhanced confidence at retrieval, even when that confidence is notwarranted.

In addition to the influence of emotionally arousing stimuli,some researchers have reported the influence of familiarity onmemory (e.g., Cox & Cox, 1988; Reder, Donavos, & Erickson, 2002).For example, Cox and Cox (1988) indicate that high-frequency (ormore familiar) stimuli positively affect stimuli evaluations andtherefore, recall and attitude are generally favorable under familiarconditions. Consistent with this notion, Pan (2011) suggests thatthe frames of tourism TV commercials should be familiar, nostalgic,and/or provide a sense of déjà vu to make them more memorable.However, other researchers refute the effects of familiarity onmemory by arguing that distinctiveness yields superior memory(e.g., Reder et al., 2002). These researchers note that if the famil-iarity of an event is high, it is deemed uninteresting and is notdeeply encoded. Conversely, if the novelty factor of an event is high,all facilities of the memory system are employed to implant thenew event. Furthermore, some researchers contend that unfamiliar,

Page 3: The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences: The development of a scale to measure the destination attributes associated with memorable experiences

J.-H. Kim / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 34e4536

unusual, atypical, or distinctive events are remembered morevividly than typical stimuli (e.g., Hunt & Mitchell, 1982; Rajaram,1998; Reder et al., 2002). In support of this notion, researchersstudying MTEs found that novel experiences are likely to beremembered more accurately (e.g., Kim, Hallab, et al., 2012; Kim,Ritchie, et al., 2012). Research suggests that experiencing some-thing new, unique, or different leads to a strong memory of thetravel experience (Kim, 2010; Kim, Hallab, et al., 2012; Kim, Ritchie,et al., 2012).

Based on the above discussions, it can be understood that fa-miliarity has divergent effects onmemory. Several important pointsshould be made in this regard. First, familiar experiences, whichindividuals have frequently experienced and/or about which haveobtained knowledge, would lead to improved memory retention.Therefore, the general aspects of tourism-related activities (e.g.,hedonism and refreshment) that individuals experience are betterremembered than specific aspects. Second, individuals remember avacation during which they had novel experiences (i.e., first-timeexperiences) and/or experienced distinctive features (e.g., exoticcultures) than others. Lastly, divergent effects may manifestthemselves in tourism-related experiences in the following threeways: (a) familiar destinations that individuals visited withstrangers or with people with whom they had no close ties, (b)exotic destinations that individuals traveled to with friends orfamily, and (c) destinations that contain a mixture of both familiarand distinctive attributes and thus provide a variety of experiences.Individuals may best remember destinations under these threeconditions. The next section discusses the specific experientialfactors that tourists remember better than other factors.

2.2. Memorable tourism experiences (MTEs)

The importance of delivering memorable experiences is well-documented in the previous literature (Kozak, 2001; Lehto, O’Leary,& Morrision, 2004; Wirtz et al., 2003). For example, the personalmemory of purchase experiences is a valuable information source forfuture decision-making (Hoch & Deighton, 1989). Similarly, touriststend tomake biased choices based on their past experiences. Touristsrecall past experiences when deciding to travel and search for infor-mation regarding specificdestinations (Kerstetter&Cho, 2004;Raju&Reilly, 1979). Acknowledging the significant mediating effect ofmemory on future behavior, some tourism researchers have studiedMTEs (Kim,Hallab, et al., 2012;Kim,Ritchie, et al., 2012;Kim&Ritchie,2013; Tung & Ritchie, 2011). In particular, these researchers wereinterested in uncovering the essence of MTEs. For example, Kim,Hallab, et al. (2012) and Kim, Ritchie, et al. (2012) developed theMTE scale (MTES) after cross-referencing the literature of memorywith that of tourism experiences. Assisted by a panel of prominenttourism scholars, the study first identified and examined a range ofpossible components in these experiences. The study suggested thatMTEs are composed of the following seven dimensions: hedonism,refreshment, social interaction and local culture, meaningfulness,knowledge, involvement, and novelty. However, considering thatemotional stimuli, including both positive and negative valence, leadto the strong memorability of an event (Dewhurst & Parry, 2000;Kensigner & Corkin, 2003), these seven dimensions fail to capturenegativeMTEs. Therefore, adverse feelingsalsoshouldbediscussedasanMTE component to provide a comprehensive understandingof theessence of MTEs. The following section describes the nature of thesecomponents, their roles in creating MTEs, and empirical supportfound in extant literature.

2.2.1. HedonismTourism researchers have long recognized that tourism activ-

ities possess a predominantly hedonic component. When

“consuming” tourism products (experiences), unlike other activ-ities and products, people primarily seek enjoyment (hedonism/pleasure). Consistent with the notion that the primary purpose ofconsuming tourism products is to pursue hedonic or pleasurableexperiences, an emotional component is a significant aspect oftourism experiences. Of particular significance in relation to theunderstanding of MTEs is the fact that memory researchers havediscussed the significant influence of intensely emotional stimulion memory (e.g., Bohanek, Fivush, & Walker, 2005; Porter & Birt,2001). For example, Bohanek et al. (2005) indicate that intenselyemotional events come to mind more often and are thereforerehearsed and subsequently remembered in muchmore detail overextended periods of time. In empirical tourism studies, researchersfound that hedonic experiences allow tourists to constructmemorable experiences. For example, Dunman and Mattila (2005)identify hedonism as a major determinant of the perceived value ofcruise travel experience. Moreover, Tung and Ritchie (2011) findthat positive emotions and feelings associated with tourism expe-riences, such as happiness and excitement, were a critical compo-nent of MTEs.

2.2.2. RefreshmentRefreshment, or relaxation and renewal, is most likely the most

defining basic component of tourism activities. Cohen (1979) andTurner and Ash (1975) have emphasized this factor as the mostdistinctive characteristic of travel experiences that separate par-ticipants from daily mundane lives. For example, in definingtourism activity, Cohen (1979) notes that it is “essentially [a] tem-porary reversal of everyday activitiesdit is a no-work, no-care, no-thrift situation” (p. 181). Moreover, Turner and Ash (1975) contendthat the temporary distance of tourists from their regular envi-ronment allows tourists to suspend the power of the norms andvalues of their daily lives and think about their own lives and so-cieties from a different perspective. Empirical research supports theimportance of escapism and refreshment in travel experiences (e.g.,Boo & Jones, 2009; Leblanc, 2003; Pearce & Lee, 2005; Richards,2002; Snepenger, King, Marshall, & Uysal, 2007). For example,Leblanc (2003) found that rest, relaxation, and recuperation wereamong the major motivations of tourists who attend special eventsand festivals. Moreover, in a study that identified factors thatenhance the memorability of tourism experiences, Kim (2010)suggests that the feeling of being refreshed positively influencespeople’s memories of travel. This notion is supported by Morganand Xu (2009), who found that the travel experiences of relaxingin the sun on the beach are highly memorable holiday experiences.

2.2.3. NoveltyNovelty-seeking has been consistently reported as another

important component of the subjective tourism experience and apopular motivation for an individual to travel (e.g., Dunman &Mattila, 2005; Farber & Hall, 2007). Travelers tend to choose des-tinations in which the culture and lifestyles are different to satisfythe need and desire to experience something new or “other,something” that cannot be found in their home countries (Pearce,1987). While exploring the antecedents of MTEs, Chandralal andValenzuela (2013) confirmed that the perceived novelty, which isderived from experiencing something new (e.g., culture, food, andaccommodation) and encountering different types of tours, is acomponent of MTEs.

2.2.4. Social interaction and local cultureTourism experiences are co-created by involving people in

experience-based situations (Ryan, 1998). For example, throughsocial interaction with residents at a destination, travelers increasetheir understanding of the local people (who are frequently

Page 4: The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences: The development of a scale to measure the destination attributes associated with memorable experiences

J.-H. Kim / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 34e45 37

culturally different) and ultimately achieve global citizenship. Inthe tourism literature, experiencing local culture has been dis-cussed as an important motivational factor for traveling (e.g., Funk& Bruun, 2007; Richards, 2002; Sharpley & Sundaram, 2005).Moreover, there is a growing trend to participate in specific types oftourism, notably volunteer tourism, which enables travelers touniquely experience and learn and to go beyond the typical tourismplatform of staged settings and engage with the local people, theirlives, and their actual living environments (Brown, 2005). In studiesof MTEs, researchers have found that experiencing local culturemakes one’s travel morememorable. For example, Tung and Ritchie(2011) found that learning about local culture, including residents’way of life, and the language of the destination significantlyenhanced MTEs. Moreover, Morgan and Xu (2009) suggest thatlocal culture (interaction with the local culture and people) con-structs a memorable holiday experience.

2.2.5. InvolvementPeople remember an experience that is personally relevant and

meaningful more than an experience that is not relevant. Previousresearch findings that revealed the effects of involvement in acustomer experience on memory may provide a plausible expla-nation for this notion. For example, Pine and Gilmore (1999) indi-cate that when individuals find themselves immersed in an activity,the individuals are more likely to have a memorable experience.Other researchers also support the finding that involvement in acustomer experience reinforces an individual’s affective feelingswhen evaluating an experience and stimulates cognitive analysis ata deep level (Bloch & Richins, 1983; Blodgett & Granbois, 1992;Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Swinyard, 1993).

2.2.6. KnowledgeTourism researchers have also reported that people wish to

learn new things and develop new insights and skills because oftheir tourism experiences (Poria, Reichel, & Brian, 2006; Richards,2002; Sharpley & Sundaram, 2005). Tourism motivation studiessuggest that one of the sociopsychological motivations that pre-dispose individuals to travel is to satisfy the need to gain knowl-edge. For example, people travel in response to the urge to acquirenew knowledge and understanding regarding the destinations(particularly in areas such as geography, history, language, andculture). In a study on the “essence” of memorable tourism expe-riences, Tung and Ritchie (2011) found that intellectual develop-ment was one of the most significant components of memorableexperiences. Numerous respondents indicated that the tourismexperiences from which the visitors gained new knowledge con-cerning the destination visited were among the most memorable.

2.2.7. MeaningfulnessBecause meaning is essential to happiness and well-being

(Baumeister & Vohs, 2002), people strive to find meaning in theirlives (Frankl, 1985). Similarly, people search for meaningful expe-riences within their travel and tourism activities, such as seeking asense of physical, emotional, or spiritual fulfillment throughtourism, rather than pursuing mere escapism or a hollow search forauthenticity (Bruner, 1991; Callanan & Thomas, 2005; Digance,2003; Noy, 2004). Because travelers are becoming more sophisti-cated, travelers increasingly seek unique and meaningful travelexperiences to satisfy their needs and desires (Hall & Weiler, 1992;Robinson & Novelli, 2005). For example, some individuals considera tourism experience as an inner journey of personal growth andself-development rather than the mere consuming of sights, faces,and places. Moreover, in the study on the essence of MTEs, mean-ingful tourism experiences were found to last longer in humanmemory (Tung & Ritchie, 2011). The same study noted that when

people learn more about the world and expand their perspectiveson life because of eye-opening travel experiences, these experi-ences can be some of themostmemorable experiences of a lifetime.

2.2.8. Adverse feelingsThe pursuit of pleasurable, positive feelings is the primary

motivation for participating in tourism experiences. However,tourists can unexpectedly realize negative emotions or feelingsduring their tourism experiences. If these emotions are sufficientlyintense, the emotions can result in negative memorable experi-ences. Memory researchers support the notion that negativevalence leads to a stronger memory than positive valence(Kensinger & Schacter, 2006). Tourists usually develop severeadverse feelings because of accidents or illness (Aziz, 1995; Ryan,1991, 1993). However, considering that the primary tourism prod-ucts are service-related and thus have an inconsistent nature(largely derived from the inevitability of human error), tourists canalways develop adverse feelings (e.g., anger and frustration) duringtourism experiences. The next step in identifying and under-standing destination attributes that affect MTE requires an inquiryinto destination attributes while cross-referencing the existingliterature on memory and MTEs. Accordingly, the following sectiondiscusses destination attributes that potentially affect MTEs.

2.3. Destination attributes

Destinations are comprised of various attributes that signifi-cantly affect visitors at different stages. For example, a favorableimage of a destination formed by a combination of the destination’sattributes (e.g., beautiful landscape, shopping opportunities, cul-tural exchange, infrastructure, safety, and activities) significantlyaffects individuals’destination choices (e.g., Chi &Qu, 2008; Echtner&Ritchie,1993;Kim,Hallab, et al., 2012).Moreover, theperformanceof destination attributes determines visitors’ satisfaction and futurebehavior, such as revisits and word-of-mouth publicity (e.g., Chi &Qu, 2009; Ozdemir et al., 2012). Given the versatile roles of desti-nation attributes, researchers have widely studied the attributes ofdestinations and have developed a destination competitivenessmodel grounded in the various factors of destinations (e.g., Crouch&Ritchie, 1999; Dwyer & Kim, 2003; Enright & Newton, 2004; Ritchie& Crouch, 2003). The pioneering and comprehensive model devel-oped by Crouch and Ritchie (1999) includes the following six di-mensions: core resources and attractors; supporting factors andresources; destination management; destination policy, planning,anddevelopment; competitive (micro) environment; andqualifyingand amplifying determinants. The updated model is more compre-hensive and includes 36 factors that may characterize the tourismcompetitiveness of a destination (Crouch, 2011). Some researchersandorganizations (e.g., theWorld Economic Forum)havedevelopeda destination competitiveness index based on themodel and use themodel to rank the competitive ability of different countries in thetourism market (e.g., Das & DiRenzo, 2009).

The aforementioned studies have advanced our understanding ofthe critical roles of the destination attributes in maintaining acompetitive edge in a highly competitivemarketplace. However, fewstudies have examined the relationship between destination attri-butes, tourism performance, and tourism experiences (Assaf &Josiassen, 2012; Meng, 2006). Although this area of study hasbegun to receive attention, our understanding of these determinantsof tourism experiences remains poorly developed. This scenario isironic because researchers who defined destination competitivenessclearly emphasized an integrated link between destination compet-itiveness and tourism experiences, particularly MTEs. For example,Dwyer and Kim (2003) indicate that destination competitiveness is“the abilityof a destination todeliver goods andservices thatperform

Page 5: The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences: The development of a scale to measure the destination attributes associated with memorable experiences

Table 1The potential constructs of the destination attributes that affect MTEs.

Construct domains Construct definitions Relevant literature

Infrastructure Extending beyond the original function of infrastructure in a destination, this factorshould be able to stimulate visitors’ imaginations and facilitate their ability to createhighly personalized mementos of travel experience.

Dwyer and Kim (2003); Murphy,Pritchard, and Smith (2000); Smith (1994)

Cost/Value The perceived cost/value does not indicate the absolute low prices. This factor shouldcorrespond to the quality of products in a destination. Therefore, visitors should beable to perceive the value of money for products in a destination.

Driscoll, Lawson, and Niven (1994);Dwyer and Kim (2003); Haahti (1986)

Accessibility An ease and a quality of access to a destination is a must. Wherever possible, someunique elements must initiate a memorable experience from beginning to end.

Driscoll et al. (1994); Dwyer and Kim (2003);McKercher (1998)

Local culture Destinations provide different programs and ways to experience the unique cultureof a destination (e.g., artwork, handicrafts, performances, etc.) todeliver memorable experiences.

Dwyer and Kim (2003); Kim,Hallab, et al. (2012); Kim, Ritchie, et al. (2012)

Physiography & climate Destinations that possess a highly appealing, unique physiography/climate mustattempt to take every competitive advantage of their good fortuneeand ensure thisthat factor underlies the total visitation experience in a creative, differentiating manner.

Crouch (2011); Dwyer and Kim (2003)

Entertainment Uniquely and qualitatively designed entertainment can be possibly associatedin visitors’ mind with the destination.

Ritchie, Crouch, and Hudson (2001)

Environment management The environment of a destination is well-managed to prevent visitors fromdeveloping a negatively memorable experience. The poor management of adestination environment (e.g., crowding, noise, and bad odor) would resultin negative arousal and consequently lead to negatively memorable experiences.

Driscoll et al. (1994); Ritchie andCrouch (2000); Mihalic (2000)

The quality of service This attribute includes the provision of reliable, responsive, and highlycustomized service to visitors and, if possible, makes visitors pleasantly surprised.

Go and Govers (2000); Pineand Gilmore (1999)

Safety/Security Destinations should be able to make their visitors feel safe and secure atall times during their stay at a destination. Any undesirable incidentsresulting from a failure to ensure visitors’ safety/security will lead tonegatively memorable experiences.

Driscoll et al. (1994)

Hospitality This factor includes the perceived friendliness of the local people andthe community’s attitudes towards visitors. Thus, while visitors areinteracting with local people, visitors can perceive a warm receptionand find it helpful to receive tourist information from the residents.

Chandralal and Valenzuela (2013);Driscoll et al. (1994);Machils and Burch (1983)

Place attachment Attachment is defined as a high level of personal involvement witha destination, including ethnic, social, and business ties and emotional attachment.

Bloch and Richins (1983);Dwyer and Kim (2003); Williamsand Vaske (2003)

Superstructure Destinations that possess well-known architecture and local cuisine thatis already familiar to many visitors should take advantage of this popularity todevelop strong memorability of visitation experiences.

Crouch (2011); Enright and Newton (2004)

A mix of activities The availability of diverse tourism programs enables a destination to cater todifferent types of tourists and deliver pleasantly memorable experiences.

Crouch (2011); Dwyer and Kim (2003)

Special events Festivals and events in which visitors can be highly involved as participantshelp tourists to experience “escapism” and ultimately todevelop memorable experiences.

Dwyer, Mellor, Mistilis, and Mules (2000);Pine and Gilmore (1999)

J.-H. Kim / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 34e4538

better than other destinations on those aspects of the tourismexperience considered being important by tourists” (p. 375). More-over, Crouch andRitchie (2005) proposed that the competitiveness ofa destination is derived from the delivery of pleasant, memorableexperiences. Therefore, it is critically important to identify destina-tion attributes that affect MTEs. This study uses Crouch and Ritchie’s(2005) model as a basis to identify the destination attributes thatwould affectMTEs. Several reasons should be noted. First, thismodelincludes a greater number of attributes than others. Therefore, it hasbeenwidely applied to different settings (Crouch, 2011). Second, thismodel is the first and most frequently cited model in the literature.Third, a number of empirical studies have validated and providedstrong support for the model.

After investigating these attributes by cross-referencing theexisting literature on memory andMTEs, the researcher singled out14 destination attributes from Crouch and Ritchie’s model. Table 1provides a list of these constructs and their definitions. Consideringthat this study focuses on developing a scale of destination attri-butes that affect MTEs, the constructs were operationally defined inaccordance with this study’s purpose (i.e., the basis of a memorableexperience).

3. The development of a conceptual model and scale items

Churchill’s (1979) scale development paradigm and Hinkin’s(1995) recommendations for improving scale development

processes, in addition to previous scale development studies (e.g.,Kim, Hallab, et al., 2012; Kim, Ritchie, et al., 2012; Wong & Wan,2013), were referenced to develop a comprehensive scale of thedestination attributes of MTEs. The process involved the followingthree major phases: generation and purification, refinement, andthe validation of the scale.

3.1. The generation and purification of the scale

A set of 43 items related to 14 construct domains was initiallygenerated from an extensive literature review. In addition, a pre-liminary study was conducted to support the development of theconstruct and the scale items. In-depth interviews of approximately30 min each were conducted with 93 individuals using open-endedquestions (e.g., recall your most MTEs in the past five years anddescribe what you enjoyed during this trip, what made this tripmemorable,what specific attributesof thedestinationyouremember,etc.). Data were gathered from respondents at a large southernTaiwanese university. The snowball sampling technique was used inan effort to obtain representation from individuals of various back-grounds. Interviewees were asked to provide contact information forup tofivepeoplewhomight be interested in sharing theirMTEs. Somerespondents who could not be physically interviewed were inter-viewed via telephone. Of the 93 individuals, 48 were females and 45were males. The age of the interviewees ranged from 18 to 63 yearsold, with the majority between the ages of 18 and 34.

Page 6: The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences: The development of a scale to measure the destination attributes associated with memorable experiences

J.-H. Kim / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 34e45 39

The content analysis of the responses identified 72 differentwords. In reviewing the answers, different words that could becategorized under one theme were merged together. For example,“had longed to visit the place, culturally bonded with the place, andhometown of their ancestors” were categorized under placeattachment. The “destination was dirty or disgusting” was catego-rized under environment management. The “local people werefriendly, and they kindly helped me to find a place” were catego-rized under hospitality. “Bad attitude of service employees, un-friendly staff, and argued with the service employees” werecategorized under quality of service. Through this process, the 72words were reduced to seven themes as follows: place attachment,environment management, hospitality, infrastructure, the varietyof activities, the quality of service, and superstructure.

By combining the items generated from the interviews and theliterature review, an initial set of 48 items related to 14 constructdomains was developed (see Table 1). Three experts who have con-ducted prominent research on MTEs and/or destination attributesreviewed the items to ensure the validity of the content (Develis,2003). The judges were asked to rate the appropriateness andimportance of the items asmeasures of the attributes of destinationsassociated with MTEs using a 5-point scale, in which 1 representedvery unlikely and5 represented very likely. Decisions for refining thescale were made based on agreements between two or more of theexperts. As a result of this process, it was concluded that 42 itemsmeasured the attributes of destinations associated with MTEs.

3.2. The refinement of the scale

To refine the scale, data were collected from Taiwanese collegestudents who attend night classes at a large southern university.The students were enrolled in 9 classes spread across differentacademic majors. These students differ from regular studentsbecause these students have a full-time job and take classes in theevening. Therefore, their purchasing power is significantly differentfrom classic college students. The participants were first asked torecall their most memorable tourism experiences and to evaluateall 42 items on a 7-point Likert-type scale in which 1 representedstrongly disagree and 7 represented strongly agree. Four hundredsurvey questionnaires were distributed and 311 usable copies werereturned, representing an overall response rate of 77.8%. Slightlymore females participated than males.

Following the recommendation of Churchill (1979), an iterativescale purification procedure was used to develop a parsimoniousscale. For example, item-to-total correlations were computed, andthose that were poorly correlated (r < .4) with the total score wereeliminated. This process resulted in the retention of 33 items fromthe original 42. Exploratory factor analysis was then conducted onthe retained 33 items using the Promax oblique rotation method toidentify the dimensionality of the attributes of a destination asso-ciated with MTEs. The appropriateness of the factor analysis wasfirst determined by examining the KaisereMyereOlkin (KMO)measures of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity.Bartlett’s test of sphericity was 4865.4 (p < .001), indicating thatthe factor analysis was appropriate. In addition, the KMO measureof sampling adequacy for the data set was .83. KMO values between.8 and .9 are described as meritorious by Kaiser (1974).

Employing a combination of the screen test devised by Cattell(1966) and the theoretical basis of the scale (i.e., Eigenvaluesgreater than 1, KaisereGuttman criterion), 33 items loaded onto the10 factors of the attributes of the destination. This 10-factor solutionwas able to account for 71.63% of the variance. The first factor,labeled local culture, consisted of the following three items: toexperience local life, to learn about local history, and to learn aboutlocal culture. The second factor included items that highlighted a

variety of activities: destinations that provide different types of ac-tivities, activities that the individual cannot usually participate induring everyday life, interesting special events, and festivals andevents that the individual finds interesting. The third factor, hospi-tality, included the following three items: local peoplewere friendly,local people were willing to help, and local people were willing toshare information about the destinations. The fourth factor, infra-structure, included the following four items: uniquely designedinfrastructure, high-quality infrastructure equipped with advancedtechnology, good signage/directions, and good availability of infor-mation. The fifth factor included the following three itemsmeasuring superstructure: unique architecture, distinctive cuisine,and interesting buildings. The sixth factor, representing environ-ment management, included the items chaotic traffic system, un-clean, bad odor, and unsafe. The seventh factor consisted of thefollowing three items highlighting accessibility: inconvenient to getto the destination, long journey to get to the destination, and diffi-culty traveling around the destination. The eighth factor, quality ofservice, contained three items as follows: service staff was consis-tently courteous, service encounters provide highly customizedservice, and service was impressive. The ninth factor representingphysiography included the following three items: different ecologyzones,well-preserved areas, andawe-inspiring landscapes. Thefinalcomponent consisted of three items highlighting place attachment:ethnic ties, cultural bond, and one of many places I wanted to visit.

3.3. The validation of the scale

New data were collected in Kaohsiung from February to April2013 targeting local residents whose ages were 18 and older. Thisstudy used a quota sampling method because this method providesa sample with a structure similar to that of the population of a city.Therefore, the total population of a city for different age groups wasfirst reviewed. According to the Taiwanese Census Bureau (2012), asof July 2012 the total population of the city was 2.78 million. Spe-cifically, the local population of people between 18 and 29 years ofage was 468,680 (M: 241,293, F: 227,387), between 30 and 45 yearswas 745,906 (M: 371,928, F: 373,978), between 46 and 64 years was766,999 (M: 373,895, F: 393,104), and 65 years or older was 295,856(M: 141,605, F: 154,251). The sample sizes for the different agegroups were then determined in proportion to the number of thelocal population in each category.

The personal interview method was used for data collectionbecause this method allows the interviewer to provide additionalexplanations to the respondents and to ensure that the responsesare detailed and accurate. A group of eight student interviewers ableto communicate in Taiwanese and Mandarin were recruited andspecifically trained for the study. The data collection was designedto cover a wide span of sites during both weekdays and weekends.Contact with the respondents was made in the street, in shoppingmalls, and in public parks. The interviewers walked the roads orportions of the interview sites in which a number of local peoplecongregated between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. and between 6 p.m. and 9p.m. Intervieweeswere chosen randomly and asked to participate inthe survey before undergoing socio-demographic screening.Following the same process used in the first data collection, theparticipants were then asked to evaluate each of the 33 destinationattribute items after recalling their mostMTEs in the past five years.

3.4. Participants

A total of 400 questionnaires were distributed and 265 usablecopies were returned, representing an overall response rate of66.3%. As shown in Table 2, slightly more females participated inthe study (55.8% vs. 44.2%). The age of the study participants ranged

Page 7: The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences: The development of a scale to measure the destination attributes associated with memorable experiences

Table 2Demographics and trip characteristics.

Variable Category Distribution

Gender Male 117 (44.2)Female 148 (55.8)

Age Mean 42.9Median 4318e29 years 60 (22.6)30e45 years 81 (30.6)46e64 years 81 (30.6)65 or above 43 (16.2)

Purpose Pleasure 78 (29.4)Visiting friendsand relatives (VFR)

36 (13.6)

Relaxing 137 (51.7)Volunteer 1 (.4)Business 6 (2.3)Others 7 (2.6)

Type of accommodation Luxury hotels(4 star or above)

46 (17.4)

Hotels 94 (35.5)Motels 7 (2.6)Camping 1 (.4)Friends/Family house 36 (13.6)Hostels 66 (24.9)Others 15 (5.7)

Travel costs <NT$10,000 125 (47.2)NT$10,001e20,000 49 (18.5)NT$20,001e30,000 28 (10.6)NT$30,001e40,000 27 (10.2)NT$40,001e50,000 10 (3.8)>NT$50,001 15 (5.7)Don’t know 11 (4.2)

Travel party Alone 10 (3.8)Husband/wife 19 (7.2)Boyfriend/girlfriend 14 (5.3)Friends 120 (45.3)Family 91 (34.3)People whom I am notquite close to each other

7 (2.6)

People whom I never metbefore/strangers(e.g., organized tour)

4 (1.5)

Mode of transportation Airplane 84 (31.7)Own vehicle 57 (21.5)Rental vehicle 26 (9.8)Public transportation 98 (37.0)

Note: Entries are the number of respondents with valid percentage in parenthesis.As of May 2013, the exchange rate of NT$1 (new Taiwanese dollar) was .033. Thepercentages were rounded up to one decimal point. Therefore, the percentage maynot add to 100.0 because of rounding errors.

J.-H. Kim / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 34e4540

from 18 to 80 years, with the majority of respondents ranging from30 to 45 years (30.6%) and 46e64 years (30.6%). The majority of therespondents traveled for relaxation and refreshment (51.7%). Therespondents also traveled for pleasure (29.4%), to visit friends andrelatives (13.6%), and for other purposes (2.6%). Business (2.3%) andvolunteer work (.4%) were relatively minor motivations for travel. Acontent analysis indicated that education (e.g., study abroad pro-grams) and school-related events (e.g., training programs and fieldtrips) were the most common motivation for travel in the categoryof other purposes. The most frequent type of accommodation washotels with fewer than four stars (35.5%), followed by hostels(24.9%), luxury hotels with more than four stars (17.4%), friends’houses/family homes (13.6%), other (5.3%), motels (2.6%), andcampsites (.4%). Of the respondents who had used other types ofaccommodation, the majority stayed in condominiums or servicedapartments. Regarding travel budgets, the majority (47.2%) spentless than NT110,000 or approximately $336,2 followed by

1 NT indicates new Taiwanese dollar.2 As of September 2013, the exchange rate of NT1 was .03.

NT10,001eNT20,0000 (18.5%) or approximately $336e$673,NT20,001eNT30,000 (10.6%) or approximately $673e$1,009,NT30,001eNT40,000 (10.2%) or approximately $1009eUS$1,345,more than NT50,001 (5.7%) or approximately $1,682, andNT40,001eNT50,000 or approximately $1345-$1682 (3.8%).

3.5. The validity of the construct

The validity of the 10-dimensional construct identified in theprevious exploratory factor analysis was tested by a confirmatoryfactor analysis using the maximum likelihood estimator of LISREL9.1 (see Fig. 1). The overall fit of the model was assessed using thechi-square test and heuristically using a number of goodness-of-fitindices, such as the chi-square to the degrees of freedom ratio (i.e.,c2/df), Bentler’s (1992) comparative fit index (CFI), Bentler andBonett’s (1980) non-normed fit index (NNFI), the incremental fitindex (IFI), and the root mean square error of approximation(RMSEA). A model is judged to be acceptable if the ratio of the c2

score to the degrees of freedom is equal to or less than 3 (Hoe,2008). For the fit indices, CFI, NNFI, and IFI values greater than.95 were used as a rule of thumb for an acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler,1999). RMSEA values of .08 and below were considered a suffi-ciently good fit.

The results show that the fit of the measurement model wassatisfactory, c2(450) ¼ 777.87, CFI ¼ .96, NNFI ¼ .96, IFI ¼ .96, andRMSEA ¼ .05. The reliability of the scale was then analyzed byexamining Cronbach’s alpha and by calculating composite reli-ability estimates. Cronbach’s alpha, ranging from .81 to .90, indi-cated an acceptable internal consistency across the items in theconstructs (i.e., Cronbach’s alpha score >.7, Nunnally & Bernstein,1994). The composite reliability estimates ranged from .81 to .91,thus indicating the good internal consistency of the multiple in-dicators for each construct in the model (i.e., composite reliabilities>.7, Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998).

The average variance extracted (AVE) was then computed tocheck whether the itemsmeasured were reliable in evaluating eachconstruct. The values of AVE were used to assess the convergentand discriminant validity of the scale. As shown in Table 3, the AVEof all 10 constructs was greater than the unexplained variances (i.e.,AVE > .5). Therefore, the convergent validity of the latent con-structs was confirmed. The discriminant validity of the scale wasinvestigated following Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) suggestion inwhich the AVEmust exceed the corresponding correlation estimatebetween the two constructs (i.e., the square of the constructs’ in-tercorrelations). The results showed that the shared variance be-tween any two constructs was not greater than the AVE of theconstructs (see Tables 3 and 4). As a result, the assessment of thescale showed strong evidence of reliability and validity.

4. Discussion

4.1. Theoretical implications

In recent years, the study of MTEs has received attention as aresult of the phenomenal growth of destination competition. Re-searchers indicate that providing visitors with memorable tourismexperiences is vital for achieving success in the highly competitivetourism marketplace (Kim, Hallab, et al., 2012; Kim, Ritchie, et al.,2012). For example, when defining destination competitiveness,Ritchie and Crouch (2003) suggest that “what makes a tourismdestination truly competitive is its ability to increase tourismexpenditure, to increasingly attract visitors while providing themwith satisfying, memorable experiences, and to do so in a profitableway” (p. 2). This statement contains more than a simple definitionand includes a hidden casual connection, i.e., satisfying memorable

Page 8: The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences: The development of a scale to measure the destination attributes associated with memorable experiences

Fig. 1. Proposed measurement model of destination attributes of MTE.

J.-H. Kim / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 34e45 41

experiences are the antecedents of attracting visitors and ulti-mately provide competitive advantage over competing destina-tions. Despite the acknowledged importance of destinationcompetiveness, previous studies have not discussed the factors ofdestination competitiveness associated with MTEs. Instead, theseprevious studies focus on price competitiveness (Dwyer, Forsyth, &Rao, 2001, 2002), destination image (Andrades-Caldito, Sánchez-Rivero, & PulidoFernández, 2013), quality management (Go &Govers, 2000), environment (Hassan, 2000; Mihalic, 2000), desti-nation marketing (Buhalis, 2000) and the competitive positions ofspecific destinations (e.g., Chon & Mayer, 1995; Enright & Newton,2005; Hudson, Ritchie, & Timur, 2004). Moreover, because MTEsare an emerging research area, the literature remains sparse andthe discussion is primarily limited to understanding MTEs’ com-ponents. As a consequence, one significant contribution of thisstudy is that the findings add to a growing body of literature on theattributes of destinations involved inMTEs. The results of this studyshould provide scholars with new insights into the role of the at-tributes of destinations associated with MTEs in memorableexperience studies.

The primary purpose of this study was to bridge the researchgapdbuilding a linkage between destinations’ specific attributesand memorable experiencesdby exploring the antecedents ofMTEs. This study extended Crouch and Ritchie’s (2005) destinationcompetitiveness model by relating its relevant factors to MTEs. Theresults of this study indicate that the destination attributes of MTEsinclude the following 10 dimensions: local culture, the variety ofactivities, hospitality, infrastructure, environment management,accessibility, the quality of service, physiography, place attachment,and superstructure. Although these attribute findings supportprevious research on MTEs and destination competitiveness, thefindings point to the specific know-how to deliver MTEs in a

destination and maintain a competitive edge as a result. Forexample, different programs at a destination that provide oppor-tunities for visitors to learn about local culture, local lifestyles, andlocal history are found to affect MTEs. This finding strongly sup-ports earlier studies highlighting the importance of experiencinglocal culture on MTEs (Kim, Hallab, et al., 2012; Kim, Ritchie, et al.,2012; Morgan & Xu, 2009; Tung & Ritchie, 2011). For example, Tungand Ritchie (2011) suggest that intellectual development (e.g., theknowledge and understanding of culture and history) is one of themost significant components of MTEs.

Moreover, another finding of this study suggests that per-ceptions regarding locals’ friendliness, helpfulness, and willing-ness to welcome tourists affect MTEs. In support of this finding,Chandralal and Valenzuela (2013) indicate that travelers tend tohave random encounters with local residents, whose friendlinessand hospitality towards travelers creates long-lasting memories.This factor may more strongly influence inbound tourists who arecomplete strangers in a new environment than domestic touristswho are familiar with certain aspects of local hospitality. How-ever, local hospitality would affect both groups of touristsbecause hospitality can be developed as an image of a destinationand/or a place that individuals will remember for a long time.Moreover, memory researchers note that familiar experiences,which individuals have frequently experienced and/or obtainedknowledge about, lead to improved memory retention (Cox &Cox, 1988; Lee & Ang, 2003).

The results also suggest that place attachment, in which visitorsare highly involved with a destination through ethnic, social, andbusiness ties and emotion, contributes to people’s memories oftheir travels. This notion supports previous findings that personalattachment to a destination, in addition to a visitor’s experience, isa component of MTEs (Kim, Hallab, et al., 2012; Kim, Ritchie,et al., 2012). Another important finding of this study is that localculture, activity variety, hospitality, and superstructure had highermean ratings than the other destination attributes (see Table 4).This result corresponds to recent research findings in a destinationcompetitiveness study. While investigating the determinant attri-butes of tourism destination competitiveness, Crouch (2011) foundthat the local culture and history, activity mix, and tourism struc-ture are relativelymore important destination attributes than otherattributes. A variety of activities and events, as well as super-structures in a destination, satisfy tourists’ desires for hedonismand novelty. The influence of these attributes of a destination onthe tourists’ memories of their experiences is supported by previ-ous MTE research. For example, hedonic and novelty-seekingpurposes have been discussed as important motivations forindividuals to travel and as critical components of MTEs (e.g.,Dunman & Mattila, 2005; Farber & Hall, 2007). Another importantfinding of this study is that the negative attributes of a destinationalso contribute to tourists’ memories of the tourism experience. Insupport of Kim et al.’s (2012) notion that both positive and negativeexperiences are memorable, some negative attributes of destina-tions that possibly cause negative feelings such as frustration,anger, and embarrassment influenced the formation of negativememorable experiences in this study. Poor management atthe destination and challenges to accessibility (to and within thedestination) affected the formation of negative memorableexperiences.

4.2. Managerial implications

Destination managers and policy makers can benefit fromidentifying the destination attributes that facilitate the formation ofMTEs. Although several recent studies have highlighted theimportance of delivering MTEs in order to develop competitive

Page 9: The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences: The development of a scale to measure the destination attributes associated with memorable experiences

Table 3Scale items and confirmatory factor analysis results.

Factors (Cronbach’s alphas) Standardizedfactor loading

Compositereliabilities

AVE SMC (R2)

Local culture (.88) .87 .70A variety of opportunities to experience local way of life .78 .66Programs to learn about local history .86 .75Experience local culture .86 .72Activities and Special events (.81) .82 .53Different kinds of sports/games/recreational activities in the destination .66 .43Activities that I cannot usually participate in mundane lives .68 .46Interesting special events in the destination .77 .59Festivals and events that I have been interested in .79 .62Hospitality (.86) .87 .68Local people in the destination were friendly .85 .72Local people were willing to help me/us .91 .83Local people were willing to share information about the destination .71 .50Infrastructure (.84) .81 .52Uniquely designed infrastructure .76 .43High quality of infrastructure .88 .53Good signage/directions .61 .67Good availability of tourism information .61 .67Destination MGT (.90) .88 .69The destination has a chaotic traffic system .79 .62The destination was unclean .75 .56The destination had a bad odor .91 .82The destination was unsafe .87 .75Accessibility (.90) .91 .76Inconvenient to get to destinations .90 .81Took me(us) long hours to get to destination .88 .78Difficult traveling around destinations .84 .70Quality of Service (.85) .85 .65Service staff were courteous and friendly .82 .68Offered highly customized service .82 .68Service staff provide impressive service .79 .62Physiography (.87) .88 .71Different ecology zones .87 .75Well preserved areas .86 .74Awe-inspiring landscapes .79 .62Place attachment (.83) .83 .62The destination has an ethnic tie .77 .60The destination had a cultural bond with me/family .86 .74The destination has many places where I have been interested in visiting .73 .53Superstructure (.87) .85 .65Unique architectures .85 .71Special cuisines .80 .63Interesting building .76 .72

Note: c2 ¼ 777.87, 450 degrees of freedom (p < .001), CFI ¼ .96, IFI ¼ .96, NNFI ¼ .96, RMSEA ¼ .05.

J.-H. Kim / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 34e4542

advantages in a fiercely competitive marketplace (e.g., Kim, Hallab,et al., 2012; Kim & Ritchie, 2013; Kim, Ritchie, et al., 2012), thepresent study provides the first comprehensive and standardizedmeasure of the determinants of MTEs. Therefore, present scale notonly provides key attributes where strategies and interventions aremost likely to enhance the delivery of MTEs, it also serves as adiagnostic tool to evaluate the performances of tourism businessesand the environment of a destination.

Good management of the destination attributes identified inthis study could lead to improvement in MTEs of those attracted toa destination. For example, the destination should have a uniquely-designed, high-quality infrastructure that stimulates visitors’imagination and result in highly personalized mementos of theexperience. Similarly, managers must ensure that access/travel tothe destination is not only easy and convenient but includes,wherever possible, unique activities and elements that initiate andenhance the memorability of the total experience from beginningto end. In addition, other basic and essential elements of destina-tions, such as cleanliness and safety, are found to induce negativelymemorable experiences when poorly managed. Therefore, sub-stantial efforts should be made at both micro (i.e., destination) andmacro (i.e., nation) levels. For example, from a micro perspective,

tourism marketers can adopt traditional methods, such asemployee training, as well as listing hot spots which are likely to beproblematic (Testa & Sipe, 2006). Moreover, policy makers andgovernment agencies need to invest in education in order toimprove aspects of citizen safety, hygiene, and traffic.

To provide unique experiences, managers must first identify andhighlight the most significant aspects of the destination’s culture,history, and local way of life that set it apart from the rest of thetourismworld. Managers should then create a manageable numberof activities/experiences/mementos related to each of these aspectswith a view toward enhancing the probability that at least one (andideally more) of these aspects will provide the foundation for anoverall MTE during the visit. To some extent we are living in a timein which experience is emphasized (O’Dell, 2005). Tourists want todo things rather than observe what lies before them. Therefore,destination mangers should creatively develop cultural activitiesthat can stimulate visitors’ five senses. For example, a cookery classcan provide an opportunity for visitors to experience local food,learn about the local culture, and how to eat and drink like locals.Do-it-yourself (DIY) programs inwhich tourists can imitate culturalpractices, when equipped with historical information, wouldinvoke entertaining and educational experiences.

Page 10: The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences: The development of a scale to measure the destination attributes associated with memorable experiences

Table 4Construct inter-correlations.

Measures LC AE HS IF DM AC QS PS PA SS Mean S.D.

Local Culture (LC) .69a .22 .28 .32 .08 .20 .27 .45 .25 .30 5.08 1.23Activities & Events (AE) .22 .53a .26 .20 .03 �.06 .27 .29 .39 .47 5.05 .97Hospitality (HS) .28 .26 .66a .22 .14 �.02 .57 .36 .32 .26 5.07 1.06Infrastructure (IF) .32 .20 .22 .51a .12 �.17 .38 .20 .23 .21 4.93 1.08Destination MGT (DM) .08 .03 .14 .12 .62a �.36 .19 .09 .01 .05 4.53 1.41Accessibility (AC) .02 �.06 �.02 �.17 �.36 .75a �.13 .17 �.08 �.05 3.79 1.55Quality of Service (QS) .27 .27 .57 .38 .19 �.13 .61a .29 .33 .25 4.96 1.11Physiography (PS) .45 .29 .36 .20 .09 .17 .29 .59a .32 .27 4.94 1.34Place Attachment (PA) .25 .39 .32 .23 .01 �.08 .33 .32 .54a .38 4.69 1.29Superstructure (SS) .30 .47 .26 .21 .05 �.05 .25 .27 .38 .65a 5.06 1.13

a Square root of AVE.

J.-H. Kim / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 34e45 43

In addition, destinationmanagers should be able tomanage theirtourism resources. Destinations that possess a highly appealing and/or unique physiography must attempt to exploit every competitiveadvantage of their good fortune by ensuring that this element un-derlies the total visitation experience in a creative and differenti-ating manner. In brief, destination managers must constantly keepin mind that despite the importance of physiography, this aspectalone rarely gives rise to a memorable experience. However, whenbuilt upon in a creative manner, destinations possessing such anadvantage have a stronger ability to enhance the memorability ofany visitor’s experience. Although destinations with natural at-tractions are at an advantage in terms of delivering memorable ex-periences, themanagers of destinationswith fewnatural attractionscan use entertainment attributes to create, develop, and deliverexperiences that have been shown to be particularly memorable tonumerous visitors. One particular advantage of entertainment isthat this attribute does not necessarily require significant capitalinvestment, and in addition, is very flexible. As such, entertainmentcan be readily adapted to enhance the destination’s appeal and canprovide highly personalized memorable experiences. Therefore,destination managers should develop a variety of entertainmentactivities that appeal to diverse groups of visitors.

The scale in this study also provides a means to benchmark theability of destinations to deliver MTEs. Therefore, visitor surveysthat measure tourist satisfaction using the destination attributes ofMTEs would help destination managers to understand individualperformances in each of the ten dimensions. They can decide whataspects of destinations should be given more attention to improvetheir competitive edge. In addition, another important use of thisscale is to develop memorable destination images, brands, andtourism TV commercials. MacKay and Fesenmaier (1997) indicatethat “a destination image is a composite of various products (at-tractions) and attributes woven into a total impression” (p. 538).Considering that destination image formation and/or modificationoccur during the various stages of tourism experiences, includingon-site stage and pre and post visits, these attributes associatedwith MTEs would contribute to the development of a memorabledestination image in different stages. Therefore, in addition toproviding MTEs in destination areas, destination managers shouldsuccessfully transfer the destination attributes of MTEs into effec-tive marketing and advertising strategies. For example, differentlocal tourism programs, a variety of activities, any remarkabletourism superstructures, and the hospitality of local people shouldbe appropriately projected in commercials.

5. Conclusions

Commenting on the importance of creating environments todeliver pleasant visitor experiences, O’Dell (2005) noted that ex-periences are inherently personal and have a material base that canbe anchored in a strategically planned and designed space.

However, one problem in the extant tourism literature is a lack ofinformation on the attributes of a destination that affect the for-mation of MTEs. Therefore, in order to facilitate a better under-standing of how destination environments can help visitors gainmemorable experiences, this study developed an instrument tomeasure the attributes of destinations associated with MTEs. Thisconceptual assessment represents a pioneering attempt to explorememorable destination attributes that are potentially available at aparticular destination, andmatch themwithmanagement practicesthat have the highest probability of delivering truly memorable andunique visitor experiences. Moreover, this study significantlycontribute to the industry as it assists destination managers indesigning environments specifically tailored to particular strengthsand appeals of the destination in question and so enhancing itsability to deliver MTEs. The results suggested that ten constructs(i.e., local culture, the variety of activities, hospitality, infrastruc-ture, environmentmanagement, accessibility, the quality of service,physiography, place attachment, and superstructure) are importantdestination attributes that are likely to facilitate a person’s MTEs.

Although the scale of the attributes of destinations associatedwith MTEs was developed following a rigorous development pro-cedure, several limitations should be noted. First, because thisstudy used a Taiwanese sample, the ability to generalize the find-ings is limited. Therefore, the findings of this study should beinterpreted with caution. For example, Kim and Ritchie (2013)noted that Asian societies are highly competitive compared toWestern societies because of government policies, hierarchicalsocial structures, and limited resources. Therefore, Asian touristsdevelop strong desires to have refreshing and relaxing tourismexperiences as an outlet to relieve stress. Similarly, Asian touristsare likely to remember tourism experiences in which the touristsexperienced exhilaration. Together with shared similar culturalvalues with Taiwan, such as Hosfstede’s “Confucianism (long-termorientation)” and “power distance” dimensions, the findings of thisstudy may be able to be generalized to other Asian tourists such asChinese and Koreans tourists. Therefore, future cross-culturalresearch with samples from different populations would be use-ful to explore the similarities and differences found in this studyand to better understand the global attributes of destinationsassociated with MTEs.

In a similar vein, although this study attempted to include arepresentative sample of the Taiwanese population by employingdiverse age groups, this effort may not be sufficient to address theissue of subcultures. Another drawback is that this study examineda limited number of the attributes of destinations. Specifically, thisstudy adopted Crouch and Ritchie’s (2005) model as a basis foridentifying the attributes of a destination affecting MTEs. Toenhance our understanding of these attributes, future researchshould be extended to include the other attributes of destinationthat are not covered in this study. Further qualitative study at theinitial stage of the development of the scale could contribute to the

Page 11: The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences: The development of a scale to measure the destination attributes associated with memorable experiences

J.-H. Kim / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 34e4544

continued refinement of the measurement scale. Such fine-tuningmay include the addition or the deletion of items or the modifi-cation of the factor structure of the scale. Future researchers shouldconsider new aspects of tourist destinations that can influenceMTEs. Any such aspects would have to be incorporated in the scaleon a continuing basis to ensure the valid measurements of the at-tributes of destinations associated with MTEs. Another interestingavenue for future research would be to clarify the way in which theattributes of destinations identified thus far are linked to visitors’memorable experiences and the way in which the components ofthese experiences have been conceptualized in the literature (e.g.,Chandralal & Valenzuela, 2013; Kim, Hallab, et al., 2012; Kim,Ritchie, et al., 2012). Investigators could attempt to reconcilethese 10 dimensions with the components of MTEs (e.g., hedonism,novelty, and knowledge) or with the memorability of tourists’ ex-periences (e.g., recollection and vividness). The 10 dimensionscould be viewed as the antecedents of these outcomes.

References

Andrades-Caldito, A., Sánchez-Rivero, M., & PulidoFernández, J. I. (2013). Differen-tiating competitiveness through tourism image assessment: an application toAndalusia (Spain). Journal of Travel Research, 52(1), 68e81.

Assaf, G. A., & Josiassen, A. (2012). European vs. U.S. airlines: performance com-parison in a dynamic market. Tourism Management, 33(2), 317e326.

Aziz, H. (1995). Understanding attacks on tourists in Egypt. Tourism Management,16(2), 9e16.

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2002). The pursuit of meaningfulness in life.Handbook of Positive Psychology, 608e618.

Beerli, A., & Martin, J. D. (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals ofTourism Research, 31(3), 657e681.

Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to thebulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 400e404.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in theanalysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588e606.

Bigne, J. E., Sanchez, M. I., & Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variablesand after purchase behaviour: inter-relationship. Tourism Management, 22(6),607e616.

Bloch, P. H., & Richins, M. L. (1983). A theoretical model for the study of productimportance perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 47(summer), 69e81.

Blodgett, J. G., & Granbois, D. H. (1992). Toward integrated conceptual model ofconsumer complaining behavior. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfac-tion, and Complaining Behavior, 5, 93e103.

Bohanek, J. G., Fivush, R., & Walker, E. (2005). Memories of positive and negativeemotional events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 51e66.

Boo, S., & Jones, D. (2009). Using a validation process to develop market segmen-tation based on travel motivation for major metropolitan areas. Journal of Traveland Tourism Marketing, 26, 60e79.

Brown, S. (2005). Travelling with a purpose: understanding the motives and ben-efits of volunteer vacationers. Current Issues in Tourism, 8(6), 479e496.

Bruner, E. M. (1991). Transformation of self in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,18(2), 238e250.

Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. TourismManagement, 21, 97e116.

Callanan, M., & Thomas, S. (2005). Volunteer tourism: deconstructing volunteeractivities within a dynamic environment. In M. Novelli (Ed.), Niche tourism:Contemporary issues and trends (pp. 183e200). New York: Elsevier.

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate BehavioralResearch, 1, 245e276.

Chandralal, L., & Valenzuela, F. (2013). Exploring memorable tourism experiences:antecedents and behavioural outcomes. Journal of Economics, Business andManagement, 1(2), 177e181.

Chi, C. G., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destinationimage, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: an integrated approach.Tourism Management, 29, 624e636.

Chi, C. G., & Qu, H. (2009). Examining the relationship between tourists’ attributesatisfaction and overall satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Man-agement, 18(1), 4e25.

Chon, K.-S., & Mayer, K. J. (1995). Destination competitiveness models in tourismand their application to Las Vegas. Journal of Tourism Systems and QualityManagement, 1(2/3/4), 227e246.

Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketingconstruct. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(February), 64e73.

Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist types. Sociology, 13, 179e201.Cox, D., & Cox, A. (1988). What does familiarity breed? Complexity as a moderator

of repetition effects in advertisement evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research,15, 111e116.

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: a framework for memoryresearch. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671e684.

Crompton, J. L. (1979). An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation desti-nation and the influence of geographical location upon the image. Journal ofTravel Research, 18(4), 18e23.

Crouch, G. I. (2011). Destination Competitiveness: an analysis of determinant at-tributes. Journal of Travel Research, 50(27), 27e45.

Crouch, G. I., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1999). Tourism competitiveness and social pros-perity. Journal of Business Research, 44, 137e152.

Crouch, G. I., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2005). Application of the analytic hierarchy processto tourism choice and decision making: a review and illustration applied todestination competitiveness. Tourism Analysis, 10(1), 17e25.

Das, T., & DiRenzo, C. (2009). Global tourism competitiveness and freedomof the press: a nonlinear relationship. Journal of Travel Research, 47(4),470e479.

Davis, P. J., & Schwartz, G. E. (1987). Repression and the inaccessibility of affectivememories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 155e162.

Devillis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Dewhurst, S. A., & Parry, L. A. (2000). Emotionality, distinctiveness, and recollectiveexperience. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12(4), 541e551.

Digance, J. (2003). Pilgrimage at contested sites. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1),143e159.

Driscoll, A., Lawson, R., & Niven, B. (1994). Measuring tourists’ destination per-ceptions. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 499e511.

Dudycha, G. J., & Dudycha, M. M. (1933). Some factors and characteristics ofchildhood memories. Child Development, 4, 265e278.

Dunman, T., & Mattila, A. S. (2005). The role of affective factors on perceived cruisevacation value. Tourism Management, 26, 311e323.

Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Rao, P. (2001). International price competitiveness ofAustralia’s MICE industry. International Journal of Tourism Research, 3(2),123e139.

Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Rao, P. (2002). Destination price competitiveness: exchangerate changes versus domestic inflation. Journal of Travel Research, 40(February),328e336.

Dwyer, L., & Kim, C. (2003). Destination competitiveness: determinants and in-dicators. Current Issues in Tourism, 6(5), 369e414.

Dwyer, L., Mellor, R., Mistilis, N., & Mules, T. (2000). Forecasting the economicimpacts of events and conventions. Event Management, 6(1), 191e204.

Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). The measurement of destination image: anempirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 31(4), 3e13.

Enright, M. J., & Newton, J. (2004). Tourism destination competitiveness: a quan-titative research. Tourism Management, 25, 777e788.

Enright, M. J., & Newton, J. (2005). Determinants of tourism destination competi-tiveness in Asia Pacific: comprehensiveness and universality. Journal of TravelResearch, 43(4), 339e350.

Farber, M. E., & Hall, T. E. (2007). Emotional and environment: visitors’ extraordi-nary experiences along the Dalton highway in Alaska. Journal of LeisureResearch, 39(2), 248e270.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,18(February), 39e50.

Frankl, V. E. (1985). Man’s search for meaning. New York: Simon & Schuster.Funk, D. C., & Bruun, T. J. (2007). The role of socio-psychological and culture-

education motives in marketing international sport tourism: a cross-culturalperspective. Tourism Management, 28(3), 806e819.

Go, F. M., & Govers, R. (2000). Integrated quality management for tourist destina-tions: a European perspective on achieving competitiveness. Tourism Manage-ment, 21(1), 79e88.

Haahti, A. J. (1986). Finland’s competitive position as a destination. Annals ofTourism Research, 13, 11e35.

Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. E., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate dataanalysis (5th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.

Hall, C., & Weiler, B. (1992). Introduction. What’s special about special interesttourism. In B. Weiler, & C. M. Hall (Eds.), Special interest tourism (pp. 1e14). NewYork: Wiley.

Hassan, S. S. (2000). Determinants of market competitiveness in an environ-mentally sustainable tourism industry. Journal of Travel Research, 38(3), 239e245.

Hinkins, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of or-ganizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967e988.

Hoch, S., & Deighton, J. (1989). Managing what consumers learn from experience.Journal of Marketing, 53(April), 1e20.

Hoe, S.-L. (2008). Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modelingtechnique. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 3(1), 76e83.

Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structureanalysis: conventional versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6,1e55.

Hudson, S., Ritchie, J. R. B., & Timur, S. (2004). Measuring destination competi-tiveness: an empirical study of Canadian ski resorts. Tourism Hospitality Plan-ning and Development, 1(1), 79e94.

Hunt, R. R., & Mitchell, D. B. (1982). Independent effects of semantic and non-semantic distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,and Cognition, 8, 81e87.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31e36.

Page 12: The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences: The development of a scale to measure the destination attributes associated with memorable experiences

J.-H. Kim / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 34e45 45

Kensigner, E. A., & Corkin, S. (2003). Memory enhancement for emotional words:are emotional words more vividly remembered than neutral words? Memoryand Cognition, 31, 1169e1180.

Kensinger, E. A., & Schacter, D. L. (2006). When the Red Sox Shocked the Yankees:comparing negative and positive memories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,13(5), 757e763.

Kerstetter, D., & Cho, M.-H. (2004). Tourists’ information search behavior: the role ofprior knowledge and perceived credibility. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4),961e985.

Kihlstrom, J. F., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1982). The earliest recollection: a new survey.Journal of Personality, 50, 134e148.

Kim, J.-H. (2010). Determining the factors affecting the memorable nature of travelexperiences. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 27(8), 780e796.

Kim, J.-H., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2013). Cross-cultural validation of a Memorable TourismExperience Scale (MTES). Journal of Travel Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287513496468. published online 17 July 2013.

Kim, K., Hallab, Z., & Kim, J.-N. (2012). The moderating effect of travel experience in adestination on the relationship between the destination image and the intentionto revisit. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 21, 486e505.

Kim, J.-H., Ritchie, J. R. B., &McCormick, B. (2012). Development of a scale tomeasurememorable tourism experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), 12e25.

Kozak, M. (2001). Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct destinations. Annals of TourismResearch, 28(3), 784e807.

Larsen, S., & Jenssen, D. (2004). The school trip: traveling with, not to or from.Scandinavian Journal of Tourism Research, 4, 43e57.

Leblanc, M. (2003). Tourist characteristics and their interest in attending festivals &events: an Anglophone/Francophone case study of New Brunswick, Canada.Event Management, 8(4), 203e212.

Lee, Y.-H., & Ang, K.-S. (2003). Brand name suggestiveness: a Chinese languageperspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(4), 323e335.

Lee, C., Lee, Y., & Lee, B. (2005). Korea’s destination image formed by the 2002 worldcup. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 839e858.

Lehto, X. Y., O’Leary, J. T., & Morrision, A. M. (2004). The effects of prior experienceon vacation behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 801e818.

Lew, A. A. (1987). A framework for tourist attraction research. Annals of TourismResearch, 14, 553e575.

Machils, G., & Burch, W. (1983). Relations among strangers: cycles of structuringand meaning in the tourist system. Sociological Review, 31, 666e689.

MacKay, K., & Fesenmaier, D. (1997). Pictorial element of destination in imageformation. Annals of Tourism Research, 24, 537e565.

McGaugh, J. L. (2004). The amygdala modulates the consolidation of memories ofemotionally arousing experiences. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 1e28.

McKercher, B. (1998). The effect of market access on destination choice. Journal ofTravel Research, 37, 39e47.

Meng, F. (2006). An examination of destination competitiveness from the tourists’perspective: The relationship between quality of tourism experience and perceiveddestination competitiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Blacksburg,Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Mihalic, T. (2000). Environmental management of a tourist destination. A factor oftourism competitiveness. Tourism Management, 21(1), 65e78.

Morgan, M., & Xu, F. (2009). Student travel experiences: memories and dreams.Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18, 216e236.

Murphy, P., Pritchard, M., & Smith, B. (2000). The destination product and its impacton traveler perceptions. Tourism Management, 21(1), 43e52.

Noy, C. (2004). This trip really changed me: backpackers’ narratives of self-change.Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 78e102.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York:McGraw- Hill.

O’Dell, T. (2005). Experiencescapes: blurring borders and testing connections. InT. O’Dell, & P. Billing (Eds.), Experiencescapes: Tourism, culture, and economy (pp.11e33). Koge, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.

Ozdemir, B., Aksu, A., Ehtiyar, R., Cizel, B., Cizel, R. B., & Icigen, E. T. (2012). Re-lationships among tourist profile, satisfaction and destination loyalty: exam-ining empirical evidence in Antalya region in Turkey. Journal of HospitalityMarketing & Management, 21(5), 506e540.

Pan, S. (2011). The role of TV commercial visuals in forming memorable andimpressive destination images. Journal of Travel Research, 50(2), 171e185.

Pearce, D. G. (1987). Tourism today: A geographical analysis. Harlow: Longman.Pearce, P. L., & Lee, U.-I. (2005). Developing the travel career approach to tourist

motivation. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 226e237.Pine, J. B., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre & every

business a stage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Brian, A. (2006). Heritage site management: motivations and

expectations. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 162e178.Porter, S., & Birt, A. R. (2001). Is traumatic memory special? A comparison of

traumatic memory characteristics with memory for other emotional life ex-periences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 101e117.

Rajaram, S. (1998). The effects of conceptual salience and perceptual distinctivenesson conscious recollection. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5, 71e78.

Raju, P., & Reilly, M. (1979). Product familiarity and information-processing strate-gies: an exploratory investigation. Journal of Business Research, 8, 187e212.

Reder, L. M., Donavos, D. K., & Erickson, M. A. (2002). Perceptual match effects indirect tests of memory: the role of contextual fan. Memory and Cognition, 30(2),312e323.

Richards, G. (2002). Tourism attraction systems: exploring cultural behavior. Annalsof Tourism Research, 29(4), 1048e1064.

Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2000). The competitive destination: a sustainabilityperspective. Tourism Management, 21(1), 1e7.

Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainabletourism perspective. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

Ritchie, J. R. B., Crouch, G. I., & Hudson, S. (2001). Developing operational measuresfor the components of a destination competitiveness/sustainability model:consumer versus managerial perspectives. In J. A. Mazanec, G. I. Crouch,J. R. B. Ritchie, & A. G. Woodside (Eds.), Consumer psychology of tourism, hos-pitality and leisure (pp. 1e17). Oxon, UK: CABI Publishing.

Robinson, M., & Novelli, M. (2005). Niche tourism: an introduction. In M. Novelli(Ed.), Niche tourism: Contemporary issues, trends and cases (pp. 1e14). Oxford:Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Rubin, D. C. (2005). A basic systems approach to autobiographical memory. CurrentDirections in Psychological Science, 14, 79e83.

Ryan, C. (1991). Recreational tourism: A social science approach. London: Routledge.Ryan, C. (1993). Tourism and terrorism in Egypt and Kenya: Conflict update. London:

Research institute for the study of conflict and terrorism.Ryan, C. (1998). Saltwater crocodiles as tourist attractions: a pilot study. Journal of

Sustainable Tourism, 6(4), 314e327.Sharpley, R., & Sundaram, P. (2005). Tourism: a sacred journey? the case of ashram

tourism, India. International Journal of Tourism Research, 7(3), 161e171.Smith, S. (1994). The tourist product. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 582e595.Snepenger, D., King, J. L., Marshall, E. P., & Uysal, M. S. (2007). Modeling Iso-Ahola’s

motivation theory in the tourism context. Journal of Travel Research, 45(2), 127e139.

Swinyard, W. R. (1993). The effects of mood, involvement, and quality of storeexperience on shopping intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 271e280.

Taiwan Census Bureau. (2012). Statistical report of the population. Taipei, Taiwan:Government Printing Office.

Testa, M. R., & Sipe, L. J. (2006). A systems approach to service quality. Cornell Hotel& Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 36e48.

Tulving, E. (1979). Relation between encoding specificity and levels of processing. InF. I. M. Craik, & L. Cermak (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 405e428). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tung, V. W. S., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2011). Exploring the essence of memorable tourismexperiences. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1367e1386.

Turner, L., & Ash, J. (1975). The golden hordes: International tourism and the pleasureperiphery. London: Routledge.

Turner, L., & Reisinger, Y. (1999). Importance and expectations of destination at-tributes for Japanese tourists to Hawaii and the gold coast compared. Asia Pa-cific Journal of Tourism Research, 4(2), 1e18.

Waldfogel, S. (1948). The frequency and affective character of childhood memories.Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 62(4), 1e39.

Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: validityand generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49, 830e840.

Wirtz, D., Kruger, J., Scollon, C. N., & Diener, E. (2003). What to do on spring break?The role of predicted, on-line, and remembered experience in future choice.Psychological Science, 14, 520e524.

Wong, I. A., & Wan, Y. K. P. (2013). A systematic approach to scale development intourist shopping satisfaction: linking destination attributes and shoppingexperience. Journal of Travel Research, 52(1), 29e41.

Wood, W., & Conway, M. (2006). Subjective impact, meaning making, and currentand recalled emotions for self-defining memories. Journal of Personality, 74,811e845.

Zimmerman, C. A., & Kelley, C. M. (2010). “I’ll remember this!” Effects ofemotionality on memory predictions versus memory performance. Journal ofMemory and Language, 62, 240e253.

Jong-Hyeong Kim, Ph.D., is an associate professor in theschool of Tourism Management at Sun Yat-sen University.His research interests are tourism marketing with a focuson memorable experience management.