Cross-Cultural Validation of a Memorable Tourism Experience Scale (MTES)

http://jtr.sagepub.com/Journal of Travel Research

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/07/15/0047287513496468The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0047287513496468

published online 17 July 2013Journal of Travel ResearchJong-Hyeong Kim and J. R. Brent Ritchie

Cross-Cultural Validation of a Memorable Tourism Experience Scale (MTES)

- Mar 31, 2014version of this article was published on more recent A

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

can be found at:Journal of Travel ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jul 17, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

- Mar 31, 2014Version of Record

at Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitu on April 25, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitu on April 25, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jtr.sagepub.com/

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/07/15/0047287513496468

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/53/3/323

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.ttra.com

http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/53/3/323.full.pdf

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/07/15/0047287513496468.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Journal of Travel ResearchXX(X) 1 –13© 2013 SAGE PublicationsReprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0047287513496468jtr.sagepub.com

Article

Introduction

In recent years, the study of memorable tourism experiences (MTEs) has become important as a result of the phenomenal growth of destination competition. In order to remain com-petitive in the fierce marketplace that characterizes interna-tional tourism, destination managers must provide their visitors with truly memorable experiences. For example, Ritchie and Crouch (2003) stressed that destination competi-tiveness is derived from the delivery of such memorable experiences. Therefore, successful identification of the con-ceptual dimensions/factors underlie the formation of MTEs and, we believe, are essential to assist destination manag-ers in their efforts to enhance the probability of their visitors realizing an MTE while traveling within a destination. In the existing tourism literature, a number of researchers have identified a variety of tourism experiential components (e.g., hedonism, happiness, pleasure, stimulation, relaxation). All these efforts have certainly contributed to our understanding of tourism experiences.

However, Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick (2012) noted that not all tourism experiences are memorable and that MTEs are selectively reconstructed based on the individuals’ assessment of the experiences’ constituents. Therefore, there may be significant incongruence between different experi-ences and their constituents. Oh, Fiore, and Jeong (2007) supported this notion while testing structural relations among experience dimensions and memories. They asserted that only one dimension (aesthetics) significantly influenced memory. Other researchers have explored the components of travel experiences that are likely to be recalled from tourists’ memory (Larsen and Jenssen 2004; Wirtz et al. 2003).

However, they have been confined to only a few affective feelings, such as guilt, happiness, irritation, pleasure, sad-ness, sociability, and worry. Consequently, a great deal of attention is currently being devoted to discovering the funda-mental dimensions/factors that facilitate the formation of MTE. In this regard, Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick (2012) developed the memorable tourism experience scale (MTES), based on a research program that first identified the underly-ing components of tourism experiences. Assisted by a panel of prominent tourism scholars, this study first identified and examined a range of possible components. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses subsequently identified seven salient dimensions on which to base the MTES. These were hedonism, refreshment, local culture, meaningfulness, knowledge, involvement, and novelty.

Even though the authors developed the MTES using a rig-orous scale development procedure, the sample of respon-dents in the study was limited to a homogeneous group of college students at Midwest University in the USA. As a result, superior tests of validity, such as external validity, were not implemented. It follows that additional research, employing different groups of respondents from more repre-sentative populations, is needed to confirm the psychometric properties of the MTE dimensions. Therefore, this study

496468 JTRXXX10.1177/0047287513496468Journal of Travel ResearchKim and Ritchieresearch-article2013

1Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China2University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Corresponding Author:Jong-Hyeong Kim, School of Tourism Management, Sun Yat-sen University, 135 Road Xin Gang Xi, 510275 Guangzhou, China. Email: [email protected]

Cross-Cultural Validation of a Memorable Tourism Experience Scale (MTES)

Jong-Hyeong Kim1 and J. R. Brent Ritchie2

AbstractThe present study seeks to establish the cross-cultural validity of the memorable tourism experience scale (MTES), a recently developed measurement scale designed to assess individuals’ memorable tourism experiences (MTEs). Since the psychometric properties of the MTES have only been examined within a sample of American college students, the aim of this study was to replicate the previous psychometric findings using a sample of Taiwanese respondents. The data confirmed the validity of the previously established seven dimensions of MTES in the Taiwanese sample. Thus, the findings of the study suggest that MTES can generally be utilized to assess individuals’ MTEs in cross-cultural settings.

Keywordsexperience scale, memory, memorable tourism experiences, memorable tourism experience scale, tourism experience

at Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitu on April 25, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from


2 Journal of Travel Research XX(X)

seeks to validate a scale of MTES through an empirical study conducted in Taiwan. The findings are also a basic indicator to be used for cross-cultural comparisons with previous MTE studies conducted in different countries. This cross-cultural approach will allow for a better understanding of MTE of Asian tourists, as well as, we hope, provide a basic frame-work that others can use for similar cross-cultural studies.

Conceptualization of MTE and the Dimensions of MTES

Since an MTE is defined as “a tourism experience positively remembered and recalled after the event has occurred” (Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick 2012), only the components of the tourism experience that strongly affect individuals and lead to memorability should be taken into consideration in con-ceptualizing an MTE. Because little prior research has been conducted on MTE (and specifically on scale development), Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick (2012) undertook to identify the construct domains of MTEs by cross-referencing the lit-erature of memory with that of tourism experiences. Based on preliminary study results, a total of 85 items related to 16 distinct dimensions of tourism experiences were proposed: hedonism, relaxation, stimulation, refreshment, adverse feel-ings, social interaction (local culture), happiness, meaning-fulness, knowledge, challenge, assessment of value, assessment of service, unexpected happenings, involvement (personal relevance), novelty, and participation. The purifi-cation of the measurement process subsequently supported the development of a parsimonious scale instrument. This practice resulted in a seven-concept model with 24 items. The factors combined accounted for 75.89% of the total vari-ation in the data.

The first component, labeled hedonism, consisted of four items, namely “thrill,” “indulgement,” “enjoyment,” and “excitement.” The second component included three items that highlighted involvement (personal relevance): “visita-tion of the places where I really wanted to go,” “participa-tion in the activities which I really wanted to do,” and “participation in the activities that match my interests.” The third component, novelty, contained four items: “once-in-a lifetime experience,” “unique,” “different from previous experience,” and “experienced something new.” The fourth component represented local culture and was composed of three items: “good impressions about the local people,” “closely experienced the local culture,” and “local people in a destination were friendly.” The fifth component contained four items measuring refreshment: “liberating,” “enjoyed sense of freedom,” “refreshing,” and “revitalized.” The sixth component consisted of three items that highlighted knowledge: “exploratory,” “obtained knowledge,” and “learned a new culture.” The last component represented meaningfulness and contained three items: “I did something meaningful during this trip,” “I did something important

during this trip,” and “I learned about myself from this trip.” Apparently, the factor structure of the MTES seems to cap-ture tourism experiential components that are both funda-mental and memorable, as suggested in the literature. Discussions, including empirical comparison and/or support by extant literature, for each of the above seven MTE com-ponents, are as follows:

Hedonism

Tourism researchers have long recognized that tourism and leisure activities possess predominantly hedonic compo-nents. Unlike other activities and products, people primarily seek enjoyment (hedonism/pleasure) while “consuming” tourism products (experiences). Consistent with the notion that the primary purpose of consuming leisure-related prod-ucts is to pursue hedonic or pleasurable experiences, an emotional component is a significant aspect of tourism experiences. In one of the earliest empirical studies on this topic, Otto and Ritchie (1996) reported that tourism prod-ucts and services are rich in attributes that are primarily con-sumed for hedonic purposes. This finding is consistent with a wide range of evidence, subsequently documented in the tourism literature. For example, Dunman and Mattila (2005) identified hedonism as a major determinant of the perceived value of cruise travel. Moreover, in a recent memorable experience study, Tung and Ritchie (2011) found that posi-tive emotions and feelings associated with these experi-ences, such as happiness and excitement, explained the essence of MTEs.

Refreshment

Together with hedonism, refreshment, or relaxation and renewal, is probably the most defining basic component of tourism activities. Several researchers have emphasized that two of the most distinctive characteristics of travel experi-ences, ones that make them different from the characteris-tics of people’s daily mundane lives, are refreshment and renewal. For example, Cohen (1979) defined tourism activ-ity as “essentially [a] temporary reversal of everyday activities—it is a no-work, no-care, no-thrift situation” (p. 181). People satisfy their psychological need to escape from boredom and seek solitude, or relaxation, by engaging themselves in travel experiences (Cohen 1979). In addition, empirical research has supported the importance of escap-ism and refreshment in travel experiences (Boo and Jones 2009; Lscerblanc 2003; Pearce and Lee 2005; Richards 2002; Snepenger et al. 2007). Lscerblanc (2003) found that rest, relaxation, and recuperation were among the major motivations of tourists who attend special events and festi-vals. Moreover, Morgan and Xu (2009) found that travel experiences involving relaxing in the sun on the beach can be highly memorable holiday experiences.



Kim and Ritchie 3

Novelty

In the tourism literature, novelty seeking has been consis-tently discussed as another important component of subjec-tive tourism experiences, as well as a popular motivation for an individual to travel (Dunman and Mattila 2005; Farber and Hall 2007). Travelers tend to choose a destination where there are different cultures and lifestyles in order to satisfy their needs and desires to experience something new, or “some other things” that cannot be found in their home destinations (Pearce 1987). Of particular significance in relation to the understanding of MTEs is the fact that the memory literature has reported a strong causal connection between novelty and human memory (Reder, Donavon, and Erickson 2002). More specifically, memory researchers have contended that unusual, atypical, or distinctive events are better remembered than “typical” events. In a recent empirical study, Chandralal and Valenzuela (2013) supported the notion that perceived novelty, which is derived from experiencing something new (e.g., culture, food, and accommodation) and encountering different styles of tour, is a component of MTE.

Social Interaction and Local Culture

Unlike other customer product experiences, tourism experi-ences are co-created by involving people in experience-based situations (Ryan 1998). For example, through social interaction with residents in a destination, travelers increase their under-standing of the local people (who are commonly culturally dif-ferent) and ultimately achieve global citizenship. Within the tourism literature, experiencing local culture has been dis-cussed as an important motivational factor for traveling (Funk and Bruun 2006; Richards 2002; Sharpley and Sundaram 2005). Moreover, there is a growing trend to participate in spe-cific types of tourism, notably volunteer tourism, which enables travelers to uniquely experience and learn, and to go beyond the typical tourism platform of staged settings typified by beau-tiful beaches and fancy resorts, and to engage with the local people, their lives, and their living environments as they really are (Brown 2005). In studies focusing on MTEs, researchers found that experiencing local culture makes traveling more memorable. For example, Morgan and Xu (2009) stated that interacting with the local culture and people allowed travelers to construct unique and memorable holiday experiences. Tung and Ritchie (2011) also found that learning about local culture, including residents’ way of life as well as the local language, significantly enhanced MTEs. In a recent study, Chandralal and Valenzuela (2013) supported the previous findings and noted that experiencing actual local life, cultures, and foods of destinations makes an experience memorable.

Knowledge

Tourism researchers have also reported that people wish to learn new things and develop new insights and skills, as a

result of their tourism experiences (Poria, Reichel, and Brian 2006; Richards 2002; Sharpley and Sundaram 2005). Tourism motivation studies suggest that one of the push motivations that predispose individuals to travel is to satisfy the need to gain knowledge. For example, many people travel in response to the urge to acquire new knowledge and understanding of the destinations they visit (particularly as this pertains to geography, history, language, and culture). In a study that sought to understand the “essence” of MTEs, Tung and Ritchie (2011) found that intellectual development was one of the most significant components of MTEs. Many respondents indicated that tourism experiences from which they gained new knowledge about the destinations visited were among the most memorable experiences.

Meaningfulness

Because meaning is essential to happiness and well-being (Baumeister and Vohs 2002), people strive to find meaning in their lives (Frankl 1985). Accordingly, people search for meaningful experiences within their travel and tourism activ-ities, such as seeking a sense of physical, emotional, or spiri-tual fulfillment through tourism rather than pursuing mere escapism or a hollow search for authenticity (Bruner 1991; Callanan and Thomas 2005; Digance 2003; Noy 2004). Since travelers are more sophisticated today, they increas-ingly seek unique and meaningful travel experiences that will satisfy their needs and desires (Hall and Weiler 1992; Robinson and Novelli 2005). For example, some individuals consider a tourism experience an inner journey of personal growth and self-development, rather than the mere consum-ing of sights, faces, and places. In a study on the essence of MTEs (Tung and Ritchie 2011), meaningful tourism experi-ences were found to last longer in human memory. The same study noted that when people learn more about the world and expand their perspectives on life because of eye-opening travel experiences, these experiences can be some of the most memorable of a lifetime. In summary, the authors stressed the importance of delivering MTEs and demon-strated the strong impacts of the meaningful experiences on memory.

InvolvementPeople remember an experience that is personally relevant and closely related to their interests, more than one that is not. There are two main phases of tourism experiences in which travelers develop involvement: planning and on-site activities. First, in the planning stage of a tourism experi-ence, during which a variety of preparations are necessary (e.g., arranging transportation and accommodation), people often visualize themselves as being actually involved in the activity. Various emotions (anxiety, exhilaration, etc.) as well as expectations of the experience can develop from these visualizations. These tourism experiences, however,




differ significantly according to the tourists’ level of per-sonal involvement in planning the trip. For example, if an individual plans to visit a long-anticipated place, he or she would have higher expectations of this trip than of others and would experience different feelings. In the on-site phase of tourism experiences, tourists develop involvement while actively participating in tourism programs. Pine and Gilmore (1999) suggested that encouraging customer participation would effectively deliver MTEs. They noted that customers are more likely to have a memorable experience when they find themselves immersed in an activity.

Method

Instrument

The survey questionnaire used in the study was first trans-lated into Mandarin Chinese using a professional language service and was then translated back into English by bilin-gual tourism scholars. Any ambiguities detected in this pro-cess were corrected. This method followed the guidelines suggested by Sin, Cheung, and Lee (1999). The survey ques-tionnaire included MTE items as well as questions on (1) trip characteristics, (2) behavioral intentions, and (3) sociodemo-graphics. To measure behavioral intentions, we adopted three items from the work of Kim, Ritchie, and Tung (2010). Respondents were asked “how likely they were to return for another visit in a year,” “how likely they were to repeat the same tourism activities in a year,” and “how likely they were to recommend the place.”

Data Collection and Sampling

In order to confirm the validity of the MTES, data were col-lected via quota sampling since this technique provides a sample structure similar to that of city populations. We reviewed the total number of respondents for different age groups (18–29 years, 30–45 years, 46–64 years, and 65 years or older) and set the size of the sample for each category in proportion to the number in the local population. The per-sonal interview method was used for data collection as it allowed interviewers to provide additional explanations to respondents and to probe for more detailed, as well as more accurate, responses. A team of five student interviewers, who were fluent in Mandarin and Taiwanese, were recruited and specifically trained for the study.

The data were collected in Kaohsiung, the second largest city in Taiwan, from September to November 2012. Data collection was designed to cover a wide range of sites, during both weekdays and weekends. Contact with the respondents was made in the streets, shopping malls, and public parks. Samples of respondents who stated that their cultural back-grounds were not solely Taiwanese or whose preferred spo-ken language was other than Mandarin or Taiwanese were excluded. This approach was consistent with Chick’s (2006)

description of claimed cultural identity as phenomenally defined (Goodenough 1996). Participants were then asked to recall the most memorable tourism experiences they have had in the last five years and to subsequently evaluate 24 MTE items on a 7-point Likert-type scale, on which 1 repre-sented “I have not experienced at all” and 7 represented “I have experienced very much.” In summary, the focus of the study was on any of the respondents’ “memorable tourism experiences,” not simply a recent one. Behavioral intentions scale items were also measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7).

Participants

A total of 800 questionnaires were distributed and 593 usable copies were completed and returned, representing an overall response rate of 74.1%. An equal number of males and females participated in the study (48.9% vs. 51.1%). The age of the study’s participants ranged from 18 to 81 years, with majority of the respondents ranging from 46 to 64 years (36.5%). The median age of the samples was 44 years.

As shown in Table 1, most of respondents had previously traveled for relaxation and refreshment (44.2%). They had also traveled for pleasure (31.7%), visiting friends and rela-tives (VFR, 15.2%), and other purposes (5.1%). Business (3.0%) and volunteer work (0.8%) were relatively minor travel motivations. A content analysis of the choice of other purposes indicated that educational opportunities (e.g., stu-dent exchange programs) and school-related events (e.g., training programs and field trips) were the most common. The most frequent type of accommodation used was hotels below four stars (35.6%), followed by hostels (21.2%), lux-ury hotels above four stars (20.4%), friends/family house (19.1%), others (6.7%), motels (2.9%), camping (2.4%), and cabins (1.3%). Of the respondents who had used other types of accommodation, the majority stayed in condominiums or service apartments. Regarding travel budgets, the majority spent less than NT$10,000 (43.9%) followed by NT$10,001–20,000 (17.4%) and NT$20,001–30,000 (14.1%).

Scale Validation

According to the generally accepted sequence for construct-ing scales with good psychometric properties (Churchill 1979; Devellis 1991; Nunnally 1978; Peterson 2000), there are seven stages in scale development: (1) determination of the measurement constructs; (2) generation of scale items to measure the construct domains; (3) development of the final list of scale items and determination of the type of scale; (4) purification of the measurement (checking reliability and validity); (5) replication of the study; (6) refinement of the scale measurement with a new sample (reassessing the reli-ability and validity of the scale via confirmatory factor anal-yses); and (7) establishment of norms (developing standards



Kim and Ritchie 5

and norms for decision makers). The present study focused on stages 6 and 7, which concern the assessment of the exter-nal validity and reliability of the scale as well as its predic-tive validity, since the validity and reliability of the MTES dimensions were already established in the first exploratory sample. New data were collected from Taiwanese samples in order to confirm the validity and reliability of the scale in a cross-cultural setting, as well as the nomological network of MTES.

A commonly accepted definition of validity is the degree to which a scale measures the construct it is intended to mea-sure. Although there is disagreement on the classification and types of validity that fall under the rubric of validity, three major validity tests (i.e., face and content validity, con-struct validity, and predictive validity) are accepted as essen-tial to establishing overall scale validity (Oppenheim 1992). To test and ensure the scale validity of the above-noted MTES, the suggested scale development procedure (Churchill 1979;

Table 1. Demographics and Trip Characteristics.

Variable Category Distribution

Gender Male 290 (48.9) Female 303 (51.1)Age (years) Mean 42.5 Median 44 18–29 119 (20.1) 30–45 197 (33.2) 46–64 213 (35.9) ≥65 64 (10.8)Purpose Pleasure 188 (31.7) Visiting friends and relatives (VFR) 90 (15.2) Relaxing 262 (44.2) Volunteer 5 (.8) Business 18 (3.0) Others 30 (5.1)Type of accommodation Luxury hotels (4 star or above) 121 (20.4) Hotels 211(35.6) Motels 17 (2.9) Cabins 8 (1.3) Camping 14 (2.4) Friends/family house 56 (19.1) Hostels 126 (21.2) Others 40 (6.7)Travel costs (NT$) <10,000 260 (43.9) 10,001–20,000 103 (17.4) 20,001–30,000 84 (14.1) 30,001–40,000 46 (7.7) 40,001–50,000 27 (4.5) >50,001 51 (8.6) Don’t know 22 (3.7)Travel party Alone 22 (3.7) Husband/wife 99 (16.7) Boyfriend/girlfriend 28 (4.7) Friends 207 (34.9) Family 217 (36.6) People whom I am not quite close to each other 7 (1.2) People whom I never met before/strangers (e.g., organized tour) 13 (2.2)Mode of transportation Airplane 168 (28.3) Own vehicle 209 (35.2) Rental vehicle 48 (8.1) Public transportation 168 (28.3)

Note: Entries are the number of respondents with valid percentage in parenthesis. As of December 2012, the exchange rate of NT$1 (new Taiwanese dollar) was 0.034. The percentages were rounded up to one decimal point. Therefore, the percentage may not add to 100.0 because of rounding errors.




Hinkin 1995; Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003) and the previous scale validation studies (Sirakaya-Turk, Ekinci, and Kaya 2008; Yu, Chancellor, and Cole 2011) were refer-enced. The following sections discuss the different validity tests for ensuring scale validity.

Face and Content Validity

The basic objective of a face and content validity test is to ensure that the items in a scale adequately measure the tar-geted construct. Although there is no strict procedure for testing face and content validity, Tull and Hawkins (1993) argue that content validity is a practical test because it can determine to what extent the scale items are both appropri-ate and comprehensive, in order to measure a construct. Face or content validity can best be judged after the scale items have been developed by potential measurement users or by experts who are familiar with the research domains. Face or content validation is the essential first step in establishing the “goodness” of measures and is therefore open to criticism, since different judgments on the content validity of the scale may not always be in agreement (Babbie 1999).

Construct Validity

Construct validity refers to how well a scale instrument truly measures the construct it is intended to measure. Haynes, Nelson, and Blaine (1999) emphasized the importance of construct validity: it is the ultimate goal in development and encompasses all evidence bearing on a measure. To ensure construct validity, the construct should (1) be well defined, (2) be well represented by the scale items, and (3) display a strong relationship with similar constructs (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). The first criterion requires a clear definition of a construct. The second requires a strong relationship among the scale items measuring the same constructs to con-firm internal consistency of the scale or its unidimensional-ity. The latter involves examining the relationship between the measured construct and the theoretically related vari-ables. Tull and Hawkins (1993) suggested that it can be examined by two types of validity tests: convergent and dis-criminant validity tests. Convergent validity refers to the degree to which different measures designed for the same construct are related, whereas discriminant validity refers to the degree to which different measures designed for similar but conceptually different constructs are measurably unre-lated. Therefore, discriminant validity aims to provide evi-dence as to whether the scale provides a distinct and better measure. If the scale is multidimensional, a low to moderate intercorrelation is often considered evidence of discriminant validity. If this condition is violated, it means that the scale dimensions overlap and that the discriminant validity of the scale is threatened.

Predictive Validity

Although construct validity is used to confirm the psycho-logical traits that a scale measures, predictive validity inves-tigates to what extent the scale is able to predict some other external criteria or “gold standards” (Haynes, Nelson, and Blaine 1999). This process determines the extent to which the measure fits into a network of relationships or a nomo-logical network (Cronbach and Meehl 1955). As such, the predictive ability of the measuring instrument to estimate some criteria, which is external to the measuring instrument itself, can establish the nomological network. In general, structural equation modeling, regression-based methods, and/or experimental methods are used in investigating both the theoretical relationship between different constructs and the empirical relationship between measures of those con-structs (Bollen 1989; Hoyle 1995).

On the basis of prior tourism research, we expect that MTE affects individuals’ behavioral intentions. In tourism research, which has examined the consequences of MTE, researchers have suggested that MTE is a strong predictor of future destination choices (Kerstetter and Cho 2004; Wirtz et al. 2003). Under this protocol, individuals first recall their past experiences when deciding on future destinations to visit. As such, recalled positive tourism experiences are the best predictors of an individual’s desire to take a similar vacation in the future (Wirtz et al. 2003). In a more recent study, utilizing a U.S. college student sample, Kim, Ritchie, and Tung (2010) found that the three MTE components, hedonism, novelty, and knowledge, significantly affected one’s future behavioral intentions (i.e., revisit, repractice, and word-of-mouth). Thus, the predictive validity of MTES was confirmed while examining the relations among the seven dimensions of MTES and behavioral intention con-struct (see Figure 1).

Validation of the MTES

Respected researchers in the tourism experience literature worked with the MTES development panel. The face validity and content validity of the MTES were established during translations of the scale items from English to Mandarin Chinese. Participants did not report any problems regarding their ability to understand the questionnaires. Bilingual tour-ism scholars involved in the scale translations agreed that the scale items were suitable for measuring MTE. Furthermore, an extensive review of the relevant literature for developing scale items provided sufficient evidence for both the face validity and the content validity of MTES.

The construct validity of MTES was tested by a confirma-tory factor analysis (CFA) using the maximum likelihood estimator of LISREL 9.1. The first step in interpreting the results of CFA is to assess the overall fit of the model. A χ2 test and four goodness-of-fit statistics were utilized. Since the significance of the χ2 test is highly dependent on the



Kim and Ritchie 7

number of degrees of freedom, the ratio of the χ2 test to the degrees of freedom was calculated (i.e., χ2/df). If the ratio of the χ2 score to the degrees of freedom is 3 or less, a model is judged to be acceptable (Hoe 2008). The comparative fit index (CFI) (Bentler 1992) and the non-normed fit index (NNFI) (Bentler and Bonnet 1980) were calculated to assess the fit of the tested model relative to the data. Values greater than 0.90 were used as the criteria for a sufficiently good fit of CFI (Ullman 2001), and a value of 0.95 or above was used for NNFI (Hu and Bentler 1999 ). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (Browne and Cudeck 1993) was calculated with 90% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the lack of fit of the tested model compared to the perfect model; RMSEA values of 0.08 and below reflect a good model fit (Browne and Cudeck 1993). Lastly, the average variance extracted (AVE) was computed to check whether the items measured were reliable in evaluating each construct. The AVE was also used to examine the convergent and discrimi-nant validity of the model. The AVE of each construct should exceed 0.50 to ensure convergent validity and should exceed the respective correlation estimate among factors to ensure discriminant validity. An inspection of the model fit indices from Table 1 reveals that the measurement model fits the data very well (χ2 = 551.28, 225 degrees of freedom (p <0.001), CFI = 0.98, incremental fit index [IFI] = 0.98, NNFI = 0.98, and RMSEA = 0.05).

The reliability of the measures was then assessed by examining Cronbach’s alpha and by calculating the compos-ite reliability estimates. Cronbach’s alpha (0.84–0.87) for all the measures indicated an acceptable internal consistency across the items in the constructs (Litwin 1995). Moreover, the composite reliability estimates, ranging from 0.81 to 0.88, indicated an adequate internal consistency of multiple indicators for each construct in the model (i.e., composite >0.7, Hair et al. 1998). Convergent validity and discriminant validity were then assessed. Convergent validity was evalu-ated by checking the values of all the factor loadings for indi-vidual items (>0.5) and AVE (>0.5). As shown in Table 1, the estimated values of Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) AVE of all the seven constructs were found to be greater than the unexplained variances (i.e., AVE >0.5), and all the factor loadings for the individual items were significant (>0.5). Therefore, the convergent validity of the latent constructs was confirmed. The discriminant validity of the measure-ment was investigated following Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) suggestion. According to them, the AVE must exceed the corresponding correlation estimate between the two fac-tors (i.e., the square of the constructs’ intercorrelations). The shared variance between any constructs was not greater than the AVE of the construct (see Tables 2 and 3). Taken together, the assessment of the measurement model showed a strong evidence of reliability and validity of the MTES.

Predictive Validity

To establish the predictive validity of the MTES, a structural equation model was tested based on our hypothesized model (see Figure 1). Following Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) suggestion, the data were analyzed using a two-step approach in which the overall quality of measurement was confirmed, and then a test of the structural model was conducted. Internal consistencies of the composite measures were satisfactory (Cronbach’s alpha, behavioral intention = 0.82).

The measurement model fits the data very well: CFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.99, IFI = 0.99, and RMSEA = 0.04, with χ2

(df=287) = 582.95 (p < 0.001). After confirming the appropri-

ateness of the measurement model, the structural model was examined. The results of the standardized parameter esti-mates and the t values are reported in the upper part of Table 3. The model fit indices of the structural model are presented in the lower part of the same table. For the overall model, the estimated model provided a good fit based on the model fit indices (χ2

(df=288) = 605.70 [p < 0.001], CFI = 0.99, NNFI =

0.99, IFI = 0.99, and RMSEA = 0.04). Thus, the predictive validity of MTES was ensured while examining the relations among the seven dimensions of MTE and behavioral intention.

As shown in Table 4, five out of seven MTE components (hedonism, refreshment, local culture, meaningfulness, and involvement) were found to significantly affect individuals’ behavioral intentions. Regarding the comparative influence

Hedonism

Novelty

Local Culture

Refreshment

Meaningful-ness

Involvement

Knowledge

MTEIntention

BehavioralIntention

Figure 1. MTES and hypothesized relations with behavioral intention.




of experiential factors on the consequence factor, hedonism showed the highest positive coefficient on behavioral inten-tion (β = 0.24). In other words, individuals who acquire hedonic experiences in a destination tend to revisit the same place, partake in those same tourism activities, and promote the place by word of mouth.

Discussion and Conclusion

The importance of delivering significantly memorable tour-ism experiences has highlighted the urgent need for destina-tions to effectively deliver MTEs if they are to compete successfully for the increasingly sophisticated traveler’s interest. This concern has led to the development of the MTES. Research had to be undertaken to demonstrate the validity of the scale before adopting studies designed to understand MTEs. The present study is part of an ongoing

long-term research program that seeks to examine and estab-lish the general validity of the MTES originally developed by Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick (2012). Following sugges-tions made by the original authors, the present study sought to test the scale’s validity in a cross-cultural setting. Taiwan was specifically chosen because of one of the coauthors’ ability to collect data. The findings of this study confirm the external validity of the seven dimensions of the MTES as well as their reliability. In addition, this study offered evi-dence for the scale’s construct and predictive validity. Moreover, it found that MTE components were significantly related to the emotional support memory literature, which highlights the importance of affect-laden events in one’s memorability of them. Memory researchers contended that individuals remember positive emotional events better than ordinary events that occurred equally long ago (Dewhurst and Parry 2000; Kensinger and Corkin 2003; Ochsner 2000).

Table 2. Scale Items and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results.

Factors (Cronbach’s Alphas) Standardized Factor Loading Composite Reliabilities AVE SMC (R2)

Hedonism (.87) .87 .63 Thrilled about having a new experience .68 .47 Indulged in the activities .88 .78 Really enjoyed this tourism experience .84 .70 Exciting .76 .58Novelty (.87) .88 .64 Once-in-a lifetime experience .82 .67 Unique .92 .84 Different from previous experiences .79 .62 Experienced something new .65 .42Local culture (.84) .85 .64 Good impressions about the local people .82 .67 Closely experienced the local culture .75 .57 Local people in a destination were friendly .83 .70Refreshment (.87) .85 .59 Liberating .69 .48 Enjoyed sense of freedom .71 .51 Refreshing .84 .70 Revitalized .82 .67Meaningfulness (.87) .82 .60 I did something meaningful .72 .51 I did something important .75 .57 Learned about myself .85 .71Involvement (.84) .81 .59 I visited a place where I really wanted to go .69 .47 I enjoyed activities which I really wanted to do .73 .53 I was interested in the main activities of this tourism experience

.87 .76

Knowledge (.85) .88 .71 Exploratory .81 .66 Knowledge .83 .69 New culture .88 .78

Note: AVE = average variance extracted; SMC = squared multiple correlation.aχ2 = 551.28, 225 degrees of freedom (p < .001), comparative fit index = .98, incremental fit index = .98, nonnormed fit index = .98, root mean square error of approximation = .05.



Kim and Ritchie 9

Even though further research in additional cultural settings is needed to provide more evidence on the scale’s validity, the MTES, as revealed in this study, appears to perform quite well in assessing individuals’ MTE. Therefore, this scale can be treated as either a dependent or independent variable for testing memory- or loyal behavior–related theories in tour-ism settings, depending on the purpose of the study.

Another interesting finding of this study is that the Taiwanese are more likely to remember tourism experiences during which they had experienced exhilaration (M = 5.69). One plausible explanation for this result is that individual stress levels affect one’s desire to have refreshing and relax-ing tourism experiences. Because of government policies, hierarchical social structures, and resources, Asian societies are highly competitive compared to Western societies. Therefore, the respondents, who experienced high levels of

stress, may have been motivated to seek relaxing and refresh-ing experiences. Although some may argue that there are national cultural differences, this finding may be generalized to other Asian tourists that have hierarchical status systems, such as China and South Korea (Hofstede and Bond 1988; Lee, Khan, and Ko 2008).

Grounded in the empirical evidence of the positive rela-tionships between consumers’ memories and behavioral intentions (Hoch and Deighton 1989; Kozak 2001; Lehto, O’Leary, and Morrison 2004; Schmitt 1999), this study also tested the predictive validity of the MTES while examining the effects of MTE on behavioral intentions. We specifically examined how the seven components of MTE influence behavioral intentions to revisit a place and re-participation in the same tourism activities in a year, as well as positive word of mouth. First, as supported by marketing researchers who have identified a positive link between involvement and loy-alty, which introduces the notion of personal attachment to a destination area (Alexandris, Kouthouris, and Meligdis 2006), one’s involvement in travel experiences was found to significantly increase behavioral intentions. In summary, the more an individual was involved with a vacation, in terms of visiting a place they longed for and participating in the activi-ties that they wanted to, the stronger their behavioral inten-tions. We also found that the respondents who experienced a feeling of refreshment, as well as engagement in the local culture during their travel experiences, had high levels of behavioral intentions. This supports previous research find-ings that travelers, who interact with local culture, construct a unique and memorable holiday experience and have high lev-els of behavioral intentions (Kim, Ritchie, and Tung 2010; Morgan and Xu 2009). Moreover, the MTE component of hedonism was found to increase behavioral intentions. This corroborated the findings of previous studies that hedonism, as an integral part of a tourism experience, has a significant role in determining tourists’ satisfaction as well as their future behavior (Dunman and Mattila 2005; Otto and Ritchie 1996).

On the other hand, two of the MTE components (mean-ingfulness and knowledge) were not significantly related to behavioral intentions. Concurring with the discussion above, the study’s respondents preferred to have some stress-relieving experiences such as refreshment and hedonism while travel-ing. Because respondents experience high levels of stress in their workplace and mundane lives, they may be tired of seeking other means of happiness or learning while travel-ing. Moreover, although it is not significant, the MTE com-ponent of knowledge was found to negatively affect behavioral intentions (β = −0.03). This result implies that individuals who have already learned and familiarized them-selves with the destination area may prefer to satisfy their travel motivations of novelty seeking, which is an important intrinsic motivation factor for tourists. Although individuals may have good memories of their previous travel experi-ences, they may still be inclined to look for new experiences either by visiting a new place or participating in a different activity, one that they have not practiced in previous trips.

Table 3. Construct Intercorrelations.

Measures HD NV LC RF MF IV KG Mean SD

Hedonics (HD) .79a 5.58 1.11Novelty (NV) .50 .80a 5.42 1.19Local Culture (LC) .34 .33 .80a 4.90 1.21Refreshing (RF) .49 .36 .41 .77a 5.69 1.04Meaningfulness (MF) .35 .42 .50 .36 .77a 4.85 1.29Involvement (IV) .45 .52 .31 .41 .42 .77a 5.33 1.19Knowledge (KG) .33 .43 .45 .29 .49 .41 .84a 5.06 1.29

aSquare root of average variance extracted.

Table 4. Consequences of Memorable Tourism Experiences: Standardized Coefficients, t-Values, and Fit Indices.

Path

Standardized Coefficients

Path t Value p Value

Hedonism → Behavioral Intention

.24 4.15 .000***

Refreshment → Behavioral Intention

.22 3.56 .000***

Novelty → Behavioral Intention

.19 3.13 .002**

Local Culture → Behavioral Intention

.17 2.96 .003**

Meaningfulness → Behavioral Intention

.02 0.28 .780

Involvement →Behavioral Intention

.18 2.79 .006**

Knowledge → Behavioral Intention

–.03 -0.51 .610

Model Fit Statistics

χ2 df p-value CFI IFI NNFI RMSEA

605.70 288 .000 .99 .99 0.99 .04

Note: CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.*p > .05, **p > .01, ***p > .001.




Managerial Implications

Considering the increase in international tourism worldwide, destination managers are continuously faced with new types of pressures with which they must cope effectively, as well as a huge cultural diversity that they must address. The recent research, which tested the MTE model and validated the MTES in a different cultural setting than in which it was it was originally developed, can be valuable to destination managers in several ways.

First, destination managers must effectively allocate their resources when developing tourism programs as well as sup-porting marketing strategies by focusing all their efforts on the seven MTE components and their subitems. For example, hedonic experience research, which has the strongest influ-ence on behavioral intentions, is associated with thrilling and exciting, as well as enjoyable, activities. Therefore, destina-tion managers should carefully develop and design their pro-grams to be perceived as exciting, thrilling, fun, and interesting in order to provide visitors with an MTE. In addi-tion, when promoting destinations and tourism programs, destination marketers should put more emphasis on diverse entertainment programs as well as pleasing environments. Moreover, individuals who experience involvement are more likely to derive an MTE. Consequently, destination manag-ers should design tourism programs in which visitors can actively participate. Markwell (2004) also emphasized that multisensory participation allows visitors a feeling of “being there” that extends beyond the “gaze” associated with tourist experiences. Thus, destination managers should develop tourism programs in which visitors are coproducers of their experiences.

Second, destination marketers might use the MTES in their actual operations to understand visitors’ evaluations of their offerings. The MTE model and the MTES offer a tool with operational and decisive qualities, through which desti-nation managers can evaluate the capability of delivering memorable experiences and develop managerial actions aimed at increasing loyal behaviors. Tourism programs as well as environmental cues should be thoroughly evaluated by using MTES to determine whether they potentially satisfy each of the MTE components. In addition, conducting a visi-tor research based on the seven MTE components that specifically inquire about the individuals’ past tourism expe-riences constructed with destinations would help destination managers understand how a particular destination has per-formed on each of the seven dimensions.

Once the scales are repeatedly used to measure the visi-tors’ MTEs with various destinations, the results can be eas-ily compared for benchmarking. Such practical applications will help destination marketers improve their offerings of memorable experiences to visitors. Last, destination manag-ers can evaluate the competitiveness of their programs in dif-ferent destination areas. For example, by asking questions about their competitors, destination managers can also iden-tify how their business ranks against their competitors across

the seven dimensions. This competitive information could be transferred to advertising and sales efforts, not to mention operations.

Limitations and Future Lines of Research

While the study results, which support the validity and reli-ability of the MTES, endorse the use of the MTES, several limitations of this study should be discussed. First, this con-firmatory study, which tested the MTES, was only conducted in Taiwan. Although other Asian countries share similar cul-tural values with Taiwan, such as Hosfstede’s “Confucianism (long-term orientation)” and “power distance” dimensions, it is undeniable that there might be national cultural differ-ences. Therefore, it follows that validation in additional countries is necessary before recommending its acceptance as a universal scale to measure MTEs. This would signifi-cantly add value to the substantial body of cross-cultural research that has been conducted in tourism to date. Moreover, there could be subcultures within nations. While examining Hofstede’s cultural values of tourists from eight different countries, Reisinger and Crotts (2010) identified subcultures within nations. Cultural values of the sample from the same country showed high variability. Therefore, it could be a hasty generalization that individuals from the same country share the same cultural tendencies. This study tried to include the study sample that can represent Taiwanese by employing diverse age groups. However, considering that there are other influences that may result in individual differ-ences, this effort may not be sufficient to deal with the issue of subcultures. This also suggests to future researchers the investigation of MTEs of different population groups within the same nations.

In a recent study, Dolnicar and Grün (2013) discussed the issue of measurement validity. They noted that Likert scale format is less valid than forced-choice full binary format. Considering that utilizing the most suitable answer format is crucial in market research, measurements using different answer formats may provide the information whether the current format or the other one is the most suitable for the constructs included in the study. Another limitation of this study is that it examined the respondent’s intention to revisit the same destinations and repractice the same tourism activi-ties rather than tracking their actual behavior. Therefore, the results may be limited in terms of accurately explaining future behavior. However, Reich et al. (2005) suggested that an intention to purchase could be used as a substitute for actual behavior. Although this study successfully found that there is positive influence of MTEs on behavioral intentions, it will be interesting for future research to examine the struc-tural relationships among MTEs, satisfaction, destination image, and loyal behavior. In the marketing literature, it has been asserted that satisfaction alone cannot guarantee future consumer behavior (Jones and Sasser 1995; Keiningham and Vavra 2001; Reichheld 1993). Researchers have noted that more than 60% of customers who switched to another brand



Kim and Ritchie 11

identified themselves as satisfied ones. Therefore, future studies examining the influences of MTEs, satisfaction, and destination image on future behavior would greatly assist destination managers. Finally, while we have consis-tently tried to identify the managerial significance of our theoretical conclusions related to MTEs, there is an even greater need to integrate all of these findings into a com-prehensive whole for benefit of those DMOs that wish to make a serious effort to create, design, and deliver truly memorable tourism experiences to as many of their visitors as possible.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research is supported by a grant from the National Science Council of Taiwan, R.O.C, under the contract NSC101-2410-H-214-005- MY2.

References

Alexandris, Kostas, Charilaos Kouthouris, and Andreas Meligdis. (2006). “Increasing Customers’ Loyalty in a Skiing Resort.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18 (5): 414-25.

Anderson, James C., and David W. Gerbing. (1988). “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3): 411-23.

Babbie, Earl. (1999). The Basics of Social Research. Belmont: CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Baumeister, Roy F., and Kathleen D. Vohs. (2002). “The Pursuit of Meaningfulness in Life.” Handbook of Positive Psychology, 608-18.

Bentler, Peter M. (1992). “On the Fit of Models to Covariances and Methodology to the Bulletin.” Psychological Bulletin, 112: 400-4.

Bentler, Peter M., and Douglas G. Bonnet. (1980). “Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures.” Psychological Bulletins, 88: 588-606.

Bollen, Kenneth A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley.

Boo, Soyoung, and David L. Jones. (2009). “Using a Validation Process to Develop Market Segmentation Based on Travel Motivation for Major Metropolitan Areas.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 26: 60-79.

Brown, Sally. (2005). “Travelling with a Purpose: Understanding the Motives and Benefits of Volunteer Vacationers.” Current Issues in Tourism, 8 (6): 479-96.

Browne, Michael W., and Robert Cudeck. (1993). “Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit.” In Testing Structural Equation Models, edited by K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 136-62.

Bruner, Edward M. (1991). “Transformation of Self in Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 18 (2): 238-50.

Callanan, Michelle, and Sarah Thomas. (2005). “Volunteer Tourism: Deconstructing Volunteer Activities within a

Dynamic Environment.” In Niche Tourism: Contemporary Issues and Trends, edited by M. Novelli. New York: Elsevier, pp. 183-200.

Chandralal, Lalith, and Fredy Valenzuela. (2013). “Exploring Memorable Tourism Experiences: Antecedents and Behavioural Outcomes.” Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 1 (2): 177-81.

Chick, Garry. (2006). “Leisure and Cultural Identity.” In Leisure and the Quality of the Life: Impacts on Social, Economic, and Cultural Development: Hangzhou Consensus, edited by E. L. Jackson. Zhejiang, China: Zhejiang University Press, pp. 164-78.

Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. (1979). “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Construct.” Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February): 64-73.

Cohen, Erik. (1979). “A Phenomenology of Tourist Types.” Sociology, 13: 179-201.

Cronbach, Lee J. and Paul E. Meehl. (1955). “Construct validity in psychological tests.” Psychological Bulletin, 52: 281-302.

Devellis, Robert F. (1991). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dewhurst, Stephen A., and Lisa A. Parry. (2000). “Emotionality, Distinctiveness, and Recollective Experience.” European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12: 541-51.

Digance, Justine. (2003). “Pilgrimage at Contested Sites.” Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (1): 143-59.

Dolnicar, Sara, and Bettina Grün. (2013). “Validly Measuring Destination Image in Survey Studies.” Journal of Travel Research, 52 (1): 3-14.

Dunman, Teoman, and Anna S. Mattila. (2005). “The Role of Affective Factors on Perceived Cruise Vacation Value.” Tourism Management, 26 (3): 311-23.

Farber, Mary E., and Troy E. Hall. (2007). “Emotion and Environment: Visitor’ Extraordinary Experiences along the Dalton Highway in Alaska.” Journal of Leisure Research, 39 (2): 248-70.

Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. (1981). “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1): 39-50.

Frankl, Viktor E. (1985). Man’s Search for Meaning. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Funk, Daniel C., and Tennille J. Bruun. (2007). “The Role of Socio-Psychological and Culture-Education Motives in Marketing International Sport Tourism: A Cross-Cultural Perspective.” Tourism Management, 28 (3): 806-19.

Goodenough, Ward H. (1996). “Culture.” In Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology, edited by D. Levison and M. Ember. New York: Henry Hold, pp. 291-99.

Hair, Jospeh F., Jr., R. E. Anderson, Rolph E. Tatham, and William C. Black. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. 5th edition. New York: Prentice Hall.

Hall, Colin M., and Betty Weiler. (1992). “Introduction. What’s Special about Special Interest Tourism.” In Special Interest Tourism, edited by B. Weiler and C. M. Hall. New York: John Wiley, pp. 1-14.

Haynes, S., N. K. Nelson, and D. D. Blaine. (1999). “Psychometric Issues in Assessment Research.” In Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology, edited by P. C. Kendall, J. N. Butcher, and G. Holmbeck. New York: John Wiley, pp. 125-54.

Hinkin, Timothy R. (1995). “A Review of Scale Development Practices in the Study of Organizations.” Journal of Management, 21 (5): 967-88.




Hoch, Stephen J., and John Deighton. (1989). “Managing What Consumers Learn from Experience.” Journal of Marketing, 53 (April): 1-20.

Hoe, Siu-Loon. (2008). “Issues and Procedures in Adopting Structural Equation Modeling Technique.” Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 3 (1): 76-83.

Hofstede, Geert, and Micahel H. Bond. (1988). “The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots to Economic Growth.” Organizational Dynamics, 16 (4): 4-21.

Hoyle, Rick H. (1995). Structural Equation Modeling: Issues and Applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hu, Li-tze, and Peter M. Bentler. (1999). “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Versus New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1-55.

Jones, Thomas O., and Earl Sasser, Jr., (1995). “Why Satisfied Customers Defect.” Harvard Business Review, 73 (November-December): 88-99.

Keiningham, Timothy L., and Terry Vavra. (2001). The Customer Delight Principle. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kensinger, Elizabeth A., and Suzanne Corkin. (2003). “Memory Enhancement for Emotional Words: Are Emotional Words More Vividly Remembered Than Neutral Words?” Memory and Cognition, 31: 1169-80.

Kerstetter, Deborah, and Mi-Hea Cho. (2004). “Tourists’ Information Search Behavior: The Role of Prior Knowledge and Perceived Credibility.” Annals of Tourism Research, 31 (4): 961-85.

Kim, Jong-Hyeong, J. R. Brent Ritchie, and Bryan M. McCormick. (2012). “Development of a Scale to Measure Memorable Tourism Experiences.” Journal of Travel Research, 51 (1): 12-25.

Kim, Jong-Hyeong, J. R. Brent Ritchie, and W. S. Vincent Tung. (2010). “The Effect of Memorable Experience on Behavioral Intentions in Tourism: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach.” Tourism Analysis, 15: 637-48.

Kozak, Metin. (2001). “Repeaters’ Behavior at Two Distinct Destinations.” Annals of Tourism Research, 28 (3): 784-807.

Larsen, Svein, and Dag Jenssen. (2004). “The School Trip: Traveling with, Not to or From.” Scandinavian Journal of Tourism Research, 4: 43-57.

Lee, Kyuho, Mahmood A. Khan, and Jae-Youn Ko. (2008). “A Cross-National Comparison of Consumer Perceptions of Service Recovery.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 39 (3): 514-45.

Lehto, Xinran Y., Joseph T. O’Leary, and Alastair M. Morrison. (2004). “The Effects of Prior Experience on Vacation Behavior.” Annals of Tourism Research, 31 (4): 801-18.

Litwin, Mark S. (1995). How to Measure Survey Reliability and Validity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lscerblanc, Marc. (2003). “Tourist Characteristics and Their Interest in Attending Festivals & Events: An Anglophone/Francophone Case Study of New Brunswick, Canada.” Event Management, 8 (4): 203-12.

Markwell, Kevin. (2004). “Constructing, presenting and interpret-ing nature: A case study of a nature-based tour to Borneo.” Annals of Leisure Research, 7 (1): 19-33.

Morgan, Michael, and Feifei Xu. (2009). “Student Travel Experiences: Memories and Dreams.” Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18: 216-36.

Netemeyer, Richard G., William O. Bearden, and Subhash Sharma. (2003). Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Noy, Chaim. (2004). “This Trip Really Changed Me: Backpackers’ Narratives of Self-Change.” Annals of Tourism Research, 31 (1): 78-102.

Nunnally, Jum C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nunnally, Jum C., and I. H. Bernstein. (1994). Psychometric Theory. 3rd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ochsner, Kevin N. (2000). “Are Affective Events Richly Recollected or Simply Familiar? The Experience and Process of Recognizing Feelings Past.” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 129: 242-61.

Oh, Haemoon, Ann M. Fiore, and Miyoung Jeong. (2007). “Measuring Experience Economy Concepts: Tourism Applications.” Journal of Travel Research, 46 (November): 119-32.

Oppenheim, Bram. (1992). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing, and Attitude Measurement. 2nd edition. London: Pinter.

Otto, Julie E., and J. R. Brent Ritchie. (1996). “The Service Experience in Tourism.” Tourism Management, 17 (3): 165-74.

Pearce, Douglas G. (1987). Tourism Today: A Geographical Analysis. Harlow: Longman.

Pearce, Philip L., and Uk-Il Lee. (2005). “Developing the Travel Career Approach to Tourist Motivation.” Journal of Travel Research, 43: 226-37.

Peterson, Robert A. (2000). “A Meta-analysis of Variance Accounted for and Factor Loadings in Exploratory Factor Analysis.” Marketing Letters, 11 (3): 261-75.

Pine, Joseph B., and James H. Gilmore. (1999). “Welcome to the Experience Economy.” Harvard Business Review, July-August, 97-105.

Poria, Yaniv, Arie Reichel, and Avital Brian. (2006). “Heritage Site Management: Motivations and Expectations.” Annals of Tourism Research, 33 (1): 162-78.

Reder, Lynne M., Dimitrios K. Donavos, and Michael A. Erickson. (2002). “Perceptual Match Effects in Direct Tests of Memory: The Role of Contextual Fan.” Memory & Cognition, 30 (2): 312-23.

Reich, Allen Z., Ken W. McCleary, Yodmanee Tepanon, and Pamela A. Weaver. (2005). “Roles of Product and Service Quality on Brand Loyalty: An Investigation of Quick Service Restaurants.” Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 8 (3): 35-53.

Reichheld, Frederick F. (1993). “Loyalty-Based Management.” Harvard Business Review, 71 (March-April): 64-73.

Reisinger, Yvette, and John C. Crotts. (2010). “Applying Hofsede’s National Culture Measures in Tourism Research: Illuminating Issues of Divergence and Convergence.” Journal of Travel Research, 49 (2): 153-64.

Richards, Greg. (2002). “Tourism Attraction Systems: Exploring Cultural Behavior.” Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (4): 1048-64.

Ritchie, J. R. Brent, and Geoffrey I. Crouch. (2003). The Competitive Destination: A Sustainable Tourism Perspective. Wallingford, Oxon: CABI.

Robinson, Mike, and Marina Novelli. (2005). “Niche Tourism: An Introduction.” In Niche Tourism: Contemporary Issues, Trends and Cases, edited by M. Novelli. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 1-14.

Ryan, Chris. (1998). “Saltwater Crocodiles as Tourist Attractions: A Pilot Study.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 6 (4): 314-27.



Kim and Ritchie 13

Schmitt, Bernd H. (1999). Experiential Marketing. New York: Free Press.

Sharpley, Richard, and Priya Sundaram. (2005). “Tourism: A Sacred Journey? The Case of Ashram Tourism, India.” International Journal of Tourism Research, 7 (3): 161-71.

Sin, Leo Yat-ming, Gordon W. Cheung, and Ruby Lee. (1999). “Methodology in Cross-Cultural Consumer Research and Critical Assessment.” Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 11 (4): 75-96.

Sirakaya-Turk, Ercan, Yuksel Ekinci, and Alp Giray Kaya. (2008). “An Examination of the Validity of SUS-TAS in Cross-Cultures.” Journal of Travel Research, 46 (May): 414-21.

Snepenger, David, John L. King, Elizabeth P. Marshall, and Muzaffer S. Uysal. (2007). “Modeling Iso-Ahola’s Motivation Theory in the Tourism Context.” Journal of Travel Research, 45 (2): 127-39.

Tull, Donald S., and Del I. Hawkins. (1993). Marketing Research: Measurement and Method. 6th edition. New York: Macmillan.

Tung, Vincent W. S., and J. R. Brent Ritchie. (2011). “Exploring the Essence of Memorable Tourism Experiences.” Annals of Tourism Research, 38 (4): 1367-86.

Ullman, Jodie B. (2001). “Structural Equation Modeling.” In Using Multivariate Statistics, edited by B. G. Tabachnick and L. S. Fidell. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, pp. 653-771.

Wirtz, Derrick, Justin Kruger, Christie N. Scollon, and Ed Diener. (2003). “What to Do on Spring Break? The Role of Predicted, On-line, and Remembered Experience in Future Choice.” Psychological Science, 14: 520-24.

Yu, Chia-Pin Simon, Charles Chancellor, and Shu T. Cole. (2011). “Measuring Residents’ Attitudes toward Sustainable Tourism: A Reexamination of the Sustainable Tourism Attitude Scale.” Journal of Travel Research, 50 (1): 57-63.

Author Biographies

Jong-Hyeong Kim, PhD, is an associate professor in the school of Tourism Management at Sun Yat-sen University. His research interests includes consumer behavior in both tourism and hospital-ity industry.

J. R. Brent Ritchie, PhD, is the chair of World Tourism Education Research Centre at the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.



Documents

Cross-Cultural Validation of a Memorable Tourism Experience Scale (MTES)