Creating Memorable Experience in Rural Tourism: A Comparison between Domestic and Outbound Tourists

Abstract

Delivering memorable experiences is the essence of the tourism industry and has been regarded as a core aspect of competitiveness for destinations under the experiential marketing paradigm. However, knowledge remains scarce regarding how memorability can be generated and how it shapes tourist behavior. Taking rural tourism as the research context, this study proposes a theoretical model in which memorability is generated through ordinary experiences (perceived quality and satisfaction) and extraordinary experiences (perceived novelty and delight), which go on to influence word of mouth. This model was tested using two data sets gathered from Chinese tourists visiting rural destinations in China (n = 873) and in New Zealand (n = 500), respectively. Findings from the two groups are compared and discussed.

Keywords

memorability rural tourism extraordinary experience ordinary experience Chinese tourists

Introduction

Creating memorable experiences is the essence of the tourism and hospitality industry (Pizam 2010). As marketing research shifts from a conventional “information processing paradigm” to an “experiential marketing paradigm” (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982), researchers have increasingly acknowledged that consumers may act not only as “problems solvers” pursuing utilitarian functions of goods/services but also as “fun seekers” pursuing hedonic and memorable experiences. Enhancing the memorability of consumption experiences has thus been taken as a core marketing strategy in the experience economy. Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick (2012, p. 13) suggested that “satisfaction and quality alone are no longer adequate descriptions of the experience that today’s tourists seek”; rather, “providing tourists with extraordinary, memorable experiences lies at the heart of what tourism is all about today” (Ritchie, Tung, and Ritchie 2011, p. 431). The ability to facilitate positive memory formation therefore represents a new competitive edge for tourism organizations and destinations.

The prominence of memorable tourism experiences has been well documented in the tourism literature (e.g., Morgan and Xu 2009; Tung and Ritchie 2011a). However, the concept of memorability has received relatively little attention, and research is scant regarding how memorability develops (Zhang, Wu, and Buhalis 2018). Studies have identified and measured experiential elements (e.g., novelty and hedonism) that are assumed to contribute to a memorable trip (e.g., Pizam 2010; Tung and Ritchie 2011b), but systematic modeling efforts are wanting. The alleged causal impacts of experiential elements often lack valid evidence, and empirical studies have tended to present conflicting, and hence inconclusive, findings.

Many tourism scholars believe that memorable experiences are key predictors of future purchase intention and positive word of mouth (Kerstetter and Cho 2004; Oh, Fiore, and Jeoung 2007; Writz et al. 2003). Yet it is still unknown exactly how memorability can be reconciled with other popular marketing constructs such as quality, satisfaction, and delight, which have dominated the marketing literature as major determinants of consumer behavior (Ahrholdt, Gudergan, and Ringle 2016). Modeling efforts taking memorability as the core concept have often omitted the roles of satisfaction and delight (e.g., Hung, Lee, and Huang 2016), shedding doubt on some scholars’ claims (e.g., J. H. Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick 2012) that memorability serves as a better predictor of loyalty behavior than conventional marketing concepts such as satisfaction.

A plethora of empirical findings suggest that tourists visiting destinations with varying (physical and/or cultural) distance tend to express divergent motivations/expectations and thus behave differently (e.g., McKercher 2008; McKercher and Cros 2003; Ng, Lee, and Soutar 2007). For example, tourists traveling to short-haul, culturally similar destinations tend to seek rest and relaxation, whereas those visiting long-haul, culturally distinct places treat travel as an opportunity to pursue novel experiences and learn about a new culture (McKercher 2008). Nevertheless, it is unclear whether and how the development and effects of memorability vary across tourist groups, especially between domestic and outbound tourists.

This study aims to fill the aforementioned research gaps by proposing and testing a memorability model in the context of rural tourism. Two research questions are broached: (1) What are the experiential antecedents and behavioral consequences of memorability in rural tourism? (2) Whether/how might the relationships between experiential antecedents, memorability, and behavioral consequences vary in cross-cultural travel contexts? A model is conceptualized based on a review of prior studies, where the construct of memorability is generated through ordinary experiences (experience quality and satisfaction) and extraordinary experiences (experience novelty and delight), which may in turn increase tourists’ intentions to spread positive word of mouth. This model is then tested based on two data sets collected from Chinese tourists visiting rural destinations in China and in New Zealand, respectively. Finally, the findings from both groups are compared and contrasted.

Literature Review

Rural Tourism

Rural tourism refers to a series of tourism activities that take place in rural areas, featuring the consumption of rural experiences, cultures, landscapes, and artifacts that occur on farms or in rural communities (Woods 2004). It typically offers experiences that are a welcome relief from the stress of daily urban life, featuring affective images of home and the visited rural destination (Kastenholz et al. 2012). As observed globally, rural tourism is highly heterogeneous with differing patterns of rural lifestyle, culture, and history; as such, a universal rural tourism model does not exist (Sharpley and Roberts 2004).

Rural tourism has developed in China over more than three decades with an increasing supply of Nongjiale tourism, which immerses visitors through homemade rustic meals, farm work, farmers’ plays, and traditional courtyard living (Su 2011). By 2017, rural destinations in China had drawn 2.5 billion tourists seeking to escape city life on weekends and holidays to enjoy a rural lifestyle, even for just a few hours (Xinhua Net 2018). In New Zealand, rural tourism has become a critical means of supplementing farm income since the country’s economic restructuring in the 1980s. Characteristic rural tourism activities include farm tours, farm stays, daily farm activities, homecooked dinners, and hearty breakfasts (Swarbrick 2008). China is currently New Zealand’s second largest tourism market, with more than 65% of Chinese tourists having visited farms and orchards in the country (Tourism New Zealand 2018). This figure is expected to grow as more free/independent travelers arrive in New Zealand.

Memorability of Tourism Experience

Memories of travel experiences encompass the most important post-trip outcome for tourists. Marketing researchers have suggested that purchase-related decisions are highly dependent on one’s memories of consumption; that is, consumers tend to trust their own memories and perceive their previous experiences as their most credible information source (Marschall 2012; Mazursky 1989). Tourism scholars also agree that memory is the single most important information source with which individuals make decisions about revisiting a destination or spreading word of mouth (Fernández and Páez 2008; Lehto, O’Leary, and Morrison 2004).

Memorability is defined by psychologists as one’s feelings, judgments, and predictions about how memorable an event will be (Zimmerman and Kelley 2010). A high degree of memorability renders an event “easier to recall” and “unforgettable” (Wikström 2008). Accordingly, a tourism experience is memorable when it is “positively remembered and recalled after the event [has] occurred” (Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick 2012, p. 13). Empirical studies have shown that a high degree of memorability can facilitate vivid recollection of activities, encounters, spaces, and destinations, functioning as a critical predictor of tourist loyalty (e.g., positive word of mouth). For example, Loureiro (2014) found that the memorability of a rural tourism experience can significantly increase revisit intention. Similar findings emerged in Hung, Lee, and Huang’s (2016) investigation of creative tourism. Some scholars have framed memorability as a better predictor of tourist behavior than conventional constructs such as satisfaction and quality (e.g., J. H. Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick 2012), although no empirical evidence appears to support this assertion. In fact, memorability has been rarely examined together with these well-established marketing constructs.

Memorability perceptions are thought to be derived mainly from actual tourism experiences (Perdue 2003); however, few theoretical frameworks have delineated how this occurs. Previous decades have seen various research efforts devoted to framing and measuring experiential elements that can contribute to the perceived memorability of a tourism experience (Table 1). Several non-experiential factors have also been found to influence memorability, including perceptions of tourism products (Tukamushaba, Xiao, and Ladkin 2016) and destination image (Zhang, Wu, and Buhalis 2018).

Table 1.

Memorable Tourism Experiences.

Sources	Experiential Elements	Impact on Memorability
Kim, Ritchie, and Tung (2010); J. H. Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick (2012)	Hedonism, novelty, meaningfulness, knowledge, refreshment, local culture, and involvement	Refreshment, involvement, local culture (J. H. Kim, Ritchie, and Tung 2010)
Pine and Gilmore (1998)	Entertainment, education, esthetics, and escapism	Esthetics, escapism (Kastenholz et al. 2018); Education, esthetics (Hosany and Witham 2010; Oh, Fiore, and Jeoung 2007); Entertainment, education, esthetics and escapism (Ali, Hussain, and Ragavan 2014)
Chandralal, Rindfleish, and Valenzuela (2015)	Local people, life and culture, personally significant experiences, shared experiences, perceived novelty, perceived serendipity, professional guides and tour operator services, and affective emotions	No quantitative test
Chandralal and Valenzuela (2015)	Authentic local experiences; novel experiences; self-beneficial experiences; significant travel experiences; serendipitous and surprising experiences; local hospitality; social interactions; impressive local guides and tour operators	No quantitative test
Chandralal and Valenzuela (2013)	Meaningfulness, opportunities for encounter authentic local experiences, significance, novelty, opportunities for social interactions, local hospitality, serendipity and surprises, and professionalism of local guides	No quantitative test
Tung and Ritchie (2011a)	Affect, expectations, consequentiality, and recollection	No quantitative test
Tung and Ritchie (2011b)	Identity formation, family milestones, relationship development, nostalgia reenactment, freedom pursuits	No quantitative test
Ali, Ryu, and Hussain (2016)	Creative experience, co-creation experience, attention, involvement	Creative experience (Hung, Lee, and Huang 2016); co-creation, attention, and involvement (Campos et al. 2017)

While a few groups of determinants have been evaluated for their effects on memorability through empirical studies, most experiential elements and their impacts on memorability remain untested (e.g., Chandralal, Rindfleish, and Valenzuela 2015; Tung and Ritchie 2011a, 2011b). Even the few available empirical tests reveal divergent findings across contexts. It seems common for variables deemed influential in one study (Ali, Hussain, and Ragavan 2014), such as entertainment, to be irrelevant in another (Kastenholz et al. 2018). Some scholars have therefore questioned whether these experiential elements can truly be transformed into memories and contribute to memorability (e.g., K. Kim, Hallab, and Kim 2012; J. H. Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick 2012). In a few cases (e.g., Coudounaris and Sthapit 2017; Zhang, Wu, and Buhalis 2018), these experiential elements have been labeled “memorable tourism experiences” and modeled as directly influencing tourists’ attitudes and behavior (e.g., revisit behavior and storytelling). Even so, little evidence has indicated whether such elements are truly “memorable.”

Ordinary/Extraordinary Experiences and Memorability

Studies generally suggest that memorability is selectively constructed from real tourism experiences and is directly shaped by an individual’s overall assessment of their activities and encounters with tourism service providers (Oh, Fiore, and Jeoung 2007; Perdue 2003). A tourism experience is typically described as a combination of novelty (or strangeness) and familiarity (Cohen 1972; Selstad 2007), and can be accordingly decomposed into ordinary and extraordinary experiences (Carù and Cova 2003). This dichotomy aligns with Holbrook and Hirschman’s (1982) theorization of experiential marketing. Table 2 presents the differences between these types of experiences.

Table 2.

Ordinary Experience and Extraordinary Experience.

Ordinary Experience	Extraordinary Experience	Sources
Tourists as problem solver	Tourists as hedonism seeker	Holbrook and Hirschman (1982)
Fulfills physiological needs (e.g., eating, sleeping, transportation)	Fulfills hedonic needs (e.g., entertainment, social interaction)	Pine and Gilmore (1999)
Features familiarity	Features variety, novelty, and strangeness	Cohen (1972)
Extension/intensification of daily experience	In contrast to daily experience	Quan and Wang (2004)
Evaluated by quality and satisfaction	Evaluated by novelty and happiness/delight/pleasure	Bourgeon and Filser (1995); Holbrook and Hirschman (1982)
Not the goal or motivation of the journey	Is the goal and motivation of the journey	Quan and Wang (2004)

Ordinary experiences, or supporting experiences (Quan and Wang 2004), can be regarded as an extension (and sometimes intensification) of daily experiences throughout one’s tourist journey that gratifies a tourist’s basic needs while traveling, such as accommodation, dining, and transportation (McCabe 2002). During most trips, ordinary experiences are not the primary goal or motivation (Quan and Wang 2004). Tourists often act as “problem solvers” and seek utilitarian functions of tourism goods and services while pursuing ordinary experiences. They are often familiar with these experiences and can thus form expectations and make accurate judgments about whether and when these expectations are met. Typically, ordinary experiences are related to product/service quality (e.g., the quality of food, drink, and accommodations) and satisfaction (Bourgeon and Filser 1995). Perceived quality is usually determined through an overall assessment of the utility of a service and can exert profound impacts on tourist satisfaction (Oliver 1980).

Extraordinary experiences, or peak experiences (Quan and Wang 2004), refer to experiential components that are in sharp contrast with tourists’ daily lives (Mossberg 2007). Hirschman and Holbrook (1982, p. 92) described such elements as “the multi-sensory, fantasy and emotive aspects of one’s experience.” Morgan (2006) further suggested that extraordinary experiences can entail personal benefits resulting from hedonic enjoyment and achievement, a sense of communitas from social interaction, wider symbolic meanings derived from personal narratives, and shared cultural values. In most cases, tourists travel to experience something unlike their daily lives (Quan and Wang 2004) and act as seekers of variety, novelty, or strangeness to fulfill their needs for hedonism (Cohen 1972). Extraordinary experiences are therefore usually evaluated based on their extent of novelty and delight.

Overall, ordinary experiences represent the familiarity aspect of the tourist experience and often manifest through “product quality” or “service quality,” which can influence consumer satisfaction. Conversely, extraordinary experiences reflect the novelty of an experience as characterized by scenery, culture, and authenticity, which provides tourists a sense of delight or happiness. Tourism researchers have acknowledged that experiences leading to memorability embody superlative qualities (Bharwani and Jauhari 2017) along with strong uniqueness/novelty (Tung and Ritchie 2011a). This pattern has been substantiated by psychology research indicating that memory tends to be enhanced by elements of familiarity (e.g., Cox and Cox 1988) and novelty (e.g., Reder, Donavos, and Erickson 2002). As such, one can infer that memorability is shaped by both ordinary and extraordinary experience sequences.

The ordinary experience sequence captures the effects of quality and satisfaction on memorability. Quality reflects product/service performance during a trip; the quality of an experience belongs to a factor that makes the experience memorable (Pizam 2010). In other words, quality represents fulfilled lower-order needs (i.e., utilitarian benefits) and thus belongs to a hygiene factor (Agustin and Singh 2005). A low-quality and unsatisfying experience will not be pleasantly memorable. Similarly, Bharwani and Jauhari (2017) empirically found that high satisfaction and quality are key features of memorable experiences for tourists. By contrast, because the connection between quality and satisfaction is perhaps the most prevalent association in tourism (Ekinci, Riley, and Chen 2001; Pizam 2010), satisfaction is expected to partly mediate the relationship between quality and memorability. A similar mediating role of satisfaction on the effects of quality has been widely confirmed in marketing and tourism studies (Ahrholdt, Gudergan, and Ringle 2016; Loureiro and Kastenholz 2011). Therefore, it is hypothesized that

Hypothesis 1: Experience quality positively affects memorability.

Hypothesis 2: Satisfaction can partly mediate the relationship between experience quality and memorability.

The extraordinary experience sequence is captured by the effects of novelty and delight on memorability. Novelty is defined as the degree of contrast between a present travel experience and prior everyday experiences, making it the opposite of familiarity (Faison 1977). Although a “new and different” experience can be either positive or negative in reality, tourism scholars often focus on the positive aspects and convey novelty positively (Geus, Richards, and Toepoel 2016). Thus, novelty is commonly defined as experiencing something “pleasantly” new (Cohen 1972; Lee and Crompton 1992). Psychologists believe that one’s memory of an event is largely dependent on its associated level of surprise (e.g., Talarico and Rubin 2003); in other words, novelty directly affects memorability.

The tourism and marketing literature implies that novelty has an indirect impact on memorability via customer (tourist) delight (Loureiro and Kastenholz 2011), referring to a combination of strong pleasure (joy, elation) and arousal that can greatly influence consumer behavior (Torres and Kline 2006). Delight arises from a surprising experience that vastly exceeds one’s expectations (novelty) (Agustin and Singh 2005). Bohanek, Fivush, and Walker (2005) found that intensely emotional events come to mind more often and are rehearsed and subsequently remembered in much more detail over extended periods. Tung and Ritchie (2011a, 2011b) noted that positive emotions and feelings tied to tourism experiences, such as happiness and excitement, are critical components of memorable experiences. These patterns echo earlier research (e.g., Dunman and Mattila 2005; Oh, Fiore, and Jeoung 2007), suggesting that hedonic experiences enable tourists to construct memorable experiences. Therefore, it is hypothesized that

Hypothesis 3: Perceived novelty can positively affect memorability.

Hypothesis 4: Tourist delight can partly mediate the effect of novelty on memorability.

Notably, ordinary and extraordinary experiences do not exist in isolation but are intercorrelated and constitute an organic whole (Quan and Wang 2004). Specifically, extraordinary experiences (novelty and delight) cannot exist without ordinary experiences (quality and satisfaction), and once the latter goes sour, the total tourist experience is more or less spoiled (McCabe 2002; Quan and Wang 2004). Following this line of thought, marketing researchers have commonly conceptualized delight, which is rather emotional, as a positive response to satisfaction, representing the end state of a cognitive process oriented toward the functional aspects of experiences (Ahrholdt, Gudergan, and Ringle 2016; Ranaweera and Menon 2013). In other words, tourist delight resulting from novel and surprising experiences can be significantly undermined if a visitor is dissatisfied with the basic products and services (e.g., catering or accommodations) offered in a destination. Therefore, it is hypothesized that

Hypothesis 5: Tourist satisfaction significantly affects tourist delight.

Memorability, Satisfaction, Delight, and Word of Mouth

Tourist loyalty is typically represented by indicators such as one’s intention to revisit a place or willingness to recommend it (positive word of mouth). However, debate persists around whether tourists will visit the same destination twice even if they have had memorable experiences there. For example, Tung and Ritchie’s (2011b) empirical study confirmed that many tourists would not revisit a destination even if they had positive memories of it. The authors identified two reasons underlying once-and-for-all visitation: (1) a memorable experience was usually considered a once-in-a-lifetime experience that could not be replicated and (2) many respondents expressed interest in visiting a similar attraction in a different destination. Therefore, their study only focused on positive word of mouth as an indicator of loyalty behavior.

Marketing researchers have mostly drawn on customer satisfaction and delight to predict consumer loyalty. Oliver, Rust, and Varki (1997) proposed a customer loyalty model comprising “delight sequences” and “satisfaction sequences.” In the former sequence, delight is a positively valenced state reflecting high consumption-based affect, wherein a delightful experience evokes a desire for future recurrences of this sensation or a desire to share this sensation with others (Oliver, Rust, and Varki 1997). The satisfaction sequence has been widely documented in marketing and tourism, such that satisfaction generated through quality assessment is taken as a precedent of loyal behavior. The effects of satisfaction and delight have been further developed and empirically tested in the tourism and hospitality literature (e.g., Ahrholdt, Gudergan, and Ringle 2016; M. Kim, Vogt, and Knutson 2015). Hence hypotheses can be proposed that,

Hypothesis 6: Tourist delight positively affects tourists’ intentions to spread positive word of mouth.

Hypothesis 7: Tourist satisfaction positively affects tourists’ intentions to spread positive word of mouth.

Several quantitative studies have revealed a positive correlation between memories and word of mouth. For example, J. H. Kim, Ritchie, and Tung (2010) found that individuals were more likely to recommend places where they had participated in interesting activities that they remembered well. Mody, Suess, and Lehto (2017) compared hotels with Airbnb and found that memorable experiences significantly elicited favorable behavioral intention. Yet few studies have compared the effect of memorability with those of satisfaction and delight. Therefore, the following hypothesis is worthy of investigation:

Hypothesis 8: Memorability positively affects tourists’ intentions to spread positive word of mouth.

In summary, Figure 1 presents the hypothesized model detailed above.

Figure 1.

Hypothesized model.

Methodology

Measurement

The constructs in the hypothesized model were measured using scales adapted from the literature. All items were reworded slightly to incorporate the features of rural tourism. The revised scales were then assessed by a panel of five scholars to assess their content validity. All English-language measurement items were translated into Chinese by one of the Chinese authors and then back-translated into English by another author. Minor discrepancies were addressed to avoid potential translation-based misunderstanding. The final measurement items are presented in English in Table 3.

Table 3.

Measurement Items (English Version).

Constructs and Items	Source
Quality (QUA)
QUA1. The facilities offered during my stay are of high quality.	All adapted from Cronin, Brady, and Hult (2000)
QUA2. The food and beverage offered during my stay is of high quality.
QUA3. All services are provided in a reliable and consistent way.
Satisfaction (SAT)
SAT1. Overall, this destination delivered all the service I expected to receive.	All adapted from Cronin, Brady, and Hult (2000)
SAT2. I think my choice to visit this place is a wise one.	All adapted from Cronin, Brady, and Hult (2000)
SAT3. I think it is a right decision to visit this place.
Novelty (NOV)
NOV1. My experience during this journey is unique.	All adapted from J. H. Kim and Ritchie (2014)
NOV2. My experience during this journey is different from previous ones.
NOV3. I have experienced something new in this place.
Delight (DEL)
DEL1. I felt delighted during my stay in the rural destination.	All adapted from Gyung Kim and Mattila (2013); Ali et al. (2018)
DEL2. I felt gleeful during my stay in the rural destination.
DEL3. I felt elated during my stay in the rural destination.
Memorability (MEM)
MEM1. I have wonderful memories of the rural destination.	All adapted from Oh, Fiore, and Jeoung (2007); Ali, Hussain, and Ragavan (2014)
MEM2. I won’t forget my experience at the rural destination.
MEM3. I will remember many positive things about that rural destination.
Word of mouth (WOM)
WOM1. I will tell other people positive things about the destination.	All adapted from Tanford and Baloglu (2013)
WOM2. I will recommend the destination to other people.	All adapted from Tanford and Baloglu (2013)
WOM3. I will take pride in telling other people about my experiences at the destination.

Questionnaire and Data Collection

The questionnaire included two sections. Section I encompassed the measurement items for constructs in the hypothesized model, with all items scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Respondents were required to recall their stay in the rural destination and indicate their extent of agreement with each statement. Respondents’ sociodemographic information, including age, gender, marital status, income, and education level, was gathered in section II. To minimize common method bias in this one-off survey, items in section I were divided into four subsections: antecedents of quality and novelty, mediators of satisfaction and delight, mediators of memorability, and the outcome variable of word of mouth. Respondents who completed one subsection were invited to take a break and complete a simple mathematical quiz before moving on to the next subsection. Each quiz consisted of two or three simple calculation tasks, in which the numbers to be added or subtracted were less than 10 (e.g., 5 + 6 = ?; 9 – 3 = ?). These tasks could be easily accomplished by respondents who had received primary school education in China and who could read and understand the other survey questions.

A pilot study was conducted in December 2015. The research team visited Guzhu village—one of the most popular rural tourism destinations in eastern China—and recruited 35 tourists via convenience sampling to complete the questionnaire and provide feedback on its readability and understandability. The questionnaire was then revised based on respondents’ comments.

The main study was performed through two waves of a field survey targeting Chinese tourists visiting rural destinations in China and New Zealand, respectively. The first survey was implemented in April and May 2016 in three regions in central Yangtze River Delta, namely, Changxing, Anji, and Deqing. These regions are among the top rural destinations in China, having received more than 23.52 million rural tourists in 2014 to generate a total revenue of more than 4 billion yuan (Xinhua Tourism 2015). Five college students were hired to assist with distributing the questionnaire. Before entering the field, they were trained by the authors to ensure they were well versed in the research objectives, survey skills, and potential safety issues. Convenience sampling method was employed at each study site, and only overnight tourists who had wrapped up their trip (or intended to) were asked to fill out the questionnaire. The first survey round generated 873 valid responses.

The second survey round was performed in December 2016 in three regions of New Zealand: Auckland, Otago, and the Bay of Plenty. These regions are the most popular rural tourism destinations for Chinese tourists (Tourism New Zealand 2018). A professional survey company was hired to distribute questionnaires to overnight Chinese tourists who had completed (or were about to complete) their trips. The company was well informed of the requirements for the survey, including the sampling method, sample size, and characteristics of target respondents. One co-author, who was based in New Zealand, closely supervised the field survey to ensure it was carried out according to study requirements. The second survey generated 500 valid responses for analysis.

Results

Descriptive Data Analysis

Table 4 presents the sociodemographic profile of the respondent groups. The outbound and domestic tourist groups were similarly distributed in terms of gender, marital status, age, and monthly income. They both had a slightly larger share of female participants (58.8% and 51.1%, respectively), and the majority of respondents in both groups were married (73.8% and 81.6%, respectively). Over half of respondents earned a monthly income between CNY 3000 and 7000 (US$421–$984). For both groups, skewness and kurtosis values were within the range of -2 and 2, indicating no significant deviation from a normal distribution.

Table 4.

Sociodemographic Profile of Participants.

	Outbound		Domestic			Outbound		Domestic
	n	%	n	%		n	%	n	%
Gender					Monthly income (in RMB)
Male	206	41.2	427	48.9	<3,000	110	22.0	148	17.0
Female	294	58.8	446	51.1	3,001–5,000	130	26.0	283	32.4
Valid	500	100.0	873	100.0	5,001–7,000	148	29.6	175	20.0
Marital status					7,001–10,000	70	14.0	97	11.1
Married	369	73.8	712	81.6	10001–15,000	29	5.8	77	8.8
Single	127	25.4	153	17.5	>15,000	13	2.6	93	10.7
Other	4	0.8	8	0.9	Valid	500	100.0	873	100.0
Valid	500	100.0	873	100/0
Age, years					Education
<25	88	17.6	114	13.1	Secondary school or lower	71	14.2	184	21.1
26–35	92	18.4	176	20.2	High school	106	21.2	250	28.6
36–45	128	25.6	157	18.0	College	269	53.8	391	44.8
46–55	90	18.0	148	17.0	Graduate school	54	10.8	48	5.5
>55	102	20.4	278	31.8	Valid	500	100.0	873	100.0
Valid	500	100.0	873	100.0

Measurement Model: Reliability, Validity, and Cross-Group Invariance

Single-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed first to assess the reliability and validity of the measurement scales. The CFA model consisted of all constructs in the hypothesized model, including uncorrelated error terms. Overall, the CFA model demonstrated good fitness with the domestic tourist group (λ²/df = 3.434, p < 0.001; standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = 0.024; comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.986; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.053) and outbound tourist group (λ²/df = 2.500, p < 0.001; SRMR = 0.041; CFI = 0.966; RMSEA = 0.055). Table 5 lists the estimated factor loadings, reliability, and validity for both groups. Factor loadings exceeded 0.7 for all constructs. All average variance extracted (AVE) values were greater than 0.5, and composite reliability (CR) values were higher than 0.7, demonstrating sound convergent validity and construct reliability. The AVE value of each construct was greater than the squared correlations with the remaining constructs in both groups, indicating good discriminant validity.

Table 5.

Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Item	Load	AVE	CR	Squared Correlation
Item	Load	AVE	CR	DEL	INT	MEM	NOV	SAT	VAL
Domestic tourist group
DEL1	0.926	0.786	0.917		0.477	0.621	0.518	0.469	0.245
DEL2	0.953
DEL3	0.943
WOM1	0.928	0.813	0.929	0.477		0.531	0.282	0.704	0.480
WOM2	0.959
WOM3	0.951
MEM1	0.931	0.784	0.916	0.621	0.531		0.424	0.549	0.345
MEM2	0.956
MEM3	0.942
NOV1	0.914	0.773	0.911	0.518	0.282	0.424		0.254	0.156
NOV2	0.958
NOV3	0.941
SAT1	0.927	0.764	0.907	0.469	0.704	0.549	0.254		0.503
SAT2	0.951
SAT3	0.863
QUA1	0.946	0.806	0.926	0.245	0.480	0.345	0.156	0.503
QUA2	0.949
QUA3	0.894
Outbound tourist group
DEL1	0.768	0.667	0.857		0.601	0.624	0.511	0.548	0.626
DEL2	0.808
DEL3	0.685
INT1	0.820	0.739	0.895	0.601		0.687	0.493	0.358	0.558
INT2	0.813
INT3	0.770
MEM1	0.785	0.710	0.879	0.624	0.687		0.588	0.404	0.504
MEM2	0.862
MEM3	0.641
NOV1	0.849	0.758	0.904	0.511	0.493	0.588		0.500	0.444
NOV2	0.869
NOV3	0.765
SAT1	0.717	0.662	0.855	0.548	0.358	0.404	0.500		0.408
SAT2	0.800
SAT3	0.754
VAL1	0.816	0.742	0.896	0.626	0.558	0.504	0.444	0.408
VAL2	0.780
VAL3	0.750

Note: AVE = average variance extracted.

Next, multigroup CFA was conducted to assess measurement invariance between the domestic and outbound tourist groups. The unconstrained model was estimated first and then compared with a constrained model with equal measurement weights between groups. The unconstrained and constrained CFA models each displayed a good fit to the data (unconstrained model: λ²/df = 2.967, p < 0.001; SRMR = 0.041; CFI = 0.982; RMSEA = 0.038; constrained model: λ²/df = 2.917, p < 0.001; SRMR = 0.041; CFI = 0.981; RMSEA = 0.037). The model comparison test did not reveal a significant difference between the constrained and unconstrained models: Δλ²(12) = 22.919, p > 0.01; ΔNFI (normed fit index) = 0.001, ΔIFI (incremental fit index) = 0.001, RFI (relative fit index) = −0.001, ΔNFI = 0.001; ΔCFI = −0.001. Thus, the constrained model did not appear to elicit a significant decline in overall fitness; the constrained model with equal measurement weights was therefore accepted. The measurement model was found to demonstrate configural and metric invariance across the domestic and outbound tourist groups; as such, comparative analysis based on the relevant constructs was meaningful between both groups.

Independent Sample t-Test

An independent t-test was conducted to compare the experiences of domestic tourists to those of outbound tourists. Factor scores for all constructs were generated through a weighted linear combination of item scores based on factor loadings. Results showed that tourists visiting rural destinations in New Zealand generally exhibited significantly higher scores than domestic tourists in terms of novelty (M_domestic = 4.797, M_outbound = 5.883; p < 0.01), delight (M_domestic = 4.912, M_outbound = 5.931; p < 0.01), quality (M_domestic = 5.760, M_outbound = 6.209; p < 0.01), and memorability (M_domestic = 5.247, M_outbound = 6.030; p < 0.01). Tourists visiting New Zealand were also more inclined to spread positive word of mouth (M_domestic = 5.708, M_outbound = 6.201; p < 0.01). Although the average satisfaction score was higher for domestic tourists, this difference was not significant. These results show that Chinese tourists evaluated rural destinations in New Zealand more favorably than domestic rural destinations, pointing to room for Chinese rural destinations to improve their guest experiences in terms of novelty, delight, quality, and memorability.

Multigroup SEM

Single-group SEM analysis indicated that the SEM model had acceptable overall fitness in the domestic tourist group (λ²/df = 4.377, p < 0.001; GFI = 0.934, CFI = 0.980, RMSEA = 0.062) and outbound tourist group (λ²/df = 3.954, p < 0.001; GFI = 0.900, CFI = 0.940, RMSEA = 0.072). Figure 2 presents the SEM results for both groups.

Figure 2.

Results of single-group SEM.

All hypotheses were supported in the domestic tourist group. Ordinary and extraordinary experiences were both found to significantly shape memorability. Experience quality positively influenced memorability directly (0.104; p < 0.001) as well as indirectly through satisfaction (0.723×0.316 = 0.228; Sobel test statistic: 7.993, p < 0.01). Similarly, experience novelty positively influenced memorability directly (0.168, p < 0.001) as well as indirectly through delight (0.533×0.414 = 0.221; Sobel test statistic: 10.841, p < 0.01). Therefore, hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4 were supported. Satisfaction positively affected delight (0.448, p < 0.01), lending support to hypothesis 5. Memorability positively influenced word of mouth (0.152, p < 0.001) and was positively shaped by delight (0.142, p < 0.01) and satisfaction (0.642, p < 0.001), providing support for hypotheses 6, 7, and 8. In addition, the predictive power of memorability was stronger in the extraordinary experience sequence (novelty and delight) (R² = 0.077) than in the ordinary experience sequence (quality and satisfaction) (R² = 0.062). However, the predictive power of memorability on word of mouth (0.152) was far weaker than for satisfaction (0.671) and only mildly stronger than for delight (0.142).

As for the outbound tourist group, results only supported the extraordinary sequence. Perceived novelty significantly predicted memorability directly (0.312, p < 0.001) as well as indirectly through delight (0.409×0.628 = 0.257; Sobel test statistic: 4.696, p < 0.01); thus, hypotheses 3 and 4 were supported. Quality had a significant and positive effect on satisfaction (0.759, p < 0.001), although both constructs exerted an insignificant impact on memorability. Accordingly, hypotheses 1 and 2 were not supported. Satisfaction had a significant and positive effect on delight, providing support for hypothesis 5. Memorability was significantly and positively shaped by delight (0.262, p < 0.001) and had a positive and significant effect on word-of-mouth (0.686, p < 0.001), thus supporting hypotheses 6 and 8. Satisfaction had no significant effect on word of mouth, causing hypothesis 7 to be rejected. Contrary to the domestic tourist group, the predictive power of memorability on word of mouth (0.686) in the outbound tourist group was stronger than that of delight (0.262).

The results of single-group SEM revealed several differences in effect size and/or significance between the domestic and outbound tourist groups. These discrepancies were further assessed using multigroup SEM to evaluate their significance. An unconstrained model was estimated first, and next compared with (a) a fully constrained model in which all path coefficients were constrained equal between the two groups and (b) a series of partially constrained models in which only one path coefficient was constrained equally (Table 6). The fully and partially constrained models all demonstrated a significant increase in λ², implying poorer overall fitness with the levied constraints. Therefore, the unconstrained model was accepted given the conclusion that the path coefficients differed significantly between the domestic and outbound tourist groups. By comparison, the effects of novelty and delight on memorability, as well as the effect of memorability on word of mouth, were observed to be stronger in the outbound tourist group than in the domestic tourist group.

Table 6.

Results of Multigroup SEM.

Model	λ²	df	p	GFI	CFI	RMSEA	Δλ²	df	p
Unconstrained model (Baseline model)
	988.530	248	<0.01	0.921	0.972	0.047
Full constrained model (with all path coefficients equal)
	1198.874	269	<0.01	0.904	0.964	0.050	210.344	21	<0.01
Constrained models (with only one path coefficient equal)
NOV_DEL	1017.490	261	<0.01	0.919	0.971	0.046	28.959	13	<0.01
NOV_MEM	1013.859	261	<0.01	0.919	0.971	0.046	25.329	13	0.021
DEL_MEM	1014.993	261	<0.01	0.92	0.971	0.046	26.462	13	0.015
MEM_WOM	1029.554	261	<0.01	0.917	0.97	0.046	41.024	13	<0.01
QUA_SAT	1022.353	261	<0.01	0.92	0.971	0.046	33.823	13	<0.01
SAT_MEM	1046.010	261	<0.01	0.916	0.97	0.047	57.479	13	<0.01
SAT_WOM	1032.895	261	<0.01	0.916	0.97	0.046	44.365	13	<0.01
DEL_WOM	1012.979	261	<0.01	0.919	0.971	0.046	24.449	13	0.027
SAT_DEL	1011.880	261	<0.01	0.920	0.971	0.046	23.350	13	0.038

Discussion and Conclusions

This study models how memorability, in the context of rural tourism, can be formed through ordinary and extraordinary experiences and can shape tourist loyalty as evidenced by word of mouth. The model was tested and compared between Chinese domestic tourists and outbound Chinese tourists visiting New Zealand. This comparative analysis revealed that the formation and consequences of memorability display distinct patterns between domestic and outbound Chinese tourists.

Domestic tourists

The hypothesized model was fully supported in the case of Chinese domestic tourists, empirically demonstrating that Chinese tourists visiting domestic rural destinations develop memorability through extraordinary experiences (perceived novelty and delight) as well as ordinary experiences (perceived quality and satisfaction), which in turn leads to positive word of mouth. This result confirms previous findings in the tourism literature suggesting that a memorable experience possesses superlative qualities and high specialness/novelty (Bharwani and Jauhari 2017; Loureiro and Kastenholz 2011; Tung and Ritchie 2011a).

Compared to ordinary experiences, extraordinary experiences were found to have greater predictive power in terms of memorability. This pattern echoes the psychology literature, which has shown that novelty can yield superior memorability because all facilities of the memory system, when facing unusual, atypical, or distinctive events, are activated to assimilate the new event (Reder, Donavos, and Erickson 2002). Such instances can result in flashbulb memories, which are exceptionally vivid and enduring.

Memorability was also found to exert a positive impact on word of mouth, confirming the prominent role of memorability in shaping consumer loyalty (e.g., Hung, Lee, and Huang 2016). However, memorability played a minor role for domestic tourists; these travelers’ willingness to generate positive word of mouth largely relied on their satisfaction level. Although these results corroborate previous findings pinpointing memorability as a critical predictor of loyalty behavior (Kerstetter and Cho 2004; Oh, Fiore, and Jeoung 2007), they shed doubt on claims that memory is the single most important predictor of loyalty (Lehto, O’Leary, and Morrison 2004; Mazursky 1989), which can be a better predictor of tourist behavior than satisfaction (e.g., J. H. Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick 2012).

Outbound travelers

The proposed model was only partially supported for tourists visiting rural destinations in New Zealand, revealing divergent behavioral patterns among outbound tourists. First, compared with domestic travelers, outbound Chinese tourists traveling to rural New Zealand destinations generally perceived higher levels of novelty, delight, and memorability. They were also more willing than domestic travelers to spread positive word of mouth about their stay. This finding is reasonable because a destination outside one’s place of residence usually offers natural and cultural exotica (e.g., completely different natural scenery and lifestyle) to promote novel experiences.

Second, while perceived memorability was shaped by ordinary experiences (quality and satisfaction) and extraordinary experiences (novelty and delight) for domestic tourists, outbound tourists’ perceptions of memorability were solely informed by extraordinary experiences (novelty and delight). Even for domestic tourists, extraordinary experiences contributed more to memorability than ordinary experiences. The preponderant influence of extraordinary experiences is unsurprising, as many psychologists (e.g., Reder, Donavos, and Erickson 2002) and tourism scholars (e.g., K. Kim, Hallab, and Kim 2012; J. H. Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick 2012) have suggested that novel experiences can yield superior memories. Some researchers have also pointed out that the pleasantness and emotionality of personal events can facilitate recall of such events (e.g., McGaugh 2004; Wood and Conway 2006). However, this trend does not undermine the significant role of ordinary experiences, which can mold extraordinary experiences as indicated by the significant effect of satisfaction on delight in both study groups. The interdependence of ordinary and extraordinary experiences echoes prior claims that ordinary experiences and familiarity issues are crucial to memory formation (Cox and Cox 1988). As noted previously, once an ordinary experience goes sour, the total tourist experience will be more or less spoiled (McCabe 2002; Quan and Wang 2004).

Third, memorability plays a key role in driving word of mouth for outbound tourists, which is in sharp contrast to domestic tourists who produce positive word of mouth based on satisfaction. It therefore seems that whether memorability can outperform satisfaction may depend on context. Among outbound tourists in this study, satisfaction had no significant effect on word of mouth. Marketing research has also shown that satisfaction alone does not necessarily translate directly to loyalty (Keiningham and Vavra 2001; Oliver 1980).

Summary

Several conclusions can be drawn from the preceding analysis and discussion. First, memorability can be generated in rural tourism through ordinary experiences (quality and satisfaction) and extraordinary experiences (novelty and delight) and will further shape positive word of mouth along with satisfaction and delight. Compared with ordinary experiences, extraordinary experiences have a stronger effect on memorability. Second, the formation of memorability takes different patterns in domestic and outbound tourists; for the latter group, memorability is directly shaped only by extraordinary experiences. Third, memorability plays a major role in outbound tourists’ intentions to spread positive word-of-mouth but demonstrates a minor effect among domestic tourists. Domestic tourists’ loyalty is mainly dependent on their level of satisfaction.

The formation and consequences of memorability thus differ across travel contexts. This pattern may manifest because, when tourists travel different distances, they expect unique degrees of strangeness/novelty. Zuckerman (1971) found that tourists differ genetically in the amount of novelty they desire. Various empirical findings have further suggested that tourists visiting destinations with varying cultural or physical distance may behave in significantly different ways (e.g., McKercher and Du Cros 2003; Ng, Lee, and Soutar 2007). For example, McKercher (2008) noted that tourists traveling to nearby destinations tended to seek rest and relaxation, whereas long-haul tourists were more inclined to visit novel attractions and favor hedonism. Li et al. (2011) also found that Chinese outbound tourists were more inclined to explore local culture and lifestyle while traveling. Still other scholars have discovered that novelty seeking plays an important role in tourists’ decision making (Petrick 2002). According to Alba, Hutchinson, and Lynch (1991, p. 19), “when some facts are particularly salient, they are continually and unavoidably retrieved during attempts to recall the remaining information.” Outbound tourists who travel to exotic destinations generally pursue a higher level of novelty and thus may emphasize extraordinary, memorable experiences. By contrast, domestic travelers might be highly familiar with the rural destinations they visit and therefore have lower expectations of uniqueness (extraordinary experiences) but higher expectations of services and products (ordinary experiences).

Implications, Limitations, and Future Research

Memorability has been deemed a critical element of consumer behavior per the experiential marketing paradigm. This study proposes a memorability model and examines how it is formed and how it can influence tourist loyalty based on survey data from Chinese tourists visiting rural destinations in China and New Zealand, respectively. Findings indicated that for domestic tourists, memorability was derived from ordinary experiences (quality and satisfaction) and extraordinary experiences (novelty and delight) but played a minor role (compared with satisfaction) in shaping word-of-mouth. Outbound tourists behaved differently, as their perceived memorability was solely determined by extraordinary experiences but played a more important role (than satisfaction and delight) in shaping word of mouth. This study thus contributes to relevant knowledge in several ways.

First, we proposed and tested a systematic model delineating the formation and consequences of memorability, thereby validating the memory-based marketing approach. Many tourism scholars have emphasized the role of memory in tourist behavior (e.g., Chandralal, Rindfleish, and Valenzuela 2015; J. H. Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick 2012). Additionally, empirical studies have identified and measured experiential elements (e.g., novelty and hedonism) that are expected to elicit memorable experiences (e.g., Morgan and Xu 2009; Pizam 2010; Tung and Ritchie 2011a, 2011b). However, an integrative model elucidating how memorability is generated has remained elusive. Identified causal relationships are often lacking valid evidence, and empirical studies commonly produce conflicting findings, calling into question the alleged deterministic effect of memorability. The model proposed and tested in this study can expand current knowledge around the causes and consequences of memorability in a tourism context.

Second, by connecting the concept of memorability with conventional marketing constructs (i.e., satisfaction and quality), this study reconciles the emerging memory-based approach with the popular satisfaction-based framework. Similar efforts have rarely been made, as memory-oriented tourist behavior models tend to omit constructs from conventional models such as satisfaction, delight, and quality. It is thus unknown whether memorability is truly a better predictor of tourist loyalty and how the concept relates to popular marketing constructs (especially satisfaction) that have been modeled as major predictors of consumer behavior (Ahrholdt, Gudergan, and Ringle 2016; Oliver, Rust, and Varki 1997). This research therefore enhances the literature on tourist behavior and loyalty.

Finally, by testing and comparing the proposed model based on domestic and outbound tourists, this study reveals that the formation and effect of memorability are context-dependent. This finding provides a potential explanation for divergent findings on the causes of memorability, as these results can be attributed to varying travel contexts (and accordingly different tourist expectations). The proposed model can thus be cross-validated in different contexts to enhance its credibility.

Based on the above findings, this study unveils several managerial suggestions for domestic and foreign rural destinations aiming to secure and enhance their competitiveness in serving Chinese tourists to tap into this vast market. For domestic destinations, as tourists’ satisfaction plays a more critical role in word of mouth, destination management organizations and tourism operators should pay more attention to improving the quality of products and services to lay a solid foundation for memorable experiences and tourist loyalty. Basic tourism services (e.g., traffic, accommodations, catering, and tour guidance) should be delivered in a consistently reliable and professional fashion. Service standardization can be helpful in this respect. For foreign destinations such as those in New Zealand, a memorability-centered strategy is recommended with an emphasis on facilitating the development of an environment (i.e., the destination) that enhances the likelihood that tourists can create their own memorable tourism experiences (Tung and Ritchie 2011a). In this vein, tourism operators should invest in creating novel and extraordinary experiences to evoke a stronger sense of delight, pleasure, sociability, happiness, and so on. Rural destinations should therefore be viewed as a stage, and great efforts should be devoted to presenting the local culture, customs, and lifestyle that are authentic and unique to the destination. Unlike basic services such as accommodations and catering, extraordinary experience elements should not be uniform but instead easily distinguishable from tourists’ daily lives; in this way, such experiences will be more likely to appeal to and entertain visitors. Despite the emphasis on novel and entertaining experiences, the quality of basic services should not be neglected, as an unsatisfying stay can compromise tourists’ enjoyment.

This research also has several limitations. Primarily, although this study makes a unique contribution by comparing a proposed memorability model between Chinese tourists visiting domestic rural destinations and those visiting rural destinations in New Zealand, future studies can involve other origin and destination countries for cross-cultural investigation. To further validate the determined causal relationships between memorability and its antecedents and consequences, a longitudinal design tracing tourists’ perceptions and behavior during and after their trip is recommended. Moreover, the between-subjects design applied in this study cannot fully account for whether a tourist will behave differently across travel contexts; as such, within-subject designs are suggested for future studies. In addition, the authors would like to call for care when interpreting the above findings. The potential intervening effects of personal factors (e.g., country of origin or prior travel experience) were not fully controlled in this between-group observatory design. Unfortunately, it would be nearly impossible to account for all potential intervening factors in an observatory study. In light of this, we suggest that subsequent studies involve more closely controlled research designs (e.g., field experiments) with better internal validity.

The outbreak of Coronavirus (COVID-19) has caused tremendous impact on global tourism industry, and it can be expected that tourist behavior patterns can also be more or less altered in the post-pandemic age. For example, Chinese tourists traveling outbound might be concerned more about the health risks in the destination. As such, ordinary experiences (service quality) could demonstrate more significant effect in shaping memorability and further loyalty. While this new situation may bring some limitations for this pre-COVID 19 research in informing post-pandemic tourism management practices, it should not undermine the theoretical value of this current research. On one hand, this study can serve as a baseline for comparison with post-pandemic findings, and thereby reveal how exactly the pandemic can transform (Chinese) tourists’ behavior patterns. On the other hand, although tourist behavior can be fundamentally altered during glocal crisis events (such as terrorism attack, pandemic), such deviance is unlikely to last forever. The crisis will end someday, and the global tourism industry will recover (though gradually) from the crisis. Accordingly, tourist behavior might well be brought back to the “normal track.” As such, pre-pandemic research findings still have their value in the long run.

Footnotes

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Shun Ye

Jun Wen

Author Biographies

Shun Ye is an Assistant Researcher in the School of Management, Zhejiang University. He has interests in tourist behavior, tourism entrepreneurship, small business growth, social media and demand analysis.

Wei Wei is currently an Associate Professor in University of Central Florida. Her research interests include consumer behavior, experience, and psychology with a focus on consumer-to-consumer interactions, consumer engagement behavior, and consumer experience with emerging technologies.

Jun Wen is a Lecturer in tourism and hospitality management in the School of Business and Law at Edith Cowan University. His current research interests lie in Chinese outbound tourism marketing, behaviours, and other related aspects.

Tianyu Ying is an Associate Professor in the School of Management, Zhejiang University, China. His research interests lie in the Chinese outbound tourist market, the information elements in both the demand and supply sides of the tourism system, and the sustainability issues in tourism from a social perspective.

Xiaoyuan Tan is currently a Ph.D student in School of Management, Zhejiang University. Her research interests are focused on deviant behavior in consumption, cultural tourism.

References

Agustin

Singh

2005. “Curvilinear Effects of Consumer Loyalty Determinants in Relational Exchanges.” Journal of Marketing Research 42 (1): 96–108.

Ahrholdt

D. C.

Gudergan

S. P.

Ringle

C. M.

2016. “What Drives Customer Loyalty? Nonlinear Effects of Customer Delight and Satisfaction on Loyalty and the Moderating Role of Service Experience.” In Looking Forward, Looking Back: Drawing on the Past to Shape the Future of Marketing, 742–50. New York: Springer.

Alba

J. W.

Hutchinson

J. W.

Lynch

J. G.

1991. “Memory and Decision Making.” In Handbook of Consumer Behavior, 1–49. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ali

Hussain

Ragavan

N. A.

2014. “Memorable Customer Experience: Examining the Effects of Customers’ Experience on Memories and Loyalty in Malaysian Resort Hotels.” Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 144:273–79.

Ali

Ryu

Hussain

2016. “Influence of Experiences on Memories, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions: A Study of Creative Tourism.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 33 (1): 85–100.

Ali

Kim

W. G.

Jeon

H. M.

2018. “Make it Delightful: Customers’ Experience, Satisfaction and Loyalty in Malaysian Theme Parks”. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 7: 1–11.

Bharwani

Jauhari

2017. “An Exploratory Study of Competencies Required to Co-Create Memorable Customer Experiences in the Hospitality Industry.” In Hospitality Marketing and Consumer Behavior, 159–85. Waretown, NJ: Apple Academic Press.

Bohanek

J. G.

Fivush

Walker

2005. “Memories of Positive and Negative Emotional Events.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 19 (1): 51–66.

Bourgeon

Filser

1995. “Les apports du modèle de recherches d’expériences à l’analyse du comportement dans le domaine culturel Une exploration conceptuelle et méthodologique.” Recherche et Applications en Marketing (French Edition) 10 (4): 5–25.

10.

Campos

A. C.

Mendes

do Valle

P. O.

Scott

2017. “Co-creating Animal-Based Tourist Experiences: Attention, Involvement and Memorability.” Tourism Management 63:100–14.

11.

Carù

Cova

2003. “Revisiting Consumption Experience: A More Humble but Complete View of the Concept.” Marketing Theory 3 (2): 267–86.

12.

Chandralal

Rindfleish

Valenzuela

2015. “An Application of Travel Blog Narratives to Explore Memorable Tourism Experiences.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 20 (6): 680–93.

13.

Chandralal

Valenzuela

F. R.

2013. “Exploring Memorable Tourism Experiences: Antecedents and Behavioral Outcomes.” Journal of Economics, Business and Management 1 (2): 177–81.

14.

Chandralal

Valenzuela

F. R.

2015. “Memorable Tourism Experiences: Scale Development.” Contemporary Management Research 11:3.

15.

Cohen

1972. “Toward a Sociology of International Tourism.” Social Research 39 (1): 164–82.

16.

Coudounaris

D. N.

Sthapit

2017. “Antecedents of Memorable Tourism Experience Related to Behavioral Intentions.” Psychology and Marketing 34 (12): 1084–93.

17.

Cox

D. S.

Cox

A. D.

1988. “What Does Familiarity Breed? Complexity as a Moderator of Repetition Effects in Advertisement Evaluation.” Journal of Consumer Research 15 (1): 111–16.

18.

Cronin

J. J.

Jr. Brady

M. K.

Hult

G. T. M.

2000. “Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments.” Journal of Retailing 76 (2): 193–218.

19.

Dunman

Mattila

A. S.

2005. “The Role of Affective Factors on Perceived Cruise Vacation Value.” Tourism Management 26:311–23.

20.

Ekinci

Riley

Chen

J. S.

2001. “A Review of Comparison Standards Used in Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction Studies: Some Emerging Issues for Hospitality and Tourism Research.” In Consumer Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure, 321–32. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

21.

Faison

E. W.

1977. “The Neglected Variety Drive: A Useful Concept for Consumer Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Research 4 (3): 172–5.

22.

Fernández

Páez

2008. “The Benefits of Expressive Writing after the Madrid Terrorist Attack: Implications for Emotional Activation and Positive Affect.” British Journal of Health Psychology 13 (1): 31–34.

23.

Geus

S. D.

Richards

Toepoel

2016. “Conceptualisation and Operationalisation of Event and Festival Experiences: Creation of an Event Experience Scale.” Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 16 (3): 274–96.

24.

Gyung Kim

Mattila

A. S.

2013. “Does a Surprise Strategy Need Words? The Effect of Explanations for a Surprise Strategy on Customer Delight and Expectations.” Journal of Services Marketing 27 (5): 361–70.

25.

Hirschman

E. C.

Holbrook

M. B.

1982. “Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions”. Journal of Marketing 46 (3): 92–101.

26.

Holbrook

M. B.

Hirschman

E. C.

1982. “The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun.” Journal of Consumer Research 9 (2): 132–40.

27.

Hosany

Witham

2010. “Dimensions of Cruisers’ Experiences, Satisfaction, and Intention to Recommend.” Journal of Travel Research 49 (3): 351–64.

28.

Hung

W. L.

Lee

Y. J.

Huang

P. H.

2016. “Creative Experiences, Memorability and Revisit Intention in Creative Tourism.” Current Issues in Tourism 19 (8): 763–70.

29.

Kastenholz

Carneiro

M. J.

Marques

C. P.

Lima

2012. “Understanding and Managing the Rural Tourism Experience—The Case of a Historical Village in Portugal.” Tourism Management Perspectives 4:207–14.

30.

Kastenholz

Carneiro

M. J.

Marques

C. P.

Loureiro

S. M. C.

2018. “The Dimensions of Rural Tourism Experience: Impacts on Arousal, Memory, and Satisfaction.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 35 (2): 189–201.

31.

Keiningham

T. L.

Vavra

T. G.

2001. The Customer Delight Principle: Exceeding Customers’ Expectations for Bottom-Line Success. New York: McGraw-Hill.

32.

Kerstetter

Cho

M. H.

2004. “Prior Knowledge, Credibility and Information Search.” Annals of Tourism Research 31 (4): 961–85.

33.

Kim

J. H.

Ritchie

J. B.

2014. “Cross-Cultural Validation of a Memorable Tourism Experience Scale (MTES).” Journal of Travel Research 53 (3): 323–35.

34.

Kim

J. H.

Ritchie

J. B.

McCormick

2012. “Development of a Scale to Measure Memorable Tourism Experiences.” Journal of Travel Research 51 (1): 12–25.

35.

Kim

J. H.

Ritchie

J. R.

Tung

V. W. S.

2010. “The Effect of Memorable Experience on Behavioral Intentions in Tourism: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach.” Tourism Analysis 15 (6): 637–48.

36.

Kim

Hallab

Kim

J. N.

2012. “The Moderating Effect of Travel Experience in A Destination on the Relationship Between the Destination Image and the Intention to Revisit.” Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 21(5): 486-505.

37.

Kim

Vogt

C. A.

Knutson

B. J.

2015. “Relationships among Customer Satisfaction, Delight, and Loyalty in the Hospitality Industry.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 39 (2): 170–97.

38.

Lee

T. H.

Crompton

1992. “Measuring Novelty Seeking in Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 19 (4): 732–51.

39.

Lehto

X. Y.

O’Leary

J. T.

Morrison

A. M.

2004. “The Effect of Prior Experience on Vacation Behavior.” Annals of Tourism Research 31 (4): 801–18.

40.

X. R.

Lai

Harrill

Kline

Wang

2011. “When East Meets West: An Exploratory Study on Chinese Outbound Tourists’ Travel Expectations”. Tourism Management 32 (4): 741–74.

41.

Loureiro

S. M. C.

2014. “The Role of the Rural Tourism Experience Economy in Place Attachment and Behavioral Intentions.” International Journal of Hospitality and Management 40:1–9.

42.

Loureiro

S. M. C.

Kastenholz

2011. “Corporate Reputation, Satisfaction, Delight, and Loyalty towards Rural Lodging Units in Portugal.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (3): 575–83.

43.

Marschall

2012. “Tourism and Memory.” Annals of Tourism Research 39 (4): 2216–9.

44.

Mazursky

1989. “Past Experience and Future Tourism Decisions.” Annals of Tourism Research 16 (3): 333–44.

45.

McCabe

2002. “The Tourist Experience and Everyday Life.” In The Tourist as a Metaphor of the Social World, 61–75. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

46.

McGaugh

J. L.

2004. “The Amygdala Modulates the Consolidation of Memories of Emotionally Arousing Experiences.” Annual Review of Neuroscience 27:1–28.

47.

McKercher

2008. “The Implicit Effect of Distance on Tourist Behavior: A Comparison of Short and Long Haul Pleasure Tourists to Hong Kong.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 25 (3/4): 367–81.

48.

McKercher

Du Cros

2003. “Testing a Cultural Tourism Typology.” International Journal of Tourism Research 5 (1): 45–58.

49.

Mody

M. A.

Suess

Lehto

2017. “The Accommodation Experiencescape: A Comparative Assessment of Hotels and Airbnb.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 29 (9): 2377–404.

50.

Morgan

. 2006. “Making Space for Experiences.” Journal of Retail and Leisure Property 5 (4): 305–13.

51.

Morgan

2009. “Student Travel Experiences: Memories and Dreams.” Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 18 (2/3): 216–36.

52.

Mossberg

2007. “A Marketing Approach to the Tourist Experience.” Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 7 (1): 59–74.

53.

S. I.

Anne Lee

Soutar

G. N.

2007. “Are Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s Value Frameworks Congruent?”, International Marketing Review 24 (2): 164–180.

54.

Fiore

A. M.

Jeoung

2007. “Measuring Experience Economy Concepts: Tourism Applications.” Journal of Travel Research 46 (2): 119–32.

55.

Oliver

R. L.

1980. “A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions.” Journal of Marketing Research 17 (4): 460–69.

56.

Oliver

R. L.

Rust

R. T.

Varki

1997. “Customer Delight: Foundations, Findings, and Managerial Insight.” Journal of Retailing 73 (3): 311–36.

57.

Perdue

. 2003. “Stakeholder Analysis in Colorado Ski Resort Communities.” Tourism Analysis 8 (2): 233–36.

58.

Petrick

J. F.

2002. “An Examination of Golf Vacationers’ Novelty.” Annals of Tourism Research 29 (2): 384–400.

59.

Pine

B. J.

Gilmore

J. H.

1998. “Welcome to the Experience Economy.” Harvard Business Review 76:97–105.

60.

Pizam

2010. “Creating Memorable Experiences.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (3): 343.

61.

Quan

Wang

2004. “Towards a Structural Model of the Tourist Experience: An Illustration from Food Experiences in Tourism.” Tourism Management 25 (3): 297–305.

62.

Ranaweera

Menon

2013. “For Better or for Worse? Adverse Effects of Relationship Age and Continuance Commitment on Positive and Negative Word of Mouth.” European Journal of Marketing 47 (10): 1598–621.

63.

Reder

L. M.

Donavos

D. K.

Erickson

M. A.

2002. “Perceptual Match Effects in Direct Tests of Memory: The Role of Contextual Fan.” Memory and Cognition 30 (2): 312–23.

64.

Ritchie

Jr. Tung

V. W. S.

Ritchie

R. J. B.

2011. “Tourism Experience Management Research: Emergence, Evolution and Future Directions.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 23 (4): 419–38.

65.

Selstad

2007. “The Social Anthropology of the Tourist Experience. Exploring the ‘Middle Role.’” Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 7 (1): 19–33.

66.

Sharpley

Roberts

2004. “Rural Tourism—10 Years On.” International Journal of Tourism Research 6 (3): 119–24.

67.

2011. “Rural Tourism in China.” Tourism Management 32 (6): 1438–41.

68.

Swarbrick

2008. “Rural Tourism.” http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/rural-tourism/print (accessed September 13, 2019).

69.

Talarico

J. M.

Rubin

D. C.

2003. “Confidence, Not Consistency, Characterizes Flashbulb Memories.” Psychological Science 14 (5): 455–61.

70.

Tanford

Baloglu

2013. “Applying the Loyalty Matrix to Evaluate Casino Loyalty Programs.” Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54 (4): 333–46.

71.

Torres

E. N.

Kline

2006. “From Satisfaction to Delight: A Model for the Hotel Industry.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 18 (4): 290–301.

72.

Tourism New Zealand. 2018. “China: Market Information about Our Visitors and Our Active Considerers.” https://www.tourismnewzealand.com/media/3418/china-visitor-information.pdf (accessed September 13, 2019).

73.

Tukamushaba

E. K.

Xiao

Ladkin

2016. “The Effect of Tourists’ Perceptions of a Tourism Product on Memorable Travel Experience: Implications for Destination Branding.” European Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Recreation 7 (1): 2–12.

74.

Tung

V. W. S.

Ritchie

J. B.

2011a. “Exploring the Essence of Memorable Tourism Experiences.” Annals of Tourism Research 38 (4): 1367–86.

75.

Tung

V. W. S.

Ritchie

J. B.

2011b. “Investigating the Memorable Experiences of the Senior Travel Market: An Examination of the Reminiscence Bump.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 28 (3): 331–43.

76.

Wikström

S. R.

2008. “A Consumer Perspective on Experience Creation.” Journal of Customer Behavior 7 (1): 31–50.

77.

Wood

W. J.

Conway

2006. “Subjective Impact, Meaning Making, and Current and Recalled Emotions for Self-Defining Memories.” Journal of Personality 74 (3): 811–46.

78.

Woods

2004. Rural Geography: Processes, Responses and Experiences in Rural Restructuring. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

79.

Xinhua Net. 2018. “Across China: Rural Tourism Draws Villagers Back to Thrive.” http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-03/17/c_137046127.htm (accessed September 13, 2019).

80.

Xinhua Tourism. 2015. “Innovation and Features- The ‘Huzhou Model’ of Rural Tourism in China.” http://travel.news.cn/2015-09/28/c_128274665_3.htm (accessed November 28, 2017).

81.

Zhang

Buhalis

2018. “A Model of Perceived Image, Memorable Tourism Experiences and Revisit Intention.” Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 8:326–36.

82.

Zimmerman

C. A.

Kelley

C. M.

2010. “‘I’ll Remember This!’ Effects of Emotionality on Memory Predictions versus Memory Performance.” Journal of Memory and Language 62 (3): 240–53.

83.

Zuckerman

1971. “Dimensions of Sensation Seeking.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 36 (1): 45.