Tourists’ Need for Uniqueness as a Representation of Differentiated Identity

Abstract

This study aims to examine the relationship between tourists’ need for uniqueness (TNFU), perceived authenticity, tourists’ emotions, and their behavioral intentions in a heritage context. A proposed conceptual model is tested using the data generated from a convenient sample of 474 tourists visiting Cappadocia Göreme National Park, a natural and cultural heritage destination in Turkey. Using the partial least squares technique, the findings confirm that tourists’ need for uniqueness influences object-based authenticity and existential authenticity. Object-based authenticity and existential authenticity affect tourists’ emotions. Also, the tourist’s emotions affect their behavioral intentions. The model is further examined from a nationality perspective through a multigroup analysis. The effect of avoidance of similarity on TNFU is greater in European tourists. Also, the effect of TNFU on object-based authenticity is greater in Asian tourists. Further, the effect of object-based authenticity on tourists’ emotions is greater in Asian tourists. Discussions and implications for destination marketers, limitations, and suggestions for future research are also provided.

Keywords

need for uniqueness object-based authenticity existential authenticity emotions behavioral intentions heritage tourism nationality partial least squares

Introduction

In modern society, expressing the differentness, individuality, or unique identity of a person against others requires the creation of a personal style through the material goods and experiences representing himself or herself. Also, acquired goods and experiences are often defined as a part of the extended self (Belk 1988), implying one’s style and preferences. Reflecting one’s personal style is accomplished through the purchase of original, novel, or unique consumer goods (Kron 1983) or traveling with a unique style (Chan, To, and Chu 2016). Within the framework of theoretical studies on authenticity, MacCannell (1999) utilizes the perspective of differentiation (from other) that Veblen (2009) attributes to a basic role in the modern living (Korstanje 2013). Furthermore, one of the psychological reasons for the need for such differentiation is conceptualized as the individuals’ need for uniqueness (Snyder and Fromkin 1977). Thus, the main objective of this research is to develop and empirically examine a conceptual model that focuses on tourists’ need for uniqueness, perceived authenticity, emotions, and behavioral intentions in a natural and cultural heritage site. Although there have been studies that have examined authenticity’s various interpretations in the cultural tourism consumption context and the effect of felt authenticity on tourists’ intentions to consume cultural heritage attractions (Ramkissoon and Uysal 2010, 2011), there is hardly, if any, study that examines tourists’ need for uniqueness and both existential authenticity and object-based authenticity. The conceptual model hypothesizes that tourists’ need for uniqueness has a direct influence on object-based and existential authenticity. Perceived object-based and existential authenticity has a direct influence on tourists’ emotions, which in turn have a direct effect on their behavioral intentions. Since the unit of analysis consists of both European and Asian visitors, the notion of nationality is employed as a moderating variable to understand the degree to which the origin of visitors plays a moderating role in the relationship between tourists’ need for uniqueness and both existential authenticity and object-based authenticity.

The main contributions of this study are threefold. First, this article examines the tourists’ need for uniqueness and perceived authenticity, which augments the scarce literature in tourism with regard to these constructs. Second, this study investigates the perceived authenticity of tourists, their emotional experiences, and behavioral intentions in the context of heritage tourism. There is still a gap concerning the relationship between authenticity perceived by tourists and their emotional experiences. Third, the current study attempts to understand how culture affects tourist perceptions and behaviors by examining the moderating role of nationality in the relationships between TNFU, authenticity, tourists’ emotion, and their behavioral intentions.

The remainder of this article is organized as follows: the first section focuses on the literature review, the conceptual model, and formulates research hypotheses. Subsequently, the methodology used in conducting the research is discussed. This is followed by the analysis of results. Finally, the implications and directions for future research are provided

Relationship between Need for Uniqueness and Authenticity

In psychology and marketing literature, individuals’ need for uniqueness is taken as a psychological structure accounting for the individual’s need for uniqueness as a personality trait. According to Snyder and Fromkin (1977, 1980), persons are motivated to maintain a sense of uniqueness as they define themselves on various important self-related dimensions relative to others. The need for uniqueness is where a person shows the need to pursue products and services to express differentness and achievement. According to the NFU (Need for Uniqueness) theory, all individuals crave uniqueness to some extent. The concept of uniqueness is conceptualized with the Consumer’s Need for Uniqueness (CNFU) in marketing research by various researchers, based on the uniqueness theory of Snyder and Fromkin (Lynn and Harris 1997; Tian, Bearden, and Hunter 2001; Ruvio 2008; Ruvio, Shoham, and Brenčič 2008). The CNFU is defined as a person’s pursuit of differentness in relation to others by way of acquiring, using, and disposing of consumer goods in an effort to develop and enhance one’s personal and social identity (Tian, Bearden, and Hunter 2001). Consumers form their uniqueness by means of their pursuits of uniqueness as a response to the environmental input that will reduce or increase their perceptions to have a resemblance to others (Tian and McKenzie 2001; Tian, Bearden, and Hunter 2001). Snyder and Fromkin (1977, 1980) state that the need for uniqueness might have an impact on an individual’s attitudes, beliefs, behavior, and consumption preferences. Similarly, research has shown that the CNFU affects various behavior, such as personalized scarce products (Lynn and Harris 1997; Ruvio 2008; Bozkurt and Gligor 2019), innovative consumption behavior (Lynn and Harris 1997; Clark and Goldsmith 2005; Chan, To, and Chu 2016), and unique place preference (Burns and Warren 1995). In the literature, the CNFU is operationalized in three dimensions (Lynn and Harris 1997; Tian, Bearden, and Hunter 2001). These are, namely, creative choice counterconformity, unpopular choice counterconformity, and avoidance of similarity (Tian, Bearden, and Hunter 2001; Tian and McKenzie 2001; Ruvio, Shoham, and Brenčič 2008).

Creative choice as a construct is defined as an individual characteristic to prefer products in creating personal styles and expressing some self-image approved by significant others within their social context (Snyder and Fromkin 1977; Lynn and Harris 1997; Tian, Bearden, and Hunter 2001). By making creative choices, the consumer can gain a positive social evaluation as a unique individual. Therefore, consumers in this group tend to buy original and unique products to express themselves (Kron 1983). Unpopular choice refers to the selection or use of products and brands that deviate from group norms and, therefore, risk social disapproval that consumers withstand in order to establish their differentness from others (Snyder and Fromkin 1977). The consumers in this group rarely care about how they are perceived by others and, therefore, the behavior of the consumers in this group tends to diverge from social norms (Simonson and Nowlis 2000). Even though consumers with a high tendency in unpopular choices tend to accept the risk of social disapproval, they still expect to improve their self and social image through consumption (Tian, Bearden, and Hunter 2001). Avoidance of similarity is defined as “the loss of interest in, or discontinued use of, possessions that become commonplace in order to move away from the norm and reestablish one’s differentness” (Tian, Bearden, and Hunter 2001, p. 53). In other words, individuals seeking to differentiate from others avoid buying and consuming popular products and brands (Ruvio 2008). Consumers in this group consider products as a way to distinguish themselves from others and, therefore, to focus more on uniqueness value, rather than on utilitarian value, when shopping (Burns and Warren 1995).

As aforementioned, studies that examined empirically tourists’ need for uniqueness as a personality trait in tourism literature are limited (Chan, To, and Chu 2016; Hyu and Park 2016). However, it is possible to trace the concept of “tourists’ need for uniqueness” in various studies. For instance, Wang (1999) and Kolar and Zabkar (2010) examined the concept of uniqueness as the uniqueness of an experience in the context of structural authenticity. Noy (2004) stated that a cyclical relationship of authenticity is observed for backpackers—a constructed authenticity (uniqueness of the destinations), the authenticity of the tourist’s experience (existential authenticity), and the authentication of a self-change narrative. Similarly, Rickly-Boyd (2012) stated that tourists’ engagement in the uniqueness of travel and experience allows for a connection with the concept of aura that develops within the frame of an interaction between the person and object/site, an engagement and an idea of experience.

Given that the acquired goods are often perceived as part of the extended self in the modern world (Belk 1988), it can be asserted that the expression of “individuality and uniqueness for tourists” is projected through making creative choices with a unique style. Berman (2009) stated that authentic tourism experiences are associated with identity, individuality, and self-development as well as self-realization. Proshansky (1978) argued that unique experiences and personality traits impose the individuals’ preferences and tastes for physical settings. Cutler and Carmichael (2010) indicate that travel/tourism is a transitional experience for individuals in understanding their own identities. It is also argued that heritage and identity appear as two inseparable aspects of experience value creation (Genc 2017), and the presence of cultural heritage in a given setting may lead individuals to obtain spiritual enrichment, emotional and social development, place attachment, and aesthetic experiences, leading to better understanding their own identity. Empirical research also reveals that authenticity facilitates getting in connection with one’s inner self, knowing oneself, and understanding one’s own identity (Allen and Mendick 2013; Jiang et al. 2017). Therefore, tourist experience may create changes in self-identity and self-perception in daily life. Similarly, Zeng, Go, and de Vries (2012) stated that the identification of tourists with a product or experience specific to a given destination also enriches the authenticity of the place depending on its unique and distinctive features. Peterson (2005) proposed that the perception of authenticity could be structured through ethnic and cultural identity, status, appearance, and self-embedded identity. Similarly, Steiner and Reisinger (2006) also indicated that the relationship of the variables of anxiety, meaning-making, identity, and individualism with authenticity should be addressed. Thus, this study hypothesizes that:

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between the tourist’s’ need for uniqueness and existential authenticity.

Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between the tourist’s need for uniqueness and object-based authenticity.

Relationship between Object-Based Authenticity and Existential Authenticity

Authenticity is a phenomenon in which individuals experience some sort of sense of redemption with the culturally, spiritually, and naturally “unspoiled” objects for which they concurrently have both a sense of loss and desire, in mass culture and industrialized modern life (Taylor 2001, p. 10). It was until the Wang’s fundamental analysis in the field of authenticity (1999) that authenticity was addressed as a fact (MacCannell 1999; E. Cohen 2010), a pseudo-event and commodification (Boorstin 1964; Greenwood 1997), and staged as a modern pilgrimage that escapes from modernism. Wang (1999) examined the given studies and approaches, concluded that authenticity could not be separated clearly in an objective or constructivist classification, defined the aspects of object-based and existentialist authenticity, and led the subsequent studies. In brief, the fact that the concept of authenticity is a comprehensive and vague concept has led researchers to carry out studies in two dimensions: object-oriented authenticity and existential authenticity.

Object-based authenticity reflects the relationship that tourists establish with objects specific to the destinations they travel (Chabbra, Healy, and Sills 2003; Belhassen, Caton, and Stewart 2008; Torabian and Arai 2016). Therefore, tourists focus on their perception of whether a local art, work of handcraft, cultural heritage, souvenir, historic event, and cultural activity is original (Lin 2017). This dimension assumes that tourists seek the perfect, pure, and genuine one in object-oriented authenticity. Here, tourists, as opposed to what is presented, will be able to grasp the authenticity in the given objects and events through their perspectives and knowledge.

Tourists’ perceptions of authenticity are also shaped by the method of how their destinations are offered and the relationship they establish with that method when objects are ignored. In other words, authenticity is also closely related to the atmosphere being offered. From a philosophical point of view, this idea is based on the opinion that tourists experience the state of Heideggerian “being” to realize themselves (Knuddsen, Rickly, and Vidon 2016). In support of this view, Wang (1999) states that tourist experiences can activate existential authenticity, even if the objects in the place of the visit are not authentic. Similarly, Reisinger and Steiner (2006), from the Heideggerian perspective, impose a daily meaning to authenticity and state that almost all touristic activities can be defined as authentic, according to an individual’s perception. Consequently, existential authenticity passes the state of being over and beyond the border of tending to the objects and attributes it to the specific experiences of the individual. Ramkissoon and Uysal (2018) stated that the authenticity of cultural heritage sites is a value or judgment brought forward by the consumer. The tourist is viewed as part of the authentication process, the tourists’ self-interpretation and meanings, combined with the experiences derived from the objects being consumed, served as a basis for their evaluation of authenticity (Ramkissoon and Uysal 2018). Another reference in terms of authenticity is Walter Benjamin. Benjamin (1968) was one of the first thinkers to find out that replication-related reproduction in the modern age raises the problem of authenticity. Experiencing a sense of authenticity in the replicas replacing original works is related to the aura of the activities. At this point, Rickly-Boyd (2012) states that the concept of aura (special atmosphere) provides an expansion that can go beyond the concepts of object-based and existential authenticity. Hence, tourism is a modern version of past rituals and authenticity is a way to establish bonds with the aura.

Utilizing the existentialist philosophies of both Heidegger and Sartre, Brown (2013) states that tourism is an activity that gives the individual a chance to be like him or herself, to develop an insight about life, to analyze priorities, and to make decisions relating to their life. In this sense, tourism provides an opportunity for authenticity and being to occur. Empirical research shows that existential authenticity can be experienced, without being limited to the object. For example, H. Kim and Jamal (2007) found out that existential authenticity could be experienced at festival events, even if a replication, and Zhu (2012) determined that the perception of a touristic event as either authentic or inauthentic by the participants at that event depends on their memories. On the other hand, Kolar and Zabkar (2010) associated existential authenticity with the unique spiritual experiences of people visiting a destination along with their perceptions, feelings, and emotions through which they are connected to human history and civilization. As can be seen, tourists have the opportunity to experience existential authenticity, whether connected to objects or not.

Kolar and Zabkar (2010) formulated a middle course, relying on discussions concerning object-based authenticity (Wang 1999; Reisinger and Steiner 2006). According to Kolar and Zabkar (2010), although there is an interaction between the two dimensions, they differentiate from each other. The researchers stated that objective and existential authenticity not only coexisted but also were related to a great extent, and the object-based authenticity had a significant relationship with the existential authenticity. In a study conducted to analyze the relationships between pilgrimage experience and authenticity, Belhassen, Caton, and Stewart (2008) found that the spatial components of the pilgrimage centers were effective in the perceptions of object-based authenticity and existential authenticity. Similarly, Shen, Guo, and Wu (2012) and Domínguez-Quintero, González-Rodríguez, and Paddison (2020) determined that the perception of object-based authenticity affected the existential authenticity, in the context of cultural heritage tourism. In the context of cultural tourism, it is fair to say that a positive evaluation of architecture, object-based authenticity involving the presentation of materials and resources, affects the perception of existential authenticity positively and can promote this feeling. Object-based authenticity can support tourists’ sense of connection with local culture and their immersion in the local culture. Therefore, this study hypothesizes that:

Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relationship between object-based authenticity and existential authenticity

The Relationship between Authenticity and Tourists’ Emotions

Authenticity is examined, not only as a cognitive structure but also as an emotionally-based structure (Kolar and Zabkar 2010). Tourists can develop affective links, a sense of identity, and belongingness to the cultural and natural elements often unique to destinations (Ramkissoon and Uysal 2010; Ramkissoon 2015). In studies conducted in the context of cultural tourism, researchers determined that both objective and existential authenticity were emotionally based constructs to a great extent. In particular, existential authenticity is perceived through tourist experiences (Cho 2012), and tourist experiences are significantly associated with emotions (Slåtten et al. 2009; Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010; Faullant, Matzler, and Mooradian 2011). Because of the cultural and symbolic meanings of experiences, authenticity can be said to be intertwined with emotional meanings and reactions (Luomala 2007). In their studies of archaeology museums, Chiappa, Andreu, and Gallarza (2014) found that consumers with high levels of emotional affect perceive a museum as a fascinating and authentic place; therefore, they confirm the authenticity in tourism as an emotionally directed dimension. Wang (1999) stated that existential authenticity could be argued to be involved in all elements of the tourist experience if that leads to a real emotional or cognitive reaction. Examining Walter Benjamin’s concept of authenticity and aura, Rickly-Boyd (2012) stated that the engagement in the existentialist authenticity experience resulted in feelings, sensations, and preoccupation. In addition, Rickly-Boyd (2012) also states that touring unique landscapes disrupts established routines, habits, and conventions and brings about renewed emotional experiences. In studies conducted with visitors of Sagra da Familia in the context of cultural heritage tourism, Palau-Saumell et al. (2012) discovered a positive and direct relationship between heritage buildings and the emotions of tourists. Meng and Choi (2016) argue that individuals with a stronger orientation toward the feeling or sense of authenticity are more willing to attend authentic activities. Jang, Ha, and Park (2012) found that the perceived authenticity of the food and ambience in ethnic restaurants influenced consumers’ feelings positively. Similarly, Verbeke and López (2005) stated that although customers perceive authenticity through dining experiences in an ethnic restaurant, their emotions toward authenticity may be either positive or negative. This is because authenticity is an important factor affecting customers at an ethnic restaurant. However, it is claimed that authenticity can also produce unfamiliar experiences and uncomfortable feelings for new visitors and, therefore, authenticity may not always produce positive emotions. However, Jang, Ha, and Park (2012) found that consumers who perceive the authenticity of a dining experience at an ethnic restaurant at a higher level produce/feel more positive emotions. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relationship between existential authenticity perceived by tourists and emotions.

Hypothesis 5: There is a positive relationship between object-based authenticity and emotions perceived by tourists.

Tourists’ Emotions and Behavioral Intentions

Recent studies defined behavioral intentions as one of the determinants of post-consumption emotions (Barsky and Nash 2002; Bigne, Andreu, and Gnoth 2005; Jang and Namkung 2009). It is well established that behavioral intention is considered a key construct in predicting behavior (Ajzen 1985). Moreover, there is a significant relationship between the emotions of tourists and their behavioral intentions (Prayag, Hosany, and Odeh 2013). For example, Leone, Perugini, and Bagozzi (2005) stated that anticipated emotions affect behavioral desire because the emotional constructs represent the hedonic motive of promoting a positive situation of affairs and avoiding a negative situation of affairs. In the study conducted to analyze the relationship of dining environments with the emotions and behavioral intentions at an upscale restaurant scale, Ryu and Jang (2007) noted that pleasure and arousal had a significant positive effect on behavioral intention; the pleasure was more influential on behavioral intention, as opposed to arousal. Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim (2010) discovered that the places visited by tourists reveal emotional associations and meanings and that this affects satisfaction and behavioral intention. Prayag, Hosany, and Odeh (2013) examined the relationship between the emotional experiences and behavioral intentions of tourists. Sharma and Nayak (2020) found that there is a direct and significant effect between the emotions and behavioral intentions of tourists in the context of wellness tourism. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 6: There is a positive relationship between the emotional responses and behavioral intentions of the tourists.

The Role of Nationality as a Moderating Variable

Culture and its components are important to marketers because culture is a component that affects attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors of consumers (Hofstede 2011; Mattila 1999; Ramkissoon and Mavondo 2015; Dedeoğlu et al 2019). Various researchers have attempted to understand and explain tourist behavior by referring to cultural theory (Pizam and Sussmann 1995; Reisinger and Crotts 2010; Reisinger and Turner 2003; Litvin, Crotts, and Hefner 2004; S. H. Lee and Sparks 2007). Empirical studies support the hypothesis that national cultural differences affect consumer behavior in different contexts. For example, Pantouvakis (2013) found that national cultural differences affect perceived satisfaction and loyalty. Another study by Zgolli and Zaiem (2017) found that the perceived similarity among different nationalities contributes to the development of the interactions between customers, and that this type of interaction can influence behavioral responses such as desire of stay, satisfaction, and loyalty. Similarly, the same study indicated that the tourist’s nationality moderates the relation between customer-to-customer indications and tourists’ reactions. In another study (Sun and Budruk 2017), the moderating effect of nationality on crowding relationships indicated that Taiwanese and foreign visitors were more crowd intolerant and had a higher tendency to engage in coping behaviors than those from mainland China, Furthermore, researchers stated that the need for uniqueness of Asian and Western consumers is significantly different. For example, H. Kim and Markus (1999) stated that the desire for uniqueness is viewed as a consequence of an individualistic culture and as a guiding force in defining and motivating Western people’s actions. The same authors indicated that European Americans tend to seek uniqueness and Chinese people tend to embrace conformity. Bian and Forsythe (2012) determined that Chinese consumers score higher in the need for uniqueness than those from the United States. The authors proposed a potential explanation that Chinese people might desire to display a distinct social position through brand choices rather than showing counterconformity. In addition, Ruvio, Shoham, and Brenčič (2008) found lower correlations between unpopular choices and the other CNFU dimensions in Palestine than in Slovenia and Israel, further supporting the existence of cultural differences and how differences moderate behavioral choices.

This moderation role manifests itself in consumption preferences as well. For example, Pizam and Sussmann (1995) observed that tourist preferences regarding authenticity differ because of their coming from different nationalities. There is empirical evidence to suggest that the search for new experiences, authenticity, and originality is associated with a high individualistic culture (C. Kim and Lee 2000; Yeoman, Brass, and McMahon-Beattie 2007; Peterson 2005). Yeoman, Brass, and McMahon-Beattie (2007) state that the trend that drives the authentic tourist is individualism. Wong (2015) found that tourists from culturally similar nations are more interested in genuine authenticity, while tourists from culturally distanced nations are more interested in staged authenticity.

The extant literature is replete with studies that have confirmed that the behavioral intentions of tourists with experience in a specific destination show variations according to their nationalities (Dedeoglu et al. 2019). Kang and Moscardo (2006) found that tourists’ national cultures are important in shaping their behavior. However, the role of nationality on the relationship between tourists’ emotions and behavioral intentions remains unclear in the literature. White and Scandale (2005) determined that the effect of emotions on tourists’ intent to visit is similar for Italians and Americans. However, considering the effect of culture on tourists’ behavior and decisions, it can be expected that nationality has a moderating effect on the relationship between tourists’ emotions and behavioral intentions. Within this context, the following hypotheses were developed:

Hypothesis 7a,b,c: The relative importance of three dimensions of tourists’ need for uniqueness (creative choices, avoidance of similarity, and unpopular choices) will vary by nationality.

Hypothesis 8a,b: Nationality moderates the relationships between tourist’s need for uniqueness and both existential authenticity and object-based authenticity.

Hypothesis 9a,b: Nationality moderates the relationships between existential authenticity, object-based authenticity, and emotions.

Hypothesis 10: Nationality moderates the relationships between emotions and behavioral intentions.

Together with the study hypotheses, the proposed research model is presented in Figure 1. This model displays an integrative approach of the proposed relationships between tourists’ need for uniqueness and authenticity, emotions, and behavioral intentions.

Figure 1.

Proposed research model.

Methodology

Study Site

Cappadocia Göreme National Park, which is a world cultural and natural heritage site since 1985, was selected as the field of study. The most important feature of the area is the fairy chimneys formed as a result of selective erosion caused by surface waters, located on sequential structures formed by rocks with varying resistance against wind and water erosion, created by the tuff from Mount Erciyes and Mount Hasan. Göreme became an important center of Christianity especially when Christians fleeing oppression settled hereabout between the seventh and thirteenth centuries. Included in the UNESCO World Heritage List are the Göreme National Park, Derinkuyu and Kaymakli Underground Cities, Karain Columbariums, Karlik Church, Yesiloz Theodoro Church, and Soganli Archeological Site. Cappadocia Göreme National Park is a natural and cultural heritage area that attracts a significant number of both domestic and international visitors. Across the Cappadocia region, tourists enjoy various accommodation options, including cave boutique hotels, as well as balloon and photo tours to view the unique landscape of the valley and fairy chimneys, underground city tours, ceramic workshops, and so on.

Research Instrument

Measurements for dimensions of tourists’ needs for uniqueness (creative choices, avoidance of similarity, and unpopular choices) were adopted from previous studies. However, these studies were conducted for different product categories such as fashion, luxury brands, public product, shopping mall preferences, and suchlike (Burns and Warren 1995; Tian, Bearden, and Hunter 2001; Knight and Eun 2007; Ruvio, Shoham, and Brenčič 2008; Latter, Phau, and Marchegiani 2010; Cheema and Kaikati 2010; Rajammaa et al. 2010; Wu et al. 2012). Hence, to adopt a comprehensive set of measurement items, a focus group interview was conducted with 10 tourists traveling frequently to national and international destinations, 2 consumer behavior professors, and 2 destination marketing professors. In the first step, the nature of CNFU constructs was explained to the interviewees, then the interviewees were asked questions such as “How can we transform these items depending on the nature of the tourism experience and tourists’ preferences?” and “Which items reflect the tourists’ need for uniqueness?” In the second step, the interviewees were asked to assess the items adapted and edited in the first step. This process was based on the CNFU scale, a short version of which was developed by Ruvio, Shoham, and Brenčič (2008) and Tian, Bearden, and Hunter (2001) in a cross-cultural study. As a result, 16 items that are related to the three dimensions of tourists’ need for uniqueness were identified: creative choices (five items), avoidance of similarity (seven items), and unpopular choice (four items). Measurement items for other variables in the study were taken from previous studies. Object-based authenticity and existential authenticity were operationalized using nine items adopted from Kolar and Zabkar (2010), Ramkissoon and Uysal (2011). Emotions were borrowed from Baloglu and McCleary (1999) and measured by four 7-point bipolar scales: pleasant–unpleasant; arousing–sleepy; relaxing–distressing; and exciting–gloomy. Lastly, the four items for behavioral intentions were adopted from Ramkissoon and Uysal (2011) and Chen and Tsai (2007). All items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree), except for emotion constructs. In addition, the column “I have no idea” was added for the participants of the questionnaire, who wished to respond to the statements at the end of the scale, and these were coded as missing data. Modification of all items in the scale was conducted by academicians specializing in destination management. Based on the examination by academics, the questionnaire was refined in terms of structure, clarity, and reselection of words.

The questionnaire was prepared in English and translated into different languages (German and French) to allow the research team to collect data from a wide cross section of tourists. To check the translation accuracy in different languages, we used the back-translation method. This method is regarded as the most effective technique for the establishment of translation equivalence (Brislin, Lonner, and Thorndike 1973; Mullen 1995; Soriano and Foxall 2006). In the first step, the questionnaire was in English and translated into French and German. It was then edited by native French- and German-speaking academics and translators for comparing inconsistencies. As there were no differences in the translated questionnaire, it was decided to use the translated questionnaire, re-translated after the first translation phase, for the German and French ones.

Sample Design and Data Collection

The questionnaires were administered by way of interception in the entry area of Göreme National Park, the resting area of the museum café, and other tourist hot spots such as souvenir shops and restaurants in Cappadocia, Turkey. Nonprobability purposive sampling was used for data collection. Data were collected during the peak season of the May–July period for Cappadocia. A professional research company assisted the researchers while administering the questionnaires. Four professional interviewers, who were fluent in the different languages, asked participants whether they were interested in participating in this study. Those who expressed an interest in participating were subsequently asked to complete the questionnaire. G*Power was used to calculate the minimum sample size for power analysis. Power analysis identified a sample size of 107 for a statistical power of 0.95. We collected approximately 497 questionnaires in this study. However, some of these were omitted from the analysis because they had not been properly completed; the remaining 474 valid responses were included in the final analysis.

Data Analysis Plan and Procedure

The analysis of the data consisted of three steps. First, the study utilized SPSS to evaluate the descriptive statistics and demographic characteristics of the sampling. Second, because the survey data were collected using a self-reported questionnaire and the evaluations concerning the dependent and independent variables were performed by the same person and within the same time frame, as suggested, the common variance was extracted and examined (Podsakoff et al. 2003). One of the most common methods to determine whether this trend exists is Harman’s single-factor test. All the structures available in the model were included in the principal components analysis and Harman’s single-factor test was implemented. Common method bias exists when a single factor emerges from factor analysis, or one general factor accounts for most covariance among the measures (Podsakoff et al. 2003). All items used in the study were subjected to unrotated factor analysis in SPSS. As a result of the analysis, eight factors with an eigenvalue >1, accounting for 67.211% of the variance, were identified. The first factor accounts for 22.179% of the variance only, thus indicating method bias is not a serious issue in this study.

In the third step, the partial least squares (PLS) technique was used to examine and analyze the proposed model. Primarily, PLS-SEM is less stringent when working with non-normal data (Hair et al. 2014). Hair et al. (2017) reported that using PLS-SEM yields more robust results, especially when the data are skewed. When univariate normality is examined, the skewness values of the items in the model range from −1.124 to 8.642. Therefore, this study used the PLS technique to analyze the proposed model. SmartPLS 3.2.8 software was used to evaluate factor loads and path coefficients, through the application of the bootstrapping technique (500 resample). In the study, a two-stage analysis approach was applied, as proposed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). First, the measurement model was tested by performing validity and reliability analyses on each of the measures of the model, and then the structural model was tested by estimating the paths between the constructs in the model.

Results

Sample Profile

The sample of tourists were 51.8% male and 48.2% female. The majority of the respondents were between 18–34 years (56.3%) and 35–54 years (31.8%). The tourists were well educated, with 82.0% of them being at the graduate level. Most of the tourists were European (57.4%) and Asian (28.1%), and most of them were visiting Cappadocia for the first time (89.1%) and traveling individually (92.8%). Table 1 presents the demographic and some travel characteristics of respondents. We removed the repeat visitors since 90% of respondents were first-time visitors and the proposed model was analyzed using first-time visitors only. By doing so, the study has controlled for the possible bias of past behavior. However, the removal of repeat visitors did not change the sample distribution statistically.

Table 1.

Sample Profile.

Demographic Characteristics	%
Gender
Male	51.8
Female	48.2
Age, years
18–34	56.3
35–54	31.8
55 and older	11.8
Education
High school	3.2
Graduate	82.0%
Postgraduate and higher	14.8
Ethnicity
European	57.4
Asian	28.1
American	8.4
Middle East	1.7
Other	3.1
Travel style
Individual	92.8
Package tour	8.0

Measurement Model

The evaluation of the reflective measurement model requires an examination of the validity and reliability of all latent variables included in the model. All loading values of the indicator variables (0.71–0.93) are above the suggested 0.70 threshold level (Hair et al. 2017) except for the two items in the unpopular choice dimension, two items in the avoidance of similarity dimension, and two items in the object-oriented authenticity dimension. The analysis was repeated once the items whose factor load values remain below 0.70 were deleted.

The reliability was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability, while validity was measured using convergent and discriminant validity. Cronbach’s alpha values were estimated as a measure of reliability and the delineated alpha values were well above the threshold of 0.70, except for the unpopular choice dimension (0.54). Furthermore, the composite reliabilities of all dimensions were also found to be above 0.70, as proposed by Hair et al. (2017). The convergent validity of the structures was tested through an examination of the average variance extracted (AVE). The value of the AVE should exceed 0.50 to suggest adequate convergent validity (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). All structures in the study excluding the unpopular choices dimension (0.41) in the measurement model exceeded the recommended level. The unpopular choices dimension was excluded from the measurement model because of the low factor load values, Cronbach’s alpha (0.54), and AVE values (0.41). Apart from unpopular preferences, these results indicate that the measurement model possessed acceptable reliability and validity. Therefore, only the first two dimensions are considered in the present study (Table 2).

Table 2.

Measurement Model.

Constructs/Variables		Mean	SD	Loadings	Cronbach’s Alpha	CR	AVE
Creative choice		5.29	1.05		0.856	0.896	0.632
CC1	Since I think I am different from the general average, I travel to extraordinary destinations			0.785
CC2	My goal in selecting a holiday destination is selecting a destination which is coherent with my uniqueness			0.845
CC3	Since I like being authentic, I usually follow different routes in ordinary (known) destinations			0.793
CC4	My most favorite holiday destinations are the unique destinations which reflect my uniqueness			0.822
CC5	In general, I travel to new destinations which I think would contribute to my personal uniqueness			0.725
Avoidance of similarity		4.19	1.40		0.902	0.927	0.718
AS3	In general, I do not like destinations where everyone travels to			0.793
AS4	I give up travelling to the destination which becomes popular in the community			0.852
AS5	My interest for a destination decreases when the destination becomes ordinary			0.871
AS6	Destinations which are visited by everyone do not have much value for me			0.863
AS7	When the destinations I travel to become ordinary, I give up travelling to these destinations			0.855
Existential authenticity		5.11	1.03		0.781	0.858	0.602
EA1	I felt myself connected to history and civilization of humanity			0.760
EA2	I felt myself related to the descriptions and legends during my visit			0.770
EA3	I was influenced by the unique religious and spiritual experience			0.798
EA4	I felt like witnessing all phases of history of humanity			0.775
Object-based authenticity		5.96	1.03		0.857	0.914	0.781
OA1	I liked the cave houses and churches			0.773
OA4	The scenery of the valleys impressed me			0.929
OA5	The overall architecture and impression of scenery inspired me			0.939
Emotions		5.75	1.01		0.884	0.907	0.711
EMO1	Pleasant–unpleasant			0.887
EMO2	Arousing–sleepy			0.714
EMO3	Exciting–gloomy			0.877
EMO4	Relaxing–distressing			0.883
Behavioral intentions		5.63	1.21		0.903	0.909	0.715
BI1	If I can, I have the intention of coming back to this cultural destination			0.790
BI2	I will tell other people positive things about this destination			0.820
BI3	I will recommend this destination to my friends			0.882
BI4	I will take pride in telling other people about my experiences in this destination			0.887

The Fornell-Locker criterion analysis and the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations approach were used to evaluate the discriminant validity of the measurement model (Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2015). Table 3 shows that the square root of the AVE (diagonal values) of each construct is larger than its corresponding correlation coefficients, pointing toward adequate discriminant validity. HTMT results (Table 3) show that the correlation values corresponding to the respective constructs did not violate HTMT_0.85 (Kline 2011a), indicating that a discriminant validity had been achieved.

Table 3.

Fornell–Larcker Criterion Analysis and HTMT Ratios.

Constructs	1	2	3	4	5	6
Avoidance of similarity	0.847
Behavioral intentions	−0.100 (0.182)	0.846
Creative choice	0.352 (0.401)	0.153 (0.184)	0.795
Emotion	0.101 (0.137)	0.608 (0.667)	0.237 (0.247)	0.843
Existential authenticity	0.016 (0.104)	0.305 (0.366)	0.235 (0.235)	0.397 (0.484)	0.776
Object-based authenticity	−0.050 (0.095)	0.612 (0.682)	0.254 (0.234)	0.648 (0.746)	0.433 (0.527)	0.884

Note: Heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratios are in parentheses. The diagonal elements (in bold) are the square roots of all constructs’ AVEs.

In this study, the TNFU scale was examined as a second-order factor. An additional perspective on the factor-analytic structure can be gained with the introduction of second-order factor models (Jöreskog 1969; Marsh and Hocevar 1985; S. Kim and Yoon 2003). Therefore, the basic benefit of applying a second-order factor analysis in the survey is to gain a better insight into a theoretical concept or generalization level that cannot be accounted for solely by first-order factor analysis (Gorsuch 1983). To improve the generalizability of the factor structure in the study, the TNFU scale is a second-order construct composed of two first-order components: creative choice and avoidance of similarity. It could not be included in the second-order factor analysis because the validity and reliability of the unpopular choices dimension could not be provided. Table 4 shows the weights of the first-order constructs on the designated second-order construct, indicating that TNFU is a second-order factor with two significant first-order dimensions including creative choice and avoidance of similarity. The two first-order constructs were significantly associated with TNFU. Avoidance of similarity had the highest positive beta weight (β = 0.839; t = 44.357; p < 0.01). The second-order measurement model was also evaluated with the examination of multicollinearity. High-level multicollinearity makes it difficult to evaluate the individual contribution of each component (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw 2006; Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer 2001). The variance inflation factor value for the two constructs of 1.000, which was below the cut-off value of 3.3 (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw 2006), indicate that there is an absence of multicollinearity. This denoted that two constituents of TNFU were independent of one another. It was found that each indicator weight for the reflective construct had significant t statistics and was hence deemed valid.

Table 4.

Weights of the First-Order Constructs on the Designated Second-Order Construct.

Second-Order Construct	First-Order Constructs	Weights	t Value	VIF
TNFU	Creative choice	0.805	35.489**	1.000
	Avoidance of similarity	0.839	44.357**	1.000
TNFU construct AVE value = 0.458; CR value = .894

Note: Critical t values ** 2.58 (p < 0.01). TNFU = tourists’ need for uniqueness; VIF = variance inflation factor.

Structural Model

Once the validity and reliability of the measurement model were evaluated in the study, the structural model was analyzed to test the hypotheses proposed in the research model. As proposed by Hair et al. (2017), the bootstrapping process was analyzed with 500 resample with the basic measurements, such as β (path coefficient), t values (significance level), as well as predictive relevance (Q²) and effect size (f²) measurements in order to evaluate the structural model.

After estimating the structural model, the complete results are summarized in Table 6. The path coefficients between TNFU and existential authenticity (β=0.122) and object-based authenticity (β=0.139) were found to be significant, thus supporting hypotheses 1 and 2. The findings confirmed a significant link between object-based authenticity and existential authenticity (β=0.421), thereby confirming hypothesis 3. Furthermore, the path coefficients from existential authenticity (β=0.143) and object-based authenticity (β=0.586) to tourists’ emotions were also found to be significant, thus supporting hypotheses 4 and 5. The result further established a statistically significant association between tourists’ emotions and behavioral intentions, thus supporting hypothesis 6 (see Table 6). According to Hair et al. (2017), Q², f², and multicollinearity have to be analyzed in the evaluation of the reflective inner model. Peng and Lai (2012) suggest that researchers can evaluate the effect size of the predictor constructs using Cohen’s f². The effect size is computed as the increase in R² relative to the proportion of variance that remains unexplained in the endogenous latent variable. According to Cohen (1988, f² values of 0.35, 0.15, and 0.02 are considered large, medium, and small, respectively (Peng and Lai 2012). Table 5 shows that the relationship between TNFU and existential and object-based authenticity and existential authenticity and emotions of tourists have a low effect; the relationship between object-based authenticity and existential authenticity has a medium effect; the relationship between object-based authenticity and tourists’ emotional responses and tourists’ emotional responses and their behavioral intentions have a large effect. In addition to f², the predictive sample reuse technique (Q²) can effectively be used as a criterion for predictive relevance (Chin, Peterson, and Brown 2008). Based on the blindfolding procedure, Q² evaluates the predictive validity of a complex model by omitting data for a given block of indicators and then predicts the omitted part based on the calculated parameters (Ali, Amin, and Cobanoglu 2016). Hair et al. (2017) recommend using the cross-validated redundancy as a measure of Q² since it includes the key elements of the path model, the structural model, to predict eliminated data points. Thus, for this study, Q² was obtained using cross-validated redundancy procedures. If Q² >0, then the model is viewed as having predictive relevance (Peng and Lai 2012). Q² for existential authenticity, object-based authenticity, emotions, and behavioral intentions are 0.108, 0.011, 0.285, and 0.236, respectively, indicating acceptable predictive relevance.

Table 5.

Results of the Hypothesized Model.

Hypothesis	β	t Statistics	f²	Decision
Hypothesis 1: TNFU → Existential authenticity	0.122	2.592	0.02	Supported
Hypothesis 2: TNFU → Object-based authenticity	0.139	2.131	0.02	Supported
Hypothesis 3: Object-based authenticity → Existential authenticity	0.421	8.995	0.21	Supported
Hypothesis 4: Existential authenticity → Tourists’ emotions	0.143	3.196	0.03	Supported
Hypothesis 5: Object-based authenticity → Tourists’ emotions	0.586	10.186	0.49	Supported
Hypothesis 6: Tourists’ emotions → Behavioral intentions	0.608	14.539	0.58	Supported

To test the moderating role of nationality in the proposed research model, a multigroup analysis was conducted using SmartPLS. The partial least squares multigroup analysis (PLS-MGA) approach was adopted, as it is considered a nonparametric method that studies differences of group-specific (i.e., Asians and EU/Americans) outcomes resulting from the bootstrapping analysis of each group (Henseler 2012). Prior to running this type of analysis, the establishment of measurement invariance is necessary. To assess this criterion, a measurement invariance test was performed.

After ensuring partial measurement invariance, PLS-MGA was conducted based on 5,000 bootstrapping runs. As shown in Table 6, the results show that significant differences were found for the avoidance of similarity and TNFU, and in the relationships between TNFU and object-based authenticity, and object-based authenticity and tourists’ emotions. The effect of avoidance of similarity on TNFU was greater in the European tourists (β= 0.866) than in the Asian tourists (β= 0.786); the effect of TNFU on object-based authenticity was greater in the Asian tourists (β= 0.215) than in the European tourists (β= 0.020); the effect of object-based authenticity on tourists’ emotions was greater in the Asian tourists (β= 0.713) than in the European tourists (β= 0.510). The PLS-MGA revealed no significant differences for other hypotheses.

Table 6.

Multigroup Analysis.

Relationships	EU/Americans		Asians		PLS-MGA
Relationships	Beta	p	Beta	p	Beta Difference	P
Hypothesis 7a: TNFU → Creative choice	0.783	0.000	0.844	0.000	0.061	0.092
Hypothesis 7b: TNFU → Avoidance of similarity	0.866	0.000	0.786	0.000	0.080	0.981
Hypothesis 8a: TNFU → Existential authenticity	0.057	0.406	0.113	0.245	0.056	0.319
Hypothesis 8b: TNFU → Object-based authenticity	−0.020	0.809	0.215	0.065	0.234	0.098
Hypothesis 9a: Existential authenticity → Tourists’ emotions	0.109	0.077	0.128	0.121	0.019	0.436
Hypothesis 9b: Object-based authenticity → Tourists’ emotions	0.510	0.000	0.713	0.000	0.203	0.050
Hypothesis 10: Tourists’ emotions → Behavioral intentions	0.555	0.000	0.653	0.000	0.097	0.141

Conclusions

The objective of this study was to investigate the relationships between tourists’ need for uniqueness, perceived authenticity, emotions, and behavioral intentions in heritage destinations. The SEM-PLS method was used to analyze the data based on structural equation modeling techniques and test the interplays of the relationship among the study constructs. In particular, the results show that there is a significant relationship between tourists’ need for uniqueness, existential authenticity, and object-based authenticity. Similarly, existential authenticity and object-based authenticity have positive effects on tourists’ emotions. Furthermore, this article confirms a direct and significant influence of tourists’ emotions on their behavioral intentions. These findings are all in line with previous studies (Y.-K. Lee et al. 2008; Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010; Prayag, Hosany, and Odeh 2013; Nawijn and Fricke 2015; Sharma and Nayak 2020).

Theoretical Contributions

The findings show there is a significant relationship between tourists’ need for uniqueness, existential authenticity, and object-based authenticity; thus hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported. In this sense, the relationship between the need for uniqueness and authenticity, the cores of which have previously been presented theoretically in the literature (Berman 2009; Proshansky 1978; Wang 1999; Noy 2004; Kolar and Zabkar 2010; Rickly-Boyd 2012), were empirically tested and validated. Although this result is understandable in relation to objective authenticity, it is remarkable in terms of existential authenticity. Existential authenticity focuses on an individual’s own perceptions while interpreting his or her own experiences. Objective authenticity and the relationship they establish with the environment create some sort of aural effect and enrich experiences, whereas, in this research, it was seen that experiences are associated with differentiation from others, and some sort of comparison result emerges. The perception of being different from “others,” being different from previous experience, and making creative choices puts people into a state of being. In the study, although the relationship between the need for uniqueness and objective authenticity was low, its relationship with the existential authenticity was relatively stronger. In other words, it was found that the research participants’ need for uniqueness affected their perception of existential authenticity more than their perception of objective authenticity. This result is an interesting aspect of the uniqueness of the relationship. In the philosophical tradition, existential authenticity is characterized—as described by Steiner and Reisinger (2006)—by the desire to return to self-being by moving away from conformity, to build a new self, and to make voluntary choices, especially when surrounded by several options. All these definitions seem to be related to the dimension conceptualized as the tourist’s need for uniqueness in this study. It is stated that objective authenticity (Chabbra, Healy, and Sills 2003; Kolar and Zabkar 2010; Torabian and Arai 2016) creates a perception of authenticity in individuals, regardless of the belief that objects are genuine. On the other hand, the mental and physical relationship established with activity, either dependent on or separately from the objects, is considered as part of existential authenticity. From this point of view, the increase in the tourist’s need for uniqueness goes beyond the state of “possession” that everyone can have, participate, and make public. However, these people focus on what is personal, rather than on that which is institutionalized, as indicated by Reisinger and Steiner (2006). As a result, it can be said that the state of “unique being” is more personal and relies on experience.

Similarly, the study determines that object-based authenticity affects the existential authenticity of the tourists, that is, existential experiences, and it was accepted as hypothesis 3. The findings of this study are consistent with the study by Kolar and Zabkar (2010) that both types of authenticity not only coexist but also are significantly related. In this case, it is substantiated that the authenticity of what is offered to tourists affect their existential experiences.

Furthermore, this article confirms a direct and significant influence of existential authenticity and object-based authenticity on tourists’ emotions, thereby supporting hypotheses 4 and 5. Previous studies have also supported this relationship in an archeological museum study (Chiappa, Andreu, and Gallarza 2014), restaurants (Jang, Ha, and Park 2012), and an event (Meng and Choi 2016). In the current study, it was found that tourists’ perception of object-based authenticity was more effective in their emotions, compared to their perception of existential authenticity. Similarly, Palau-Saumell et al. (2012) stated that the uniqueness of heritage buildings, as a component reflecting the objective authenticity, had a strong influence on the emotions of tourists. In conclusion, it is found that the objective authenticity of heritage sites and the existential authenticity they experience at such places affect tourists’ emotions positively.

The research also confirms a direct effect of tourists’ emotions and behavioral intentions in a natural and cultural heritage site. These outcomes are consistent with the findings of different studies in tourism. For example, Y.-K. Lee et al. (2008) found that the emotions of visitors attending the Andong Mask Dance festival had a positive, yet indirect, effect on their behavioral intentions. In the context of the archaeological and cultural heritage (UNESCO WHS-Petra), Prayag, Hosany, and Odeh (2013) found that positive emotions generate a positive behavioral intention. Nawijn and Fricke (2015) found that positive emotions had a positive effect on repeat visits and positive word of mouth, in the context of dark tourism. On the other hand, Sharma and Nayak (2020) discovered that love and positive surprise emotions had a positive effect on behavioral intentions, in the context of wellness tourism. An increase in the perception of authenticity enables feelings such as joy and happiness to emerge, which leads to the fact that he or she chooses similar actions to experience the same.

Individuals’ nationalities, cultural values, and norms are effective factors that affect their perception, attitude, preferences, and behavior. The current study confirms how cultural norms and values differ in the perception of tourists’ need for uniqueness. Findings reveal that the effect of avoidance of similarity on TNFU is greater in European tourists (β= 0.866) than Asian tourists. In a collectivist culture such as in Asian countries, people tend to adopt common behaviors in terms of conformity and reject deviations from these behaviors (Markus and Kitayama 1991). In addition, people are “we” oriented and they are encouraged to respect social order and tradition. Whereas people in individualist countries such as the European countries tend to be free and unique and it can be thought that those people refuse to adopt common behaviors in terms of conformity.

The key significance of this research is firstly the development of an understanding of the researchers in determining the relationship between tourists’ need for uniqueness and their perceptions of authenticity, in the context of heritage tourism. In particular, it is crucial to study the personality traits of tourists, such as the need for uniqueness, in tourism consumption, which is a hedonic consumption in nature. Second, understanding the relationship between the perception of authenticity and tourist emotions, for which there are only a limited number of studies in the tourism literature, is particularly important for destinations such as cultural heritage, which offer tourists unique emotions. Further, the development of knowledge about the predictive power of emotions in determining the future behavior of tourists is another achievement.

Practical Contributions

The findings of this study have specific practical results for destination marketers and other related stakeholders. In today’s world, travelers as consumers focus more on the intangible aspects of consumption, emphasizing value, and co-experience creation while engaging in leisure activities (Prebensen, Chen, and Uysal 2018). By doing so, travelers fulfill higher-order needs such as self-actualization, a sense of well-being, and differentiated identity needs. Destinations need to be cognizant of such higher-order needs and expectations of tourists as consumers. For destinations to facilitate tourists’ need for uniqueness as a representation of differentiated identity, different stakeholders of the fully functioning tourism system need to work in a synchronized and systematic way and endeavor to create an environment where tourists can experience positive emotions by satisfying their need for uniqueness, maintaining and improving the destination authenticity. The study demonstrates that there is a positive relationship between the authentic and unique components in a destination, and an authentic travel experience, for those tourists who engage in travel consumption and experience. Therefore, it is essential that destination management and marketers focus on an image campaign that can further promote destination uniqueness and differentiation from other destinations and sustain effective marketing strategies in this respect. Hence, marketing and advertising campaigns can underline the unique and authentic characteristics of natural and cultural heritage, which will provoke an emotional experience during tourist visits. There are prosperous catchwords used in the promotional campaigns of destinations, emphasizing the uniqueness and authenticity. Czech Republic’s “Stunningly Different,” Turkey’s “Your Doorway to Another Way” and “An Amazing Source of Inspiration,” Costa Rica’s “No Artificial Ingredients,” and India’s “Incredible India” mottos are slogans that can give tourists a sense of uniqueness. Similarly, a tourism slogan and promotional and advertising campaigns that have authentic, creative, unprecedented, and unique characteristics and stimulate positive emotions in tourists can be developed for the cultural heritage of Cappadocia.

A proper and decent conservation policy should be drawn up and implemented to maintain the cultural heritage of Cappadocia and the authentic value it has. Thus, they can both promote the authentic experiences of tourists and help to reveal the positive emotions that are desired by managers and identified to be effective on the behavioral intentions of tourists. Furthermore, policy makers should specify destination scenarios, events, and activities in which tourists can create their own authentic experiences and which will allow the positive experiences to emerge. Lastly, this study found the effect of tourists’ emotional experiences on their future behavioral intentions. If destination managers and marketers can form positive and repetitive patterns of behavior, it may help to provide income sources in the future and create informal relationship channels through which potential tourists can be attracted to specific destinations (Petrick 2004; Castro, Armario, and Ruiz 2007). Various promotional and advertising campaigns focusing on the emotional elements of tourists can be effective in the differentiation and better positioning of Cappadocia as a heritage destination and the formation of repetitive tourist behavior.

It is important to point out, however, that the major point of this study was hypothesis testing, that is, the interval validity of the interplays of the relationships among the model constructs. The use of two groups of nationalities is rather a limitation. Future research should explore the relation between tourists’ need for uniqueness as a representation of differentiated identity, and authenticity and intention based on several target markets and destination settings. Future studies should also consider introducing some other variables such as gender and age as moderators in a study like this. Almost 90% of respondents were first-time visitors. It would be important to explore how first-time versus repeats visitors may influence the structural relation of the relevant constructs in a given destination type. It is hoped that this study would encourage researchers to explore new ways of further shedding light on the importance of tourists’ need for uniqueness as a representation of differentiated identity and its influence on travel behavior.

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 iD

Deniz Karagöz

Author Biographies

Deniz Karagöz is an associate professor in the Faculty of Tourism at the Anadolu University. Her research interests include tourist behavior, travel experience, event marketing and destination marketing.

Muzaffer Uysal is a professor and chair of the Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management – Isenberg School of Management at University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003 USA His current research focuses on tourism development and quality of life research.

References

Ajzen

1985. “From Intensions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior.” In Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior, edited by Kuhl

Beckmann

, 11–39. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

Ali

Amin

Cobanoglu

2016. “An Integrated Model of Service Experience, Emotions, Satisfaction, and Price Acceptance: An Empirical Analysis in the Chinese Hospitality Industry.” Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 25 (4): 449–75.

Allen

Mendick

2013. “Keeping It Real? Social Class, Young People and ‘Authenticity’ in Reality TV.” Sociology 47 (3): 460–76.

Anderson

Gerbing

1988. “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 411–23.

Bagozzi

R. P.

1988. “On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16 (1): 74–94.

Baloglu

McCleary

K. W.

1999. “US International Pleasure Travelers’ Images of Four Mediterranean Destinations: A Comparison of Visitors and Nonvisitors.” Journal of Travel Research 38:144–52.

Barsky

Nash

2002. “Evoking Emotion. Affective Keys to Hotel Loyalty.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 43 (1): 39–46.

Belhassen

Caton

Stewart

W. P.

2008. “The Search for Authenticity in the Pilgrim Experience.” Annals of Tourism Research 35 (3): 668–89.

Belk

R. W.

1988. “Possessions and the Extended Self.” Journal of Consumer Research 15 (2): 139–68.

10.

Benjamin

1968. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” In Illuminations, edited by Arendt

and translated by Zhon

, 217–52. New York: Schocken Books.

11.

Berman

2009. The Politics of Authenticity: Radical Individualism and the Emergence of Modern Society. London: Verso.

12.

Bian

Forsythe

2012. “Purchase Intention for Luxury Brands: A Cross Cultural Comparison.” Journal of Business Research 65 (10): 1443–51.

13.

Bigne

J. E.

Andreu

Gnoth

2005. “The Theme Park Experience: An Analysis of Pleasure, Arousal and Satisfaction.” Tourism Management 26 (6): 833–44.

14.

Boorstin

1964. The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. New York: Harper & Row.

15.

Bozkurt

Gligor

2019. “Scarcity (versus Popularity) Cues for Rejected Customers: The Impact of Social Exclusion on Cue Types through Need for Uniqueness.” Journal of Business Research 99:275–81.

16.

Brislin

R. W.

Lonner

Thorndike

R. M.

1973. Cross-Cultural Research Methods. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

17.

Brown

2013. “Tourism: A Catalyst for Existential Authenticity.” Annals of Tourism Research 40:176–90.

18.

Burns

D. J.

Warren

H. B.

1995. “Need for Uniqueness: Shopping Mall Preference and Choice Activity.” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 23:4–12.

19.

Castro

C. B.

Armario

E. M.

Ruiz

D. M.

2007. “The Influence of Market Heterogeneity on the Relationship between a Destination’s Image and Tourists’ Future Behaviour.” Tourism Management 28 (1): 175–87.

20.

Chabbra

Healy

Sills

2003. “Staged Authenticity and Heritage Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 30 (3): 702–19.

21.

Chan

W. Y.

C. K.-m.

Chu

W. C.

2016. “Desire for Experiential Travel, Avoidance of Rituality and Social Esteem: An Empirical Study of Consumer Response to Tourism Innovation.” Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 1:24–35.

22.

Cheema

Kaikati

A. M.

2010. “The Effect of Need for Uniqueness on Word of Mouth.” Journal of Marketing Research 47 (3): 553–63.

23.

Chen

Tsai

2007. “How Destination Image and Evaluative Factors Affect Behavioral Intentions?” Tourism Management 28 (4): 1115–22.

24.

Chiappa

G. D.

Andreu

Gallarza

M. G.

2014. “Emotions and Visitors’ Satisfaction at a Museum.” International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 8 (4): 420–31.

25.

Chin

W. W.

Peterson

R. A.

Brown

S. P.

2008. “Structural Equation Modeling in Marketing: Some Practical Reminders.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 16 (4): 287–98.

26.

Cho

M.-H.

2012. “A Study of Authenticity in Traditional Korean Folk Villages.” International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 13 (2): 145–71.

27.

Clark

R. A.

Goldsmith

R. E.

2005. “Market Mavens: Psychological Influences.” Psychology & Marketing 22 (4): 289–312.

28.

Cohen

1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

29.

Cohen

2010. “Tourism, Leisure and Authenticity.” Tourism Recreation Research 35 (1): 67–73.

30.

Cutler

S. Q.

Carmichael

B. A.

2010. “The Dimensions of the Tourist Experience.” In The Tourism and Leisure Experience: Consumer and Managerial Perspectives, edited by Morgan

Lugosi

Ritchie

J. R. B.

, 3–26. Bristol, UK: Channel View.

31.

Dedeoğlu

B. B.

Van Niekerk

Weinland

Celuch

2019. “Re-conceptualizing Customer-Based Destination Brand Equity.” Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 11:211–30.

32.

Diamantopoulos

Siguaw

J. A.

2006. “Formative versus Reflective Indicators in Organizational Measure Development: A Comparison and Empirical Illustration.” British Journal of Management 17 (4): 263–82.

33.

Diamantopoulos

Winklhofer

H. M.

2001. “Index Construction with Formative Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Development.” Journal of Marketing Research 38:269–77.

34.

Domínguez-Quintero

A. M.

González-Rodríguez

Paddison

2020. “The Mediating Role of Experience Quality on Authenticity and Satisfaction in the Context of Cultural-Heritage Tourism.” Current Issues in Tourism 23 (2): 248–60.

35.

Faullant

Matzler

Mooradian

T. A.

2011. “Personality, Basic Emotions, and Satisfaction: Primary Emotions in the Mountaineering Experience.” Tourism Management 32:1423–30.

36.

Genc

2017. “Value Creation through Heritage and Identity.” In Co-creation in Tourist Experiences, edited by Prebensen

N. K.

Chen

J. S.

Uysal

M. S.

, 50–63. London: Routledge.

37.

Gorsuch

R. L.

1983. Factor Analysis, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

38.

Greenwood

1997. “Culture by the Pound: An Anthropological Perspective on Tourism as Cultural Commoditization.” In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, edited by Smith

, 129–39. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

39.

Hair

J. F.

Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

2017. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

40.

Hair

J. F.

Sarstedt

Hopkins

Kuppelwieser

V. G.

2014. “Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): An Emerging Tool in Business Research.” European Business Review 26 (2): 106–21.

41.

Henseler

2012. PLS-MGA: A non parametric approach to partial least square-based multi-group analysis. In Challenges at the Interface of Data Analysis, Computer Science, and Optimization, edited by Gaul

Geyer-Schulz

Schmidt-Thieme

Kunze

, 495–501. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

42.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

2015. “A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43 (1): 115–35.

43.

Hofstede

2011. “Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context.” Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2 (1).

44.

Hyu

S. S.

Park

S. H.

2016. “The Antecedents and Consequences of Travelers’ Need for Uniqueness: An Empirical Study of Restaurant Experiences.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 21 (6): 596–623.

45.

Jang

S. C.

Park

2012. “Effects of Ethnic Authenticity: Investigating Korean Restaurant Customers in the U.S.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (3): 990–1003.

46.

Jang

S. C.

Namkung

2009. “Perceived Quality, Emotions, and Behavioral Intentions: Application of an Extended Mehrabian–Russell Model to Restaurants.” Journal of Business Research 62 (4): 451–60.

47.

Jiang

Ramkissoon

Mavondo

T. F.

Feng

2017. “Authenticity: The Link between Destination Image and Place Attachment.” Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 26 (2): 105–24.

48.

Jöreskog

K. G.

1969. “A General Approach to Confirmatory Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis.” Psychometrika 34:183–202.

49.

Kang

Moscardo

2006. “Exploring Cross-Cultural Differences in Attitudes towards Responsible Tourist Behaviour: A Comparison of Korean, British and Australian Tourists.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 11 (4): 303–20.

50.

Kim

Lee

2000. “Understanding the Cultural Differences in Tourist Motivation between Anglo-American and Japanese Tourists.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 9 (1/2): 153–70.

51.

Kim

Jamal

2007. “Touristic Quest for Existential Authenticity.” Annals of Tourism Research 34 (1): 181–201.

52.

Kim

Markus

H. R.

1999. “Deviance or Uniqueness, Harmony or Conformity? A Cultural Analysis.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (4): 785–800.

53.

Kim

Yoon

2003. “The Hierarchical Effects of Affective and Cognitive Components on Tourism Destination Image.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 14 (2): 1–22.

54.

Kline

R. B.

2011a. “Convergence of Structural Equation Modeling and Multilevel Modeling.” In The SAGE Handbook of Innovation in Social Research Methods, edited by Williams

Vogt

W. P.

, 562–89. London: Sage.

55.

Kline

R. B.

2011b. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford.

56.

Knight

D. K.

Eun

Y. K.

2007. “Japanese Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness: Effects on Brand Perceptions and Purchase Intention.” Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 11 (2): 270–80.

57.

Knuddsen

D. C.

Rickly

J. M.

Vidon

E. S.

2016. “The Fantasy of Authenticity: Touring with Lacan.” Annals of Tourism Research 58:33–45.

58.

Kolar

Zabkar

2010. “A Consumer-Based Model of Authenticity: An Oxymoron or the Foundation of Cultural Heritage Marketing?” Tourism Management 31 (5): 652–64.

59.

Korstanje

M. E.

2013. “The Obsession with Authenticity: Criticism to Dean MacCannell.” Revista Rosa dos Ventos 5 (1): 99–115.

60.

Kron

1983. Home-Psych: The Social Psychology of Home and Decoration. New York: Potter.

61.

Latter

Phau

Marchegiani

2010. “The Roles of Consumers Need for Uniqueness and Status Consumption in Haute Couture Luxury Brands.” Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 1 (4): 206–14.

62.

Lee

S. H.

Sparks

2007. “Cultural Influences on Travel Lifestyle: A Comparison of Korean Australians and Koreans in Korea.” Tourism Management 28 (2): 505–18.

63.

Lee

Y.-K.

Lee

C.-K.

Lee

S.-K.

Babin

B. J.

2008. “Festivalscapes and Patrons’ Emotions, Satisfaction and Loyalty.” Journal of Business Research 61 (1): 56–64.

64.

Leone

Perugini

Bagozzi

2005. “Emotions and Decision Making: Regulatory Focus Moderates the Influence of Anticipated Emotions on Action Evaluations.” Cognition & Emotion 19 (8): 1175–98.

65.

Lin

Y. C.

2017. “The Willingness of Heritage Tourists to Pay for Perceived Authenticity in Pingxi, Taiwan.” Journal Current Issues in Tourism 20 (10): 1044–69.

66.

Litvin

S. W.

Crotts

J. C.

Hefner

F. L.

2004. “Cross-Cultural Tourist Behaviour: A Replication and Extension Involving Hofstede’s Uncertainty Avoidance Dimension.” International Journal of Tourism Research 6:29–37.

67.

Luomala

H. T.

2007. “Exploring the Role of Food Origin as a Source of Meanings for Consumers and as a Determinant of Consumers’ Actual Food Choices.” Journal of Business Research 60:122–29.

68.

Lynn

Harris

1997. “Individual Differences in the Pursuit of Self-Uniqueness through Consumption.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 27 (21): 1861–83.

69.

MacCannell

1999. The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. Berkeley: University of California Press.

70.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

1991. “Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation.” Psychological Review 98 (2): 224–253.

71.

Marsh

H. W.

Hocevar

1985. “Application of Confirmatory Factor Analysis to the Study of Self-Concept: First-and Higher Order Factor Models and Their Invariance across Groups.” Psychological Bulletin 97 (3): 562–82.

72.

Mattila

1999. “Consumer’s Value Judgments: How Business Travelers as Evaluate Luxury-Hotel Services.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 40:40–46.

73.

Meng

Choi

2016. “The Role of Authenticity in Forming Slow Tourists’ Intentions: Developing an Extended Model of Goal-Directed Behavior.” Tourism Management 57:397–410.

74.

Mullen

M. R.

1995. “Diagnosing Measurement Equivalence in Cross-National Research.” Journal of International Business Studies 26 (3): 573–96.

75.

Nawijn

Fricke

M.-C.

2015. “Visitor Emotion and Behavioral Intentions: The Case of Concentration Camp Memorial Neuengamme.” International Journal of Tourism Research 17 (3): 221–28.

76.

Noy

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

77.

Palau-Saumell

Forgas-Coll

Sabchez-Garcia

Prats-Planaguma

2012. “Tourist Behavior Intentions and the Moderator Effect of Knowledge of UNESCO World Heritage Sites: The Case of La Sagrada Família.” Journal of Travel Research 52 (3): 364–76.

78.

Pantouvakis

2013. “The Moderating Role of Nationality on the Satisfaction Loyalty Link: Evidence from the Tourism Industry.” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 24 (9/10): 1174–87.

79.

Peng

D. X.

Lai

2012. “Using Partial Least Squares in Operations Management Research: A Practical Guideline and Summary of Past Research.” Journal of Operations Management 30 (6): 467–80.

80.

Peterson

R. A.

2005. “In Search of Authenticity.” Journal of Management Studies 42 (5): 1083–98.

81.

Petrick

J. F.

2004. “The Roles of Quality, Value, and Satisfaction in Predicting Cruise Passengers’ Behavioral Intentions.” Journal of Travel Research 42:397–407.

82.

Pizam

Sussmann

1995. “Does Nationality Affect Tourism Behavior?” Annals of Tourism Research 22 (4): 901–17.

83.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

2003. “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5): 879–903.

84.

Prayag

Hosany

Odeh

2013. “The Role of Tourists’ Emotional Experiences and Satisfaction in Understanding Behavioral Intentions.” Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 2 (2): 118–27.

85.

Prebensen

N. K.

Chen

J. S.

Uysal

M. S.

2018. Creating Experience Value in Tourism. 2nd ed. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

86.

Proshansky

H. M.

1978. “The City and Self-Identity.” Environment and Behavior 10 (2): 147–69.

87.

Rajammaa

R. K.

Peltonb

L. E.

Hsuc

M. K.

Knight

D. K.

2010. “The Impact of Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness and Nationality on Generation Y’s Retail Patronage Behaviors: Investigating American and Taiwanese Consumers.” Journal of Global Marketing 23 (5): 387–410.

88.

Ramkissoon

2015. “Authenticity, Satisfaction, and Place Attachment: A Conceptual Framework for Cultural Tourism in African Island Economies.” Development Southern Africa 32 (3): 292–302.

89.

Ramkissoon

Mavondo

F. T.

2015. “The Satisfaction-Place Attachment Relationship: Potential Mediators and Moderators.” Journal of Business Research 68 (12): 2593–602.

90.

Ramkissoon

Uysal

2010. “Testing the Role of Authenticity in Cultural Tourism Consumption: A Case of Mauritius.” Tourism Analysis 15 (5): 571–83.

91.

Ramkissoon

Uysal

M. S.

2011. “The Effects of Perceived Authenticity, Information Search Behavior, Motivation and Destination Imagery on Cultural Behavioral Intentions of Tourists.” Current Issues in Tourism 14 (6): 537–62.

92.

Ramkissoon

Uysal

M. S.

2018. “Authenticity as a Value Co-creator of Tourism Experiences.” In Creating Experience Value in Tourism, 2nd ed., edited by Prebensen

N. K.

Chen

J. S.

Uysal

M. S.

, 98–109. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

93.

Reisinger

Crotts

J. C.

2010. “Applying Hofstede’s National Culture Measures in Tourism Research: Illuminating Issues of Divergence and Convergence.” Journal of Travel Research 49 (2): 153–64.

94.

Reisinger

Steiner

C. J.

2006. “Reconceptualizing Object Authenticity.” Annals of Tourism Research 33 (1): 65–86.

95.

Reisinger

Turner

L. W.

2003. Cross-Cultural Behaviour in Tourism: Concepts and Analysis. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

96.

Rickly-Boyd

J. M.

2012. “Authenticity & Aura: A Benjaminian Approach to Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 39 (1): 269–89.

97.

Ruvio

2008. “Unique Like Everybody Else? The Social Context of Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness.” Psychology and Marketing 5 (5): 444–64.

98.

Ruvio

Shoham

Brenčič

M. M.

2008. “Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness: Short-Form Scale Development and Cross-Cultural Validation.” International Marketing Review 25 (1): 33–53.

99.

Ryu

Jang

S. S.

2007. “The Effect of Environmental Perceptions on Behavioral Intentions through Emotions: The Case of Upscale Restaurants.” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 31 (1): 56–72.

100.

Sharma

Nayak

J. K.

2020. “The Role of Destination Image as a Mediator between Tourists’ Emotional Experiences and Behavioral Intentions: A Study of Wellness Tourism.” Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 16:100342.

101.

Shen

Guo

2012. “Investigating the Structural Relationships among Authenticity, Loyalty, Involvement, and Attitude toward World Cultural Heritage Sites: An Empirical Study of Nanjing Xiaoling Tomb, China.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 19 (1): 103–21.

102.

Simonson

Nowlis

S. M.

2000. “The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons.” Journal of Consumer Research 27 (1): 49–68.

103.

Slåtten

Mehmetoglu

Svensson

Sværi

2009. “Atmospheric Experiences That Emotionally Touch Customers: A Case Study from a Winter Park.” Managing Service Quality 19 (6): 721–46.

104.

Snyder

C. R.

Fromkin

H. L.

1977. “Abnormality as a Positive Characteristic: The Development and Validation of a Scale Measuring Need for Uniqueness.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 86:518–27.

105.

Snyder

C. R.

Fromkin

H. L.

1980. Uniqueness: The Human Pursuit of Difference. New York: Plenum.

106.

Soriano

M. Y.

Foxall

G. R.

2006. “A Spanish Translation of Mehrabian and Russell’s Emotionality Scales for Environmental Consumer Psychology.” Journal of Consumer Behavior 2 (1): 23–36.

107.

Steiner

C. J.

Reisinger

2006. “Understanding Existential Authenticity.” Annals of Tourism Research 33 (2): 299–318.

108.

Sun

Y. Y.

Budruk

2017. “The Moderating Effect of Nationality on Crowding Perception, Its Antecedents, and Coping Behaviors: A Study of an Urban Heritage Site in Taiwan.” Current Issues in Tourism 20 (12): 1246–64.

109.

Taylor

J. P.

2001. “Authenticity and Sincerity in Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 28 (1): 7–26.

110.

Tian

K. T.

Bearden

W. O.

Hunter

G. L.

2001. “Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness: Scale Development and Validation.” Journal of Consumer Research 28 (1): 50–66.

111.

Tian

K. T.

McKenzie

2001. “The Long-term Predictive Validity of the Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness Scale.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 10 (3): 171–93.

112.

Torabian

Arai

S. M.

2016. “Tourist Perceptions of Souvenir Authenticity: An Exploration of Selective Tourist Blogs.” Current Issues in Tourism 19 (7): 697–712.

113.

Veblen

2009. The Theory of the Leisure Class. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

114.

Verbeke

López

G. P.

2005. “Ethnic Food Attitudes and Behavior among Belgians and Hispanics Living in Belgium.” British Food Journal 107 (10/11): 823–40.

115.

Wang

1999. “Rethinking Authenticity in Tourism Experience.” Annals of Tourism Research 26 (2): 349–70.

116.

White

C. J.

Scandale

2005. “The Role of Emotions in Destination Visitation Intentions: A Cross-Cultural Perspective.” Australian Voice 12 (2): 168–78.

117.

Wong

I. A.

2015. “A Multimethod Multilevel Study of Heritage Transmission: The Role of Culture on Tourist Interest and Authenticity.” Journal of Travel Research 54 (5): 675–85.

118.

W.-Y.

H.-Y.

Y. Y.

C. S.

2012. “The Effects of Product Scarcity and Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness on Purchase Intention.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 36:263–74.

119.

Yeoman

Brass

McMahon-Beattie

2007. “Current Issue in Tourism: The Authentic Tourist.” Tourism Management 28 (4): 1128–38.

120.

Yuksel

Bilim

2010. “Destination Attachment: Effects on Customer Satisfaction and Cognitive, Affective and Conative Loyalty.” Tourism Management 31 (2): 274–84.

121.

Zeng

De Vries

H. J.

2012. “Paradox of Authenticity versus Standardization: Expansion Strategies of Restaurant Groups in China.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (4): 1090–100.

122.

Zgolli

Zaiem

2017. “Customer-to-Customer Interaction in Tourism Experience: Moderating Role of Nationality.” Arab Economic and Business Journal 12 (1): 44–56.

123.

Zhu

2012. “Performing Heritage: Rethinking Authenticity in Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 39 (3): 1495–513.