tourist experience meaning

Tourist Experience in Destinations: Rethinking a Conceptual Framework of Destination Experience

Journal of marketing research and case studies.

Walid BERNAKI and Saida MARSO

Encg, university of abdelmalek essaadi, tangier, morocco, academic editor: esther sleilati, cite this article as: walid bernaki and saida marso (2023), “tourist experience in destinations: rethinking a conceptual framework of destination experience ", journal of marketing research and case studies, vol. 2023 (2023), article id 340232, doi: 10.5171/2023.340232, copyright © 2023. walid bernaki and saida marso. distributed under creative commons attribution 4.0 international cc-by 4.0.

Tourism experience is a genuine source of destination attractiveness and long-lasting competitive advantage. Understanding the main drivers of the tourist experience in destinations is a critical step toward managing and delivering a satisfying destination experience to tourists. However, amidst a stream of research that explores experiences in different service settings, a framework of destination experience remains underexplored. To fill this gap in research, this article aims to draw an integrated conceptual framework of what makes a tourist experience in destinations along the travel journey and depicts the antecedents and consequences. By doing so, DMOs and other tourism stakeholders can fit their marketing strategies to cater to tourists’ needs and preferences. Also, this article discusses several measures and emerging research methods to capture the components of the destination experience.

Introduction

Recently, the concept of customer experience has received renewed attention in the tourism and leisure literature (Godovykh & Tasci, 2020a; Verhulst et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2021; Kim & Seo, 2022). Indeed, many businesses have adopted customer experience management, incorporating the concept of experience into their core objectives (Kundampully et al., 2018). Admittedly, a survey by Gartner (2014) reveals that 89% of companies consider experiences on the front line of their business competitiveness. It is now one of the leading marketing strategies embraced by hospitality firms (e.g., Disneyland, Abercrombie & Fitch, and Starbucks, to name only a few) and tourist destinations (e.g., Morocco, Thailand, Korea, Spain, etc.) (Ketter, 2018). To date, Hudson and Ritchie’s (2009) case study of branding destination experience illustrates this paradigm shift in the marketing and management of destinations. Furthermore, Berry, Carbone, and Haeckel (2002) suggest that organizations that continue to reduce their costs to support lower prices as an alternative to customer experience to gain a competitive advantage may affect the value of their product and service offerings, potentially jeopardizing their competitiveness (Vengesayi, 2003).

Nowadays, all that someone wants when one is on travel is to engage in memorable experiences to satisfy their emotional and psychological benefits, to be part of the destination experience, local culture and people, and country history (Morgan, Elbe, and de Esteban, 2009; Boswijk et al., 2007; Pine & Gilmore, 1999). This suggests that the choice of a particular tourist destination is enhanced by the significant mental image it portrays or the “pre-experience” the tourist expects to have upon arrival rather than the functional and utilitarian benefits that used to consider when making their choices (Oh et al., 2007; Kirillova et al., 2016; Ketter, 2018). Thus, destinations are now challenged to provide experiences that cater to postmodern tourists’ expectations, dazzle their senses, and go beyond alternatives in the marketplace. In this context, providing a conceptual framework of what makes an overall tourist experience in the destination is mandatory for destination marketing to design, manage and deliver a superior experience to tourists as a source of long-lasting competitive advantage (Karayilan & Cetin, 2016; Cetin et al., 2019; Crouch & Ritchie, 2005). In this framework, this study is an attempt to set an integrated conceptual framework of destination experience that depicts the factors of tourist experience during the tourist journey. Notwithstanding, despite the wide stream of research looking at tourist experience in various service settings in destination (Arnould & Thompson, 1993; Quan & Wang, 2004; Vitterso et al., 2004; Prentice et al., 1998), understanding the total experience in destinations is challenging.

This article raises several concerns. The first concern defines the theoretical knowledge of the concept of customer experience in tourism literature. The second concern comprises a conceptual framework of destination experience, including the antecedents, the formation, and the consequences of the tourist experience in destinations. The final concern concludes with marketing and management implications and avenues of future research.

 Literature Review

The Customer Experience in Tourism Literature

Since the late 1970s, the concept of experience has been an important research stream in consumer research (Jensen et al., 2015). By recognizing the experiential aspects of consumption, consumption has begun to be seen as an activity of production of meanings and a field of symbolic exchanges (Baudrillard, 1970), encompassed by what Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) call “the experiential view.” In their study, Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) refer to the experience concept as a personal and subjective occurrence with high emotional significance resulting from consuming goods and services. Fundamentally, this experiential perspective questions the limitations of conceptualizing consumption as a need-driven activity, wherein a customer is considered merely a cognitive agent, passive participant, and rational decision-maker that affords no emotions, symbolic, or spiritual relief (Angus, 1989) and focuses only on the quest for information and multi-attribute assessment (Addis & Holbrook, 2001). Against this background, it has replaced this functional and utilitarian view of consumption with an experiential view that emphasizes subjective responses and hedonism in the consumer’s way of thinking and acting (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). 

Particularly, since the emergence of the experience economy by Pine and Gilmore in 1999, the concept of customer experience has been increasingly cited at the forefront of researchers’ interest, particularly in tourism studies (e.g., Walls et al., 2011; Lugosi & Walls, 2013; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Andersson, 2007; Oh et al., 2007), in the same way, the management of customer/tourist experience has received growing attention in the general tourism literature (Schmitt, 2010; Verhoef et al., 2009; Tung & Ritchie, 2011; Brakus, Schmitt, & Zhang, 2008; Adhikari & Bhattacharya, 2016; Meyer & Schwager, 2007; Kundampully et al., 2018). Seemingly, tourism as a concept implies an experience. According to Holbrook and Hirschman (1982), this is explained by the fact that tourist and leisure activities, entertainment, and the arts are inherently defined by symbolic meanings and experiential aspects that make them intriguing research subjects. 

Following Kim and Seo (2022), the tourism experience is central to the tourism and hospitality industry and the main determinant of tourists’ behavioral intention and decision-making (Huseynov et al., 2020; Shafiee et al., 2021; Klaus & Maklan, 2013). To date, many studies in tourism literature have described the prevalence of tourists’ emotions and their strong influence on service performance and tourists’ behavioral intentions, such as willingness to recommend and spread positive word-of-mouth (Godovykh & Tasci, 2020b; Verhulst et al., 2020; Hosany et al., 2015).    

In the literature, more studies have exemplified an exhaustive and perplexing set of definitions and theoretical meanings of the experience construct (see table 1). Furthermore, numerous components emerge in the literature (e.g., affective, cognitive, conative, sensorial, and social), raising difficulties for academics and practitioners to fathom the concept of tourist experience (see table 2). These above components reflect a holistic structure of the destination’s positive and compelling tourism experiences (Godovykh & Tasci, 2020a).

Interestingly, the concept of customer experience has been approached primarily as a subjective, affective, and personal reaction to an event, market stimulus, or activity at different phases of the consumption process. For example, Otto and Ritchie (1996) define tourist experience as “the subjective mental state felt by participants during a service encounter” (p. 166). In their ground-breaking work, the authors claim that affective or emotion-based reports—i.e., the subjective, individual, and feelings experienced by tourists while traveling, are typically substantial in consumer behavior and marketing research. However, in conventional analysis, they are often neglected in explaining variances in tourists’ satisfaction evaluations, thereby limiting the understanding of consumer behavior. In addition, Schmitt (1999) considers customer experiences as “the private events that occur in response to stimulation (e.g., as provided by marketing efforts before and after purchase). They often result from direct observation and/or participation in events-whether they are real, dreamlike, or virtual” (p. 60). Also, Packer and Ballantyne (2016) refer to tourist experience as an individual’s immediate or ongoing, subjective, and personal reactions to an event, activity, or occurrence that usually happens outside one’s daily routine and familiar environment. 

In anthropological and ethnological studies, experience is an individual’s expression of their own living culture (Bruner, 1986). In conceptual terms, customer experience differs from an event. While an event happens to others, to society, and to the world, an experience is unique, personal, and differs from one person to another (Abrahams, 1986, as cited in Carù and Cova, 2003, p. 270). 

From a broader perspective, Verhoef et al. (2009) suggest that customer experience is more than the result of a single encounter; it is affected by every episode of the customer’s interaction process with a firm. This is in line with Larsen (2007), who argues that the tourist experience cannot be conceived simply as the various events that arise during a tourist visitation but as an accumulation of ongoing travel stages (e.g., pre-trip expectations, events at the destination, and post-visitation consequences). This implies that the experience occurs before the event or any other service and may last long after the experience (Gretzel & Jamal, 2009; Arnould, Price, & Zinkha, 2002; Lugosi & Walls, 2013). Accordingly, these mutual influences continue to affect tourists’ future behavior and expectations for the next journey (Godovykh & Tasci, 2020a). In this regard, some scholars, like Walls (2014) and Carbone and Haeckel (1994), shed light on experience as the “takeaway” impression or outcome people generate during their encounters with organizations’ products or services. For instance, Park and Santos’s (2016) investigation of the memorable experience of Korean backpackers states that the remembered experience is critical when determining future behavior and decision-making. The latter falls within the experience economy, wherein Pine and Gilmore (1999) submit that experience memorability captures customers’ hearts. 

From a management and marketing standpoint, experience is seen as a novel and distinctive economic product that can be acquired as a separate good or service that satisfies postmodern consumer needs (Pine & Gilmore, 1999). As a result, the creation of an immersive backdrop for customers is now considered by the marketing discipline known as experiential marketing (Schmitt, 1999). According to Carù and Cova (2003), an experience is “mainly a type of offering to be added to merchandise (or commodities), products and services, to give the fourth type of offering which is particularly suited to the needs of the postmodern consumer” (p. 272). As an offering, experience has become closely related to a trip, journey, or even the attraction itself (Volo, 2009). Admittedly, an experience is created when “a company intentionally uses services as the stage and goods as props, to engage individual customers in a way that creates a memorable event” (Pine & Gilmore, 1999, p.11). That is, experiences are not self-generated but occur in response to staged modalities and the environment (Schmitt, 1999). Palmer (2010), in his conceptualization of customer experience in a retail setting, stated that it implies a variety of market stimuli that hold the potential to create value for customers. These stimuli are viewed as external factors that give birth to the experience.

Furthermore, Meyer and Schwager (2007) contend that contact with the service provider, whether direct or indirect, affects the customer’s experience. Direct contact occurs when a product or service is purchased, used, or provided. In contrast, indirect contact refers to unplanned encounters with service providers and touch-points that may entail reputation, a recommendation, advertising, after-sales support, and other factors (e.g., Payne et al., 2008). This shows that factors outside of an organization’s control, as well as those inside its control, have an impact on the customer experience (Verhoef et al., 2009).

In recent studies, in an attempt to define an all-comprehensive definition of the construct of experience, Lemon and Verhoef (2016) defined the concept of customer experience as “a customer’s cognitive, emotional, behavioral, sensorial, and social responses to a firm’s offerings during the customer’s entire purchase journey” (P.70). In this perspective, Bagdare and Jain (2013) refer to customer experience as all-inclusive and define it as “the sum total of cognitive, emotional, sensorial, and behavioral responses produced during the entire buying process, involving an integrated series of interaction with people, objects, processes, and environment in retailing” (p. 792). These definitions embrace the cognitive, emotional, sensory, and behavioral components of experience produced in the frame of different interactions with customers, stakeholders, and management processes. Generally speaking, managers and marketers have found it challenging to understand the relevance of the notion of the tourist experience and to identify the various interactions and relationships between customers/tourists and destination elements.

Table 1: An overview of definitions regarding the concept of customer/tourist experience

Table 2: Components of the concept of customer/tourist experience

The Value of Tourism Experience in Tourist Destinations:

Nowadays, with the increasing worldwide competition and the changing situation the world lives in due mainly to the post-pandemic period, the global economic crisis, and the emergence of a new form of technologies and behaviors, tourist destinations are not spared from these challenges. To adapt to these changes and maintain their position in the market, the tourism industry players need to develop and reinvent their tourism. Understanding their experiential offerings is therefore prominent to accomplish this. According to Pine and Gilmore (1999), the core value of destinations lies in the quality of the experience it offers. This experience can be strong that tourists might develop a deep emotional bond with their travel destination (Hidalgo & Hernandez, 2001) and influence their behavioral intentions (Prayag et al., 2017; del Bosque & San Martin, 2008). Nevertheless, limited studies address a comprehensive framework of what makes an overall tourist experience in the destination or implicitly depict the antecedents, formations, and consequences of the tourist experience in the destination (Cetin et al., 2019; Karayilan & Cetin, 2016). It is, therefore, within this context where this conceptual paper is located.

More specifically, within the context of tourist destinations, everything a “tourist goes through at a destination is an experience, be it behavioral or perceptual, cognitive or emotional, expressed or implied” (Oh et al., 2007, p. 120). Stated in another way, the destination elements, such as natural and cultural assets, spectacular scenery, and friendly local people, are no longer sufficient to satisfy the contemporary tourists’ needs and differentiate places in a highly competitive market (Hudson & Ritchie, 2009; Ketter, 2018). Instead, by providing a satisfying destination experience, destination managers and policy-makers can set their offering apart from their competitors (Schmitt, 2010), enhancing destination desirability to tourists and increasing, in return, destination profitability (Morgan, Elbe, and de Esteban, 2009; Lugosi and Walls, 2013).

To date, a great deal of research has explored experiences in specific settings, such as food experience (Quan & Wang, 2004), tourist attractions (Vitterso et al., 2000), backpackers (Park & Santos, 2016), heritage parks (Prentice et al., 1998), to name only a few. However, while these studies concentrate on a specific type of tourism experience, few studies have thoroughly approached the factors that holistically drive the tourism experience in destinations. The reality is, regarding the lack of a clear definition of the concept per se, the subjective nature of the construct, the timeframe of the experience, the dynamic nature of the destination itself, and the diverse approaches to the tourist experience are among the factors that make capturing the critical drivers of destination experience a difficult task (Godovykh & Tasci, 2020a).

Since the tourism experience extends a period of time and simultaneously involves synergistic interactions and consumption of products and services, destination managers cannot wholly orchestrate the drivers of the tourist experience in the destination (Lugosi & Walls, 2013; Walls et al., 2011). At best, they can only influence the psychological environment and the prerequisite that facilitate the conditions for the experience to take place (Mossberg, 2007). According to Lugosi and Walls (2013), experiences are a flow of emotions and thoughts that occur during destination encounters, including the influence of the physical environment (e.g., atmospherics, infrastructure, and superstructure), the social environment (e.g., the local community), and other customers (e.g., fellow tourists, friends and relatives). This is because a tourist’s experience entails a series of engagements and interactions with the tourism industry, meanings, and people’s surroundings (Moscardo, 2003). This interplay of interactions represents the core of the overall destination experience (Karayilan & Cetin, 2016). Within this analysis, the tourist experience can be regarded as a compound construct that originates from a set of interactions between tourists’ internal factors, such as cognition and senses; and an organization’s external factors, such as the physical environment, other tourists, employees, local communities, and tourism operators (Adhikari & Bhattacharya, 2016; Albayrak et al., 2018).

The Co-creation Perspective in Tourism Experience

In the last decade, consumer research has witnessed an ongoing period of changes in its theoretical and philosophical foundations. The framework within which the debates have been conducted is labelled “modernism versus postmodernism” (Featherstone, 1988; Firat, 1990; Firat & Venkatesh, 1993; Hirschman & Holbrook, 1992; Turner & Turner, 1990; Firat & Venkatesh, 1995; Fırat & Dholakia, 2006; Cova & Cova, 2009). The starting point of the first reflection is none other than the consumer who has changed status and even multiplied his functions and roles about the meanings he attributes to his consumption. Specifically, customers (e.g., tourists) have become less concerned about the material values of consumption and more interested in the experiential value they derive from activities and products (Firat & Dholakia, 2006). Arguably, Tarssanen and Kylänen (2006) put forward that the value in tourism activities is accumulated by means of more experiential elements and active participation, as opposed to simply visiting a particular tourist destination. Under this approach, Saraniemi and Kylänen (2011) consider the destination a dynamic entity where the tourist can “jump in.” Meaning that tourists are willing to co-create value with destination providers. For instance, Wu et al. (2015) argue that participatory experiences influence tourists’ perception of and satisfaction with their salt tourism experience.

Building on this theoretical analysis, the idea that the tourist experience is only determined by the industry and carried out by passive customers is contested in light of this theoretical approach. For example, Walls et al. (2011) proceed to argue that an experience is “self-generated and that the customer can control or choose whether he will have an experience or not (including negative experiences)” (p. 18). This is consistent with extant research, implying that tourists recall what they perform rather than what they see (Park & Santos, 2016). In fact, tourists form their own experiential space that fits their vision for what it should be, depending on their motivation and reasoning (Suvantola, 2002). This is why King (2002) explicitly notes that “customers interested in travel and tourism have an enormous range of experiences and destination options open to them, but they are increasingly in the driving seat when it comes to how they uptake their planning information, what they receive and the process they choose to go through in marketing their purchase” (p. 106). For this reason, many studies have emerged to recognize the modifying role of tourists in the creation and design process because the value of service and product offerings rely on tourists’ active participation in the consumption process.

Indeed, with the democratization of the Internet and the growing use of information and communication technologies (ICTs), Neuhofer et al. (2012) posit that tourists have become active participants in creating the experience they want to live in. Following these developments, Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) assign tourists as co-creators of their own experiences. They presume that the value creation of destinations depends on the ability of destination management processes to facilitate tourists’ interactions within the tourism system, which allows tourists to personalize their own experiences. Thus, by leaving space for tourists, Richards and Wilson (2006) imply that such an approach can lead tourists to construct their trip narrative of their surroundings and form their personal perspective.

In this context, Ritchie and Hudson (2009) exhort marketers to concentrate their marketing actions and advertising on tourism experiences to evoke tourists’ senses and inspire them to co-create their experiences while co-constructing the meanings they are looking for (Cova, 1996). Similar to this, Scott et al. (2009) propose, for future research, a shift from experience as something inherent for the visitor to a management approach in which experience is co-created by the visitor and supplier. In summary, it can be concluded that a tourist experience is highly personal, subjective, and co-created by tourists and providers through a series of interactions with the physical environment and activities, tourism businesses, and other fellow tourists.

Measurement of Experience and the Emergence of New Research Method

One of the most difficult and crucial problems for any destination or organization looking to establish a sustainable competitive edge is understanding the components of tourist experiences in the destination and managing all clues during tourists’ interactions with destination service providers (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Becker & Jaakkola, 2020). Indeed, by understanding the key factors of the tourist experience, managers and marketers can respond to the needs of potential tourists and influence their behavior. 

However, academics and practitioners suffer from measurement myopia because the tourist/customer experience is individualized, vague, and multifaceted. Our analysis of prior research generally brings forth the core tenants of measurement complexities and challenges as follows: these complexities include a lack of an accepted definition of the concept, the multiple elements that underpin the construct in itself, the dynamic nature of the context-specific variables, the intangible nature of tourism products and services, the highly subjective, unique, and personal reactions of tourists, and the number of tourism players and stakeholders that exist within the tourism system (Godovykh & Tasci, 2020b; Hwang & Seo, 2016; Gentile et al., 2007; Meyer & Schwager, 2007; Palmer, 2010; Bagdare & Jain, 2013; Gnoth & Matteucci, 2014).

One degree of complexity arises from the fact that tourists differ in their motivations, attitudes, travel behavior, and preferences (Kundampully et al., 2018). For example, Andersson (2007) and Morgan et al. (2009) affirm that the expected value of a particular experience may differ from that of others. Similarly, Hwang and Seo (2016) suggest that the consumption experience might easily change the affective attitude generated by a customer experience over time. Furthermore, Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi (1988) argue that some personal characteristics may influence customers to engage in “flow” experiences more frequently, more intensely, and longer than others. Similarly, Ritchie and Hudson (2009) argue that tourists bring different social and cultural backgrounds; that is, each tourist holds a specific personal value that filters through their lives and affects their decision to select a particular destination and tourism experience (Madrigal & Kahle, 1994). Furthermore, Milman et al. (2017) report that visitor experience dimensions might not be concrete or objective when visiting a mountain attraction. This may induce different attributes and yield different interpretations, which vary from one customer to another.

Other scholars refer to the broad spectrum of research methodologies that have emerged in the business field and might be adjusted to investigate the concept of customer experience in the tourism and hospitality industry. These research methodologies are heterogeneous to the extent that customer experience is measured either quantitatively or qualitatively using a wide range of measurement tools, such as structured surveys, direct observation, structured or unstructured interviews, and measurement scales. Nevertheless, most researchers fail to consider the drivers of customer experience in its totality, for example, in pre-, during-, and post-experience (Godovykh & Tasci, 2020a). For example, many scholars (Verhulst et al., 2020; Godovykh & Tasci, 2020b; Kuppelwieser & Klaus, 2019; Palmer, 2010) have questioned the substantial reliance on conventional and retrospective self-report metrics to capture the dynamic aspects of tourists’ emotional responses from past experiences and current customers’ feelings, ignoring the dynamic nature of affective dimensions of experience. Accordingly, this may not predict consumer behavior or service performance outcomes. In this context, the online experiment by Godovykh and Tasci (2020b) supports the significant impact of post-visit emotional stimulation on several aspects of customer loyalty, demonstrating that the dynamic nature of the customer experience can be altered even long after the customer journey.  

On the other hand, many scholars note a shortage of innovation-related methods to identify the key elements of the tourist experience and the inability of many researchers to convey theory to research methods. For example, Palmer (2010) deems the inadequacy of survey design to assess the changing nature of affective and experiential dimensions of experience and, adding to the above, the concern that respondents’ answers might be misrepresented by their mood when answering questions (Skard et al., 2011); alternatively, it can be biased to the fact that they may not recall experienced emotions accurately. 

In this regard, Fick and Ritchie (1991) advocate using additional qualitative measures to abstract critical dimensions and highlight that a strictly quantitative scale fails to consider those affective and hedonic factors “which contribute to the overall quality of the service experience” (p. 9). From this point of view, Ritchie and Hudson (2009) argue that qualitative methods are convenient for researchers. For example, Holbrook (2006) surmises that due to the context-specific and non-linear nature of experiences, qualitative methods are well-suited to assess customer experience. Godovykh and Tasci (2020b) draw attention to more psychophysiological measures of emotions, such as electrodermal activity and electromyography, electrocardiography, pupillometry, etc., to overcome the limitations of conventional self-report measures. Correspondingly, Verhulst et al. (2020) adopt neurophysiological metrics to measure emotions and their dynamic nature along with customer experience. Their experimental results show that neurophysiological measures may better delineate arousal levels throughout different customer experience phases, although not self-reported by participants. Thus, Verhulst et al. (2020) emphasize the critical stake of such measures to managers and service designers, as they depict how emotions vary across different touch-points and channels throughout the customer experience. Hence, such a measurement approach might underpin which moments better predict customer behavioral intentions and service performance outcomes. However, using neurophysiological methods for data analysis is more difficult and costly for analyzing; therefore, managers and academics may reject it (Verhulst et al., 2019).

Hwang and Seo (2016) propose innovative methodologies to approach customer experience and recommend using experience sampling, grid techniques, netnography, structured content analysis, and emphasizing a cultural perspective. According to Lugosi and Walls (2013), a wide range of approaches and methods have been provided to studies regarding destination experiences, such as autoethnographic, ethnographic, visual methods, netnographics, and other forms of Internet research approaches, along with more traditional survey-based and quantitative approaches (see also, Hosany & Gilbert, 2010; Oh et al., 2007; Raikkonen & Honkanen, 2013). In accordance with Godovykh and Tasci (2020a), capturing the fundamental nature of tourist experiences must call upon a mixture of different research approaches, including self-report methods, interview techniques, experience sampling methods, and psychophysiological metrics, to allow researchers to instantly measure components of the total experience and respondents’ reactions as they unfold before, during, and after the experience, as opposed to looking only at transactional touch-points. Kim and Seo (2022) confirm that a combination of such methodologies reflects the true nature of customer experience. Similarly, Klaus and Maklan (2013) assert that quality of service experience (EXQ) should be considered alongside more traditional metrics for measuring customer experience. For example, customer satisfaction and net promoter score are commonly known as better and direct predictors of customer behavior, and their applicability is relatively practical and cost-effective. In general terms, Verhulst et al. (2020) and Verhulst et al. (2019) posit combining neurophysiological measures with conventional metrics (e.g., self-report and behavioral measures), which may help to strengthen validity and reliability.

Last but not least, in light of the development of ICTs, Lugosi and Walls (2013) claim that hardwired technologies, such as mobile phones, GPS, and geographic information systems, have lately gained more ground in the investigation of daily tourist movements and activities in a location. 

For example, Lee et al. (1994) employed a self-initiated tape-recording model (SITRM) to gather data. This technique requires participants to wear electronic pagers and carry self-report booklets in addition to a quantitative survey form, making researchers more willing to collect immediate participant experiences. In doing so, it minimizes memory decay and mood bias. Volo (2009) sheds light on the benefits of unobtrusive methods (e.g., sensory devices, use of GPS, travel diaries, and videos) as an alternative to access tourists’ emotions and feelings. Chen (2008) examined travelers’ mental representations of their family holiday experiences and actions using the Zaltman metaphor elicitation technique (ZMET). Supplementing this approach, Lugosi and Walls (2013) recommend adopting the actor-network theory (ANT) technique to examine travel destinations and visitor experiences through various players, actions, processes, and relationships as a complement to this strategy. Kim and Seo (2022) provide insight into new big data sources for gathering information on consumer experience.

An Integrated Conceptual Framework of Destination Experience

Tourist Experience is a complex and wide-ranging construct arising from a broader set of interactions with actors, stakeholders, and other tourists (Jaakola et al., 2015; Verhoef et al., 2009; Packer & Ballantyne, 2016; Kandampully et al., 2018; Meyer & Schwager, 2007). In light of the above discussion, many studies refer to the tourism experience as cumulative of each moment experienced by tourists during their journey, i.e., before the experience occurs, during the travel destination, and long after the tourist returns to their home environment. This ongoing process influences tourists’ future behavior and expectations of the next trip. To illustrate, Tung and Ritchie (2011) define an experience as “an individual’s subjective evaluation and undergoing (i.e., affective, cognitive, and behavioral) of events related to their tourist activities that begin before (i.e., planning and preparation), during (i.e., at the destination), and after the trip (i.e., recollection)” (p. 1369). Thus, different factors influencing tourist behavior can be illuminated during each stage of the experience process (Chen et al., 2014). Still, no prior holistic conceptual model exists in the literature that has examined all the elements that form the tourist experience in the destination.

Our approach to the present study is to build on the initial work of Godovykh and Tasci (2020a), Lugosi and Walls (2013), and Walls et al. (2011), an integrated conceptual framework of destination experience (see Figure 1). This conceptual framework portrays a process that covers components, processes, and stakeholders and depicts how they combine to form what is fundamentally the destination experience. It takes the tourist experience antecedents from a diverse body of literature and deals with tourist experience as a construct created due to tourist interactions with the physical and social environment of the destination along their journey (i.e., pre, during, and post-destination experience), creating, in consequence, opportunities for positive outcomes to tourists and destinations as well.

From a marketing perspective, this framework is suggested as a tool for decision-making to help DMOs and other tourism stakeholders to capture the holistic nature of the tourist experience in the destination setting. This may have practical implications for DMOs and other tourism stakeholders operating at the destination to fit their marketing practices to design a superior destination experience in response to the tourists’ needs and preferences. Practically, future research on tourist experience in destinations may pinpoint the specific roles of each stakeholder and the destination elements when considering the construction of the experience the tourists receive.

In doing so, we consider the definition proposed by Godovykh and Tasci (2020a), which is holistic from its perspective, to explain the concept of the destination experience. We include the social interaction dimension as a crucial element of the tourist experience in the definition mentioned above in order to widen the scope of experiential appeal and dwell on the implications of developing an integrated destination experience (see the works of Murphy, 2001; Milman, Zehrer, & Tasci, 2017; Bharwani & Jauhari, 2013). 

In this perspective, a destination experience can be described as the total of tourists’ internal reactions (i.e., affective, cognitive, sensory, conative, and social) enhanced by external destination-related elements (e.g., destination stakeholders and managers, physical environment, tourism activities, local community, and other tourists) that occur within a series of dynamic interactions encountered directly or indirectly along the travel journey; during pre- destination experience, during the core of the experience and post-destination experience. As a result, it might be interpreted differently according to tourists’ characteristics, resulting in distinct consequences related to tourists and the visited destination. This proposed definition may be particularly constructive in explaining and measuring destination experience. It describes the holistic structure of experience components (e.g., cognitive, affective, sensorial, conative, and social) as tourist responses during their journey. Accordingly, this proposed definition is highly consistent with previous conceptualizations of other tourism and hospitality scholars (e.g., Packer and Ballantyne, 2016; Adhikari & Bhattacharya, 2016; Palmer, 2010; Verhoef et al., 2009).

Antecedents

In the tourism and hospitality industry, a number of antecedents have been offered as reliable predictors of customer experience, some of which have been argued to affect the quality, formation somewhat, and/or purchasing of experiences. This is due to the fact that each tourist’s experiences are unique based on their perceptions, consumption, and interpretation.

One set of antecedents is related to tourists’ characteristics in terms of socio-demographics (gender, age, nationality, occupation, salary), psychographic profile (personality and lifestyle), and culture (Godovykh & Tasci, 2020a; Adhikari & Bhattacharya 2016; Kim et al., 2012; Andersson, 2007; Hwang & Seo, 2016; Park & Santos, 2016; Morgan, Elbe, & de Esteban. 2009), level of familiarity, knowledge and previous experience background (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982; Finsterwalder & Kuppelwieser, 2011; Adhikari & Bhattacharya, 2016; Hwang & Seo, 2016), group characteristics and ethnic background (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982;  Adhikari & Bhattacharya, 2016; Hwang & Seo, 2016; Heywood, 1987), tourists’ expectations (Arnould and Price, 1993; Ofir & Simonson, 2007), their preferences and purposes of trips (Adhikari et al., 2013; Hu & Ritchie, 1993; Wijaya et al., 2013), skills, abilities, and attitudes (Andersson, 2007), and tourist motivation and level of involvement (Prebensen et al., 2013). Such factors are critical drivers of one’s experience at the destination and post-purchase experience evaluation.

The other set of antecedents is concerned with destination-related features and situational characteristics. On the one hand, most researchers claim that destination attractions represent the core elements of tourism (Gunn, 1972). Furthermore, Buhalis (2000) reports that tourists’ selection of a particular destination is motivated by existing tourism attractions, accessibility, available packages, activities, and ancillary services. Similarly, Lin and Kuo (2016) suggest that the destination’s culture, history, religion, nature, events, architecture, hospitality, and other related variables likely influence the tourist experience. Also, Mossberg (2007) suggests many factors influencing the tourist experience, i.e., service personnel, physical environment, products/souvenirs, other tourists, and themes/stories. More broadly, Kim (2014) proposes ten factors to form memorable tourism experiences, including local culture, various activities, hospitality, infrastructure, environment, management, accessibility, quality of service, physiography, place attachment, and superstructure. From another perspective, marketing literature considers that tourist behavior depends heavily on the nature and quality of the tourism experience. For example, Gronroos (2001) highlights the significant determinants of service quality on customer satisfaction, behavioral intentions, and customer experience. On the other hand, situational characteristics include situational factors, such as the nature of the consumption context (Hwang & Seo, 2016) and macroeconomic and environmental factors (Grewal, Levy & Kumar, 2009; Hwang & Seo, 2016; Hudson & Ritchie, 2009) that likely influence the tourist experience in various contexts. The tourist and hospitality business as a whole has undoubtedly been impacted by several uncontrolled factors, such as natural disasters and climate change, financial crises, unfavorable exchange rates, and sanitary concerns.

Consequences

The concept of experience is central to customer behavior (Klaus & Maklan, 2013; Addis & Holbrook, 2001). Many studies have discussed the positive relationship between positive tourist experiences and behavioral intentions and attitudes to make inferences about the destination.

From a tourist perspective, as mentioned before, experiential responses have broadly been expressed as a combination of cognitive, emotional, behavioral, sensorial, and social reactions by a tourist as a result of active interactions and engagement with the destination’s physical environment, people, and tourism stakeholders. In this regard, the tourism experience is proposed to result in emotional responses such as fun, feelings, fantasies, entertainment, and refreshment (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982; Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982; Holbrook, 2000; Tynan & McKechnie, 2009; Hwang & Seo, 2016; Babin et al., 1994); cognitive responses such as knowledge, skills, learning, and memories (Oh et al. 2007; Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982; Pine & Gilmore, 1999; Lin & Kuo, 2016); conative responses such as practices, involvement, and engagement (Palmer, 2010; Schmitt, 1999; Unger & Kernan, 1983; Kim et al., 2012; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004); sensorial responses such as taste, sound, smell, sight, and touch (Berry, Carbone, and Haeckel, 2002; Hudson & Ritchie, 2009); and perceived motivation (Pearce & Caltabiano, 1983; Oh et al., 2007). In a nutshell, when tourists value the experience, they begin valuing everything they feel, hear, see, and smell during their encounters with the destination. 

From a destination perspective, DMOs can meet tourists’ expectations and sway their behavioral intentions in terms of satisfaction and behavioral loyalty intentions by having an understanding of how tourists evaluate and benefit from their experiences at the destination (Klaus & Maklan, 2013; Hosany & Gilbert, 2010). According to Oppermann (2000), travelers’ positive experiences at a destination may affect their desire to return and strengthen their ability to recommend the destination to friends and family. Hidalgo and Hernandez (2001) argue that experiences might be so powerful that tourists might become attached to the destination. These marketing outcomes are based on the importance of literature and research, emphasizing their weight as a consequence (Godovykh & Tasci, 2020b).  

Figure 1: A conceptual framework of total destination experience

Conclusions, Implications, and Future Research Perspectives

This study aims to develop an integrated conceptual framework of tourist experiences in the destination based on the theoretical and conceptual understanding of tourism experience as an emerging topic in tourism research and consumer behavior. This framework will assist DMOs and policy-makers in broadening their understanding of the various factors and processes when considering the formation of the tourism experience. In doing so, DMOs and other tourism stakeholders can manage the prerequisite of enjoyable experiences for tourists, which will likely inspire tourists to return to the destination and recommend it to others.

The relevance of this research lies in the topicality of experience themes in tourism studies; the different insight that stems from this conceptual paper might have theoretical and managerial implications. From a theoretical perspective, this study aims to extend the conceptual and theoretical investigations of the experiential paradigm for destination management and marketing (Lugosi and Walls, 2013; King, 2002; Morgan, Elbe, and de Esteban, 2009). Therefore, the conceptual framework supplements the traditional framework of management through an experiential approach that considers the neglected experiential reactions of tourists (i.e., affective, conative, sensorial, and social responses) evoked as a result of dynamic interactions and active engagement with destination elements and stakeholders, alongside their destination visitation. From a management and marketing perspective, we believe that the conceptual framework of destination experience management may function as a guideline framework for destination managers and marketers to empirically study tourist experiences during the tourist journey in a destination. Hence, a clearer understanding of the relationship between specific tourist experiences, as they relate to the destination, can signal destination managers and marketers to establish a well-conceived marketing strategy to stage and deliver the desired tourism experience as part of a tourist value proposition.

Recently, intensive work has shed light on the co-creation experience process as critical to marketing strategies and differentiation in the general business literature. From this perspective, tourists are no longer considered passive recipients of a pre-conceived tourism product or experience but rather active partners in the co-creation experience design and management process (Lusch & Vargo, 2006; Lugosi and Walls, 2013; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2003; Mossberg, 2007; Binkhorst & Den Dekker, 2009). Morgan, Elbe, and de Esteban (2009) imply that the delivery of co-creation tourist experiences can only be achieved through an effective combined effort between the private and public sectors. This is in line with previous research that considers tourist experiences derived from broader networks of actors, stakeholders, tourists, suppliers, host guests, brands, fellow tourists, and the local community (Jaakola et al., 2015; Verleye, 2015). Therefore, destination managers and marketers must focus on an eco-tourism system that includes destination managers and stakeholders in managing the co-creation destination experience. Therefore, further investigations are required to design co-creating experiential marketing strategies to assist tourists in co-constructing their desired tourism experience that provides the emotional state or pre-image they are looking to live in.

Last but not least, we propose empirical studies investigating causal linkages between different variables with related interactions, antecedents and consequences to fully leverage the relevance of the proposed conceptual framework.

Statements and Declarations

The author(s) reported no potential conflicts of interest.

The author(s) received no financial support for this article.

• Abbott, L. (1955). Quality and competition. Columbia University Press.
• Addis, M., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). On the conceptual link between mass customisation and experiential consumption: An explosion of subjectivity. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 1(1), 50–66.
• Adhikari, A., Basu, A., & Raj, S. P. (2013). Pricing of experience products under consumer heterogeneity. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 6–18.
• Adhikari, A., & Bhattacharya, S. (2016). Appraisal of literature on customer experience in tourism sector: Review and framework. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(4), 296–321.
• Albayrak, T., Herstein, R., Caber, M., Drori, N., Bideci, M., & Berger, R. (2018). Exploring religious tourist experiences in Jerusalem: The intersection of Abrahamic religions. Tourism Management, 69, 285–296.
• Andersson, T. D. (2007). The tourist in the experience economy. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7(1), 46–58.
• Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. (1993). River magic: Extraordinary experience and the extended service encounter. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 24–45.
• Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644–656.
• Becker, L., & Jaakkola, E. (2020). Customer experience: Fundamental premises and implications for research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(4), 630–648.
• Berry, L. L., Carbone, L. P., & Haeckel, S. H. (2002). Managing the total customer experience. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 85–89.
• Bharwani, S., & Jauhari, V. (2017). An exploratory study of competencies required to cocreate memorable customer experiences in the hospitality industry. In Hospitality marketing and consumer behavior (pp. 159–185). Apple Academic Press.
• Binkhorst, E., & Den Dekker, T. (2013). Agenda for co-creation tourism experience research. In Marketing of tourism experiences (pp. 219–235). Routledge.
• Boswijk, A., Thijssen, T., & Peelen, E. (2007). The experience economy: A new perspective. Pearson Education.
• Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52–68.
• Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 21(1), 97–116.
• Carbone, L. P., & Haeckel, S. H. (1994). Engineering customer experiences. Marketing Management, 3(3), 8.
• Carù, A., & Cova, B. (2003). Revisiting consumption experience: A more humble but complete view of the concept. Marketing Theory, 3(2), 267–286.
• Cetin, G., Kizilirmak, I., Balik, M., & Kucukali, S. (2019). Impact of superior destination experience on recommendation. Trends in Tourist Behavior , 147–160.
• Cetin, G., & Walls, A. (2016). Understanding the customer experiences from the perspective of guests and hotel managers: Empirical findings from luxury hotels in Istanbul, Turkey. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 25(4), 395-424.
• Chen, J. S., Prebensen, N. K., & Uysal, M. (2014). Dynamic drivers of tourist experiences. In N.K.
• Chen, C.-C., Huang, W.-J., & Petrick, J. F. (2016). Holiday recovery experiences, tourism satisfaction and life satisfaction–Is there a relationship? Tourism Management, 53, 140–147.
• Cohen, E. 1979 A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences. Sociology 13:179–201.
• Cohen, E. (1995). Contemporary tourism—Trends and challenges. In R. Butler and D. Pearce (Eds.), Change in tourism (pp. 12–29). London: Routledge
• Cova, B. (1996). What postmodernism means to marketing managers. European Management Journal, 14(5), 494–499.
• Cova, B., & Cova, V. (2009). Faces of the new consumer: A genesis of consumer governmentality. Recherche et Applications En Marketing (English Edition), 24(3), 81–99.
• Cracolici, M. F., & Nijkamp, P. (2009). The attractiveness and competitiveness of tourist destinations: A study of Southern Italian regions. Tourism Management, 30(3), 336–344.
• Crouch, G. I., & Ritchie, J. B. (2005). Application of the analytic hierarchy process to tourism choice and decision making: A review and illustration applied to destination competitiveness. Tourism Analysis, 10(1), 17– 25.
• Cutler, S. Q., & Carmichael, B. A. (2010). The dimensions of the tourist experience. In M. Morgan, P. Lugosi, & J. R. B. Ritchie (Eds.), The tourism and leisure experience. Consumer and managerial perspectives (pp. 3–26). Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications.
• Del Bosque, I. R., & San Martín, H. (2008). Tourist satisfaction a cognitive-affective model. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2), 551–573.
• Featherstone, M. (1988). In pursuit of the postmodern: An introduction. Theory, Culture & Society, 5(2–3), 195–215.
• Firat, A. F., & Venkatesh, A. (1993). Postmodernity: The age of marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10(3), 227–249.
• Firat, A. F., & Venkatesh, A. (1995). Liberatory postmodernism and the reenchantment of consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 239–267.
• Fırat, A. F., & Dholakia, N. (2006). Theoretical and philosophical implications of postmodern debates: Some challenges to modern marketing. Marketing Theory, 6(2), 123–162.
• Firat, A. F. (1992). Postmodernism and the marketing organization. Journal of Organizational Change Management.
• Fick, G. R., & Brent Ritchie, J. R. (1991). Measuring service quality in the travel and tourism industry. Journal of Travel Research, 30(2), 2–9.
• Finsterwalder, J., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2011). Co-creation by engaging beyond oneself: The influence of task contribution on perceived customer-to-customer social interaction during a group service encounter. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(7), 607–618.
• Framke, W. (2002). The destination as a concept: A discussion of the business-related perspective versus the socio-cultural approach in tourism theory. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 2(2), 92–108.
• Gnoth, J., & Matteucci, X. (2014). A phenomenological view of the behavioural tourism research literature. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research.
• Gretzel, U. & Jamal, T. (2009). Conceptualizing the Creative Tourist Class: Technology, Mobility, and Tourism Experiences. Tourism Analysis, 14(4): 471-481.
• Grewal, D., Levy, M., & Kumar, V. (2009). Customer experience management in retailing: An organizing framework. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 1–14.
• Grönroos, C. (2001). The perceived service quality concept–a mistake? Managing Service Quality: An International Journal.
• Godovykh, M., & Tasci, A. D. (2020). Customer experience in tourism: A review of definitions, components, and measurements. Tourism Management Perspectives, 35, 100694.
• Gunn, C. A., & Taylor, G. D. (1973). Book Review: Vacationscape: Designing Tourist Regions: (Bureau of Business Research, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 1972, 238 pp., $8.00.). Journal of Travel Research, 11(3), 24–24.
• Heywood, J. L. (1987). Experience preferences of participants in different types of river recreation groups. Journal of Leisure Research, 19(1), 1–12.
• Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 273–281.
• Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1992). Postmodern consumer research (Vol. 1). Sage.
• Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101.
• Holbrook, M. B. (2000). The millennial consumer in the texts of our times: Experience and entertainment. Journal of Macromarketing, 20(2), 178–192.
• Holbrook, M. B. (2006a). Consumption experience, customer value, and subjective personal introspection: An illustrative photographic essay. Journal of Business Research, 59(6), 714–725.
• Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982a). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132–140.
• Hosany, S., & Gilbert, D. (2010). Measuring tourists’ emotional experiences toward hedonic holiday destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 49(4), 513–526.
• Hudson, S., & Ritchie, J. B. (2009). Branding a memorable destination experience. The case of Brand Canada.International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(2), 217–228.
• Huseynov, K., Costa Pinto, D., Maurer Herter, M., & Rita, P. (2020). Rethinking emotions and destination experience: An extended model of goal-directed behavior. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 44(7), 1153–1177. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1096348020936334
• Hwang, J., & Seo, S. (2016). A critical review of research on customer experience management: Theoretical, methodological and cultural perspectives. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.
• Jaakkola, E., Helkkula, A., & Aarikka-Stenroos, L. (2015). Service experience co-creation: Conceptualization, implications, and future research directions. Journal of Service Management.
• Kandampully, J., Zhang, T. C., & Jaakkola, E. (2018a). Customer experience management in hospitality: A literature synthesis, new understanding and research agenda. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.
• Karayilan, E., & Cetin, G. (2016). Tourism destination: Design of experiences. The handbook of managing and marketing tourism experiences (pp. 65–83). Emerald Group Publishing Limited
• Kaushal, V. and  Yadav, R.  (2021), “Understanding customer experience of culinary tourism through food tours of Delhi”,  International Journal of Tourism Cities , Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 683 701.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-08-2019-0135  Download as .RIS
• Ketter, E. (2018). It‗s all about you: Destination marketing campaigns in the experience economy era. Tourism Review.
• Kim, J.-H. (2014). The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences: The development of a scale to measure the destination attributes associated with memorable experiences. Tourism Management, 44, 34–45.
• Kim, J.-H., Ritchie, J. B., & McCormick, B. (2012). Development of a scale to measure memorable tourism experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), 12–25.
• King, J. (2002). Destination marketing organisations—Connecting the experience rather than promoting the place. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8(2), 105–108.
• Kim, H., & So, K. K. F. (2022). Two decades of customer experience research in hospitality and tourism: A bibliometric analysis and thematic content analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 100, 103082.
• Klaus and Maklan (2013), ―Towards a Better Measure of Customer Experience,‖ International Journal of Market Research, 55 (2), 227–46.
• Larsen, S. (2007). Aspects of a psychology of the tourist experience. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7(1), 7–18.
• Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69–96.
• Lin, C.-H., & Kuo, B. Z.-L. (2016). The behavioral consequences of tourist experience. Tourism Management Perspectives, 18, 84–91.
• Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service-dominant logic: Reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281–288.
• Lugosi, P., & Walls, A. R. (2013). Researching destination experiences: Themes, perspectives and challenges. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 2(2), 51–58.
• Madrigal, R., & Kahle, L. R. (1994). Predicting vacation activity preferences on the basis of value-system segmentation. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 22–28.
• Mahmud, M.S. ,  Rahman, M.M. ,  Lima, R.P. and  Annie, E.J.  (2021), “Outbound medical tourism experience, satisfaction and loyalty: lesson from a developing country”,  Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights , Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 545-564.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-06-2020-0094
• Maslow, A. H. (1964). Religions, values, and peak-experiences (Vol. 35). Ohio State University Press Columbus.
• Meyer, C., & Schwager, A. (2007). Customer experience. Harvard Business Review, 85(2), 116–126.
• Milman, A., Zehrer, A., & Tasci, A. D. (2017). Measuring the components of visitor experience on a mountain attraction: The case of the Nordkette, Tyrol, Austria. Tourism Review.
• Morgan, M., Elbe, J., & de Esteban Curiel, J. (2009a). Has the experience economy arrived? The views of destination managers in three visitor‐dependent areas. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(2), 201– 216.
• Moscardo, G. (2009). Tourism and quality of life: Towards a more critical approach. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9(2), 159–170.
• Mossberg, L. (2007). A marketing approach to the tourist experience. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7(1), 59–74
• Murphy, L. (2001). Exploring social interactions of backpackers. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(1), 50–67.
• Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., & Ladkin, A. (2012). Conceptualising technology enhanced destination experiences. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1–2), 36–46.
• Ofir, C., & Simonson, I. (2007). The effect of stating expectations on customer satisfaction and shopping experience. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 164–174.
• Oh, H., Fiore, A. M., & Jeoung, M. (2007). Measuring Experience Economy Concepts: Tourism Applications. Journal of Travel Research , 46 (2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287507304039
• Otto, J. E., & Ritchie, J. B. (1996). The service experience in tourism. Tourism Management, 17(3), 165–174.
• Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 78–84.
• Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. (2016). Conceptualizing the visitor experience: A review of literature and development of a multifaceted model. Visitor Studies, 19(2), 128–143.
• Palmer, A. (2010). Customer experience management: A critical review of an emerging idea. Journal of Services Marketing.
• Park, S., & Santos, C. A. (2017). Exploring the tourist experience: A sequential approach. Journal of Travel Research, 56(1), 16–27.
• Pearce, P. L., & Caltabiano, M. L. (1983). Inferring travel motivation from travelers’ experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 22(2), 16–20.
• Pine, B. J., Pine, J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre & every business a stage. Harvard Business Press.
• Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14.
• Prayag, G., Hosany, S., Muskat, B., & Del Chiappa, G. (2017). Understanding the relationships between tourists’ emotional experiences, perceived overall image, satisfaction, and intention to recommend. Journal of Travel Research, 56(1), 41–54.
• Prebensen, N. K., Woo, E., Chen, J. S., & Uysal, M. (2013). Motivation and involvement as antecedents of the perceived value of the destination experience. Journal of Travel Research, 52(2), 253–264.
• Prentice, R. C., Witt, S. F., & Hamer, C. (1998). Tourism as experience: The case of heritage parks. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), 1–24.
• Quan, S., & Wang, N. (2004). Towards a structural model of the tourist experience: An illustration from food experiences in tourism. Tourism Management, 25(3), 297–305.
• Räikkönen, J., & Honkanen, A. (2013). Does satisfaction with package tours lead to successful vacation experiences? Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2(2), 108–117.
• Rather, R.A. (2020), “Customer experience and engagement in tourism destinations: the experiential marketing perspective”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 15-32
• Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (2006). Developing creativity in tourist experiences: A solution to the serial reproduction of culture? Tourism Management, 27(6), 1209–1223 doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2005.06. 002.
• Saraniemi, S., & Kylänen, M. (2011). Problematizing the concept of tourism destination: An analysis of different theoretical approaches. Journal of Travel Research, 50(2), 133–143.
• Schmitt, B. (1999). Experiential marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1–3), 53–67.
• Schmitt, B. H. (2010). Customer experience management: A revolutionary approach to connecting with your customers. John Wiley & Sons.
• Scott, N., Laws, E., & Boksberger, P. (2009). The marketing of hospitality and leisure experiences. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(2–3), 99–110.
• Shafiee, M. M., Foroudi, P., & Tabaeeian, R. A. (2021). Memorable experience, tourist-destination identification and destination love. International Journal of Tourism Cities. Article in press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-09-2020-0176
• Sugathan, P., & Ranjan, K. R. (2019). Co-creating the tourism experience. Journal of Business Research, 100(Jul), 207–217
• Suvantola, J. 2002 Tourist‗s Experience of Place. Burlington: Ashgate
• Tarssanen, S., and M. Kylänen (2006). “A Theoretical Model for Producing Experiences—A Touristic Perspective.” In Articles on Experiences 2, 2nd edition, edited by M. Kylänen.Rovaniemi, Finland: Lapland Centre of Expertise for the Experience Industry, pp. 134-54
• Tung, V. W. S., & Ritchie, J. B. (2011a). Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1367–1386.
• Turner, B. S., & Turner, B. S. T. (1990). Theories of modernity and postmodernity.
• Tynan, C., & McKechnie, S. (2009). Hedonic meaning creation though Christmas consumption: A review and model. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 8(3), 237–255.
• Uriely, N. (2005). The tourist experience: Conceptual developments. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 199– 216.
• Unger, L. S., & Kernan, J. B. (1983). On the meaning of leisure: An investigation of some determinants of the subjective experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(4), 381–392.
• Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
• Verhulst, N., De Keyser, A., Gustafsson, A., Shams, P., & Van Vaerenbergh, Y. (2019). Neuroscience in service research: An overview and discussion of its possibilities. Journal of Service Management.
• Verhulst, N., Vermeir, I., Slabbinck, H., Lariviere, B., Mauri, M., & Russo, V. (2020). A neurophysiological exploration of the dynamic nature of emotions during the customer experience. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, 102217.
• Verleye, K. (2015). The co-creation experience from the customer perspective: Its measurement and determinants. Journal of Service Management.
• Vittersø, J., Vorkinn, M., Vistad, O. I., & Vaagland, J. (2000). Tourist experiences and attractions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 432–450
• Volo, S. (2009). Conceptualizing experience: A tourist based approach. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(2–3), 111–126.
• Walls, A. R., Okumus, F., Wang, Y. R., & Kwun, D. J.-W. (2011). An epistemological view of consumer experiences. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(1), 10–21.
• Wijaya, B. S. (2013). Dimensions of brand image: A conceptual review from the perspective of brand communication. European Journal of Business and Managemrnt, 5(31), 55–65.
• Wu, T. C., Xie, P. F., & Tsai, M. C. (2015). Perceptions of attractiveness for salt heritage tourism: A tourist perspective. Tourism Management, 51, 201–209

Conferences

Latest articles, latest coip articles, +general information, publication ethics, indexing and abstracting, international editorial board, open access, lifetime article preservation.

• Get IGI Global News
• Language: English

• All Products
• Book Chapters
• Journal Articles
• Video Lessons
• Teaching Cases

Shortly You Will Be Redirected to Our Partner eContent Pro's Website

eContent Pro powers all IGI Global Author Services. From this website, you will be able to receive your 25% discount (automatically applied at checkout), receive a free quote, place an order, and retrieve your final documents .

What is Tourist Experience

Related Books View All Books

Related Journals View All Journals

Tourism Review

Accueil Numéros 10 The tourist experience: an experi...

The tourist experience: an experience of the frameworks of the tourist experience?

This contribution aims to produce a critical literature review of the recent collaborative works dealing with the notion of tourist experience (Sharpley and Stone, 2012; Filep and Pearce, 2013; Prebensen, Chen and Uysal, 2014; Decroly, 2015). Organized around four questions (what is not/does not produce experience in tourism?, what is the use of the tourist experience?, what is an unsuccessful tourist experience? and can forms of inauthentic experiences exist?), it particularly tries to highlight what these studies, stemming from different disciplines and traditions of research (management sciences, psychology, geography, anthropology, education sciences, etc.) have in common. It also intends to show that through the plurality of approaches emerge zones of friction and tension in the definition of this central notion of tourism. It thus shows that there are today three main approaches to this notion: in a first sense, the tourist experience can be understood as “everything that happens in a tourist situation”. In a second sense, the tourist experience can be conceived as a learning process of the different world and otherness. Finally, within the framework of the third approach, which is highly influenced by management sciences, it becomes a program for consumption for tourist action. This last meaning in particular highlights the fact that the tourist experience thus defined is perhaps less the experience of otherness than the experience of the consumption of another, or, to say it differently, the fact that the tourist experience is maybe ultimately only an experience of the frameworks of tourist consumption.

Entrées d’index

Keywords :, texte intégral.

1 “The notion of experience”, explains Decroly, “holds [ … ] of a potluck dinner, of which the researchers define the content according to their needs” (2015: 6). Indeed, in the research that deals with this notion, the tourist experience is at times defined as “a complicated psychological process” (Quinlan Cutler and Carmichael, 2010: 3) and at times as a “lived occurrence” (Simon, 2015), at times as an exercise of identity-building (Jaurand, 2015) and at times as a dialogical renegotiation of ones’ beliefs and habits (Henning, 2012), at times as a practice of self-transformation (Saunders, Laing and Weiler, 2013) and at times as a quest for happiness or well-being (Sharpley and Stone, 2012; Panchal, 2013), so much so that by caricaturing it would be possible to say that there are as many definitions of the tourist experience as there are contributions which relate to it. Conceived as a critical literature review, the purpose of this article will thus certainly not be to propose yet another, but merely to bring out on the one hand the “commonplaces” with regards to the various definitions of this notion and on the other hand the contradictions and areas of friction between the recent and major approaches.

2 In order to do this, Cohen’s founding research (1979) will be latently mobilized as a theoretical frame of reference. In this respect, let us recall that Cohen, in line with a philosophical tradition, had granted to the notion of experience a relatively strong ontological power: it thereby defined ways of being towards the world – touristic – enabling to live in the world – daily. This choice lies in the fact that, since Cohen’s research, the notion of tourist experience has become so commonplace that it ends up precisely covering, as notes Decroly, an infinity of definitions (which for the great majority, it has to be said, position themselves relative to Cohen’s definition). The real question is then to understand how the notion of tourist experience has been emptied of its ontological dimension and to hence try to confine it to its contemporary topicality.

3 This topicality, I place it in the words of Kadri and Bondarenko when they argue that “the professional discourse exerts [ … ] a certain influence on the scientific discourse, which reproduces the use of words by avoiding their definition. [ Thus, ] in the manner of the word “destination” which seems to be self-sufficient through its semantic power [ … ] the expression “tourist experience” also carries a potential of imagination which spares it from being defined” (2015: 23). All in all, the tourist experience seems to have become a sort of contemporary myth of tourism in the sense understood by Roland Barthes (1957), in other words, a naturalized ideology of consumption. The object of this article will be to demonstrate this.

4 To this end, this contribution will be organized around four major questions of rhetorical purpose. At first, it will try to comprehend the specificities of what is/produces experience in tourism. This first stage responds in particular to an aporia that emerges when one browses the scientific literature relating to the tourist experience: numerous studies indeed start from the principle that tourism is experience. Their objective then consists in describing what tourism is in singular and contextualized situations in order to finally describe the experience itself. Yet, if everything is experience in tourism, the following question arises: why continue to speak of tourist experience?

5 Responding to this question will be the object of the second movement of this contribution which, since it focuses on research that aims to define the notion of tourist experience, will be organized around the question of its purpose. The two main trends in the definition of the tourist experience today will then be highlighted: the one, process-oriented, which forges links with the question of learning and transformation of the world’s resources into knowledge; the other, which considers the tourist experience as “a moment to be lived” turned towards pleasure and hedonism and the purpose of which therefore consists in keeping its promises or succeeding. This will then lead us to ask ourselves what is a successful experience or, in this case, an unsuccessful one.

6 The third movement will thus try to show that a tourist experience destined for failure or for success is finally nothing more than an experience conceived in terms of an offer of consumption. In other words, by wondering why an experience can be considered as bad, this movement will show how the experience is transformed until it is able to “naturally” undergo the (dis)qualifying (and often quantitative) test of “customer satisfaction”. Considered as a mode of consumption of the tourist offer, the experience is from then on, always an artifact experience produced by the industry, so much so that one can wonder about the place of authenticity in the tourist (consumption) experience.

7 This question will be at the heart of the fourth and last movement within which we shall ponder whether the proposition that there may be “inauthentic experiences” in a tourist situation makes sense. We shall then show that regardless of the (in)authenticity of the offer, the experience that one makes of it is always authentic: one can thus be authentically disappointed by a simulacrum that one recognizes as such. What one then (authentically) experiences is the framework of the tourist experience, or the communication and marketing framework by which the tourist experience is proposed.

What is not/does not produce experience in tourism?

8 If one relies on the diversity of recent research which deals with tourist experience (Sharpley and Stone, 2012; Filep and Pearce, 2013; Prebensen, Chen and Uysal, 2014; Decroly, 2015), this one seems capable of being grasped and studied through a wide plurality of situations: whether one travels alone or with family (Larsen and Laursen, 2012), whether one leaves one’s home for cultural reasons by for example going to (re)discover the immaterial heritage of the and alusian flamenco (Matteucci, 2013) or for identity reasons by going to relax on a gay nudist beach (Jaurand, 2015), whether one stays on a farm (Dubois and Schmitz, 2015) or in a hotel chain (Cinotti, 2015), whether one roams the city (Simon, 2015; Erdely, 2012; Bolan, Boyd, and Bell, 2012), whether one goes on the road (Saunders, Laing, and Weiler, 2013) or soaks in spas (Panchal, 2013), whether one is young or old (Major and McLeay, 2012)... a characteristic which is common to all these tourist situations – and to many others – would indeed be that it is always possible to refer to experience.

9 These studies show through their interdisciplinarity that, in order to describe and qualify this tourist experience on the scale of each singular situation, one must take into account several contextual variables which will be dealt here autonomously for reasons of convenience, but which are in fact intricately connected since they jointly define a “tourist situation”: this is (i.) space and (ii.) time, which may not be considered independently, but also (iii.) tourist sociabilities, which participate in the (re)configuration of the way one communicates with the different space-time- of the journey.

10 In the first place, then, space. The tourist practice is indeed inevitably located (MIT Team, 2002). From this point on, the tourist experience proceeds from what Larsen and Laursen (2012) call “an interactive process” between the tourist and space, which must be understood in a very broad sense including not very tangible characteristics such as atmosphere, luminosity, smells, etc. (Taheri and Jafari, 2012). Through this type of relation (of which one can discuss the strictly dialogical character), tourists operate what Certeau had identified as the transformation of this “instantaneous configuration of positions” that is place in space (1980: 173). In that respect, through their practices of the place which they identify as different, tourists participate in the production of tourist space. This space can be enlarged to include any object which composes it in the way one conceives the most archetypal space of the projection of the other, namely museum space which is not only made of spatialities, but also of artifacts, mediation mechanisms, knowledge, etc. (Davallon, 2000). A tourist space would thus be a place which one practices as a tourist, in other words a territory characterized by the fact that everything that composes it can at any time be identified as a marker of otherness.

11 A second variable of crucial importance to understand the tourist experience is that of the temporal variable. If the tourist experience occurs when one practices a different space, it is also a delimited moment of the temporal continuum. The tourist experience is thus a dedicated moment outside of everyday life (Major and McLeay, 2012) – a time for holiday – during which one practices a series of activities which one does not undertake in the ordinary and daily course of one’s life (Henning, 2012) or which, if need be, are requalified because they take place elsewhere. This was for instance shown by Bourdieu with the example of the dinner at the restaurant of a certain social class which, in a tourist situation, could be the object of a photo shoot, but which would on the other hand seem perfectly inappropriate – at the time of the study – in everyday life (1965). This is also what Winkin alludes to when he talks about the “momentary suspension of the economic and social rules in force” to describe among other things, tourist situations (2002).

12 Another aspect of the temporal variable is the dramaturgy or the temporality of the journey. If the time of the stay is important to describe and qualify the tourist experience, the fact remains that it begins before the journey and continues after it.

13 In fact, anticipating, preparing one’s journey and documenting it is at the same time: a way of producing a horizon of expectation (Jauss, 1978) of the located experience – since the media and the mediations build our representations and practices, to the extent that they sometimes even originate them (Bolan, Boyd, Bell, 2012) – and a first experience of the destination itself, the main characteristic of which is to be media or to be broadcast and in which the “digital” nowadays becomes increasingly important (Korneliussen, 2014). Whereas, afterwards, sharing the account of the journey (Urbain, 2011) – is nowadays also increasingly digitalized through the use of social networks (Yüksel and Yanik, 2014) –, is experience in the sense that it is a time for formatting and transmitting what happened “out there”.

14 Finally, the third variable is sociability. All types of interactions that take place between tourists on one side and hosts and others on the other side can thus be considered as also configuring experience (Prebensen, Chen and Uysal, 2014; Condevaux, 2015). But not only: as sociabilities also occur between tourists (Smed, 2012) – a part of research still needs to be developed (Decroly, 2015: 10) –, the experience more generally takes place in co-presences (Fijalkow, Jalaudin and Lalanne, 2015).

15 Simultaneously informed and informative, mediated and immediate, individual and collective, the tourist experience is downright complex, and numerous researchers recall that it is even more so as the experience is subjective and therefore difficult to observe, even if there are objective variables (Fijalkow, Jalaudin and Lalanne, 2015). It is subjective because it is truly singular and personal; also, and especially, because it obviously requires a subject. This is what Henning very clearly proposes when he says: “ Troy is a tourist experience every time tourists do tourist things there ” (2012).

16 Space, time and the interactions involved can be the conditions and objects of a tourist experience only to the extent that a subject of experience is there to apprehend them; to the extent thus that there is a subject of experience (a tourist) and an object of experience (an object which these variables enable to circumscribe in the unity of a “tourist situation”). The tourist experience is thus not preexistent in the world, but is clearly brought into being when, by the effect of a subject who practices it, the territory becomes a destination: in other words, when a fragment of space transforms into a site or tourist attraction, when the time of daily activities turns into holiday, when the other changes into a native or a representative of the local society and the subject himself becomes a tourist (MIT Team, 2002).

17 In order for experience to be touristic, it must link an individual with a world (an inhabited space-time), the former wishing to get in touch with the latter within the framework of a tourist relation. The tourism experience thus presupposes two distinct and complementary cognitive operations. First a movement of externalization: a subject of action and desire must establish a rupture between himself and the world around him (a world – here touristic – is thus identified as an exteriority by virtue of which he “deserves the trip”). It is this movement of externalization which institutes a distinction between a contiguous world of practices (everyday life) and a different world (non-everyday life). It is this principle of symbolic externalization which is at the source, in large metropolises, of strategies which consist, for example, in making residents (re) discover the city “as tourists”: suddenly their contiguous life-space must no longer seem “obvious” to them. Next, a movement of internalization: he must accept the idea that this world, which has become different, can be appropriated as an exteriority within the framework of a tourist practice. Erik Cohen says nothing less when he explains that tourism and experience (or the various “modes ” of experience) that proceed from it are based on the idea of ​​ a center. Tourism – the unconstrained pleasure trip –, as the author explains, is thus justified by the fact that there must exist so mething “out there ” which cannot be found in the ordinary “life-space ” (1979: 182). For the tourist, it is a question of measuring the difference between here and elsewhere, with as reference the ordinary life-space – the center – and consequently creating a touristic elsewhere (be it geographic or not) in the order of eccentricities. It is because, as Dubet notes, “the construction of social experiences is necessary when situations are no longer part of homogeneous universes of meaning or, to put it simply, when “society” is no longer One ” (1994: 18).

18 Subjectivity is thus of fundamental importance to understand why experience can occur in any tourist situation and at any moment. It explains, for example, that managing to pour warm water from an English tap without a mixer or pushing the strange wooden latch of a door at a “traditional” guesthouse in Dubai or, in general, undertaking small actions may represent a tourist experience for some people.

19 It also explains why tourism – independently from each singular situation – can be grasped as an experience in the continuity of these (spatial, but also symbolic) movements identified by the MIT Team to describe the tourist practice (2002).

20 Ultimately, it explains why many studies which deal with the tourist experience finally do not investigate what, precisely, produces or is experience in the tourist situations they study. Experience becomes the presupposition of practice and is in this sense implicitly defined as everything that makes up the tourist life of tourists . This first approach to the tourist experience is based on a very broad definition, the specificity of which is that it does not distinguish anything in particular in the practice of tourism. However, it posits the fact that tourism is an operation whose first characteristic is to transform the world into an experience. The experience thus becomes a way of apprehending everything that happens in a touristic situation (2002).

What is the use of the tourist experience?

21 Indeed, “the journey”, explains Gilles Brougère, “provides an original and unprecedented bodily experience. Walking around makes it possible to measure the size of buildings on a human scale. To pass through the Lion’s Gate, to enter the tombs, to walk along the surrounding walls, so many experiences, producing knowledge different from that received through books” (2015: 179). If one believes the author, in a tourist situation, experience would thus be linked to learning.

22 This experiential approach, as explain Zeitler and Barbier, calls upon another notion – the theoretical – to which it opposes in order to define itself. “In common sense”, the authors explain, “the concept of experience presents itself as questioning the dominance of theory over practice: to have gained experience is to have learned not only for the activity but within the activity itself […]. This acceptance of common sense is based on and [thus] reinforces the dichotomy between theory and practice insofar as it paradoxically leads to the practice the social attributes of theory […] but by inverting them: it is because the experience has been lived that it has a value backed by pragmatic efficiency […]; the authority of experience is then conferred by practice against theory” (2012).

23 From the point of view of this definition of experience proposed by Brougère, the body becomes a fundamental element: it is because it measures, feels, creates a relation to, and more generally experiences the different spatial, temporal and social variables of a contextualized tourist situation, that the body can incorporate the world and enter into a logic of learning in relation to what composes it. More precisely, it is first of all because there exists a sensitive body experiencing a located world and because this same body is inhabited by a will to incorporate the world through the transformation of its resources, that the tourist experience can occur.

24 This question on resource transformation is at the source of the theoretical approach to experiential marketing (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). The objective was then to show that the consumer is not just a rational individual who deals with information. In other words, the theoretical approach of experiential marketing was founded on the idea that consumption is indeed an exercise in the transformation of resources (not oriented to some ordinary learning but to the production of information which preside over the choices of consumption), but that it is not limited to that. The other side of consumption is thus precisely its experiential part, namely the one – symbolic – in which emotions pour out and sensations take shape.

25 Following this approach, recent research on tourist experience, from the marketing point of view hardly considers this issue of resource transformation. If they do discuss incorporation, it is worthwhile in itself. This is because experiential marketing, as Veron and Boutaud (2008) explain, is based on the idea that consumption must be driven by hedonistic values. It thus places the multisensory and the immersive at the center of the experiential process and can generally be defined as a “displacement of sense to the senses”: “in search of experiences, the subject asks to feel sensations, to test himself” (2008: 148).

26 One can thus note here two major trends in the definition of the notion of tourist experience that complement the first, defined as the tourist life of tourists: experience is conceived, on the one hand, as learning through the transformation of the different world’s resources (Brougère, 2015; Simon, 2015; Witsel, 2013); and on the other, as producing sensations and emotions. These two approaches to tourist experience have radically different implications. In the first case, the tourist experience is essentially defined as a process; in the second case, as a moment to live out .

27 As a process, the tourist experience builds on previous experiences.

28 The experience then becomes at once the actions and the lessons that are drawn from them or that will be drawn later. It is a sort of fund of knowledge, habits, sensations, emotions – touristic or not – that are mobilized in order to communicate with the tourist world, which can be experienced, readjusted, transformed at each new encounter (Henning, 2012). The experience is thus in continuous production.

29 As a moment (or collection of moments in the long term), the experience is a break with the continuum of ordinary life, that must be lived as “pure topicality” or as “an absolute present” (Boutaud and Veron, 2008: 150). It is thus conceived as – or rather, it holds as being ideal – that “suspended time” which can be lived fully, with its share of sensations and compensations: sharing a good time, emotions, enriching oneself in contact with others, discovering new sensations”. The experience is thus a “happy or peaceful interlude [ … ] suddenly detached from the depth of our existence” (Boutaud and Veron, 2008: 150) which ultimately takes less account of what has been than of what must be. The experience thus becomes a program for tourist action: a model of reference which explains to the tourist how he can – but above all how he must – apprehend the tourist world. Consequently, it is because it imposes norms (behavioral and emotional) that the tourist experience thus conceived can be submitted to the curious exercise of sanction or to the test of success or failure which is ultimately not entirely self-evident in a more philosophical sense of experience. This makes it possible to ask the following question: under what conditions can one speak of an “unsuccessful” tourist experience? With regard to which framework can the tourist experience be conceived as being bad?

What is an unsuccessful tourist experience?

30 In order to show that experience is both external and internal to the subject, Barberousse uses the example of a burn: “pain caused by a burn can illustrate this mixed character of experience. It is indeed an external element which is the cause of my painful experience; and it is indeed my conscious, individual, subjective life that is affected by it” (1997: 11-12). Tourism and the tourist experience are also made, if not of burns, but of moments of friction and crisis that can sometimes be so intense that they challenge the very meaning of the tourist practice, or even challenge the integrity of the subject (Urbain, 2008).

31 If the specific case of negative tourist experience studied by Skipper, Carmichael and Doherty (2012) certainly does not lead tourists to the landof Urbain’s Absurdia, it is nonetheless interesting for its relatively banal character. The authors indeed addressed the issue of “harassment” of tourists visiting Jamaica, or more concretely the regular solicitations of hawkers on streets, public beaches or markets that provoke annoyances, irritations, displeasure and sometimes anger among tourists. The study is fertile in particular since it perceives these interactions as such serious dysfunctions that they can be considered as “harassment”. The attitude of the vendors is thus at once included in the more general category of “negative host behavior” which must be corrected, reframed or normalized. The authors accordingly conclude by explaining that the Jamaican government could – these are recommendations – develop programs aiming to enhance the understanding of the encounter between others and hosts, but also that it could take steps to “clean the streets by allowing sales in certain specific places”. From this point of view, an experience that is bad is always destined to being identified, neutralized and banished from tourist spaces.

32 This is easily understandable when one focuses on the general aims of the book which welcomes the contributions of Skipper, Carmichael and Doherty on “harassment ” in Jamaica. In the introduction to Chapter One, Sharpley and Stone explain this in these terms: “there is a permanent necessity to develop our understanding of the phenomenon ” [ of tourist experience ] “so that the needs and expectations of tourists may be better met ” (2012). This is also reflected in the introduction to the collective work by Prebenson, Chen and Uysal, which explains that tourism is an industry that must learn to respond to the hedonistic motivations of travel in order to help tourists fulfill their expectations (2014).

33 Generally speaking, if the tourist is perceived in terms of needs and expectations – in other words, if he is considered as a consumer –, it is easy to imagine that the experience of which he is the subject becomes the place of encounter for supply and demand, and that it therefore cannot afford to be “bad” (or deceptive) in any way. Thus, in all these approaches, experience only occurs because there is a supply and it is therefore only an experience of consumption of tourist products and services.

34 This is very clearly explained by Sharpley and Stone in the introduction to their collective work when they argue that there are two ways of conceptualizing the tourist experience. The first is to consider experience as “the set of services or experiences consumed by the tourist during a holiday or time away from home”; as such, the tourist experience can therefore be subject to the “management of experience” (Morgan et al. , 2010: xv).

35 The second way of conceptualizing the tourist experience is to consider that it defines “being a tourist”, as the authors explain, that is to say not only to consume a certain combination of “provided experiences”, but also to enter into a process of construction of the meaning of these experiences by relating them to his ordinary sociocultural life. In short, in these two cases, experience is necessarily circumscribed within the framework established by consumption.

36 To put it another way, the necessary condition for that experience to occur is that it takes place in the context of a mercantile exchange and can thus always be monetized or monetizable. Pressured by the dictate and the injunction for success, the tourist experience becomes the field for an optimization that is in the end always possible, sanctioned by the criterion of satisfaction, namely the evaluation of experience depending on the expectations or perceptions of tourists about what matters in their vacation (Major and McLeay, 2012). On a more macro scale, one could say that optimization is to such an extent a stake in these approaches to the tourist experience that one could come to wonder who really is the subject of experience: the tourist-consumer or the managers of the experience, continuously backing up their practice with the knowledge gained from the management sciences and that from the lessons learned from their own practices?

37 In any case, one understands that an experience can only be unsuccessful to the extent that it has been programmed to succeed. Now, if the tourist experience is conceived in the strictly mercantile context of consumption, it becomes evident that the experience fails when the experience (not of the other strictly speaking) of the consumption of the other does not seem to correspond to what the engineers of enchantment have previously identified as the “expectations” of these consumers that are tourists relatively to their consumption of the other; “expectations” that the tourism industry must fulfill through the configuration of its products and services. This is precisely what explains that experience, when it fails, must be submitted to this process of optimization of supply which leads certain authors to make recommendations to the local political authorities. The failure of a possible experience thus makes it possible to understand that the representation of this same experience is relatively restrictive since finally, it only concerns the tacit clauses of consumption whereas the tourist experience can go far beyond this framework. To convince us of this, let us make a final detour by visiting the notion of authenticity.

Can forms of inauthentic experiences exist?

38 The notion of authenticity (MacCannell, 1976) has often been covered by tourist studies. It continues to be applied nowadays to try to understand what is at stake in the tourist experience. It is particularly addressed when authenticity is gone or faints away. In this sense, authenticity shares something with the notion of tradition as defined by Pouillon (1991). I ndeed, the ethnologist explained that a tradition can exist only if it is ignored as such by those who live it. “Of a living tradition”, he wrote, “one does not speak” since it is “operative” but “unconscious”. For a tradition to be identified as traditional (or for it to become conscious), it must therefore have ceased to have the same social and symbolic operability. Thus, “the tradition one is conscious of is the tradition one no longer respects, or at least one is ready to leave behind”.

39 Similarly, authenticity, at least in the way it is studied through the varied research of tourist studies, seems to be addressed when, for one reason or another, is considered to have failed. Authenticity is thus the object of research from the moment one considers that it starts being performed or “staged ” (MacCannell, 1976). Often linked to the notion of simulacrum (Dubois and Schmitz, 2015, Aquilina and Mahéo, 2015), authenticity then clearly bears a certain representation of what the transformation of cultures is or should be as a socio-historical process: when it comes to authenticity, transformation is indeed experienced as a degradation of culture and sometimes of identity (Dubois and Schmitz 2015). Contaminated by globalized market logics, it dies out.

40 Yet, as Parent (2015) shows, the transformation of tradition into self-staging is not necessarily a process that must be considered as an impoverishment. Studying traditional music shows in the Seychelles, the author explains that the musicians who perform them are “generally conscious and concerned about the fact that they represent the local culture” (2015: 231). Referring to Bouju (2002), she explains that the tourist appropriation and the transformation of tradition she initiates can make it possible to enhance and build the local musical heritage.

41 Carpentier goes even further when studying community tourism in the Ecuadorian Amazon: “to judge the authenticity of a practice, even if it is staged”, writes the author, “appears totally illusory. The real question lies in the significance of the staging for the concerned populations and in the stakes involved” (2015: 304). She shows that self-staging can be considered by communities as a good way to improve their living conditions and politically, to integrate a globalized system (2015: 307).

42 By looking at these studies we do not intend to renew the debate on the effects (positive or negative) of tourism on identities and heritage. Our purpose is only to put forward the idea that, in the end, no matter which value judgment one makes on what tourism has to offer to its tourists (authenticity, inauthenticity, simulacrum, etc.) – no matter whether one thinks that the show is “adulterated” or not (Winkin, 2001: 220) –, it is important not to confuse the staging and the experience of this staging. In other words, there is no contiguity between the (in)authenticity of the staging and the eventual(in)authenticity of the experience.

43 The fact is that there can be no inauthentic tourist experiences, but only tourist experiences of the inauthentic: if the show is fabricated (no matter whether one considers that the staging is legitimate or not), the experience that one makes of it as a tourist cannot be a simulacrum.

44 This is what Brougère shows when he explains that “research on social tourism has highlighted the importance of wonder, largely related to seeing “for real” instead of through television; whether at a traditional chocolate factory or at a glass blower’s, what matters is contact, the presence of the body in space [...], to have been there more in the logic of reality than of authenticity. Indeed, the observations are similar when it comes to visiting a safari-like zoo with its “African village”. Here again, it is not the artificiality that is emphasized, but the relation with reality, the movement of a body in a bus, then on foot in the “African village” where one can buy souvenirs (another practice that involves the body)” (2015: 178).

1 The title refers to the transformation of the planet into some sort of Disneyland. (T.N.)

45 This is also what Brunel’s book “ La Planète disneylandisée 1 ” (2006), or some of the unsuccessful trips studied by Urbain (2008), showed. Even at times when the encounter with the other is deceptive – often because it indulges in a patent inauthenticity –, somewhat of an experience takes place for tourists. The experience can thus be a puppet artifact, it nevertheless remains an experience.

46 These moments of failure are therefore precious. The fact is, they allow us to ask ourselves the following question: if we fail to access the authenticity of the other when we travel, what is it, in the end, that we experience?

47 One can find a first lead to an answer in the study conducted by Pabion Mouriès on the analysis of the interactions between actors which she carried out on the figure of the Kyrgyz nomad (2015). In particular, it describes the Kyrgyz people who are hosts in the project initiated by the NGO Shepherd’s Life – for these hosts, the project consists in welcoming tourists in their yurts and introducing them to the “traditional” ways of life in the steppes –, know how to put on a performance in order to satisfy tourists. One of them, Nazira, explains that she knows precisely how to behave on a photograph: “I look at the horizon, I never look at the camera [ … ] . Tourists hate it when one strikes a pose [ … ] . They love what is natural, authentic. We must continue our daily activities, empty the guts of the sheep, spread our sheets, milk the mares, make the koumis” (2015: 317). This woman explains clearly that what she offers is not authenticity, but a certain type of authenticity defined by the way she grasps the framework of the tourist situation.

48 Let us recall that Goffman used to define the frameworks of the experience by saying that “insofar as a framework articulates our own reactions to the world and the world to which we react, the determination of what happens necessarily involves some reflexivity; in other words, the correct perception of a scene necessarily presupposes that the act of perception is an integral part of the scene” (1991: 95). Thus, when Nazira interacts with tourists, she explicitly mobilizes a framework of the tourist experience, the perception of which is an integral part of the scene.

49 If one accepts that the hosts, such as Nazira, integrate the framework into the way they show themselves, why not accept, equivalently, that the tourists also take it into account? Why, then, not to start thinking that what one experiences as a tourist is not the other properly speaking (whether staged or authentic), but the framework of the experience of the other?

50 The idea is particularly interesting when applied to the managerial approach to experience. If the experience only occurs on the condition that there is an offer, this means that the tourist-consumer experience is nothing more than the mercantile frameworks of the experience. Henceforth, the experience is no longer what the mercantile frameworks claim to give access to, but rather the devices themselves and the way in which they claim to give access to certain “cultures” or “facts of culture”. This seems to be confirmed in the book by Prebensen, Chen and Uysal (2014), which intends to renew the approach to the tourist experience through the notion of co-creation.

51 The authors indeed explain that it is now understood that the consumer is not a passive actor of the mercantile relationship. On the contrary, he co-produces and co-creates the services and goods which he consumes. The tourist industry must take note of this in order to develop services and goods that will be produced jointly by suppliers and consumers. The resulting tourist experience is strictly speaking one of co-creation. A question arises however: if tourists are valued as co-creators of experiences in this sort of case, when the experience fails for one reason or another, can the providers of co-created services blame the tourists? In other words: if one is a co-creator only when the initiative is a success, is one really a co-creator?

52 What tourists experience in a co-creation situation is therefore less the strictly speaking co-created product or service, than the very procedure of co-creation itself. If one wants to be cynical by following the view of Dujarier (2014), the tourist experience then proposed to tourists is one of a new ideology of consumption in which the externalization of certain production tasks has been diluted. In short, when it is circumscribed within the space opened and closed by consumption, the tourist experience appears as an experience of control of the experience whose characteristic would be that it engages in the experience itself in a similar way to Eco’s hyperreality (1985).

53 To conclude, there appears to be three main trends in defining the concept of tourist experience nowadays. The first is to apprehend it as a sort of equivalent of “ the tourist life of tourists ” . Experience then is the presupposition of the journey defining the mode of apprehension of everything that happens to the tourist on the occasion of his practice of the new horizons. More restricted, the second trend is processual. The tourist experience is then turned towards learning. Corporeal, it is an incorporation of the world by the transformation of its resources into knowledge. Finally, the third definition, even more restrictive, considers the tourist experience in a strictly mercantile dimension: experience is the moment that occurs when tourism is considered as a market and the products and services that constitute and construct it can be assessed under “ customer satisfaction ” .

54 This last definition is particularly interesting insofar as it accompanies what might be called “the secularization of the notion of experience”. Nowadays, consumption – whether touristic or not – is almost entirely “experiential”. In other words, experience has become a mass product that is traded on the marketing market: professionals of this market thus sell to their customers – to the brands – the promise that their consumers will have an “experience” by browsing the shelves of their supermarkets or placing an order on their website. This secular experience is valued on the professional market on the pretext that it is in the end a brand experience capable of producing differentiation in a competitive universe, and therefore of preference.

55 Yet this is not what is marketed towards consumers: the brands explain that they will make them have the experience of a memorable and multisensory moment which will have value in itself (hoping however that the memorial imprint left by the experience will work and will subsequently produce the expected preference).

56 In short, experience is increasingly turning into a mode of management of brands by themselves, containing its own communication model for consumers. This can also be noted in the marketing approach to the definition of the tourist experience, in which the management of the experience becomes a real stake. In this perspective, for the tourist, experience ultimately is a program for consumption yet destined to be carried out as if it were not one.

57 If the approaches to the tourist experience as a transformation of resources for the production of knowledge on one side and as a program of consumption on the other may seem contradictory, it yet seems to me that they match on one point: a tourist career – borrowing here the term used by Pearce and Caltabiano (1983) – is also a consumer career from the moment one considers tourism as a practice of consumption. The tourist experience thus in fact appears to be a consumption experience and, when conceived in terms of long-term career, it highlights the fact that, as a tourist, one develops knowledge relative to each new situation of tourist consumption that one encounters and configures.

58 Being a tourist thus finally appears to develop communicative skills through the experience that one makes of the frameworks of the tourist experience as a mode of management of the brands of tourism.

Bibliographie

Aquilina, Manuelle et Mahéo, Claire. « Le Morbihan Tour: une stratégie de destination par l’expérience touristique est-elle efficace ? », In Le Tourisme comme expérience. Regards interdisciplinaires sur le vécu touristique , edited by Jean-Michel Decroly, Montréal: Presses Universitaires du Québec, 2015.

Barberousse, Anouk. 1997. L’Expérience . Paris: Garnier Flammarion, 1997.

Barthes, Roland. Les Mythologies . Paris: Le Seuil, 1957.

Bolan, Peter; Boyd, Stephen et Bell, Jim. « ‘We’ce seen it in the movies, let’s see if it’s true’: Motivation, authenticity and displacement in the film-induced tourism experience », In Contemporary tourist experience: concepts and consequence , edited ny Richard Sharpley et Philip R. Stone, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2012 [ ebook ] .

Bouju, Jacky. « Se dire dogon: usages et enjeux politiques de l’identité ethnique », Ethnographies comparées, 5, 2002 [accessible en lige: http://recherche.univ-montp3.fr/cerce/r5/j.b.htm , consulté pour la dernière fois le 04/03/2017].

Boutaud, Jean-Jacques et Veron, Eliseo. Sémiotique ouverte. Paris: Lavoisier, 2008.

Bourdieu, Pierre. Un art moyen. Essai sur les usages sociaux de la photographie. Paris: Minuit, 1965.

Brougère, Gilles. « Le corps, vecteur de l’apprentissage touristique », In Le Tourisme comme expérience. Regards interdisciplinaires sur le vécu touristique , edited by Jean-Michel Decroly, Montréal: Presses Universitaires du Québec, 2015.

Brunel, Sylvie. La Planète disneylandisée . Paris: Sciences humaines, 2006.

Carpentier, Julie. « Le tourisme communautaire en Amazonie équatorienne: une vaste scène théâtrale ? », In Le Tourisme comme expérience. Regards interdisciplinaires sur le vécu touristique , edited by Jean-Michel Decroly, Montréal: Presses Universitaires du Québec, 2015.

Certeau Michel de. L’Invention du quotidien: arts de faire . Paris: 10/18, 1980.

Cinotti, Yves. « De l’hospitalité à l’expérience: écrits comparés des touristes dans les maisons d’hôtes et les hôtels », In Le Tourisme comme expérience. Regards interdisciplinaires sur le vécu touristique , edited by Jean-Michel Decroly, Montréal: Presses Universitaires du Québec, 2015.

Cohen, Erik. « A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences », Sociology , 13-2 (1979): 179-201.

Condevaux, Aurélie. « Rencontres touristiques polynésiennes », In Le Tourisme comme expérience. Regards interdisciplinaires sur le vécu touristique , edited by Jean-Michel Decroly, Montréal: Presses Universitaires du Québec, 2015.

Davallon, Jean. L’Exposition à l’œuvre. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2000.

Decroly, Jean-Michel (dir.). Le tourisme comme expérience. Regards interdisciplinaires sur le vécu touristique . Montréal: Presses de l’Université du Québec, 2015.

Dubet, François. Sociologie de l’expérience . Paris: Le Seuil, 1994.

Dubois, Charline et Schmitz, Serge. « Le tourisme à la ferme: une expérience authentique ou un simulacre ? », In Le Tourisme comme expérience. Regards interdisciplinaires sur le vécu touristique , edited by Jean-Michel Decroly, Montréal: Presses Universitaires du Québec, 2015.

Dujarier, Marie-Anne. Le Travail du consommateur . Paris: La Découverte, 2014.

Eco, Umberto. La Guerre du faux . Paris: Grasset, 1985.

Equipe MIT. Tourismes 1. Lieux communs . Paris: Belin, 2002.

Erdely, Jennifer L. « Volonteer tourists’ experiences and sens of place: New Orleans », In Contemporary tourist experience: concepts and consequence , edited ny Richard Sharpley et Philip R. Stone, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2012 [ ebook ] .

Fijalkow, Ygal ; Jalaudin, Christophe et Lalanne, Michèle. « La mesure de l’expérience touristique par l’engagement, l’indifférence et l’évitement des populations locales », In Le Tourisme comme expérience. Regards interdisciplinaires sur le vécu touristique , edited by Jean-Michel Decroly, Montréal: Presses Universitaires du Québec, 2015.

Filep, Sebastian et Pearce, Philip (dir). Tourist experience and fulfilment: Insights from positive psychology . Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2013 [ebook].

Goffman, Erving. Les Cadres de l’expérience . Paris: Minuit, 1991 (1974).

Henning, Graham K. « The habit of tourism: Experiences and their ontological meaning », In Contemporary tourist experience: concepts and consequence , edited ny Richard Sharpley et Philip R. Stone, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2012 [ ebook ] .

Holbrook, Morris B. et Hirschman, Elizabeth C. « The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun », Journal of Consumer Research , 9-2 (1982): 132-140.

Jaurand, Emmanuel. « Le nudisme gai: une expérience touristique identitaire », In Le Tourisme comme expérience. Regards interdisciplinaires sur le vécu touristique , edited by Jean-Michel Decroly, Montréal: Presses Universitaires du Québec, 2015.

Jauss, Hans Robert. Pour une esthétique de la réception. Paris: Gallimard, 1978.

Kadri, Boualem et Bondarenko, Maria. « L’expérience touristique: la complexité conceptuelle et le pragmatisme de la mise en scène », In Le Tourisme comme expérience. Regards interdisciplinaires sur le vécu touristique , edited by Jean-Michel Decroly, Montréal: Presses Universitaires du Québec, 2015.

Korneliussen, Tor. « Tourist Information Search: A DIY Approach to Creating Experience Value », in Creating experience value in tourism , edited by, Nina. K. Prebensen, Joseph S. Chen, et Muzaffer Uysal, Wallingford: CABI Publishing, 2014 [ ebook ] .

Larsen, Jacob R. Kirkegaard et Laursen, Lea Holst. « Family place experience and the making of places in holiday home destinations », In Contemporary tourist experience: concepts and consequence , edited ny Richard Sharpley et Philip R. Stone, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2012 [ ebook ] .

MacCannell, Dean. The Tourist . New York: Schocken Books, 1976.

Major, Bridget et McLeay, Fraser. « The UK ‘grey’ market’s holiday experience », In Contemporary tourist experience: concepts and consequence , edited ny Richard Sharpley et Philip R. Stone, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2012 [ ebook ] .

Matteucci, Xavier. « Experiencing flamenco: an examination of a spiritual journey », In Tourist experience and fulfilment: Insights from positive psychology , edited by Sebastian Filep et Philip Pearce, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2013 [ ebook ] .

Morgan, Michael ; Lugosi, Peter et Ritchie, Brent J. R. The Tourism and Leisure Experience: Consumer and Managerial Perspectives. Clevedon: Channel View Publications, 2010.

Pabion Mouriès, Johanne. « La figure du nomade kirghize: analyse des enjeux d’acteurs et des recompositions identitaires sur le marché touristique au Kirghizstan (Asie centrale) », In Le Tourisme comme expérience. Regards interdisciplinaires sur le vécu touristique , edited by Jean-Michel Decroly, Montréal: Presses Universitaires du Québec, 2015.

Panchal, Jenny. « Tourism, wellness and feeling good: reviewing and studying Asian spa experiences », In Tourist experience and fulfilment: Insights from positive psychology , edited by Sebastian Filep et Philip Pearce, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2013 [ ebook ] .

Parent, Marie-Christine. « La mise en tourisme du patrimoine musical aux Seychelles », In Le Tourisme comme expérience. Regards interdisciplinaires sur le vécu touristique , edited by Jean-Michel Decroly, Montréal: Presses Universitaires du Québec, 2015.

Pearce, Philip et Caltabiano, Marie. « Inferring travel motivation from travelers’ experiences  », Journal of Travel Research , 22-2 (1983): 16–20.

Pouillon, Jean. « Tradition », In Dictionnaire de l’Ethnologie et de l’Anthropologie, edited by Pierre Bonté et Michel Izard, Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1991.

Prebensen, Nina. K.; Chen, Joseph S. et Uysal, Muzaffer. Creating experience value in tourism . Wallingford: CABI Publishing, 2014. [ ebook ] .

Quinlan Cutler, Sarah et Carmichael, Barbara. « Dimensions of the tourist experience », In The Tourism and Leisure Experience: Consumer and Managerial Perspectives, edited by Michael Morgan, Peter Lugosi et Brent J. R. Ritchie, Clevedon: Channel View Publications, 2010.

Saunders, Rob; Laing, Jennifer et Weiler, Betty. « Personal transformation through long-distance walking », In Tourist experience and fulfilment: Insights from positive psychology , edited by Sebastian Filep et Philip Pearce, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2013 [ ebook ] .

Simon, Gwendal. « L’expérience urbaine des touristes: une approche relationnelle avec les objets du monde urbain », In Le Tourisme comme expérience. Regards interdisciplinaires sur le vécu touristique , edited by Jean-Michel Decroly, Montréal: Presses Universitaires du Québec, 2015.

Sharpley, Richard et Stone Philip R. (dir.). Contemporary tourist experience: concepts and consequence . Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2012 [ ebook ] .

Skipper, Tiffanie L. ; Carmichael, Barbara A. et Doherty, Sean. « Tourism harassment experiences in Jamaica », In Contemporary tourist experience: concepts and consequence , edited ny Richard Sharpley et Philip R. Stone, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2012 [ ebook ] .

Smed, Karina. « Identity in tourist motivation and the dynamics of meangin », In Contemporary tourist experience: concepts and consequence , edited ny Richard Sharpley et Philip R. Stone, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2012 [ ebook ] .

Taheri, Babak et Jafari, Aliakbar. «  Museums as playful venues in the leisure society  », In Contemporary tourist experience: concepts and consequence , edited ny Richard Sharpley et Philip R. Stone, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2012 [ ebook ] .

Urbain, Jean-Didier. L’Envie du monde . Paris: Bréal, 2011.

Urbain, Jean-Didier. L’Expérience était presque parfaite. Paris: Payot & Rivages, 2008.

Winkin, Yves. « Propositions pour une anthropologie de l’enchantement », In Unité-diversité: les identités culturelles dans le jeu de la mondialisation , edited by Paul Rasse, Nancy Midol et Fathi Triki, Paris: L’Harmattan, 2002.

Winkin, Yves. « Le touriste et son double », In Anthropologie de la communication. De la théorie au terrain , Paris: Le Seuil, 2001.

Witsel, Mieke. « Walking the talk: positive effects of worl-related travel on tourism academics », In Tourist experience and fulfilment: Insights from positive psychology , edited by Sebastian Filep et Philip Pearce, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2013 [ ebook ] .

Yüksel, Atila et Yanik, Akan. « Co-creation of Value and Social Media: How? », in Creating experience value in tourism , edited by, Nina. K. Prebensen, Joseph S. Chen, et Muzaffer Uysal, Wallingford: CABI Publishing, 2014 [ ebook ] .

Zeitler, André et Barbier, Jean-Marie. « La notion d’expérience, entre langage savant et langage ordinaire », Recherche & Formation, La construction de l’expérience, 70, 2012, [accessible en ligne: https://rechercheformation.revues.org/1885  ; consulté pour la dernière fois le 04/03/17].

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique.

Hécate Vergopoulos , «  The tourist experience: an experience of the frameworks of the tourist experience?  », Via [En ligne], 10 | 2016, mis en ligne le 01 décembre 2016, consulté le 26 mars 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/viatourism/1352 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/viatourism.1352

Hécate Vergopoulos

Assistant Professor CELSA - Université Paris-Sorbonne Groupe de recherches interdisciplinaires sur les processus d’information et de communication laboratory

Articles du même auteur

• L'effraction ou le sentiment hétérotopique en situation touristique [Texte intégral] Une étude de deux cas limites de sortie du tourisme Breaking and entering, or a feeling of heterotopia in tourism situations [Texte intégral | traduction | en] A study of two borderline tourism cases Einbrechen oder das Gefühl der Heterotopieim Kontext des Tourismus [Texte intégral | traduction | de] Eine Studie über zwei Grenzfälle des Ausstiegs aus dem Tourismus Paru dans Via , 9 | 2016
• Anecdotes et imaginaires touristiques [Texte intégral] Anecdotes and Tourism Imaginaries [Texte intégral | traduction | en] L’infimo culturale e l’immaginario turistico - L’aneddoto nelle guide di viaggio [Texte intégral | traduction | it] Paru dans Via , 1 | 2012

Jean-Michel Decroly

IGEAT – DGES – Université Libre de Bruxelles

Droits d’auteur

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 . Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Numéros en texte intégral

• 24 | 2023 Les destinations lune de miel : l’apparence et l’envers du décor
• 23 | 2023 Tourisme et imaginaires musicaux
• 22 | 2022 (Mega)Evénements urbains et tourisme : pratiques touristiques et organisation spatiale
• 21 | 2022 Tourisme et biopolitique
• 20 | 2021 Tourisme religieux
• 19 | 2021 Tourismes et géopolitiques
• 18 | 2020 Ré-invention des territoires touristiques dans les stations des Alpes
• 17 | 2020 Le paysage comme ressource touristique des espaces ruraux. Perspectives de l’Asie du Sud et du Sud-Est
• 16 | 2019 Le tourisme à l'épreuve des paradigmes post et décoloniaux
• 15 | 2019 Tourisme et paix, une alliance incertaine en Colombie
• 14 | 2018 Représentations du tourisme au cinéma
• 13 | 2018 Questions conceptuelles dans le champ du tourisme
• 11-12 | 2017 L'érotisation des lieux touristiques
• 10 | 2016 Expériences touristiques
• 9 | 2016 Aux marges du tourisme : utopies et réalités du tourisme hors des sentiers battus
• 8 | 2015 Varia
• 7 | 2015 Le Brésil, le Tourisme au-delà du Carnaval
• 6 | 2014 Varia
• 4-5 | 2014 Patrimoine mondial tourisme et développement durable en Afrique
• 3 | 2013 Varia
• 2 | 2012 Tourisme et dynamiques identitaires
• 1 | 2012 Les imaginaires touristiques

Tous les numéros

• Présentation
• Institutions partenaires
• Recommandations aux auteurs
• Procédure d’évaluation en double aveugle
• Code éthique
• Liste des évaluateurs Via Tourism Review

Appels à contribution

• Appels en cours
• Appels clos

Informations

• Crédits du site
• Politiques de publication

Suivez-nous

Lettres d’information

• La Lettre d’OpenEdition

Affiliations/partenaires

ISSN électronique 2259-924X

Voir la notice dans le catalogue OpenEdition  

Plan du site  – Contact  – Crédits du site  – Flux de syndication

Politique de confidentialité  – Gestion des cookies  – Signaler un problème

Nous adhérons à OpenEdition Journals  – Édité avec Lodel  – Accès réservé

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search

Design Science in Tourism pp 17–29 Cite as

Tourism Experience and Tourism Design

• Jeongmi (Jamie) Kim 5 &
• Daniel R. Fesenmaier 5  
• First Online: 05 October 2016

3139 Accesses

17 Citations

Part of the book series: Tourism on the Verge ((TV))

This chapter argues that experiences are dynamic and emotional in nature and should be conceptualized as a series of ‘micro-events’ during the trip. Further, the advent of new sensor technology provides new tools for understanding the ways in which these experiences—events are perceived and the meanings created hold great promise in addressing a number of critical questions empowering the design of tourism places. We then describe traveler experiences through a series of case studies.

• Tourism experience
• Physiological response
• Tourism design

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Aho, S. K. (2001). Towards a general theory of touristic experiences: Modelling experience process in tourism. Tourism Review, 56 (3/4), 33–37.

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Bagozzi, R. P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. U. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (2), 184–206.

Barrett, L. F. (2006). Solving the emotion paradox: Categorization and the experience of emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10 (1), 20–46.

Bigne, J. E., & Andreu, L. (2004). Emotions in segmentation: An empirical study. Annals of Tourism Research, 31 (3), 682–696.

Bigné, J., Mattila, A. S., & Andreu, L. (2008). The impact of experiential consumption cognitions and emotions on behavioral intentions. Journal of Services Marketing, 22 (4), 303–315.

Bradley, M. M. (2009). Natural selective attention: Orienting and emotion. Psychophysiology, 46 (1), 1–11.

Carù, A., & Cova, B. (2003). Revisiting consumption experience a more humble but complete view of the concept. Marketing Theory, 3 (2), 267–286.

Chronis, A. (2006). Heritage of the senses: Collective remembering as an embodied praxis. Tourist Studies, 6 (3), 267–296.

Clore, G. L., & Huntsinger, J. R. (2007). How emotions inform judgment and regulate thought. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11 (9), 393–399.

Craig, A. D. (2002). How do you feel? Interoception: The sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3 (8), 655–666.

Craig, A. D. (2009). How do you feel—now? The anterior insula and human awareness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10 , 59–70.

Damasio, A. R. (2000). The feeling of what happens: Body, emotion and the making of consciousness . New York: Random House.

Google Scholar  

Davidson, J., & Milligan, C. (2004). Embodying emotion sensing space: Introducing emotional geographies. Social & Cultural Geography, 5 (4), 523–532.

del Bosque, I. R., & Martin, H. S. (2008). Tourist satisfaction a cognitive-affective model. Annals of Tourism Research, 35 (2), 551–573.

Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience . New York: Penguin Books.

Dubé, L., & Morgan, M. S. (1998). Capturing the dynamics of in-process consumption emotions and satisfaction in extended service transactions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15 (4), 309–320.

Ek, R., Larsen, J., Hornskov, S. B., & Mansfeldt, O. K. (2008). A dynamic framework of tourist experiences: Space‐time and performances in the experience economy. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8 (2), 122–140.

Ellsworth, P. C., & Scherer, K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In Handbook of affective sciences (p. 572, V595).

Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43 (5), 349.

Gardner, E. P., & Martin, J. H. (2000). Coding of sensory information. Principles of Neural Science, 4 , 411–429.

Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Goldstein, E. (2010). Sensation and perception . Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

Graham, J. M. (2008). Self-expansion and flow in couples’ momentary experiences: An experience sampling study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (3), 679.

Gretzel, U., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2003). Experience-based internet marketing: An exploratory study of sensory experiences associated with pleasure travel to the Midwest United States. In A. Frew, M. Hitz, & P. O’Connor (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism (pp. 49–57). Vienna: Springer.

Gretzel, U., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2010). Capturing sensory experiences through semi-structured elicitation questions. In M. Morgan, L. Lugosi, & J. R. B. Ritchie (Eds.), The tourism and leisure experience: Consumer and managerial perspectives (pp. 137–160). Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetics: Principles of pleasure in design. Psychology Science, 48 (2), 157.

Hoch, S. J., & Loewenstein, G. F. (1991). Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 17 , 492–507.

Hosany, S. (2012). Appraisal determinants of tourist emotional responses. Journal of Travel Research, 51 (3), 303–314.

Hosany, S., & Gilbert, D. (2010). Measuring tourists’ emotional experiences toward hedonic holiday destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 49 (4), 513–526.

Izard, C. E. (2009). Emotion theory and research: Highlights, unanswered questions, and emerging issues. Annual Review of Psychology, 60 , 1.

James, W. (1981). The principles of psychology . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Originally work published 1890).

Jung, C. G. (1981). The archetypes and the collective unconscious (No. 20) . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kang, M., & Gretzel, U. (2012). Effects of podcast tours on tourist experiences in a national park. Tourism Management, 33 (2), 440–455.

Kim, J. J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2015). Measuring emotions in real time implications for tourism experience design. Journal of Travel Research, 54 (4), 419–429.

Kleinginna, P. R., Jr., & Kleinginna, A. M. (1981). A categorized list of emotion definitions, with suggestions for a consensual definition. Motivation and Emotion, 5 (4), 345–379.

Krishna, A. (2012). An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (3), 332–351.

Kuppens, P. (2015). It’s about time: A special section on affect dynamics. Emotion Review, 7 (4), 297–300.

Lindberg, F., Hansen, A. H., & Eide, D. (2014). A multirelational approach for understanding consumer experiences within tourism. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 23 (5), 487–512.

Lockwood, T. (2010). Design thinking: Integrating innovation, customer experience, and brand value . New York: Skyhorse Publishing.

Lubart, T. I., & Getz, I. (1998). The influence of heuristics on psychological science: A case study of research on creativity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 28 (4), 435–457.

Mannell, R. C., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1987). Psychological nature of leisure and tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 14 (3), 314–331.

Nath, S. (2004, September). Narrativity in user action: emotion and temporal configurations of narrative . In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Semiotics for Games and New Media (COSIGN’04).

Pine, J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 76 (4), 97–105.

Poulsson, S. H., & Kale, S. H. (2004). The experience economy and commercial experiences. The Marketing Review, 4 (3), 267–277.

Roseman, I. J., Spindel, M. S., & Jose, P. E. (1990). Appraisals of T emotion-eliciting events: Testing a theory of discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 , 899–915.

Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110 (1), 145.

Sandström, S., Edvardsson, B., Kristensson, P., & Magnusson, P. (2008). Value in use through service experience. Managing Service Quality, 18 (2), 112–126.

Schmitt, B. (1999). Experiential marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 15 (1–3), 53–67.

Sørensen, J. (2008). Measuring emotions in a consumer decision-making context–approaching or avoiding (20, pp. 1–41). Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.

Strauss, M., Reynolds, C., Hughes, S., Park, K., McDarby, G., & Picard, R. W. (2005). The handwave bluetooth skin conductance sensor. In Affective computing and intelligent interaction (pp. 699–706). Berlin: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Svabo, C., Larsen, J., Haldrup, M., & Berenholdt, J. O. (2013). Experiencing spatial design. In J. Sundbo & F. Sørensen (Eds.), Handbook on the experience economy (pp. 310–324). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Takatalo, J., Miller, D., & Häkkinen, J. (2013, March). Experience, engagement, and Shikake . In AAAI Spring Symposium: Shikakeology.

Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Tussyadiah, I. P., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2009). Mediating tourist experiences: Access to places via shared videos. Annals of Tourism Research, 36 (1), 24–40.

Tussyadiah, I. P., & Zach, F. J. (2012). The role of geo-based technology in place experiences. Annals of Tourism Research, 39 (2), 780–800.

Volo, S. (2009). Conceptualizing experience: A tourist based approach. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 18 (2–3), 111–126.

Wilhelm, F. H., & Grossman, P. (2010). Emotions beyond the laboratory: Theoretical fundaments, study design, and analytic strategies for advanced ambulatory assessment. Biological psychology, 84 (3), 552–569.

Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American psychologist, 35 (2), 151.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Jeongmi (Jamie) Kim & Daniel R. Fesenmaier

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel R. Fesenmaier .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

Daniel R. Fesenmaier

Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

Zheng Xiang

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Kim, J.(., Fesenmaier, D.R. (2017). Tourism Experience and Tourism Design. In: Fesenmaier, D., Xiang, Z. (eds) Design Science in Tourism. Tourism on the Verge. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42773-7_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42773-7_2

Published : 05 October 2016

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-42771-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-42773-7

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

What makes tourist experiences interesting.

• 1 Department of Psychosocial Science, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
• 2 Norwegian School of Hotel Management, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

Traditional tourist role theory implies that tourists are either novelty seekers or familiarity seekers, while the interaction-hypothesis-of-inherent-interest predicts that interestingness is maximal when novel and familiar elements simultaneously are present in the experience. This paper tests these conflicting theoretical perspectives in three large surveys. In Study 1 ( N = 1,029), both novelty and familiarity seeking tourists were asked about how interesting it would be for them to meet tourists from their home country (familiar) or from a foreign country (unfamiliar), either at home (familiar) or abroad (unfamiliar). Study 2 ( N = 760) asked tourists to indicate the interestingness of well-known (familiar) and unknown (unfamiliar) sights at home (familiar) and abroad (unfamiliar) in familiarity seekers and novelty seekers alike. Study 3 ( N = 1,526) was a field experiment were tourists rated interestingness of familiar and unfamiliar attractions in familiar and unfamiliar surroundings for either themselves or for other tourists. Results show that perceived interestingness of tourist experiences depends on a combination of familiarity and novelty, for both familiarity seekers and novelty seekers. These results therefore are supportive of the interaction-hypothesis-of-inherent-interest; seemingly cognitive factors are better predictors of interestingness of tourist experiences than personality is.

Introduction

Understanding the tourist experience has been a major scholarly task for as long as tourism research has existed. Various social sciences, such as, for example, sociology (e.g., Cohen, 1972 , 1979 ; Crompton, 1979 ; MacCannell, 1999 ; Uriely, 2005 ), social anthropology and ethnology (e.g., Graburn, 1983 ; Yiannakis and Gibson, 1992 ; MacCannell, 1999 ; O’Dell, 2007 ; Selstad, 2007 ), marketing and economics, (e.g., Andersson, 2007 ; Mossberg, 2007 ), and psychology (e.g., Mannell and Iso-Ahola, 1987 ; Pearce and Stringer, 1991 ; Vittersø et al., 2000 , 2001 ; Larsen, 2007 ) have approached the tourist experience under a plethora of headlines, based on different types of data (or, sometimes with no systematic data), with a number of aims and contents, and with rampant methodological flexibility.

But it is still safe to say that tourist experiences are under researched ( Yiannakis and Gibson, 1992 ; Larsen et al., 2007 , 2017 ; Pearce and Packer, 2012 ) and only rudimentarily understood. This may partly be because tourism studies are inherently multi-disciplinary. It may well be that the disciplines do not always understand each other ( Pearce and Packer, 2012 ). Also, disciplines focus on different aspects of “experiences,” levels of analysis differ, methodologies differ, technical terms differ and may imply different meanings, and the social sciences vary concerning what kind of data and research designs are acceptable ( Larsen et al., 2017 ). The way toward a unified theory of tourist experiences seems to be hampered with ontological as well as epistemological problems, both between and within disciplines.

The present paper therefore sets out to test two opposing perspectives on the tourist experience derived from sociology ( Cohen, 1972 ) and cognitive psychology ( Teigen, 1985a , b , c , 1987 ), with the aim of comparing these perspectives in terms of their predictions. On the one hand, the sociological model ( Cohen, 1972 ) predicts that tourists are different from each other in terms of their tourist roles; some tourists are novelty seekers and some are familiarity seekers. On the other hand, the cognitive psychological model ( Teigen, 1985a , b , c , 1987 ) predicts that people, no matter their tourist role orientation, are inherently similar in terms of what constitutes an “interesting tourist experience.” This cognitive model challenges the dichotomy of novelty and familiarity in claiming that general psychological processes underlie the experience of interestingness, not individual differences in tourist role orientations or in tourists’ preferences. Knowledge about which perspective makes the best predictions is inherently important for theory-development within psychology. In addition, if the tourist industry has sound knowledge of what the generic aspects of interestingness are, then customization of tourist products and services may be improved ( Larsen, 2007 ).

Literature Review

Traditional tourist role theory (e.g., Cohen, 1972 , 1979 ; Snepenger, 1987 ; Yiannakis and Gibson, 1992 ; Mo et al., 1993 ) maintains that familiarity and novelty are opposites on a preference continuum. According to this model, tourists are either predominantly novelty seekers or predominantly familiarity seekers. Cohen (1972) emphasizes that tourists can be classified according to their degree of institutionalization. The “drifter,” who is characterized by his/her experimental mode of traveling which highlights his/her seek for novelty in relative strange environments, is the most independent of all the tourists in Cohen’s taxonomy, while the least novelty seeking tourist in this scheme is the “institutionalized mass tourist.”

In another seminal paper, Cohen (1979) once more proposes a descriptive scheme where five types of tourist groups are suggested. Such groups represent a number of modes of experiences which allocate individuals in segments of tourists varying from those who are mere recreation seeking to those who search for an existential meaning based on a hypothesized “center” which in one way or another resides in peoples’ minds. Snepenger (1987) and Mo et al. (1993) found some support for Cohen’s (1972) model, while Yiannakis and Gibson (1992) also found empirical evidence for the four roles of the Cohen (1972) scheme, in addition to several other tourist roles. Lepp and Gibson (2003) stated that tourists can be classified according to the degree of novelty and familiarity sought, thus highlighting that novelty seeking constitutes a motive in itself. In this line of thinking, the motive of novelty seeking represents the opposite of the familiarity seeking motive. Similar perspectives can be found in many publications within the literature on tourist roles and tourist motivation (e.g., Crompton, 1979 ; Gilbert, 1991 ; Yiannakis and Gibson, 1992 ; Elsrud, 2001 ; Lepp and Gibson, 2003 ).

A more recent study Hwang and Hyun (2016) found that luxury cruise passengers’ perception of cruise lines’ innovativeness (which can be seen as a proxy for novelty) is an important factor influencing various aspects of cruise travelers’ experience in the luxury market. Li et al. (2015) found that sensation seeking was a personality characteristic impacting tourist roles in as much as they asserted that sensation seekers would be more inclined to become independent tourists. These results imply that from the tourist role perspective, people are inherently different from each other in systematic ways that allows for the segmentation of customers according to a psychographic scheme ( Snepenger, 1987 ). The tourist role perspective therefore predicts that tourists are either inclined to be novelty (sensation) seekers or familiarity seekers ( Mo et al., 1993 ).

The interaction-hypothesis-of-interest however states that inherent interestingness of a given situation will be maximal for everyone when novel and familiar elements are present at the same time ( Teigen, 1987 ). In other words, this theory predicts that no matter the personality of the tourist, interestingness is a function of interpretations of the stimulus situation, in our case the tourist destination, the tourist attraction or more generally the tourists’ on-line experience. In a series of experiments, Teigen addressed informativeness of verbal information ( Teigen, 1985a ), preferences for news as a function of familiarity ( Teigen, 1985b ), sources of interest in verbal information ( Teigen, 1985c ), and the interaction of novelty and familiarity for intrinsic interest ( Teigen, 1987 ). These experimental studies jointly demonstrated that inherent interest is a function of the interplay of novelty and familiarity. For example, subjects expressed more interest for news about familiar themes than unfamiliar themes, and they preferred to learn news about familiar countries more than about unfamiliar countries. In addition, in the third experiment reported by Teigen (1987) , the focus was on a social encounter; that is, meeting a (familiar/non-familiar) tourist on a destination, which varied on the familiarity/non-familiarity dimension. Results indicated that the less familiar the imagined destination was, the stronger the subjects preferred meeting familiar others. In a similar vein of thinking, Yiannakis and Gibson (1992) hinted that “the location of a particular tourist role… indicates the optimal balance of stimulation-tranquillity, familiarity-strangeness and structure-independence” (p. 299), but their data were used to locate individuals to various tourist roles in a multidimensional space. It was in other words the tourists who were allocated to various roles, not the generic aspects of the experience that was studied.

Surprisingly, Teigen’s (1985a , b , c , 1987) studies have not had much impact on the academic tourism literature (with the exception of Noone et al., 2009 ). This may partly be due to the fact that Teigen’s work was published in generic psychology journals. Such journals are seemingly not often consulted by tourism scholars, maybe because these journals are considered to be too technical, too limited in scope, too often based on experimental data (which some tourism scholars even judge to be of little value), and too generic and thus of limited relevance for the interdisciplinary studies of tourism and tourists. But, as Pearce and Packer (2012) underline “…the breadth and intense scrutiny of human behaviour and experience undertaken within psychology” (p. 386) represents a vast resource and a challenge for tourism scholars, a standpoint which is in line with the assumptions underlying the current study.

Research Aims

The present research represents an attempt at testing the predictions of tourist role theory against the predictions of the interaction hypothesis of inherent interestingness. While tourist role theory predicts that people are inherently different from each other in what makes experiences interesting for them, the interaction hypothesis predicts that interestingness is a function of aspects of the experience, no matter who the individual is. Figure 1 shows the predictions made by these two theoretical perspectives.

Figure 1 . Predictions of interestingness by tourist role theory and interaction hypotheses.

As can be seen from Figure 1 , predictions are opposite in these two perspectives. Tourist role theory predicts that situations containing a combination of high and low familiarity will be least interesting for both familiarity and novelty seekers, while the interaction perspective predicts that it is exactly these two conditions that will be the most interesting for all tourists. Consequently, it seems reasonable to put these two perspectives to the test: which makes the best predictions?

Three studies were undertaken. The studies were designed so that tourist role theory and inherent interest hypothesis would predict differential outcomes. Study 1 tested whether novelty seekers prefer to meet foreigners abroad (maximum novelty) while familiarity seekers prefer to meet compatriots at home (maximum familiarity), or whether all tourists prefer to meet compatriots abroad and foreigners at home (combination of novel and familiar stimuli). Study 2 validated the concept of interestingness. In addition, Study 2 planned to replicate the finding in Study 1 concerning preferences of tourists with various tourist role orientations. In Study 3, an attempt was made at removing tourists’ self-perception as being less institutionalized and more novelty seeking than other tourists ( Prebensen et al., 2003 ; Doran et al., 2018 ) from the responses. Therefore it was hypothesized that when judging what is interesting for other tourists, tourists would judge a combination of novelty and familiarity of the experience to be most interesting and attractive.

Study 1: Interestingness of Social Interaction

In accordance with the predictions of the interaction hypothesis of inherent interest, in Study 1, it was hypothesized that tourists would find it more interesting to meet a compatriot in an unknown place than in their home country. It was also expected that meeting a foreign tourist would be more interesting in a more familiar setting. We also tested whether tourists high on the novelty seeking motive differed from those low in this motive in terms of what they judged interesting in social encounters, which is the prediction of tourist role theory.

Materials and Methods

Following the procedures indicated by Larsen et al. (2011) , tourists were approached in “low threshold” places; that is, spaces that many tourists would “want to visit… and that none would be excluded for resource reasons, e.g., disabilities, high prices etc.” (p. 695), such as, for example, Mount Fløyen, the Tourist Information Office and the Fish Market in Bergen. Potential respondents were asked if they were on vacation, and if so, if they would be willing to fill in a questionnaire concerning “various aspects of being a tourist.” The questionnaire was two pages long, and it took some 5 min to fill it in. Standard background questions, such as age, gender, and nationality, were asked, in addition to focus questions where novelty and familiarity were manipulated (high and low familiarity of place and of social interaction). No monetary or other compensation was given for participation.

Questionnaire

Inherent interest was measured by asking participants how interesting it would be for them to meet a tourist from Norway in “your home country,” Norway, Spain, Australia, and China, all measured on 7-point scales anchored by “Not interesting” (1) and “Very interesting” (7). To distinguish between familiarity and novelty seekers , three items addressing preference for “unorganized” and “organized” trips were used in accordance with the assumptions of Cohen’s tourist role scheme ( Cohen, 1972 , 1979 ). The items had the following form; “When I travel to…” (1) “…an exotic destination for the first time I prefer,” (2) “…to an exotic destination I have visited before I prefer,” and (3) “…to a destination I know well from before I prefer.” The preferences were indicated on 7-point scales anchored by “Unorganized individual trips” (1) and “Organized group trips” (7). The three items were treated as a scale ( α = 0.78), and the quartile of the respondents scoring lowest on the scale were categorized as novelty seekers ( n = 289), while the respondents with scores on the upper quartile ( n = 271) were grouped as familiarity seekers. The remaining respondents ( n = 469) scored in the mid-category (neither novelty nor familiarity seekers) and were thus excluded from the analyses concerning differences between novelty and familiarity seekers.

Participants

Of some 1,200 approached tourists, 1,029 agreed to fill in the questionnaire. The respondents represented 52 nations, 49.1% were female and 49.1% male (1.8% did not answer the gender item). In addition to participants from countries investigated by questionnaire items concerning the target issues, respondents from countries with more than 40 respondents (i.e., USA, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands) were also included in the data analysis.

Table 1 shows how interesting tourists from Scandinavia (i.e., Norway, Sweden, and Denmark), Spain, Australia, China, USA, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands would find it to meet tourists from their home country in their home country, in Norway, in Spain, in Australia, and in China. As can be seen from Table 1 , tourists tend to judge meeting compatriots more interesting the further away (culturally and geographically) they are from their home country. Norwegian tourists, for example, judge meeting a Norwegian (high familiarity) to be significantly more interesting in China or Australia (high novelty) than in Norway (high familiarity) and Spain (moderate familiarity). Australian respondents indicate that it would be more interesting to meet Australians (high familiarity) abroad (high novelty) than at home (high familiarity). Similarly, Chinese tourists find Chinese tourists (high familiarity) more interesting abroad (high novelty) than at home (high familiarity). And the same is generally true for all the groups; the least interesting place to meet a compatriot is at home, the most interesting place to meet a person from ones’ home country is in a remote place, no matter what the home country of the individual tourist may be. This finding is stable over all nationalities and indicates that for tourists, familiarity of the place does not work well with familiarity of the social interaction, and vice versa, that high novelty of the place does not work well in harmony with high novelty of the social encounter.

Table 1 . Interestingness a of meeting a tourist from one’s home country in various countries [scale: 1 (not interesting) – 7 (very interesting), mean scores, ±SD].

Table 2 shows that when the question was framed as meeting a Chinese tourist in various destinations (Norway, Spain, Australia, and China), the pattern is exactly opposite for all groups of respondents. Norwegians tend to judge meeting Chinese (low familiarity) in Norway (high familiarity) the most interesting. The same pattern emerges in the tourists from all other countries as well; Chinese tourists (high novelty) are thought of as being most interesting to meet in the tourists’ own home countries (high familiarity), but less interesting in China. In other words, the more remote the place in terms of distance or culture, the more interesting it will be to meet someone “more familiar,” and the more familiar the place is in terms of culture and distance, the less interesting it will be to meet familiar other tourists. Tourists in general it seems, prefer to meet compatriots and not local people when they travel to foreign countries that are new to them.

Table 2 . Interestingness a of meeting a tourist from China in various countries [scale: 1 (not interesting) – 7 (very interesting), mean scores, ±SD].

The second issue, whether familiarity seekers and novelty seekers differ from each other in terms of their preference for novelty and familiarity of social encounters was examined by using the top and bottom quartiles in the distribution of the scale measuring preferences for novelty and familiarity.

Figure 2 exhibits an extrapolation of some of the very complex data concerning the mixture of familiarity and novelty of social encounters (Chinese and Norwegian respondents are for logical reasons removed from Figure 2 ). As can be seen, there are no differences in the preference structure concerning social encounters – both familiarity seekers and novelty seekers find it significantly more interesting to meet Norwegians (unfamiliar) at home (in a familiar place) than in Norway (unfamiliar place). At the same time, familiarity seekers and novelty seekers both find it more interesting to meet compatriots (familiar) in Norway (unfamiliar) than at home (familiar). The same holds true for meeting Chinese tourists; both familiarity seekers and novelty seekers judge meeting Chinese (unfamiliar) at home (familiar) more interesting than meeting Chinese (unfamiliar) in China (unfamiliar). It seems like all tourists, those who classify themselves as novelty seekers and those who are inclined to perceive themselves as familiarity seekers alike show the same structure of preferences for social encounters in familiar and unfamiliar settings.

Figure 2 . Interestingness of social encounters with locals and compatriots in novelty and familiarity seeking tourists [scale 1 (low interestingness) – 7 (high interestingness)].

Results from Study 1 give support to the interaction hypothesis of inherent interestingness for social encounters during tourist trips. Tourists seemingly prefer to meet compatriots abroad and foreigners at home. This appears to be true for both familiarity seekers and novelty seekers alike and for tourists from all countries. Since it was somewhat surprising that familiarity seekers and novelty seekers showed the same preference structure, Study 2 focused on whether novelty seekers and familiarity seekers demonstrate similar preference structures in other types of tourist experiences than social encounters. This issue is consequently addressed below.

Study 2: Interestingness of Attractions in Familiarity and Novelty Seekers

Study 2 follows up the intriguing finding that novelty seekers and familiarity seekers report the same structure concerning interestingness reported in Study 1. Three measures of interestingness were used; “willingness to pay,” “attractiveness,” and “interestingness” with reference to four different conditions in a within subjects design; (1) unknown sights in a known place (home), (2) known sights in a known place (home), (3) unknown sights in a unknown place (away from home), and (4) known sights in an unknown place (away from home). Interestingness should correlate moderately highly with tourists’ willingness to pay for the experience and with their judgment of the attractions’ attractiveness. Based on the results from Study 1, it was hypothesized that tourists will judge the interestingness of tourist attractions to be the highest for known, i.e., familiar attractions in unknown destinations and for less known attractions in known settings, and lowest for known attractions in known destinations and unfamiliar attractions in unfamiliar places. Based on the results from Study 1, it was further expected that familiarity seekers and novelty seekers would demonstrate the same preference structures.

Potential respondents were approached in “low threshold” places and asked if they were on vacation. If the potential participant answered this question in the affirmative, they were asked if they would be willing to fill in a questionnaire concerning various “aspects of being a tourist.”

The questionnaire was four pages long, and it took some 10 min to fill it in. Standard background questions, such as age, gender, and nationality, were asked. Tourist role orientation was measured using the 16-item version ( Jiang et al., 2000 ) of the International Tourist Role Scale (ITR; Mo et al., 1993 ), a scale developed in order to empirically asses Cohen’s (1972) tourist role typology. In the present context, only the subscale measuring preference for familiarity when choosing a travel destination was used. Four scenarios describing novel and familiar aspects of places and sights were constructed. Respondents indicated interestingness (attractiveness/willingness to pay) for each of the scenarios (“hidden treasures in your hometown,” “famous landmarks in your hometown,” “hidden treasures in a town you visit for the first time,” and “famous landmarks in a town you visit for the first time”). All items were on 7-point scales anchored by “Not interesting” (or “attractive”/“no willingness to pay”) and “Very interesting” (“attractive”/“willing to pay”). No monetary or other compensations were given for participation.

Of some 820 approached tourists, 762 agreed to fill in the questionnaire. The respondents represented 57 nations, 52.8% were female and 47.1% male (1 person did not answer the gender item). Mean age was 41 years (SD = 17.3).

Interestingness correlated highly with both attractiveness and willingness to pay ( r ranges between 0.59 and 0.82) in all the four scenarios. Thus, it was decided that interestingness could be operationalized as a scale consisting of the three items measuring interestingness, attractiveness, and willingness to pay. This scale yielded Chronbach’s α for Scenario 1 (familiar place novel sight) = 0.86, Chronbach’s α for Scenario 2 (familiar place/familiar sight) = 0.87, Chronbach’s α for Scenario 3 (novel place/novel sight) = 0.90, and Chronbach’s α for Scenario 4 (novel place/familiar sight) = 0.91. This allows for construction of four interestingness scores with reference to the four scenarios.

In line with predictions from the interaction hypothesis, results indicated that tourists, when thinking about their hometown, in general report that they would find it more interesting to see unfamiliar (novel) sights than familiar sights (home: mean (familiar/familiar) = 3.11, mean (novel/familiar) = 3.38, t = 6.78, p < 0.001). At the same time, and contrary to the predictions of the interaction hypothesis of inherent interest, tourists reported that in unfamiliar (novel) places, they would find unfamiliar sights more interesting than well-known attractions in these places (away from home: mean (novel/novel) = 4.85, mean (familiar/novel) = 3.75, t = 3.17, p < 0.005). This structure of responses fits with the predictions made in traditional tourist role theory for novelty seekers , but not for familiarity seekers.

Therefore, the second question in Study 2 was whether familiarity seekers and novelty seekers differ from each other in terms of what they judge to be interesting. Figure 3 shows that familiarity seekers and novelty seekers exhibit practically the same preference structure concerning the combination of novelty and familiarity. A one-way ANOVA, using novelty/familiarity seeking (the 25% of the respondents scoring the highest and the lowest on novelty seeking) as a grouping variable showed that familiarity seekers had significantly higher preference for familiar sights in familiar settings (home), but no other differences between the groups were observed concerning degree of interest in any of the scenarios. Home/familiar : mean (familiarity seekers) = 3.36, mean (novelty seekers) = 2.85, F (1,325) = 6.26, p < 0.05; home/novel : mean (familiarity seekers) = 3.36, mean (novelty seekers) = 3.30, F (1,324) = 0.11, p = 0.74; away from home/familiar : mean (familiarity seekers) = 4.86, mean (novelty seekers) = 4.62, F (1,325) = 1.78, p = 0.18; away from home/novel : mean (familiarity seekers) = 4.81, mean (novelty seekers) = 4.81, F (1,325) = 0.001, p = 0.98. In other words, novelty seekers and familiarity seekers express the same degree of interest for the various combinations of novelty and familiarity of sights in unfamiliar settings, but familiarity seekers have a higher preference for familiar sights in familiar places.

Figure 3 . Novelty seekers and familiarity seekers preferences for combinations of novelty and familiarity [scale 1 (low interestingness) – 7 (high interestingness)].

The first results from Study 2 are ambiguous in as much as respondents judge unfamiliar sights most interesting in both familiar and unfamiliar settings. Seemingly, people think of themselves that they to a large extent are novelty seekers, and that what attracts their interest is novelty more than familiarity. One reason for this may be that what attracts ones attention in familiar situations may be if there is something new in that situation, and that people, when they travel, tend to note what is different (novel) in the situation and not what is known. For example, if one is a first time visitor to a country and eats a salad (a well-known activity for most people), the ingredients or the toppings may be different from what one knows from home, and therefore people may notice this difference, not the fact that salad-eating is a well-known activity. This may lead people to conclude that they are attracted to, indeed find the novel taste the most interesting, which in turn may result in distorted self-perceptions of oneself as a person who not only likes, but is attracted to novelty (c.f., Teigen, 1987 ).

This interpretation is supported by the second finding in Study 2, which reveals that familiarity seekers and novelty seekers demonstrate similar preference structures concerning what constitutes an “interesting experience” – a result replicating the results in Study 1. Actually, this result indicates that tourists think about themselves that they are highly interested in novelty, not in familiarity. This represents a major methodological problem; how can the illusion that people apparently have of being predominantly interested in highly novel (exotic) sights and places be removed from the measuring of interestingness? Study 3 represents an attempt to extract this self-perception from peoples’ responses.

Study 3: Interestingness for Typical Tourists

The results of Study 2 inspired a follow up study with the aim of focusing on what tourists think other tourists judge to be interesting. The study was a between subjects field experiment were tourists were randomized into either answering with reference to themselves as tourists or with reference to what they thought other tourists would find interesting. This was done for two reasons; first, it aimed at avoiding the confounding self-perception of being a person who is not a typical tourist ( Prebensen et al., 2003 ; Doran et al., 2015 , 2018 ), or indeed a better than average person ( Alicke and Govorun, 2005 ; Brown, 2012 ). Second, the aim was to study and compare how the “self as tourist”-image and the perception of other tourists concerning our relevant parameters differed. It was expected that tourists would think that other tourists are more inclined to prefer familiar sights in novel settings than themselves. At the same time, it was expected that tourists would think of themselves as being significantly more interested in novel sights and experiences in unfamiliar settings than they would judge other tourists to be.

Potential respondents were approached in “low threshold” places and asked if they were on vacation. If this initial question was answered in the affirmative, the tourists were asked if they would be willing to fill in a questionnaire concerning various “aspects of being a tourist.”

The questionnaires were four pages long, and took some 10 min to fill in. Trained research assistants distributed the questionnaires. Standard background questions, such as age, gender, and nationality, were asked, in addition to several items concerning various aspects of being a tourist. Respondents were randomized into four groups answering four versions of the questionnaire. The randomization procedure was that the questionnaires were distributed in a prefixed order securing that every participant had an equal probability of receiving any version of the questionnaire. Version 1 asked about the attractiveness of known and unknown sights in Norway and in the respondents home country; Version 2 asked about the attractiveness of named familiar (Edvard Grieg’s house) and unfamiliar (Amalie Skram’s house) sights in Bergen and (unnamed) familiar and unfamiliar sights in the respondents’ home town. In Version 3, respondents were asked to rate the interestingness of familiar and unfamiliar sights in Norway or in the respondents’ home country, and in Version 4, respondents were asked to rate the interestingness of named familiar and unfamiliar sights in Bergen and unnamed familiar and unfamiliar sights in their home town. Ratings were done on a 7-point scale anchored by “Not at all attractive” (or “Not at all interesting”) and “Very attractive” (or “Very interesting”).

About half of the respondents ( n = 747) were asked to rate themselves as tourists with reference to novelty and familiarity of landmarks and sights. The first item was meant to tap interestingness of familiar sights and had this wording: “As a tourist, I visit famous landmarks instead of exploring unknown sights.” The second item aimed at extracting interestingness of unfamiliar (novel) sights and had the following wording: “As a tourist I visit unknown sights instead of exploring famous landmarks.” The remaining half ( n = 751) of the respondents answered the same questions with reference to “typical first time tourists.” The wording in this version was “Tourists typically visit famous landmarks…” and “Tourists typically visit unknown sights…” Both groups indicated their response on a 7-point scale anchored by “Don’t agree at all” (1) and “Strongly agree” (7).

Of some 1,650 approached tourists, 1,516 agreed to fill in the questionnaire. The respondents represented 43 nations, 51.6% were female and 48.4% male. Mean age was 47.7 years (SD = 17.91).

Figure 4 shows that respondents, when asked what they think typical first time visitors to their home country and home town find attractive or interesting, it is the country’s or home town’s most well-known attractions that are judged to be both attractive and interesting to a significantly higher degree than less well-known sights and attractions. Tourists seem to think that “typical first time tourists” visiting their own home towns and home countries are indeed interested in the familiar and famous and not in the less famous and novel sights.

Figure 4 . Attributed attractiveness and interestingness for novel and familiar attractions in home country and home town [scale 1 (low attractiveness) – 7 (high attractiveness)].

When asked about tourists to Norway and Bergen, respectively, the same pattern appears as is evident from Figure 6 . Tourists think that other “typical first time tourists” to Norway and Bergen are mostly attracted to well-known (familiar) sights and less to unknown (novel) sights. Similarly, the respondents stipulate that typical first time visitors find famous landmarks and sights more interesting both in Bergen and in Norway.

It is probably noteworthy from Figures 4 , 5 that “home town” (and “Bergen”) both seem to be less attractive and interesting than “home country” and “Norway” alike.

Figure 5 . Attributed attractiveness and interestingness for novel and familiar attractions in Norway and Bergen [scale 1 (low attractiveness) – 7 (high attractiveness)].

As can be seen from Figure 6 , respondents think that “tourists” find familiar landmarks significantly more interesting than novel (unfamiliar) attractions (mean tourists (familiar landmarks) = 5.70, mean tourists (novel attractions) = 2.96, t = 35.02, p < 0.001). Also, as is evident from Figure 6 , tourists report that they are themselves more interested in familiar than novel aspects of experiences (mean self (novel attractions) = 3.82, mean self (familiar attractions) = 4.21, t = 4.51, p < 0.001).

Figure 6 . Interestingness of novel and familiar sights and attraction for “tourists” and for “me as a tourist” [scale 1 (low interestingness) – 7 (high interestingness)].

None the less, calculating the discrepancy score between expressed interestingness of familiarity and expressed interestingness of novelty yields an estimate of netto interestingness of novelty. Comparing the means of these discrepancy scores show that respondents to a significantly higher degree estimate that tourists are interested in familiarity than in novelty as compared to themselves in their roles as tourists (mean tourists (net interestingness of familiarity tourists) = 2.74, mean self (net interestingness familiarity) = 0.39, F = 403.08 (1,472) , p < 0.001). This reflects that tourists think of themselves that they find novelty significantly more interesting while visiting places for the first time than what they judge other tourists to find. Respondents think that “typical first time tourists” find familiar sights to be significantly more interesting and novel sights to be significantly less interesting. One tends to think that tourists (not me) on their first time visit find it most interesting to look up well-known (familiar) sights, while the most uninteresting for such tourists are novel sights.

Results in Study 3 show that people think that typical first time visitors to unknown places will find well-known attractions to be most interesting and attractive. In addition, results indicate that people, when they are tourists, think that they are distinctly different from “typical first time visitors” in what they judge to be interesting. People think of other tourists that they look for well-known sights and hallmarks in new places, thus combining familiarity (well-known) and novelty (unknown) in construing the interestingness of a tourist experience. At the same time, people seem to think about themselves that they are significantly more balanced in what they would find interesting and attractive, and significantly less inclined “just to go for the tourist attractions.” This bears a resemblance to earlier findings indicating that people do not see themselves as “typical tourists” ( Prebensen et al., 2003 ; Larsen and Brun, 2011 ; Doran and Larsen, 2014 ; Doran et al., 2015 , 2018 ). Based on these results, one could actually suggest that this tendency is generic and applies over a range of tourist related behaviors, emotions, and cognitions. But most of all, results from Study 3 indicate that tourists think that other tourists look for familiarity while they think of themselves that they prefer an optimal blend of novelty and familiarity in their quest for interesting experiences.

General Discussion and Conclusions

Study 1 revealed that tourists in general prefer to meet compatriots and not local people when they travel to countries that are unknown to them. At the same time, people prefer to meet un familiar people in more well-known settings. This was found to be true for novelty seekers and familiarity seekers alike. Study 2 revealed that tourists tend to think of themselves that they are novelty seekers and that they think of themselves that they prefer more exotic over less exotic experiences. Just like in Study 1, results from Study 2 indicated that the preference structures were similar in novelty seekers and in familiarity seekers alike. Results from Study 3 demonstrate that tourists think of other tourists that they are mostly interested in familiar sights in novel situations. Results from Study 3 also indicate that tourists think that other tourists are much more familiarity seeking than they are themselves in novel places.

The starting point of the present study was to test the predictions of traditional tourist role theory and those of the interaction hypothesis of inherent interest, as shown in Figure 1 . It is evident from the results that the interaction hypothesis gets substantially more support than the tourist role perspective in the current material. This result is fascinating, since the cognitive model is virtually non-existent in the tourism literature, and at the same time, the tourist role orientation perspective has been highly influential in that same literature. This leads to a few thought-provoking preliminary conclusions that can be drawn on the basis of the joint findings of the three studies reported in the present paper.

The first conclusion is that the well-known platitude from general psychology, that people do not know what causes them to feel, think, and behave ( Flanagan, 1991 ) seems to hold true also within the realm of inherent interest of tourist experiences. Seemingly, people think of themselves as not being familiarity seekers; they rather tend to think that they are novelty seekers. But, the results in the present series of studies also indicate that inherent interest in various situations seems to be a function of both familiarity and novelty just as predicted from the interaction hypothesis and documented in several earlier experiments from the psychology laboratory ( Teigen, 1985a , b , c , 1987 ). One explanation why people think they are mostly interested in novelty may be that people overlook familiar aspects in situations containing something novel. This, in turn, may lead to screwed perceptions of oneself as a novelty seeker. In addition, this self-construal may lead to distorted memory processes; one will tend to remember the novel and not the mundane aspects of tourist experiences. It is well-known form the memory literature that for autobiographical memories, stimuli containing emotional arousal, i.e., novel stimuli ( Talarico et al., 2004 ; Gilboa et al., 2018 ) are those that will be remembered most vividly. This implies that people do not know what makes things interesting for them and they do not know why particular experiences are more attractive than other experiences. Thinking that novel experiences are the most interesting ones may just be a memory distortion.

Another preliminary conclusion also emerging from the data is that although most tourists seem to think about themselves that they are novelty seekers, most people still prefer an optimal balance of novelty and familiarity in their tourist experiences. Actually, no differences were found between self-proclaimed novelty seekers and self-proclaimed familiarity seekers in terms of their preference structures: novelty seekers and familiarity seekers demonstrated parallel preference structures. This may imply that segmentation of people based on self-proclaimed preferences of novelty and familiarity may be futile. But even more importantly, these findings might also imply that classical tourist role theory is less feasible than thought by many tourism researchers. It is of course true that people travel for many reasons, but the idea that people travel to explore novel situations, unknown cultures, and unknown people do not seem to be completely true. Au contraire, based on the results from the present study, novelty seeking cannot be judged to be an exclusive and true motive for traveling neither for novelty seekers nor for familiarity seekers.

The third conclusion that may be drawn from the present study is that people, when traveling as tourists, tend not to think that they are like “other tourists.” This, of course is well-known from the literatures of both psychology and tourism research. Psychologists have, for example, amply documented the so-called “optimistic bias” ( Weinstein, 1989 ) and the “better than average effect” ( Alicke and Govorun, 2005 ; Brown, 2012 ) over a large range of domains, such as, for example, smoking ( Arnett, 2000 ) and other health risks ( Weinstein, 1987 ). It seems that people tend to think that they are unique in the sense that they are less likely to suffer negative outcomes and more likely to experience positive future outcomes, and that they fall prey to thinking that they perform better or have better abilities than average persons. Along similar ways of reasoning, Prebensen et al. (2003) reported that 89.5% of their sample of German tourists to Norway reported that they were not “typical German tourists”, while Larsen and Brun (2011) observed that tourists judged other tourists to be more at risk than themselves. Similarly, Doran et al. (2015) found that tourists asserted that they were not similar to other tourists in terms of their motivations, and Larsen et al. (2007) found that people tend to judge home country to be safer that abroad no matter what home country people come from. One possible interpretation of these findings is that people seem to find an optimal distance between their own self-perception and what they think other tourists represent in terms of many aspects of the tourist experience. It may well be that the search for familiarity is a sign of “typicality” in touristic terms, but it may equally well be that many, if not all tourists fall prey to the cognitive distortion of not being a typical novelty seeker. Seemingly, the pervasiveness of preference for familiarity in novel situations and novelty in familiar situations is a common characteristic of many, if not all tourists.

In sum, the present series of studies give stronger support for the cognitive interaction hypothesis of inherent interestingness then for the predictions of classical tourist role theory. The findings are in line with Teigen’s (1987) results. While Teigen based his conclusions on findings from laboratory settings among university students, the present studies were done in real life settings among tourists, which is a major advantage in terms of ecological validity. While findings from the psychology laboratory are of the greatest importance for the advancement of psychological science, such findings are always strengthened by corroborating findings from “real world” settings, such as in the present study. Those “institutionalized” and “noninstitutionalized” tourists do not differ in their preference structure for novelty and familiarity is compelling. Although “drifters” and “explorers” feel that they are distinctively different from other tourists in terms of novelty seeking, they are probably more similar to other tourists than they are aware of. Almost everyone tends to perceive themselves as different from the “mainstream tourist,” the “other tourists,” the “typical tourist” (c.f., Larsen et al., 2011 ) which in a sense makes them, or all of us, more typical than we think.

It should also be underlined that the results reported in the present study are not meant to give a complete and final solution to the question of what constitutes interesting tourist experiences. As Teigen (1987) highlighted, many psychological factors may play a role in peoples’ quests for such attractive experiences, such as, for example, emotional appeal, associative appeal, and personal appeal. Other sources of interestingness may be associated with feelings of well-being and peoples’ experiences of mastery. In addition, tourists’ worries and risk judgments may play a role. It must also be mentioned that it is not certain that this optimal blend of novelty and familiarity holds true for all classes of experiential domains; it may be that, for example, food and drink experiences and other experiences containing the possibility for disgust may turn out to be different. In addition, peoples’ expectancies to particular tourist places and events may also influence real life experience as exemplified in the well-known Jerusalem syndrome and in the less well-known Paris-syndrome ( Flinn, 1962 ). However, it is our contention that only future research will contribute to dissolving the various highly interesting general psychological issues enclosed within the agenda of the study of “interestingness of tourist experiences.” Based on the findings reported in the present study, however, it is evident that the simplistic model which places people in categories based on their self-reported preferences for novelty and familiarity is not sufficient for enhancing the advancement of knowledge of the psychology of the tourist experience.

Data Availability

Raw data supporting the conclusions of this manuscript will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher.

Ethics Statement

The data collection in the three studies in the present paper complied with the general guidelines for research ethics by the Norwegian National Committees for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH). Formal approval by an ethics committee was not required as per applicable institutional guidelines and regulations. Informed consent was implied by responding to the questionnaire in all three studies.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. Data collection was carried out by student research assistants. SL and KW contributed to the statistical analysis, and SL wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

Data collection was funded by the Department of Psychosocial Science (Småforsk).

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

Some preliminary data (from Study 1) were presented at the CAUTHE, Southern Cross University (AU), February 2–5, 2015.

Alicke, M. D., and Govorun, O. (2005). “The better-than-average effect” in The self in social judgment . Vol. 1, eds. M. D. Alicke, D. Dunning, and J. Krueger (New York: Psychology Press), 85–106.

Google Scholar

Andersson, T. D. (2007). The tourist in the experience economy. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 7, 046–058. doi: 10.1080/15022250701224035

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Optimistic bias in adolescent and adult smokers and nonsmokers. Addict. Behav. 25, 625–632. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4603(99)00072-6

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brown, J. D. (2012). Understanding the better than average effect: motives (still) matter. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38, 209–219. doi: 10.1177/0146167211432763

Cohen, E. (1972). Towards a sociology of international tourism. Soc. Res. 39, 164–189.

Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology 13, 179–201. doi: 10.1177/003803857901300203

Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Ann. Tour. Res. 6, 408–424.

Doran, R., and Larsen, S. (2014). Are we all environmental tourists now? The role of biases in social comparison across and within tourists, and their implications. J. Sustain. Tour. 22, 1023–1036. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2013.836209

Doran, R., Larsen, S., and Wolff, K. (2015). Different but similar: social comparison of travel motives among tourists. Int. J. Tour. Res. 17, 555–563. doi: 10.1002/jtr.2023

Doran, R., Larsen, S., and Wolff, K. (2018). Comparison between own and others’ travel motives: a research note. Tour. Hosp. Res. 18, 260–265. doi: 10.1177/1467358416658702

Elsrud, T. (2001). Risk creation in traveling: backpacker adventure narration. Ann. Tour. Res. 28, 597–617. doi: 10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00061-X

Flanagan, O. J. (1991). The science of the mind. 2nd Edn . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Flinn, D. E. (1962). Transient psychotic reactions during travel. Am. J. Psychiatr. 119, 173–174. doi: 10.1176/ajp.119.2.173

Gilbert, D. C. (1991). An examination of the consumer behaviour process related to tourism. Pro. Tour. Recreation Hosp. Manag . 3, 78–105.

Gilboa, A., Rosenbaum, R. S., and Mendelsohn, A. (2018). Autobiographical memory: from experiences to brain representations. Neuropsychologia 110, 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.12.020

Graburn, N. H. H. (1983). The anthropology of tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 18, 012–025.

Hwang, J., and Hyun, S. S. (2016). Perceived firm innovativeness in cruise travelers’ experience and perceived luxury value: the moderating effect of advertising effectiveness. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 21(Suppl. 1), 101–128. doi: 10.1080/10941665.2015.1016051

Jiang, J., Havitz, M., and O’Brien, R. M. (2000). Validating the international tourist role scale. Ann. Tour. Res. 27, 964–981. doi: 10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00111-5

Larsen, S. (2007). Aspects of a psychology of the tourist experience. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 7, 7–18. doi: 10.1080/15022250701226014

Larsen, S., and Brun, W. (2011). ‘I am not at risk–typical tourists are’! Social comparison of risk in tourists. Perspect. Public Health 131, 275–279. doi: 10.1177/1757913911419898

Larsen, S., Brun, W., Øgaard, T., and Selstad, L. (2007). Subjective food-risk judgements in tourists. Tour. Manag. 28, 1555–1559. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2007.02.016

Larsen, S., Doran, R., and Wolff, K. (2017). “How psychology can stimulate tourist experience studies” in Visitor experience design . Vol. 5, eds. N. Scott, J. Gao, and J. Ma (Oxfordshire, UK), 13–29.

Larsen, S., Øgaard, T., and Brun, W. (2011). Backpackers and mainstreamers: realities and myths. Ann. Tour. Res. 38, 690–707. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2011.01.003

Lepp, A., and Gibson, H. (2003). Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 30, 606–624. doi: 10.1016/S0160-7383(03)00024-0

Li, C. Y., Lu, S. Y., Tsai, B. K., and Yu, K. Y. (2015). The impact of extraversion and sensation seeking on tourist role. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 43, 75–84. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2015.43.1.75

MacCannell, D. (1999). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class . Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Mannell, R. C., and Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1987). Psychological nature of leisure and tourism experience. Ann. Tour. Res. 14, 314–331. doi: 10.1016/0160-7383(87)90105-8

Mo, C., Howard, D., and Havitz, M. (1993). Testing an international tourist role typology. Ann. Tour. Res. 20, 319–335. doi: 10.1016/0160-7383(93)90058-B

Mossberg, L. (2007). A marketing approach to the tourist experience. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 7, 059–074. doi: 10.1080/15022250701231915

Noone, B. M., Kimes, S. H., Mattila, A. S., and Wirtz, J. (2009). Perceived service encounter pace and customer satisfaction: an empirical study of restaurant experiences. J. Serv. Manag. 20, 304–326. doi: 10.1108/09564230910978494

O’Dell, T. (2007). Tourist experiences and academic junctures. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 7, 034–045. doi: 10.1080/15022250701224001

Pearce, P. L., and Packer, J. (2012). Minds on the move: new links from psychology to tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 40, 386–411. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2012.10.002

Pearce, P. L., and Stringer, P. F. (1991). Psychology and tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 18, 136–154. doi: 10.1016/0160-7383(91)90044-C

Prebensen, N. K., Larsen, S., and Abelsen, B. (2003). I’m not a typical tourist: German tourists’ self-perception, activities, and motivations. J. Travel Res. 41, 416–420. doi: 10.1177/0047287503041004011

Selstad, L. (2007). The social anthropology of the tourist experience. Exploring the “Middle Role”. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 7, 019–033. doi: 10.1080/15022250701256771

Snepenger, D. J. (1987). Segmenting the vacation market by novelty-seeking role. J. Travel Res. 26, 8–14. doi: 10.1177/004728758702600203

Talarico, J. M., LaBar, K. S., and Rubin, D. C. (2004). Emotional intensity predicts autobiographical memory experience. Mem. Cogn. 32, 1118–1132. doi: 10.3758/BF03196886

Teigen, K. H. (1985a). Perceived informativeness of verbal information. Curr. Psychol. Res. Rev. 4, 3–16.

Teigen, K. H. (1985b). Preference for news as a function of familiarity. Scand. J. Psychol. 26, 348–356.

Teigen, K. H. (1985c). The novel and the familiar: sources of interest in verbal information. Curr. Psychol. Res. Rev. 4, 224–238.

Teigen, K. H. (1987). Intrinsic interest and the novelty-familiarity interaction. Scand. J. Psychol. 28, 199–210. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.1987.tb00756.x

Uriely, N. (2005). The tourist experience – conceptual developments. Ann. Tour. Res. 32, 199–216. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2004.07.008

Vittersø, J., Vorkinn, M., and Vistad, O. I. (2001). Congruence between recreational mode and actual behavior – a prerequisite for optimal expereinces? J. Leis. Res. 33, 137–159. doi: 10.1080/00222216.2001.11949935

Vittersø, J., Vorkinn, M., Vistad, O. J., and Vaagland, J. (2000). Tourist experiences and attractions. Ann. Tour. Res. 27, 432–450. doi: 10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00087-0

Weinstein, N. D. (1987). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems: Conclusions from a community-wide sample. J. Behav. Med. 10, 481–500. doi: 10.1007/BF00846146

Weinstein, N. D. (1989). Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science 246, 1232–1234. doi: 10.1126/science.2686031

Yiannakis, A., and Gibson, H. (1992). Roles tourists paly. Ann. Tour. Res. 19, 287–303. doi: 10.1016/0160-7383(92)90082-Z

Keywords: interesting tourist experience, novelty, familiarity, tourist roles, interaction hypothesis of interest

Citation: Larsen S, Wolff K, Doran R and Øgaard T (2019) What Makes Tourist Experiences Interesting. Front. Psychol . 10:1603. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01603

Received: 10 May 2019; Accepted: 25 June 2019; Published: 07 August 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Larsen, Wolff, Doran and Øgaard. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Svein Larsen, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

What is experiential tourism?

The EXPERIENCE model is about doing tourism differently and this requires a shift in thinking from traditional tourism to being more responsive to the needs and the emotions of visitors or tourists alike.  Equally, EXPERIENCE is about adapting and responding to the urgency of climate change and creating more sustainable options.   The focus is on encouraging visitors to explore their local regions and tourists to travel off the beaten track.   An experience should aim to stimulate the five senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste) and/or arouse positive emotions (happiness, fun, surprise, joy, contentment…). To design such experiences, you need to be clear what you want your customers to experience when they are with you.

This is where you can find presentations, manuals, studies and so much more to help you understand experiential tourism.

Case studies

Here you can find case studies and good examples of how businesses are benefiting from experiential tourism

Video resources

Use our video resources - workshop recordings, bite-size video training, interviews - to learn more about experiential tourism and how to develop experiences.

Understanding millennials’ tourism experience: values and meaning to travel as a key for identifying target clusters for youth (sustainable) tourism

Journal of Tourism Futures

ISSN : 2055-5911

Article publication date: 26 February 2018

Issue publication date: 4 June 2018

The purpose of this paper is to better understand the tourism experience of millennials by connecting their value orientations to the meaning that they give to travel. In doing so, it also aims at discovering profiles of young tourists that can be targeted both now and in the future by tourism organisations.

Design/methodology/approach

A survey based on validated scales reached 423 Dutch millennials. An integrated multidimensional research strategy has been applied where models that reduce the gathered data to fewer components (principal component analyses) were followed by a cluster analysis.

Ten value orientations (Schwartz, 1994) and four travel meanings have been identified. By combining these ten value orientations and four meanings, nine clusters have been identified representing groups of millennial tourists with different needs. For example, while two clusters fit into the popular description of young travellers seeking only unpretentious enjoyment, millennials represented in two other clusters are strongly motivated by self-transcending values, distance themselves from the travel meaning escapism and relaxation and will therefore not positively respond to a merely hedonic travel offer.

Research limitations/implications

Replication of this research is recommended in other national contexts, possibly using a longitudinal approach.

Practical implications

The nine clusters should be approached with a dedicated travel offer. In particular, at least two clusters of millennials may be successfully approached with a sustainable tourism offer.

Originality/value

The combination of value orientations and travel meanings portrays a detailed and realistic picture of the tourism experience looked for by millennials.

Youth tourism

• Market segmentation
• Sustainable tourism
• Meaning to travel

Value orientations

Cavagnaro, E. , Staffieri, S. and Postma, A. (2018), "Understanding millennials’ tourism experience: values and meaning to travel as a key for identifying target clusters for youth (sustainable) tourism", Journal of Tourism Futures , Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 31-42. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-12-2017-0058

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2018, Elena Cavagnaro, Simona Staffieri and Albert Postma

© Elena Cavagnaro, Simona Staffieri and Albert Postma. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

This study aims at better understanding the tourism experience of millennials by connecting their value orientations to the meaning that they give to travel. In doing so, it also aims at discovering profiles of young tourists that can be targeted both now and in the future by tourism organisations.

Young tourists are key for tourism’s future at least for three reasons: the sheer amount on young tourists travelling in the present ( Richards, 2006 ; United Nations World Tourism Organisation and World Youth Student & Educational Travel Confederation (UNWTO and WYSE Travel Confederation, 2016 ); the fact that their original choices may lead to new attitudes towards tourism by the wider society ( Fermani et al. , 2011 ; Leask et al. , 2013 ) and the anticipation that young tourists will continue to travel in the future (Barton et al. , 2013). This last point is of particular importance form a future perspective because the young generation will move up in the demographic pyramid and take in the future the place that is now occupied by older generations, such as Baby Boomers. Today young generation (the so-called GY, GX and millennial generation) have different needs than their parents or grandparents in general ( Howe and Strauss, 2000 ) and in the context of tourism in particular ( Glover, 2010 ). Consequently, the middle-aged tourist in the 2020s and 2030s will, just like the young tourists of today, have different needs and wants compared to the contemporary middle-aged tourist. To be prepared for the future, the tourism sector has to understand and cater for these changing needs.

Catering for changing needs is an essential but not a sufficient measure to guarantee the future of tourism. It has in fact been stated that tourism will have no future unless it becomes sustainable ( United Nations World Tourism Organisation, 2013 ). In this context, previous studies have shown that young tourists with a specific (i.e. biospheric) value orientation associate travel with being in contact with nature ( Cavagnaro and Staffieri, 2015 ). From a future perspective, this is interesting because biospheric values are the most stable antecedent of sustainable behaviour ( Steg and Vlek, 2009 ). However, the salience to young tourists of different value orientations has not yet been explored. It may therefore be possible that, when contrasted with other value orientations, the biospheric value orientation is revealed to be less relevant to young tourists.

Therefore, as briefly stated above, the study’s purpose is twofold: to describe the value orientations of young tourists and to discover profiles of young tourists that can be targeted both now and in the future by connecting value orientations and meaning given to travel. Values are rather stable determinants of behaviour, thus offering an insight not only in present but also in future choices, while meaning expresses the general connotation that a person gives to travelling. The link between values and consumer choices is a strong one. This is even truer in those cases, such as tourism, where consumer choices are loaded with a significant symbolic reference.

Data were collected in the Netherlands, one of the European countries with the highest tourism participation ( Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, CBS, 2016 ) and the country where not only two of the authors but also the organisation specialized in market research that helped reach a representative sample, TNS Nipo, is located. A total of 423 youngsters answered a survey on values and the meaning they attribute to travelling based on validated scales. To analyse the data, an integrated multidimensional research strategy has been applied where models that reduce the gathered data to fewer components (principal component analyses (PCA)) were followed by a cluster analysis.

The paper is structured as follows. The theoretical and methodological section critically reviews the major theories on which this study is based, and offers insights on how the study was conducted. After this section, the findings are presented and discussed. The paper concludes by pointing at the professional and theoretical implication of the results.

Theoretical and methodological section

This section highlights the main theories on which the study is based and the method used to gather and analyse data. It is organised in four subsections. The first three critically discuss from a future perspective theories on youth tourism; on tourism experience and travel meaning; and on value orientations. The fourth and last one is dedicated to the research method.

Tourism research has begun to focus relatively late on young travellers in general and in particular on those born between 1980 and 2000, the so-called “Millennial” Generation ( Richards and Wilson, 2004 ; Glover, 2010 ; Pendergast et al. , 2010 ). Youth tourism is defined as all independent trips for periods of less than one year by people aged 16-29 which are motivated, in part or in full, by a desire to experience other cultures, build life experience and/or benefit from formal and informal learning opportunities outside one’s usual environment ( UNWTO and WYSE Travel Confederation, 2008 ). Currently (2017), the age group in this definition matches the generation of millennials. The millennial generation is, according to most definitions, born between 1980 and 2000. Generation Y (born between 1980-1994) and Generation Z (born between 1994-to date) include the millennial generation (born from the late 1980s onwards). They can all be considered youth travellers and their travel experience can therefore be interpreted building upon literature on youth tourism. The United Nations World Tourism Organisation and World Youth Student & Educational Travel Confederation state that Generation Z comprises about 30 per cent of the world population and counts 29 million international travellers around the world. It also regards Generation Z as millenials on steroids and refers to them as “the-internet-in-its-pocket-generation”, a feature that set them apart from previous generations such as the Baby Boomers and even the a bit older Generation Y who was born and grew up before the internet was widely available ( WYSE, 2016 ).

Notwithstanding an increasing interest in the millennial generation, existing research on youth tourism is relatively underdeveloped ( Richards and Wilson, 2004 ; Staffieri, 2016a ). This is surprising because young tourists have a substantial material and immaterial impact on the present and future of tourism. First, they represent an increasingly significant economic force: in 2015, almost one in four (23 per cent) tourists were aged 16-29; one in three hotel guests were millennial while the total value of international youth tourism is estimated to reach US$400 billion in 2020 – twice the value of 2009 ( UNWTO and WYSE Travel Confederation, 2016 ). Second, compared to older generations, youngsters are more resilient: they tend to keep visiting destinations that are under socio-political or environmental stress ( UNWTO and WYSE Travel Confederation, 2016 ). Young tourists tend, third, to skip on travel and accommodation costs to spend more on the destination. Richards (2011) found that on a major trip young people spend on average of US$2,600, which is almost three times more than an average tourist. Millennials, therefore, represent a major economic opportunity in general and for economically and politically fragile regions in particular.

From a socio-cultural perspective, it has been observed that young people are an innovative force and that their choices may lead to new approaches to tourism by the wider society ( Martinengo and Savoja, 1993 ; Fermani et al. , 2011 ; Cavagnaro and Staffieri, 2015 ). Therefore, changes and developments in tourism behaviour can be foreseen by describing the present travel behaviour of millennials ( Leask et al. , 2013 ).

Millennials, though, are not only relevant for their present impact on tourism, they are also the tourists of the future ( Richards and Wilson, 2004 ; UNWTO and WYSE Travel Confederation, 2008 ; Pendergast et al. , 2010 ). Millennials are depicted as natural travellers: over 60 per cent of them see travel as an important part of their lives, make 4-5 trips per year and are expected to keep looking for tourism experiences also when older ( Ovolo Hotels, 2013 ; Barton et al. , 2013 ). Gradually millennials move upward through the population pyramids replacing the older generation. If the tourism sector wants to prepare for the future by designing future proof products and services, it has to take this generational change into account. The middle-aged tourist in the 2020s and 2030s will, just like the youth tourist of today, have completely different needs, wants and travel behaviour than the contemporary middle-aged tourist.

All these considerations point to the importance of investigating this target group and identifying antecedents of their tourism behaviour, such as values and the meaning they give to a tourism experience.

Tourism experience and meaning to travel

Leisure has been conceptualised as an experience already in the early 1970s while the first academic article on the tourism experience dates from 1996 ( Ritchie and Hudson, 2009 ). The emotional implications of travelling have strengthened the conceptualization of tourism in terms of experience ( Pearce and Lee, 2005 ). When interpreting youth tourism, the conceptualization of tourism as an experience is even more important because young travellers reject standard or homogenised products and look for new solutions, ideas, and emotions or, in one word, new experiences ( UNWTO and WYSE Travel Confederation, 2008 ; Moisă, 2010 ). This notwithstanding there is still a lack of proper research on how to measure the (youth) tourism experience ( Ritchie and Hudson, 2009 ; Kim et al. , 2012 ).

The tourism experience consists of three main components: the need to travel, the consummation of the experience itself and its evaluation. The need to travel, in its turn, falls apart in two components: meaning given to and motivation to travel ( Staffieri, 2016a ). While the motivation ignites the decision-making process leading to a specific travel experience ( Chang, 2007 ), the meaning given to travel brings to the surface the general needs associated with travelling and is heavily related with the symbolic character of travelling ( Staffieri, 2016a ). Already in 1976, MacCannell argued that analogously to the religious symbolism of primitive people, tourist attractions express what is considered to be of value in modern society. From the sociological perspective adopted by MacCannell and other researchers on tourism after him, it follows that to understand the travel experience one must consider both the individual and the social frame of reference of the traveller. In other words, the way in which a tourist frames his or her experience depends not only from the individual characteristics of the traveller but also from the social structure in which he stems from and the network of interactions that he has established with others ( Blumer, 1969 , Staffieri, 2016b ). The meaning given to travel is such a frame and, being generated through interaction with others, it is recognisable by all individuals who contributed to its development and, when discovered, has therefore a valence that outweighs the individual sphere ( Staffieri, 2016a ).

Previous studies on millennials state that travel means to them novelty: the possibility to evade the quotidian, to try a different lifestyle, to live new experiences, to visit new places and to acquire new knowledge ( UNWTO and WYSE Travel Confederation, 2016 ). From this perspective, travelling means living an experience of personal development centred on the individual tourist. Yet, considering the reflections above on the collective way meaning is constructed, the youth tourism experience should also be framed with reference to collective symbols recognisable by the traveller’s peer-group ( Staffieri, 2016a ). From this perspective, the meaning given to travel transcends the individual need for novelty and embraces the need to partake in social trends, to socialise with friends and other (local) people, and to be in contact with nature ( Cavagnaro and Staffieri, 2015 ). The self-trascendend nature of meaning is confirmed by studies pointing that the youth traveller travel with a purpose, wants to live like the locals and believes in making a difference in the world ( UNWTO and WYSE Travel Confederation, 2016 ). Moreover, lately, a shift has occurred from providing experiences to providing an experience that contribute to the quality of life of the traveller. In this respect, the United Nations speak of the leap “from marketing to mattering” ( United Nation Global Compact and Accenture, 2014 ). Concluding, in order to design travel experiences that make a meaningful contribution to the quality of life of the traveller, it is important to understand his/her travel needs, including the meaning given to travel, and his/her core values.

Values are defined as “desirable transsituational goals varying in importance, which serve as a guiding principle in the life of a person or other social entity” ( Schwartz, 1994 , p. 21) and are considered to be rather stable antecedents of behaviour ( Stern et al. , 1995 ).

Schwartz (1994) found evidence for a general value system in which 56 values are plotted on two axes, one representing openness to change vs conservatism, and the other representing self-enhancement values (reflecting a concern with a person’s own interest) vs self-transcendence values (reflecting a concern with collective interests). By clustering values, Schwartz individuated ten value types or value orientations (see Table I ). Though Schwartz noticed that respondents failed to see the difference of adjoining value orientations (such as for example hedonism and stimulation), he concluded that they are able to discriminate among these ten value types ( Schwartz, 1994 , p. 32). This is important because, as Schwartz (1994 , p. 23) notices “the pursuit of each type of values have psychological, practical, and social consequences that may conflict or may be compatible with the pursuit of other value types”. For example, from a tourism perspective, people who are strongly motivated by hedonic values will choose a different tourism experience than people motivated by universalism ( Cavagnaro and Staffieri, 2015 ).

The distinction between self-enhancement and self-transcendent values has been widely used to explain pro-environmental beliefs, attitudes and intentions. Self-enhancement values that have been proved to have (mostly a negative) impact on pro-environmental choices are social power, wealth, authority, influence and ambition (these values are in italic in Table I ). This set of value has been labelled as “egoistic” ( Stern and Dietz, 1994 ; De Groot and Steg, 2008 ). It has also been argued that two types of self-transcendent values can be distinguished: altruistic (underlined in Table I ) and biospheric values (underlined and in italic in Table I ). While altruistic values reflect care and concern for other human beings, biospheric values reveal a concern for nature for its own sake, without a direct reference to the welfare of human beings ( Stern and Dietz, 1994 ; De Groot and Steg, 2008 ). Recently ( Steg et al. , 2012 ), hedonic values have been added as a fourth value orientation relevant for explaining sustainable beliefs, attitudes and behaviour. Hedonic values are strongly linked to a leisurely experience such as travelling ( Kim et al. , 2012 ), and are therefore of particular interest when studying a tourism experience. Hedonic values are in bold in Table I .

Research method

In 2014, the European Tourism Futures Institute (ETFI) initiated a large-scale study among youth in the Netherlands. The study was conducted in co-operation with the Academy of International Hospitality Research (AIHR) and TNS Nipo, a Dutch organisation specialized in market research. The Netherlands was chosen not only because it is the country where TNS Nipo, AIHR and the ETFI are located but also because with 82.2 per cent of the population older than 15 years going at least once a year on vacation, it is one of the European countries with the highest tourism participation grade ( CBS, 2016 ). Together these parties designed a computer-assisted web interviewing [1] survey to gather data on youngster values and the meaning they give to travel. Value orientations were measured using a nine-point Likert scale ranging from “opposed to my principles” to “extremely important in my life” ( Schwartz, 1994 ). To the values individuated by Schwartz, three values were added from recent research ( Steg et al. , 2012 ), i.e. specifically two biospheric (protecting the environment and preventing pollution) and one hedonic (gratification for oneself), bringing the total to 59 considered values. Travel meaning was measured using a five-point Likert scale validated by Staffieri (2016a) . The scales’ internal consistency has been verified trough Cronbach’s α . The unidimensionality of the value orientations was verified using four PCA [2] (see Table II ).

An integrated multidimensional research strategy was applied: multivariate analyses (PCA and cluster analysis) were used to reduce the measured items into fewer components and to uncover segments of young travellers that may be targeted with different tourism offers, including a sustainable tourism offer. Cluster analyses are an appropriate statistical technique for sociological research aimed at individuating and describing variations in the target group under scrutiny, in the present case young tourists. In this study, therefore, the cluster analysis starts from the values orientations and the components for travel meaning identified through PCA. To the factor scores obtained via the PCA a non-hierarchical cluster analysis, k-means method, has been applied ( Mac Queen, 1967 ; Spath, 1980 ; Everitt, Landau and Leese, 2001 ), using the statistical software SPSS ( Norusis, 2011 ). The k-means method is a useful tool for the segmentation of consumers ( Zani and Cerioli, 2007 ).

Findings and discussion

A total of 423 questionnaires were received. Respondents’ age ranges between 19 and 31 years, in line with the definition of millennial generation and youth tourism presented above. The sample is equally distributed between men and women. 61.1 per cent of respondents had travelled independently, i.e. without an accompanying family member or other tutor ( UNWTO and WYSE Travel Confederation, 2008 ). In line with findings from Ovolo Hotels (2013) , on average, respondents visited 4.6 countries.

In line with Schwartz’s 1994 study, ten value orientations have ben found (see Table II ). It is important to notice that for the value orientations, universalism and benevolence, the PCA individuated two components, of which the second one was composed respectively, of two and one value, and explained a low variance, respectively, 11.6 and 11.3. Due to their low explanatory value, these second components are not further considered.

The 19 items measuring travel meaning can be reduced to four components. These have been labelled: personal, inner development; development through interpersonal exchange; socializing and entertainment; and Escapism and relaxation (see Table III , where the order of the items in the table corresponds to their contribution to the new component). The first component includes items that relate to the meaning of travel as an experience of personal development and growth pointed at by the literature such as “I travel to improve physical/mental health” and “I travel to explore a meaningful path of life” ( Staffieri, 2016a ; UNWTO and WYSE Travel Confederation, 2016 ). The second component ties together items where experiencing new cultures and people is central. This is in line with literature pointing to the symbolic nature of travelling and the social construction of its meaning ( MacCannell, 1976 ; UNWTO and WYSE Travel Confederation, 2016 ). The third component is formed by items where the social nature of travelling is connected to hedonic experiences, such as diving into the night life of the destination. It reminds that travelling is a hedonic experience ( Kim et al. , 2012 ). In the fourth and last component, travelling has a hedonic flavour, too. Differently from the third component, though, the experience seems more personal, less connected with other people. Friends appear here only as a possible source of tensions that has to be avoided. In short, the four components of meaning found in this study confirm that travelling may take both a social and an individual meaning for youngsters ( UNWTO and WYSE Travel Confederation, 2008 , 2016), that travel is sought after as a pleasurable endeavour ( Kim et al. , 2012 ) and that having fun with friends and socialising are important needs of young travellers (United Nations World Tourism Organization, and World Youth Student & Educational Travel Confederation, UNWTO and WYSE Travel Confederation, 2011 ).

Following an integrated multidimensional research strategy, as illustrated above, a cluster analysis was then applied to the value orientations and meaning given to ravel found through PCAs. Cluster analysis started from two groups and gradually increased the number until ten ( Table IV ). A solution with nine groups shows the best goodness of fit ( R 2 =52.7 per cent) and is therefore considered as the most effective synthesis of the phenomenon under study ( Zani and Cerioli, 2007 ).

ANOVA shows that the value orientations benevolence ( R 2 =0.703), conformity ( R 2 =0.696), security ( R 2 =0.672) and self-direction ( R 2 =0.647) have a greater capability to discriminate among the nine clusters than the other six value orientations. For the meaning associated with travel, this role is played by two out of the four meanings: “Development through interpersonal exchange” ( R 2 =0.385) and “Escapism and relaxation” ( R 2 =0.290).

The result of the cluster analysis presented in Table V will be described and discussed in the rest of this section.

Respondents in the first cluster (23 cases) score the meaning “Personal, inner development” higher and the meaning “Escapism and relaxation” lower than the average. Hedonic value orientation is also scored lower, alongside the value orientation benevolence while the value orientation power is strongly represented. It may be concluded that for this group travelling means to work on themselves to acquire recognition (the value orientation power includes items such as social recognition and preserving one’s public image). In line with the United Nation Global Compact and Accenture (2014) study, this group is looking for a meaningful experience that will help them to develop as an individual and strengthen their social position. They will not be attracted by the offer of a merely hedonic experience ( Steg et al. , 2012 ) while, if a sustainable tourism experience is framed as status enhancing, they may choose for it ( Steg et al. , 2014 ).

With its 66 cases, the second group is the most consistent of the nine clusters individuated. Universalist values are strong in this cluster together with self-direction. This group values, on the one side, the beauty of the natural environment and wishes to see it protected; and on the other side, values creativity, freedom and independence. Differently form the first cluster, this group does not highly value social recognition. In line with their universalist value orientation, the meaning given to travel is “Development through interpersonal exchange”, a meaning that includes alongside getting in contact with local people, the wish to live in contact with nature. Self-transcending values, such as universalism, presuppose the ability to surpass the self and meaningfully connect with other people and nature ( Schwartz, 1994 ). They are therefore intimately linked to altruistic values ( De Groot and Steg, 2008 ). Moreover, people who strongly endorse universalism generally value more positively options that benefit the environment ( Steg et al. , 2014 ). The present study’s results confirms, therefore, Cavagnaro and Staffieri (2015) who found evidence for a core group of young tourists motivated by pro-environmental and pro-social values in their travel choice. To this group, travelling means an opportunity to learn and understand other people’s culture in order to create a better world in an open and unconstrained way. A (sustainable) tourism proposition targeting this group should respect their wish for independency and freedom. It should therefore let them feel in control, and insist more on the beauty of the natural environment and the freedom to experience it than on constraints to its fruition.

Benevolence values are salient to the 48 cases composing the third clusters while the hedonic and stimulation value orientations are less salient to this group. Benevolence values are, together with universalism, self-transcendent values ( Schwartz, 1994 ). The meaning given to travel seems at first sight to be contradicting the preference given to self-transcendent values and the mild aversion towards hedonic ones of this cluster: “Escapism and relaxation” and “Personal, inner development”. In interpreting this result, it may be considered that travelling is a hedonic experience ( Kim et al. , 2012 ) and that therefore the meaning “Escapism and relaxation” is not by definition grounded in a hedonic and a stimulation value orientation. Arguably in line with UNWTO and WYSE Travel Confederation (2011) , this group needs travelling and the opportunity that it gives to escape from everyday life to give meaning to their own life and the life of others.

The fourth and fifth groups, with respectively 33 and 34 cases, score lower than average on all value orientations. They seem undecided on the guiding principles of their life, and in this indecisiveness, they relate to all value orientations less positively than the other groups. This may reinforce the observation that the millennial generation upholds values that are strongly different from those of older generations ( Howe and Strauss, 2000 ). This indecision, though, may also represent a stage in their development, a step in constructing their own identity. The relative importance of values may in fact change in time ( Steg et al. , 2014 ). Though similar in their uncertainty regarding values, these two clusters differ in the meaning they give to travel: cluster 4 highlights “Development through interpersonal exchange” and cluster 5 “Socializing and entertainment”. Considering that for cluster 5, the most negatively laden value orientations are benevolence and self-direction (where creativity and independence are valued), it may be argued that they travel in order to find unpretentious, standardised entertainment with like-minded existing and new friends. In cluster 4, the most negatively laden value orientation in conformity, including values such as self-discipline and politeness. This cluster may consider travelling an opportunity to meet new people and break with the beaten path without much regard for others.

Cluster 6 (with 56 values the second largest) and 8 (52 cases) show a picture that seems completely the opposite than cluster 4 and 5: all values score above average. Apparently respondents in cluster 6 and 8 are as undecided on the guiding principle of their life as respondents in cluster 4 and 5, yet – instead of distancing themselves from all values – they embrace them all. Not completely unsurprisingly, then, the value orientations that scores relatively higher than the rest in cluster 6 and 8 is conformity, while hedonism scores a bit lower than the rest. In the meaning they give to travel, though, cluster 6 and 8 differ. Cluster 6 resembles cluster 1 and 3, where “Escapism and relaxation” and “Personal, inner development” also scored higher than average. Cluster 1 and 3, though, had clearer views on the value orientations salient to them. It may therefore be argued that also for the young tourists represented by cluster 6, travelling means an opportunity to escape the daily grind and focus on the own development. This time, thought, not in view of some other benefit (such as strengthening the social position, as in cluster 1, or giving meaning to life, such as in cluster 3) but because that is what travelling is supposed to be. Cluster 8 embraces only the meaning “Personal, inner development”. For this group then travelling is not linked to the need to escape everyday life, but means an opportunity for personal development in the broadest sense of the word.

Cluster 7 (48 cases) and 9 (40 cases) are united in their lower than average scores on universalism and tradition and a bit higher than average score on hedonic value orientation. Hedonic values are connected with having pleasure in the present moment ( Steg et al. , 2012 ) and, as it has been stated above, do not bring by definition to consider travel as a mere opportunity to have fun. Cluster 7 and cluster 9, consequently, differ in the meaning given to travel. Cluster 7 opts for “Escapism and relaxation”, and seems to consider travelling an opportunity to escape from the quotidian to celebrate and enjoy life without much consideration for others or the natural environment. For respondents in cluster 9, travelling means “Socializing and entertainment”: they wish to enjoy life without any further consideration, as cluster 7, but wish to include old and new friends in the pleasure that they seek. This is line with literature suggesting that having fun with friends is an important need to young travellers ( UNWTO and WYSE Travel Confederation, 2011 ). With their marked indifference for universalism values, cluster 7 and 9 are the most difficult to reach with a sustainable tourism offer.

Summing up the analysis conducted above, it can be observed, first, that not all young travellers have a clear view on the guiding principles in their life. Some, such as in cluster 6, seem to embrace them all; others, such as in cluster 4 and 5, seem to reject them all. Whether this result points to the emergence of new values typical for millennials or to a passing phase in their personal development cannot be said on the basis of this study. Longitudinal research is needed to further explore this point.

Second, it is interesting to observe that out of the four cluster of young tourists who seem not to have a clear view on their own values, two favour the meaning “Escapism and relaxation” and/or “Socializing and entertainment”, while the other two favour a meaning connected to development. Here, too, only a longitudinal study may be able to assess whether the different meaning given to travel leads to distinctive experiences that may in turn result in variations in the relative importance given to values by these two groups ( Steg et al. , 2014 ).

Third, looking at the interplay of the value orientations with the meaning given to travel, clusters 6, 7 and 9 present a common pattern: a preference for escapism is connected with hedonic values higher than average and self-transcendent values lower than average. This preference fits with the popular image of young tourists exploited by TV series such as Oh-Oh Cherso: they seek sheer entertainment without consideration for others and nature. This image, though, as the other clusters show, does not fully correspond with the reality of young tourism. The reality, in fact, is much more variegated and complex than so-called reality show wish us to believe. In short, even when considering all value orientations and not only the four directly linked to sustainable choices, the picture drawn in Cavagnaro and Staffieri (2015) is confirmed. Two clusters (2 and 3) present strong self-transcendent values (respectively universalism and benevolence), opening up the possibility to target these millennials with a tailor made sustainable tourism offer.

Finally, the analysis above has also shown that looking either at values or at the meaning to travel is not enough to understand the subtle differences among millennials. Only by combining the two, a tourism offer can be designed properly answering their needs.

Conclusion including research’s limitations, practical implications and originality

Before discussing the originality and practical implications of this study, it is proper to look at its limitations. This study reaches a representative sample of the Dutch young population, but it will need replication in different national contexts before its results can be widely generalised. Moreover, it considers only one of the components constituting the travel experience, i.e. travel meaning. Future studies should consider more components, such as the choice of a destination and the travel evaluation. Finally, to uncover eventual developments, a longitudinal approach is needed.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the study makes an original contribution to the literature on millennials and tourism. To the authors’ knowledge, the connection between Schwartz’s value orientations on one side and the meaning as a component of the travel experience on the other side has not been attempted earlier. Thanks to this connection, moreover, the present study offers a more sophisticated image of millennial travellers than previous ones. In short, it shows that, notwithstanding all shared characteristics that distinguish them from previous generations, millennials are not a homogeneous tourist group. To better understand the elusive differences among millennials, future studies are needed. These studies may, for example, consider gender or origin differences. Future studies are recommended to follow an integrated approach such as the one chosen for this study.

The main practical implications of the study’s results are linked to the refined image that it has revealed of millennials. Tourism organisations in general and destination management organisations in particular should take notice that the millennial target group is not homogenous. To satisfy millennial tourists in the present and future, tourism organisations should consider the different values that they uphold and the different meanings that they give to travel. Specifically, this study has been able to confirm that there is a consistent group of millennials (here represented by cluster 2 and 3) that are pointedly motivated by self-transcending values and that look to the travel experience as an opportunity to learn and understand other people’s culture in order to create a better world for themselves and others. This group is open to a sustainable tourism offer and represents an opportunity for the tourism industry to grow without jeopardising its own future ( UNWTO and WYSE Travel Confederation, 2008 ).

Value orientations and values

Tourism experience – need component (meaning) processed from sampled data

R 2 for each component (PCA) and R 2 global for the number of partitions solutions processed from sampled data

Clusters of young people: the number of cases and Final Cluster Centres processed from sampled data

A CAWI survey, though online, is similar to the traditional printed survey. With the CAWI technique, the units are identified through a process of self-selection: they are invited to respond to a questionnaire available on the internet. Immediately after compilation, all information is recorded in a database and can be used for the analysis.

Principal component analysis is a statistical procedure aimed at reducing the number of variables ( Di Franco and Marradi, 2013 ).

Barton , C. , Haywood , J. , Jhunjhunwala , P. and Bhatia , V. ( 2013 ), “ Travelling with millennials ”, The Boston Consulting Group, SP, available at: www.bcg.com/documents/file129974.pdf (accessed 11 February 2018 ).

Blumer , H. ( 1969 ), Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method , Prentice Hall , Englewood Cliffs, NJ .

Cavagnaro , E. and Staffieri , S. ( 2015 ), “ A study of students’ travellers values and needs in order to establish futures patterns and insights ”, Journal of Tourism Futures , Vol. 1 No. 2 , pp. 94 - 107 , doi: 10.1108/JTF-12-2014-0013 .

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS) ( 2016 ), “ Trendrapporttoerisme, recreatie en vrije tijd, deel 2 Statistieken (Trend report on tourism recreation and leisure, part 2 Statistics) ”, CBS, Den Haag .

Chang , J.C. ( 2007 ), “ Travel motivations of package tour travelers ”, Original Scientific Paper , Vol. 55 No. 2 , pp. 157 - 76 .

De Groot , J.I.M. and Steg , L. ( 2008 ), “ Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmentally significant behavior: how to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations ”, Environment and Behavior , Vol. 40 No. 3 , pp. 330 - 54 .

Di Franco , G. and Marradi , A. ( 2013 ), Factor Analysis and Principal Component Analysis , Franco Angeli , Milano .

Everitt , B.S. , Landau , S. and Leese , M. ( 2001 ), Cluster Analysis , 4th ed. , Arnold , London .

Fermani , A. , Crocetti , E. and Carradori , D. ( 2011 ), I Giovani e la Vacanza: Tratti di Personalità e Motivazione alla Scelta , Edizioni Università di Macerata , Macerata .

Glover , P. ( 2010 ), “ Generation Y’s future tourism demand: some opportunities and challenges ”, in Benckendorff , P. , Moscardo , G. and Pendergast , D. (Eds), Tourism and Generation Y , CAB International , Cambridge, MA , pp. 155 - 63 .

Howe , N. and Strauss , W. ( 2000 ), Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation , Vintage , New York, NY .

Kim , J.-H. , Ritchie , J.R.B. and McCormick , B. ( 2012 ), “ Development of a scale to measure memorable tourism experiences ”, Journal of Travel Research , Vol. 51 No. 1 , pp. 12 - 25 .

Leask , A. , Fyall , A. and Barron , P. ( 2013 ), “ Generation Y: opportunity or challenge – strategies to engage Generation Y in the UK attractions’ sector ”, Current Issues in Tourism , Vol. 16 No. 1 , pp. 17 - 46 .

MacCannell , D. ( 1976 ), The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class , Schocken Books , New York, NY .

Mac Queen , J. ( 1967 ), “ Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations ”, Proceedings of the 5th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability , Vol. 1 , pp. 281 - 97 .

Martinengo , M.C. and Savoja , L. ( 1993 ), Giovani e Turismo. Un’indagine sulle Vacanze Giovanili , FrancoAngeli , Milano .

Moisă , C. ( 2010 ), “ Aspects of the youth travel demand ”, Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica , Vol. 12 No. 2 , pp. 575 - 82 .

Norusis , M.J. ( 2011 ), IBM SPSS Statistics 19. Statistical Procedures Companion , Prentice Hall , Upper Saddle River, NJ .

Ovolo Hotels ( 2013 ), “ Millennial marketing in hospitality. Presentation given at UNWTOs 5th global summit on city tourism ”, 1-2 November 2016, Luxor , available at: http://cf.cdn.unwto.org/sites/all/files/pdf/3_3_amadou_doumbia-ovolo_hotels-millennial_marketing_in_hospitality.pdf (accessed 11 February 2018 ).

Pearce , P.L. and Lee , U.L. ( 2005 ), “ Developing the travel career approach to tourist motivation ”, Journal of Travel Research , Vol. 43 No. 3 , pp. 226 - 37 .

Pendergast , D. , Benckendorff , P. and Moscardo , G. ( 2010 ), Tourism and Generation Y , CABI , Wallingford, CT .

Richards , G. ( 2006 ), “ ISTC/UNWTO survey on student and youth tourism among national tourism administrations/organizations ”, in UNWTO (Ed.), Tourism Market Trends, 2005 Edition, World Overview & Tourism Topics , World Tourism Organization , Madrid , pp. 95 - 123 .

Richards , G. ( 2011 ), “ An economic contribution that matters ”, in Fitzgerald , D. , Jordan , P. and Egido , L. (Eds), The Power of Youth Travel, United Nation World Tourism Organization and World Youth Student & Educational Travel Confederation (UNWTO and WYSE Travel Confederation) , Madrid , pp. 7 - 8 .

Richards , G. and Wilson , J. ( 2004 ), “ The international student travel market, travelstyle, motivations, and activities ”, Tourism Review International , Vol. 8 No. 2 , pp. 57 - 67 .

Ritchie , J.R.B. and Hudson , S. ( 2009 ), “ Understanding and meeting the challenges of consumer/tourist experience research ”, International Journal of Tourism Research , Vol. 11 No. 2 , pp. 111 - 26 .

Schwartz , S.H. ( 1994 ), “ Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? ”, Journal of Social Issues , Vol. 50 No. 4 , pp. 19 - 45 .

Spath , H. ( 1980 ), Cluster Analsysis Algorithms for Data Reduction and Classification of Objects , Ellis Horwood , Chichester .

Staffieri , S. ( 2016a ), L’esperienza turistica dei giovani italiani. Collana: Studi e Ricerche , ISBN 978-88-9377-005-7 , Vol. 250 , Sapienza Università Editrice , Roma .

Staffieri , S. ( 2016b ), “ Il curriculum turistico familiare dei giovani italiani: diversi profili ”, Le politiche pubbliche per il turismo Ricerca e pianificazione , ISBN: 978884308532, a cura di Emanuela Gasca e Sara Levi Sacerdotti. Carocci, Roma .

Steg , L. and Vlek , C. ( 2009 ), “ Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda ”, Journal of Environmental Psychology , Vol. 29 No. 3 , pp. 309 - 17 , doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004 .

Steg , L. , Bolderdijk , J.W. , Keizer , K. and Perlaviciute , G. ( 2014 ), “ An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: the role of values, situational factors and goals ”, Journal of Environmental Psychology , Vol. 38 , pp. 104 - 15 , doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.002 .

Steg , L. , Perlaviciute , G. , Van der Werff , E. and Lurvink , J. ( 2012 ), “ The significance of hedonic values for environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and actions ”, Environment and Behavior , Vol. 46 No. 2 , pp. 163 - 92 .

Stern , P.C. and Dietz , T. ( 1994 ), “ The value basis of environmental concern ”, Journal of Social Issues , Vol. 50 No. 3 , pp. 65 - 84 .

Stern , P.C. , Dietz , T. and Guagnano , G. ( 1995 ), “ The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context ”, Environment and Behaviour , Vol. 27 No. 6 , pp. 723 - 43 .

United Nation Global Compact and Accenture ( 2014 ), “ The consumer study: from marketing to mattering ”, The UN Global Compact-Accenture Study on Sustainability in collaboration with Havas Media RE:PURPOSE, Accenture, SP, available at: www.fairtrade.travel/source/websites/fairtrade/documents/Accenture-Consumer-Study-Marketing-Mattering_2014.pdf (accessed 11 February 2018 ).

United Nations World Tourism Organisation ( 2013 ), “ Affiliate members global reports ”, Volume thirteen – The Power of Youth Travel, UNWTO, Madrid .

United Nations World Tourism Organisation and World Youth Student & Educational Travel Confederation (UNWTO and WYSE Travel Confederation) ( 2008 ), “ Youth travel matters: understanding the global phenomenon of youth travel ”, UNWTO, Madrid .

United Nations World Tourism Organisation and World Youth Student & Educational Travel Confederation (UNWTO and WYSE Travel Confederation) ( 2016 ), “ Affiliate members global reports, volume thirteen – the power of youth travel ”, UNWTO, Madrid .

United Nations World Tourism Organization, and World Youth Student & Educational Travel Confederation (UNWTO and WYSE Travel Confederation) ( 2011 ), “ The power of youth travel ”, UNWTO, Madrid .

WYSE ( 2016 ), “ Student and youth travel in cities ”, Presentation given at UNWTOs 5th Global Summit on City Tourism, Luxor, 1-2 November .

Zani , S. and Cerioli , A. ( 2007 ), Analisi dei dati e data mining per le decisioni aziendali , Giuffré Editore , Milano .

Acknowledgements

In 2014, the European Tourism Futures Institute (ETFI) initiated a large-scale study among youth in the Netherlands. The study was conducted in co-operation with the Academy of International Hospitality Research (AIHR) and TNS Nipo, a Dutch organisation specialized in market research.

Corresponding author

About the authors.

Elena Cavagnaro is a Professor at the Academy of International Hospitality Research, Stenden Hotel Management School, NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.

Simona Staffieri is based at the Italian National Institute of Statistics, Rome, Italy.

Albert Postma is a Professor of Applied Sciences at the European Tourism Futures Institute, NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

What Is Experiential Tourism?

• Metropolitan State University
• Sustainable Fashion
• Art & Media

“Experiential tourism” has become a popular term for travel marketers, but it can mean different things to different people. For some, experiential travel means doing anything that falls outside of a standard sightseeing, museum-going itinerary. For others, it is defined by interactions with locals or by going to places that might not be considered tourist attractions at all.

The definitions might be different, but the goals of experiential travelers are usually similar: to immerse themselves in a way that leads to some sort of discovery, insight or inspiration. This travel philosophy is usually championed by fully independent travelers (those who travel without help from agents or guides), but tour companies and even non-profit organizations have embraced the trend, promising transformative experiences to people who buy their vacation packages or join their volun-tourism programs .

Is experiential tourism redefining travel or is it a fad that will eventually fade? If it is a lasting travel trend, how will it affect off-the-beaten-path destinations that usually do not see many mainstream tourists?

Leveling the field

For some places, the experiential travel trend could be a game-changer. Smaller destinations cannot hope to compete with tourism heavyweights when it comes to infrastructure, advertising budget and investment. They can, however, differentiate themselves by focusing on the unique experiences they offer.

Manitoba provides an example. The oft-forgotten Canadian province highlights how local tour companies and communities can use the experiential trend to gain an edge in the ultra-competitive travel marketplace. Travel Manitoba explains that small operators can “avoid unnecessary risks and major investments by shifting the opportunity focus from building more infrastructure to building the capacity of people who can tell your ‘story' and connect with the traveler.”

According to Manitoba’s tourism stakeholders, the “ingredients” of a successful experiential tourism strategy include hands-on activities and interactions with locals . They also highlight the need for guides to change their approach to guiding. The goal should be to facilitate tours so that tourists can make discoveries and gain insights on their own.

Can all smaller destinations benefit?

On paper, the Manitoba approach sounds like a great idea, but is it practical? Some conscientious travelers might choose a destination because they want to support such grassroots efforts, but most are, first and foremost, seeking experiences. If they want to succeed, these destinations have to deliver.

New Zealand’s tourism development in recent decades suggests that experiential tourism can indeed help off-the-radar places develop into mainstream destinations. Admittedly, this Southern Hemisphere country was able to take advantage of the buzz from the "Lord of the Rings" movies to help its tourism efforts. However, New Zealand has stuck with advertising campaigns that focus on adventure and culture rather than on attractions related to the popular films.

Adventure sports, culinary and wine tourism, and cultural excursions have led to a boom for New Zealand in both the U.S. and Asia Pacific markets. This has happened at a grassroots level, with more than nine out every 10 tour companies in the country having fewer than five employees. This means that even if people are there for the skiing or wine and nothing else, they will often be interacting directly with local people in a way that is more personal than in destinations with more traditional tourism infrastructure.

An emotional connection

Nova Scotia’s Cape Breton Island has, like Manitoba, published a list of ingredients, which they call “essentials,” necessary for a successful experiential tourism sector. Keywords like “hands on” and “authentic” are part of this document, but so is something else: “emotion.” In other words, the goal of travelers is to find experiences that allow them to feel a connection to a place rather than to just see it.

This is not a new idea. You often hear people express affection for major world cities like Paris, Hong Kong or New York without ever mentioning the Eiffel Tower, Victoria Peak or Times Square. Perhaps the real allure of experiential tourism is that it makes it acceptable to seek out this kind of emotional connection.

A win for sustainability

The issue of sustainability might be important to travelers, but it might not always be practical to travel in a sustainable way and to support the preservation of local culture and ecosystems. This is especially true in mainstream tourist destinations.

Experiential tourism, on the other hand, can make sustainability more practical when it comes to both culture and the environment.

How is this possible?

Uniqueness is one of the biggest assets that a place can have when it comes to experiential tourism. Ideally, tourists who are interested in this kind of travel would reward a destination for preserving its nature, culture, historic architecture and other aspects of their destination by spending their travel budget there.

Culinary tourism

Ulf Liljankoski / Flickr

One of the most popular forms of experiential travel is culinary tourism. This can involve visiting neighborhood restaurants or markets with a local guide, or it could be more in-depth and include cooking classes, wine tastings and even picking trips to farms or gardens. La Boqueria, a classic market in Barcelona, has been successful at offering cooking classes and other immersive experiences to people who would otherwise only come there to sightsee.

Food tourism is currently one of the most accessible forms of experiential travel. Tourists seem drawn to culinary experiences , proving that experiential travel can cross over into the mainstream. The foodie trend also shows that worries about the "McDonald's-ization" of the world are unfounded.

An authentic image

Andri Koolme / Flickr

Social media has played a part in the rise of culinary tourism. Whole social accounts are based on nothing but pictures of raw ingredients and beautifully plated dishes. This points to a larger trend that shows that, like it or not, social media is how people connect with and get inspired by like-minded travelers. What does this mean for experiential travel?

The “Instagram effect” is real, and marketing offices have started inviting photographers with large Instagram followings on press junkets. This has helped to redefine travel , with people wanting to have the same experiences as those they see on social media.

At a recent tourism event, the head of marketing for the Tourism Authority of Thailand, Chattan Kunjara na Ayudhya, pointed out that the process of taking images to post on social media can be beneficial for experiential travelers if the images are authentic. “An authentic image can tell a very complex story in a very simple way. These simple images are shared by travelers on a day to day basis.”

He went on the explain that destinations and tourism industry stakeholders should be responsible for presenting tourists with the opportunities to create such images. “We need to make sure that we are creating authentic experiences that are shareable."

Volunteer, see the world

Another aspect of experiential tourism involves immersing yourself in something that you are truly passionate about. This could be cooking, pottery or something more obscure, like the conservation of wild plants. Such nature-based immersive experiences are offered in Southern Oregon by the Wild River Coast Alliance , which organizes programs that support communities and ecology in the region.

For some, simply getting beyond the tourist trail and seeing the real culture of a destination is the ultimate example of experiential tourism. This has always been a popular option for youth travelers or so-called “gap-year” tourists. Tour packages offering such experiences often have an educational angle (studying abroad or participating in a language immersion program). Some involve homestays or volunteering on development projects while living abroad.

Understanding the place

Are tourists simply ticking experiences off their to-do list just as they’d tick off sightseeing sites, or are they actually gaining understanding of the places that they visit? The criticism of the experiential trend is that immersion experiences are, in general, just another way to package tourism. The trend may allow smaller destinations to capitalize on their unique attributes, but the travelers are still short-term visitors whose travel experiences are lacking .

Is it possible to be overzealous in this pursuit of experiences? In Luang Prabang, an historic city and UNESCO World Heritage Site in Laos, one tradition has become quite popular with tourists. The practice of donating food to feed the city’s monks occurs every morning. Local people congregate at the roadside and put food into the monks’ bowls as they walk past. Tourists began coming early in the morning to photograph the procession-like practice. Some even take part, raising concerns that this once quiet, solemn religious affair has descended into a noisy spectacle.

The Luang Prabang Airport reportedly has signs that offer advice on how to participate in the almsgiving in a respectful way.

The future of experiential tourism

The demand for air travel is expected to double in the next two decades. Tourism is growing at a steady rate. Despite criticisms and drawbacks, the growth of experiential tourism could allow smaller players in the tourism industry to benefit from this growth without having to sacrifice their culture, sell their land to developers or change the way that they live.

• What Is Ecotourism? Definition, Examples, and Pros and Cons
• Regenerative Travel: What It Is and How It's Outperforming Sustainable Tourism
• What Is Sustainable Tourism and Why Is It Important?
• What Is Community-Based Tourism? Definition and Popular Destinations
• What Is Overtourism and Why Is It Such a Big Problem?
• How to Be a Sustainable Traveler: 18 Tips
• Costa Rica’s Keys to Success as a Sustainable Tourism Pioneer
• Best of Green Awards 2021: Sustainable Travel
• New Zealand Aims to Become World's Largest 'Dark Sky Nation'
• Top 8 Agritourism Destinations in the World
• Artist's Viral Postcards Depict 50 American States in Climate Crisis
• 9 Not-So-Big Cities With Rich Cultural Scenes
• What Are the Three Pillars of Sustainability?
• How to Find the Perfect Second-Hand Wedding Dress
• 10 Small Towns With Big Personalities
• Floating Finnish Cabin Connects Guests to the Forest

An Artificial Intelligent English Learning Platform

Learn Advanced English Expressions for Talking about Travel Experiences

Introduction.

Imagine you’re just back from an awe-inspiring trip. The azure skies, the ancient architectural marvels, the exotic cuisine – you’re bursting to share these experiences with your friends and colleagues. But when it comes to expressing these adventures in English, you feel as if your words don’t do justice to the beauty and excitement you’ve experienced. You’re not alone. Here at Lillypad.ai, we understand that one of the most enchanting aspects of learning English (or any language, for that matter) is articulating your unique experiences fluently and effortlessly.

With a team composed of experienced English language teachers and linguists, we’ve been on both sides of the language learning journey. We’ve observed, understood, and addressed the challenges faced by English learners worldwide, from grappling with complex grammar rules to finding the right expressions to convey their thoughts effectively.

In this blog post, we aim to help you master advanced English expressions for talking about travel experiences. These are not just randomly picked phrases but contextually relevant expressions commonly used by native English speakers while narrating their travel stories. Our goal is not only to help you expand your vocabulary but also to guide you on how to use these expressions in a way that feels natural and engaging.

By mastering these advanced English expressions, you’ll gain a more profound linguistic understanding and boost your confidence, enhance your communication skills, and pave the way for more meaningful conversations about your travels. With us, you’ll transform from a hesitant speaker to a compelling storyteller. So buckle up, and let’s embark on this exciting language journey together!

Your Passport to Success: Mastering Advanced English Expressions for Sharing Travel Experiences

Travel – it’s an activity that unites us all. Experiencing different cultures, sampling exotic cuisines, and marvelling at breathtaking landscapes – these are universal joys that we all share. And when it comes to sharing these experiences with others, the ability to effectively express ourselves in English is an invaluable asset.

The importance of mastering travel-related English expressions cannot be overstated, especially in the globalized world we live in today. Experts agree that travel experiences can be powerful learning tools, not only for broadening one’s worldview but also for developing language proficiency. Expressing travel experiences in English, thus, allows learners to connect with a global audience while simultaneously honing their language skills.

Consider this scenario – you’ve just returned from a fantastic trip to London. You’ve seen the iconic Big Ben, experienced the buzz of Piccadilly Circus, and indulged in some traditional English tea. Now, you want to share these experiences with your friends, colleagues, or perhaps a community of fellow travel enthusiasts. Isn’t it exciting to be able to narrate your adventures in English, connecting with listeners as they virtually travel through your words?

We understand, though, that talking about travel experiences in English might seem like a tall order. It might be intimidating to remember the right words, phrases, or idiomatic expressions. But remember, just like the first step of any journey, the key is to start.

With this content, I’m here to guide you through the nuances of travel-related English expressions. By the end of our journey, you’ll be equipped with advanced English expressions that will help you vividly narrate your travels, making your listeners feel as if they were right there with you.

Never forget, Lillypad.ai is here to support you. Whether you’re sharing a funny anecdote, expressing concern, or narrating your latest adventure, our tool is designed to assist you in every situation, making your English language journey as exciting as your world travels.

List of 20 Advanced English Phrases for Talking about Travel Experiences

Talking about travel experiences allows us to share our adventures, explore different cultures, and connect with others. In this section, we’ll explore 20 advanced English phrases that you can use to discuss your travel experiences. Let’s dive in!

Expression 1: It was a trip of a lifetime.

Explanation: This expression is used to describe a travel experience that was extraordinary and unforgettable.

Meaning, Usage, and Cultural Nuances: It conveys the idea that the trip was incredibly special and something that may only happen once in a lifetime.

When to Use It: Use this expression when you want to emphasize how remarkable and unique your travel experience was.

• After a safari in Africa, Sarah said, “It was a trip of a lifetime! Seeing the wildlife up close was an incredible experience.”
• Upon returning from a backpacking adventure in Southeast Asia, Mark exclaimed, “I can’t believe how amazing it was! Truly a trip of a lifetime.”
• While sharing stories from a visit to the Great Wall of China, Emma said, “Walking along the Great Wall was a dream come true. It was a trip of a lifetime.”

Expression 2: I was blown away by…

Explanation: This phrase is used to express intense amazement or astonishment about a particular aspect of your travel experience.

Meaning, Usage, and Cultural Nuances: It conveys a strong sense of wonder and surprise.

When to Use It: Use this phrase when you want to highlight something that deeply impressed you during your travels.

• Reflecting on a visit to the Grand Canyon, John said, “I was absolutely blown away by the breathtaking beauty of the landscape.”
• Recounting a visit to the Taj Mahal, Lisa exclaimed, “The Taj Mahal is an architectural masterpiece. I was completely blown away by its grandeur.”
• Sharing memories from a trip to Paris, Tom said, “The art and culture in Paris were incredible. I was blown away by the Louvre Museum.”

Expression 3: The scenery was out of this world.

Explanation: This expression is used to describe exceptionally stunning and captivating natural landscapes.

Meaning, Usage, and Cultural Nuances: It conveys a sense of awe and wonder at the beauty of the surroundings.

When to Use It: Use this expression when you want to emphasize the extraordinary beauty of the scenery you encountered during your travels.

• After a hike in the Swiss Alps, Sarah exclaimed, “The views were out of this world! The snow-capped peaks and pristine lakes were absolutely breathtaking.”
• Reflecting on a visit to the Great Barrier Reef, Mark said, “Diving into the crystal-clear waters was a surreal experience. The underwater scenery was out of this world.”
• Recounting a road trip through Iceland, Emma said, “The landscapes in Iceland were unlike anything I had ever seen. The volcanic landscapes and waterfalls were out of this world.”

Expression 4: I got lost in the maze of…

Explanation: This phrase is used to describe getting immersed in the vibrant and intricate surroundings of a particular place.

Meaning, Usage, and Cultural Nuances: It conveys the feeling of being captivated and enchanted by the surroundings.

When to Use It: Use this phrase when you want to express how you became completely absorbed and fascinated by the atmosphere of a location.

• Talking about a visit to the bustling streets of Tokyo, John said, “I got lost in the maze of neon lights and skyscrapers. The energy of the city was incredible.”
• Recounting a trip to the narrow alleyways of Marrakech, Lisa exclaimed, “Walking through the bustling souks, I got lost in the maze of colours, scents, and sounds.”
• Reflecting on a visit to the historic streets of Rome, Tom said, “Exploring the ancient ruins and charming neighbourhoods, I got lost in the maze of history and culture.”

Expression 5: The local cuisine was a culinary delight.

Explanation: This expression is used to describe the exceptional and delicious food you encountered during your travels.

Meaning, Usage, and Cultural Nuances: It conveys the enjoyment and satisfaction derived from trying local dishes.

When to Use It: Use this expression when you want to highlight the gastronomic experiences and the pleasure you derived from tasting local cuisine.

• After a trip to Thailand, Sarah said, “The street food in Bangkok was a culinary delight. The flavours and spices were incredible.”
• Recounting a visit to Italy, Mark exclaimed, “I indulged in pasta, pizza, and gelato. The local cuisine was a true culinary delight.”
• Reflecting on a culinary tour in France, Emma said, “From croissants to cheese and wine, the French cuisine was a culinary delight at every turn.”

Expression 6: I was immersed in the rich cultural heritage of…

Explanation: This phrase is used to convey the experience of fully engaging with the traditions, customs, and history of a particular place.

Meaning, Usage, and Cultural Nuances: It conveys a sense of deep involvement and appreciation for the cultural aspects of a destination.

When to Use It: Use this phrase when you want to express how you embraced and experienced the cultural heritage of a place you visited.

• Talking about a trip to Kyoto, John said, “I immersed myself in the rich cultural heritage of Japan. From visiting ancient temples to participating in tea ceremonies, it was an incredible experience.”
• Recounting a visit to Machu Picchu, Lisa exclaimed, “Exploring the ancient ruins and learning about the Inca civilization, I was immersed in the rich cultural heritage of Peru.”
• Reflecting on a journey through India, Tom said, “From experiencing traditional dance performances to trying local crafts, I was immersed in the rich cultural heritage of India.”

Expression 7: The locals were incredibly hospitable and welcoming.

Explanation: This phrase is used to describe the warm and friendly nature of the local people you encountered during your travels.

Meaning, Usage, and Cultural Nuances: It conveys a sense of gratitude and appreciation for the hospitality received.

When to Use It: Use this phrase when you want to express how the local community made you feel welcomed and embraced during your journey.

• After a trip to Greece, Sarah said, “The locals were incredibly hospitable and welcoming. They made me feel like part of their family.”
• Recounting a visit to Morocco, Mark exclaimed, “From staying in riads to engaging in conversations with locals, I experienced the genuine warmth and hospitality of the Moroccan people.”
• Reflecting on a trip to Thailand, Emma said, “The Thai people were so friendly and welcoming. Their hospitality made my journey even more memorable.”

Expression 8: I was in awe of the architectural marvels of…

Explanation: This phrase is used to express admiration and wonder for the impressive architecture of a particular place or landmark.

Meaning, Usage, and Cultural Nuances: It conveys a sense of astonishment and appreciation for architectural achievements.

When to Use It: Use this phrase when you want to highlight the remarkable architectural features that captivated you during your travels.

• Talking about a visit to the Eiffel Tower, John said, “I was in awe of the architectural marvel of the Eiffel Tower. It’s even more impressive up close.”
• Recounting a trip to Istanbul, Lisa exclaimed, “The Hagia Sophia and the Blue Mosque were architectural marvels that left me in awe.”
• Reflecting on a visit to the Colosseum in Rome, Tom said, “Standing inside the Colosseum, I was in awe of its grandeur and historical significance.”

Expression 9: The adventure gave me an adrenaline rush.

Explanation: This expression is used to describe an exhilarating and thrilling experience during your travels.

Meaning, Usage, and Cultural Nuances: It conveys the excitement and energy felt during adventurous activities.

When to Use It: Use this expression when you want to convey the sense of excitement and the rush of adrenaline you experienced during your travels.

• After a bungee jumping experience, Sarah said, “The jump gave me such an adrenaline rush. It was an unforgettable adventure.”
• Recounting a white-water rafting trip, Mark exclaimed, “Navigating the rapids gave me an incredible adrenaline rush. It was an adventure of a lifetime.”
• Reflecting on a hiking expedition, Emma said, “Reaching the summit of the mountain and taking in the breathtaking views gave me an adrenaline rush like no other.”

Expression 10: I found serenity in the peaceful landscapes of…

Explanation: This phrase is used to express the feeling of tranquillity and calmness experienced in serene natural settings.

Meaning, Usage, and Cultural Nuances: It conveys a sense of peace and inner harmony found in peaceful landscapes.

When to Use It: Use this phrase when you want to convey the serenity and tranquillity you experienced in the natural surroundings during your travels.

• Talking about a visit to a secluded beach, John said, “I found serenity in the peaceful landscapes of the beach. It was a perfect escape.”
• Recounting a trip to a tranquil mountain retreat, Lisa exclaimed, “Surrounded by lush forests and the sound of chirping birds, I found true serenity in the peaceful landscapes of the mountains.”
• Reflecting on a stay at a countryside farmhouse, Tom said, “Waking up to the gentle sounds of nature and the picturesque views, I found serenity in the peaceful landscapes of the countryside.”

Expression 11: The experience left me with lasting memories.

Explanation: This phrase is used to convey that the travel experience was so impactful and meaningful that it created lasting memories.

Meaning, Usage, and Cultural Nuances: It suggests that the experience was significant and will be remembered for a long time.

When to Use It: Use this phrase when you want to express the profound impact and the lasting impression the travel experience had on you.

• After a visit to the ancient ruins of Machu Picchu, Sarah said, “Exploring Machu Picchu left me with lasting memories. It’s a place I’ll never forget.”
• Recounting a road trip through the Scottish Highlands, Mark exclaimed, “The breathtaking landscapes and charming villages left me with lasting memories. It was a journey I’ll always cherish.”
• Reflecting on cultural immersion in Japan, Emma said, “Immersing myself in the traditions and vibrant city life left me with lasting memories. Japan holds a special place in my heart.”

Expression 12: I had the time of my life!

Explanation: This phrase is used to express that the travel experience was incredibly enjoyable and unforgettable.

Meaning, Usage, and Cultural Nuances: It conveys a sense of utmost joy and fulfilment during the journey.

When to Use It: Use this phrase when you want to emphasize how much fun and happiness you experienced during your travels.

• Talking about a beach vacation, John said, “I had the time of my life! The sun, sand, and endless laughter made it an unforgettable experience.”
• Recounting a backpacking adventure, Lisa exclaimed, “Exploring new places and meeting amazing people, I had the time of my life. It was an adventure like no other.”
• Reflecting on a music festival abroad, Tom said, “Dancing to my favourite bands and being surrounded by incredible energy, I had the time of my life. It was a celebration to remember.”

Expression 13: I was mesmerized by the vibrant atmosphere of…

Explanation: This phrase is used to describe the captivating and lively ambience of a particular place.

Meaning, Usage, and Cultural Nuances: It conveys a sense of being enchanted and captivated by the energetic atmosphere.

When to Use It: Use this phrase when you want to emphasize the vibrant and dynamic atmosphere you experienced during your travels.

• Talking about a visit to a bustling market in Marrakech, Sarah said, “I was mesmerized by the vibrant atmosphere of the souks. The colours, sounds, and aromas were incredible.”
• Recounting a trip to New Orleans, Mark exclaimed, “The lively jazz music and the bustling streets mesmerized me. The city has such a vibrant atmosphere.”
• Reflecting on a night out in Tokyo, Emma said, “Walking through the busy streets of Shibuya, I was mesmerized by the vibrant atmosphere and the bright neon lights.”

Expression 14: The experience was a feast for the senses.

Explanation: This phrase is used to describe an experience that stimulated multiple senses, such as sight, sound, taste, and smell.

Meaning, Usage, and Cultural Nuances: It conveys the idea of being immersed in a sensory-rich environment.

When to Use It: Use this phrase when you want to convey how the experience delighted your senses and created a memorable sensory journey.

• After attending a traditional dance performance, John said, “The vibrant costumes, the rhythmic music, and the graceful movements—it was a feast for the senses.”
• Recounting a visit to a local market, Lisa exclaimed, “The colourful produce, the aroma of spices, and the lively chatter of vendors—it was a true feast for the senses.”
• Reflecting on a food tour in Thailand, Tom said, “The explosion of flavours, the aroma of street food, and the sizzling sounds of stir-frying—it was a culinary feast for the senses.”

Expression 15: I stepped out of my comfort zone and embraced new experiences.

Explanation: This phrase is used to express that you willingly pushed yourself to try new things and embrace unfamiliar experiences during your travels.

Meaning, Usage, and Cultural Nuances: It conveys a sense of adventure, personal growth, and openness to stepping beyond one’s comfort zone.

When to Use It: Use this phrase when you want to highlight your willingness to explore and engage in new activities during your travels.

• Talking about a hiking expedition, Sarah said, “I stepped out of my comfort zone and embraced the challenge of hiking to the summit. The breathtaking views made it all worthwhile.”
• Recounting a solo travel experience, Mark exclaimed, “Traveling alone allowed me to step out of my comfort zone and connect with new people and cultures. It was an enriching experience.”
• Reflecting on a language immersion program, Emma said, “Living with a host family and attending local classes, I stepped out of my comfort zone and fully embraced the language and culture.”

Expression 16: The journey sparked my sense of wanderlust.

Explanation: This phrase is used to describe how your travel experience ignited a strong desire to explore and travel more.

Meaning, Usage, and Cultural Nuances: It conveys the idea of being inspired and motivated to seek new adventures.

When to Use It: Use this phrase when you want to express how your journey fueled your passion for travelling and discovering new destinations.

• After a backpacking trip through Europe, John said, “The journey sparked my sense of wanderlust. I can’t wait to plan my next adventure.”
• Recounting a road trip across the United States, Lisa exclaimed, “Exploring the vast landscapes and diverse cities sparked my sense of wanderlust. There’s so much more I want to see.”
• Reflecting on a volunteer experience abroad, Tom said, “Being immersed in a different culture and making a positive impact sparked my sense of wanderlust. I’m already planning my next volunteer trip.”

Expression 17: The journey was full of serendipitous moments.

Explanation: This phrase is used to describe unexpected and delightful occurrences or coincidences that happened during your travels.

Meaning, Usage, and Cultural Nuances: It conveys the element of surprise and the joy of unexpected encounters.

When to Use It: Use this phrase when you want to convey how your journey was filled with unexpected and positive surprises.

• Talking about a chance encounter with a local artist, Sarah said, “The journey was full of serendipitous moments. I met an incredible artist who shared their story with me.”
• Recounting a spontaneous adventure with new friends, Mark exclaimed, “From stumbling upon a hidden beach to joining a local festival, the journey was full of serendipitous moments.”
• Reflecting on a hiking trip, Emma said, “Discovering a hidden waterfall and encountering wildlife along the trail were serendipitous moments that made the journey unforgettable.”

Expression 18: I found solace in the tranquillity of…

Explanation: This phrase is used to express that you experienced a sense of peace, calmness, and inner reflection in a particular place.

Meaning, Usage, and Cultural Nuances: It conveys the idea of finding emotional and mental solace in a serene environment.

When to Use It: Use this phrase when you want to emphasize the soothing and peaceful impact a destination had on your well-being.

• Talking about a visit to a remote mountain retreat, John said, “Surrounded by nature’s beauty and the absence of city noise, I found solace in the tranquillity of the mountains.”
• Recounting a stay in a secluded beach resort, Lisa exclaimed, “The sound of the waves, the gentle breeze, and the lack of distractions allowed me to find solace in the tranquillity of the beach.”
• Reflecting on a meditation retreat, Tom said, “Being immersed in silence and connecting with my inner self, I found solace in the tranquillity of the retreat centre.”

Expression 19: I had the privilege of immersing myself in the local culture.

Explanation: This phrase is used to express the sense of privilege and gratitude for being able to deeply engage with the local culture during your travels.

Meaning, Usage, and Cultural Nuances: It conveys the appreciation for the opportunity to learn and experience the traditions and customs of a place.

When to Use It: Use this phrase when you want to emphasize the depth of your cultural immersion and the value you placed on connecting with local traditions.

• After a homestay experience, Sarah said, “Living with a local family allowed me the privilege of immersing myself in the local culture. I learned so much about their traditions and way of life.”
• Recounting a traditional festival participation, Mark exclaimed, “Being part of the festival was a privilege that allowed me to immerse myself in the local culture. The vibrant celebrations were unforgettable.”
• Reflecting on a language exchange program, Emma said, “Attending local language classes and connecting with native speakers gave me the privilege of immersing myself in the local culture. It was a transformative experience.”

Expression 20: The journey taught me the importance of embracing the unknown.

Explanation: This phrase is used to express the realization and understanding gained from stepping into unfamiliar territory and embracing uncertainty during your travels.

Meaning, Usage, and Cultural Nuances: It conveys the lesson learned about the value of embracing new experiences and the growth that comes from embracing the unknown.

When to Use It: Use this phrase when you want to emphasize how your journey taught you the significance of embracing unfamiliarity and venturing outside your comfort zone.

• Talking about a solo backpacking trip, John said, “The journey taught me the importance of embracing the unknown. I discovered my own strength and resilience.”
• Recounting an expedition to a remote location, Lisa exclaimed, “Navigating uncharted paths and immersing myself in unfamiliar cultures taught me the importance of embracing the unknown.”
• Reflecting on a spontaneous adventure, Tom said, “Stepping into the unknown and saying yes to new experiences taught me the importance of embracing uncertainty. It opened doors to incredible opportunities.”

Contextual Understanding

Talking about travel experiences is a common topic in English conversations, as people love sharing their adventures and exploring different cultures. When discussing travel experiences, specific expressions can enrich the conversation and convey the excitement, emotions, and cultural insights associated with travelling. Understanding the broader context of travel, including the diversity of destinations and the personal significance of these experiences, is essential for effectively communicating and connecting with others.

Tips for Mastery

• Expand your travel-related vocabulary: Familiarize yourself with travel-related expressions, idioms, and vocabulary specific to different aspects of travel, such as transportation, accommodations, sightseeing, and cultural experiences. Learn words and phrases that capture the essence of various travel experiences.
• Share vivid descriptions: Practice using descriptive language to paint a vivid picture of your travel experiences. Incorporate sensory details, such as sights, sounds, smells, and tastes, to transport your listeners to the destinations you visited.
• Use expressions for expressing preferences and recommendations: Learn expressions for expressing your preferences, such as favourite destinations, memorable experiences, and must-visit places. Additionally, develop the ability to provide recommendations and tips for fellow travellers based on your experiences.
• Learn cultural etiquette: Understand the cultural norms and etiquette of different countries and regions to navigate conversations about travel experiences sensitively. Respectfully engage in discussions about cultural differences and share insights into the customs and traditions you encountered during your travels.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Oversharing or monopolizing the conversation: Be mindful of not dominating the conversation by talking extensively about your travel experiences without allowing others to share their own stories. Practice active listening and show genuine interest in others’ travel experiences.
• Neglecting cultural sensitivity: When discussing travel experiences, avoid making assumptions or generalizations about cultures or countries. Respect diversity and embrace a curious and open-minded attitude when engaging in conversations about different travel destinations.
• Lack of clarity or coherence: Ensure that your descriptions of travel experiences are clear, organized, and coherent. Structure your narratives to engage your audience and help them follow your story.
• Using clichés or generic expressions: Aim for authenticity in your expressions and avoid relying on clichés or generic phrases when talking about travel experiences. Instead, use specific and personal expressions that reflect your unique encounters and perspectives.

By understanding the contextual nuances, expanding your travel-related vocabulary, using descriptive language, and avoiding common mistakes, you can effectively communicate your travel experiences in English and engage in engaging conversations about travel with others.

As we reach the conclusion of this journey through advanced English expressions for talking about travel experiences, it’s important to take stock of what we’ve learned. By mastering these phrases and expressions, you’ve unlocked a whole new dimension to your English communication. You’re now better equipped to vividly recount your adventures, discuss the cultures you’ve experienced, and engage others with your travel stories.

Sharing travel experiences is more than just conveying facts. It’s about painting a picture with words, immersing your listener in the sensations, emotions, and awe-inspiring moments that you’ve encountered. This skill is a valuable asset in fostering deeper connections and sparking engaging discussions.

However, as experienced language educators, we understand that language mastery doesn’t happen overnight. Remember that each conversation you have is a step forward in your journey towards fluency. Practice, apply, and learn from each interaction. Don’t shy away from using your new vocabulary during conversations. The more you use them, the more natural they will become.

In conclusion, the use of advanced English expressions for talking about travel experiences is a crucial component of effective English communication. By mastering these expressions, you’re not just enhancing your vocabulary; you’re also enriching your ability to share experiences, convey emotions, and connect with others. So, don’t stop here. Continue practicing, keep exploring, and watch as your English communication skills reach new heights.

Learn from History – Follow the Science – Listen to the Experts

For learners of all ages striving to improve their English, LillyPad combines the most scientifically studied and recommended path to achieving English fluency and proficiency with today’s most brilliant technologies!

What’s the one thing that makes LillyPad so special? Lilly! Lilly’s a personal English tutor, and has people talking all over the world! Lilly makes improving your English easy. With Lilly, you can read in four different ways, and you can read just about anything you love. And learning with Lilly, well that’s what you call liberating!

Additionally, the platform incorporates goal-setting capabilities, essential tracking & reporting, gamification, anywhere-anytime convenience, and significant cost savings compared to traditional tutoring methodologies.

At LillyPad , everything we do is focused on delivering a personalized journey that is meaningful and life-changing for our members. LillyPad isn’t just the next chapter in English learning…

…it’s a whole new story!

Do you want to improve your English? Visit www.lillypad.ai .

Follow us on Facebook or Instagram !

Bethany MacDonald

Bethany MacDonald has contributed articles LillyPad.ai since 2020. As their Blog Lead, she specialises in informative pieces on culture, education, and language learning

Related Articles

8 ways to improve your english by reading what you love with an ai tutor, how to read like a professional, what are the benefits of reading aloud, the world of online book clubs, improve your english faster with lilly an artificial intelligent tutor.

Latest Posts

Understanding YLTE: Importance of English Test for Young Learners

Top 10 errors in english proficiency tests & how to avoid them, challenges in english proficiency tests for language learners.

FLUOROSCOPE LANGUAGE CALCULATOR

How long will it take you to improve your English?

Design, write and practice your own phrases or learn  3,500+ premade English phrases  with Lilly!

© 2023 LillyPad.Ai