Posted: August 1st, 2023

Demonstrate An Understanding Of Theory, Concepts, And Practices

From Satisfied to Memorable: An Empirical Study of Service
and Experience Dimensions on Guest Outcomes in the
Hospitality Industry
Lori J. Sipe and Mark R. Testa
L. Robert Payne School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, San Diego State University, San Diego,
California, USA
ABSTRACT
Central to the experience economy paradigm is the notion that
services and experiences are distinct economic offerings; yet, little
work has been done to investigate the assumption. This study examined experience economy dimensions (entertainment, esthetics,
escapism, and education) alongside service quality dimensions (technical and expressive) on three outcome variables (satisfaction, service
quality, and memorable experience) in the hospitality and tourism
industry context. Findings provide empirical support for the progression of value posited in past research and reveal that experience and
service dimensions indeed differ in their impact on guest outcomes.
Significant differences across four types of offerings—dining, lodging,
events, and attractions—are discussed within the context of extant
literature.
经验经济范式的核心是服务和经验是截然不同的经济供给的概念；
然而，很少有人做过调查这一假设。本研究探讨体验经济维度（娱
乐、美学、逃避现实、教育）与服务质量维度（技术和表现）对三
个结果变量（满意度、服务质量、难忘的经历）在酒店及旅游行业
背景。研究结果提供了实证支持的价值，在过去的研究假设的进
展，并透露，经验和服务方面确实不同，他们对客人的结果的影
响。四种类型的餐饮，住宿，活动和景点之间的重大差异在现有文
献的背景下进行了讨论。
KEYWORDS
Experience economy;
hospitality industry;
measures; memorable
experiences; service quality
Introduction
Pine and Gilmore (1998) captured the attention of academic researchers and business
practitioners by describing a progression of economic value from commodities to products to services to experiences. According to the authors, this transition from a service to
an experience economy means that as services become more commoditized, perceptions
of competitive advantage diminish. Therefore, all actions of the organization must contribute to delivering experiential offerings that engage customers in a memorable way.
Almost two decades later, experience innovation has been touted as the next frontier to
drive customer value (Lippincott, 2014; Zorfas & Leemon, 2016), and industry studies
CONTACT Mark R. Testa mtesta@mail.sdsu.edu L. Robert Payne School of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT
2018, VOL. 27, NO. 2, 178–195
https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2017.1306820
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
claim that emotional value is the number one factor for improved customer loyalty
(Forrester, 2016).
A major implication of Pine and Gilmore’s work is that experiences represent a higher
level of customer value than services because they are memorable and rich in sensations.
Other scholars have echoed the importance of memories to distinguish services and
experience offerings. Poulsson and Kale (2004) described the commercial experience as
an engaging act wherein the consumer perceives value in the encounter and the subsequent memory of that encounter. Kylänen (2006) contended that multi-sensoral, memorable experiences can lead to personal change. The theoretical distinctions offered by these
authors seem to hold true for the hospitality and tourism industry where memories are a
point of differentiation (Pizam, 2010).
Indeed Pine and Gilmore’s work has been increasing in its influence to hospitality and
tourism researchers, based on the number of scholarly citations, it has received in the past
several years. A study of the reach of the seminal article Welcome to the Experience Economy
(Pine & Gilmore, 1998), for example, found that more than 50% of its citations are from firsttier management, hospitality, and tourism-related journals (Ferreira & Teixeira, 2013). The
same review indicated, however, that empirical studies are underrepresented. The reason for
the dearth of practical studies is likely due to the fact that few of the theoretical contributions
offer easily operationalized starting points for empirical studies. Indeed, only 10% of the
articles citing Pine and Gilmore’s work involved measuring customer experiences in some
way. Scholars have articulated the need for measurement tools that capture the dimensions of
service beyond those controlled by the firm (deliverable dimensions) to include more affective
and subjective (impressionable dimensions) constructs of guest experiences (Beltagui, Darler,
& Candi, 2015). This study responds to the need for empirical studies of customer experience.
The investigation was guided by the following research questions:
● What are the relationships between service and experience dimensions and three
customer outcomes—satisfaction, service quality, and memorable experience—in a
hospitality and tourism marketplace?
● Are there significant differences in guest ratings of service and experience dimensions
across the dining, lodging, events, and attractions segments of a hospitality and
tourism marketplace?
Literature review
Classifying economic offerings
For many years, the predominant divisions of economic offerings have been goods and
services. Classifying an offering as either a good or service depended on the characteristics
of tangibility, separability, homogeneity, and perishability (Zeithaml, Bitner, & Gremler,
2006). These distinctions were helpful from the point of view of companies that provided
the economic offerings. For example, the managerial challenges for product companies
included issues like storage and transportation. For service companies, the managerial
issues focused more on consistency and standardization. With the growing importance of
intangible offerings and experiential consumption, the traditional product/service paradigm has become less relevant. In the marketing literature, for example, the theory of
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 179
service dominant logic was introduced to shift thinking about value from a firm’s
perspective to a customer-centric perspective (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Other scholars
identified the need for theoretical frameworks that more accurately reflect today’s marketplace but argued that considering everything a “service” would not attend to the heterogeneity of the marketplace (Achrol & Kotler, 2006).
Pine and Gilmore called for the “untying” of services from experiences and articulated
an argument to support their notion that services and experiences were as different as
products and services (1998). They suggested that the economy was evolving from the
delivery of commodities to the delivery of goods, from goods to services, and was
transitioning from services to experiences. Coffee illustrates this well. Coffee beans were
originally considered an undifferentiated commodity. Then, companies like Folgers created grounded coffee products in a can, which consumers could purchase at the grocery
store and prepare at home. During the service economy, the delivery of coffee became a
service offered by restaurants and coffee carts, and even drive-thru coffee kiosks. Today,
Starbucks, with their premium-priced coffee drinks, is most often credited with transforming coffee into an experience.
Scholars are divided as to whether or not services and experiences are indeed distinct
economic offerings. Some view experience offerings as a subset of the services industry and
don’t see the need to differentiate (Gronroos, 2000). Others have expressed the sentiment that
services should be split into functional and experience-oriented offerings (Hansen et al., 2013).
Distinctions have also been made between product companies that add experiential components (think luxury car dealerships) with companies like theme parks, who “sell” an experience as the primary economic offering (Sundbo & Sørenson, 2013). In the hospitality and
tourism context, differentiating intangible offerings according to their utilitarian and hedonistic value has revealed interesting dichotomies about time, predictability, people, and
involvement (Poulsson, 2014).
Service vs. experience in hospitality and tourism
This study was designed to integrate theoretical constructs from both service theory and
experience economy logic that are most relevant for the hospitality and tourism context.
Three distinctions between services and experiences, particularly relevant to this current
study, are standardization versus uniqueness, the level of guest participation required, and
satisfying needs versus creating memories. The utility of these theoretical comparisons is
that they spark new ways of thinking about what customers value and thus may provide
insights for managers in the hospitality and tourism industry faced with transitioning
from a service to an experience economy.
Services have been defined as intangible activities performed on behalf of another
individual whose primary purpose is to fulfill a need (Toffler, 1970). The service sector,
originally comprising activities like banking, auto repair, hair cutting, dry cleaning, and
fast food, now makes up close to 80% of economic activity in many industrialized nations.
Service industries have traditionally focused on utilitarian needs and emphasized standardization and reliability (Ziethhaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, 1990). Likewise, many hospitality firms emphasized the utility of their offerings. For example, the food services sector
touts consistent delivery of its menu items, and service standards have long been a
mainstay in the hotel industry. On the other hand, experience firms focus on
180 L. J. SIPE AND M. R. TESTA
differentiating their uniqueness and are most closely linked to innovation processes for
growth (Sundbo, 2009). The distinction between standardization and differentiation is
central to the experience economy paradigm (Pine & Gilmore, 1998). This dichotomy is
sure to present challenges for hospitality and tourism firms that must balance attention to
practical needs of their guests while continuously innovating their experiential offerings.
The second of three distinctions relevant to this study concerns the level of consumer
involvement in services compared to experiences. While services typically involve the
customer in some way, experience offerings involve deeper levels of engagement on the
part of the consumer. Pine and Gilmore (1998) approached experiences from the perspective of the firm and focused on how they deliver or stage experiences. Other prominent researchers argue, however, that organizations can really only provide an opportunity
for an experience, because experience is something that happens in people’s minds
(Sundbo, 2009). Therefore, by definition, without a user’s participation or engagement,
there would be no experience. This individualized, customer-centric approach is often
privileged in scholarly discussions of experiential offerings. Increasing the level of guest
engagement figures prominently in the hospitality and tourism literature as evidenced by
studies that focus on employee/guest interactions (Chandler & Lusch, 2015).
Finally, memories and emotional value, as opposed to consistency and functional
value, have been highlighted as key distinctions in theoretical papers about experiences as economic offerings (Pine & Gilmore, 1998; Sipe, 2016). Researchers, integrating work done in the field of psychology, have identified several dimensions of
memorable experiences. Many of these constructs, not surprisingly, have found their
way into the discourse of experience economy studies and the hospitality and
tourism literature. For example, the theory of optimal experience based on the
concept of flow posited by Csikszentmihalyi (1990) describes Immersion as a state
in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter.
Offering experiential activities (bocce ball courts at the establishment for example)
alongside food and beverage is one example of making dining experiences more
engaging and immersive. Renewal and escapism is another construct that has been
linked with memorable experiences in the hospitality and tourism industry. When
people get away from their everyday lives, they are freed up to think about their lives
with new perspective, thereby enhancing the memorability of an experience (Leblanc,
2003). In lodging, for example, helping guests escape may involve innovating physical spaces, a redesign of environmental cues that contribute to a sense of being
transported to another time and place. Surprises and novelty are considered triggers
for memorable experiences. Guests remember experiencing new places, trying something new, unique food and interesting tours, for example (Farber & Hall, 2007).
Social interaction is another trigger of memorable experiences. Engaging with others
in collective experiences, especially with local people and actual living environments,
makes travel experiences more memorable (Tung & Ritchie, 2011). Hedonic or
pleasurable experiences allow guests to construct and recall their experiences, since
memorable experiences are emotional in nature (Zimmerman & Kelly, 2010). As
consumers become more sophisticated, they are seeking meaningful experiences to
satisfy their unmet needs, and these experiences last longer in their memory (Tung &
Ritchie, 2011).
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 181
Measuring the realms of experience
Many of the aforementioned triggers of memorable experiences are also evidenced or alluded
to in much of Pine and Gilmore’s work (1998, 2011). The authors identify four realms of
experiences across two axes of customer immersion and customer level of participation.
Entertainment experiences such as watching a theatrical play tend to be passive and involve
more absorption than immersion. Esthetic experiences such as a visit to an art gallery are
immersive, but in both cases, the participants remain fairly passive. Educational and escapist
experiences require active participation on the part of the consumer, like descending the
Grand Canyon (escapist) or taking a ski lesson (educational). Pine and Gilmore contend that
optimal experiences encompass all aspects, forming a “sweet spot” (p. 102).
This research initiative draws from three academic investigations into the dimensions
of experience that operationalized the realms of experience espoused by Pine and Gilmore.
Oh, Fiore, and Jeoung (2007) originally developed a scale to measure the four realms of
experience in the context of bed and breakfast accommodations. Starting with 56 items,
their final list comprised 16 items across the four dimensions of entertainment, education,
esthetics, and escapism. Their study of bed and breakfasts showed that esthetics accounted
for most of the variation related to the dependent variable of satisfaction. The 16 items
were adapted in a study of cruiser’s experiences by Hosany and Witham (2009). The
purpose of their study was to validate the survey instrument created by Oh et al. (2007) in
another tourism setting and to investigate the relationship between cruisers’ experiences,
satisfaction, and intention to recommend. As a result of their factor analysis, two items
were dropped; so, the final quantity of survey items was 14 (either 3 or 4 per realm of
experience). They found the entertainment and esthetics dimensions accounted for most of
the variance in their regression model. Mehmetoglu and Engen (2011) also drew from the
Oh et al.’s study and assessed the dimensions of experience versus customer satisfaction
(CS) at a music festival and a museum. Esthetics and escapism had positive associations
with satisfaction at the music festival, while education and esthetics were positively
correlated with satisfaction at the museum. To measure the realms of experience for
this current study, survey item questions were adapted from the three aforementioned
studies in hospitality and tourism contexts. Table 1 lists the survey items for esthetics,
entertainment, escapism, and education.
Measuring the dimensions of service
While empirical investigations into the realms of experience posited by Pine and Gilmore
are just emerging for the hospitality and tourism industry, studies examining customer
ratings of service quality are prevalent in the marketing, tourism, and services literature.
SERVQUAL (Zeithaml et al., 1990), originally created for the financial services industry,
and since adapted to several other service sectors, is frequently used to assess service
quality in hospitality and tourism. Their survey includes items related to tangibles,
reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy and includes both customer expectations and perceptions. While used extensively, the measure has been criticized for its
length (Gilmore & McMullan, 2009), measurement issues (Brady & Cronin, 2001) and
focuses on process (Brown, Churchill, & Peter, 1993).
182 L. J. SIPE AND M. R. TESTA
These criticisms facilitated a greater focus on perception-based measures such as
SERVPERF, which focused on performance only (Cronin & Taylor, 1992). The authors
questioned the conceptual basis of SERVQUAL indicating that the measure was confused
with satisfaction, and that service expectation be removed from the equation. Looking at
banks, fast food, dry cleaning, and pest control, the authors provided empirical support for
the perception-based measure where a higher score equals higher service quality (Jain &
Gupta, 2004). The measure includes 22 items to assess similar characteristics of service
quality, i.e., tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. SERVPERF is
viewed by many as the more positive measure and has been used extensively in hospitality
research (Hartline & Ferrell, 1996; Jain & Gupta, 2004).
The goal for this study of hospitality and tourism firms was to identify service
measures that had both proximity to the experience dimensions and some differentiation. Measurement scales were selected that might facilitate the theoretical
distinctions between a service and experience offering. By using distinct elements
of the service spectrum, the relationship among the variables could be clearly
identified and compared. The Gronroos literature (1990, 2000) provided some direction in this regard in his discussion of the technical and expressive dimensions of
service. Technical service involves the speed and efficiency of service delivery and
tends to be an expected component of the service encounter. Pine and Gilmore
would argue that this dimension of service has been commoditized. Lack of technical
service can actually be a source of dissatisfaction when not provided as it is expected
(Pearce, 2005). These aspects of technical service are similar to the responsiveness and
reliability dimensions of SERVPERF; however, these established scales include additional items that may not fit this construct. For example, showing a sincere interest in
solving problems in the reliability dimension and willing to help in the responsiveness
dimension do not neatly fit the notion of efficient and hassle-free service delivery in
hospitality. Consequently, an adapted, context-specific measurement scale for technical service was used in this study.
Table 1. Independent variables: Experience dimensions and service quality
dimensions.
Variable Survey item
Esthetic 1 It was pleasant just experiencing the atmosphere
Esthetic 2 I felt a real sense of harmony with the surroundings
Esthetic 3 The setting was very attractive
Entertain 1 Watching activities of others was amusing
Entertain 2 Activities of others were fun to watch
Entertain 3 I was very entertained
Escapism 1 I completely escaped from my daily routine
Escapism 2 The experience let me escape in some way
Escapism 3 I felt immersed in a different reality
Educate 1 The experience made me more knowledgeable
Educate 2 I learned a lot
Educate 3 It was a real learning experience
Tech Serv 1 The service was very efficient
Tech Serv 2 Problems were handled quickly
Tech Serv 3 The speed of service was very good
Exp Serv 1 I was very well taken care of by employees
Exp Serv 2 Employees went above and beyond to make me feel special
Exp Serv 3 Interactions with employees added value to my experience
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 183
Expressive service relates to the friendliness/personality aspect of the encounter and
contains more of an emotional element (Coghlan & Pearce, 2010). In the hospitality and
tourism context, employee interactions with guests are considered paramount to delivering on brand promises and are strongly correlated with positive word of mouth
(Ottenbacher, 2007). Employee interactions are among the most powerful triggers of
memorable tourism experiences (Tung & Ritchie, 2011). No single dimension on
SERVPERF captured this notion of expressive service but rather was spread across the
empathy and assurance dimensions. Hence, a content-specific set of items was adapted for
use in this study.
Using SERVPERF, Gronroos (1990, 2000) and Pearce (2005) as a foundation, three
items were created to assess technical service quality focused on speed and efficiency.
Similarly, using SERVPERF and work done by Alotaibi and his colleagues (2011) on
service interaction quality, a three-item scale was created to assess expressive service.
Table 1 lists the survey items for technical and expressive service.
Determining outcome variables
Numerous important customer-related outcomes have been linked to the dimensions of
service including customer loyalty (Reichheld, 2003), CS (Oliver, 1997), trust (Palmatier,
Dant, Grewal, & Evans, 2006), and perceived value (Zeithaml, 1988). Service quality and
CS are constructs that garnered much attention in the literature (Taylor & Baker, 1994).
CS is defined as an attitude that results from a comparison of expected and perceived
performance (Hume & Mort, 2010). Interestingly, the perception of service quality has
been defined similarly as the gap between expectations and performance (Ziethaml, 1988).
Given their foundations in empirical studies in the service sector, including the hospitality
and tourism context (Hosany & Gilbert, 2010), overall satisfaction and service quality
ratings were included as dependent variables in this study.
Empirical studies of the experience context do not offer a similar foundation in outcome measures. One might assume that a similar disconfirmation model of expectations
versus perceived performance would be applicable. However, given the theorized distinctions between services and experiences as economic offerings, novelty and surprise are
part of what makes experiences valuable. The unpredictability of trying something unique
amplifies experiential value (Poulsson, 2014). The three studies of experience dimensions
cited previously in this paper (Hosany & Witham, 2009; Mehmetoglu & Engen, 2011; Oh
et al., 2007) each used CS as the outcome variable. The goal of this study was to build
upon previous empirical work by including additional outcomes that might facilitate the
theoretical distinctions between a service and experience offering.
Several context-specific outcome measures were considered. Intention to recommend and
word of mouth, for example, have been used to capture the notion of loyalty (Lee, Moon, Kim,
& Yi, 2015). However, experiences are unique and are not easy to replicate (Hosany &
Witham, 2010). Repeatability and loyalty may become less relevant. Perceptions of price/
value (Ali, Hussain, & Omar, 2016) and other financial outcomes were also considered.
However, experience logic suggests that differentiation requires less focus on economic
value. Firms that offer unique and memorable experiences should be able to command a
price premium (Sipe, 2016).
184 L. J. SIPE AND M. R. TESTA
Since a point of differentiation in the hospitality and tourism context is guest memories
(Pizam, 2010), an assessment of how memorable a particular experience is seemed reasonable. A recent study of the experience economy approach to festival marketing included a
measure of vividness of memory (Aikaterini, Tang, & Chiang, 2014). This scale was
considered, but specific items focused on the ability to recall and did not seem to capture
the essence of a meaningful and special experience theorized in this literature review.
Instead, a single survey question asked guests to rate how memorable their experience was
compared to other, similar experiences. Comparison rating scales have been used in
service industry studies to capture customer perceptions (Prajogo, 2006). This provided
an additional outcome measure aligned with the progression of customer value espoused
in the experience economy paradigm. Hence, the three dependent variables measured in
this study were satisfaction, service quality, and memorable experience. Figure 1 provides
a conceptual overview of the study.
Research methodology
A survey process was employed aligned with the articulated research questions: (1) What
are the relationships between service and experience dimensions and three customer
outcomes—satisfaction, service quality, and memorable experience—in a hospitality and
tourism marketplace? (2) Are there significant differences in guest ratings of service and
experience dimensions across the dining, lodging, events, and attractions segments of a
hospitality and tourism marketplace?
Characteristics of participating organizations
The hospitality and tourism industry is used to describe a broad field that comprises
lodging, food services, leisure, conventions, travel, and attractions (Ottenbacher,
Harrington, & Parsa, 2009). Empirical studies of hospitality consumers tend to focus on
one segment of the broader industry, like hotels or events. The experience realms studies
described earlier in this paper included one in the lodging context, another about cruisers,
Figure 1. Conceptual model: experience and service dimensions on a progression of outcomes.
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 185
and a third that examined guest ratings from two contexts—a music festival and a
museum. The current research initiative sought to explore potential distinctions, while
building upon those previous studies. Hence, the following considerations were made
when determining the sample for this study:
● A broad spectrum of hospitality and tourism-related firms within a single marketplace would allow the comparison of experience realms alongside more traditionally
measured service dimensions.
● Participating firms would represent the hospitality and tourism marketplace and
convey the overall sense of place unique to the destination.
● First-time visits of leisure travelers would best capture the distinction between
ordinary fulfilling of needs and experiential offerings that are unique and memorable.
Using the local convention and visitor’s bureau directory and a university database of local
hospitality organizations, four types of firms were targeted to participate in the study—dining,
lodging, events, and attractions. Dining firms were all part of a local restaurateur’s collection of
17 uniquely branded restaurants that host leisure travelers throughout the destination. Twelve
of his restaurants, ranging from casual to fine dining with average guest checks between 15
and 45 dollars, agreed to participate in the study. For the lodging segment, a list of branded
and independent full-service properties was targeted for participation. Properties that primarily catered to business travelers as well as offerings positioned as limited service or
economy were not considered. Nine hotels participated in the study. They would be classified
as upper scale resorts and boutique offerings with average daily rates above the destination’s
annual ADR (Smith Travel Research, 2015).
Seven events comprised the events segment of the study. Events were chosen because
they brought incremental visitors to the destination and were considered “signature”
events reflective of the region. These included a music festival, an annual pop culture
convention, and other culture, sports, recreation, and wellness events intended to drive
economic impact for the region (San Diego Tourism Marketing District, 2015).
Attractions made up the last segment of participating organizations. Eight venues, ranging
from large theme parks, smaller amusement facilities, recreation venues, and land and seabased entertainment offerings, were included.
Participating firms were part of a hospitality and tourism marketplace in Southern
California. The destination’s hospitality and tourism industry provides $16 billion in
economic impact and, consequently, is a very important piece of the economic health of
the region. The destination is among the top five leisure destinations in the United States.
Visitors appreciate the wonderful weather that allows them to enjoy recreation and beach
activities, visit world famous attractions, attend unique events, and experience first-rate
culture, dining, and nightlife (SDCVB, 2013).
Data collection
Data were collected during the summer months on days prearranged with each firm. The
goal was to obtain data during busy summer months when a large amount of leisure
travelers would be likely. Surveys were conducted on site at the participating organization
using a convenience sample of guests. Interviewers approached the guest, explained the
186 L. J. SIPE AND M. R. TESTA
nature of the study, and indicated that participation was voluntary and that responses
were confidential. As previously discussed, locals and frequent guest were omitted from
the study. Respondents were screened to ensure that they were a leisure traveler and this
was their first time at the particular site. Then, a short list of survey questions was asked by
the interviewer and recorded. Four versions of the survey were used to mitigate bias based
on placement and order of the items.
The survey instrument comprised sections focused on the realms of experience and
service dimensions as well as overall ratings. Four 3-item scales were employed to assess
the experience realms. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a
Likert-type scale ranging from 1—strongly disagree to 7—strongly agree. The four scales
included, esthetics (e.g., It was pleasant just experiencing the atmosphere) (α = 0.773),
escapist (e.g., I completely escaped from my daily routine) (α = 0.849), education (e.g., It
was a real learning experience) (α = 0.908), and entertainment (e.g., Activities of others were
fun to watch) (α = 0.780). To assess the dimensions of service, technical and expressive
service quality scales were employed (Gronroos, 2000). Technical service focused on
efficiency aspects (e.g., the service was very efficient) (α = 0.829), while the expressive
component focused on positive interactions (e.g., employees went above and beyond to
make me feel special) (α = 0.886). The complete list of survey items (independent
variables) was included in Table 1.
Guests were also asked to rate their overall experience in three ways. Dependent variables
were single item measures used to assess CS (1—extremely dissatisfied to 7—extremely
satisfied), quality of the service encountered (1—absolute worst to 7—absolute best), and
how memorable the experience compared to others (1—highly forgettable to 7—incredibly
memorable). While traditional thinking is that multi-item measures are preferable to singleitem measures, some researchers suggest that single-item measures can provide equal
(Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007) and sometimes better assessment (Hoeppner, Kelly, Urbanoski,
& Slaymaker, 2011). In the marketing literature, Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007) suggest that
when a variable is focused on basic objects or basic attributes such as satisfaction, single-item
measures provide equal psychometric properties to their multi-item brethren. This has been
the case the case in marketing literature for some time.
The intention was to conduct 5–10 surveys per site with minimal disruption to the guests.
A total of 217 usable surveys were included in this study. The mix of responses from the four
segments was relatively balanced for dining (n = 61, 28%), lodging (n = 57, 26%), events
(n = 50, 23%), and attractions (n = 49, 23%). The responses represent a snapshot in time from
a hospitality and tourism marketplace. The economic offerings span from the more traditionally hospitality oriented (restaurants) to those classified as pure, pay-to-play experiences
(theme parks). Hence, the purposeful sample used for the study aligned with the three
considerations outlined at the beginning of this section.
Analysis and results
Two sets of analyses were conducted in the current study. First, the differences between
outcomes of experience and service dimensions were identified. Second, each segment of
the industry, namely dining, lodging, events, and attractions, was analyzed to identify
differences on the predictor and outcome variables. The relationships among the independent variables of service and experience and three dependent variables—satisfaction,
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 187
service quality, and memorable experiences—were examined using correlations and
regression analyses. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among the scale constructs
are shown in Table 2. Scale reliability was assessed with Cronbach’s alpha values, and they
are listed on the diagonals in Table 2. Alpha values were each higher than the 0.70 value
considered reliable (Hinton, 2004). Table 3 summarizes the results of the multiple regression analysis performed to assess the impact of each set of service and experience variables
on the dependent variables. To ensure validity of the regression models, the Durbin–
Watson statistic and tolerance values were examined. The Durbin–Watson values were
close to 2; so, independence of the residuals can be assumed. The tolerance statistics
indicated no problems with multicollinearity in the models (Field, 2013). The models were
statistically significant with a range of F values from 36.7 to 59.8.45 (p < .001). Results
from Table 3 do show interesting differences across the three models. Only esthetics
(β = 0.340, p < .001) and technical service (β = 0.274, p < .001) were found to be positively
and significantly associated with CS. In the service quality model, both technical and
expressive service scales were significantly associated with ratings of service quality, while
none of the experience dimensions was significant. In the memorable experiences model,
esthetics, escapism, technical, and expressive service were significant predictors of memorable experience.
The next step in the analysis was to explore any difference between the industry
segments, on the dimensions. Multivariate Analysis of Variance was conducted with
segment type as the independent factor, and the service and experience dimensions as
the dependent factors, to determine if the mean scores differed significantly. Levene’s Test
for Equality of Error Variances showed statistical significance for expressive service and
education violating the assumption of homogeneity of variance. Consequently, both
Table 2. Measurement model statistics: mean, standard deviation, correlations (n = 217).
Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1. Esthetics 5.97 0.930 (0.773)
2. Entertainment 5.19 1.41 0.455* (0.780)
3. Escapism 5.37 1.34 0.499* 0.541* (0.849)
4. Education 4.91 1.47 0.418* 0.481* 0.531* (0.908)
5. Technical Service 5.68 1.11 0.602* 0.394* 0.481* 0.421* (0.829)
6. Expressive Service 5.73 1.24 0.650* 0.426* 0.474* 0.524* 00.748* (0.886)
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 3. Multiple regression results: experience and service dimensions with three outcome measures
(n = 217).
Dependent variables
Customer satisfaction Service quality Memorable experience
Beta t-Value Beta t-Value Beta t-Value
Independent variables
Esthetics 00.340 4.924*** 0.109 1.797 0.207 3.387***
Entertainment −0.04 −0.62 −0.017 −0.328 0.024 0.433
Escapism 0.120 1.839 −0.054 −0.952 0.164 2.817**
Education 0.014 0.219 0.033 0.614 0.072 1.280
Technical service 00.274 3.621*** 00.416 6.335*** 0.181 2.677**
Expressive service 0.112 1.359 0.372 5.188*** 0.318 4.351***
R2 0.501 0.626 0.617
F test stat 36.686*** 59.764*** 54.973***
**p < .01; ***p < .00.
188 L. J. SIPE AND M. R. TESTA
Scheffe and Games–Howel post hoc tests were run to address the differences in the data.
Lodging yielded the highest mean scores on expressive (α = 6.09) and technical (α = 6.05)
service quality, as well as esthetics (α = 6.14). Technical service was significantly higher for
lodging than attractions (p = .02) and expressive service was significantly higher for
lodging than dining (p = .027). Events received the highest mean score on education
(α = 5.3) but no significant differences were identified. Finally, attractions yielded the
highest mean score on both escapism (α = 5.77) and entertainment (α = 5.6). Escapism was
significantly higher for attractions than dining (p = .01).
Assignment help – Discussion and implications
This study was designed to build on the foundations of service theory research while
integrating emergent experience economy concepts. The primary aim was to illuminate
differences, if any, aligned with the experience economy paradigm. Without making
claims that services and experiences are distinct economic offerings, there is growing
sentiment that some sort of shift is taking place, at least in developing countries. Various
explanations have been offered to explain an apparent move toward more experiential
consumption (Harris, 2015). For the researchers involved in this study, examining customer outcomes through different lenses opened up new avenues for understanding customer value. In this particular study, distinguishing service and experience dimensions
yielded interesting empirical results with implications for both research and practice.
Results of the regression models did reveal key differences consistent with the progression of value posited by Pine and Gilmore (1998). As demonstrated by the regression
models in Table 3, guests perceive satisfaction, service quality, and memorable experience
outcomes differently. Only esthetics and technical service were predictors of CS ratings.
Efficient and reliable service in a pleasant environment is taken for granted by today’s
customers—it’s a commodity. Service quality, however, goes beyond just satisfying needs
efficiently. Both technical and expressive service dimensions were significant predictors of
perceived service quality, accounting for more than 60% of the variance. None of the
experience dimensions were significantly associated with the ratings of overall service
quality. The results from the third model indicate that a memorable experience, however,
is predicted by a more complex combination of both service and experience dimensions.
In the memorable experiences model, two realms of experience, esthetics and escapism, are
significantly and positively associated with ratings of memorable experiences. Expressive
service was also found to be significant. Technical service is moderately significant, albeit
less important relative to its expressive counterpart. These findings provide empirical
support for the notion that value perceptions are in transition in the hospitality and
tourism industry. The distinctions between service quality and memorable experience are
unambiguous from the guest perspective. Memorable experience goes beyond technical
and expressive service in their minds.
The findings point to the importance of both scholars and practitioners attending to an
evolving combination of constructs, service and experience, that form the meaningful and
memorable guest experience. This study’s results provide some guidance. First, the
importance of what Pine and Gilmore termed esthetics cannot be underestimated.
Findings from this study, and each of the experience studies cited herein, demonstrate a
relationship between esthetics and customer outcomes. It should be noted that emergent
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 189
research in the service sector is also examining the importance of the physical space to the
guest experience (Cetin &Walls, 2016). This study also reinforces the importance of
expressive service in memorable guest experiences, a dimension not explicitly examined
in Pine and Gilmore’s model. An interesting finding is the relative importance of the
technical and service dimensions, when viewed across the three models of satisfaction,
service quality, and memorable experiences. Expressive service seems to carry more weight
relative to technical service when progressing from satisfaction to service quality to
memorable experiences. Lastly, escapism distinguished memorable experience from service
quality in this study of a hospitality and tourism marketplace. This study sought participation from four sectors of the hospitality and tourism industry. The focus on multiple
types of hospitality and tourism-related guest experiences enhances the external validity of
the findings and increases variation in the responses (Kyrgidou & Spyropoulou, 2013).
Some interesting differences were found. First, lodging yielded the highest mean scores on
technical and expressive service. Hotels are comprised many types of services in one
location. Indeed, larger properties can provide many of the same services as dining,
events, and even attractions. Consequently, the service findings are not unexpected. In
some facets of hotel service, one would expect efficiency (technical) to be a priority as with
checking in or checking out. At the same time, during interactions with hotel staff, using
amenities and fulfilling special needs, expressive service may be highly desired. With
regard to esthetics, early work on servicescapes (Bitner, 1992) helps to explain why this
would be highly evaluated in hotels. The physical environment in a hotel is designed to
contribute to the desired experience (Lin, 2010). A recent study further delineates the key
factors of the physical space alongside employee/guest interactions in luxury hotels (Cetin
& Walls, 2016). With so many varying locations for guests to visit, the physical aspects
become a central part of the experience. This may be compounded by the length of time a
guest may stay at a hotel property versus the other segments as well.
The attractions segment yielded the highest mean scores on escapism and entertainment, with escapism significantly higher than for the dining segment. Interestingly,
attractions are considered a pure experience category of the experience economy typology
(Sundbo, 2009). Guests pay admission for the opportunity to engage in experiential
offerings revealed over time. Millions of dollars are spent annually to refresh experiential
offerings and add new and exciting reasons for guests to attend (Cornelis & Milman,
2010). Competitive advantage is achieved by differentiating its collection of offerings. That
is not to say that service is disregarded in this segment. Clearly, efficiency and safety are
critical foundations that would lead to devastating outcomes if ignored. However, the
particular segment of the hospitality and tourism marketplace is associated with deep ties
to Walt Disney’s legacy and a focus on creating lasting memories (Sipe, 2016).
Limitations and future research
This study has limitations that should be taken into account when considering the
findings and avenues for future research. Customer experience research, with roots
more than 25 years old, is hardly freshly sprouted. However, while the models used
here have strong theoretical underpinnings, the study of cocreated guest experiences is
relatively new. As such, the focus was more on identifying relationships that exist rather
than forming hypotheses based on past study. In order to facilitate relationships, a sample
190 L. J. SIPE AND M. R. TESTA
was drawn to include four segments of a hospitality and tourism marketplace. Limiting the
geographic region may limit the generalizability of the results. Going further, the sample
should be drawn from outside Southern California, as was the case here. In addition, 50 or
so responses in each segment of the hospitality and tourism industry may provide a
starting point in this area of research, but deep diving into one or two contrasting types of
guest offerings may reveal better distinctions. Given that a convenience sample was used
on location in operating restaurants, hotels, events, and attractions, the survey was
constructed to minimize time and the impact on the guest. Consequently, three-item
measures were used for the service and experience dimensions and single items for the
outcome variables. Future studies could refine and expand these measurement scales.
Despite the limitations in measurement, the relationship among the service and experience dimension is one that academics should continue to explore. This study used the
realms of experience posited by Pine and Gilmore as its measurement foundation to build
on a small group of extant studies in the hospitality industry context. While helpful as an
alternative to traditional service scales, these dimensions offer only a limited set of factors
espoused to drive value in the experience economy. Future studies could draw on other
contemporary approaches that reflect the evolving hospitality and tourism industry context.
These might include attributes of memorable tourism experience scales (Chandralal &
Valenzuela, 2015) as well as scales that assess the quality of guest/employee interactions
(Cetin & Istanbulli, 2014). The literature on service ecosystems may offer strategies that
focus on the entire context of the customer experience (Akaka & Vargo, 2015). This
perspective views the service experience at a micro, meso, and macro level. For example,
the micro-level might include the service encounter, the meso-level would include the
physical environment (esthetics), and the macro-level would include socio-historic norms
of customer behavior. Including financial impacts is also recommended with an emphasis
on exploring the ability to charge a price premium and other updated perspectives on the
price/value relationship (Ali et al., 2016).
Important insights for practitioners are also embedded in this research initiative.
Where the drive toward standardized services has been the norm in hospitality,
increased value may be derived from attending to the unique and novel aspects of
the organization’s offerings. This has implications for the design of physical spaces,
among other things. Adopting an experience economy mind set implies attending to
the vibe of a place—where people gather, interact, and potentially share their
memories.
A focus on experience also places greater emphasis on the employee as a facilitator
of social interaction and enhanced guest engagement. In the traditional hospitality and
tourism context, this is not the norm. There is still a prevalent service-standard
mindset, where employees are evaluated against rigid rules or policies regarding
guest interaction. Contrast this with a mindset of creating a unique and engaging
experience utilizing the hundreds of elements within the service ecosystem. The
progression from service to experience requires a shift in how employees are viewed,
managed, evaluated, and rewarded. At a minimum, hospitality and tourism organizations would do well to change the conversation from a strictly service-related dialogue,
to one focused on the end-to-end journey of the customer experience (Rawson,
Duncan, & Jones, 2013). By doing so, new opportunities may emerge for organizations
competing with those that have already begun the evolution.
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 191
References
Achrol, R. S., & Kotler, P. (2006). The service-dominant logic for marketing: A critique. In R. Lusch,
& S. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant logic for marketing. Dialog, Debate, and Directions (pp.
320–334). New York, NY: ME Sharpe.
Aikaterini, A., Tang, R., & Chiang, T. (2014). The experience economy approach to festival
marketing: Vivid memory and attendee loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing, 28, 22–35.
doi:10.1108/JSM-06-2012-0105
Akaka, M. A., & Vargo, S. L. (2015). Extending the context of service: From encounters to
ecosystems. Journal of Services Marketing, 29, 453–462. doi:10.1108/JSM-03-2015-0126
Ali, F., Hussain, K., & Omar, R. (2016). Diagnosing customers experience, emotions and satisfaction
in Malaysian resort hotels. European Journal of Tourism Research, 12, 25–40.
Alotaibi, E., Al-Sabbahy, H., & Lockwood, A. (2011). Interaction quality in service encounter: Scale
development and validation. Paper presented at 2011 International CHRIE Conference, July 2011,
Denver, CO.
Beltagui, A., Darler, W., & Candi, M. (2015). Measuring the deliverable and impressible dimensions
of service experience. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24, 478–492. doi:10.1111/
caim.2015.24.issue-3
Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item
measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 175–184. doi:10.1509/
jmkr.44.2.175
Bitner, M. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees.
Journal of Marketing, 56, 57–71. doi:10.2307/1252042
Brady, M. K., & Cronin, J. J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service
quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65, 34–49. doi:10.1509/jmkg.65.3.34.18334
Brown, T. J., Churchill, G. A., Jr, & Peter, J. P. (1993). Research note: Improving the measurement
of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 69, 127–139. doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(05)80006-5
Cetin, G., & Istanbullu, F. I. (2014). Influence of customer experience on loyalty and word of mouth
in hospitality operations, Anatolia. An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research,
25 (2), 181–194.
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. doi:10.1080/19368623.2015.1034395
Chandler, J. D., & Lusch, R. F. (2015). Service systems: A broadened framework and research
agenda on value propositions, engagement, and service experience. Journal of Service Research,
18, 6–22. doi:10.1177/1094670514537709
Chandralal, L., & Valenzuela, F.-R. (2015). Memorable tourism experiences: Scale development.
Contemporary Management Research, 11 (3), 291–310. doi:10.7903/cmr.13822
Coghlan, A., & Pearce, P. (2010). Tracking affective components of satisfaction. Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 10 (1), 42–58. doi:10.1057/thr.2009.18
Cornelis, P. C. M., & Milman, A. (2010). Impact of new attractions on theme park attendance.
Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 2, 262–280. doi:10.1108/17554211011052203
Cronin, J., & Taylor, S. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of
Marketing, 56, 55–68. doi:10.2307/1252296
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experiences. New York, NY: Harper
and Row Publishers.
Farber, M. E., & Hall, T. E. (2007). Emotion and environment: Visitors’ extraordinary experiences
along the Dalton Highway in Alaska. Journal of Leisure Research, 39, 248–270.
Ferreira, H., & Teixeira, A. (2013). Welcome to the experience economy: Assessing the influence of
customer experience literature through bibliometric analysis. (FEP Working Papers: Research
Center in Economics and Finance). Porto, Portugal: University de Porto.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS (4th ed.). London, UK: Sage.
Forrester. (2016). The U.S. customer experience index for 2016. Industry Research Report. Retrieved
from http://blogs.forrester.com/roxana_strohmenger/
192 L. J. SIPE AND M. R. TESTA
Gilmore, A., & McMullan, R. (2009). Scales in services marketing research: A critique and way
forward. European Journal of Marketing, 43, 640–651. doi:10.1108/03090560910946972
Gronroos, C. (1990). Service management and marketing: Managing the moments of truth in service
competition. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Gronroos, C. (2000). Service management and marketing: A customer relationship management
approach. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hansen, A. H., & Mossberg, L. (2013). Consumer immersion: A key to extraordinary experiences. In
J. Sundbo, & F. Sørensen (Eds.), Handbook on the experience economy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Harris. (2015). Millennials: Fueling the experience economy. Retrieved from http://eventbrite-s3.s3.
amazonaws.com/marketing/Millennials_Research/Gen_PR_Final.pdf
Hartline, M. D., & Ferrell, O. C. (1996). The management of customer contact service employees:
An empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing, 60, 52–70. doi:10.2307/1251901
Hinton, P. (2004). Statistics explained. London, UK: Routledge.
Hoeppner, B. B., Kelly, J. F., Urbanoski, K. A., & Slaymaker, V. (2011). Comparative utility of a
single-item versus multiple-item measure of self-efficacy in predicting relapse among young
adults. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 41, 305–312. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2011.04.005
Hosany, S., & Gilbert, D. (2010). Measuring tourists’ emotional experiences toward hedonic holiday
destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 49, 513–526. doi:10.1177/0047287509349267
Hosany, S., & Witham, M. (2009). Dimensions of cruisers’ experiences, satisfaction and intention to
recommend. (The School of Management Working Paper Series). London, UK: Royal Holloway
University of London.
Hosany, S., & Witham, M. (2010). Dimensions of cruisers experiences satisfaction and intention to
recommend. Journal of Travel Research, 49, 351–364.
Hume, M., & Mort, G. S. (2010). The consequence of appraisal emotion, service quality, perceived
value and customer satisfaction on repurchase intent in the performing arts. Journal of Services
Marketing, 24, 170–182. doi:10.1108/08876041011031136
Jain, S. K., & Gupta, G. (2004). Measuring service quality: SERVQUAL vs. SERVPERF scales.
Vikalpa, 29, 25–38. doi:10.1177/0256090920040203
Kylänen, M. (2006). Enlightening christmas experience – Reflections on the experience triangle. In
M. Kylänen (Ed.), Articles on experiences. Lapland Centre of Expertise for the Experience
Industry. Rovaniemi, FL: University of Lapland Press.
Kyrgidou, L., & Spyropoulou, S. (2013). Drivers and performance outcomes of innovativeness: An
empirical study. British Journal of Management, 24, 281–298. doi:10.1111/bjom.2013.24.issue-3
Leblanc, M. (2003). Tourist characteristics and their interest in attending festivals & events: An
Anglophone/Francophone case study of New Brunswick, Canada. Event Management, 8, 203–
212.
Lee, D., Moon, J., Kim, Y. J., & Yi, M. Y. (2015). Antecedents and consequences of mobile phone
usability: Linking simplicity and interactivity to satisfaction, trust, and brand loyalty. Information
& Management, 52, 295–304.
Lin, I. Y. (2010). The interactive effect of Gestalt situations and arousal seeking tendency on
customers’ emotional responses: Matching color and music to specific servicescapes. Journal of
Services Marketing, 24, 294–304. doi:10.1108/08876041011053006
Lippincott. (2014). Experience innovation: The next frontier to differentiate and drive growth.
Research Report. Retrieved from http://www.lippincott.com/files/documents/news/Lippincott_
Perspective/
Mehmetoglu, M., & Engen, M. (2011). Pine and Gilmore’s concept of experience economy and its
dimensions: An empirical examination in tourism. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality &
Tourism, 12, 237–255. doi:10.1080/1528008X.2011.541847
Oh, H., Fiore, A. M., & Jeoung, M. (2007). Measuring experience economy concepts: Tourism
applications. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 119–132.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York, NY: Irwin/
McGraw-Hill.
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 193
Ottenbacher, M. (2007). Innovation management in the hospitality industry: Different strategies for
achieving success. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31 (4), 431–454. doi:10.1177/
1096348007302352
Ottenbacher, M., Harrington, R., & Parsa, H. G. (2009). Defining the hospitality discipline: A
discussion of pedagogical and research implications. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
33, 263–283. doi:10.1177/1096348009338675
Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70, 136–153. doi:10.1509/
jmkg.70.4.136
Pearce, P. (2005). Tourist behaviour: Themes and conceptual schemes. Clevedon, UK: Channel View
Publications.
Pine, B., & Gilmore, J. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 4,
97–105.
Pine, B., & Gilmore, J. (2011). The experience economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Publishing.
Pizam, A. (2010). Creating memorable experiences. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 29, 343. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.04.003
Poulsson, S. H. (2014). On experiences as economic offerings (PhD Innovation and
Entrepreneurship). Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Business School.
Poulsson, S. H. G., & Kale, S. (2004). The experience economy and commercial experiences. The
Marketing Review, 4, 267–277. doi:10.1362/1469347042223445
Prajogo, D. (2006). The relationship between innovation and business performance -a comparative
study between manufacturing and service firms. Journal of Knowledge and Process Management,
13, 218–225. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1441
Rawson, A., Duncan, E., & Jones, C. (2013). The truth about customer experience. Harvard Business
Review, 2013(September), 90–98.
Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review, 81, 46–54.
San Diego Tourism Marketing District. (2015). Annual Report: Going Up. Retrieved from http://
www.sdtmd.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SDTMD-104_AnnualReport_8P10_FINAL-web.
pdf
SDCVB. (2013). Fact sheet. San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.
sandiego.org.
Sipe, L. J. (2016). How do senior managers influence experience innovation? Insights from a
hospitality marketplace. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 54, 75–83.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.01.009
Smith Travel Research. (2015). Destination reports. Retrieved from https://www.strglobal.com/
products/destination-reports/en-GB
Sundbo, J. (2009). Innovation in the experience economy: A taxonomy of innovation organisations.
The Service Industries Journal, 29, 431–455.
Sundbo, J., & Sørensen, F. (2013). Introduction to the experience economy. In J. Sundbo, & F.
Sørensen (Eds.), Handbook on the experience economy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Taylor, S. A., & Baker, T. L. (1994). An assessment of the relationship between service quality and
customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers’ purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing,
70, 163–178. doi:10.1016/0022-4359(94)90013-2
Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. New York, NY: Random House.
Tung, V., & Ritchie, J. R. (2011). Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences. Annals
of Tourism Research, 38, 1367–1386. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2011.03.009
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68, 1–17. doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end model and
synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2–22. doi:10.2307/1251446
Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D. (2006). Service marketing: Integrating customer focus
across the firm (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
194 L. J. SIPE AND M. R. TESTA
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L., (1990). Delivering quality service: Balancing
customer perceptions and expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Zimmerman, C. A., & Kelley, C. M. (2010). I’ll remember this! Effects of emotionality on memory
predictions versus memory performance. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 240–253.
doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.11.004
Zorfas, A., & Leemon, D. (2016, August 29). An emotional connection matters more than customer
satisfaction. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/08/an-emotional-con
nection-matters-more-than-customer-satisfaction
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 195
Copyright of Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management is the property of Taylor &
Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: Masters Essays, PSY Papers, PSYC, Psychology Assignment, Psychology Dissertations