Tourism Management 62 (2017) 264e277

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Managing the experience co-creation process in tourism destinations:

Empirical findings from Naples
P. Buonincontri a, *, A. Morvillo a, F. Okumus b, M. van Niekerk b
a
Institute for Research on Innovation and Services for Development, National Research Council (IRISS e CNR), Via Cardinale Guglielmo Sanfelice, 8, 80134
Napoli, Italy
b
University of Central Florida, Rosen College of Hospitality Management, 9907 Universal Blvd, Orlando, FL 32819, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

The paper theoretically develops and empirically tests a model on experience co-creation in tourism.

Antecedents of experience co-creation in tourism are individuated.

Consequences of experience co-creation in tourism are individuated.

Experience co-creation makes tourists more satisfied and happier.

Tourists are more willing to spend for co-created experiences.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The aim of this study is to investigate the main antecedents and consequences of experience co-creation
Received 8 June 2016 in tourism. Based on an in-depth literature review, a survey was designed, and data was collected from
Received in revised form 385 tourists visiting Naples, Italy. A path analysis revealed that the interactions among tourists and
27 February 2017
tourism service providers and the active participation of tourists are antecedents of experience co-
Accepted 29 April 2017
creation in the tourism industry. Experience co-creation positively affects the satisfaction of tourists,
their level of expenditures, and their happiness. Study results also revealed that the attitude of tourists of
sharing their experiences with others does not influence experience co-creation. As one of the first
Keywords:
Tourism experience
studies in this area in the field of tourism, this study contributes to the body of knowledge by proposing
Co-creation and empirically testing a model that shows three antecedents and three consequences of experience co-
Tourists' satisfaction creation in tourism.
Tourists' level of expenditure © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Tourists' happiness

1. Introduction
Co-creation is a demand-centric and interactive process that
involves at least two willing resource-integrating actors who are
engaged in specific forms of mutually beneficial collaboration that
results in value creation for them (Frow, Payne, & Storbacka, 2011,
pp. 1e6). The core idea of co-creation refers to actors creating
something in collaboration with or influenced by others (Jaakkola,
Helkkula, & Aarikka-Stenroos, 2015). This process may achieve
success for both the customer and the organization if the focus is
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: p.buonincontri@iriss.cnr.it (P. Buonincontri), a.morvillo@iriss.
cnr.it (A. Morvillo), Fevzi.okumus@ucf.edu (F. Okumus), Mathilda.vanniekerk@ucf.
edu (M. van Niekerk).
more on the former than the latter. The continuous involvement of,
and communication with customers allows organizations to learn
from them (Matthing, Sande
n, & Edvardsson, 2004; Normann,
2001; Yen, Gwinner, & Su, 2004). Therefore, the focus of value is
moved from inside the organizations to collaborative relationships
outside the organizations’ boundaries (Frow, Nenonen, Payne, &
Storbacka, 2015).
The establishment of a purposeful dialog with customers and
the integration of their personal resources with those of organi-
zations characterize experience co-creation (Prahalad &
Ramaswamy, 2004a). Experience co-creation is the process
through which customers and organizations collaborate in order to
create experiences (Mathis, Kim, Uysal, Sirgy, & Prebensen, 2016). It
is considered to be a new paradigm for marketing and innovation,
providing an innovative understanding of how and by whom ex-
periences are created (Buhalis & Foerste, 2015). Prahalad and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.04.014
0261-5177/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 P. Buonincontri et al. / Tourism Management 62 (2017) 264e277
Ramaswamy (2004a) were the first to state that the relationships
among customers and organizations have changed. According to
these researchers, value is not generated through firm-centric,
product-and-service-focused managerial strategies. However, it is
embodied in the individual experiences of customers, who define
experience co-creation as the joint creation of value by the orga-
nization and the customers, allowing the customers to co-construct
service experiences to suit their context (Prahalad & Ramaswamy,
2004b).
While the traditional firm-centric view focuses on the total
control of organizations value chains, experience co-creation fo-
cuses on customers as active participants in the building of their
own experiences due to personalized and direct interactions with
the organization (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004b). As a result,
customers create unique value for themselves by co-creating their
experiences with organizations. The focus has evolved from the
internal and extraordinary experiences of the individual customer
to the concept of experience as a co-created phenomenon
(Helkkula, Kelleher, & Pihlstro€ m, 2012; Jaakkola et al., 2015). An
important role in co-creating experiences is that of technology;
specifically, due to new technologies, customers can collaborate
with organizations with the objective of realizing experiences that
are more valuable for them from both an economic-functional and
a cultural and ideological perspective (Cova & Dalli, 2009). In fact,
technology can guarantee a greater level of information, trans-
parency, dynamism, and customer-centricity in the co-creation
process (Chathoth, Ungson, Harrington, Altinay, & Chan, 2016).
Previous studies have acknowledged experience co-creation as a
successful strategy of differentiation against competitors
(Bharwani & Jauhari, 2013; Binkhorst & Den Dekker, 2009;
Go€ ssling, Haglund, Kallgren, Revahl, & Hultman, 2009; King,
2017; Morgan, Elbe, Curiel, & de E, 2009; Mossberg, 2008;
Schmidt-Rauch & Nussbaumer, 2011). However, previous studies
have dedicated little attention to the possible antecedents and
consequences related to experience co-creation, especially in the
tourism industry. Among these, the study by Lee (2012) reveals that
perceived benefits, subjective norms, and ability to co-create are
antecedents of the tourists' intention to co-create. Mathis et al.
(2016), instead, focus on the consequences of tourism experience
co-creation, showing that satisfaction with co-creation of a tourism
experience positively affects the satisfaction with vacation experi-
ence and the loyalty to the service provider. These studies do not
consider both the antecedents and consequences of experience co-
creation in tourism, but investigate only one of these two aspects.
On the contrary, Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer (2012) high-
light the company support as an antecedent of the degree of co-
creation, and customer satisfaction with the service company,
customer loyalty, and service expenditures as consequences. This
study, however, does not investigate the antecedents and conse-
quences of experience co-creation in tourism, since the focus is on
the co-creation activities of customers of travel agencies. The
empirical research on the antecedents and the positive conse-
quences of experience co-creation in tourism is, therefore, still
limited. The way in which experience co-creation generates value
for both tourists and destinations has not yet been fully investi-
gated. Recognizing these research gaps, Binkhorst and Den Dekker
(2009) called for further research investigating the role of experi-
ence co-creation in tourism: “How willing are tourists to participate
[…] in order to co-create meaningful tourism experiences? How
willing are entrepreneurs and governmental bodies to co-create in
the design of meaningful tourism experience environments?”
Based on this concept, the aim of this study is two-fold. First, it aims
to understand the strengths of influence of the main antecedents of
experience co-creation in tourism: the interaction between tourists
and tourism service providers in the destination, active
265
participation of tourists, and sharing of the tourism experience
with other stakeholders. Second, it aims to identify the relationship
between experience co-creation and tourists’ satisfaction, level of
expenditure, and happiness.
In line with these research aims, the paper first provides an in-
depth literature review, which represents the block of theoretical
knowledge that is useful in the development of the conceptual
model and for the research hypotheses. Next, the methodological
approach and data collection process employed are presented.
Subsequently, the paper presents the research results on the an-
tecedents and consequences of experience co-creation in tourism.
Finally, the paper discusses the theoretical and managerial impli-
cations of the results and offers suggestions for future research.
2. Theoretical background and research hypotheses
2.1. Tourism experience and co-creation
The creation of experiences is a successful process for organi-
zations, because it is considered to be the most evolved form of
offer to create value (Pine & Gilmore, 1998). According to Pine and
Gilmore (1998), while prior economic offerings were external to the
customer, experiences are personal and exist only in the mind of an
individual who has been engaged on an emotional, physical, in-
tellectual, or even spiritual level. Therefore, organizations have
begun to encourage the collaboration of customers in the co-
creation of their own experiences to ensure experiences more
related to their customers’ needs.
Co-creation refers to an interactive process involving at least
two actors who are engaged in specific forms of mutually beneficial
collaboration and resulting in value creation for those actors (Frow
et al., 2011, pp. 1e6). Co-creation is at the basis of Service Dominant
Logic (SDL) that places services instead of products at the center of
the economic exchange (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). According to SDL, a
customer is no longer considered a target to reach with positioning
strategies but must be seen as an active resource who should be
involved in the value creation process. With this active role, the
customer is able to influence and improve the available resources of
the organization. The customer can contribute to realizing inno-
vative products and services that can help create memorable ex-
periences (Chathoth, Altinay, Harrington, Okumus, & Chan, 2013;
Gro€ nroos, 2008; Kandampully, Zhang, & Bilgihan, 2015; Lusch,
Vargo. & O’Brien, 2007; Matthing et al., 2004; Torres, 2016).
The concepts of value and experience are closely linked (Pine &
Gilmore, 1998; Yang and Mattila, 2016). This is based on the
assumption that customers assign value to experiences and on the
consideration that the main outcomes are the experiences co-
created by customers and firms in order to obtain value
(Ramaswamy, 2011; Suntikul & Jachna, 2016). In particular, value is
achieved through co-creative experiences independently of the
nature of products and services created (Etgar, 2008). Co-creation
begins with the shift from a product and firm-centric view to
personalized customer experiences (Prahalad & Ramaswamy,
2004a, 2004b). Organizations should reconsider their role, and
their core activities should become the involvement of customers in
a purposeful dialog (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010). The benefit of
experience co-creation is related to the ability of customers and
organizations to collaborate for the satisfaction and the expecta-
tions of both (Chathoth et al., 2014a).
One of the pioneer examples of the experience economy is
tourism (Quan & Wang, 2004). The ability of proposing successful
experiences is the key factor for tourism service providers at the
destination that must face important changes in the industry: the
development of new destinations, high competition, the omni-
presence of new technologies, and increasing integration between
266 P. Buonincontri et al. / Tourism Management 62 (2017) 264e277
tourism activities (Hwang & Seo, 2016; Lugosi & Walls, 2013;
Morgan, Lugosi, & Ritchie, 2010; Tsaur, Chiu, & Wang, 2007).
Several previous studies emphasize how developments and
changes have contributed to modifying the role of tourists in the
destination (Binkhorst & Den Dekker, 2009; Grissemann &
Stokburger-Sauer, 2012; Richards & Wilson, 2006; Walls, Oku-
mus, Wang, & Joon-Wuk Kwun, 2011a).
In particular, tourists acquire a more active role in deciding what
to do during the journey, interacting with tourism service providers
at the destination, influencing other tourists, and choosing how to
satisfy all aspects of their personality and all of their needs. Tourism
firms and destinations have now recognized the power of tourists
and the importance of adopting a demand-centric approach in
which co-creation is the key factor, providing the ability to create
value and positively influence the positional advantage of the or-
ganization in the marketplace (Mathis et al., 2016; Minkiewicz,
Evans, & Bridson, 2014).
In the context of tourism, for experience co-creation to occur, it
is essential that destinations and tourism service providers involve
tourists in cooperatively working together with the aim of creating
a better offering. In return, this enhances value for both the tourist
and the destination (Grissemann & Stokburger-Sauer, 2012; Mathis,
2013). Previous studies suggest that the degree of experience co-
creation is influenced by several factors. In particular, tourists’ in-
teractions, their active participation in the experience and their
attitudes on sharing the experience with others are identified as the
antecedents of experience co-creation (Green, 2002; Neuhofer,
Buhalis, & Ladkin, 2012). In fact, the way in which tourists
combine their resources with those of the tourism service pro-
viders at the destination during the experience co-creation process
implies the establishment of strong interactions in several mo-
ments of the experiences, the active participation of tourists in
building and living experiences, and their engagement with other
actors (friends, other customers, and internet users) to share their
experiences while actually experiencing them. However, studies on
these antecedents are mainly conceptual (Green, 2002; Neuhofer
et al., 2012), and how these three factors influence experience co-
creation in the context of tourism has not yet been empirically
analyzed. The following sub-section provides an account of how
interactions, the active participation of tourists, and their attitudes
on sharing experiences can be considered antecedents of experi-
ence co-creation in tourism.
2.2. Antecedents of experience co-creation in tourism
The theoretical approach of SDL highlights the role of in-
teractions for the involvement of customers in the co-creation
process (Grissemann & Stokburger-Sauer, 2012). Concerning the
pillars of SDL, Payne, Storbacka, and Frow (2008) recognize the
fundamental role of interactions and introduce the encounter
process as part of their conceptual framework to explain the travel
experience co-creation of customers. The authors define it as a
process of interactions and transactions occurring between the
tourists and the tourism service providers at the destination during
moments of contact in which both parties are involved. According
to these authors, there are critical encounters that may positively or
negatively influence experience co-creation. Following this,
tourism service providers at the destination should identify op-
portunities related to positive critical encounters and address their
resources to establish a stable dialog in the relationship with
tourists. At the same time, tourists should monitor negative critical
encounters and solve them through customized and direct in-
teractions. According to Chathoth et al. (2014b), effective commu-
nication between tourism service providers at the destination and
tourists is an important antecedent for tourist involvement and
consequently for co-creation. They conducted research on the
engagement of tourists in the context of hotels and revealed that
the absence of tourist-interaction platforms may be considered a
barrier to co-creation, as it inhibits proper communication with
tourists during the co-creation process.
The establishment of a pre-exchange dialog with tourists is a
prerequisite in the co-creation of experiences because it helps
tourism service providers at the destination to understand tourists'
needs and expectations (Chathoth et al., 2014a). Therefore, tourism
service providers at the destination should support tourists in the
experience co-creation process by motivating and providing them
with relevant information and necessary resources. In their
framework for the composition of hospitality and tourism con-
sumer experiences, Walls et al. (2011a) view human interactions as
an important factor that may influence tourists' experience with a
modest or a significant impact. This can make each individual's
experience unique. In another study, Walls, Okumus, Wang, and
Joon-Wuk Kwun (2011b) discuss how human interactions
augment overall experience through co-creation.
For tourism service providers at the destination, establishing
direct interactions with tourists is essential if they want to under-
stand tourists’ needs and expectations, involve them in the expe-
rience co-creation process, and realize personalized offers.
Furthermore, without customized interactions, the time and effort
dedicated to experience co-creation would be wasted, and, conse-
quently, experiences would hold no added value for either the
tourists or tourism service providers at the destination (Chathoth
et al., 2016; Minkiewicz et al., 2014). Therefore, interaction is
considered to be an important antecedent of experience co-
creation because firms can achieve a competitive advantage by
dialoguing in a personal way with customers at all points of the
relationship, these points being the locus of experience co-creation
(Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004a). Based on the above discussions,
the following hypothesis can be proposed:
H1. The interaction between tourists and tourism service providers
has a positive effect on experience co-creation in tourism.
Co-creation presupposes the combination of customers' re-
sources with those of organizations (Chathoth et al., 2016; Hoyer,
Chandy, Dorotic, Krafft & Singh, 2010). According to Andersson
(2007), customers contribute to the final step of the production
process by combining their resources with those of organizations
and co-creating their own experiences, implying the trans-
formation of customers from passive to active partners (Chathoth
et al., 2013). Carù and Cova (2007) suggest that customers can be
actively or passively involved. Passively, organizations have control
over the relationship, whereas active participation allows cus-
tomers to immerse themselves in an experience, taking re-
sponsibility for each step in the process. In other words, in order to
actively engage customers, an effort on the part of organizations
must be aimed at adopting a customer perspective. In this way, the
customers’ needs and expectations can be better met (Chathoth
et al., 2014b).
Previous studies recognize how customers influence the expe-
rience co-creation process by actively combining several resources.
For example, Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004a) affirm that expe-
rience co-creation is influenced by the active involvement of cus-
tomers before, during, and after consumption. The challenge for the
organizations is actively engaging customers by providing them a
space in which they may combine their resources and thereby
generate a variety of potential co-created experiences (Ramaswamy
& Gouillart, 2010). Vivek, Beatty, & Morgan (2012) consider cus-
tomers’ participation as an antecedent to influencing the engage-
ment of customers and their co-creation.
Similarly, in the tourism industry, active participation has a
 P. Buonincontri et al. / Tourism Management 62 (2017) 264e277 267

direct effect on the outcomes of the co-creation process Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:
(Grissemann & Stokburger-Sauer, 2012). The active role of tourists
H3. Tourists' sharing of an experience with others has a positive ef-
is especially important in the co-creation of tourism experiences
fect on experience co-creation in tourism.
because successful experiences should be personalized and require
the direct intervention of tourists with their own resources
(Chathoth, Ungson, Harrington, Altinay, & Chan, 2016; Sotiriadis,
2.3. The consequences of experience co-creation in tourism
2017). Tourism service providers at the destination level should
involve tourists in the co-creation process if they want to generate
The positive consequences of experience co-creation in the
experiences to meet tourists' needs and expectations. Tourists
context of tourism are represented by the concepts of tourists’
should be involved in activities oriented to combine not only the
satisfaction, level of expenditure, and happiness, all of which are
basic resources of travel but also more personal and unique re-
considered to be the measures of success for both tourists and
sources. Tourism service providers at the destination who facilitate
tourism service providers at the destination. According to
the active participation of tourists may have a competitive advan-
Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer (2012), destinations and tourism
tage because the experience co-creation process may be easier and
firms can achieve two significant sources of competitive advantage
more responsive to tourists’ expectations. Therefore, the active role
by implementing co-creation: a) productivity gains through effi-
of tourists can be considered to be an important antecedent of
ciency and b) gains in the effectiveness of the co-created offering.
experience co-creation in tourism. Thus, the following hypothesis
Regarding the first source, tourism service providers at the
can be proposed:
destination can reach the market and respond to its changes (de
H2. The active participation of tourists in the entire experiential Jager, 2009) and share their costs with tourists and reduce their
process has a positive effect on experience co-creation in tourism. risks (Salvado, Ferreira, & Costa, 2011). Gains in effectiveness are
related to profits, market share, a major willingness to pay, and
According to Carù and Cova (2015), the dyadic relationship be-
increases in revenue (Neuhofer et al., 2012; Rodriguez et al., 2011;
tween organizations and customers has progressed to a new focus
Shaw, Bailey, & Williams, 2011). Finally, Grissemann and
that considers other subjects who are both known, such as family
Stokburger-Sauer (2012) individuate tourists’ satisfaction and ex-
members and friends, and unknown, such as other customers or
penditures, or the total amount of money tourists spend for their
internet users. The relationships with these subjects, the exchange
tourism services, as a measure of destination success from a
of information, and the sharing of opinions and suggestions with
behavioral perspective.
them influence the customer experience (Berry & Seiders, 2008;
These measures of success may be considered in the context of
Carù & Cova, 2015; Tombs & McColl-Kennedy, 2010). The litera-
experience co-creation. It is believed that a leading factor respon-
ture on tourism experience recognizes the importance of tourists
sible for the success of tourism service providers at the destination
sharing their experiences with others (Binkhorst & Den Dekker,
is the satisfaction of tourists with their tourism experience, which,
2009; Chathoth et al., 2013; de Jager, 2009; Munar & Jacobsen,
in turn, plays a significant role in determining their overall satis-
2014; Prebensen & Foss, 2011; Rihova, Buhalis, Moital, & Gouthro,
faction with life (Neal, Uysal, & Sirgy, 2007). With regard to the
2015).
level of expenditures, several previous studies confirm that cus-
The social dynamics during travel are considered to be funda-
tomers are more willing to buy experiential purchases than mate-
mental outputs of tourism because social dynamics facilitate get-
rial purchases (Carter & Gilovich, 2010; Howell & Hill, 2009;
ting to know new people, reinforcing friendships, making new
Howell, Pchelina, & Iyer, 2012). Experiential purchases are made
friends, and spending time with relatives. In addition, maintaining
with the primary intention of acquiring a life experience and cause
relationships within their own networks is essential for tourists.
positive emotions and pleasure. Furthermore, Franke and Piller
This need is especially satisfied by new technologies. In fact, ICTs
(2004) and Schreier (2006) claim that customers are willing to
can provide tourists with new tools that allow them to respond in a
pay more for co-created products and services than for standard-
more accurate way to the environment and to share suggestions,
ized products. This concept may be explained by a more person-
opinions, questions, and memories related to their journey (Buhalis
alized experience being an output of co-creation that better reflects
& Foerste, 2015). Focusing on the role of social media in promoting
customers' needs and desires. In the context of tourism,
the sharing of tourism experiences, Wang, Li, Li, and Peng (2014)
Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer (2012) used tourists’ satisfaction
explain intrinsic and extrinsic motivations that influence the
and level of expenditure to understand the positive effect of the co-
sharing intention of tourists. Intrinsic motivation refers to engaging
creation of tourists with tourism service providers at the destina-
in a sharing activity for the tourists’ own interest, for the pleasure
tion. Based on the above discussions, the following two hypotheses
and satisfaction derived, or for altruistic purposes. Extrinsic moti-
can be proposed:
vation is not strictly related to sharing but to other goals, such as
making new friends, receiving compliments, acquiring a reputa- H4. Experience co-creation in tourism has a positive effect on tour-
tion, and earning monetary rewards. ists' satisfaction with the overall tourism experience.
Tourists share their experiences with their network of relatives
H5. Experience co-creation in tourism has a positive effect on tour-
and friends and with unknown users of the internet before, during,
ists' level of expenditure on the tourism experience.
and after the experiential process. In their study, Chathoth et al.
(2014b) found that a lack of awareness of the role and usefulness Experience co-creation offers benefits for both tourists and
of technology is one of the major barriers to the co-creation pro- tourism service providers at the destination. Satisfaction may be
cess. They emphasize how important it is for tourism service pro- defined as an evaluation of actual performance versus expectations
viders at the destination to recognize the fundamental role of and refers to a particular experience during a defined period (Giese
technology in creating a superior service experience for tourists & Cote, 2000). Satisfaction can be considered to be a measure of
through effective sharing processes. The attitude of sharing tourism firms' success for experience co-creation (Grissemann &
experiences through technology enlarges the experience in time Stokburger-Sauer, 2012). However, customer happiness refers
and space (Neuhofer et al., 2012; Sotiriadis, 2017) and improves the instead to a general happiness with one's life and can be defined as
role of tourists as experience co-creators. This allows their attitude the propensity to frequently experience positive emotions and
to contribute to the generation of the tourism experiences. infrequently experience negative emotions related to the
268 P. Buonincontri et al. / Tourism Management 62 (2017) 264e277
consumption of experiences (Diener, Sandvik, & Pavot, 1991;
Hellen, 2010; Larsen, Diener, & Emmons, 1986; Schimmack &
Diener, 1997). Peterson, Park, and Seligman (2005) propose three
typologies of happiness: pleasure, meaning, and engagement. The
third typology emphasizes how activities and experiences that are
more engaging for customers are accompanied by a psychological
state that determines a flow in which the sense of self is lost, time
passes very quickly, the senses are over-excited, and pleasure is
invigorated.
Several recent studies consider that experience may contribute
to a higher level of happiness for customers (Brakus, Schmitt, &
Zarantonello, 2009; King, 2017; Schmitt, 2010; Zarantonello,
2013). For example, Zarantonello (2013) conducted two studies to
understand how experiences contribute to happiness in an active
and passive consumption set, revealing that there is a link between
the four experience dimensions of sense, affect, intellect, and
behavior, and the three happiness dimensions of pleasure, mean-
ing, and engagement. Studies conducted by Carter and Gilovich
(2010) and Howell et al. (2012) illustrate why experiential pur-
chases tend to make people happier than material purchases. Their
results show that a satisfying experience often becomes even more
positive over time as it is embellished in memory, increasing the
customer's happiness. Customers' happiness, therefore, may be
considered a measure of customers' success for their experience co-
creation. Extending this reasoning to the tourism context, the sixth
hypothesis is as follows:
H6. Experience co-creation in tourism has a positive effect on tour-
ists’ happiness.
The theoretical model illustrated in Fig. 1 represents the six
research hypotheses. This theoretical model shows interaction
between tourists and tourism service providers at the destination,
the active participation of tourists and sharing of the tourism
experience with other stakeholders as antecedents of experience
co-creation in tourism. Furthermore, the model indicates the
tourists’ satisfaction regarding their tourism experiences, level of
expenditure, and happiness as positive consequences of experience
co-creation in tourism.
Fig. 1. Theoretical model of the study.
Source: Authors' elaboration
3. Methodology
3.1. Research design
The research hypotheses were tested through a quantitative
approach in which data was collected based on a survey due to its
suitability with the purpose and nature of the study in question.
The results were subsequently analyzed through the statistical
method of path analysis, a specific multivariate technique that al-
lows the estimation of the strength of the links among variables
and the use of these estimations to provide information about the
related causal relationships (Lleras, 2005). Originating in phyloge-
netic studies (Wright, 1921), path analysis is now widely used in
several fields such as sociology, psychology, economics, political
science, and tourism studies (Bigne , Sa

nchez, & Sa
nchez, 2001;
Chen, Huang, & Petrick, 2016; Kim, Lee, & Bonn, 2016). It has ach-
ieved increasing importance since its introduction in structural
equation models (SEM) and is now considered to be a special case
of SEM in which the structural relationships among variables are
modeled. This technique is able to test hypothesized relationships
and reveal the effects of antecedents on experience co-creation in
the tourism context and the effects of experience co-creation on
positive consequences by estimating as many regression equations
as are needed to relate all of the proposed theoretical relationships
among the variables in the explanation simultaneously.
3.2. Measurement development
The six constructs were measured by a set of multiple five-point
Likert scales ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly
agree” (5), realized by combining existing scales in the literature
and adapting them to the topic of experience co-creation in tourism
(Table 1). The use of five-point scales is due to make the results of
the research comparable with those of previous studies from which
the items were adapted (Mathis et al., 2016; Neal et al., 2007;
Peterson et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2014). Furthermore, as affirmed
by Revilla, Saris, and Krosnik (2014), five-point scales yield better
quality data than scales with more points.
 P. Buonincontri et al. / Tourism Management 62 (2017) 264e277 269

Table 1
Measurement model of the study.

Construct Items Authors

Experience co-creation in tourism The setting of the vacation environment allowed me to effectively collaborate Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer (2012);
with tourism professionals. Mathis et al. (2016)
I predominantly organized the trip by myself.
I have used my experience from previous trips to make this trip better.
Interaction between the tourist and tourism I have directly interacted with tourism professionals during the organization of Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer (2012);
service providers my trip (by phone, e-mail, etc.). Mathis et al. (2016)
I have been motivated by tourism professionals regarding the organization of
my trip.
I felt confident in my ability to collaborate with the tourism professionals.
Active participation of the tourist during My tourism experience was enhanced because of my participation in cultural Mathis et al. (2016)
the experience and tourist activities. Peterson et al. (2005)
I enjoy taking a hands-on approach during my tourism experience.
I have sought out situations that challenge my skills and abilities during this
trip.
Tourist's sharing of an experience with I have shared my tourism experience with others during this trip. Wang et al. (2014)
others during the trip I will tell others about the tourism experience I have had during this trip.
Sharing my travel knowledge and information through social media is pleasant.
Tourist's satisfaction with the experience All in all, I feel that this tourism experience has enriched my life. I am really glad Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer (2012);
I went on this trip. Neal et al. (2007)
Overall, I am very satisfied with the visit to this destination.
My experience in this destination has met my expectations.
If I could have this tourism experience again, I would change nothing.
Tourist's level of expenditure dedicated to When I have extra money, I am likely to spend it on a tourism experience. Howell et al. (2012)
the experience I prefer to spend more money for a more involving tourism experience.
Tourist's happiness with the experience In choosing what to do on this trip, I have taken into account whether it will Peterson et al. (2005)
benefit other people. Neal et al. (2007)
This vacation was rewarding to me in many ways, and I feel much better about
things and myself after this trip.
I took this trip for pleasure.
I love to have tourism experiences that excite my senses.
During this trip, the time has passed very quickly.
In choosing this tourism experience, I have taken into account whether I could
lose myself in it.

Source: Authors' elaboration.

In conceptualizing experience co-creation in tourism, a multi- demographic questions and tourists’ travel behavior. The ques-
item construct was used, combining two items that Grissemann tionnaire was pretested by tourism researchers and university
and Stokburger-Sauer (2012) derived from conceptual papers by professors with specific knowledge of tourism experience and co-
Bettencourt (1997) and Lengnick-Hall, Claycomb, & Inks (2000) and creation. After this process, the questionnaire was modified and
one item from Mathis et al.’s work (2016). The three items related to improved; the final version was used for the research study.
the interaction between tourists and tourism service providers at
the destination were adapted from Grissemann and Stokburger-
3.3. Data collection and analysis
Sauer (2012) and Mathis et al. (2016). Three items on the active
participation of tourists during their experiences were adapted
The study was conducted on a sample of tourists who visited
from Mathis et al. (2016) and Peterson et al. (2005). Studies con-
Naples, Italy. Naples was chosen because it is one of the most
ducted by Wang et al. (2014) have been useful to individuate items
famous destinations in southern Italy, characterized by its historical
related to tourists’ attitudes on sharing their experiences with
center, which has been a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1995;
others. In particular, items related to the intrinsic motivation for
eno-gastronomic culture; handcrafted traditions; and natural
sharing were adapted to this current study.
beauty. A trend analysis for time series data on tourist arrivals in
Tourists' satisfaction with experiences was measured by
Naples, calculated considering the arrivals during the month of
adapting items from Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer’s (2012)
February for a decade, suggested an estimated population of 52.159
and Neal et al.’s (2007) studies. The level of expenditure dedi-
tourist arrivals. Consequently, 382 tourists compose the recom-
cated to experiences was measured by adapting two items on
mended sample size, considering an accepted margin of error of 5%,
which Howell et al. (2012) elaborated. Finally, in line with studies
a confidence level of 95%, and a response distribution of 50%. In this
by Zarantonello (2013) and Schmitt (2010), items to measure
research, the non-probability sample is applied due to the impos-
happiness for the co-created tourism experience were derived from
sibility of having a complete list of tourists to Naples.
Csikszentmihalyi (1990), King & Napa (1998), McGregor & Little
The survey was conducted in the foyer of several hotels and
(1998), Peterson et al. (2005), and Seligman (2002). The scale for
other accommodation establishments of Naples. A five-member
tourists' happiness also contained one item derived from Neal
trained research team conducted the survey. The researchers
et al.’s (2007) study.
explained the research briefly to the tourists and asked them if they
All the items were thoroughly reviewed by academic experts in
were willing to participate in the project. Only tourists who had
statistics and tourism.
already visited the city of Naples were selected to participate in the
The questionnaire developed for this study had three sections.
study. Upon the tourists’ consent, the researchers distributed the
The first section included a short explanation of the research and its
questionnaires and assisted them to complete all the sections. The
aims. The second section included a measurement of study con-
questionnaire was written in English; in order to collect precise
structs with five-point Likert scales. The third section included
information also from national tourists, it was translated into
270 P. Buonincontri et al. / Tourism Management 62 (2017) 264e277

Italian with the support of linguistic experts. The research team Table 2
assisted foreign respondents in order to explain to them the exact Demographic information and travel behavior of respondents.

meaning of the questions and to ensure the correct translation of Variables Freq. (%)
words. All the foreign respondents were able to understand the Gender
English questionnaire. Female 199 51.7
Beginning with the total population of hotels and other ac- Male 186 48.3
commodations in Naples, the sample was divided into 349 tourists Age
to whom the questionnaire was administered in hotels and 33 18e35 93 24.2
tourists to whom the questionnaire was administered in other ac- 36e45 149 38.7
commodation establishments, particularly bed and breakfasts 46e65 118 30.6
65þ 25 6.5
(B&Bs). B&Bs and hotels were chosen because of their managers’
agreement to conduct the research and because of their location in Nationality
Italy 205 53.2
the tourist areas of the city.
Europe 161 41.8
In this present study, 385 questionnaires were collected from America 13 3.4
tourists who visited Naples. Data screening was conducted that Asia 6 1.6
included controlling for missing data, unengaged responses
Top Italian regions
through standard deviations, and kurtosis to clean the data and to Lombardia 25 12.2
ensure that it was useful, reliable, and valid for statistical analysis. Piemonte 18 8.8
Because the number of missing values was quite low (1.35% of the Lazio 17 8.3
Sicilia 17 8.3
total answers), they were replaced by the median (Hair, Hult,
Toscana 13 6.3
Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2013; Nordgaard, Ansell, Jaeger, & Drotz,
2010). Unengaged questions were analyzed by standard deviation Top European countries
France 75 46.6
to identify if there were some people who replied in the same way
UK 33 20.5
to all of the questions and therefore did not increase the informa- Germany 10 6.2
tion of the results; the lowest value of standard deviation was 0.35,
Education
so there was good engagement with the responses. Data screening High school degree 19 4.9
also revealed that almost all of the results present a normal dis- Some college 84 21.8
tribution. Since the sample size of the research is large, following University degree 188 48.8
the work by Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson (2010), slight deviation Postgraduate/master 93 24.2
from normality is not considered problematic. Occupation
Employee 138 35.8
4. Findings Entrepreneur/Professional 71 18.4
Manager 47 12.2
Self-employed 34 8.8
Demographic and travel behavior information are summarized Retired 27 7.0
in Table 2. Study results show that the majority of respondents Student 23 6.0
were from Italy (53.2%), mainly from Lombardia (12.2%) and Pie- Housewife 13 3.4
Unoccupied 5 1.3
monte (8.8%). European tourists (41.8%) were mainly from France
Other 27 7.0
(46.6%) and the UK (20.5%). These results are in line with tourism
industry data from Naples (SISTAN, 2014) and the Campania Region Familiarity with destination
First visit 181 47.0
(ENIT, 2014). However, study results are different compared to Italy,
Once before 78 20.3
which registers a large number of tourists from Germany (ENIT, Twice or more before 126 32.7
2014).
Main motivation for the trip
Most respondents (48.8%) had a university degree, and 21.8% Tourism 252 65.5
had at least some college degree; the majority of the participants Business 109 28.3
were employees and entrepreneurs/professionals. With regard to Meeting relatives/friends 10 2.6
their travel behavior, approximately half of the sample visited Other 14 3.6
Naples for the first time (47%), while 32.7% was on their third visit Travel party
or more. Approximately 65% of the respondents noted that they Family 125 32.5
were in Naples mainly for tourism. Approximately 32.5% of the Friends 99 25.7
Significant other 71 18.4
respondents travelled with their family during the trip; 25.7% Alone 56 14.5
travelled with friends and 18.4% with their significant other. Organized group 14 3.6
In order to test the measurement model and the proposed re- Other 20 5.2
lationships, statistical analysis of the data began with an explor- Duration of trip
atory factor analysis (EFA), followed by a confirmatory factor 1 night 77 20.0
analysis (CFA). Subsequently, research hypotheses were tested with 2-3 nights 150 39.0
the statistical software IBM SPSS Amos. EFA was processed to 4-7 nights 149 38.9
Other 8 2.1
ensure uni-dimensionality and internal consistency of the con-
structs and was necessary because the items of each construct were
taken from the literature but were modified to suit the context of
the study (Ramikssoon, Smith, & Weiler, 2013). EFA confirmed model to generate satisfactory goodness-of-fit indices.
seven constructs, but the item “If I could live this tourism experience Subsequently, the analyses of reliability, validity, and model fit
again, I would change nothing” was deleted to improve the pattern were presented. As presented in Table 3, each construct was highly
matrix. CFA was then conducted to evaluate a priori hypotheses reliable, as they all had an alpha of 0.763 or greater. According to
regarding the relationships between observed indicators and their Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998), a Cronbach's alpha es-
underlying latent constructs (Fig. 2) and to refine the measurement timate of 0.70 or higher indicated that the measurement scale used
 P. Buonincontri et al. / Tourism Management 62 (2017) 264e277 271

Fig. 2. The measurement model.

to measure a construct was moderately reliable. Composite reli-
ability was then assessed for the latent constructs and indicated
good reliability, as it was greater than the average variance
extracted (AVE) values (Hair et al., 1998).
Convergent validity was assessed in the measurement model by
estimating the AVE values. As shown in Table 3, the AVE exceeded
the recommended minimum value of 0.50 in each construct,
showing convergent validity (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Discriminant
validity was assessed comparing the square root of the AVE of each
construct with its correlation values. Because no square root of the
AVE had a correlation of less than one with the other factors,
discriminant validity was achieved (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The
subsequent phase to test the measurement model and its proposed
relationships was the evaluation of the model's global fit through
several goodness-of-fit measures that included the following
(Table 4): chi-square (c2), degree of freedom (DF), goodness of fit
index (GFI), root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA),
comparative fit index (CFI), and Tucker & Lewis index (TLI), and root
mean residual (RMR). Because c2 is 268.56 and this statistic is
sensitive to sample size (Hair et al., 1998), additional goodness-of-
fit measures were necessary. The overall model fit provided satis-
fying results: GFI exceeded 0.9 for a good model and was 0.943 in
this case. The RMSEA ¼ 0.028 expressed a good fit, as it was lower
than 0.05; CFI ¼ 0.989 was close to being a perfect fit (1.0); and
TLI ¼ 0.987 exceeded the value of 0.95, which expressed a good fit.
Subsequently, a correlation analysis was conducted to gain insight
into the relationships among the constructs (Table 5). Pearson's
index was calculated to understand the significance of correlations
among variables. The correlations were all statistically significant
(r > 0.05) at a probability level of 0.01.
The strongest correlation was between “tourists' satisfaction
with the experience” and “tourists' level of expenditure dedicated
272 P. Buonincontri et al. / Tourism Management 62 (2017) 264e277

Table 3
Mean, standard deviation, Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability and average variance extracted.

MEAN ST. ALPHA CR AVE Square Root of the

DEV. AVE

Experience co-creation in tourism 3.99 1.967 0.911 0.912 0.777 0.881

I predominantly organized the trip by myself. 4.02 0.716
I have used my experience from previous trips to make this trip better. 3.97 0.707
The setting of the vacation environment allowed me to effectively collaborate with tourism professionals. 3.98 0.712
Interaction between the tourist and tourism services providers 2.81 2.46 0.763 0.763 0.518 0.720
I have directly interacted with tourism professionals during the organization of my trip (by phone, e-mail, 2.53 0.989
etc.).
I felt confident in my ability to collaborate with the tourism professionals. 3.23 0.970
I have been motivated by tourism professionals regarding the organization of my trip. 2.67 1.030
Active participation of the tourist during the experience 2.77 2.25 0.828 0.833 0.626 0.792
I enjoy taking a hands-on approach during my tourism experience. 2.85 0.893
I have sought out situations that challenge my skills and abilities during this trip. 2.72 0.883
My tourism experience was enhanced because of my participation in cultural and tourist activities. 2.74 0.834
Sharing of the tourism experience with others during the trip 2.27 2.502 0.908 0.909 0.768 0.876
I have shared my tourism experience with others during this trip. 2.21 0.831
I will tell others about the tourism experience I have had during this trip. 2.25 0.914
Sharing my travel knowledge and information through social media is pleasant. 2.36 0.980
Tourist's satisfaction with the experience 3.97 2.187 0.848 0.822 0.606 0.779
All in all, I feel that this tourism experience has enriched my life. I am really glad I went on this trip. 4.10 0.596
Overall, I am very satisfied with the visit to this destination. 3.99 0.651
My experience in this destination has met my expectations. 3.85 0.686
Tourist's happiness with the experience 3.54 4.619 0.927 0.925 0.674 0.821
In choosing what to do on this trip, I have taken into account whether it will benefit other people. 3.49 0.927
This vacation was rewarding to me in many ways, and I feel much better about things and myself after this 3.72 0.836
trip.
I took this trip for pleasure. 3.54 0.909
I love to have tourism experiences that excite my senses. 3.37 0.951
During this trip, the time has passed very quickly. 3.64 0.853
In choosing this tourism experience, I have taken into account whether I could lose myself in it. 3.46 0.924
Tourist's level of expenditure dedicated to the lived experience 3.88 1.389 0.892 0.892 0.806 0.898
When I have extra money, I am likely to spend it on a tourism experience. 3.88 0.725
I prefer to spend more money for a more involving tourism experience. 3.88 0.737

Table 4 to the experience” (0.709). Both represent positive consequences of

Goodness-of-fit measures. experience co-creation in tourism, although the first one was
c2 268.56 related to emotional aspects and the second to more material ele-
DF 208 ments. The least significant correlations were between “sharing the
GFI 0.943 tourism experience with others during the trip” and “tourists' level
RMSEA 0.028
of expenditure dedicated to the experience” (0.222) and between
CFI 0.989
TLI 0.987 “sharing the tourism experience with others during the trip” and
RMR 0.020 “tourists' satisfaction for the experience” (0.226). In addition, the

Table 5
Correlation analysis.

Tourist's level of Interaction between the Tourist's Active participation Experience Sharing of the tourism Tourist's
expenditure dedicated tourist and tourism satisfaction of the tourist during co-creation experience with others happiness with
to the experience service providers with the the experience in tourism during the trip the experience
experience

Tourist's level of 1
expenditure
dedicated to the
experience
Interaction between the 0.251 1
tourist and tourism
service providers
Tourist's satisfaction 0.709 0.370 1
with the experience
Active participation of 0.265 0.477 0.450 1
the tourist during the
experience
Experience co-creation 0.565 0.392 0.658 0.404 1
in tourism
Sharing of the tourism 0.222 0.477 0.226 0.427 0.275 1
experience with
others during the trip
Tourist's happiness with 0.387 0.374 0.589 0.565 0.530 0.255 1
the experience
 P. Buonincontri et al. / Tourism Management 62 (2017) 264e277
correlation between “tourists’ level of expenditure dedicated to the
experience” and “interaction between the tourist and the tourism
service providers” was weak (0.251). To test the proposed hy-
potheses of this study, the measurement model was transformed
into a structural model (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3 reveals the relationships between “active participation of
the tourist during the experience” and “interaction between the
tourist and tourism service providers”, between “active participa-
tion of the tourist during the experience” and “sharing the tourism
experience with others during the trip”, and between “interaction
between the tourist and the tourism service providers” and
“sharing the tourism experience with others during the trip”. These
relationships were not hypothesized in the proposed model but
arose to obtain a more adequate model. This is an important finding
because it highlights that the three antecedents are strictly related
to each other and that they collectively influence experience co-
creation in tourism.
The last phase of the study was related to testing the hypothe-
ses, which was conducted through Amos and SPSS (Table 6). Study
results from the regression analysis showed that the path from the
construct “interaction between the tourist and the tourism service
providers” to the construct “experience co-creation in tourism” was
significant and positive, meaning that the interaction between
tourists and the destination has a positive effect on the role of
tourists as experience co-creators (t-value ¼ 4.415). Therefore, H1
was supported.
Study results further indicate that the path from the construct
“active participation of the tourist during the experience” to the
construct “experience co-creation in tourism” was significant and
positive. According to the results, the active participation of the
tourists along the entire experiential process has a positive effect
on the role of tourists as experience co-creators, meaning that the
level of active participation leads to an increase in the degree of
experience co-creation (t-value ¼ 5.065). Therefore, H2 was
supported.
Contrary to expectations and the proposed hypothesis, the as-
sociation between sharing the experience with others and experi-
ence co-creation was not significant. The relationship between the
construct “sharing the tourism experience with others during the
trip” and the construct “experience co-creation in tourism” was, in
fact, weak. Therefore, H3 was not supported. This is rather an
interesting finding, and future studies should investigate other
potential antecedents that could improve the explanatory power of
the model.
Results from the regression analysis indicate that the path from
Fig. 3. Structural model.
273
the construct “experience co-creation in tourism” to the construct
“tourists' satisfaction with the experience” was significant and
positive: the degree of experience co-creation has a positive effect
on tourists' satisfaction with the overall tourism experience (t-
value ¼ 17.135). Therefore, H4 was supported. The study results
show that the path from the construct “experience co-creation in
tourism” to the construct “tourists' level of expenditure dedicated
to the experience” is significant and positive, validating H5: the
degree of experience co-creation has a positive effect on tourists’
level of expenditure for their experience (t-value ¼ 13.406).
Study results from the regression analysis also show that the
path from the construct “experience co-creation in tourism” to the
construct “tourists' happiness with the experience” was positive
and significant: the degree of experience co-creation positively
affects the happiness of the tourists with the experience (t-
value ¼ 12.247). Therefore, H6 was supported. The strongest paths
concerned experience co-creation and tourists’ happiness, satis-
faction, and level of expenditure: according to the path values,
when the degree of experience co-creation increases by 1, the level
of happiness increases by 0.643, the level of expenditure increases
by 0.552, and the level of satisfaction increases by 0.502.
5. Discussion and conclusions
This study sought to investigate the main antecedents and
consequences of experience co-creation in tourism. The current
study makes a clear contribution to the body of knowledge related
to experience co-creation in the field of tourism. Based on the
empirical findings and discussions provided above, this study offers
specific theoretical and practical implications, which are provided
below.
5.1. Theoretical implications
The innovativeness of this research lies in the study of the co-
creation of the overall tourism experience of an individual. The
study does not only focus on a specific tourism attraction or on a
tourism service but also seeks to explore the co-creation of the
whole experience that a tourist lives in relation to a tourist desti-
nation. This study also provides new insights into the main ante-
cedents and positive consequences of experience co-creation.
Although previous studies have acknowledged experience co-
creation as a successful strategy of differentiation against com-
petitors (Binkhorst & Den Dekker, 2009; Go € ssling et al., 2009;
Morgan et al., 2009; Mossberg, 2008; Schmidt-Rauch &
274 P. Buonincontri et al. / Tourism Management 62 (2017) 264e277
Table 6
Regression analysis.
Hypothesized paths
Interaction / Experience co-creation in tourism
Active Participation / Experience co-creation in tourism
Sharing / Experience co-creation in tourism
Experience co-creation in tourism / Satisfaction
Experience co-creation in tourism / Level of expenditure
Experience co-creation in tourism / Happiness
Nussbaumer, 2011), there has been limited empirical research in
tourism related to the antecedents and consequences of involving
tourists as experience co-creators. This study is one of the first that
empirically identifies three antecedents and three consequences of
experience co-creation in tourism and illustrates them in a model.
The measurement model is supported by the empirical data, and
the analysis emphasizes the good performance of the structural
model. The results show that experience co-creation in tourism is
highly influenced by the ability of tourists to directly interact with
local tourism professionals and by the tourists' active participation
during tourism experiences. The active participation of tourists is
the main antecedent of experience co-creation in tourism. The
degree of co-creation has improved due to tourists’ decision to
challenge their skills and abilities during travel, adoption of a
hands-on approach, and active involvement in the activities pro-
vided by the destination (Mathis et al., 2016; Peterson et al., 2005).
Contrary to expectations, tourists’ attitude of sharing their
experience with others does not have a strong influence on the
process of tourism experience co-creation in Naples. There may be
several potential explanations for the weak linkage between these
two constructs. One explanation is that Naples is a destination not
still sufficiently oriented for facilitating the sharing of tourism ex-
periences. Tourism service providers in Naples do not offer tourists
many tools aimed at supporting the sharing of their experience. The
promotion of writing about their experience in Naples on social
media and in travel diaries is still weak. More often, tourists share
their experiences independently from destinations and tourism
service providers and instead share experiences on their own social
media pages. Customers participate in various social media chan-
nels, expressing their opinions and suggestions about their tourism
experiences (Munar & Jacobsen, 2014). Destinations and tourism
service providers should capture this relevant information, as this
may create great opportunities for co-creation. In particular, they
can understand the specific needs of tourists more accurately and
contribute to the development of a co-creation process that opti-
mizes the tourism experience. For example, Buhalis and Foerste
(2015) affirm that information shared by users can assist tourists
if they face unexpected situations at the destination. Destinations
that understand the opportunities related to social networking and
can exploit it can benefit from more valuable experiences in the
future.
The current study also explored the strength and direction of the
consequences of tourism experience co-creation both for tourists
and destinations. Experience co-creation in tourism has a strong
and positive influence on tourists' satisfaction, level of expenditure,
and happiness. These findings are consistent with previous studies.
In particular, they confirm the positive relationships among the
degree of co-creation and level of expenditure and among the de-
gree of co-creation and satisfaction that Grissemann and
Stokburger-Sauer (2012) verified in the field of travel services.
The strongest influence of experience co-creation in tourism is on
the tourists' happiness. This is one of the first studies that investi-
gated this relationship. There are not many studies conducted on
Standardized Standard Error t-value Results
Beta coefficients
0.242 0.057 4.415 Supported
0.270 0.048 5.065 Supported
0.045 0.047 0.842 Not supported
0.658 0.029 17.135 Supported
0.565 0.041 13.406 Supported
0.530 0.052 12.247 Supported
the influence of experience co-creation on the happiness of the
customer in the tourism industry. However, the research findings of
this study support the study by Zarantonello (2013) that individ-
uated a positive link between customers’ happiness and experience
dimensions.
This study also reveals relationships among the constructs of
“sharing the tourism experience with others during the trip” and
“active participation of the tourist during the experience”, between
“sharing the tourism experience with others during the trip” and
“interaction between the tourist and the tourism service pro-
viders”, and between “interaction between the tourist and the
tourism service providers” and “active participation of the tourist
during the experience”. These hypotheses were not considered in
the proposed model but arose from the statistical analysis. They
need more attention in future research as they emphasize the
important role of these elements in jointly operating on the degree
of experience co-creation in tourism. The active participation of
tourists, interaction of tourists with tourism service providers and
attitudes of tourists of sharing their experiences have been studied
in the literature on tourism experience as separated drivers of
experience co-creation (Green, 2002; Neuhofer et al., 2012). This is
the first study to include all three antecedents in a single model.
The resulting relationships confirm the role of all the three ante-
cedents in jointly influencing experience co-creation.
5.2. Practical implications
This study offers a roadmap for designing and managing suc-
cessful tourism experiences. The findings and discussions resulting
from the study can provide tourism officials and destination man-
agers' evidence of the important role of experience co-creation,
which will assist in making tourists happier and more satisfied.
Furthermore, the study shows that experience co-creation in
tourism can influence tourists' attitudes on spending more money
for a more experiential and co-created visit of a destination. This
information is important for tourism service providers at the
destination, as there is a higher tendency that satisfied and happy
tourists will return to a destination and spread positive word of
mouth, positively influencing the destination's image and
competitiveness. Furthermore, experience co-creation influences
tourists' level of expenditure, allowing the tourism service pro-
viders at the destination to develop offers that are more expensive.
This study also provides empirical evidence and theoretical
discussions about the importance of tourists directly interacting
with tourism service providers at the destination and actively
participating with them during the experience. These drivers can
be used as strategic levers to improve tourists’ co-creation at every
stage of the experiential process. In other words, tourism service
providers should improve their interaction with real and potential
tourists along all the experiential process before, during, and after
their stay at destination by offering different direct communication
channels and involving tourists in the organization and develop-
ment of their trips. An important tool to achieve these purposes is
 P. Buonincontri et al. / Tourism Management 62 (2017) 264e277
new technology, which is able to change the way in which desti-
nations are experienced by tourists (Huang, Backman, Backman, &
Chang, 2016). Smart technologies in particular, characterized by
aggregation information, ubiquitous mobile connectedness, and
real time synchronization, may support tourism service providers
in the creation of interactive, personalized, and dynamic tourism
experiences (Neuhofer, Buhalis, & Ladkin, 2015). In this sense, the
development of a website according to a smart approach, with
augmented reality, interactive maps, and gaming services, is a valid
tool both in the pre-visit and in the post-visit phase, since facilitates
the direct interaction between tourists and tourism service pro-
viders (Buhalis & Wagner, 2013). In order to increase the degree of
experience co-creation, tourism professionals should consider the
use of smart technologies also in the visit phase: virtual reality tools
and the internet (QR codes, sensors, and tags) support the creation
of a smart environment in which the real world and the digital
realm are combined. In this new environment, tourism service
providers may develop new offers aimed at involving tourists in a
more active way, allowing them to challenge their physical, mental,
and spiritual abilities. Smart technologies, in fact, allow the total
immersion of the tourists and stimulate their active participation,
enhancing the experience co-creation (Gretzel, Sigala, Xiang, &
Koo, 2015). Furthermore, tourism service providers should also to
offer to tourists the opportunity to choose more immersive expe-
riences at the destination able to stimulate their active participa-
tion and their interaction without the use of technology: traditional
cooking courses or speleological tours are examples.
Knowledge of the main antecedents of experience co-creation in
tourism is useful for destination managers and tourism firms
because it allows them to avoid what Ple  & Chumpitaz Ca ceres
(2010) call ‘value co-destruction’. According to these researchers,
if the co-creation process is not adequately managed, precious re-
sources may be inappropriately used, impeding the satisfaction of
the expectations of both the tourists and the destination. Conse-
quently, value co-destruction may result in dissatisfaction for
tourists and negatively influence the image of the destination
(Chathoth et al., 2014a). This problem may arise in the context of
experience co-creation. Therefore, it is important that tourism
service providers develop engaging and co-creative experiences in
coherence with the image and culture of the destination.
Managers should recognize that tourists have different needs
and expectations. Therefore, a deeper knowledge of tourists’ needs
and expectations can help them design and offer a more adequate
level of co-creation. As found by Chathoth et al. (2014a) regarding
hotels, some tourist groups might not be willing to be part of the
co-creation process because they may not perceive the advantages
of their active participation in the experience or may not want to
interact directly with providers. Similarly, Antorini, Muniz,
Askildsen (2012) and Carù and Cova (2015) emphasize that con-
sumers may have different preferences for co-creation that require
different participative environments.
The varying attitudes towards co-creation may be related to
several aspects, such as age, cultural level, and consumption
behavior. Therefore, it is required that managers use new ap-
proaches to target their customers and not focus only on tradi-
tional segmentation methods driven by geographic and
demographic profiles. Results arisen by this research can be useful
for the development of an experience co-creation management
system. A similar system, may allow destination managers and
tourism service providers to know more about the degree of co-
creation needed by tourists and to provide them experiences
with different combinations of active participation, interaction,
and sharing possibilities, ensuring high levels of tourists’
satisfaction.
275
5.3. Limitations and future research
This study has several limitations. The study focused on the role
of the tourist as co-creator in the tourism industry without paying
much attention to the entire experience co-creation process, which
may involve other co-creators. Future studies may identify and
consider other stakeholders and their role in experience co-
creation. From this perspective, an interesting topic would be the
co-creation of collective experiences (Carù & Cova, 2015).
Another limitation is related to the administration of question-
naires, which were administered to tourists’ right before they left
the destination. It is possible that different perceptions of experi-
ence co-creation may emerge in studies conducted a significant
period of time after the trip. The next advancements in research
may consider the post-experience phase, collecting information
from tourists when they return to their primary residences and
have time to recall, share, and relate their experiences. Further-
more, in order to avoid the influence of contextual specifications on
the results, yet more rigorous testing of the model without a focus
on a particular destination should be done in the future.
The present research focuses on the elements that favor expe-
rience co-creation in tourism. However, as affirmed in the previous
sub-section, some tourists may not be interested in the experience
co-creation, or may negatively perceive the opportunity to co-
create with tourism service providers. The study of negative as-
pects of tourism experience co-creation antecedents in a future
study may help to have a more complete view of the engagement of
tourists in the experience co-creation. Future studies may also focus
on the role of technology on experience co-creation, with a
particular focus on the smart technologies able to support and
enhance experience co-creation with tourists. In order to overcome
the limitations related to the positivist approach here adopted, and
to obtain more context-related information on the experience co-
creation in tourism, future studies can investigate the tools adop-
ted by destination managers and tourism service providers to in-
crease the experience co-creation. Similar studies can be carried
out through case studies at national and international level.
Technology is increasingly allowing potential tourists to access
information about a destination wherever they are and at any time.
Future research can investigate if there are different levels of prior
knowledge of the destination, and how these differences may in-
fluence the experience co-creation process. Another potential study
may be to focus on the differences between domestic and inter-
national tourists.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.04.014.
References
Andersson, T. D. (2007). The tourist in the experience economy. Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7(1), 46e58.
Antorini, Y. M., Muniz, A. M., & Askildsen, T. (2012). Collaborating with customer
communities: Lessons from the Lego group. MIT Sloan Management Review,
53(3), 73e79.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74e94.
Berry, L. L., & Seiders, K. (2008). Serving unfair customers. Business Horizons, 51(1),
29e37.
Bettencourt, L. A. (1997). Customer voluntary performance: customers as partners
in service delivery. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 383e406.
Bharwani, S., & Jauhari, V. (2013). An exploratory study of competencies required to
co-create memorable customer experiences in the hospitality industry. Inter-
national Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(6), 823e843.
Bigne, J. E., Sa

nchez, M. I., & Sa

nchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables
and after purchase behaviour: Inter-relationship. Tourism Management, 22,
607e616.
276 P. Buonincontri et al. / Tourism Management 62 (2017) 264e277
Binkhorst, E., & Den Dekker, T. (2009). Agenda for co-creation tourism experience
research. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 18(2e3), 311e327.
Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it?
How do we measure it? And does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73,
52e68.
Buhalis, D., & Foerste, M. (2015). SoCoMo marketing for travel and tourism:
Empowering co-creation of value. Journal of Destination Marketing & Manage-
ment, 4, 151e161.
Buhalis, D., & Wagner, R. (2013). E-destinations: Global best practice in tourism
technologies and applications. In L. Cantoni, & Z. Xiang (Eds.), Information and
communication technologies in tourism 2013 (pp. 119e130). Heidelberg: Springer.
Carter, T. J., & Gilovich, T. (2010). The relative relativity of material and experiential
purchases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 146e159.
Carù, A., & Cova, B. (2007). Consuming experience. New York, NY: Routledge.
Carù, A., & Cova, B. (2015). Co-creating the collective service experience. Journal of
Service Management, 26(2), 276e294.
Chathoth, P. K., Altinay, L., Harrington, R. J., Okumus, F., & Chan, E. S. W. (2013). Co-
production versus co-creation: A process based continuum in the hotel service
context. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 11e20.
Chathoth, P. K., Ungson, G. R., Altinay, L., Chan, E. S. W., Harrington, R. J., &
Okumus, F. (2014b). Barriers affecting organizational adoption of higher order
customer engagement in tourism service interactions. Tourism Management, 42,
181e193.
Chathoth, P. K., Ungson, G. R., Harrington, R. J., Altinay, L., & Chan, E. S. W. (2016). Co-
creation and higher order customer engagement in hospitality and tourism
services. A critical review. International Journal of Contemporary Hospital Man-
agement, 28(2), 222e245.
Chathoth, P. K., Ungson, G. R., Harrington, R. J., Altinay, L., Okumus, F., &
Chan, E. S. W. (2014a). Conceptualization of value co-creation in the tourism
context. In N. K. Prebensen, et al. (Eds.), Creating experience value in tourism (pp.
33e47). Wallingford: CAB International.
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, 140e147.
Cova, B., & Dalli, D. (2009). Working consumers: the next step in marketing theory?
Marketing Theory, 9(3), 315e339.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York,
NY: HarperCollins.
de Jager, K. (2009). Co-creation as a strategic element of tourism destination
competitiveness. In Presented at 3rd advances in tourism marketing conference,
Bournemouth, 2009. Bournemouth: Bournemouth University.
Diener, E., Sandvik, E., & Pavot, W. (1991). Happiness is the frequency, not the in-
tensity, of positive versus negative affect. Subjective well-being: An interdisci-
plinary perspective, 21, 119e139.
ENIT. (2014, May 20). Il turismo straniero in Italia. A cura della Direzione Centrale
Programmazione e Comunicazione dell’ENIT. Retrieved from http://www.enit.it/
it/studi.html.
Etgar, M. (2008). A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 97e108.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(1), 39e50.
Franke, N., & Piller, F. (2004). Value Creation by Toolkits for User Innovation and
Design: The Case of the Watch Market. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-
ment, 2, 401e415.
Frow, P., Nenonen, S., Payne, A., & Storbacka, K. (2015). Managing co-creation
design: A strategic approach to innovation. British Journal of Management, 26,
463e483.
Frow, P., Payne, A., & Storbacka, K.. (2011). Co-creation: A typology and conceptual
framework. Presented at the Australian & New Zealand Marketing Academy
conference ANZMAC 2011, Perth, 2011 (pp. e). Perth, Australia.
Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2000). Defining Consumer Satisfaction. Academy of Mar-
keting Science review, 1.
Go€ssling, S., Haglund, L., Kallgren, H., Revahl, M., & Hultman, J. (2009). Swedish air
travellers and voluntary carbon offsets: Towards the co-creation of environ-
mental value? Current Issues in Tourism, 12(1), 1e19.
Green, N. (2002). On the move: Technology, mobility, and the mediation of social
time and space. The Information Society, 18(4), 281e292.
Gretzel, U., Sigala, M., Xiang, Z., & Koo, C. (2015). Smart tourism: Foundations and
developments. Electronic Markets, 25, 179e188.
Grissemann, U. S., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2012). Customer co-creation of travel
services: The role of company support and customer satisfaction with the co-
creation performance. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1483e1492.
Gro€nroos, C. (2008). Service Logic Revisited: Who Creates Value? And Who Co-
Creates? European Business Review, 20(4), 298e314.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data
Analysis: A global perspective. Upper Saddle River ,New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A primer on partial
least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). London: Sage Publication.
Helkkula, A., Kelleher, C., & Pihlstro € m, M. (2012). Characterizing value as an expe-
rience: implications for service researchers and managers. Journal of Service
Research, 15(1), 59e75.
Hellen, K. (2010). A continuation of the happiness success story: Does happiness
impact service quality? (Doctoral dissertation). Publications of the Hanken School
of Economics.
Howell, R. T., Pchelina, P., & Iyer, R. (2012). The preference for experiences over
possessions: Measurement and construct validation of the Experiential Buying
Tendency Scale. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(1), 57e71.
Howell, R. T., & Hill, G. (2009). The mediators of experiential purchases: Deter-
mining the impact of psychological needs satisfaction and social comparison.
The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 511e522.
Hoyer, W. D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., & Singh, S. S. (2010). Consumer co-
creation in new product development. Journal of Service Research, 13(3),
283e296.
Huang, Y. C., Backman, K. F., Backman, S. J., & Chang, L. L. (2016). Exploring the
implications of virtual reality technology in tourism marketing: An integrated
research framework. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18(2), 116e128.
Hwang, J., & Seo, S. (2016). A critical review of research on customer experience
management: Theoretical, methodological, and cultural perspectives. Interna-
tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(10), 2218e2246.
Jaakkola, E., Helkkula, A., & Aarikka-Stenroos, L. (2015). Service experience co-
creation: conceptualization, implications, and future research directions. Jour-
nal of Service Management, 26(2), 182e205.
Kandampully, J., Zhang, T., & Bilgihan, A. (2015). Customer loyalty: A review and
future directions with a special focus on the hospitality industry. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(3), 379e414.
Kim, M. J., Lee, C. K., & Bonn, M. (2016). The effect of social capital and altruism on
seniors' revisit intention to social network sites for tourism-related purposes.
Tourism Management, 53, 96e107.
King, C. (2017). Brand managementestanding out from the crowd: A review and
research agenda for hospitality management. International Journal of Contem-
porary Hospitality Management, 29(1), 115e140.
King, L. A., & Napa, C. K. (1998). What makes a good life. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75, 156e165.
Larsen, R. J., Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1986). Affect intensity and reactions to
daily life events. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(4), 803.
Lee, G. (2012). Modeling consumers’ co-creation in tourism innovation. Temple
University.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Claycomb, V., & Inks, L. W. (2000). From recipient to contrib-
utor: examining customer roles and experienced outcomes. European Journal of
Marketing, 34(3/4), 359e383.
Lleras, C. (2005). Path analysis. Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, 3.
Lugosi, P., & Walls, A. R. (2013). Researching destination experiences: Themes,
perspectives and challenges. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management,
2(2), 51e58.
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & O’Brien, M. (2007). Competing through service: Insights
from Service-dominant logic. Journal of Retailing, 83(1), 5e18.
Mathis, E. F. (2013). The effects of co-creation and satisfaction on subjective well-being.
Master's thesis.
Mathis, E. F., Kim, H. L., Uysal, M., Sirgy, J. M., & Prebensen, N. (2016). The effect of
co-creation on outcome variable. Annals of Tourism Research, 57, 62e75.
Matthing, J., Sande
n, B., & Edvardsson, B. (2004). New service development:
learning from and with customers. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 15(5), 479e498.
McGregor, I., & Little, B. R. (1998). Personal projects, happiness, and meaning: On
doing well and being yourself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
494e512.
Minkiewicz, J., Evans, J., & Bridson, K. (2014). How do consumers co-create their
experiences? An exploration in the heritage sector. Journal of Marketing Man-
agement, 30(12), 30e59.
Morgan, M., Elbe, J., & de E, Curiel J. (2009). Has the experience economy arrived?
The views of destination managers in three visitor-dependent areas. Interna-
tional Journal of Tourism Research, 11(2), 201e216.
Morgan, M., Lugosi, P., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2010). The tourism and leisure Experience:
Consumer and managerial perspectives. Bristol, UK: Channel View.
Mossberg, L. (2008). Extraordinary experiences through storytelling. Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8(3), 195e210.
Munar, A. M., & Jacobsen, J. K. S. (2014). Motivations for sharing tourism experiences
through social media. Tourism Management, 43, 46e54.
Neal, J. D., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2007). The effect of tourism services on travelers'
quality of life. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 154e163.
Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., & Ladkin, A. (2012). Conceptualising technology enhanced
destination experiences. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1,
36e46.
Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., & Ladkin, A. (2015). Smart technologies for personalized
experiences: A case study in the hospitality domain. Electronic Markets e The
International Journal of Networked Business, 25(3), 243e254.
Nordgaard, A., Ansell, R., Jaeger, L., & Drotz, W. (2010). Ordinal scales of conclusions
for the value of evidence. Science and Justice, 50(1), 31-31.
Normann, R. (2001). Reframing business: When the map changes the landscape. John
Wiley & Sons.
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83e96.
Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life
satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6,
25e41.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard
Business Review, July-August, 98e105.
 P. Buonincontri et al. / Tourism Management 62 (2017) 264e277

, L., & Chumpitaz Ca
Ple
ceres, R. (2010). Not always co-creation: introducing inter-
actional co-destruction of value in service-dominant logic. Journal of Services
Marketing, 24(6), 430e437.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004a). Co-creating unique value with cus-
tomers. Strategy & Leadership, 32(3), 4e9.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004b). Co-creation experiences: The next
practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5e14.
Prebensen, N. K., & Foss, L. (2011). Coping and co-creating in tourist experiences.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 13(1), 54e67.
Quan, S., & Wang, N. (2004). Towards a structural model of the tourist experience:
An illustration from food experiences in tourism. Tourism Management, 25,
297e305.
Ramaswamy, V. (2011). It's about human experiences… and beyond, to co-creation.
Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 195e196.
Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F. (2010). Building the Co-Creative enterprise. Harvard
Business Review, 88(10), 100e110.
Ramikssoon, H., Smith, L. D. G., & Weiler, G. (2013). Testing the dimensionality of
place attachment and its relationships with place satisfaction and pro-
environmental behaviours: A structural equation modelling approach.
Tourism Management, 36, 552e666.
Revilla, M. A., Saris, W. A., & Krosnik, J. A. (2014). Choosing the number of categories
in agreeedisagree scales. Sociological Methods & Research, 43(1), 73e97.
Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (2006). Developing creativity in tourist experiences: A
solution to the serial reproduction of culture? Tourism Management, 27,
1209e1223.
Rihova, I., Buhalis, D., Moital, M., & Gouthro, M. B. (2015). Conceptualising customer-
to-customer value Co-creation in tourism. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 17(4), 356e363.


Rodríguez, N. G., Alvarez, B. A., & Vijande, M. L. S. (2011). Service dominant logic in
the tourism sector: Internal marketing as an antecedent of an innovations' co-
creation culture with clients and first-line employees. Cuadernos de Gestion,
11(2), 53e75.
Salvado, J., Ferreira, A., & Costa, C. (2011). Co-creation: The travel agencies' new
frontier. Book of Proceedings of the International Conference on Tourism & Man-
agement Studies, 1, 229.
Schimmack, U., & Diener, E. (1997). Affect intensity: Separating intensity and fre-
quency in repeatedly measured affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 73(6), 1313.
Schmidt-Rauch, S., & Nussbaumer, P. (2011). Putting value co-creation into practice:
A case for advisory support. In Proceedings of the19th European conference on
information systems, ECIS 2011. Helsinki, 2011. Helsinki, Finland.
Schmitt, B. H. (2010). Experience marketing: Concepts, frameworks and consumer
insights. Foundations and Trends in Marketing, 5(2), 55e112.
Schreier, M. (2006). The value increment of mass-customized products: An
empirical assessment. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5(4), 317e327.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York: Free Press.
Shaw, G., Bailey, A., & Williams, A. (2011). Service dominant logic and its implica-
tions for tourism management: The co-production of innovation in the hotel
industry. Tourism Management, 32(2), 207e214.
SISTAN. (2014). Bollettino statistico del Comune di Napoli. Servizio Studi Demografici
ed Economici della Citta , Comune di Napoli.
Sotiriadis, M. D. (2017). Sharing tourism experiences in social media: A literature
review and a set of suggested business strategies. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(1), 179e225.
Suntikul, W., & Jachna, T. (2016). The co-creation/place attachment nexus. Tourism
Management, 52, 276e286.
Tombs, A. G., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2010). Social and spatial influence of cus-
tomers on other customers in the social-servicescape. Australasian Marketing
Journal, 18(3), 120e131.
Torres, E. N. (2016). Guest interactions and the formation of memorable experi-
ences: An ethnography. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Man-
agement, 28(10), 2132e2155.
Tsaur, S. H., Chiu, Y. T., & Wang, C. H. (2007). The visitors' behavioural consequences
of experiential marketing. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 21(1), 47e64.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new Dominant Logic for marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 68, 1e17.
Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2012). Customer engagement: Exploring
customer relationships beyond purchase. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 20(2), 122e146.
Walls, A. R., Okumus, F., Wang, Y. R., & Joon-Wuk Kwun, D. (2011a). An epistemo-
logical view of consumer experiences. International Journal of Hospitality Man-
agement, 30, 10e21.
Walls, A. R., Okumus, F., Wang, Y. R., & Joon-Wuk Kwun, D. (2011b). Understanding
the consumer experience: An exploratory study of luxury hotels. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management, 20(2), 166e197.
Wang, X., Li, X., Li, Q., & Peng, L. (2014). Intention of sharing travel experiences on
social media: Motivations and the moderating effects of face orientation. In
Presented at the 25th Australasian conference on information systems (2014).
277
Auckland, New Zealand.
Wright, S. (1921). Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20,
557e580.
Yang, W., & Mattila, A. S. (2016). Why do we buy luxury experiences? Measuring
value perceptions of luxury hospitality services. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(9), 1848e1867.
Yen, R. H., Gwinner, K. P., & Su, W. (2004). The impact of customer participation and
service expectation on Locus attributions following service failure. International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 15(1), 7e26.
Zarantonello, L. (2013). An experiential account of happiness in life and in ads. In
Conference proceedings of EMAC conference lost in translation e marketing in an
interconnected world. Istanbul, 2009. Istanbul, Turkey.
Dr. Buonincontri is a researcher at the Institute for
Research on Innovation and Services for Development
(IRISS) of the National Research Council of Italy (CNR). She
has a Ph.D. in Marketing and Communication and a Master
of Science Degree in Business Economics. Her research
topics include the management of cultural and tourist or-
ganizations, destination marketing, tourism experience,
experience co-creation, information technology in
tourism, and tourism strategies for local development.She
has attended national and international conferences and
her papers have been published in several books and
journals related to tourism.
Dr. Morvillo is Director of Institute for Research on Inno-
vation and Services for Development (IRISS) of the Na-
tional Research Council of Italy (CNR). His research
interests are wideeranging, notably: Innovation in Ser-
vices, Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer, Desti-
nation Management and Local Development, and Shipping
and Port Strategy. He is member of the most important
academic and practitioner's associations in the fields of
Tourism, Transport and Logistics. He is the author of arti-
cles, books, book chapters and communications at inter-
national research conferences.
Dr. Okumus is a Professor in the Hospitality Services
Department at the University of Central Florida's Rosen
College of Hospitality Management. He received his Ph.D.
in Strategic Hotel Management from Oxford Brookes Uni-
versity, UK. His research areas include strategic manage-
ment, competitive advantage, knowledge management,
hotel management, experience marketing and destination
marketing. Dr. Okumus has widely published in leading
journals, including Annals of Tourism Research, Tourism
Management, Service Industries Journal, Management
Decision, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Man-
agement and Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research.
He is the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management (IJCHM) and
serves on the editorial boards of 18 international journals.
Dr. Van Niekerk is assistant professor at the University of
Central Florida's Rosen College of Hospitality Manage-
ment. She has a Ph.D. in Tourism Management and a MBA.
She is the author or co-author of more than 86 academic
publications and her research focuses on stakeholder the-
ory, strategic management, collaboration, destination mar-
keting, festivals and events management. She has taught
33 postgraduate and undergraduate courses in tourism
development and management, destination and event
marketing and event management. She also received the
2015 University Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching
Award from Rosen College. Dr. Van Niekerk serves on the
editorial boards of several academic journals and is the
associate editor for the International Journal of Contempo-
rary Hospitality Management (IJCHM).