Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Experience quality, perceived value,

satisfaction and behavioral intentions
for heritage tourists
CHENG KUAN TAN

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Ident ificat ion and Analysis of Significant Fact ors Influencing Visit or Sat isfact ion at Herit age …
Ivana Blešić, Djordjije Vasiljevic

Fact ors affect ing Brit ish revisit int ent ion t o Cret e, Greece: High vs. low spending t ourist s
T imot hy Jung, Paraskevi Fount oulaki

How dest inat ion image and evaluat ive fact ors affect behavioral int ent ions?
Rachana Phem
 Tourism Management 31 (2010) 29–35

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for

heritage tourists
Ching-Fu Chen a, *, Fu-Shian Chen b
a
Department of Transportation & Communication Management Science, National Cheng Kung University, 1, Ta-Hsueh Rd., Tainan 701, Taiwan, ROC
b
Department of Tourism Management, Nan Hua University, 32, Chung-Kung, Dalin, 622, Taiwan, ROC

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

Article history: This paper examines the visitor experience of heritage tourism and investigates the relationships
Received 8 October 2007 between the quality of those experiences, perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. A total
Accepted 18 February 2009 of 447 respondents completed a survey conducted at four main heritage sites in Tainan, Taiwan. Using
structural equation modeling (SEM) technique, the results reveal the direct effects of the quality of
Keywords: experience on perceived value and satisfaction. However, it is the indirect and not direct effects of the
Experience quality
quality of experience that impact on behavioral intentions when mediated by perceived value and
Perceived value
satisfaction. Overall, the relationship ‘‘experience quality / perceived value / satisfaction / behavioral
Satisfaction
Behavioral intentions intentions’’ appears to be evident.
Heritage tourism Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction on the experiential quality of specific tourism participation such as

Although the importance of service quality has been highlighted
in the tourism literature, another related and nuanced factor, that of
the experience of the service, has been relatively neglected. Service
experience can be defined as the subjective personal reactions and
feelings that are felt by consumers when consuming or using
a service. It can be contended that service experience has an
important influence on the consumer evaluation of and satisfaction
with a given service (Otto & Ritchie, 2000). Hence, a better under-
standing of experiential phenomena in tourism service is particu-
larly important, and will permit the industry to better perform.
Consistent with more general global trends in cultural tourism,
heritage tourism has emerged as one popular form of tourism.
Currently a transitional phase can be identified, namely from
product-led development of heritage attractions that emphasize
exhibits and education, to a more visitor-oriented development
that emphasizes consumer preferences and quality of personal
experience (Apostolakis & Jaffry, 2005). Heritage tourism, like other
leisure and tourism activities, is viewed to a great extent as an
experiential consumption. Hence, the quality visitors perceive is
much more associated with their experiences during the process of
visitation than services per se provided by the heritage. Unlike
service quality, however, there is still little research shedding light
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ886 6 2757575x53230.
E-mail address: cfchen99@mail.ncku.edu.tw (C.-F. Chen).
heritage visitation. To increase visitors’ positive behavioral inten-
tions, heritage managers should set their priorities to provide high
quality, satisfying experiences that visitors perceive to be a good
value (Lee, Petrick, & Crompton, 2007).
Among various variables, service quality, perceived value, and
satisfaction have been identified as three major antecedents
affecting tourists’ behavioral intentions in past studies (Baker &
Crompton, 2000; Petrick, 2004; Petrick & Backman, 2002).
Regarding the relationships among quality, satisfaction, value, and
behavioral intensions, four relationship models from different
perspectives can be identified according to Cronin, Brady, and Hult
(2000). The first model, based on the service value literature,
suggests that value leads directly to favorable outcomes. The
second model, driven from the satisfaction literature, assumes that
customer satisfaction is the primary and direct link to outcome
measures. The third model, centering on inter-relationships
between variables, suggests service quality influences behavioral
intentions only through the mediation of value and satisfaction.
The fourth model assumes all three variables directly lead to
favorable behavioral intentions. Apart from the mixed arguments
mentioned above, to the authors’ best knowledge, there is no
previous study endeavored to the context of heritage tourism.
This study focuses on the experience quality of heritage tourism
perceived by heritage tourists and furthermore explores the rela-
tionships between experience quality, intermediary constructs (i.e.
perceived value and satisfaction) and post-visitation behavioral
intentions. A better understanding of these relationships can

0261-5177/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.008
30 C.-F. Chen, F.-S. Chen / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 29–35
provide heritage managers insights into knowing heritage visitors’
experiences and behavioral intentions, and adjust their services to
meet visitors’ needs.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses
2.1. Experience quality
The service quality model, SERVQUAL based on the expectancy
disconfirmation theory (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985,
1988), has been widely applied in the tourism literature. However,
Fick and Ritchie (1991) argue that SERVQUAL scale does not
adequately address both affective and holistic factors which
contribute to the overall quality of ‘service experience’. In Otto and
Ritchie’s (1996) study, differences between service quality and
experience quality are discussed. For example, experience quality is
subjective in terms of measurement while service quality is
objective. The evaluation of experience quality tends to be holistic/
gestalt rather than attribute-based, and the focus of evaluation is on
self (internal) but not on service environment (external). In addi-
tion, the scope of experience is more general than specific, the
nature of benefit is experiential/hedonic/symbolic rather than
functional/utilitarian, and the psychological representation is
affective instead of cognitive/attitudinal.
In the tourism context, service quality refers to service perfor-
mance at the attribute level while experience quality refers to the
psychological outcome resulting from customer participation in
tourism activities. The former has been defined as the quality of the
attributes of a service which are under the control of a supplier,
while the later involves not only the attributes provided by
a supplier but also the attributes brought to the opportunity by the
visitor. Therefore, experience quality can be conceptualized as
tourists’ affective responses to their desired social–psychological
benefits. It also refers to a specific service transaction, such as
contact with people who contribute to the actual experience (Chan
& Baum, 2007). Otto and Ritchie (1996) develop an experience
quality scale with four factors – i.e. hedonics, peace of mind,
involvement, and recognition – using consumer survey data
obtained from three tourism service sectors including hotels,
airlines, and tours and attractions. Hedonics is associated with the
affective responses such as excitement, enjoyment and memora-
bility. Peace of mind is concerned about the need for both physical
and psychological safety and comfort. Involvement refers to the
desire to have choice and control in the service offering, and the
demand to be educated, informed and imbued with a sense of
mutual cooperation. Finally, Recognition is linked to feeling
important and confident while consumers themselves are being
taken seriously. In their study on theme park, Kao, Huang, and Wu
(2008) conceptualized experiential quality by four factors –
immersion, surprise, participation and fun. Immersion is defined as
the involvement of consumers during consumption, which leads
them to forget time and emphasize the consumption process
instead of consumption results. Surprise refers to the freshness,
specialty, or uniqueness perceived. Participation pertains to the
interaction between consumers and the product (service), and fun
relates to the happiness and enjoyment consumers receive. Their
results reveal that experiential quality relates positively to satis-
faction and satisfaction furthermore influences visitors’ behavioral
intentions positively.
2.2. Perceived value
Perceived value is defined as ‘‘the consumer’s overall assess-
ment of the utility of a product (or service) based on perceptions of
what is received and what is given’’ (Zeithaml, 1988), i.e. a trade-off
between perceived benefits and perceived costs (Lovelock, 2000).
Holbrook (1999) proposes a typology of value based on three
dimensions: self-oriented vs. other-oriented, active vs. reactive, and
extrinsic vs. intrinsic. Recent research studies suggest that
perceived value may be a better predictor of repurchase intentions
than either satisfaction or quality (Cronin et al., 2000; Oh, 2000).
Perceived value can be analyzed with either a self-reported,
unidimensional measure (Gale, 1994) or a multidimensional scale
(Petrick & Backman, 2002; Sheth, Newman, & Gross, 1991).
However, the validity of unidimensional measure is always criti-
cized due to its assumption that consumers have a shared meaning
of value. On the other hand, multidimensional scale can overcome
the validity problem by operationalizing perceived value by, for
example, a five-dimensional construct consisting of social,
emotional, functional, epistemic, and conditional responses (Sheth
et al., 1991). SERV-PERVAL scale proposed by Petrick and Backman
(2002) is another example which includes five dimensions: i.e.
quality, monetary price, non-monetary price, reputation, and
emotional response. Past studies have suggested that perceived
quality and monetary price are two main antecedents of perceived
value of tourism services (Duman & Mattila, 2005), and perceived
value is an important antecedent to satisfaction and behavioral
intentions (Cronin et al., 2000; Dodds, Monroe, & Grewal, 1991;
McDougall & Levesque, 2000).
2.3. Satisfaction
Satisfaction refers to the perceived discrepancy between prior
expectation and perceived performance after consumption – when
performance differs from expectation, dissatisfaction occurs
(Oliver, 1980). It can be defined as the degree to which one believes
that an experience evokes positive feelings (Rust & Oliver, 1994). In
tourism context, satisfaction is primarily referred to as a function of
pre-travel expectations and post-travel experiences. When expe-
riences compared to expectations result in feelings of gratification,
the tourist is satisfied. However, when they result in feelings of
displeasure, the tourist is dissatisfied (Reisinger & Turner, 2003).
Past studies have suggested that perceptions of service quality
and value affect satisfaction, and satisfaction furthermore affect
loyalty and post-behaviors (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Bignie,
Sanchez, & Sanchez, 2001; Chen, 2008; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Choi &
Chu 2001; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; De Rojas & Camarero, 2008;
Fornell, 1992; Oliver, 1980; Petrick & Backman, 2002; Tam, 2000).
For example, the satisfied tourists may revisit a destination,
Perceived value
H1 H5
H4
Behavioral
Exp. Quality H3
intention
H2 H6
Satisfaction
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
 C.-F. Chen, F.-S. Chen / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 29–35 31

Table 1
Inter-correlations among model variables.

EX1 EX2 EX3 PV1 PV2 PV3 PV4 PV5 SAT1 SAT2 SAT3 SAT4 REV REC
EX1 1
EX2 .658** 1
EX3 .703** .615** 1
PV1 .541** .426** .552** 1
PV2 .573** .390** .468** .763** 1
PV3 .576** .399** .488** .690** .825** 1
PV4 .491** .307** .394** .535** .590** .615** 1
PV5 .458** .327** .385** .526** .604** .621** .755** 1
SAT1 .392** .301** .403** .596** .408** .387** .335** .358** 1
SAT2 .549** .427** .522** .470** .435** .428** .373** .358** .565** 1
SAT3 .418** .418** .479** .344** .266** .295** .331** .327** .415** .505** 1
SAT4 .521** .413** .509** .437** .480** .480** .484** .474** .346** .519** .459** 1
REV .557** .432** .502** .551** .528** .526** .435** .478** .433** .516** .397** .606** 1
REC .513** .372** .483** .539** .529** .532** .496** .489** .443** .506** .362** .561** .769** 1
Mean 3.84 3.27 3.80 3.88 4.07 4.13 4.29 4.25 3.54 3.86 3.66 3.90 4.01 4.00
S.D 0.57 0.63 0.54 0.82 0.71 0.67 0.70 0.72 0.93 0.71 0.91 0.76 0.74 0.73

**p < 0.01.

recommend it to others, or express favorable comments about the
destination. On the other hand, dissatisfied tourists may not return
to the same destination and may not recommend it to other tour-
ists. Even worse, dissatisfied tourists may express negative
comments about a destination and damage its market reputation
(Reisinger & Turner, 2003)
action loyalty. In practice, action loyalty is difficult to measure and
thus most researchers employ behavioral intentions, i.e. conative
loyalty as a compromise of action loyalty (Yang & Peterson, 2004).
The degree of destination loyalty is frequently reflected in tourists’
intentions to revisit the destination and in their willingness to
recommend it (Chen & Tsai, 2007; Oppermann, 2000).

2.4. Behavioral intentions 2.5. Relationships between variables

Favorable behavioral intentions frequently represent customer’s As mentioned above, understanding the determinants of
conative loyalty. Customer loyalty is an important goal in the customer loyalty can facilitate management’s focus on the major
consumer marketing community as it is a key component for factors leading to customer retention. Many studies have examined
a company’s long-term viability or sustainability. Measuring loyalty the antecedents of repeat purchase intentions. Additionally, the
can provide a better understanding of customer retention. Retain- causal relationships among customer perceptions of service
ing existing customers usually has a much lower associated cost quality, satisfaction, value, and behavioral intensions have been
than winning new ones. Furthermore, loyal customers are more established by previous studies (Athanassopoulos, 2000; Baker &
likely to recommend friends, relatives or other potential customers Crompton, 2000; Chen, 2008; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Cronin et al.,
to a product/service by acting as free word-of-mouth advertising 2000; Petrick & Backman, 2002; Rust & Oliver, 1994; Zeithaml,
agents (Shoemaker & Lewis, 1999). Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). Quality, perceived value, and satis-
Loyalty can be defined and assessed by both attitudinal and faction all have been shown to be good predictors of behavioral
behavioral measures. The attitudinal measure refers to a specific intentions (Petrick, 2004). To better understand tourist experi-
desire to continue a relationship with a service provider while the ences, however, we argue that the concept of experience quality is
behavioral perspective refers to the concept of repeat patronage. more appropriate than service quality in the context of heritage
According to Oliver (1999), customer loyalty can be identified into tourism. Hence, experience quality is used to replace service
four stages: cognitive loyalty, affective loyalty, conative loyalty, and quality in the relationships between quality, value, satisfaction and
behavioral intentions in this study.
Table 2 Experience quality is therefore assumed to directly and signifi-
Convergent validity. cantly influence satisfaction and perceived value. According to
Constructs Items Item reliability Construct Average supports in past studies, perceived value has an positive influence
reliability variance
Standardized Standard t-value
extracted
factor loading errors Table 3
Goodness of fit.
Experience EX1 0.88 0.02 23.06** 0.94 0.84
quality EX2 0.73 0.02 17.81** Criteria Indicators
EX3 0.82 0.02 20.79**
c2 test
Perceived PV1 0.85 0.03 22.36** 0.94 0.78 c2 p > 0.05 264.40 (p < 0.001)
value PV2 0.90 0.02 24.69** c2/d.f. <5 3.8 (264.40/68)
PV3 0.91 0.02 25.03**
Fit indices
PV4 0.66 0.02 16.02**
GFI >0.90 0.93
PV5 0.67 0.03 16.10**
AGFI >0.90 0.90
Satisfaction SAT1 0.68 0.04 15.32** 0.84 0.58 RFI >0.90 0.97
SAT2 0.76 0.02 18.58** NFI >0.90 0.97
SAT3 0.61 0.04 14.04** NNFI >0.90 0.97
SAT4 0.76 0.03 17.92**
Alternative indices
Behavioral REV 0.89 0.02 23.34** 0.92 0.86 CFI >0.95 0.98
intention REC 0.86 0.02 22.32** RMSEA <0.08 0.07
RMR <0.05 0.04
**p < 0.01.
32 C.-F. Chen, F.-S. Chen / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 29–35

PV1 PV2 PV3 PV4 PV5

0.85 0.90 0.91 0.66 0.67

Perceived value

γ1=0.70(14.59) β2=0.25(4.37)
.

EX1 β1=0.30(5.02) REV

0.88 0.89
EX2 Experience Behavioral
0.73 γ2=0.06(0.82)
quality intentions 0.86
0.82 REC
EX3

γ3=0.57(8.52) β3=0.57(6.69)

Satisfaction

0.68 0.76 0.61 0.76

SAT1 SAT2 SAT3 SAT4

Fig. 2. Estimated results of the model (t values in parentheses).

on overall satisfaction (Cronin et al. 2000; Petrick & Backman, 3. Methodology

2002), and both satisfaction and perceived value appear to be the
direct antecedents of behavioral intentions (Cronin et al., 2000; A self-administrated questionnaire survey was conducted to
Dodds et al., 1991; McDougall & Levesque, 2000; Petrick & Back- collect empirical data from heritage tourists in Tainan, a historical
man, 2002; Tam, 2000). A conceptual relationship model of this city in Taiwan. The questions in the questionnaire are designed
study is proposed (see Fig. 1) and six hypotheses are made as based on a review of the literature and specific characteristics of
follows. heritage tourism. The questionnaire was pre-tested and revised to
ensure content validity. The questionnaire consists of five parts.
H1 The higher the experience quality that heritage tourists Part 1 of the questionnaire deals with the measurement of expe-
perceive, the higher the perceived value they have. rience quality with 20 items. Part 2 deals with the measurement of
H2 The higher the experience quality that heritage tourists perceived value with 5 items. Part 3 deals with satisfaction
perceive, the higher the level of satisfaction they have. measurement with 4 items. Part 4 deals with the measurement of
H3 The higher the experience quality that heritage tourists behavioral intentions with 2 items. Finally, Part 5 reports respon-
perceive, the more positive the behavioral intentions they have. dent information with 6 items including age, gender, marital status,
H4 The higher the value that heritage tourists perceive, the higher occupation and monthly income. Apart from respondent informa-
the level of satisfaction they have. tion measured by a categorical scale, all items of the first four parts
H5 The higher the value that heritage tourists perceive, the more are measured by a 5-point Likert-type scale from ‘strongly disagree
positive the behavioral intentions they have. (¼1)’ to ‘strongly agree (¼5)’.
H6 The higher the level of satisfaction that heritage tourists have, To delineate underlying factors of experience quality, this
the more positive the behavioral intentions they have. research conducts an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using prin-
cipal component method with varimax rotation. Three factors are
extracted and named based on the underlying items such as
Table 4 involvement, peace of mind and educational experience.1 The
Hypotheses tests. means of the delineated factors of experience quality are calculated
and used for subsequent analyses. Table 1 reports the inter-corre-
Path Structural S.E. t Test
coefficients result lations among measurement variables in the conceptual model.
H1: Experience quality / Perceived 0.70 0.04 14.59** Support
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is performed to specify the
value (g1) structure between observed indicators and latent constructs, and
H2: Experience quality / Satisfaction (g2) 0.57 0.06 8.52** Support test the validity of measurement model. Subsequently, structural
H3: Experience quality / Behavioral 0.06 0.07 0.82 Reject equations among latent constructs are examined to test the
intentions (g3)
H4: Perceived value / Satisfaction (b1) 0.30 0.05 5.02** Support
H5: Perceived value / Behavioral 0.25 0.05 4.37** Support
intentions (b2) 1
Two items are removed due to their factor loadings being less than the cut-off
H6: Satisfaction / Behavioral 0.57 0.08 6.69** Support
value, i.e. 0.5. The EFA results of experiential quality are not reported here, but are
intentions (b3)
available from the author upon request.
 C.-F. Chen, F.-S. Chen / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 29–35
Table 5
Direct, indirect and total effects of relationships.
Path Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect
Experience Quality / Perceived Value 0.70 – 0.70
Perceived Value / Satisfaction 0.30 – 0.30
Satisfaction / Behavior Intention 0.57 – 0.57
Experience Quality / Satisfaction 0.57 0.21 0.78
Perceived Value / Behavior Intention 0.25 0.17 0.42
Experience Quality / Behavior Intention – 0.62 0.62
conceptual structural equation model (SEM). All of the CFA and SEM
procedures are conducted by using maximum likelihood parameter
estimates and appropriate correlation matrix with LISREL 8 (Jör-
eskog & Sörbom, 1996).
4. Empirical results
The questionnaire survey was conducted at four major cultural
heritage sites in Tainan City during November and December, 2006.
Due to limited time and manpower, a convenience sampling
method was adopted. Visitors who finished their visitation at
a heritage site were asked their willingness to take part in the
questionnaire survey. Given a yes answer, they were then asked to
complete the questionnaire. A total of 600 questionnaires were
distributed and 477 usable responses were obtained after removing
incomplete samples, yielding a response rate of 79.5%.
In the respondents’ profile, 53% are female visitors and about
80% are aged between 18 and 30, while 72% respondents are single
and around 80% hold a university degree and over. The respon-
dents, who are students or blue collar workers, account for 50% of
the sample, and 76% of the sample have a monthly income less than
NT$ 40,000.2
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is first used to confirm the
factor loadings of the four constructs (i.e. experience quality,
perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions) and to
assess the model fit. The model adequacy was assessed by the fit
indices suggested by Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998) and
Jöreskog and Sörbom (1996). Convergent validity of CFA results
should be supported by item reliability, construct reliability, and
average variance extracted (Hair et al., 1998). As shown in Table 2, t-
values for all the standardized factor loadings of items are found to
be significant (p < 0.01). In addition, construct reliability estimates
ranging from 0.84 to 0.94, which exceed the critical value of 0.7,
indicating a satisfactory estimation. The average extracted vari-
ances of all constructs range between 0.58 and 0.86 which are
above the suggested value of 0.5. These indicate that the
measurement model has good convergent validity. Therefore, the
hypothesized measurement model is reliable and meaningful to
test the structural relationships among the constructs.
The structural model is estimated with a maximum likelihood
estimation method and a correlation matrix as input data. Table 3
summarizes the fit indices of the structural model. The overall
model indicates that c2 ¼ 264.40, d.f. ¼ 68, and is significant at
p < 0.001. Technically, the p-value should be greater than 0.05, i.e.
statistically insignificant, to indicate that the model well fits the
empirical data. As the c2 value is very sensitive to sample size,
however, it frequently results in rejecting a well-fitted model when
sample size increases. In practice, the normed c2 (i.e. c2/d.f.) has
been recommended as a better goodness of fit than the c2 value. In
order to examine the model fit, therefore, this study uses sample
size dependent (rather than sample size independent) measures of
2
32 NT$ is equivalent to 1 US$.
33
goodness of fit. The c2/d.f. ratio of less than 5 is used as the common
decision rule of an acceptable overall model fit. The normed c2 of
model is 3.8 (i.e. 264.40/68), indicating an acceptable fit. Further-
more, other indicators of goodness of fit are GFI ¼ 0.93, AGFI ¼ 0.90,
RFI ¼ 0.97, NFI ¼ 0.97, NNFI ¼ 0.97, CFI ¼ 0.98, RMSEA ¼ 0.07, and
RMR ¼ 0.04. Comparing to the corresponding critical values shown
in Table 3, it suggests that the hypothesized model fits the empirical
data well.
Within the overall model, the estimates of the structural coef-
ficients provide the basis for testing the proposed hypotheses. This
study examines the structural model with one exogenous construct
(i.e. experience quality) and three endogenous constructs (i.e.
perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions). Therefore,
the proposed structural model is tested to estimate three Gamma
parameters and three Beta parameters.
Fig. 2 provides details about the parameter estimates for the
model, and Table 4 reports the results of the hypothesis tests.
Totally, five out of six hypotheses are supported. Experience quality
has a significant positive effect on both perceived value and satis-
faction (g1 ¼ 0.70, t-value ¼ 14.59 and g2 ¼ 0.57, t-value ¼ 8.52,
respectively), but not on behavioral intentions (and g3 ¼ 0.06,
t-value ¼ 0.82). Thus, H1 and H2 are supported while H3 is rejected.
The perceived value, as hypothesized, has significant positive
effects on satisfaction (b1 ¼ 0.30, t-value ¼ 5.02) as well as behav-
ioral intention (b2 ¼ 0.25, t-value ¼ 4.37), thus supporting H4 and
H5. Finally, the satisfaction has a significantly positive effect on
behavioral intentions (b3 ¼ 0.57, t-value ¼ 6.69), supporting H6.
Table 5 reports the measured effects of all relationships. First,
the direct effect of experience quality on perceived value (0.70) is
greater than it is on satisfaction (0.57), while no direct effect of
experience quality on behavioral intentions is found. Second,
although both direct effects of perceived value and satisfaction on
behavioral intentions are identified, the latter (0.57) is greater than
the former (0.25). With respect to indirect effects, third, the effect of
experience quality on behavioral intentions mediated by perceived
value and/or satisfaction is 0.62, hence resulting in a total effect of
0.62. Additionally, perceived value has a direct effect (0.25) as well
as an indirect effect (0.17) mediated by satisfaction on behavioral
intentions.
5. Discussion and conclusions
This study was motivated by the need for research that can lead
to a better understanding of the role of experience quality in
heritage tourism contexts. This study has discussed the similarities
and differences between the concepts of service quality and
experience quality, and then follows with testing a structural model
of the relationships between experience quality, perceived value,
satisfaction, and behavioral intentions.
A scale of experience quality in tourism industry context which
consists of four factors – hedonics, peace of mind, involvement, and
recognition has been developed by Otto and Ritchie (2000). Simi-
larly, this study delineates three factors of experience quality,
including involvement, peace of mind, and educational experience.
Compared to the service quality scale frequently used in tourism-
related studies, the differences in both concept and measure items
of the scale of experience quality are identified. To our best
knowledge, this study is a pioneer in applying an experience quality
concept to the heritage tourism context. Therefore, a well-modified
scale of experience quality to better reflect its meaning is needed
for future research.
This study has also shown that experience quality has a positive
effect on perceived value. Based on the ‘‘cognitive / emotive’’
causal sequence which reflects the convergent service literature,
both experience quality and perceived value are supported as direct
34 C.-F. Chen, F.-S. Chen / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 29–35
determinants of satisfaction. In addition, both perceived value and
satisfaction have significantly direct positive effects on behavioral
intentions, while the effect of experience quality on behavioral
intentions is insignificant. Nonetheless, an indirect effect of expe-
rience quality on behavioral intentions mediated by both perceived
value and satisfaction is evident. To sum up, the relationship
‘‘experience quality / perceived value / satisfaction / behav-
ioral intentions’’ can be established. In light of experience quality
rather than service quality in heritage tourism, the results are
consistent with past studies by Cronin et al. (2000) and Petrick
(2004) except for the insignificance of the direct path ‘‘experience
quality / behavioral intentions’’. These results imply that the
importance of experience quality on behavioral intentions is
recognized via the mediating effects of perceived value and satis-
faction in heritage tourism contexts.
Enhancing a visitor’s experience quality of heritage as
a management goal as well as ensuring experience quality leading
to perceived value and then satisfaction are important issues for
heritage managers when designating their heritage sustainability
strategies. Customer experience has become a key concept in
cultural heritage marketing, because tourist satisfaction is often
determined by the global experience obtained. A total experience
that visitors seek in the heritage context could be made of leisure,
culture, education, and social interaction (De Rojas & Camarero,
2008). To provide a quality total experience, heritage managers
should endeavor to meet visitors’ expectations with respect to
components of involvement, peace of mind, and educational
experience as found by this study. This can be seen as many heri-
tage organizations have been increasingly emphasizing the
participation of the public in their policies and programs (Gilmore
& Rentschler, 2002).
Some practical strategies and attitudes can be adopted by
heritage managers in designing and planning their business such as
organizing various large-scale events and providing a variety of
learning experiences. More specifically, as argued by De Rojas and
Camarero (2008), a well-designed way of presenting the cultural
product, including location, internal distribution, walkways,
lighting, or informative panels, could stimulate and increase visi-
tors’ interest and involvement. In addition, the interpretation and
the intangibles surrounding the cultural product could facilitate the
visitor to understand, feel, and relive the heritage. As such, through
increasing a visitor’s interest and involvement, the experience
quality can be created and lead to the visitor’s perceived value and
satisfaction. This eventually contributes to visitor loyalty.
Although the role of experience quality and its inter-relation-
ships between evaluative variables and behavioral intentions in the
heritage context have been addressed in this study, a well-estab-
lished scale of experience quality still requires more research efforts
to be generalized and applied to a wider scope of tourism services.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank to Pei-Chun Chen for their
assistance in this study. The usual disclaimer applies.
References
Anderson, W., & Sullivan, M. (1993). The antecedents and consequences of customer
satisfaction for firms. Marketing Science, 12, 125–143.
Apostolakis, A., & Jaffry, S. (2005). A choice modeling application for Greek heritage
attractions. Journal of Travel Research, 43(3), 309–318.
Athanassopoulos, A. D. (2000). Customer satisfaction cues to support market
segmentation and explain switching behavior. Journal of Business Research, 47,
191–207.
Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions.
Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785–804.
Bignie, J. E., Sanchez, M. I., & Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables
and after-purchase behavior: inter-relationships. Tourism Management, 22(6),
607–616.
Chan, J. K. L., & Baum, T. (2007). Ecotourists’ perception of ecotourism experience in
lower Kinabatangan, Sabah, Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5),
574–590.
Chen, C.-F. (2008). Investigating structural relationships between service quality,
perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions for air passengers:
evidence from Taiwan. Transportation Research Part A, 42(4), 709–717.
Chen, C.-F., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect
behavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28, 1115–1122.
Choi, T. Y., & Chu, R. (2001). Determinants of hotel guests’ satisfaction and repeat
patronage in the Hong Kong hotel industry. Hospitality Management, 20,
277–297.
Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality,
value and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service
environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218.
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a reexamination and
extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55–68.
De Rojas, C., & Camarero, C. (2008). Visitors’ experience, mood and satisfaction in
a heritage context: evidence from an interpretation center. Tourism Manage-
ment, 29, 525–537.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand and store
information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research,
28(3), 307–319.
Duman, T., & Mattila, A. S. (2005). The role of affective factors on perceived cruise
vacation value. Tourism Management, 26, 311–323.
Fick, G. R., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991). Measuring service quality in the travel and
tourism industry. Journal of Travel Research, 30(2), 2–9.
Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish expe-
rience. Journal of Marketing, 55, 1–21.
Gale, B. T. (1994). Managing customer value: Creating quality and service that
customers can see. New York: Free Press.
Gilmore, A., & Rentschler, R. (2002). Changes in museum management: a custo-
dial or marketing emphasis? Journal of Management Development, 21(10),
745–760.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis (5th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall.
Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Introduction to customer value. In M. B. Holbrook (Ed.),
Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research (pp. 1–29). New York:
Routledge.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL:
Scientific Software International.
Kao, Y.-F., Huang, L.-S., & Wu, C.-H. (2008). Effects of theatrical elements on expe-
riential quality and loyalty intentions for theme parks. Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research, 13(2), 163–174.
Lee, S. Y., Petrick, J. F., & Crompton, J. (2007). The roles of quality and intermediary
constructs in determining festival attendees’ behavioral intention. Journal of
Travel Research, 45(4), 402–412.
Lovelock, C. H. (2000). Service marketing (4th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall International.
McDougall, G. H., & Levesque, T. (2000). Customer satisfaction with services:
putting perceived value into the equation. Journal of Services Marketing, 14,
392–410.
Oh, H. (2000). Diner’s perceptions of quality, value and satisfaction. Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quality, 41(3), 58–66.
Oliver, R. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satis-
faction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460–469.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33–44.
Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research,
39(1), 78–84.
Otto, J. E., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1996). The service experience in tourism. Tourism
Management, 17(3), 165–174.
Otto, J. E., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2000). The service experience in tourism. In C. Ryan, &
S. Page (Eds.), Tourism management: Towards the new millennium. Oxford:
Elsevier Science Ltd.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. (1985). A conceptual model of service
quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4),
41–50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale
for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing,
64(1), 12–40.
Petrick, J. F. (2004). The roles of quality, value and satisfaction in predicting cruise
passengers’ behavioral intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4), 397–407.
Petrick, J. F., & Backman. (2002). An examination of the construct of perceived value
for the prediction of golf travelers’ intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel
Research, 41(1), 38–45.
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. W. (2003). Cross-cultural behaviour in tourism: Concepts
and analysis. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Rust, R. T., & Oliver, R. L. (1994). Service quality: insights and managerial implication
from the frontier. In T. RolandRust, & Richard L. Oliver (Eds.), Service quality:
New directions in theory and practice (pp. 1–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. I. (1991). Consumption values and market
choice. Cincinnati, OH: South Western Publishing Company.
Shoemaker, S., & Lewis, R. C. (1999). Customer loyalty: the future of hospitality
marketing. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18, 345–370.
 C.-F. Chen, F.-S. Chen / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 29–35 35

Tam, J. L. M. (2000). The effects of service quality, perceived value and customer
satisfaction on behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure
Marketing, 6(4), 31–43.
Yang, Z., & Peterson, R. T. (2004). Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and
loyalty: the role of switching costs. Psychology & Marketing, 21(10), 799–822.
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.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of
service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60, 31–46.