Tourism Management 83 (2021) 104249

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Authenticity orientation as an attitude: Scale construction and validation

Svetlana Stepchenkova *, Hyejin Park
Department of Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management, College of Health and Human Performance, University of Florida, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study developed an authenticity orientation scale to measure the attitudes of tourists toward object-based
Attitudes authenticity of cultural and historic artifacts, attractions, and tourist sites. The attitudes underlying the scale
Authenticity orientation have been described in authenticity literature as a continuum of attitude orientations ranging from predomi­
Constructivist
nantly realist to constructivist to postmodernist. To numerically distinguish tourists with respect to their atti­
Postmodernist
Realist
tudes, the researchers employ Thurstone’s method of equally appearing intervals (Thurstone, L.L. 1928. Attitudes
Thurstone scale can be measured. The American Journal of Sociology, 26, 249–269) with subsequent validation. The newly
developed scale has undergone rigorous construction and testing procedure. Its predictive validity was ensured
through hypothesis testing using an online survey with a panel of 514 American tourists. The theoretical sig­
nificance of the study lies in understanding the mechanism of “authentication” of various artifacts, attractions,
and tourist sites by visitors. Implications for tourism management and directions for further research are
discussed.

1. Introduction
This study is set to develop a scale that captures the value that
tourists place on ethnographic, cultural, and historic artifacts, attrac­
tions, and tourist sites being authentic as a necessary part of their tourist
experience. Authenticity is a central concept in the tourism literature,
and quest for authenticity has been recognized as one of the main mo­
tivations for travel (Cohen, 1979; Kim & Jamal, 2007; Kolar & Zabkar,
2010; Park et al., 2019). However, perceptions of what is authentic and
what is not differ from one person to another. In the modern tourism
marketplace, there had been the gradual shift in tourists’ tastes and
preferences from veritable, historic, and original attractions toward
those regarded as more “artificial and contrived” (Cohen, 1995, p. 12).
This demand for the entertaining and spectacular compels tourist places
to incorporate various elements of staged authenticity (MacCannell,
1973) that are more appealing to visitors with the ever-widening spec­
trum of attitudes that visitors hold about the imperative that to be
authentic, tourist objects should be “genuine,” “original,” and “true”.
The qualities of “genuineness” and “originality” as determined by
expert opinion manifest themselves through various cues
(Grayson & Martinec, 2004), such as “physical appearance,
period-accurate materials, craftsmanship techniques, designs, pro­
ducer’s branding stamps, and other features” (Stepchenkova &
Belyaeva, 2020, p. 1) which signal indexical authenticity. In contrast,
objects can be authentic reproductions that look and feel like the originals
but in fact are skillful imitations of the original, thus, possessing iconic
authenticity. Iconically authentic items that carry high resemblance to
the genuine objects are used by tourist places to re-construct an atmo­
sphere of a particular historic period or culture which is sought by
tourists in their quest for authenticity (Leigh et al., 2006). The distinc­
tion between indexical and iconic authenticity is not always absolute as
there are situations when a clear demarcation between the two is not
possible: think about restorative efforts of historic objects, when original
details are replaced piece by piece to avoid decay and save the artifact.
The most prominent discourse about the nature of authenticity and
how it is interpreted is organized around viewing the authenticity from
the realist, constructivist, or postmodernist perspective (Boorstin, 1964;
Ramkissoon & Uysal, 2011; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006; Wang, 1999).
The realist interpretation requires objects and artifacts be “genuine”,
“real”, and “true” and is largely based on verification by experts as to
their connections to certain historical times and geographical places.
Constructivist perspective is more flexible and allows for “negotiated”,
or “constructed”, authenticity (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006). The
constructivist view emphasizes that time and space are relative (Taylor,
2001), objects can be perceived as authentic if made by people of the
culture these artifacts represent (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006), and that
“truth” is negotiable (Cohen, 1988; Olsen, 2002). It is easy to see that the
realist and constructivist perspectives have quite a lot in common with

* Corresponding author. 1864 Stadium Road, FLG 186C, P.O. Box 118209, Gainesville, FL, 32611-8209, USA.
E-mail addresses: svetlana.step@ufl.edu (S. Stepchenkova), hj2201@ufl.edu (H. Park).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104249
Received 30 April 2020; Received in revised form 18 October 2020; Accepted 21 October 2020
Available online 10 November 2020
0261-5177/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Stepchenkova and H. Park
the indexical and iconic interpretations of authenticity (Grayson &
Martinec, 2004) and take the object-based veritable authenticity as a
point of reference. However, in an even more radical departure from
authenticity that is object-based, postmodernists question whether such
a thing as object-based authenticity exists at all (Wang, 1999). From this
perspective, objects, attractions, and sites can be authentic and
one-of-a-kind even when they are based purely on imagination (e.g.,
Disneyland) (Salamone, 1997) or when they are created through various
technologies (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006; Taylor, 2001; Wang, 1999).
Previous research has obtained evidence that people hold various
attitudes toward authenticity (Buchmann et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2015;
Taylor, 2001; Stepchenkova & Belyaeva, 2000). Some demand “real”
objects on display and well-preserved historic sites, while others are fine
with replicated objects and staged attractions. We call these different
attitudes authenticity orientation. The spectrum of authenticity orientation
attitudes has been theorized as a continuum (Chhabra, 2005; Wang,
1999) ranging from the realist pole to the postmodernist pole, with the
constructivist attitudes spread around the middle. The early research
suggests the realist/constructivist/postmodernist split as 50%, 33%, and
17%, respectively (Stepchenkova & Belyaeva, 2020, in the context of
two Russian museums). In search of authenticity, tourists’ authentica­
tion process, can be “hot” (requires intensive mental work to evaluate
and re-evaluate toured objects to distinguish between the indexical and
iconic authenticity) or “cool” (is a low-involvement mental process in
which a visitor relies on information communicated through manage­
ment and cues from the exposition they tour) (Cohen & Cohen, 2012).
The outcome of the authentication process is a “mental stamp” of an
object or site with an “authentic enough” or “not authentic enough”
label. This outcome, arguably, impacts tourist experience. Therefore,
justification for measuring authenticity orientation lies in better un­
derstanding of how people authenticate attractions and objects on
display and, consequently, have more satisfactory tourist experiences.
While multiple studies used qualitative techniques to examine
various aspects of tourists’ search for authenticity and its interpretation
(see Goulding, 2000; Rickly-Boyd, 2012b), very few have attempted to
numerically measure the value differential that people place on the
objects being indexically authentic, and whether these values influence
the ways in which people authenticate tourist objects and attractions. A
notable example would be research by Chhabra (2008), who captured
how people interpreted authenticity by factor-analyzing 13
authenticity-related statements. Grayson and Martinec (2004), using the
birthplace of William Shakespeare (original attraction) and the resi­
dence of Sherlock Holmes (a site in which authenticity is recreated,
reconstructed, and interpreted), identified which cues are responsible
for labeling the site as either indexically or iconically authentic. Further,
Naoi (2004) found that differences between authentic and non-authentic
were underpinned by just a few statements from the battery of 13 bi­
polar continua items. However, in concordance with O’Connor et al.
(2017, p. 2), we state that “we know of no systematic quantitative
attempt to assess empirically the usages of the various meanings of
authenticity” and agree that “given the widespread belief in the
importance of authenticity … the dearth of evidence addressing this
issue is unsettling.” To fill in this void, in this study we create an in­
strument to measure authenticity orientation, that is, attitudes toward
indexical authenticity of tourist objects and sites, using the approach
developed by Thurstone (1928) and Thurstone and Chave (1929), which
is known as the Thurstone’s method of equally appearing intervals.
2. Study background
A comprehensive explication of three distinctive stances on object-
based authenticity has been developed in the literature – realist,
constructivist, and postmodernist, – which is now a prominent discourse
on authenticity in tourism. These stances have roots in three ideologies,
or philosophies, that explain how people interpret the physical and
social world around them. The realist understanding is grounded in
2
Tourism Management 83 (2021) 104249
positivism (Comte, 1858), which firmly links personal interpretations to
the observable, empirically tested reality. Constructivist outlook posits
that truths are created rather than discovered and places the emphasis
on how the individual negotiates the social aspects of the world
(Bruner, 1996). Postmodernist ideology (Lyotard, 1979) professes that
there is no objective reality or objective truth and is largely character­
ized by relativism. In this article the terms realist, constructivist, and
postmodernist are not used to differentiate among philosophies or
philosophy-based research paradigms. These terms are used as labels to
distinguish individuals on their authenticity orientation, that is a general
attitude toward object-based authenticity. In the three sections below
we identify the features, as they are presented in the literature, which
are the most indicative of each attitude in order to use them as items in
subsequent construction of the authenticity orientation scale.
2.1. Realist orientation
A realist interpretation of object-based authenticity is derived from
the physical and tangible aspects of an object that can be tested
empirically. Such interpretation reflects the positivist outlook (Comte,
1858) on the world around us. An individual who values “genuineness,
actuality, accuracy, originality, or truth that can be determined objec­
tively” and thus, places great importance on “the non-contentious
genuineness of an observable thing, such as an artifact, fossil, food,
dress, or ritual” (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006, p. 69) is said to have a realist
orientation toward object-based authenticity. On Bruner’s (1994)
authenticity taxonomy, the realist stance distinguishes between origi­
nals and copies and emphasizes that no reproduction can be considered
authentic. The actual, original, or genuine aspect of an object is certified
by a scientific authority, which is usually transferred to the attraction
management who communicates it to visitors. Seeking authenticity in
such an objectivist/realist sense has been found as one of the motiva­
tions for travel (Goulding, 2000; Olsen, 2002). More recently, Step­
chenkova and Belyaeva (2020, p. 4) describes this attitude toward
object-based authenticity as:
In visiting historic sites, museums, and places of cultural significance, I
value most of all an opportunity to see “the real thing”: authentic, genuine
objects and archaeological artifacts that played a significant role in
human civilization, history, and culture. I pay attention to historic facts
and how and when these objects were discovered. I do not value replicas.
When I see replicas or copies, I cannot help feeling cheated. Authentic
objects carry the touch of history, which fascinates me. Through preserved
genuine objects, we learn about the past and preserve connections between
generations. No reproduction can replace the authentic.
A number of previous studies have emphasized object-based attri­
butes such as the sense of “original” (see Castéran & Roederer, 2013; Fu
et al., 2018; MacCannell, 1973; Wang, 1999; Yi et al., 2018), “unique”
(see Revilla & Dodd, 2003; Spiggle et al., 2012), “not counterfeit” (see
Fu et al., 2018), and “old enough” (see Chhabra, 2008; Grayson &
Martinec, 2004; Revilla & Dodd, 2003) as the most characteristic of the
realist tradition of interpreting authenticity. These aspects are conse­
quently linked to standards or criteria in that whether an object is
unique and/or original is determined by authorized experts based on
indexical cues. Hence, realist authenticity is often defined using the
terms such as “criteria” or “standard” (see Reisinger & Steiner, 2006;
Spiggle et al., 2012; Taylor, 2001) and “verification by experts” (see
Leigh et al., 2006; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006; Wang, 1999). Hence, this
study focused on such attributes of realist interpretation of authenticity:
(1) originality: e.g., To be authentic, the artifacts have to be original, not an
imitation; (2) verification by experts: e.g., For me, it is very important
whether authenticity of an object is authorized by experts or not; (3) absolute
and objective criteria: e.g., To be perceived as authentic and original, the
artifacts should be old enough; and (4) inherent properties of objects/sites
(time, history): e.g., To be authentic, a site should have an established
S. Stepchenkova and H. Park
heritage.
2.2. Constructivist orientation
Some interpretations of authenticity evoke cognitive meanings that
appear to be associated with subjectivity rather than with objectivity
(Bruner, 1994; Cohen, 1988; Kim & Jamal, 2007). The constructivist
approach has been defined as “[s]ocially constructed interpretation of
genuineness of observable things, rather than as a real and objective
phenomenon discernable empirically” (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006, p.
69). The constructivist view highlights the symbolic, representational
value of sites and objects of historical and cultural significance rather
than their tangible properties. Further, it is highly dependent on the
images that tourists hold in their mind and their ability to “negotiate”
authenticity based on previous experiences and expectations
(Cohen, 1988). During this meaning-making, the “cool” and “hot”
authentication of viewed artifacts (Cohen & Cohen, 2012) occurs. The
constructivist approach places high value on interpretation of history
and culture by the destination authorities, locals, and vendors
(Chhabra, 2005). For example, if a souvenir is crafted according to
tradition with the use of ethnic designs and natural materials, it might be
enough for a constructivist to label such an object “authentic”. The
essence of constructivist attitude can be described in the following way:
When I visit places of historic and cultural significance, I do not care much
about whether the objects I see are genuine, authentic things. I visit such
places to understand cultures and reconstruct history in my mind. With
time, things disintegrate and perish; therefore, copies are inevitable. If
what I see looks and feels the same as the originals and helps me under­
stand and connect to the past, I am fine. If things are made according to
the traditions in terms of materials and craftsmanship, they are genuine
enough for me. (Chhabra, 2005)
As opposed to the realist approach, variable, unfixed, and subjective
interpretation of authenticity has often been regarded as the most salient
feature of the constructivist tradition (see Bruner, 1994; Castéran &
Roederer, 2013; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006; Wang, 1999). In this tradi­
tion, people give their own meaning to objects and the symbols that
these objects represent when making authenticity judgments about
toured objects and sites (see Castéran & Roederer, 2013; Grayson &
Martinec, 2004; Leigh et al., 2006; Morhart et al., 2015; Reisinger &
Steiner, 2006; Wang, 1999; Zatori et al., 2018). This tradition of inter­
preting authenticity is often tracked back to sociology (Culler, 1981;
MacCannell, 1973), which investigates how different cultures and so­
cieties influence an individual’s perceptions and evaluations of the
authenticity of exhibited objects. Since perceptions, beliefs, attitudes,
and behaviors of an individual are rooted in societal culture and tradi­
tions in addition to current norms, they are constantly negotiated in the
process of social interaction. Thus, authenticity can be understood as the
result of a socially constructed representation of time, history, and/or
culture (see Bernardi, 2019; Morhart et al., 2015; Reisinger & Steiner,
2006; Spielmann et al., 2018; Wang, 1999; Zatori et al., 2018).
Commodification is also closely related to authenticity with the notion
that a reconstructed craft or performance can be transformed into a treat
for tourists from outside of the local culture (Cole, 2007).
As follows from the aforesaid discussion, the constructivist
perspective on object-based authenticity is closely associated with such
aspects of authenticity: (1) no absolute original: e.g., Inauthentic objects
can be perceived authentic over time; (2) subjectivity and multiplicity of
meanings: e.g., I think what is called objective knowledge and truth is the
result of different opinions and perspectives that gain acceptance; (3) socially
constructed interpretation: e.g., Authenticity is constructed by tourists and
hosts through their interactions; (4) representational, symbolic value: e.g.,
I do not put as much stress on the originality of objects, but instead emphasize
symbolic meanings of the toured objects; and (5) commodification: e.g., The
artifacts can be reproduced for commercial reasons.
3
Tourism Management 83 (2021) 104249
2.3. Postmodernist orientation
The postmodernist approach, sometimes called deconstruction of
authenticity (Wang, 1999; Yi et al., 2018), is based on the notion that
whether an object is a genuine or a copied object is irrelevant for tourism
authenticity. This viewpoint of authenticity lies in semiotic work by
Umberto Eco (1986), in which Eco argues that we do not need to un­
derstand authenticity since it is impossible to interpret a notion with an
ambiguous demarcation between real and not real, labeled “hyper­
reality” (Wang, 1999). Therefore, paradoxically, a postmodernist has
the “absence” dimension within the domain of dominant authenticity
attributes (Bruner, 1994; Gergen, 1990; Wang, 1999). Thus, the term
“authenticity” has nothing to do with an artifact being an original or a
copy; rather, it connotes modes of enjoyment that tourists use to search
for playfulness in a way that reflects the logic of postmodernism (Has­
san, 1985). Wang (1999) discussed the necessity of an experiential lens
derived from Cohen’s (1988) work when mentioning “playful search for
enjoyment” and “aesthetic enjoyment of surfaces” (Wang, 1999, p. 357).
Within the postmodernist arena, it is necessary to adopt all forms of
technology by which either illusion or imagery can be extended to the
realm of authenticity (Gergen, 1990). Freed from the grip of
object-based presence, people have room to experience enjoyment from
reproductions created by technologies, such as communication media
and/or virtual or augmented reality (Gergen, 1990; Guttentag, 2010). In
line with this discourse, destination marketers consider authenticity as a
one of marketing strategies to attract tourists (Bruner, 1994; Hughes,
1995). The postmodernist attitudes can be expressed:
It is irrelevant to me whether something is real or not, original or copy, the
genuine thing, or its symbol. I am not concerned with authenticity and the
origins of objects at historic sites and museums as long as I enjoy them.
When I visit places of cultural and historic heritage, what matters the most
to me is my feelings and sensory experiences created by all sorts of
multimedia materials such as interpretive exhibits, demonstrations and
shows, videos, audio commentary, etc., rather than the objects them­
selves. (Hughes, 1995)
As follows from previous research, postmodernist attitudes toward
object-based authenticity are characterized by a lack of distinct
boundaries between real and fake (Castéran & Roederer, 2013; Rei­
singer & Steiner, 2006; Torabian & Arai, 2016; Yi et al., 2018) as rep­
resented by tourism attractions originating entirely in the human mind,
such as, for example, Hobbiton in New Zealand which is popular with
the Tolkien’s books and Lord of the Ring movie fans. The uniqueness and
distinctiveness of such attractions comes not from their old age or rep­
resentation of a particular culture but purely from imagination (Grayson
& Martinec, 2004; Revilla & Dodd, 2003; Wang, 1999) and are sup­
ported by technology that helps people envision the imaginary worlds,
their inhabitants, and ways of life. Technology can also be instrumental
in creating presentations of “how it was in real life” (Reisinger & Steiner,
2006; Yi et al., 2018) by aiding visitor understanding, learning, and
overall enjoyment. The commercialized nature of the tourism product is
not a problem for postmodernists, either (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006;
Revilla & Dodd, 2003). Thus, the postmodernist interpretation of
object-based authenticity is reflective of several manifestations: (1)
contrived attractions for enjoyment: e.g., I am not concerned with
authenticity and the origins of attractions as long as I enjoy them; (2)
collapse of boundaries between the original and the copy: e.g., For me, it
does not matter if what I see at a site is real or fake; (3) modern technology:
e.g., Modern technology can make the inauthentic become authentic; and (4)
marketing strategies: e.g., It is OK to me when marketers create the image of
authenticity to improve sales at a destination.
2.4. Existential authenticity
The many facets of the authenticity construct, in addition to the
S. Stepchenkova and H. Park
uncertainty of how these facets are interpreted in the human mind and
how visitors “authenticate” tourist objects, attractions, and sites (Cohen,
1988; Cohen & Cohen, 2012), gave rise to the development of the notion
of an existential authenticity (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006; Rickly-Boyd,
2012; Wang, 1999). In very general terms, existential authenticity is not
concerned with how a person “authenticates” places but rather whether
this person reaches a state of mind in which he/she is in touch with
his/her true self, has a sense of being lost in time and space, connects
with history and culture, and/or finds inner peace. These and similar
definitions of existential authenticity are very much comparable with
the state of optimal experience, or flow, as described by Czikszentmi­
halyi (1990). It has been theorized that existential authenticity is the
ultimate goal of a tourist (Belhassen et al., 2008; Cole, 2007; Wang,
1999), and they are more likely to reach this state if they consider what
they see and experience as “authentic” (Salmela, 2005; Yi et al., 2017).
Existential authenticity is connected to the satisfaction and quality of
tourist experience (Lee et al., 2016; Park et al., 2019), desire to revisit
(Meng & Choi, 2018), and willingness to recommend the site to others
(Curran et al., 2018). A recent study also showed that attitudes toward
object-based authenticity impact existential authenticity (Stepchenkova
& Belyaeva, 2020). Thus, as follows from our discussion, existential
authenticity is not a predisposition, or attitude, but a particular state of
being that is or is not achieved in a process of tourism experience and, as
such, is not a part of the authenticity orientation continuum.
3. Method
3.1. Measurement of attitudes
The purpose of this study was to develop a measurement instrument
(a scale) to convert an individual’s attitude toward object-based
authenticity into a numerical score. The study was based on a premise
that tourists differ by their attitudes toward object-based authenticity of
tourist objects, sites, and attractions. The study also presupposes that
different attitudes toward authenticity (i.e., authenticity orientation)
can be described as a continuum ranging from the realist pole (people
requiring “real” and genuine objects) to the constructivist center (people
are tolerant of replicated artifacts and sites) to the postmodernist pole
(people are not concerned with the notion of authenticity altogether)
(Chhabra, 2005; Stepchenkova & Belyaeva, 2020; Wang, 1999). The
place of an individual on that continuum is determined by his agreement
(or disagreement) with the opinions that he is offered that are designed
to pinpoint the underlying overall attitude toward the issue.
Scholars in the psychological and social sciences, such as Thurstone
(1928), Likert (1932), and Guttman (1944), proposed methodological
approaches to measure attitudes by scaling people’s opinions on a
particular subject. While the literature on measuring psychometric
properties of individuals has been expanded since those times
(Churchill, 1979; Zaichkowsky, 1985), the foundations for scale devel­
opment remain stable. It has been noted that the scale approach is
suitable only for those attitudes for which the researcher can reasonably
expect respondents report their true opinions regarding the issue in
question (Thurstone, 1928, p. 534). We judged the topic of authenticity
orientation non-controversial and, therefore, suited to be examined with
an attitudinal scale. The relative merits of the three scales, Thurstone,
Likert, and Guttman, which were considered for the purpose of the
study, are discussed in the Methodological considerations section of this
article. The Thurstone’s approach of scale construction (Thurstone &
Chave, 1929) called the “method of equally appearing intervals” was
chosen because it allows the whole range of attitudes toward a particular
issue be represented and it equally spaces those attitudes to maintain the
psychometric properties of the scale. The method has been extensively
tested in the 30+ years after it was proposed, and its properties are
well-known.
The approach includes several steps. The procedure starts with re­
searchers generating a large pool of items (typically 80–100)
4
Tourism Management 83 (2021) 104249
representing the whole range of opinions on the subject under study.
Then, experts are invited to evaluate each statement by assigning it a
numerical value (“weight”) from 1 to 11, based on a criterion, for
example, “for-against” or “negative-positive”. Next, the researchers
calculate the central tendency and variability of each item based on
values assigned by experts. Finally, for each scale point, one or two items
with the lowest variability are chosen and are used to construct the
scale, which is then tested in a survey for its reliability and validity. The
respondent’s score is calculated by averaging the scale “weights” of each
statement with which that individual agreed. The scale development
section of this article addresses in detail each step of scale construction
and adds one more step – the second ranking of items after a significant
time lapse from the first ranking – to ensure the stability of the scale
items over time.
3.2. Scale development
3.2.1. Define the construct and generate a pool of items
We defined authenticity orientation as the attitude toward object-
based authenticity that influences the authentication process of a tour­
ist and that can exhibit elements of realist, constructivist, and post­
modernist interpretations of authenticity. To capture the aspects of
authenticity as specified in the Study Background section, a pool of 83
items was generated (Appendix 1).
3.2.2. Item ranking
We invited 12 experts and asked them to physically arrange the cards
with typed attitude statements (Appendix 1) into bins marked from 1 to
11 in which 1 = most consistent with realist/objectivist orientation and
11 = most consistent with the postmodernist orientation. The experts
were five international scholars from different cultures and seven
doctoral students. Collectively, the experts represented Austria, China,
Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and the United States. All
experts were familiar with the discourse on authenticity through rele­
vant literature, university courses, and personal research. The “anchor”
items of realist, constructivist, and postmodernist orientations were
offered to the judges prior to the ranking procedure (Wright & Hicks,
1966). The judges were reminded that they should not express their
personal attitudes but to assess the items from the position of the
theoretical discourse presented in tourism authenticity literature.
For each item, the median score, the first and the third quartile
values, and the inter-quartile range were obtained. Thurstone’s method
then prescribes selecting items covering the whole range of the possible
values, that is, from 1 to 11, on which the experts agree the most as
indicated by the lowest inter-quartile range. When a person rates their
attitude using the scale with Yes/No response type, scale “weights” of
the items with which they agree are summed up and averaged to form
the final attitude score. Formally, this score can range from 0 (disagree
with all scale items) to 11 (agree only with the items that weight 11
points). Inconsistent attitudes are characterized by selecting items from
both ends of the scale.
3.2.3. Second ranking: stability over time
To subject items to more rigorous treatment and select only those
that are the most stable across time, the second ranking procedure was
organized five months later; the same experts did the retest evaluation of
the same 83 items. The relatively large break ensured that the memory
effect was virtually non-existent. This time, the items were organized as
an Excel file with their order determined by a randomized procedure.
Test–retest correlation coefficient on the battery of 83 items was
calculated for each judge. The data from two student judges were sus­
pended; one test–retest set had a moderate negative correlation, and
close comparisons of the test–retest scores led to the conclusion that the
second time the scale poles were reversed, that is, the “realist” items
were coded as “postmodernist”. In the other case, there was no corre­
lation at all between the two ratings. Subsequent conversation with the
S. Stepchenkova and H. Park Tourism Management 83 (2021) 104249

judge revealed that during these five months, she had substantially Table 2
changed views on the subject of authenticity. The suspended data were Authenticity orientation scale.
not included in any further analyses. For the remaining data, correlation # Item Median Inter-quartile
coefficients ranged from 0.55 to 0.92 with the average of 0.80. The range
correlation coefficient for the median scores, however, was 0.95. 1 To be authentic, the artifacts have to be original, 1 0
The first and second ranking data were pooled together for the final not an imitation.
evaluations. The goal was to include the items that were the most 2 To be authentic, a site should have an established 1 1
consistently ranked across judges and across time in the scale. When the heritage.
3 For me, it is very important whether authenticity 1 1
items were ranked by the lowest inter-quartile range (IQR), it was clear of an object is authorized by experts or not.
that items that were most consistently ranked (IQR <1.5) were the items 4 For a site to be authentic, it has to contain 2 0.75
from both ends of the scale (medians are 1–2 and 10–11) and from the artifacts that are hard to find in other places.
middle of the scale (median is 6) as shown in Table 1. 5 Authentic objects are handmade, made of natural 2 1
materials, and not manufactured for the market.
6 To be authentic, the artifacts should be made in a 2 1
3.2.4. Scale item selection non-industrialized process.
The most consistently ranked items were identified first. They were 7 The production process of the authentic artifacts 3 2
all grouped around both poles and the in middle of the scale. Six more cannot be fully demonstrated.
items were then added to “close the gaps”, that is, to introduce more 8 If a site presents local history and culture well, I 3.5 2
am inclined to consider it authentic.
“continuity” to the scale. The final scale consisted of 24 items (Table 2). 9 For me, authenticity is a feeling that I connect to 5 2
Inspection of Table 2 reveals substantial agreement among experts as to history and culture, not a tangible object or
the location of the 24 statements on a hypothetical continuum of atti­ artifact.
tudes toward object-based authenticity. 10 Authenticity is a socially constructed 6 0
interpretation of the genuineness of observable
objects rather than a real and objective thing.
3.2.5. Validation approach: reliability and predictive validity 11 Things appear to be authentic not because they 6 0.75
Reliability of the Thurstone scale is typically assessed via parallel are inherently genuine but because their
form testing (Thurstone & Chave, 1929). A method to ensure the pre­ genuineness is constructed by beliefs,
dictive validity of the scale is to apply it to people whose attitudes are perspectives, or powers.
12 What is called objective knowledge and truth is 6 0.75
known in order to determine whether a newly constructed scale pro­
the result of different opinions and perspectives
duces a desired differentiation of the subjects. For example, Wright and that gain acceptance.
Hicks (1966) constructed a Thurstone scale of liberalism–conservatism 13 Authenticity is constructed by tourists and hosts 6 1
and applied it to a group of Young Republicans and Young Democrats at through their interactions.
14 Authenticity can be constructed from different 6 1
a southern liberal arts college who were known to be active during the
perspectives and has different meanings
1964 presidential campaign. Young Democrats had scale scores toward depending on the context.
the liberal end of the scale, and Young Republicans gravitated toward 15 I do not put as much stress on the originality of 6 1
the conservative pole, thus, verifying that the scale was capable of dis­ objects, but instead emphasize symbolic
tinguishing among attitudes. meanings of the toured objects.
16 I think the meaning of objects changes from place 7 1.75
We tested the reliability and predictive validity of the authenticity
to place and across time; therefore, authenticity is
orientation scale following the methods described, that is via parallel ever developing concept.
form testing (reliability) and via hypotheses testing (predictive validity). 17 The traditional artifacts can be made with other 8 2
The predictive validity was tested with reference to two types of tourist materials to reduce costs – for me to consider
them authentic.
sites: (1) those that are original and (2) those in which authenticity is
18 With accelerating technology development, it is 9.5 2
constructed and recreated. For the recreated sites, we expect that only more difficult to identify the boundaries between
tourists with constructivist and postmodernist attitudes would consider an original and imitation, or between reality and
those sites authentic as they supposedly are more tolerant to copies and its symbol.
replicas and are willing to negotiate authenticity more than the realists. 19 It is OK to me when marketers create the image of 10 1
authenticity to improve sales in a destination.
For the original sites, the situation seems more complex. It is quite
20 Modern technology can make the inauthentic 10 2
possible that people of all authenticity orientations can recognize and become authentic.
appreciate original objects and sites and “stamp” them with the 21 For me, it does not matter if what I see at a site is 11 0.75
“authentic” label (Stepchenkova & Belyaeva, 2020). This reasoning, real or fake.
22 For me, Harry Potter or Star Wars are quite real. 11 0.75
however, might not apply to the willingness to visit those sites as they
23 I am not concerned with authenticity and the 11 1
origins of attractions as long as I enjoy them.
24 For me as a tourist, worrying about authenticity is 11 1
Table 1 a waste of time.
Summary of variability in item ranking.
Median value Number of items Inter-quartile range
might not be emblematic of the type of authenticity to which those
Average Lowest Highest tourists are more predisposed. Tentatively, we would propose that re­
1 7 1.50 0.00 5.50 alists would be more likely to consider those sites as “my kind of place to
2 14 1.54 0.75 2.00 visit” than constructivists and postmodernists. Thus, for predictive val­
3 5 2.55 2.00 3.00
idity, we stipulated the following hypotheses:
4 5 4.00 2.75 5.75
5 8 2.81 2.00 3.75 H1. People with the higher authenticity orientation scores (more consistent
6 11 1.55 0.00 4.00
with postmodernist orientation) would be more inclined to label “authentic”
7 9 2.78 1.75 4.75
8 10 2.85 2.00 5.75 places in which authenticity is recreated and reconstructed. They will also be
9 4 2.94 2.00 3.75 more likely to consider those sites “my kind of place to visit”.
10 7 2.04 1.00 3.00
11 4 0.88 0.75 1.00 H2. For original sites and places with high object-based authenticity, there
would be no differences between tourists with different authenticity
Note: Obtained from two experts’ rankings.

5
S. Stepchenkova and H. Park
orientation scores in considering those places authentic. Realists, however,
will be more likely to consider those sites “my kind of place to visit”.
3.3. Survey instrument
The qualifying questions included the requirement of traveling for
distances greater than 50 miles for leisure purposes in one year prior to
taking the survey with at least a 3-night overnight stay away from home.
The authors reasoned that it was necessary for the questioned people to
be “actual tourists” and to have formed their attitudes toward object-
based authenticity prior to the survey. Therefore, subjects were also
required to visit a tourist attraction related to history and/or culture
(such as a museum or a site) on that trip. Considering the abstract and
complex nature of the authenticity orientation, the respondents were
steered toward thinking about authenticity via the following opening
statement:
Think about your travels and what you are looking for while visiting
places of ethnographic, historic and/or cultural significance. Is authen­
ticity of a place and objects that you tour important to you? If so, what do
the words “authenticity” and “authentic” mean to you? Can a place or
attraction be truly authentic?
This introductory segment was followed with the scale items
(Table 2), which were presented in randomized order for more rigorous
testing. The authors decided to use a 7-point Likert scale rather than
original Yes/No scale with the anchors set at 1 = strongly agree and 7 =
strongly disagree. The 7-point scale was chosen based on its high per­
formance record in terms of maximization of the amount of information
(Green & Rao, 1970) and providing the respondents with the room to
express themselves (Preston & Colman, 2000). In addition, its conver­
sion to the Yes/No scale is straightforward.
After the scale items, the survey transitioned to the part that was
included for scale validation purposes. The respondents were presented
with short descriptions of eight attractions, each description accompa­
nied by three photographs highlighting the nature of these attractions.
These attractions were meant to represent indexically (Index) and icon­
ically (Icon) authentic sites. (Note: whether the attraction was consid­
ered indexically or iconically authentic was not mentioned in the
survey.) The presentation of attractions was randomized. Each attrac­
tion was accompanied with the following two statements measured on a
7-point Likert scale: (1) [Attraction Name] is an authentic site and (2)
[Attraction Name] is my kind of place to visit. The larger score indicates
stronger agreement with the statement. One more Yes/No item was
added to account for previous experience with the attraction: Please
mark if you have visited this place. The descriptions of the attractions were
taken from their respective websites and are listed below in order of
their appearance in the questionnaire:
1. Tobu World Square, Japan (Icon). Tobu World Square in Japan is
a theme park bringing together replicas of iconic structures from all
over the world. All of them have been built on a scale that is exactly
1/25th of their original size. The reconstructions have been praised
for their minute details down to the individual people inhabiting
their environs.
2. International Spy Museum, Washington, DC (Icon). The Inter­
national Spy Museum is committed to providing unique opportu­
nities for all audiences. From hands-on workshops, to overnight visits
and exclusive lectures and programs, visitors of all ages can delve
deeper into the intelligence world. In the museum, you receive a
cover identity and prepare to test your spy skills throughout the
museum on your undercover mission.
3. Hobbiton Set, near Matamata, New Zealand (Icon). The Lord of
the Rings movie trilogy was filmed in its entirety in New Zealand. The
lush dairy farming landscape around the Waikato town of Matamata
was used to portray the peaceful Shire region of Middle-earth. The
6
Tourism Management 83 (2021) 104249
village of Hobbiton was created here. It has since been rebuilt for the
filming of the Hobbit Trilogy and will now remain as a permanent
attraction.
4. Gettysburg National Military Park, Pennsylvania, USA (Index).
The Gettysburg National Military Park is an open-air museum rep­
resenting Gettysburg Battlefield in Pennsylvania. The three-day Civil
War battle in 1863 took the lives of 51,000 people. Considered the
turning point in the Civil War, Gettysburg is also famous as the site of
President Abraham Lincoln’s best-known speech, the Gettysburg
Address.
5. Acropolis of Athens, Greece (Index). The Acropolis of Athens and
its monuments are universal symbols of civilization and form the
greatest artistic complex bequeathed by Greek Antiquity to the
world. The most important monuments are the Parthenon, the
Erechtheion, the Propylaea, the monumental entrance to the
Acropolis, and the small temple of Athena Nike.
6. Sherlock Holmes Museum, London, UK (Icon). Sherlock Holmes
is a detective character created by Arthur Conan Doyle. Sherlock
Holmes lived at 221b Baker Street in London between 1881 and
1904. The rooms in the building at 221b Baker Street are staged as if
Mr. Holmes and Dr Watson still live here. A tourist will be trans­
ported back in time to Sherlock’s Victorian-era apartment, complete
with memorabilia and quirky objects celebrating his greatest cases.
7. Terracotta Army, Xi’an, China (Index). The Terracotta Army is a
collection of terracotta sculptures depicting the armies of Qin Shi
Huang, the first Emperor of China. It is a form of funerary art buried
with the emperor in 210–209 BCE with the purpose of protecting the
emperor in his afterlife. The sculptures were molded in parts, fired,
and then assembled and painted.
8. National Museum of the American Indian, Washington DC, USA
(Index). The National Museum of the American Indian cares for one
of the world’s most expansive collections of Native Indian artifacts,
including objects, photographs, archives, and media covering the
entire Western Hemisphere from the Arctic Circle to Tierra del
Fuego. There are over 800,000 pieces on display exploring the his­
tory of the Amazonian, Apache, Navajo, and other Indian groups.
The survey concluded with four demographic questions asking about
gender, age, education, and income. Respondents were also asked to rate
how important tourism was in their life (on a scale from 1 to 10) and
what tourist roles they prefer to assume. The tourist role categories were
taken from the TripAdvisor platform with added few categories
following Hernández et al. (2018); see section Sample profile.
3.4. Data collection
The data were collected via an online questionnaire in December
2019 using the services of Qualtrics company. Qualtrics recruited pan­
elists from a variety of sources, including website intercept recruitment,
member referrals, targeted e-mail lists, gaming sites, customer loyalty
web portals, permission-based networks, and social media. Consumer
panel members’ names, addresses, and birthdates were typically vali­
dated via third-party verification measures prior to their joining a panel.
Participants were compensated for their time based on their recruitment
agreement, for example, with points to their favorite retail outlets,
SkyMiles rewards, cash, or gift cards. Response rates for Qualtrics panel
surveys (the percentage of the target that receives a survey invitation
and responds by initiating the survey) generally fall between 5% and
12%.
The survey was “forced entry”, that is, it did not allow missing data.
Data quality control was instigated through data quality pledge state­
ments, qualifying questions, and speed checks. Five hundred and
twenty-five completed questionnaires were obtained within 12 h of
survey release. In the absence of missing data cases, additional quality
control was conducted by examining the distributional pattern of each
respondent for the scale items. Eleven respondents had zero standard
S. Stepchenkova and H. Park Tourism Management 83 (2021) 104249

deviation for their answers, indicating that they hit the same button for Agree, were counted as Yes. All other answers qualified as disagreement
all 24 scale questions. These respondents were excluded from the with the statement (a No answer) and did not count toward the final
analysis. The median time used to answer the survey was 7 min 19 s. authenticity score. Each Yes answer had a specific weight (the median of
values returned by experts for that item). These weights were summed
and averaged and resulted in an individual’s authenticity score. The
3.5. Sample profile
reliability of the scale was tested using the “parallel-form” procedure.
The scale was split into two comparable forms with 12 items in each,
The final sample contained 514 respondents (Table 3). It was heavily
seven times; for each split, the parallel-forms test was conducted. Cor­
tilted toward females (71% versus 29% males). Almost half of the
relations ranged from 0.68 to 0.75 with an average correlation of 0.71.
sample (48%) were between 25 and 44 years old. The sample was well
Thus the reliability of the scale was acceptable (Nunnally, 1978).
educated; 59% of respondents had at least an associate degree. Income
The distribution of the attitude scores for the sample is shown in
wise, 51% reported household income of equal or greater than $60,000.
Fig. 1. The value most consistent with the realist attitude was 2.0, while
The main tourist roles, which were selected by more than 20% of re­
the value most consistent with the postmodernist orientation was 8.85.
spondents (multiple selections were allowed), were Family Vacationer
The mean value was 5.28, standard deviation was 0.87, skewness was
(50%), Nature Lover (38%), History Buff (27%), Beach Goer (24%),
− 0.57, and kurtosis was 1.09, indicating a skewed distribution with
Foodie (24%), and Art and Architecture Lover (22%). The importance of
prevalence of realist and constructivist attitudes toward object-based
tourism in respondents’ lives had a mean of 7.81, with standard devia­
authenticity.
tion of 1.67 on the 10-point scale. It was decided that the sample con­
The authenticity orientation scores were compared for respondents
sisted of actual tourists and was suitable for testing the scale.
from various demographic groups. There was no differences for gender,
F (1, 512) = 2.31; p = 0.129 or education (this variable was recoded to
4. Results obtain more comparable group sizes), F (3, 510) = 2.04; p = 0.108.
Correlation between authenticity orientation score and income, while
4.1. Distribution analysis marginally significant, was practically negligible, r = − 0.089; p =
0.044. The only demographic variable associated with authenticity
The frequency characteristics of all individual scale items were orientation score was age, F (5, 508) = 9.27; p < 0.001. People aged 45
examined (Appendix 2). They were close to normal on all items. The years and older tended to have lower authenticity scores than younger
highest skewness was 1.35 (If a site presents local history and culture well, I respondents; thus, they were more oriented toward the realist attitude
am inclined to consider it authentic), and the highest kurtosis was 1.91 (To toward authenticity.
be authentic, a site should have an established heritage). Theoretically,
attitude is a one-dimensional construct (Edwards & Kenney, 1946;
Thurstone & Chave, 1929); therefore, the internal consistency of the 4.2. Predictive validity
scale (24 items) was checked. Cronbach’s alpha equaled 0.864, which
was acceptable (Nunnally, 1978). Hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested to establish the predictive validity of
The authenticity score for each respondent was calculated using the scale. We needed to show that people with different authenticity
Thurstone’s procedure. Answers, Strongly Agree, Agree, and Somewhat orientation scores differ in assessing authenticity of selected sites. More
specifically, people whose views were more consistent with post­
Table 3 modernist orientation would have been more inclined to label places in
Respondents’ demographic profile. which authenticity is recreated and reconstructed (such as Tobu World
Variables N = 514 Square, International Spy Museum, Hobbiton Set, Sherlock Holmes
GENDER Freq % Museum) as authentic and more inclined to say that sites with recreated
Male 150 29.2 authenticity were their kind of place to visit (H1). Tourists whose
Female 364 70.8 authenticity orientation was more aligned with realist attitudes would
AGE Freq % have been more likely to say that sites with high object-based authen­
18-24 82 16.0
25-34 138 26.8
ticity were their kind of place to visit (H2).
35-44 111 21.6 First, we correlated authenticity orientation scores with the assess­
45-54 63 12.3 ment of authenticity of the attractions (Table 4). We can see that an
55-64 63 12.3 increase in authenticity orientation score, while moving from the realist
65 and older 57 11.1
EDUCATION Freq %
No HS diploma 8 1.6
HS diploma or equivalent including GED 91 17.7
Some college but no degree 111 21.6
Associate degree in college (2-year) 64 12.5
Bachelor’s degree in college (4-year) 155 30.2
Master’s degree 68 13.2
Doctoral degree 6 1.2
Professional degree (e.g., JD, MD) 11 2.1
INCOME Freq %
Less than $10,000 26 5.1
$10,000 to $19,999 21 4.1
$20,000 to $29,999 56 10.9
$30,000 to $39,999 49 9.5
$40,000 to $49,999 48 9.3
$50,000 to $59,999 51 9.9
$60,000 to $69,999 51 9.9
$70,000 to $79,999 38 7.4
$80,000 to $89,999 31 6.0
$90,000 to $99,999 35 6.8
$100,000 to $149,999 61 11.9
$150,000 or more 47 9.1
Fig. 1. Distribution of authenticity orientation scores in the sample.

7
S. Stepchenkova and H. Park Tourism Management 83 (2021) 104249

Table 4
Authenticity orientation score and propensity to consider a site authentic and desirable to visit: Bivariate correlations.
Authenticity Tobu World International Spy Hobbiton Sherlock Gettysburg National Acropolis of Terracotta National Museum of
Orientation Score Square Museum Set Holmes Military Park Athens Army the American Indian
Museum

[Attraction Name] is an authentic site (1=Strongly Agree; 7=Strongly Disagree)

Pearson’s r − 0.363 − 0.262 − 0.277 − 0.208 0.122 0.108 0.070 − 0.006
p-value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.006 0.015 0.114 0.899
[Attraction Name] is my kind of place to visit (1=Strongly Agree; 7=Strongly Disagree)
Pearson’s r − 0.252 − 0.196 − 0.13 − 0.208 0.094 0.101 0.017 0.084
p-value <0.001 <0.001 0.003 <0.001 0.033 0.022 0.703 0.056
Sample size is 514.

to the postmodernist pole, was significantly associated with a stronger
likelihood to consider recreated sites authentic (Strongly Agree was
coded as 1, negative correlation). Respondents with realist orientation
(lower score) were more likely to consider “real” attraction as authentic
and “my kind of place to visit” (Strongly Agree was coded as 1, positive
correlation). The relationship was noticeably stronger for recreated
sites, which is discussed in the next section.
Next, we conducted a series of linear regressions to test the media­
tion effects of the [Attraction Name] is an authentic site variable on the
relationship between authenticity orientation and conative aspect of
attitude [Attraction Name] is my kind of place to visit. In the tested rela­
tionship, we also accounted for previous visits to evaluated places (1 =
Yes, 0 = No). Descriptive statistics for the mediator and dependent
variables are provided in Table 5. We can immediately see that while for
the recreated sites the distributions, if slightly skewed, were close to
normal, for the “real” sites the departures from the normal distribution
were much larger. We applied a logarithmic transformation Xtransformed
= ln (X +1) to make the distributions of the two variables more similar
(Hair et al., 2013).
According to Baron and Kenny (1986), four conditions must be met
in the three-model test for mediation. First, the independent and
dependent variables must be significantly associated (Model 1). Second,
the independent variable must have a significant association with the
mediator (Model 2). Third, a significant effect of the mediator on the
dependent variable should be present when both the independent var­
iable and mediator are tested as independent variables (Model 3).
Fourth, Model 3 should also provide evidence that the effect of the in­
dependent variable is weaker in Model 3 than it was in Model 1.
Table 6 provides results of mediation analyses for the recreated sites.
For all four sites full mediation effect is present: authenticity orientation
score is significant in Model 1 and not significant in Model 3. All other
conditions for mediation are met. Taking into account the way of vari­
able coding, all analyses consistently indicated several findings: 1) the
higher the authenticity orientation score (moving toward the post­
modernist end of the scale), the more likely that people will consider
recreated sites authentic; the lower the score (moving toward the realist
end), the less likely that they will consider them authentic; 2) consid­
ering the site authentic and “my kind of place to visit” move in the same
direction; and (3) those who visited the site in the past are more inclined
to label it authentic.
Table 7 provides results of mediation analyses for sites with (pre­
sumably) high object-based authenticity. The results were mixed. For
the two sites, Gettysburg Military Park and Acropolis, the situation was
consistent with what was hypothesized; we have a full mediation effect.
For the Terracotta Army site, the authenticity score had no impact on
either mediator or the dependent variable. For the Museum of American
Indian, the authenticity orientation score was not significant for the
authentication process (Model 2) but directly influenced my kind of place
to visit variable in both Models 1 and 3. The results are further discussed
in the next section.
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical contribution
This study created a scale instrument to distinguish people on their
authenticity orientation, that is, attitude toward object-based authen­
ticity of tourist objects and sites of ethnographic, historic, and cultural
significance using the Thurstone’s method of equally appearing in­
tervals. The study constructed a 24-item scale that measures the whole
possible span of attitudes toward object-based authenticity. The scale
ranges from the attitudes that are most consistent with the realist
perspective to those that are more aligned with a constructivist
perspective, and to the attitudes that are most compatible with the
postmodernist perspective, as they are discussed in the literature. The
scale demonstrated acceptable reliability in multiple parallel-form tests.
The level of scale reliability is comparable with previous studies of
measuring attitudes that used the Thurstone’s method (Hulka et al.,
1970; Panda & Kanungo, 1964; Peterson et al., 2003).
Regarding predictive validity, the scale was able to differentiate re­
spondents on their authentication process (this site is authentic) and
predisposition to visit (this site is my kind of place to visit). The analyses

Table 5
Descriptive statistics.
Stat. TWS ISM HS SHM GMP AA TA MAI GMP* AA* TA* MAI*

[Attraction Name] is an authentic site**

Mean 3.29 2.85 2.76 2.86 1.61 1.50 1.93 2.02 0.91 0.87 1.01 1.04
St. Dev. 1.93 1.59 1.62 1.62 0.91 0.89 1.20 1.16 0.29 0.28 0.35 0.35
Skew 0.36 0.78 0.87 0.69 2.01 2.38 1.70 1.31 1.11 1.53 0.84 0.59
Kurt − 1.15 − 0.09 0.01 − 0.33 5.84 7.31 3.48 1.75 0.57 1.68 − 0.10 − 0.57
[Attraction Name] is my kind of place to visit**
Mean 2.95 2.68 2.77 2.58 2.18 1.76 2.47 2.25 1.08 0.95 1.15 1.11
St. Dev. 1.66 1.55 1.68 1.50 1.38 1.11 1.58 1.30 0.39 0.33 0.42 0.37
Skew 0.67 1.01 0.86 0.95 1.24 1.93 1.14 1.09 0.60 1.07 0.44 0.40
Kurt − 0.42 0.55 − 0.07 0.35 1.05 4.56 0.75 0.93 − 0.73 0.36 − 0.85 − 0.83

TWS - Tobu World Square; ISM - International Spy Museum; HS - Hobbiton Set; SHM - Sherlock Holmes Museum; GMP - Gettysburg Military Park; AA - Acropolis of
Athens; TA - Terracotta Army; MAI - Museum of the American Indian.
* Transformed variable: ln(X+1).
** 1 = Strongly Agree; 7 = Strongly Disagree.

8
S. Stepchenkova and H. Park
Table 6
Recreated sites: mediation effect of authentication.
showed that people whose authenticity orientation gravitates toward
the postmodernist end of the spectrum are more likely to consider
recreated sites (e.g., Tobu Square) authentic, but realists are less likely to
do so (Table 4). In addition, for the recreated sites, the outcome of the
authentication process fully mediates the relationship between the
authenticity orientation score and a predisposition to visit (Table 6). The
finding seems to provide support to what was found by Stepchenkova
and Belyaeva (2020): “it is much harder for realists, with their strong
preferences for the originality of artifacts they view, to “connect” to
replicas and re-creations” (Stepchenkova & Belyaeva, 2020, p. 5).
The situation with the “original” sites lacks a definite conclusion and
needs further investigation. Hypothesis 2 stipulates no difference be­
tween tourists with dissimilar authenticity orientations in considering
“original” sites authentic. That is, postmodernists can connect to the
9
Tourism Management 83 (2021) 104249
historic objects of the past and quality replicas in the same way as re­
alists and constructivists. However, the result of no correlation between
the authenticity orientation score and this site is authentic variable –
which was stipulated in hypothesis 2 – was found only for the Terracotta
Army and American Indian Museum sites. The other two sites, the
Acropolis of Athens and Gettysburg Military Park, had small but statis­
tically significant positive correlations (0.11 and 0.12, respectively),
meaning that realists are slightly more predisposed to consider these
sites authentic (and postmodernists are slightly less predisposed). Hy­
pothesis 2 also stipulated a larger propensity for realists to consider
“original” sites my kind of place to visit, but statistically significant cor­
relations were found for the Acropolis of Athens and Gettysburg Military
Park sites only, and these correlations were rather small: 0.10 and 0.90,
respectively (Table 4). The results of mediation analysis were also
S. Stepchenkova and H. Park
Table 7
Original sites: mediation effect of authentication.
inconclusive. The hypothesized and actual findings are schematically
illustrated in Fig. 2.
As can be seen from Fig. 2, the hypothesized “authentication
corridor” is the widest for postmodernists and the narrowest for realists,
with constructionists falling in between. More research is needed,
however, to test the explanation visualized in the left pane of Fig. 2. One
explanation for mixed findings in hypothesis 2 is the fatigue effect: a
randomization procedure placed the “original” sites as numbers 4, 5, 7
and 8 to evaluate. According to Qualtrics, the length of a survey after
which the quality of the data start decreasing is 9′ , but the median length
for our survey was 7′ 19′′ , well below this mark; thus, we consider the
fatigue effect unlikely. Nevertheless, a possibility still exists that the
10
Tourism Management 83 (2021) 104249
survey structure that includes evaluation of eight destinations using the
same questions might still be taxing for some respondents and needs to
be excluded in future research. The alternative explanation, which we
find more plausible, is that only limited information was provided in
short descriptions that accompanied each presented tourist site. For
recreated sites, the respondents had strong cues that pointed to the sites’
reconstructed, iconically authentic nature (recall Tobu World Square or
Hobbiton Set). For the “original” sites, however, the provided cues could
have been insufficient: many tourist attractions that are organized
around indexically authentic sites (think Terracotta Army or Museum of
the American Indian) include elements such as interpretive exhibits, art
and science events, video presentations, and elaborate gift shops. The
S. Stepchenkova and H. Park
Fig. 2. Authenticity orientation and authentication process.
mix of indexical and iconic authenticities presented in those places might
had provided “noise” that contributed to measurement error. Further
research to test the scale should be designed with this issue in mind.
6. Methodological considerations
A few clarifying notes are in order with respect to the scale selection.
Two “competing” approached were the Guttman’s (1944) cumulative
scaling method and the Likert’s method (1932). Guttman’s approach
measures how strong a person’s positive or negative attitude is toward a
particular topic, such as, for example, immigration. It involves a series of
yes/no statements ranging from the least positive/certain (e.g., I accept
immigrants as residents in my country) to the most positive/decisive (e.g., I
accept an immigrant as my child’s spouse). The agreement with a more
positive statement implies agreement with all statements that are less
positive, thus constituting a cumulative attitudinal score. It has been
noted that Guttman scale measures not the attitude itself but rather the
strength of it. It was also decided that in the authenticity orientation
context it was not feasible to implement the Guttman’s approach.
Likert and his colleageus (1932) offerred a method known as the 5-
or 7-point Likert scale, anchored at the Strongly Disagree and Strongly
Agree poles. The supposedly simpler procedure has contributed to the
high popularity of the Likert scale. However, in this study, the most
important concern was accuracy in reflecting the variability of attitudes,
not speed. With respect to accuracy, some critique of the Likert’s
approach has been expressed (see Edwards & Kenney, 1946; Roberts
et al., 1999): for instance, the scale seems to gravitate toward extreme
responses and avoid more ambivalent attitudes (see Roberts et al.,
1999). As stated by Dalal et al. (2014), researchers who are concerned
with the full range of spectrum on specific attitude should consider
adopting the Thurstone’s approach. Since the goal of this study was to
represent the whole range of attitudes including those of constructivists,
which are around the middle of the scale, the Thurstone’s method was
11
Tourism Management 83 (2021) 104249
considered appropriate. According to the literature, there is a variety of
constructivist markers of authenticity; therefore, indications from pre­
vious studies of the better ability of the Turstone scale to represent those
markers was a point in its favor.
An important reported advantage of the Likert scale is that it pro­
vides higher internal reliability coefficients than the Thurstone scale
(Edwards & Kenney, 1946). In a study designed to compare two ap­
proaches, Edwards and Kenney (1946) cited internal reliability values of
0.88 (20 items) for Thurstone scale versus 0.94 (25 items) for Likert
scale. While they evaluated the Likert scale as slightly better in this re­
gard, they concluded that both methods produce reliability coefficients
that are sufficiently high. Our study achieved reliability coefficients
characterized as “high” (for the full scale) and “acceptable” (for multiple
parallel-form tests) by the criteria recommended by Nunnally (1978). In
addition, in a study about the comparative advantages of Thurstone
scale versus Likert scale that used simulated data, “the empirical
response process generally favors the use of the Thurstone’s procedure
as opposed to the Likert procedure” (Roberts et al., 1999, p. 212). We
were also encouraged to learn that the early critique that judges’ atti­
tudes influence the scale values in the Thurstone’s approach was
rebuked (Edwards & Kenney, 1946). Based on all those considerations,
the Thurstone’s approach of equally appearing intervals was selected for
the study.
It is worth mentioning that the Thurstone’s approach does not
include testing the scale for dimensionality and convergent and
discriminant validity, which might seem strange, as such analyses are
widely used in various studies involving scale development. Often,
scales that are created to measure a particular construct focus on a few
aspects of that construct at the stage of scale development, and these
aspects appear as sub-dimensions of that construct in the statistical an­
alyses. Because the Thurstone scale contains items which, by design,
represent the continuum (from 1 to 11) of attitudes toward the object-
based authenticity and because people who hold, say, primarily realist
S. Stepchenkova and H. Park
position can still agree with some constructivist positions, and because
people who, say, are largely constructivists can agree with some realist
and some postmodernist positions, some factors that can be found using
factor analysis are largely statistical artifacts. Confirmatory factor
analysis cannot be used, either, since items with the values, say, 3, 4, and
5 will most likely load on both realist and constructivist attitudes and
items, say 7, 8, and 9 will load on both constructivist and postmodernist
attitudes. We conducted a Principle Component Analysis to verify this
explanation using several subsets of our data. We found that 2–3 items
around the realist and postmodernist poles and the constructivist center
of the attitude continuum were keeping together, with other items
“floating” between those factors and sometimes forming their own fac­
tors. Thus, by design, the validity of the scale is ensured by the integrity
of the scale constructing procedure, parallel-form tests, and through
hypotheses testing.
The distribution of the authenticity orientation score favored the
realist and constructivist attitudes, in line with previous study by Step­
chenkova and Belyaeva (2020) who found that only 17% of Russian
tourists self-identified as postmodernists. While there were quite a few
people who agreed with items on the postmodernist side of the scale,
there were no people with “strictly postmodernist” attitudes, as the
highest score was 8.75. Granted, we should allow for the possibility that
(1) the scale is not perfect and needs additional tuning and testing; and
(2) attitudes of some people are just not well defined. We made an effort
to minimize the first concern through rigorous construction procedure
and testing of the scale. Selection of the survey respondents through
several qualifying questions was meant to minimize the effect of the
other potential concern. The next step in this line of research would be to
reduce the number of items and to obtain the most parsimonious version
of the scale.
6.1. Practical implications
Although consumer behavior has been constantly changing with
different generations coming to the market to exercise their financial
power, understanding tourists’ desire for searching authenticity has
been regarded as one of the important drivers for hospitality and tourism
marketers (Hughes, 1995; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006; Wang, 1999). The
findings of this study contribute to understanding of how tourists
perceive object-based authenticity in different contexts, that is, sites
with genuine historical artifacts and places where authenticity is
recreated, reconstructed, and interpreted. With the ever expanding
boundaries of the authenticity narratives, malleable borders between
various interpretational traditions, and increasing acceptance of
constructivist and postmodernist stances on authenticity, releasing the
tension between indexical and iconic authenticity can be done by
highlighting whichever authenticity type is more aligned with the na­
ture of a particular destination or attraction.
The results of the study have implications for the post Covid-19 era of
tourism as well. While there is a huge uncertainty as to how soon the
tourism industry will recover, one thing seems certain: for a prolonged
period of time tourists and visitors to various attractions will be
extremely conscious to the crowdedness level of tourist sites. In such a
situation, explication of where a particular site stands with regard to
object-based authenticity and which techniques, systems, and devices
are used to create authenticity at the site might help decrease the
number of visits made by people who do not associate themselves with
that site’s type of authenticity, in other words, whose authenticity
orientation is incompatible with the authenticity presented at the site.
We hope that the findings will help marketers in setting up strategies
that would provide tourists with unique and enjoyable experiences in
either setting through targeted communications of the nature of a
particular attraction and a more nuanced comprehension of the
“connection point” between the essence of the site and tourists’
authenticity orientation. Since for a fair share of consumers authenticity
is not necessarily object-based, marketers could create authentic
12
Tourism Management 83 (2021) 104249
experiences with iconic cues as well. For this reason, tourist experience
design will become the critical issue in destination development, which
would require a nuanced knowledge of tourists’ preferences and atti­
tudes for a more sophisticated segmentation.
7. Conclusion
Understanding and interpretating authenticity in prior studies is
often entrenchend in qualitative approach at the phenomenological
level (Hayllar & Griffin, 2005). However, previous research that has
theoretically examined authenticity, even though it tacitly recognizes
realist, constructivist, and postmodernist authenticity orientation, had
made no systematic attempt to disambiguate authenticity as a set of
attitudes and personal values regarding touristic objects, attractions,
and sites. Thus, we explicated attitudes toward object-based authen­
ticity along the entire realist-constructivist-postmodernist spectrum and
come up with the set of 24 opinion items using the Thurstone’s method
of equally appearing intervals to determine the underlying attitudes. We
further provided empirical evidence that the newly developed scale is a
reliable indicator of the authenticity orientation. The predictive validity
of the scale is demonstrated using eight destinations as reference points.
The results indicate that people indeed differ on how they regard
authenticity of tourist artifacts and sites and in their authentication
process of those objects and attractions. The main theoretical contri­
bution that stems from the analyses but needs to be verified in future
research is that in the authentication process indexical authenticity cues
are taken into account by tourists from both ends of the authenticity
orientation spectrum and also between the ends. While postmodernists
can appreciate indexically authentic sites, realists are less likely to
consider recreated sites authentic.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to our international colleagues and doctoral students
for their expert ranking of the initial set of authenticity orientation
items. Their help is invaluable for this research.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104249.
Credit author statement
Svetlana Stepchenkova: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Funding
acquisition; Methodology; Supervision; Writing - original draft, review
and editing. Hyejin Park: Project administration; Formal analysis;
Writing - original draft
Impact statement
This study developed an authenticity orientation scale to measures
the attitudes of tourists toward object-based authenticity of cultural and
historic artifacts, attractions, and tourist sites. The researchers employ
Thurstone’s method of equally appearing intervals (Thurstone, L.L.
1928. Attitudes can be measured. The American Journal of Sociology,
26, 249–269). We explicated attitudes toward object-based authenticity
along the entire realist-constructivist-postmodernist spectrum and come
up with the set of 24 attitudinal items using the Thurstone method of
equally appearing intervals. We further provided empirical evidence
that the newly developed scale is a reliable indicator of tourists attitudes
toward authenticity. The predictive validity of the scale is demonstrated
S. Stepchenkova and H. Park
using eight destinations as reference points. The results indicate that
people do indeed differ on how they regard authenticity of tourist arti­
facts and sites and in their authentication process of those objects and
attractions. The main theoretical contribution that stems from the ana­
lyses but needs to be further verified in future research is that in the
authentication process indexical authenticity cues are taken into ac­
count by tourists from both ends of the authenticity orientation spec­
trum and also between the ends. While postmodernists can appreciate
indexically authentic sites, realists are less likely to consider recreated
sites authentic.
References
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Belhassen, Y., Caton, K., & Stewart, W. P. (2008). The search for authenticity in the
pilgrim experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), 668–689.
Bernardi, C. (2019). Authenticity as a compromise: A critical discourse analysis of sámi
tourism websites. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 14(3), 249–262.
Boorstin, D. J. (1964). The image: A guide to pseudo-events in America. Vintage.
Bruner, E. M. (1994). Abraham Lincoln as authentic reproduction: A critique of
postmodernism. American Anthropologist, 96(2), 397–415.
Bruner, J. (1996). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In
N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118–137).
London: Sage.
Buchmann, A., Moore, K., & Fisher, D. (2010). Experiencing film tourism: Authenticity &
fellowship. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1), 229–248.
Castéran, H., & Roederer, C. (2013). Does authenticity really affect behavior? The case of
the strasbourg christmas market. Tourism Management, 36, 153–163.
Chhabra, D. (2005). Defining authenticity and its determinants: Toward an authenticity
flow model. Journal of Travel Research, 44(1), 64–73.
Chhabra, D. (2008). Positioning museums on an authenticity continuum. Annals of
Tourism Research, 35(2), 427–447.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.
Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13(2), 179–201.
Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 15(3), 371–386.
Cohen, E. (1995). Contemporary tourism-trends and challenges: Sustainable authenticity or
contrived post-modernity? Change in tourism: People, places, processes.
Cohen, E., & Cohen, S. A. (2012). Current sociological theories and issues in tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4), 2177–2202.
Cole, S. (2007). Beyond authenticity and commodification. Annals of Tourism Research,
34(4), 943–960.
Comte, A. (1858). Positive philosophy. C. Blanchard.
Culler, J. (1981). Semiotics of tourism. The American Journal of Semiotics, 1(1/2),
127–141.
Curran, R., Baxter, I. W., Collinson, E., Gannon, M. J., Lochrie, S., Taheri, B.,
Thompson, J., & Yalinay, O. (2018). The traditional marketplace: Serious leisure and
recommending authentic travel. Service Industries Journal, 38(15–16), 1116–1132.
Czikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:
Harper & Row.
Dalal, D. K., Carter, N. T., & Lake, C. J. (2014). Middle response scale options are
inappropriate for ideal point scales. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(3),
463–478.
Eco, U. (1986). Semiotics and the philosophy of language (Vol. 398). Indiana University
Press.
Edwards, A. L., & Kenney, K. C. (1946). A comparison of the Thurstone and Likert
techniques of attitude scale construction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30(1), 72.
Gergen, K. J. (1990). Toward a postmodern psychology. The Humanistic Psychologist, 18
(1), 23–34.
Goulding, C. (2000). The commodification of the past, postmodern pastiche, and the
search for authentic experiences at contemporary heritage attractions. European
Journal of Marketing, 34(7), 835–853.
Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality
and their influence on assessments of authentic market offerings. Journal of Consumer
Research, 31(2), 296–312.
Green, P. E., & Rao, V. R. (1970). Rating scales and information recovery—how many
scales and response categories to use? Journal of Marketing, 34(3), 33–39.
Guttentag, D. A. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism.
Tourism Management, 31(5), 637–651.
Guttman, L. (1944). A basis for scaling qualitative data. American Sociological Review, 9
(2), 139–150.
Hassan, I. (1985). The culture of postmodernism. Theory, Culture & Society, 2(3),
119–131.
Hayllar, B., & Griffin, T. (2005). The precinct experience: A phenomenological approach.
Tourism Management, 26(4), 517–528.
Hernández, J. M., Kirilenko, A. P., & Stepchenkova, S. (2018). Network approach to
tourist segmentation via user generated content. Annals of Tourism Research, 73,
35–47.
Hughes, G. (1995). Authenticity in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4), 781–803.
13
Tourism Management 83 (2021) 104249
Hulka, B. S., Zyzanski, S. J., Cassel, J. C., & Thompson, S. J. (1970). Scale for the
measurement of attitudes toward physicians and primary medical care. Medical care,
8(5), 429–436.
Kim, H., & Jamal, T. (2007). Touristic quest for existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism
Research, 34(1), 181–201.
Kolar, T., & Zabkar, V. (2010). A consumer-based model of authenticity: An oxymoron or
the foundation of cultural heritage marketing? Tourism Management, 31(5), 652–664.
Lee, S., Phau, I., Hughes, M., Li, Y. F., & Quintal, V. (2016). Heritage tourism in
Singapore chinatown: A perceived value approach to authenticity and satisfaction.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 33(7), 981–998.
Leigh, T. W., Peters, C., & Shelton, J. (2006). The consumer quest for authenticity: The
multiplicity of meanings within the MG subculture of consumption. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 481–493.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology.
Liu, M. J., Yannopoulou, N., Bian, X., & Elliott, R. (2015). Authenticity perceptions in the
Chinese marketplace. Journal of Business Research, 68(1), 27–33.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1979). In G. Bennington, & B. Massumi (Eds.), 1984. The postmodern
condition: A report on knowledge, trans-lated. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist
settings. American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589–603.
Meng, B., & Choi, K. (2018). An investigation on customer revisit intention to theme
restaurants. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(3),
1646–1662.
Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Brand
authenticity: An integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 25(2), 200–218.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2d Ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Olsen, K. (2002). Authenticity as a concept in tourism research: The social organization
of the experience of authenticity. Tourist Studies, 2(2), 159–182.
O’Connor, K., Carroll, G. R., & Kovacs, B. (2017). Disambiguating authenticity:
Interpretations of value and appeal. PloS One, 12(6).
Panda, K., & Kanungo, R. (1964). Scale of measurments of attitudes towards family
planning. Indian Journal of Social Work, 25(2), 125–130.
Park, E., Choi, B.-K., & Lee, T. J. (2019). The role and dimensions of authenticity in
heritage tourism. Tourism Management, 74, 99–109.
Peterson, E. R., Deary, I. J., & Austin, E. J. (2003). The reliability of Riding’s cognitive
style analysis test. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(5), 881–891.
Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating
scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta
Psychologica, 104(1), 1–15.
Ramkissoon, H., & Uysal, M. S. (2011). The effects of perceived authenticity, information
search behaviour, motivation and destination imagery on cultural behavioural
intentions of tourists. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(6), 537–562.
Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C. J. (2006). Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals of
Tourism Research, 33(1), 65–86.
Revilla, G., & Dodd, T. H. (2003). Authenticity perceptions of Talavera pottery. Journal of
Travel Research, 42(1), 94–99.
Rickly-Boyd, J. M. (2012). Authenticity & aura: A benjaminian approach to tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 269–289.
Roberts, J. S., Laughlin, J. E., & Wedell, D. H. (1999). Validity issues in the Likert and
Thurstone approaches to attitude measurement. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 59(2), 211–233.
Salamone, F. A. (1997). Authenticity in tourism: The san angel inns. Annals of Tourism
Research, 24(2), 305–321.
Salmela, M. (2005). What is emotional authenticity? Journal for the Theory of Social
Behaviour, 35(3), 209.
Spielmann, N., Babin, B. J., & Manthiou, A. (2018). Places as authentic consumption
contexts. Psychology and Marketing, 35(9), 652–665.
Stepchenkova, S., & Belyaeva, V. (2020). The effect of authenticity orientation on
existential authenticity and postvisitation intended behavior. Journal of Travel
Research, Article 0047287519899989.
Taylor, J. P. (2001). Authenticity and sincerity in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 28
(1), 7–26.
Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33(4),
529–554.
Thurstone, L., & Chave, E. (1929). The measurement of attitude. Chicago University.
Chicago Press.
Torabian, P., & Arai, S. M. (2016). Tourist perceptions of souvenir authenticity: An
exploration of selective tourist blogs. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(7), 697–712.
Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism
Research, 26(2), 349–370.
Wright, J. H., & Hicks, J. M. (1966). Construction and validation of a Thurstone scale of
liberalism—conservatism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50(1), 9.
Yi, X., Fu, X., Yu, L., & Jiang, L. (2018). Authenticity and loyalty at heritage sites: The
moderation effect of postmodern authenticity. Tourism Management, 67, 411–424.
Yi, X., Lin, V. S., Jin, W., & Luo, Q. (2017). The authenticity of heritage sites, tourists’
quest for existential authenticity, and destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research,
56(8), 1032–1048.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12(3), 341–352.
Zatori, A., Smith, M. K., & Puczko, L. (2018). Experience-involvement, memorability and
authenticity: The service provider’s effect on tourist experience. Tourism
Management, 67, 111–126.
S. Stepchenkova and H. Park
Svetlana Stepchenkova, PhD, is Associate Professor at the
Department of Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management at
the University of Florida, Gainesville, USA. Her research in­
terests are in the area of marketing communications, branding,
and positive image building. She studies tourism behavior and
the effectiveness of destination promotion in situations of
strained bilateral relations between nations. She is also inter­
ested in usability of user-generated content for managerial
decision making in destination management.
14
Tourism Management 83 (2021) 104249
Hyejin Park is a second-year PhD student at the Department of
Tourism, Hospitality, and Event Management at the University
of Florida, Gainesville, USA. Her research interests include
destination management & marketing, online information
diffusion in tourism, and comparative research on cultural
differences in tourism