878509

research-article2019
JTRXXX10.1177/0047287519878509Journal of Travel ResearchLunardo and Ponsignon

Empirical Research Article

Journal of Travel Research

Achieving Immersion in the Tourism

2020, Vol. 59(7) 1151­–1167
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Experience: The Role of Autonomy, sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0047287519878509
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287519878509

Temporal Dissociation, and Reactance journals.sagepub.com/home/jtr

Renaud Lunardo1 and Frédéric Ponsignon2

Abstract
In the past two decades, research in tourism has explored the shift to the experiential economy in which consumers
(visitors) seek memorable experiences. While prior studies converge toward the idea that immersion is a critical dimension
of the tourism experience, research on immersion remains scarce, particularly the conditions under which immersion is
achieved and its consequences on visitor evaluations. To fill this gap, this research builds on the experiential and flow
literature to propose a model where immersion derives from autonomy and leads to greater visitor satisfaction through
the underlying mechanism of temporal dissociation. Additionally, it is proposed that reactance moderates the relationship
between autonomy and temporal dissociation. Two empirical studies—a field study in an experiential wine museum and an
experiment involving a zoo visit—provide robust evidence of these effects, fostering theoretical progress on immersion and
subsequent temporal dissociation as important dimensions of the tourism experience.

Keywords
tourism experience, immersion, autonomy, temporal dissociation, visitor satisfaction, reactance

Introduction visitors are fully engrossed in the environment and absorbed

Following the emergence of the experience economy concept
(Pine and Gilmore 1998), the consumer experience is now
widely recognized as the cornerstone of tourism (Tussyadiah
2014). The perception of tourists as active and emotional
actors looking for immersive experiences when visiting
museums, zoos, theme parks, heritage sites, or art galleries
(Handler and Gable 1997; Hansen and Mossberg 2013) has
led tourism managers to pay particular attention to the design
of their settings. Considerable resources are dedicated to
designing complex, thematic, and refined environments
(Bonn et al. 2007; Sherry 1998) that lead to an immersive,
enjoyable, and memorable escape from reality for visitors
(Morgan, Elbe, and de Esteban Curiel 2009; Otto and Richie
1996; Ritzer 1999). This trend is exemplified by the Burns
Birthplace Museum in Ayrshire, where visitors can put on 3D
glasses and walk into a digital recreation of the Battle of
Bannockburn. Similarly, virtual reality and augmented reality
applications for smartphones increasingly allow immersive
visit of cities, castles, and museums. Another example is the
proliferation of IMAX theatres showcasing 3D immersive
cinematography making visitors feel part of the film, rather
than just passive observers (Stuart 2006).
Although recognized as a powerful emotional state by
marketers (Carù and Cova 2007; Novak, Hoffman, and Yung
2000), such immersion—or the psychological state in which
in their activities (Chang 2018)—has only recently been the
focus of tourism research (Lindberg, Hansen, and Eide 2014;
Vo Thanh and Kirova 2018). A consequence is that the fac-
tors that may induce feelings of immersion in a tourism set-
ting, and the mechanisms that explain why an immersive
experience contributes to visitor satisfaction (Hansen and
Mossberg 2013), remain unexplored. This lack of research
on the effects of immersion is surprising given that visitor
satisfaction—likely an outcome of their immersion—drives
various desirable behaviors (i.e., repurchasing and repatron-
age intention; Szymanski and Henard 2001).
To fill this gap, this article builds on the experiential (Pine
and Gilmore 1998; Carù and Cova 2006) and flow literature
streams (Csikszentmihalyi 1990) to propose that the degree
of autonomy that visitors perceive during a visit explains
their propensity to immerse themselves, and their satisfac-
tion with the experience. Although autonomy—or the
freedom to choose or behave as wanted (Levav and Zhu
1
Marketing Department, KEDGE Business School, Talence, France
2
Operations Management Department, KEDGE Business School, Talence,
France
Corresponding Author:
Frédéric Ponsignon, Operations Management Department, KEDGE
Business School, 680 Cours de la Libération, Talence 33405, France.
Email: frederic.ponsignon@kedgebs.com
1152 Journal of Travel Research 59(7)
2009)—is a fundamental aspect of the motivation to engage
in tourism experiences in general (Smith 1994; Li, Chung,
and Kim 2018), and in museum experiences in particular
(Silverman 1995), knowledge of its effects in tourism set-
tings remains scarce (Caruana and Crane 2011). Considering
this gap, this research examines whether and how such
autonomy can affect immersion and satisfaction. In addition,
this article investigates the mechanisms that explain why
immersion may lead to an increase in visitor satisfaction.
Although prior studies provide evidence of this direct effect
(Cuny, Fornerino, and Helme-Guizon 2015; Fornerino and
Helme-Guizon 2008), the mechanisms that explain how
immersion drives satisfaction remain unclear. Relying on the
temporal processing (Block 1990) literature, we propose that
the temporal dissociation phenomenon—that is, “the inabil-
ity to register the passage of time while engaged in interac-
tion” (Agarwal and Karahanna 2000, p. 673)—explains why
immersion is likely to enhance visitor satisfaction.
Further, we address the question of whether all visitors
respond positively to the level of perceived autonomy. This
question is important since tourism providers sometimes
struggle to find the right level of autonomy they should grant
visitors. For instance, Ponsignon, Durrieu, and Bouzdine-
Chameeva (2017) report that the designers of an experiential
cultural organization gave visitors complete autonomy to
explore a 3,000-m2 space in any way they liked. While the
majority of visitors reported enjoying the freedom inherent
in the experience, some declared their unease and a frustrat-
ing (e.g., “I fear I may have missed something interesting”)
or confusing experience (e.g., “I do not know if I visited the
various thematic areas in the right order”). Research is there-
fore needed to provide a better understanding of the individ-
ual factors that can explain why visitors react either positively
or negatively to autonomy, and the impact of autonomy on
the visitor experience. In this research, we propose reac-
tance—that is, a motivational state experienced in response
to threatened freedom (Brehm and Brehm 1981; Wicklund
1974)—as such a variable. Building on reactance theory
(Brehm 1966), we posit that visitors differ in their responses
to autonomy, with greater temporal dissociation emerging as
a response to autonomy only when people exhibit a high
level of reactance.
In what follows, we present a series of hypotheses
addressing the effect of immersion on visitor satisfaction that
we test in two studies. The first study, performed in a leading
experiential wine museum, shows that the higher the degree
of autonomy that visitors perceive, the greater the feelings of
immersion and satisfaction. Importantly, this study also iden-
tifies temporal dissociation as the underlying mechanism
that explains why immersion increases satisfaction. Our sec-
ond study replicates these findings in another context using
an experimental design. Drawing on Winer (1999, p. 350),
who states that external validity involves “generalizing the
results to other settings and population beyond the current
research setting,” the second study was conducted in the
context of a zoo. To provide external validity for our model
and results, our studies were thus performed in two tourism
settings (a wine museum and a zoo) using different research
designs (a field study and an experiment), measures (short-
ened and full-length scales), and samples (actual visitors vs.
online participants). In so doing, this research allows a
deeper investigation of the effects of autonomy and strength-
ens the external validity. In addition, the experiment offers a
further contribution by showing that reactance moderates the
effects of autonomy on the consequence of immersion, tem-
poral dissociation, and more specifically, that only for highly
reactant visitors, autonomy leads to greater feelings of losing
track of time.
Theoretical Background
Tourism Experience and Immersion
The emergence of the experience economy (Pine and
Gilmore 1998) has triggered a shift in the marketing disci-
pline, leading to a plethora of research dedicated to under-
standing consumer experiences (e.g., Carù and Cova 2006;
Holbrook 2006a, 2006b, 2006c; Gentile, Spiller, and Noci
2007). This shift has been beneficial to the tourism disci-
pline, with more research specifically focused on how to
design and manage the tourist experience (Quan and Wang
2004; Tussyadiah 2014; Yuan and Wu 2008). Prior studies
suggest that consumers value extraordinary and memorable
experiences and that tourism providers increasingly focus on
the provision of such experiences (Oh, Fiore, and Jeoung
2007; Hosany and Witham 2010).
The concept of immersion is central to the creation and
consumption of memorable tourism experiences (Lindberg
and Østergaard 2015; Carù and Cova 2006). When the envi-
ronment is designed in such a way that visitors are encour-
aged to physically (e.g., touching, smelling, walking) or
mentally (i.e., thinking or watching) connect with a given
event or performance, they are able to immerse themselves in
the experience and become “physically (or virtually) a part of
the experience itself” (Pine and Gilmore 1999, p. 31). For
instance, McIntyre (2009, p. 165) shows that museums and
art galleries providing a mix of space types (e.g., contempla-
tive and participative) enable visitors to immerse themselves
in a meaningful experience of learning and discovering. More
generally, tourism settings that make visitors feel engrossed
and deeply engaged with the activities at hand captivate visi-
tors and are consensually viewed as highly immersive
(Hosany and Witham 2010). The extent to which tourists or
visitors feel immersed in the experience is particularly impor-
tant since immersive experiences tend to be more memorable
than ordinary experiences (Tung and Ritchie 2011).
Immersion thus represents a process whereby the indi-
vidual disconnects from the real world, a disconnection that
is either a sudden dive or a more gradual envelopment in the
experiential environment (Fornerino and Helme-Guizon
Lunardo and Ponsignon 1153
2008). In addition to this process-oriented perspective,
immersion also refers to a state characterized as “an intense
moment experienced by the consumer and the result of a par-
tial or complete process of appropriation” (Carù and Cova
2006, p. 60). Immersed consumers have all their senses fully
engaged in the activity performed (Agarwal and Karahanna
2000). They are described as detached and highly concen-
trated on the activity at hand that becomes the focal point of
their thoughts and feelings (Brown and Cairns 2004).
Immersion is thus related but also conceptually distinct from
the flow construct. Flow considers a broad set of psychologi-
cal states as it includes affective and cognitive dimensions.
In particular, enjoyment is widely seen as a core dimension
of flow experiences (Drengner, Steffen, and Furchheim
2018). The focus of immersion is, however, centered on a
person’s concentration on the task at hand (i.e., a cognitive
dimension). The immersion concept is hence more focused.
How Autonomy Can Prompt Immersion: An
Appropriation Perspective
Since immersion occurs when the distance is minimal
between the consumer and the context in which the experi-
ence takes place (Carù and Cova 2006), the concept of dis-
tance is central in the immersion process. One way to reduce
distance and facilitate immersion is an “operation of appro-
priation” that Carù and Cova (2006, p. 6) define as “the mark
of a fundamental psychological system of action on the con-
text of experience in order to transform and personalize it.”
More specifically, three major appropriation operations are
often distinguished (Fischer and Atkin-Etienne 1997;
Mifsud, Cases, and N’Goala 2015). The first is “nesting,” a
process whereby visitors try to control the place, such that
they can feel at home. The second is “investigating,” an oper-
ation during which visitors try to explore and identify new
products or activities to develop points of anchorage and
control (signposts). By investigating, visitors aim to enhance
their knowledge of the experience setting and extend their
territory. The third and last appropriation operation is “stamp-
ing,” describing a meaning-making process whereby visitors
attribute a specific and personal meaning to an experience.
In this set of operations that aim to facilitate the appro-
priation of—and subsequent immersion in—the experience,
consumers need a certain degree of freedom. In other words,
since appropriation refers to the consumers’ ability to make
the place their own, it may require a certain degree of auton-
omy. Consumers need the freedom to choose how to behave
in the focal environment in order to be able to act on that
environment, to personalize it, and make it feel like home.
Such freedom is consensually labeled as autonomy (e.g.,
Levav and Zhu 2009; Markus and Schwartz 2010). As the
belief that one can freely choose how to behave in a specific
situation (Deci and Ryan 1985; White 1959), autonomy
refers to the extent to which people feel free to initiate their
own actions (Deci and Ryan 2000).
Visitor autonomy is an important consideration in the
design of tourism experiences (Caruana and Crane 2011). As
tourists are often presented with a range of options, the expe-
rience of exploring a tourism site involves a series of deci-
sions of where to go and what to do or see next (Smith 1994).
Reisinger (2013) notes that tourists tend to relish the oppor-
tunity to choose what to do and how to do it by themselves.
Similarly, Bianchi (2016) shows that freedom of choice is a
key driver of satisfaction for the solo tourist. This effect is
due to the increased level of control that autonomous indi-
viduals can exert over the activities performed to achieve
their goals (Deci and Ryan 2000). In high-autonomy situa-
tions, visitors perceive a great sense of control over the situ-
ation, as they make their own decisions to participate or not
in any given activity. Carù and Cova (2006) explain that con-
sumers who perceive a sufficient degree of control are able to
familiarize themselves with the environment in which the
experience takes place. According to these authors, this
familiarity is a prerequisite for consumers to become
immersed. Drawing on human–computer interactions
research, Ghani and Deshpande (1994) provide empirical
support for the notion that perceived autonomy influences
feelings of immersion. Their study shows that videogame
players are more likely to be captivated by games that give
them full control over their actions.
In a tourism context, autonomous visitors may familiarize
themselves with the range of activities or attractions avail-
able, which may put them in a position to select the ones they
feel most attracted to based on personal relevance or prefer-
ence. Such visitors are also able to spend the desired amount
of time in the attraction. The empirical study of Minkiewicz,
Evans, and Bridson (2013) conducted in museums supports
this view, showing that when visitors are given the opportu-
nity to personalize their visit, they are able to immerse them-
selves in the experience. We therefore posit that visitors are
more likely to focus intensely on an experience that they
have purposefully chosen. In contrast, visitors with limited
autonomy may not invest sufficient time and effort to dive
straight and fully into an experience that is imposed on them.
Rather, they may be more easily distracted by other features
of the environment, which may inhibit their ability to con-
centrate on the experience. As freedom may be needed for
visitors to engage in operations of appropriation, which facil-
itates immersion, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: The greater the degree of autonomy per-
ceived by the visitor, the greater the feeling of immersion.
Immersion as a Disconnection That Contributes
to the Experience
When immersing themselves in an event, performance, or
place, individuals disconnect from the real world (Carù and
Cova 2006). Hence, visitors who are deeply immersed in an
experiential environment may forget about—and even lose
1154 Journal of Travel Research 59(7)
consciousness of—the real world, focusing on the experi-
ence taking place (Fornerino and Helme-Guizon 2008). Such
loss of consciousness is a key element in Csikszentmihalyi’s
(1990) description of the flow experience where the autotelic
nature of the activity results in individuals losing track of
time. A time distortion phenomenon might thus occur when
people are immersed and lose consciousness of the external
world. Such distortion refers to the notion of temporal dis-
sociation, or “the inability to register the passage of time
while engaged in interaction” (Agarwal and Karahanna
2000, p. 673).
It is important to note that immersion is conceptually dis-
tinct from the temporal dissociation construct. Immersion
specifically relates to an attention state where the target is the
activity (i.e., the person’s attention is totally focused on the
activity). Temporal dissociation only relates to a person’s
time consciousness, that is, the (in)ability to register the pas-
sage of time. Hence, the targets of the two concepts are dif-
ferent: immersion is focused on an activity and temporal
dissociation relates to time consciousness, a lack of aware-
ness of time passing by. These two constructs have been
identified as uncorrelated in prior research, for instance, by
Agarwal and Karahanna (2000).
Previous research on temporal processing provides theo-
retical support for the notion of immersion as a source of
temporal dissociation. As visitors become immersed, they
focus entirely on the activity being performed. Their atten-
tion may therefore be directed toward some nontemporal
processing, which involves thinking about things that are
unrelated to the passage of time during the target interval
(Bailey and Areni 2006). A decrease in attention to temporal
information results in less encoded information on the pas-
sage of time (Block 1990), and as less temporal information
is encoded, the subjective experience of the interval reduces
and estimates of duration decrease. Therefore, as they
become immersed, visitors may estimate the time as less
than the time actually spent during their immersion. They
may thus experience a phenomenon of temporal dissociation.
Hence, we posit:
Hypothesis 2: The greater the degree of immersion per-
ceived by the visitor, the greater the feeling of temporal
dissociation.
Hypothesis 3: Immersion will positively mediate the indi-
rect effect of visitor autonomy on temporal dissociation.
Since immersion is often described as a key component of
flow-type or optimal experiences (Csikszentmihalyi 1997),
and as flow refers to a state of particular enjoyment, there
is reason to believe that immersion generates increased
satisfaction for visitors. Research showing that enjoyment
can result from participating in immersive activities or
processes that offer a sense of escape from everyday
monotony (Mathwick, Malhotra, and Rigdon 2001)
supports this reasoning. Additional theoretical evidence
from consumer culture research highlights the consumer’s
quest to experience immersion in thematic settings, rather
than merely focusing on the quality and attributes of fin-
ished products (Firat and Venkatesh 1995). However, the
question remains as to how visitors respond to the tempo-
ral dissociation phenomenon that follows immersion, and
more specifically, whether such temporal dissociation is
beneficial to satisfaction. One answer can be drawn from
the temporal processing literature and attentional models.
In the field of time perception in service settings, some
authors—such as Lopez and Malhotra (1991) and Cameron
et al. (2003)—find that respondents’ time estimates are
negatively correlated with their reported liking of the ser-
vice setting. This suggests that when time is perceived as
longer, satisfaction decreases. Therefore, by reducing the
time perception, temporal dissociation may increase the
liking of the experience, or more broadly, visitor satisfac-
tion. We thus propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: The greater the degree of temporal dissoci-
ation perceived by the visitor, the greater the level of visi-
tor satisfaction.
Hypothesis 5: Immersion and temporal dissociation will
serially mediate the indirect effect of autonomy on visitor
satisfaction.
The subsequent study is designed to test these five
hypotheses.
Study 1: The Field Study
The goal of study 1 was to test hypotheses 1−3 in the real
world, and thus provide evidence for the notion that visitor
immersion and temporal dissociation serially mediate the
effects of autonomy on satisfaction.
The field study is conducted in an experience-centric
wine museum. Research on museums has a long tradition in
the tourism literature. Scholars have explored a diversity of
phenomena, such as the museum image formation process
(Moreno and Ritchie 2009), the impact of a museum on the
attractiveness of an area (Brida, Meleddu, and Pulina 2012),
and their role as dark tourism sites (Cohen 2011). While a
curatorial orientation focused on visitor information and
object preservation is notable in early research endeavors
(Uriely 2005), a shift toward the visitor experience has been
observed over the past three decades (Falk and Dierking
2016). Accordingly, research focused on understanding visi-
tor characteristics and expectations, and examining the
dimensions of the visitor experience (Antón, Camarero, and
Garrido 2018; McIntyre 2009; Rowley 1999) has grown sig-
nificantly (Sheng and Chen 2012). The present study thus
falls within the realm of tourism research examining the con-
ditions under which visitors have a successful experience.
Lunardo and Ponsignon 1155
Procedure and Sample
We selected as the setting for our field study a recently
opened experience-centric wine museum (the ‘Permanent
Tour’ of La Cité du Vin1) that offers visitors a unique and
multisensory adventure. The Permanent Tour welcomed
445,000 paying visitors in 2017, which makes it the most
popular tourist attraction in southwestern France. The expe-
riential museum is situated in an open space consisting of 20
individual themed areas that address a variety of wine-related
topics. These modules collectively provide a good balance of
physical (e.g., pressing pear-shaped atomizers to release
wine-related aromas) and mental activities (e.g., watching
diverse vine landscapes filmed from a helicopter on extra-
large mural screens) along the visitor journey. The museum
setting is enclaved, thematic, and secure for visitors, making
it conducive to immersive experiences (Carù and Cova
2007), and therefore appropriate for this study (see Appendix
1 for a map of the permanent tour). As they needed assistance
in designing and implementing a visitor satisfaction study,
the Cité du Vin management team contacted the authors.
The field study took place over three consecutive days in
February 2018. Visitors were asked at the entrance of the
museum if they wanted to participate in a study about their
experience, and those who agreed were invited to wear a
wristband so that the researchers would know exactly whom
to interview once visitors exited the museum space. They
were also asked to go to the top floor of the museum at the
end of the visit to respond to a questionnaire. Four students
were hired, trained, and remunerated to facilitate the admin-
istration of the questionnaire, as attendance data suggested
that many customers visit the museum at the same time and
for a similar duration, leading to large numbers of visitors to
interview at the same time. Hence, six people—researchers
included—administered the surveys using digital tablets to
minimize the risk of data entry and processing errors. In
total, 394 customers agreed to participate and completed the
survey. Data from customers under the age of 18 years were
removed. The final sample was thus composed of 384 visi-
tors. Regarding the sociodemographic characteristics, 204
visitors were women (53%), and the mean age was 47.15
(SD =15.85). The vast majority (90.6%) reported being first-
time visitors.
Measures
All the measures used in the questionnaire were drawn from
prior research. Nevertheless, as the executives at the museum
explicitly asked that visitors not be bothered by a long ques-
tionnaire, several multi-item scales were shortened. More
specifically, visitors first rated their satisfaction with the visit
using a three-item scale adapted from Machleit, Kellaris, and
Eroglu (1994): “I was satisfied with my experience in the
museum,” “I enjoyed visiting that museum,” and “Visiting
that museum made me feel happy”; α = .85. This measure
was included up-front to avoid any common method vari-
ance bias (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Then, visitors completed a
three-item measure of temporal dissociation adapted from
Agarwal and Karahanna (2000): “Time appeared to go by
very quickly,” “I lost track of time,” and “Time flew”; α =
.70. Visitors then rated their feelings of immersion using a
two-item scale adapted from Agarwal and Karahanna (2000):
“I was able to block out most other distractions” and “I was
absorbed in what I am doing”; α = .80. Visitors then rated
how much autonomy they perceived having in the museum
on a two-item scale adapted from Song and Zinkhan (2008)
to fit the context of the current study: “I was able to choose
to which area of the museum to go” and “I could choose
freely what area I wanted to explore”; α = .73. All the state-
ments were rated on Likert-type scales (1 = strongly dis-
agree, 10 = strongly agree). The 1-10 scale was chosen by
Cité du Vin’s management team.
To test for the convergent validity of the scales, we used
the procedure of Hair et al. (2005) where the variance
extracted from among a set of construct items must be higher
than 0.5. All the multi-item scales showed convergent valid-
ity (Table 1).
To test the discriminant validity among the constructs, we
used the procedure that Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggest.
In spite of some significant correlations among the con-
structs, the average variance extracted for each was higher
than the squared correlation between these constructs and
any other construct, supporting the discriminant validity of
the measures (Table 2).
Results
To test hypotheses 1–3, we performed a mediation analysis
using the Process macro and 5,000 bootstrap samples. Here,
autonomy served as the independent variable, immersion as
the mediating variable, and temporal dissociation as the
dependent variable. The results show a significant indirect
effect of autonomy on temporal dissociation (β = .07, 95%
CI = .039, .114). More specifically, autonomy has a positive
effect on immersion (β = .25, p < .001), which then increases
temporal dissociation (β = .29, p < .001). Of note, auton-
omy has a direct positive effect on temporal dissociation (β
= .11, p < .01; Figure 1). Overall, these results support
hypotheses 1–3, and the notion that immersion mediates the
effect of visitor autonomy on temporal dissociation.
Turning now to hypotheses 4 and 5, we performed a serial
mediation (Process Macro, 5,000 bootstrap samples). Here,
autonomy served as the independent variable, immersion and
temporal dissociation as the mediating variables, and satis-
faction as the dependent variable. The results show signifi-
cant serial mediation (β = .12, 95% CI = .004, .022), thus
supporting the prediction that immersion and temporal dis-
sociation serially mediate the effect of autonomy on satisfac-
tion. In this serial mediation, both immersion (β = .47, p <
.001) and temporal dissociation (β = .15, p < .001) have a
1156 Journal of Travel Research 59(7)

Table 1.  The Measures Used in the Studies and Their Psychometric Properties (Studies 1 and 2).

Study 1 (Wine Museum) Study 2 (Zoo)

Measures Loadings Reliability Loadings Reliability

Satisfaction with the visit
  I would probably be (was) satisfied with my visit of the zoo/museum .871 .850 .944 .945
  I would probably enjoy(ed) visiting that zoo/museum .868 .961  
  Visiting that zoo/museum would make (made) me feel happy – .942  
 
Temporal dissociation
  Time would appear(ed) to go by very quickly .801 .702 .883 .875
  I would lose (lost) track of time .846 .875
  Time would fly (flew) .731 .916
  I would end up spending more time than I had planned – .755  
   
Immersion
  I would be (was) able to block out most other distractions .921 .807 .862 .807
  I would be (was) absorbed in what I am doing .917 .832  
  My attention would (did) not get diverted very easily – .861  
 
Autonomy
  I would be (was) able to choose which area of the zoo to go to .858 .728 .959 . 951
  I could freely choose what area I want to explore .854 .975
  I would have (had) absolute full control over where I could go – .930
   
Reactance
  I resist the attempts of others to influence me – – .696 .773
  It makes me angry when another person is held up as a model for – .714  
me to follow
  I become frustrated when I am unable to make free and – .841  
independent decisions
  I become angry when my freedom of choice is restricted – .829  

Note: The items slightly differed across studies 1 and 2, as they were adapted to fit the museum and zoo settings.

Table 2.  Squared Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations (Studies 1 and 2).

Mean
(SD) 1 2 3 4 5
Study 1 (Wine museum)  
  Satisfaction (1) 8.57 (1.28) .870 .609** .599** .285** –
  Temporal dissoc. (2) 7.79 (1.63) .165 .630 .439** .274** –
  Immersion (3) 8.44 (1.41) .358 .192 .840 .349** –
  Autonomy (4) 7.95 (1.97) .081 .075 .121 .729 –
   
Study 2 (Zoo)  
  Satisfaction (1) 5.32 (1.26) .900 .407** .419** .240** –.077
  Temporal dissoc. (2) 5.22 (1.10) .165 .738 .391** .146** .045
  Immersion (3) 4.88 (1.00) .175 .171 .725 .234** –.088
  Autonomy (4) 4.53 (1.78) .057 .075 .054 .911 .074
  Reactance (5) 4.67 (1.06) .005 .002 .007 .005 .597

Note: The squared correlations among constructs appear below the diagonal; the correlations appear above the diagonal. The average variance
extracted (AVE) for each construct is on the diagonal. Constructs are measured on a 10-point Likert-type scale in study 1, while 7-point measures are
used in study 2.
*
p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Lunardo and Ponsignon 1157
βStudy1 = .29*
βStudy2 = .41***
Immersion
βStudy1 = .25***
βStudy2 = .31***
βStudy1 = .11**
βStudy2 = .19†
Autonomy
Figure 1.  The mediating effects of immersion and temporal dissociations in the autonomy–satisfaction relationship (studies 1 and 2).
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, †p < .10.
positive effect on satisfaction. Autonomy has no significant
effect (p > .10). Overall, these results support hypotheses 4
and 5.
Discussion
Study 1 provides support for the notion that visitor immer-
sion and temporal dissociation serially mediate the posi-
tive effect of autonomy on satisfaction. Put differently,
visitors who feel they can freely choose how to behave and
live their experience reported greater feelings of immer-
sion than visitors who felt less autonomous, and because
they were more immersed in the experience, they exhibited
greater loss of track of time and their satisfaction in turn
increased.
Although we identify autonomy as an antecedent of
immersion, our first study did not address the question of
whether all visitors react the same way to such autonomy.
Extant theory posits that this may not be the case, as different
people seek and enjoy different kinds of experiences (Cohen
1979). This proposition has garnered empirical support in the
literature. In particular, in their qualitative study, Uriely,
Yonay, and Simchai (2002) found that backpackers consti-
tute a highly heterogeneous tourist population in terms of
psychological attributes, such as their travel motivations and
their perceptions of the travel experience. Similarly, Bianchi
(2016) suggests that researchers take into account personal
factors or traits to explore and understand differences in indi-
vidual perceptions of the tourism experience. Since auton-
omy refers to the ability to choose how to behave (White
1959; Deci and Ryan 2000), visitors—and more broadly
individuals—who value such freedom may react more posi-
tively to autonomy. In this regard, research shows that one
particular construct tackles this value of freedom of choice:
reactance. Brehm (1966) defines reactance as a motivational
state to reassert lost freedom of choice. Reactance theory
explains human behavior in response to the perceived loss of
freedom in an environment, and more specifically, assumes
that individuals cherish their ability to choose from among
Temporal
dissociaon βStudy1 = .15***
βStudy2 = .60***
βStudy1 = .47***
βStudy2 = .27***
Sasfacon
alternatives such that whenever an alternative is threatened
or eliminated, reactance occurs, and the motivation to pursue
the restricted freedom increases dramatically (Brehm 1966).
As research supports the notion that individuals value their
freedom of choice (Fitzsimons 2000; Moore and Fitzsimons
2014), one could argue that such reactance is a common trait
observed at a high level in every individual. However,
research does not support this view, and rather shows that
individuals vary in trait reactance, a personality trait that
defines how much people value their freedom of choice and
react negatively when such freedom is threatened. Research
on trait reactance shows a positive association between
autonomy and trait reactance, where highly reactant individ-
uals routinely rebel against authority figures (Dowd et al.
1994). Such highly reactant individuals (vs. less reactant
individuals) are particularly motivated to re-establish the
threatened freedom (Brehm 1966; Wicklund 1974).
Hence, we suggest that in the context of experiential tour-
ism settings, visitors who are highly reactant—and thus who
value being able to visit a place or site autonomously—may
exhibit stronger positive responses than those who do not
place such weight on autonomy. One potential response of
interest for this research lies in temporal dissociation. This
proposition builds on time perception research showing that
when people experience states of positive feelings, they tend
to underestimate how much time has elapsed. For instance,
people with arachnophobia reported longer estimates of a
short interval spent observing a spider compared to those
who did not report such phobia (Watts and Sharrock 1984).
Another experiment shows that people who make eye con-
tact with a person with a negative facial expression report
longer time estimates than those who make eye contact with
a person with a positive facial expression (Thayer and Schiff
1975). Considering these results showing that time estimates
are lower when people feel positive states, we propose that
the autonomy given to visitors with a high (vs. low) trait
reactance leads them to underestimate the time spent in the
tourist setting due to the positive state that results from their
autonomy. In other words, as such visitors may particularly
1158 Journal of Travel Research 59(7)
Figure 2.  The theoretical model.
Note: Full lines represent relationships that are hypothesized and tested; dotted lines represent relationships that are not hypothesized but nevertheless
tested through the mediation analyses.
value their autonomy, their positive feelings may lead to
greater temporal dissociation. Hence, we propose:
Hypothesis 6: Customer reactance will moderate the
effect of autonomy on temporal dissociation. More spe-
cifically, for highly reactant customers, autonomy will
lead to higher levels of temporal dissociation than for less
reactant customers.
The addition of this hypothesis leads to the following
complete theoretical model (Figure 2).
Study 2: The Zoo Experiment
Beyond replicating the results observed in study 1, study 2
aims to examine whether all visitors react the same way to
autonomy. More specifically, study 2 explores reactance as
an individual trait able to explain when customers benefit
from autonomy.
This experimental study is conducted in a zoo setting.
Zoos make an important contribution to the development of
the tourism sector by simultaneously playing the role of
tourism attractions and conservation organizations (Driml,
Ballantyne, and Packer 2017). Tourism research on zoos
has explored a range of phenomena including the character-
istics of on-site and off-site conservation activities (Turley
1999), the financial impact of a new attraction (Driml,
Ballantyne, and Packer 2017), and the mission of zoos as
sustainable eco-tourism destinations. Previous visitor-ori-
ented research has focused on exploring visitor motivations
(Klenosky and Saunders 2007), visitor preferences, and
animal attractiveness (Carr 2016). Recently, an experience-
centric approach has begun to explore the dimensions of the
visitor experience, examining the relationship between
experience quality, visitor satisfaction, and loyalty (Wu,
Cheng, and Hong 2017). The present study is positioned in
this visitor and experience-centric perspective.
Participants, Design, and Procedure
A panelist recruited 375 US individuals (55.5% female,
MAge = 42.88, SD = 9.62, ranging from 28 to 65) online to
participate in this study. In terms of occupation, 57.6% are
employed, 16.8% are self-employed, 10.9% are unemployed,
and 4.8% are retired. Students and other occupations repre-
sent 9.3% of the sample. Statistics provided by the US
Association of Zoos & Aquariums show that visitors are pri-
marily women/mothers, aged 25–35 years,1 suggesting that
our sample is reasonably representative of the target popula-
tion, and thus suitable for the study. To test the notion that
autonomy leads to increasing immersion and consequently
satisfaction, we manipulated autonomy as a between-sub-
jects factor (low vs. high). In both the low and high auton-
omy conditions, the respondents were asked to read a
scenario about visiting a zoo, to project themselves in the
situation described by the scenario, and to carefully inspect a
map of the zoo. However, as in previous studies (Chen and
Sengupta 2014; Zhang et al. 2011), in the low-autonomy
condition the scenario constrained individual choice, as par-
ticipants were told they had to follow a compulsory path that
they could not deviate from (see Appendix 2 for the maps
and scenarios). The respondents were presented with a map
showing this compulsory path with green dots. Importantly,
to avoid any confounding effects, the compulsory path
included the most popular animals, exactly the same animals
as in the high-autonomy condition. In this latter condition,
the scenario did not constrain individual choice, and no men-
tion was made of any compulsory path either in the scenario
or the map.
After reading the scenario and inspecting the map, partici-
pants were asked to complete a questionnaire. We set a
Lunardo and Ponsignon 1159
quality check as a means to ensure the validity of the data.
We formulated and inserted in the questionnaire an attention
filter (addressing common method bias) as “if you read this
please check “strongly disagree.” Responses that did not
meet this specification (n = 29) were removed from the data-
set. The measures were the same as in study 1, but adapted to
the context of this study (see Table 1). Also, unlike in study 1
where some items had to be dropped, study 2 employs the
complete measurement scales. Specifically, and as in study
1, participants first rated their satisfaction with the visit using
the same three-item scale (α = .94). They then completed the
same measure of temporal dissociation used in study 1, but
here using four items (α = .87). They then rated their immer-
sion, using the three-item scale of Agarwal and Karahanna
(2000; α = .80). For manipulation check purposes, partici-
pants rated how much autonomy they would perceive having
in the zoo using three items from Song and Zinkham (2008)
(α = .95). All the statements were rated on Likert-type scales
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
Finally, to test the predicted moderating role of trait reac-
tance, participants completed the Hong and Faedda (1996)
reactance scale. The factorial analysis revealed the scale as
bidimensional, with two eigenvalues greater than 1 (Hair
et al. 2005). After a close look at the factorial structure and
the items loading on each dimension, it appeared that the first
dimension—composed of the four items “I resist the attempts
of others to influence me,” “It makes me angry when another
person is held up as a model for me to follow,” “I become
frustrated when I am unable to make free and independent
decisions,” and “I become angry when my freedom of choice
is restricted”—was the most closely related to reactance and
its essential notion of choice restriction. This four-item scale
proved reliable (α = .77; 7-point scale from “not at all” to
“extremely”) and was thus retained for further analyses.
Here again, all the multi-item scales exhibited convergent
and discriminant validity (Tables 1 and 2).
Manipulation Check
To ensure that the manipulation of autonomy was success-
ful, we conducted a t-test for the independent samples with
the autonomy treatment condition as the independent vari-
able and the measure of autonomy as the dependent vari-
able. As expected, the result shows a significant difference
of autonomy across conditions, with perceived autonomy
rated higher in the high-autonomy condition (M = 5.80)
than in the low-autonomy condition (M = 3.31, t = −18.93,
p < .001).
Results
Turning to the test of the notions that autonomy affects
immersion and that immersion mediates the effect of auton-
omy on temporal dissociation, we performed two analyses.
The first analysis tested hypothesis 1 and involved a t-test for
the independent samples. Manipulation of autonomy served
as the independent variable and the measure of visitor immer-
sion as the dependent variable. The results show a significant
difference of immersion across the conditions of autonomy,
the latter variable rated higher when autonomy is high
(M = 5.04) compared to low (M = 4.73, t = −3.06, p < .01).
This result supports hypothesis 1.
Then, we performed a mediation analysis to test hypoth-
eses 2 and 3 using the Process macro (model 4, 5,000 boot-
strap samples). Here, manipulation of autonomy served as
the independent variable, immersion as the mediating vari-
able, and temporal dissociation as the dependent variable. As
in study 1, the results show a significant indirect effect of
autonomy on temporal dissociation (95% CI = .049, .230).
More specifically, autonomy has a positive effect on immer-
sion (β = .31, p < .01), which then increases temporal dis-
sociation (β = .41, p < .001). Hypotheses 2 and 3 are thus
supported.
Turning to the serial mediation, we followed the same
procedure as in study 1, but here with manipulation of auton-
omy as the independent variable. Again, a significant serial
mediation effect is found (95% CI = .030, .145), whereby
the aforementioned positive effects of autonomy and immer-
sion are followed by a positive effect of temporal dissocia-
tion on satisfaction (β = .60, p < .001). Of note, autonomy
only has a marginal effect on temporal dissociation (β = .19,
p = .07), and no direct effect on satisfaction (β = –.00, p <
.01). Immersion has a positive effect on satisfaction (β =
.27, p < .001). Overall, these results support hypotheses 4
and 5 and the notion that immersion and temporal dissocia-
tion mediate the effect of visitor autonomy on satisfaction.
The last analysis pertained to the predicted moderating
role of reactance in the effect of autonomy on temporal dis-
sociation. To avoid any loss of statistical power, we chose
not to dichotomize the reactance measure (Fitzsimons 2008)
and performed a floodlight analysis (Spiller et al. 2013)
using the Process macro and 5,000 bootstrap samples. Here,
the autonomy condition served as the independent variable,
temporal dissociation as the dependent variable, and the
measure of reactance as moderator. The results show no main
effects of autonomy and reactance (all p’s > .10), but as
expected, their interaction is significant (β = .21, p < .05).
We plot this interaction in Figure 3, using the Johnson-
Neyman technique for identifying regions in the range of the
moderator variable in which the effect of the independent
variable on the dependent variable is and is not significant
(Hayes and Matthes 2009). The Johnson-Neyman point for
the reactance moderator occurs at the value 4.31. This value
indicates that a high level of autonomy results in signifi-
cantly higher levels of temporal dissociation for values of
reactance greater than 4.31. These results thus support
Hypothesis 6 and the notion that reactance moderates the
effect of autonomy on temporal dissociation, with highly
reactant customer experiencing greater temporal dissociation
when autonomous (vs. not).
1160 Journal of Travel Research 59(7)
Figure 3.  The moderating role of reactance in the autonomy–temporal dissociation relationship.
Discussion
Study 2 replicates the results of study 1 showing that auton-
omy leads to higher visitor satisfaction, since being autono-
mous leads customers to more fully immerse and consequently
lose track of time to a greater extent. Moreover, and of
importance, study 2 identifies reactance as an individual trait
that explains why visitors react positively or negatively to
autonomy. More specifically, our results show that when
visitors are highly reactant—and thus do not appreciate hav-
ing their freedom constrained—being autonomous has a
positive effect and leads to strong levels of temporal disso-
ciation, while not being autonomous leads to lower percep-
tions of losing track of time.
General Conclusion
This research examines how the degree of perceived auton-
omy facilitates visitor immersion in the experience, and how
such immersion can affect their satisfaction with the visit.
Through a field study and an experiment, we first demon-
strate that visitors are more immersed and exhibit more satis-
faction when they can experience their visit autonomously.
Importantly, we identify temporal dissociation as the under-
lying mechanism that explains why being more immersed in
a tourism activity can lead to an increase in satisfaction. In
other words, as immersion makes visitors lose track of time,
such immersion fosters greater satisfaction in their experi-
ence. Further, we demonstrate the moderating role of trait
reactance in the effects of autonomy on immersion, whereby
highly reactant visitors experience more temporal dissocia-
tion when they can visit the tourism setting autonomously.
Theoretical Implications
The results we obtained in two different settings offer several
important theoretical contributions. A first contribution
relates to extending the still-scarce literature on immersion
by demonstrating that a way to help visitors achieve an
immersive state lies in autonomy. Immersion is shown to
result from the visitor’s interaction with an enclosed, safe,
thematic experiential context (Carù and Cova 2006), but its
emergence as a response to autonomy remained unidentified.
The identification of immersion as a result of high levels of
autonomy is important for two reasons. First, immersive
states are consensually seen as a required condition for
enjoyment and experiential value (Chung et al. 2017). We
provide an explanation for why autonomy can help visitors
derive higher value from their tourism experiences: provid-
ing visitors with greater freedom of choice is beneficial to
engaging in immersive states, which is helpful to better
understand the emergence of visitor value. Second, auton-
omy has been shown to exert positive effects on motivation
and learning (Levesque et al. 2004), but its ability to help
visitors immerse themselves in the experience remained
unexamined. Our research thus contributes by identifying
immersion as a novel outcome of autonomy.
Second, turning to temporal dissociation as an effect of
immersion, our research identifies trait reactance as a vari-
able that helps distinguish between visitors who exhibit
greater or lesser temporal dissociation as a reaction to their
freedom. This result helps to reconcile previous inconsistent
findings in the literature on museum experiences, which sug-
gests either directing visitors and referring them to key activ-
ities and exhibits (Goulding 2000), or enabling visitors to
create their own personal journeys (Minkiewicz, Evans, and
Bridson 2013). Our study shows under what conditions it is
appropriate to provide or restrict the visitors’ freedom of
choice. Specifically, the results show that visitors who are
high in reactance—and thus enjoy being able to choose how
to behave—exhibit greater temporal dissociation as a
response to their autonomy than visitors who are low in reac-
tance. This latter group may be subject to the “tyranny of
choice” syndrome, also referred to as choice overload,
Lunardo and Ponsignon 1161
describing situations where freedom of choice is seen as a
form of tyranny (Schwartz 2000): having to choose from
among a variety of options is a demotivating factor for cer-
tain individuals (Iyengar and Lepper 2002) who prefer hav-
ing their freedom of choice constrained. Reactance has been
shown to moderate a wide array of behaviors—from goal
pursuit (Chartrand, Dalton, and Fitzsimons 2007) to choice
of unhealthy food products (Fitzsimons and Lehmann
2004)—but its identification as a moderating variable of the
effects of autonomy is new, showing that autonomy is bene-
ficial only for visitors who are highly reactant.
In addition, this research contributes to the wide tourism
literature that focuses on how visitor satisfaction is formed
(e.g., Heung and Cheng 2000; Hui, Wan, and Ho 2007). In
the current work, we show that satisfaction is not directly
affected by immersion, but indirectly. More precisely, visitor
satisfaction results from the feelings of immersion induced
by autonomy, through the mediating effect of temporal dis-
sociation. By identifying this serial mediation linking auton-
omy, immersion, temporal dissociation, and satisfaction, our
research explains the emergence of satisfaction and the
sequence whereby autonomy can lead visitors to become sat-
isfied with their experience. Furthermore, this sequence
highlights the mediating role played by temporal dissocia-
tion in the relationship between immersion and satisfaction.
The current research thus contributes to the growing litera-
ture on immersion in tourism settings (e.g., Hosany and
Witham 2010; Oh, Fiore, and Jeoung 2007; Rasmi et al.
2014) by showing that temporal dissociation explains the
positive effect of immersion on visitor satisfaction.
Implications for Tourism Managers
The results of the studies presented in this article have impor-
tant implications for managers involved in the design and
management of tourism experiences. Specifically, they
address the important question of how to design an environ-
ment that enables visitors to immerse themselves in the expe-
rience. The results suggest how tourism managers can
configure their operations to support the creation of immer-
sive, fast-flying, and satisfying visitor experiences. The con-
cept of autonomy appears to be central to facilitating the
emergence of feelings of immersion, timelessness, and posi-
tive perceptions of the overall experience. Thus, we recom-
mend that managers adopt autonomy (freedom of choice) as
a key principle in designing tourism experiences. This
involves giving visitors sufficient freedom to explore a tour-
ism site or place without having to follow a predefined
sequence of activities or exhibits at a predetermined pace.
Furthermore, the results provide guidance for managers
who face the difficult design decision of either giving visi-
tors complete autonomy to explore a given site or place, or
restrict their autonomy. Consider, for instance, the free-
choice learning strategy adopted by many museums. Our
study clearly shows that “no one size fits all visitors” when it
comes to freedom of choice. Visitors who embrace freedom
relish the opportunity to create and personalize their own
experiences, which facilitates the achievement of immersive
and fast-flying tourism experiences. On the contrary, visitors
who do not like to make free and independent decisions find
it difficult to immerse themselves in the experience and do
not lose track of time. Such individuals are likely to value
recommendations and suggestions that help them explore a
given site or destination. Following research demonstrating
that individuals whose autonomy is threatened attempt to
restore their freedom, one important general recommenda-
tion for tourism sites lies in refraining from providing man-
datory paths or routes, and allowing visitors to behave freely
within the site or attraction. Giving visitors full autonomy
over their experience should be the default configuration to
minimize the risk of alienating highly reactant visitors.
Moreover, we propose a straightforward, practical, and reli-
able way to identify visitors exhibiting different degrees of
reactance. We recommend that managers of tourist attrac-
tions ask visitors a single question to assess the extent to
which they value and embrace freedom in general and, con-
sequently, guide them toward the right kind of experience.
Such question, based on an item exhibiting high facial valid-
ity within the reactance measurement scale, could be formu-
lated as follows: “I dislike being told what to see or where to
go when I visit a tourism destination/attraction.” Visitors
could be asked this question directly by an operator or indi-
rectly (e.g., online or self-service machine) when requesting
information, booking places, or buying tickets. Based on the
response obtained, low reactant visitors would be offered the
opportunity to take a guided, directed, or recommended tour.
In this case, visitors would accept giving up some freedom if
they have confidence in the attraction’s capacity to provide
them with an optimized experience (e.g., visitors can make
the most of their available time). By contrast, highly reactant
visitors could be offered a fully autonomous experience.
Such a contingent approach would be beneficial for visitors
and tourism providers. Most visitors would be in a position
to derive maximum value from their visit, as they would be
offered an experience that matches their personality traits
and preferences.
Finally, from an operations management perspective, the
impact of autonomy on congestion levels and on the subse-
quent visitor experience should not be underestimated.
Autonomous visitors are likely to spend an extended period
of time on site because of the serial relationship linking the
concepts of autonomy, immersion, and temporal dissocia-
tion. When all visitors are given complete freedom to explore
a site, congestion issues are more likely to occur. This may in
turn have a negative impact on the visitor experience, since
perceptions of social density affect experience quality
(Goulding 2000). More specifically, visitors entering a con-
gested area may feel that their freedom is reduced as they are
unable to see and do what they want when they want. This
issue is likely to be more salient in peak season when
1162 Journal of Travel Research 59(7)
attendance levels are high. On such occasions, the freedom
of some visitors may well interact with the freedom of fellow
visitors (Caruana and Crane 2011). It is therefore important
for tourism managers to consider the effects of visitor auton-
omy on crowding levels. For instance, it may be relevant to
propose several experiences with varying degrees of visitor
autonomy to ensure a smooth and regular flow of visitors and
avoid excessive crowding levels. To illustrate, while visitors
taking a directed option are guided in the same direction,
autonomous visitors are free to go where they want and
explore the space at their own pace. In addition to offering a
tailored experience to all visitors, offering distinct types of
visits could therefore reduce the risk of congestion and
queues, a major source of dissatisfaction.
Limitations and Avenues for Future Research
This study has some limitations that provide opportunities
for future research. First, we focus on visitor satisfaction as
the sole dependent variable. While a range of attitudinal and
behavioral variables could have been included in the theo-
retical model, our choice finds justification in the available
evidence in the literature. Specifically, empirical research in
the tourism literature broadly supports the existence of a
direct and positive relationship between experience quality,
satisfaction, and loyalty (e.g., Baker and Crompton 2000;
Chen and Chen 2010; Chi and Qu 2008). This suggests that
visitor satisfaction is a critical concept in tourism research
that is central to understanding how visitors evaluate their
experience, and predicting visitor loyalty. A second limita-
tion of the present research is that it does not take into
account visitor motivations. Research shows that motiva-
tions can deeply affect how people react to service environ-
ments (Kaltcheva and Weitz 2006), suggesting that autonomy
in a tourism setting can differently affect satisfaction depend-
ing on visitor motivations. Two main motivations are usually
distinguished to explain the visit to a setting: utilitarian and
recreational (Babin, Darden, and Griffin 1994). One question
pertaining to motivations thus relates to the level of immer-
sion that visitors exhibit as a response to the interaction
between their autonomy and their motivations. For utilitarian
and thus task-oriented visitors, their motivation to reach a
specific goal might lead them to exhibit more positive
responses to autonomy, which may help them in their quest.
Nevertheless, one may wonder if autonomy is always benefi-
cial for such utilitarian visitors, especially if they do not have
the required competence or knowledge to benefit from such
autonomy. Consider a visitor to a museum who aims to learn
more about a specific topic, autonomy may here be benefi-
cial only if the visitor has sufficient knowledge of the
museum to visit it autonomously in such a way that this
autonomy enables him or her to optimize the visit. Further
research is thus needed to explore the question of the effects
of autonomy for tourists with specific motivations.
Furthermore, the recent boom in the use of personalized
recommendation systems in the form of digital platforms and
assistants is notable in the tourism sector. These smart tools
strive to support the creation of tailored visits by providing
visitors with a recommended path or journey according to
their personal preferences or fatigue levels, real-time crowd-
ing levels, and peer ratings (Rodríguez-Díaz and Pulido-
Fernández 2018; Zheng, Liao, and Qin 2017). Although
intended to help visitors optimize their experiences, personal
planners reduce, at least partly, visitors’ autonomy. Since
they follow individualized recommendations prompting
attending specific sections in a predetermined order, visitors
are less likely to visit the site in an exploratory manner. This
suggests the need for scholars to investigate the relationship
between smart companions in tourism settings, consumers’
autonomy, and experience quality.
Finally, it would be interesting to examine how first-time
and non–first-time visitors differ in their responses to auton-
omy and the resulting impact on immersion. Such difference
may be observed as visitors who are familiar with a place are
more likely to wish to behave freely in any tourism setting.
Previous research in the consumer behavior domain suggests
that those who are familiar with their immediate consump-
tion environment find it easier to fully access the experience
and are more likely to become immersed in that experience
(Carù and Cova 2006).
Lunardo and Ponsignon 1163

Appendix 1: Map of the Permanent Tour of Cité du Vin (Study 1)

Source: https://www.laciteduvin.com/en/experience-la-cite-du-vin/the-permanent-tour.

Appendix 2: Maps and Scenarios of the
Zoo (Study 2)
To manipulate the level of perceived autonomy, participants
were randomly assigned to one of the following two scenar-
ios and maps about a hypothetical experience visiting a zoo:
Low Autonomy Condition
It’s just past noon on a Saturday, and none of your friends are
around. You find what’s on TV too dull to watch. You feel
very, very bored. Given that it’s a fine day weather-wise, you
decide to do something outdoors. You opt to visit a recently
opened zoo nearby to relieve the sense of boredom. The zoo
cares for a wide range of animals from various species. This
is the first time you visit this zoo. This 28-hectare zoo is
home to more than 2,600 individual animals of 340 species.
To help you visit the zoo, you are invited to consult the map
that will be shown next. The map indicates the compulsory
path from which you cannot deviate. This path is designated
by green dots and includes the most popular animals (indi-
cated by a bold pink-colored circle). Please take the time to
look at the map and then spend a couple of minutes trying to
project yourself visiting the zoo.
1164 Journal of Travel Research 59(7)
High Autonomy Condition
It’s just past noon on a Saturday, and none of your friends are
around. You find what’s on TV too dull to watch. You feel
very, very bored. Given that it’s a fine day weather-wise, you
decide to do something outdoors. You opt to visit a recently
opened zoo nearby to relieve the sense of boredom. The zoo
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Frédéric Ponsignon https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0194-5236
Note
1. https://www.aza.org/partnerships-visitor-demographics.
References
Agarwal, R., and E. Karahanna. 2000. “Time Flies When You’re
Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption and Beliefs about
Information Technology Usage.” MIS Quarterly 24 (4): 665–94.
Antón, C., C. Camarero, and M. J. Garrido. 2018. “Exploring
the Experience Value of Museum Visitors as a Co-Creation
Process.” Current Issues in Tourism 21 (12): 1406–25.
Babin, B. J., W. R. Darden, and M. Griffin. 1994. “Work and/or
Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value.”
Journal of Consumer Research 20 (March): 644–56.
cares for a wide range of animals from various species. This
is the first time you visit this zoo. This 28-hectare zoo is
home to more than 2,600 individual animals of 340 species.
To help you visit the zoo, you are invited to consult the map
that will be shown next. Please take the time to look at the
map and then spend a couple of minutes trying to project
yourself visiting the zoo.
Bailey, N., and C. S. Areni. 2006. “When a Few Minutes Sound
Like a Lifetime: Does Atmospheric Music Expand or Contract
Perceived Time?” Journal of Retailing 82 (3): 189–202.
Baker, D. A., and J. L. Crompton. 2000. “Quality, Satisfaction and
Behavioral intentions.” Annals of Tourism Research 27 (3):
785–804.
Bianchi, C. 2016. “Solo Holiday Travellers: Motivators and Drivers
of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction.” International Journal of
Tourism Research 18 (2): 197–208.
Block, R. A. 1990. “Models of Psychological Time?” In Cognitive
Models of Psychological Time, 1–35. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Bonn, M. A., S. M. Joseph-Mathews, M. Dai, S. Hayes, and J. Cave.
2007. “Heritage/Cultural Attraction Atmospherics: Creating
the Right Environment for the Heritage/Cultural Visitor.”
Journal of Travel Research 45 (February): 345–54.
Brehm, J. W. 1966. A Theory of Psychological Reactance. New
York: Academic Press.
Brehm, S. S., and J. W. Brehm. 1981. Psychological Reactance: A
Theory of Freedom and Control. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Brida, J. G., M. Meleddu, and M. Pulina. 2012. “Understanding
Urban Tourism Attractiveness: The Case of the Archaeological
Ötzi Museum in Bolzano.” Journal of Travel Research 51 (6):
730–41.
Brown, E., and P. Cairns. 2004. “A Grounded Investigation of
Game Immersion.” In CHI’04 Extended Abstracts on Human
Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1297–300.
Lunardo and Ponsignon 1165
Cameron, M. A., J. Baker, M. Peterson, and K. Braunsberger. 2003.
“The Effects of Music, Wait-Length Evaluation, and Mood on
a Low-Cost Wait Experience.” Journal of Business Research
56 (6): 421–30.
Carr, N. 2016. “An Analysis of Zoo Visitors’ Favourite and Least
Favourite Animals.” Tourism Management Perspectives
20:70–76.
Carù, A., and B. Cova. 2006. “How to Facilitate Immersion in a
Consumption Experience: Appropriation Operations and
Service Elements.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 5 (1): 4–14.
Carù, A., and B. Cova, eds. 2007. “Consumer Immersion in an
Experiential Context.” In Consuming Experience, 34–47.
London: Routledge.
Caruana, R., and A. Crane. 2011. “Getting Away from It All:
Exploring Freedom in Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research
38 (4): 1495–515.
Chang, S. 2018. “Experience Economy in the Hospitality and Tourism
Context.” Tourism Management Perspectives 27:83–90.
Chartrand, T. L., A. N. Dalton, and G. J. Fitzsimons. 2007.
“Nonconscious Relationship Reactance: When Significant
Others Prime Opposing Goals.” Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology 43:719–26.
Chen, C. F., and F. S. Chen. 2010. “Experience Quality, Perceived
Value, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions for Heritage
Tourists.” Tourism Management 31 (1): 29–35.
Chen, F., and J. Sengupta. 2014. “Forced to Be Bad: The Positive
Impact of Low-Autonomy Vice Consumption on Consumer
Vitality.” Journal of Consumer Research 41 (4): 1089–107.
Chi, C. G. Q., and H. Qu. 2008. “Examining the Structural
Relationships of Destination Image, Tourist Satisfaction
and Destination Loyalty: An Integrated Approach.” Tourism
Management 29 (4): 624–36.
Chung, N., H. Lee, J. Y. Kim, and C. Koo. 2017. “The Role of
Augmented Reality for Experience-Influenced Environments:
The Case of Cultural Heritage Tourism in Korea.” Journal of
Travel Research 57 (5): 627–43.
Cohen, E. 1979. “Rethinking the Sociology of Tourism.” Annals of
Tourism Research 6 (1): 18–35.
Cohen, E. H. 2011. “Educational Dark Tourism at an In Populo
Site: The Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem.” Annals of Tourism
Research 38 (1): 193–209.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1990. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal
Experience: Steps toward Enhancing the Quality of Life. New
York: Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1997. Finding Flow. New York: Basic.
Cuny, C., M. Fornerino, and A. Helme-Guizon. 2015. “Can Music
Improve E-behavioral Intentions by Enhancing Consumers’
Immersion and Experience?” Information & Management
52:1025–34.
Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-
Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan. 2000. “The ‘What’ and ‘Why’ of
Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of
Behavior.” Psychological Inquiry 11:227–68.
Dowd, E. T., F. Wallbrown, D. Sanders, and J. M. Yesenosky. 1994.
“Psychological Reactance and Its Relationship to Normal
Personality Variables.” Cognitive Therapy and Research 18
(6): 601–12.
Drengner, J., J. Steffen, and P. Furchheim. 2018. “Flow Revisited:
Process Conceptualization and a Novel Application to Service
Contexts.” Journal of Service Management 29 (4): 703–34.
Driml, S., R. Ballantyne, and J. Packer. 2017. “How Long Does an
Economic Impact Last? Tracking the Impact of a New Giant
Panda Attraction at an Australian Zoo.” Journal of Travel
Research 56 (5): 613–24.
Falk, J. H., and L. D. Dierking. 2016. The Museum Experience.
London: Routledge.
Firat, A. F., and A. Venkatesh. 1995. “Liberatory Postmodernism
and the Reenchantment of Consumption.” Journal of Consumer
Research 22 (December): 239–67.
Fischer, G. N., and R. Atkin-Etienne. 1997. Individuals and
Environment: A Psychosocial Approach to Workspace. Berlin,
Germany: De Gruyter.
Fitzsimons, G. J. 2000. “Consumer Response to Stockouts.”
Journal of Consumer Research 27 (2): 249–66.
Fitzsimons, G. J. 2008. “Death to Dichotomizing.” Journal of
Consumer Research 35 (1): 5–8.
Fitzsimons, G. J., and D. R. Lehmann. 2004. “Reactance to
Recommendations: When Unsolicited Advice Yields Contrary
Responses.” Marketing Science 23 (1): 82–94.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation
Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.”
Journal of Marketing Research 18:39–50.
Fornerino, M., and A. Helme-Guizon. 2008. “Movie Consumption
Experience and Immersion: Impact on Satisfaction.” Recherche
et Applications en Marketing 23 (3): 93–109.
Gentile, C., N. Spiller, and G. Noci. 2007. “How to Sustain
the Customer Experience: An Overview of Experience
Components that Co-create Value with the Consumer.”
European Management Journal 25 (5): 395–410.
Ghani, J. A., and S. P. Deshpande. 1994. “Task Characteristics
and the Experience of Optimal Flow in Human–Computer
Interaction.” Journal of Psychology 128 (4): 381–91.
Goulding, C. 2000. “The Museum Environment and the Visitor
Experience.” European Journal of Marketing 34 (3/4): 261–
78.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and R. L.
Tatham. 2005. Multivariate Data Analysis. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Handler, R., and E. Gable. 1997. The New History in an Old
Museum: Creating the Past at Colonial Williamsburg. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press.
Hansen, A. H., and L. Mossberg. 2013. “Consumer Immersion:
A Key to Extraordinary Experiences.” In Handbook on the
Experience Economy, edited by J. Sundbo and F. Sørensen,
209–27. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Hayes, A. F., and J. Matthes. 2009. “Computational Procedures for
Probing Interactions in OLS and Logistic Regression: SPSS
and SAS Implementations.” Behavioral Research Methods 41
(August): 924–36.
Heung, V. S., and L. Cheng. 2000. “Assessing Tourists’ Satisfaction
with Shopping in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
of China.” Journal of Travel Research 38 (May): 396–404.
Holbrook, M. B. 2006a. “The Consumption Experience—Something
New, Something Old, Something Borrowed, Something Sold:
Part 1.” Journal of Macromarketing 26 (2): 259–66.
Holbrook, M. B. 2006b. “The Consumption Experience—Something
New, Something Old, Something Borrowed, Something Sold:
Part 2.” Journal of Macromarketing 27 (1): 86–96.
Holbrook, M. B. 2006c. “The Consumption Experience—Something
New, Something Old, Something Borrowed, Something Sold:
Part 3.” Journal of Macromarketing 27 (2): 173–83.
1166 Journal of Travel Research 59(7)
Hong, S.-M., and S. Faedda. 1996. “Refinement of the
Hong Psychological Reactance Scale.” Educational and
Psychological Measurement 56 (1): 173–82.
Hosany, S., and M. Witham. 2010. “Dimensions of Cruisers’
Experiences, Satisfaction, and Intention to Recommend.”
Journal of Travel Research 49 (3): 351–64.
Hui, T. K., D. Wan, and A. Ho. 2007. “Tourists’ Satisfaction,
Recommendation and Revisiting Singapore.” Tourism
Management 28 (4): 965–75.
Iyengar, S. S., and M. R. Lepper. 2000. “When Choice Is
Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (6): 995–1006.
Kaltcheva, V. D., and B. A. Weitz. 2006. “When Should a Retailer
Create an Exciting Store Environment?” Journal of Marketing
70 (1): 107–18.
Klenosky, D. B., and C. D. Saunders. 2007. “Put Me in the Zoo!
A Laddering Study of Zoo Visitor Motives.” Tourism Review
International 11 (3): 317–27.
Levav, J., and R. Zhu. 2009. “Seeking Freedom through Variety.”
Journal of Consumer Research 36 (4): 600–10.
Levesque, C., A. N. Zuehlke, L. R. Stanek, and R. M. Ryan. 2004.
“Autonomy and Competence in German and American University
Students: A Comparative Study Based on Self-Determination
Theory.” Journal of Educational Psychology 96 (1): 68–84.
Li, J., Y. Chung, and W. G. Kim. 2018. “Freedom of Choice as
a Critical Success Factor in Destination Marketing: Empirical
Evidence from a Far-East Gambling City.” Tourism and
Hospitality Research 18 (3): 321–32.
Lindberg, F., and P. Østergaard. 2015. “Extraordinary Consumer
Experiences: Why Immersion and Transformation Cause
Trouble.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 14 (4): 248–60.
Lindberg, F., A. H. Hansen, and D. Eide. 2014. “A Multirelational
Approach for Understanding Consumer Experiences within
Tourism.” Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management
23 (5): 487–512.
Lopez, L., and R. Malhotra. 1991. “Estimation of Time Intervals
with Most Preferred and Least Preferred Music.” Psychological
Studies 36 (3): 203–9.
Machleit, K. A., J. J. Kellaris, and S. A. Eroglu. 1994. “Human
versus Spatial Dimensions of Crowding Perceptions in Retail
Environments: A Note on Their Measurement and Effect on
Shopper Satisfaction.” Marketing Letters 5 (2): 183–94.
Markus, H. R., and B. Schwartz. 2010. “Does Choice Mean
Freedom and Well-Being?” Journal of Consumer Research 37
(2): 344–55.
Mathwick, C., N. Malhotra, and E. Rigdon. 2001. “Experiential
Value: Conceptualization, Measurement and Application in
the Catalog and Internet Shopping Environment.” Journal of
Retailing 77 (1): 39–56.
McIntyre, C. 2009. “Museum and Art Gallery Experience Space
Characteristics: An Entertaining Show or a Contemplative
Bathe?” International Journal of Tourism Research 11 (2):
155–70.
Mifsud, M., A. S. Cases, and G. N’Goala. 2015. “Service
Appropriation: How Do Customers Make the Service Their
Own?” Journal of Service Management 26 (5): 706–25.
Minkiewicz, J., J. Evans, and K. Bridson. 2013. “How Do
Consumers Co-create Their Experiences? An Exploration in
the Heritage Sector.” Journal of Marketing Management 30
(1/2): 30–59.
Moore, S. G., and G. J. Fitzsimons. 2014. “Yes, We Have No
Bananas: Consumer Responses to Restoration of Freedom.”
Journal of Consumer Psychology 24 (4): 541–48.
Moreno, G. S., and J. B. Ritchie. 2009. “Understanding the Museum
Image Formation Process: A Comparison of Residents and
Tourists.” Journal of Travel Research 47(4): 480–93.
Morgan, M., J. Elbe, and J. de Esteban Curiel. 2009. “Has the
Experience Economy Arrived? The Views of Destination
Managers in Three Visitor-Dependent Areas.” International
Journal of Tourism Research 11 (2): 201–16.
Novak, T. P., D. L. Hoffman, and Y. F. Yung. 2000. “Measuring the
Customer Experience in Online Environments: A Structural
Modeling Approach.” Marketing Science 19 (1): 22–42.
Oh, H., A. M. Fiore, and M. Jeoung. 2007. “Measuring Experience
Economy Concepts: Tourism Applications.” Journal of Travel
Research 46 (November): 119–32.
Otto, J. E., and J. B. Ritchie. 1996. “The Service Experience in
Tourism.” Tourism Management 17 (3): 165–74.
Pine, B. J., and J. H. Gilmore. 1998. “Welcome to the Experience
Economy.” Harvard Business Review 76 (4): 97–105.
Pine, B. J., and J. H. Gilmore. 1999. The Experience Economy:
Work Is Theatre & Every Business a Stage. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff.
2003. “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research:
A Critical Review of the Literature.” Journal of Applied
Psychology 88 (5): 879–903.
Ponsignon, F., F. Durrieu, and T. Bouzdine-Chameeva. 2017.
“Customer Experience Design: A Case Study in the Cultural
Sector.” Journal of Service Management 28 (4): 763–87.
Quan, S., and N. Wang. 2004. “Towards a Structural Model of the
Tourist Experience: An Illustration from Food Experiences in
Tourism.” Tourism Management 25 (3): 297–305.
Rasmi, S., S. I. Ng, J. A. Lee, and G. N. Soutar. 2014. “Tourists’
Strategies: An Acculturation Approach.” Tourism Management
40:311–20.
Reisinger, Y. 2013. Transformational Tourism: Tourist Perspectives.
Oxfordshire, UK: CABI.
Ritzer, G. 1999. Enchanting a Disenchanted World. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Rodríguez-Díaz, B., and J. I. Pulido-Fernández. 2018. “Selecting
the Best Route in a Theme Park through Multi-objective
Programming.” Tourism Geographies 20 (5): 791–809.
Rowley, J. 1999. “Measuring Total Customer Experience in
Museums.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 11 (6): 303–8.
Schwartz, B. 2000. “Self-Determination: The Tyranny of Freedom.”
American Psychologist 55 (1): 79–88.
Sheng, C. W., and M. C. Chen. 2012. “A Study of Experience
Expectations of Museum Visitors.” Tourism Management 33
(1): 53–60.
Sherry, J. F. 1998. Servicescapes: The Concept of Place in
Contemporary Markets. Chicago: NTC Business Books.
Silverman, L. H. 1995. “Visitor Meaning-Making in Museums
for a New Age.” Curator: The Museum Journal 38 (3): 161–
70.
Smith, S. L. 1994. “The Tourism Product.” Annals of Tourism
Research 21 (3): 582–95.
Song, J. H., and G. M. Zinkhan. 2008. “Determinants of Perceived
Web Site Interactivity.” Journal of Marketing 72 (2): 99–113.
Lunardo and Ponsignon 1167
Spiller, S. A., G. J. Fitzsimons, J. G. Lynch Jr., and G. H.
McClelland. 2013. “Spotlights, Floodlights, and the Magic
Number Zero: Simple Effects Tests in Moderated Regression.”
Journal of Marketing Research 50:277–88.
Stuart, F. I. 2006. “Designing and Executing Memorable Service
Experiences: Lights, Camera, Experiment, Integrate, Action!”
Business Horizons 49:149–59.
Szymanski, D. M., and D. H. Henard. 2001. “Customer Satisfaction:
A Meta-analysis of the Empirical Evidence.” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 29 (Winter): 16–35.
Thayer, S., and W. Schiff. 1975. “Eye-Contact, Facial Expression,
and the Experience of Time.” Journal of Social Psychology
95:117–24.
Tung, V. W. S., and J. B. Ritchie. 2011. “Exploring the Essence
of Memorable Tourism Experiences.” Annals of Tourism
Research 38 (4): 1367–86.
Turley, S. K. 1999. “Conservation and Tourism in the Traditional
UK Zoo.” Journal of Tourism Studies 10 (2): 2–13.
Tussyadiah, I. P. 2014. “Toward a Theoretical Foundation for
Experience Design in Tourism.” Journal of Travel Research
53 (5): 543–64.
Uriely, N. 2005. “The Tourist Experience: Conceptual
Developments.” Annals of Tourism Research 32 (1): 199–216.
Uriely, N., Y. Yonay, and D. Simchai. 2002. “Backpacking
Experiences: A Type and Form Analysis.” Annals of Tourism
Research 29 (2): 520–38.
Vo Thanh, T., and V. Kirova. 2018. “Wine Tourism Experience:
A Netnography Study.” Journal of Business Research
83:30–37.
Watts, F. N., and R. Sharrock. 1984. “Fear and Time Estimation.”
Perceptual and Motor Skills 59:597–98.
White, R. W. 1959. “Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of
Competence.” Psychological Review 66 (5): 297–333.
Wicklund, R. A. 1974. Freedom and Reactance. Potomac, MD:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Winer, R. S. 1999. “Experimentation in the 21st Century: The
Importance of External Validity.” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 27 (3): 349–58.
Wu, H. C., C. C. Cheng, and W. Hong. 2017. “An Assessment of
Zoo Visitors’ Revisit Intentions.” Tourism Analysis 22 (3):
361–75.
Yuan, Y.-H., and C. Wu. 2008. “Relationship among Experiential
Marketing, Experiential Value, and Customer Satisfaction.”
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 32 (3):
387–410.
Zhang, Y., J. Xu, Z. Jiang, and S. C. Huang. 2011. “Been There,
Done That: The Impact of Effort Investment on Goal Value
and Consumer Motivation.” Journal of Consumer Research 38
(1): 78–93.
Zheng, W., Z. Liao, and J. Qin. 2017. “Using a Four-Step Heuristic
Algorithm to Design Personalized Day Tour Route within a
Tourist Attraction.” Tourism Management 62:335–49.
Author Biographies
Renaud Lunardo is an Associate Professor of Marketing at
KEDGE Business School. His primary research interests focus on
the effects of marketing in-store stimuli (e.g., atmospherics like
ambient scents, music, colors…) on store perceptions and infer-
ences of manipulative intent.
Frédéric Ponsignon is an Associate Professor of Operations
Management at KEDGE BS. His research primarily focuses
on the design of service delivery systems, customer experi-
ence management, quality management, and service recovery
management.