The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1754-2731.htm

The mediating role of visitor Satisfaction

in museum
satisfaction in the relationship experience
and WOM
between museum experience and
word of mouth: evidence from Italy
Massimiliano Vesci Received 10 February 2020
Revised 30 May 2020
Department of Management and Innovation Systems, 15 June 2020
Universita degli Studi di Salerno, Fisciano, Italy Accepted 16 June 2020

Emanuela Conti
Department of Economic, Social and Political Studies,
Universita degli Studi di Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, Italy
Chiara Rossato
Department of Business Administration, University of Verona, Verona, Italy, and
Paola Castellani
Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Economics, University of Verona,
Verona, Italy

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to analyse the quality of experience in the Italian art museum context and to
understand the mediating role of satisfaction between museum experiences and visitors’ word-of-mouth
(WOM) behavioural intentions.
Design/methodology/approach – This exploratory study adopted a quantitative methodology. Visitors to
Italian art museums were interviewed, and the results were examined using exploratory factor analysis and
regression analysis.
Findings – The analysis shows that the following museum experience dimensions were present in the Italian
art museum context: aesthetics, escapism and “edumotion”. Further, these dimensions positively affected
visitors’ overall satisfaction which mediates on WOM behavioural intentions.
Research limitations/implications – The small sample limits the generalisability of findings, and further
research on the topic is recommended.
Practical implications – Museums should allocate resources to improve visitor experience, visitor
satisfaction and museum attractions. Specifically, museum managers should invest in the three dimensions
that emerged from this study.
Originality/value – This study enriches the empirical evidence on experiential marketing in the museum
context by focussing on the mediating role of overall satisfaction in the relationship between museum
experience and WOM behaviours. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study investigating
this phenomenon in Italian museums.
Keywords Experience dimensions, Aesthetics, Education, Entertainment, Escapism, WOM
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In recent years, there has been increasing pressure on museums to widen their appeal to
attract a larger and more diverse range of visitors because of reduced museum budgets

We kindly thank Peter Aufreiter, Director of the National Gallery of the Marche (Urbino), Peter The TQM Journal
Assmann, Director of the Ducal Palace of Mantua and Sylvain Bellenger, Director of the Museum of © Emerald Publishing Limited
1754-2731
Capodimonte (Naples), for giving us the opportunity to undertake this study. DOI 10.1108/TQM-02-2020-0022
TQM (Goulding, 2000), increased competition and the new needs and desires of visitors (Kotler and
Kotler, 1998).
Therefore, the focus of museums has shifted from the collections to the audiences (Kotler
and Kotler, 2000), and museum studies have shifted from the importance of the museum
setting to facilitating satisfying experiences (McIntosh, 1999; Chan, 2009).
In fact, it is widely recognised that the quality of the customer experience is a fundamental
element in creating value (Pine and Gilmore, 1998, 1999; Pencarelli and Forlani, 2018) and
improving competitiveness in all kinds of organisations (Homburg et al., 2015). In an
increasing number of sectors, customers are no longer simply purchasing service delivery or
quality; rather, they are seeking unique and memorable experiences (Hemmington, 2007; Pine
and Gilmore, 1998; Kim and Chen, 2019).
As museums became more marketing oriented, they need to centre their research focus on
visitor experiences (Kelly, 2004); in particular, they need “to understand the experiential
world of museum visitors and to build upon the experiential platform for the museum
experiences in terms of what, why and how in relation to museum are vital information for
marketing of museum service experiences” (Chan, 2009, p. 175).
Museum visitors seek holistic and sophisticated experiences that are not only cognitive
but also emotional and social experiences (Brida et al., 2016; Del Chiappa et al., 2014) and
involve active participation (Sheng and Chen, 2012) in experiencing cultural heritage. Hence,
museums are expected to satisfy contemporary visitors’ needs and desires (Kotler and Kotler,
1998) and create different types of experiences to satisfy various audiences, while still
protecting the cultural heritage (Chong, 2002; Boylan, 2004).
For these reasons, many scholars have analysed museum experiences from different
perspectives. For example, some studies have examined definitions and typologies of
experiences (Graburn, 1984; Falk and Dierking, 1992; Otto and Ritchie, 1996; Kotler, 1999;
Schmitt, 1999; Pine and Gilmore, 1999, among others), and others have proposed
segmentation of visitors by building on the experiential perspective (Petkus, 2004; Conti
et al., 2017, 2018). Some studies have tried to understand how experiences relate to
satisfaction and post-purchase intentions (Harrison and Shaw, 2004; Pekarik et al., 1999;
Chan, 2009), stressing that in the museum context, intention to recommend is a more
appropriate measure of loyalty than intention to return because a museum visit is an
“unfrequently repurchased product” (Harrison and Shaw, 2004, p. 30).
Despite the increase in studies on museum experiences, empirical evidence of popular
experience frameworks is relatively scarce; in addition, the relationships between museum
experience and satisfaction and between satisfaction and loyalty have not been accurately
investigated in the museum context. In particular, the mediating role of satisfaction between
museum experiences and visitor word of mouth (WOM) requires further investigation.
To fill the first gap, this study adopted the classic model of experience dimensions
proposed by Pine and Gilmore (1999), testing its significance and its adaptation in the Italian
context. In this sense, this study answers the call of Radder and Han (2015) to expand their
study by applying the same scale to include other museums and other countries. Italy is
considered a country of excellence in arts and culture worldwide because of its widespread
and valuable cultural heritage and high number of UNESCO sites, which confirms Italy’s
relevance from the cultural heritage perspective.
To fill the second gap, this study developed a framework to investigate the mediating
effect of satisfaction on the relationship between museum experiences and visitors’ WOM. In
particular, we developed a framework in which museum experiences relate to overall
satisfaction because we believe that experiences are the main drivers of satisfaction and are
built on both the museum context and visitors’ characteristics, and in turn, satisfaction
relates to WOM behavioural intention, which is considered the most suitable measurement of
loyalty in the museum context. To pursue these goals, the study conducted a survey in three
Italian art museums, which represent important non-profit cultural organisations that must Satisfaction
be managed from the marketing perspective, with special attention paid to visitor experience in museum
management, and a sequential regression analysis was implemented.
In summary, the research questions of the paper are the following: How does the model of
experience
Pine and Gilmore apply to Italian art museums? What is the mediating role of satisfaction in and WOM
the relationship between museum experiences and visitors’ word of mouth?
The paper first provides a theoretical background of the museum experience, underlining
its relationship with the concepts of satisfaction and loyalty. Next, the research methodology
is described, followed by an analysis of the findings. The final part of the paper presents the
discussion, theoretical and practical implications and final conclusions, along with the
limitations of the study and recommendations for future research directions.

2. Theoretical background
2.1 Definitions of museum experiences: a selected theoretical framework
The literature contains several definitions and typologies of museum experiences that build
on the general concept of experience. An experience is created when “a company intentionally
uses services as the stage and goods as props, to engage individual customers in a way that
creates a memorable event” (Pine and Gilmore, 1999, p. 11); this definition is relevant to the
museum context because museums are places that offer emotional and cognitive stimuli and
services to allow visitors to have unique and personal experiences.
Chan (2009) considers museum experiences “the subjective mental state felt by
participants during a service encounter” (Otto and Ritchie, 1996, p. 166) and “a steady flow
of fantasies, feelings, and fun” (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982, p. 132).
In a broader definition, Chan (2009) affirmed that experiences in museums “may include
feelings of fun and enjoyment, escape from routine, sharing valued time with family or friends
or learning”, and the experience gained is the “result of encountering, undergoing or living
through situations; and they are triggered stimulations to the senses, to the heart, and the
mind” (McIntosh, 1999, p. 43).
Similarly, Chan and Yeoh (2007) stated that museums offer emotional and cognitive
stimuli through service transactions and personal encounters, and Falk et al. (1985) suggested
that visitors’ mindful state influences the value of museum experiences, in addition to the
museum setting factor.
Falk and Dierking (1992) presented a view of three intersecting sectors through which
visitors experience museums, as follows: the personal context (visitors’ interest, motivations
and concerns), the social context (visitors’ companions) and the physical context (the
museum); in short, visitors’ experiences can be thought of as continually shifting interactions
between personal, social and physical contexts (p. 6).
Roberts (1997) proposed a taxonomy that includes social interaction, reminiscence,
fantasy, personal involvement and restoration in addition to information and intellectual
curiosity. Kotler and Kotler (1998) and Kotler (1999) suggested a six-part typology, as follows:
recreation, sociability, learning, aesthetic, celebrative and enchanting experiences. In this
respect, McLaughlin (1999) stressed the primacy of introspective experiences.
Del Chiappa et al. (2014) affirmed that visitors look for a global experience, including
leisure, culture, education and social interaction; however, to attract new segments of visitors,
especially from the younger generation, the characteristics and attitudes of visitors need to be
analysed. Similarly, Falk (2016) affirmed that all visitors are unique individuals who are
capable of undergoing a wide range of different experiences even though they can select only
a limited palette of possible experiences.
It is important to emphasise that in recent years the concept of experiences has been
enriched because museums have been starting to use information and communication
TQM technologies, social media and augmented reality to enhance the experiences of visitors
(American Association of Museums, 2012).
Although the above reflections on experiences emphasise different details, the scholars
agree that museum visits can be complex and involve different dimensions of the visitor’s life,
such as physical, intellectual, social and emotional (Chan, 2009). Further, it is clear that
visitors look for both functional and emotional dimensions of the experience (Holbrook and
Hirschman, 1982).
This article uses the definition of museum experiences proposed by Pencarelli et al. (2017,
p. 433) – which builds on the well-known concept of experience of Pine and Gilmore (1999) – as
“an economic offering based on goods and services that the visitor perceives as a personal
and unique event in which he or she is engaged on the emotional, physical, intellectual and/or
spiritual level; in addition, the elements that characterise the experience at a museum consist
in the intrinsically experiential nature of a museum and in the compliance with the
safeguarding of the cultural goods contained in the museum”.
This definition includes three elements. First, it stresses that the museum experience, like
every kind of customer experience, is the result of a long process of organisation–customer
interactions across multiple channels (Klaus and Maklan, 2013) and is defined as customers’
subjective responses to their encounters with the organisation, including the communication
encounter, the service encounter and the consumption encounter (Lemke et al., 2011; Meyer
and Schwager, 2007). Visitors perceive experiences as personal events and contribute to their
creation according to their level of interest and participation (Pine and Gilmore, 1999), while
museums can provide the platform on which the desired visitor experiences emerge. In this
regard, in a recent study, Pencarelli et al. (2017) developed a scheme consisting of five steps to
successfully manage experiences in museums, as follows: (1) adequately design experiences
to satisfy visitors’ needs and desires, (2) stage and (3) communicate experiences properly, then
(4) measure the visitors’ perception of the quality of the museum experiences and finally (5)
train and incentivise the museum staff to help visitors to have their desired experiences.
Second, the above definition suggests that visitors make decisions based not only on rational
problem-solving but also on intangible elements linked to their perceived emotional value. In
short, visitors seek two kinds of value, as follows: utilitarian (or functional) value and hedonic
(or experiential) value (Addis and Holbrook, 2001). Third, the definition of museum
experiences adopted in this work is characterised by a special aesthetic value, and visitors
can have experiences by respecting the conservation of their cultural heritage (Pencarelli
et al., 2017).
This work focusses on the well-known model of four realms of experience of Pine and
Gilmore (1999) – aesthetic, learning, entertainment and escapism – which is considered a
comprehensive scheme that includes complementary dimensions of museum-visiting
experiences. In particular, the authors identified four dimensions (or realms) of experience
necessary to engage the customer. These dimensions are characterised by the level of
participation (from passive to active) and the type of contextual connection or involvement
linking the client to the event or performance – from absorption, in which the experience
“penetrates” the client or guest through the mind (e.g. watching a dance), to immersion, in
which the person “dives into” the experience by physically or virtually taking part in it (e.g.
learning how to dance). The richest experiences encompass aspects of all four realms.

2.2 The quality of museum experiences and its measurement

Although the customer experience theme has become a topic discussed in the tourism
marketing literature, further studies are needed for a deep understanding and measurement
of experience (Klaus and Maklan, 2013; Lemke et al., 2011; Milman et al., 2017), especially in
the museum context.
 As explained in the previous paragraph, the model of Pine and Gilmore (1999) is Satisfaction
considered a comprehensive scheme that includes complementary typologies of museum in museum
experiences, thus allowing visitors to have positive and unique experiences. Several
studies (e.g. Petkus, 2004; Radder and Han, 2015; Mehmetoglu and Engen, 2011 and Conti
experience
et al., 2017) have shown that the four dimensions of experience in the model of Pine and and WOM
Gilmore may be a valid starting point for understanding and measuring the quality of
museum experiences.
In particular, the model of Pine and Gilmore (1999) has been subjected to empirical
verification by other scholars, who have confirmed its overall validity in tourism (Oh et al.,
2007; Hosany and Witham, 2010; Mehmetoglu and Engen, 2011; Quadri-Felitti and Fiore,
2012; Radder and Han, 2015), while noting that not all domains or realms of experience have
equal weight in all experiences (Oh et al., 2007; Hosany and Witham, 2010; Mehmetoglu and
Engen, 2011). Specifically, the four experience realms or dimensions have been examined in a
range of leisure and tourism contexts, including bed and breakfast accommodation (Oh et al.,
2007), cruising tourism (Hosany and Witham, 2010), wine tourism (Quadri-Felitti and Fiore,
2012), music festivals (Mehmetoglu and Engen, 2011) and casino hotels (Wang, 2013).
For example, edutainment was found to be the most important dimension in cruising
tourism and music festivals, whereas aesthetics was the most important in bed and breakfast
accommodation. However, research examining the application of experience realms remains
scarce.
With respect to the museum context, empirical verification of the model is even scarcer. In
fact, only Radder and Han (2015) have done so, by investigating the application of the model
in an analysis of heritage museums in South Africa. The authors described the four realms in
the museum context. In particular, the authors highlighted that museums provide education
experience because they present opportunities for awareness and learning through offerings
(historical recreations, art exhibits, guided tours, etc.) and entertainment experience by
allowing visitors to be entertained, have fun and socialise with other visitors. In addition,
museums provide escapist experience for visitors who want to get away from home or work
and experience a different time or place. Finally, aesthetics experience refers to the overall
atmospherics and mood of the physical environment (space, colour, lighting, etc.).
Using an ad hoc scale and confirmatory factor analysis, the authors found three
experiential realms describing the museum experience of visitors, as follows: edutainment,
escapism and aesthetics. In particular, edutainment, which results from the merging of
education and entertainment, had the strongest influence on visitors’ overall satisfaction and
WOM behavioural intentions.

2.3 The quality of museum experiences, visitor satisfaction and word of mouth: hypotheses
development
Positive and memorable customer experiences have a positive influence on customer
satisfaction and value creation (Pine and Gilmore, 1998, 1999; Schmitt, 1999), and the
provision of high-quality services to consumers also promotes customers’ loyalty, which, in
turn, enhances the profitability of service providers (Dagger and Sweeney, 2007). Hence, to
maintain museums’ long-term growth, it is important to provide a quality experience and
ensure high levels of visitor satisfaction and loyalty.
Goulding (2000) examined the behaviour of museum visitors to evaluate the impact of
exhibitions and experience on their satisfaction. As Chan (2009) remarked, museums can be
perceived as experience goods, and hence visitors’ perception is needed to achieve mutual
benefits.
In the tourism context, the provision of memorable or “positively remembered”
experiences resulting from positive impressions and emotions (Larsen, 2007) has become a
TQM key strategy (Knutson et al., 2006; Kim and Ritchie, 2014) and a fundamental element of
tourist satisfaction and revisiting intention (Anggraeni, 2019).
This study hypothesises the conceptual framework reported in Figure 1: in particular, it
considers that museum experiences’ dimensions influence the overall satisfaction of museum
visitors and, in turn, visitors’ overall satisfaction affects positive WOM.
2.3.1 Quality of museum experiences and visitor satisfaction. Quality is a key concept in
marketing and consumer behaviour (Eisingerich and Bell, 2007; Kotler and Keller, 2006). The
quality of a product or service and satisfaction have long been believed to be key constructs
contributing to building positive intentions and loyalty towards a firm (Cong, 2016; Han and
Hyun, 2015). According to Han and Hyun (2015), quality refers to patrons’ general
impressions regarding the relative excellence or superiority of a product or service and its
performance over competing products or services and their performance. As implied in this
definition, the concept of quality includes individuals’ perception or cognition (Oliver, 1997).
Therefore, in most marketing studies, the term “quality” is often used interchangeably with
“perceived quality”. Likewise, quality in the present study indicates visitors’ overall
impressions or perceptions of the relative excellence of a museum product – specifically in
museum experiences – and the performance of its attributes compared with those of other
museums.
In addition, satisfaction is a key marketing concept strictly related to the quality of
products (Kotler and Keller, 2006). According to Jones et al. (2000), customer satisfaction is “an
overall evaluation of performance based on all prior experiences with a firm” (p. 260). This
satisfaction is therefore different from affect, whose main concept comprises fulfilment
emotional responses (Oliver, 1997). Yet, satisfaction can be categorised as an affective process
because one of its main aspects is the evaluation of such emotional responses (Han and Hyun,
2015). Indeed, Han and Hyun (2015) described satisfaction as travellers’ assessments of
overall product or service consumption experiences, mainly comprising emotional or
affective experiences. Satisfaction in this study refers to visitors’ evaluation of their total or
overall experiences involving functional and emotional aspects and all kinds of experiences at
a museum, in particular, the four dimensions from the model of Pine and Gilmore (1999), as
follows: education, escapism, aesthetics and entertainment.
According to the extant museum research (Brida et al., 2012; Chan, 2009; Dirsehan, 2012),
experiences such as novelty, learning or education, sensory and entertainment or relaxation
are of great importance in improving customers’ overall level of satisfaction during their
museum visit. For art museum operators, offering these experiences to visitors along with
quality and affective experiences will significantly increase visitor satisfaction.

The (perceived) quality

of museum experiences

Aesthetics

Overall Positive
Entertainment influence satisfaction influence WOM

Escapism

Figure 1.
Education
Conceptual framework
Brida et al. (2012) investigated how museums influence visitor motivation, satisfaction and Satisfaction
loyalty, and they found that visitors to the Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art in in museum
Rovereto (Italy) were mainly motivated by push factors (e.g. relaxation, seeking a new
experience and learning new things), whereas satisfaction was influenced by “restoration”,
experience
through which visitors were able to relax and recover from their stressful lives (e.g. Packer and WOM
and Bond, 2010).
In a recent study of the archaeological museum G.A. Sanna in Sardinia, emotions were
considered the main driver to segment visitors in experiencing museums; it was found that
those who experience authenticity and high emotions during the visit also perceive a higher
level of attractiveness and uniqueness of the museum and are ultimately more satisfied with
the visit (Del Chiappa et al., 2014).
Consequently, this study intended to verify the following hypothesis:
H1. The (perceived) quality of museum experiences is positively related to visitors’
overall satisfaction.
2.3.2 Visitors’ overall satisfaction and positive word of mouth. In the marketing literature,
many authors have stressed the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty: it has been
widely maintained that improving customer satisfaction regarding overall consumption
experiences is imperative for gaining a higher level of loyalty (Choi et al., 2017; Han and Hyun,
2015; Park, 2016; Zhang et al., 2015). The two main indicators [1] of loyalty are repurchasing
the product or service and recommending it to others (Donovan and Rossiter, 1982).
Harrison and Shaw (2004) demonstrated that visitors do not generally want to return to
museums, and the main reason “relates to the nature of the product not lending itself to repeat
purchase in the short term. That is, while the mean satisfaction score was high, consumers
may not see a need to return to a museum in the near future unless the product changes
substantially. Just as most people who read a book or see a play do not repeat the experience
shortly afterwards – even if pleased with the initial experience – most people who visit a
museum may regard the experience favourably without repeating it immediately. Products of
this type may be characterised as ‘infrequently purchased products’. However, extremely
satisfied visitors may indeed intend to return in the near future. Sub-segmentation can serve
to identity the characteristics of these visitors” (Harrison and Shaw, 2004, p. 30). Thus, the
authors of the study argued that saying positive things about the provider (i.e. positive
WOM) may be the most appropriate indicator of favourable behavioural intentions in the
museum context. As a consequence, this study interprets loyalty as positive WOM.
According to the literature on museums, satisfaction may result from specific elements of
visitors’ experience, such as the physical environment (Jeong and Lee, 2006), services
(Mavragani and Lymperopoulos, 2013), internal and external physical environments,
involvement, knowledge and value (Han et al., 2019), interpretation and displays (Thrinh and
Ryan, 2013), interpretative guiding outcomes (Songshan et al., 2014) or information, audio and
visual communication, on-site engagement and atmospherics and heritage preservation
(Kempiak et al., 2017). A recent study examined the relationship between experience, service
quality and enduring involvement and satisfaction (Forgas-Coll et al., 2017).
In contrast, some authors have emphasised the direct relationship between satisfaction
coming from visitors’ experience and WOM. For example, Huo and Miller (2007) and Simpson
(2000) found that visitors to small museums who experience a high level of satisfaction intend
to recommend the museums to others. Further, it was found that visitors’ perceived quality
has both an indirect effect (through satisfaction) and a direct effect on their behavioural
intentions, with the former effect being greater than the latter (Radder and Han, 2013).
Given that WOM publicity is one of the most important factors in the success of a service
enterprise, we aimed to identify the effects of overall satisfaction with the quality of
experience on positive WOM behaviours. Thus:
TQM H2. Overall satisfaction is positively related to visitors’ intention to recommend (WOM)
However, the mechanism underlying the intricate relationships between quality of
experience, satisfaction and commitment in forming behavioural intentions for art
museum products is still rarely examined (Han and Hyun, 2017), and research results are
sometimes contradictory.
In the museum context, there is no direct relationship between quality of experience and
WOM, the main indicator of loyalty in this context. It seems that satisfaction plays a
mediating role even though only a few studies (Radder and Han, 2015; Dirsehan, 2012;
Forgas-Coll et al., 2017) have investigated this aspect. Hence, in this study we were interested
in demonstrating the mediating role of satisfaction in the relationship between experience
and WOM. As a consequence, this study also aimed to investigate the following hypothesis:
H3. Satisfaction significantly mediates the relationship between the perceived quality of
museum experience and visitors’ intention to recommend (WOM)
In summary, this research aimed to analyse the quality of experiences in Italian art museums
and whether such experiences positively affect visitors’ overall satisfaction and whether
satisfaction positively affects WOM behavioural intentions.

3. Methodology
3.1 Study context
To fulfil the research aims, a survey was conducted at three Italian art museums: the Ducal
Palace in Mantua (http://www.mantovaducale.beniculturali.it), the National Gallery of the
Marche in Urbino (http://www.gallerianazionaledellemarche.it) and the National Museum of
Capodimonte in Naples (http://www.museocapodimonte.beniculturali.it). These museums
belong to the list of the 32 Italian art museums that have been granted special autonomy and
are housed in buildings of historical importance inheterogeneous geographical locations: in
particular, the Ducal Palace of Mantua located in the north of Italy, the National Gallery of the
Marche, located in Urbino in central Italy and the Museum of Capodimonte in Naples, located
in the south. The first two are housed in the Renaissance ducal palaces of Mantua and Urbino,
respectively and the third in the Royal Palace of Capodimonte, built in 1700. The palace,
gallery and museum are located in northern, central and southern Italy. Of the 32 museums
with special autonomy, only 18 are art museums, all of which are housed in important
buildings. Four of these are in the north, 11 are in the centre and three are in the south of Italy.
They generate a significant proportion of the country’s income from museum visitors
(Banca d’Italia, 2019). In 2019, the Ducal Palace in Mantua, the National Gallery of the Marche
and the National Museum of Capodimonte recorded 346,000, 267,000 and 253,000 visitors,
respectively (www.beniculturali.it).
3.2 Measures and survey design
Almost all variables in this study (see Table 1) were measured using multiple items adapted
from previous studies, as recommended by Churchill (1979) and Kline (2005). To investigate
the relevance of museum experience dimensions, the measurement scale developed by
Radder and Han (2015) was adopted. This scale includes 20 items related to the following four
experience dimensions: education, entertainment, escapism and aesthetics.
WOM was measured by adopting three items from the literature (Lee et al., 2008;
Lockwood and Pyun, 2019), and overall satisfaction was computed with one direct item, as
suggested by Radder and Han (2015).
The survey was in the form of a structured questionnaire consisting of two sections. The
first section sought to capture a visitor’s perception of the experience realms and its effect on
the visitor’s overall satisfaction and WOM intention, and the second captured the
respondent’s profile.
Dimensions and items References
Satisfaction
in museum
Education experience
Stimulate my curiosity Radder and Han, 2015
Increase my knowledge and WOM
Enhance my philosophy of living
Share my experience with family and friends
Entertainment
Interact with others in the museum
Relax physically
Feel emotionally stimulated
Have fun
Have an unusual experience
Escapism
Be someone else while in the museum
Imagine living in a different time and place
Avoid interactions with others
Escape from reality
Get away from crowds of people
Get away from a stressful social environment
Aesthetic
A sense of harmony with my surroundings
Pleasing physical environment
Pleasing exhibitions
Appreciating diverse cultures
Pleasing interior ambience
Overall satisfaction
Overall, I am satisfied with the museum visiting experience Radder and Han, 2015
Behavioural Intention–WOM
I will recommend this museum to friends, family and/or colleagues adapted from Lee et al., 2008
I will say positive things about this museum
I am happy to say to others that I have visited this museum adapted from Lockwood and Pyun, 2019

Visitors’ profile
Gender adapted from Radder and Han, 2015
Age
Income
Education
Monthly income Table 1.
Number of annual museum visits The questionnaire’s
Country of origin structure

Interviewees were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement or disagreement with each
statement on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).
In addition to the above-mentioned variables, the following set of socio-demographic
characteristics were collected: gender, age (considering the age classifications “up to 24
years”, “25–34 years”, “35–44 years”, “45–54 years” and “55 years and above”), education
(from primary school to postgraduate degree), monthly income (from “Less than V500” to
“V2,000 and above”), annual frequency of visits to museums and country of origin.
A pilot study was carried out in August 2019 with five visitors to the National Gallery of
the Marche in Urbino – two academics in cultural tourism management and three museum
directors. All questions were validated.
TQM 3.3 Data collection
Data were collected via face-to-face interviews in the period September–October 2019 in the
three selected Italian art museums. Interviews were conducted both during the week and on
the weekend, excluding the first Sunday of each month, which has free entry. This enabled
the selection of only visitors who were genuinely interested in experiencing and paying for
the museum visit. Direct interviews with the museum visitors, each lasting about 15 min,
were based on surveys asking closed-ended questions.
A convenience sampling method was adopted. From desks located near the museum exits,
visitors to each of the art museums were randomly selected and interviewed at the end of their
visit. This allowed respondents to reflect directly on the museum experience while it was still
fresh in their minds.

3.4 Data analysis

Following methods used in earlier research (e.g. Gagliano and Hathcote, 1994), exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to identify the underlying dimensions in order to
answer the first research question. The adoption of the EFA technique helped assess whether
the measurement scale constructed from the general theory of Pine and Gilmore would
perform similarly in the museum sector. A principal component analysis with varimax
rotation was conducted at the extraction stage. Kaiser’s (1960) eigenvalue rule (i.e. retention of
factors with eigenvalues greater than 1) was considered to determine the appropriate number
of factors. In addition, other criteria were taken into account in deciding whether to retain an
item. In particular, all items that were not contemporaneously in line with a factor loading
greater than 0.5, cross-loading less than 0.5 and communality greater than 0.5 (Costello and
Osborne, 2005) were deleted from the analysis.
From the EFA, a standardised score for the latent dimension to which each series of items
referred was obtained. Thus, each dimension of the derived experience generated only one
variable. Similarly, for WOM, a different EFA was performed to obtain a standardised score
for this latent dimension.
To disentangle the second gap, regression analyses were developed by adopting scores
derived from the EFA (i.e. experience factors). To evaluate the mediating effect of overall
satisfaction on the relationship between the visiting experiential dimensions and the WOM
intention, a sequential regression model was implemented, following the procedure
suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). Experiential visiting dimensions were first
regressed on WOM intention (model 1). In the second sequence, visiting experiential
dimensions were regressed on overall satisfaction (model 2). Finally, the mediating effect of
overall satisfaction was investigated in model 3.
Variance inflation factors were computed to assess collinearity.

4. Findings
4.1 Respondents’ profile
The total number of museum visitors interviewed was 450. With reference to their
demographic characteristics, 52.4% of the interviewees were female and 47.6% were male.
The majority of respondents (38.4%) were over 55 years of age. Almost all were frequent
museum visitors, based on the number of museum visits per year: 32.9% of the respondents
visited museums three to five times annually and 47.1% visited museums more than five
times annually. With regard to the education level of respondents, most (43.5%) had
graduated with a bachelor’s or master’s degree, and 12.7% held postgraduate degrees.
Economic status varied, as demonstrated by the distribution of monthly income. The
majority of respondents were from Italy (78.7%), and approximately 21% were from other
countries. A summary of statistics regarding the respondent sample used in the analysis is Satisfaction
presented in Table 2. in museum
experience
4.2 Descriptive statistics and WOM
Most items had a mean score of greater than 3.5, indicating that most respondents had a
positive experience from their museum visit. Only two items – interact with others in the
museum and be someone else while in the museum – had a mean score of less than 3 (2.67 and
2.80, respectively). The main results of the descriptive statistics are illustrated in Table 3.
In addition to descriptive statistics, normality was examined through skewness and
kurtosis values. All kurtosis values were lower than the cut-off value of 3.0 (Chou and Bentler,
1995). As a consequence, non-normality was not an issue in this study.

4.3 Exploratory factor analysis

EFA with varimax rotation was employed to analyse the 20 items to assess the latent
dimensions in the experience approach of Pine and Gilmore (1999). Ten items explained

Variable Frequency %

Number of respondents
Ducal Palace Mantua 150 33.3
Marche National Gallery 150 33.3
National Museum Capodimonte 150 33.3
Gender
Male 214 47.6
Female 236 52.4
Age
Up to 24 years 92 20.4
25–34 years 56 12.4
35–44 years 53 11.9
45–54 years 76 16.9
55 years and above 173 38.4
Education
Primary/middle School 26 5.8
Secondary (high) School 171 38.0
Bachelor’s/master’s degree 196 43.5
Postgraduate degree 57 12.7
Monthly income
Less than 500 V 73 16.2
500 V–999 V 35 7.8
1,000 V–1,999 V 199 44.2
2,000 V and above 143 31.8
Number of annual museum visits
0–2 90 20.0
3–5 148 32.9
Above 5 212 47.1
Country of origin
Italy 354 78.7
Europe 75 16.7 Table 2.
Rest of the world 21 4.6 Profile of respondents
TQM Standard
Dimensions and items Mean deviation Skewness Kurtosis

Education
Stimulate my curiosity 4.26 0.791 0.882 0.244
Increase my knowledge 4.34 0.845 1.301 1.589
Enhance my philosophy of living 3.39 1.195 0.245 0.826
Share my experience with family and friends 4.05 0.974 0.946 0.524
Entertainment
Interact with others in the museum 2.67 1.299 0.316 0.995
Relax physically 3.46 1.256 0.445 0.833
Feel emotionally stimulated 4.15 0.877 0.935 0.631
Have fun 3.72 1.026 0.561 0.179
Have an unusual experience 3.73 1.162 0.711 0.223
Escapism
Be someone else while in the museum 2.80 1.272 0.052 0.999
Imagine living in a different time and place 3.77 1.184 0.762 0.282
Avoid interactions with others 3.02 1.347 0.045 1.136
Escape from reality 3.44 1.198 0.488 0.596
Get away from crowds of people 3.38 1.272 0.439 0.798
Get away from a stressful social environment 3.72 1.201 0.773 0.275
Aesthetic
A sense of harmony with my surroundings 4.20 0.807 0.766 0.234
Pleasing physical environment 4.12 0.829 0.717 0.203
Pleasing exhibitions 4.33 0.766 1.120 1.382
Appreciating diverse cultures 4.07 1.002 1.069 0.780
Pleasing interior ambience 4.26 0.814 1.122 1.260
Overall satisfaction
Overall, I am satisfied with the museum-visiting experience 4.36 0.683 1.104 2.322
Behavioural intention – WOM
I will recommend this museum to friends, family and/or 3.51 1.599 0.581 1.256
colleagues
Table 3. I will say positive things about this museum 3.63 1.594 0.742 1.068
Descriptive statistics I am happy to say to others that I have visited this museum 3.53 1.607 0.627 1.225

64.8% of variance, with a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of 0.821 and a Bartlett’s test of

sphericity of 0.000 (see Table 4). The factor analysis identified three latent dimensions, which
were labelled as aesthetics, escapism and edumotion, taking into account the nature of the
associated items and the literature review. All items associated with factors were in line with
the previous literature. Only in the case of the edumotion dimension, the analysis showed two
items typically associated with education and one item concerning emotionality, which is
typically associated with entertainment.
Aesthetics and escapism both demonstrated excellent reliability, as denoted by their
Cronbach α values. Edumotion had a value of > 0.6, which in any case is considered adequate
for exploratory studies in the social sciences (Hair et al., 2010).

4.4 Multiple regression

A regression sequence was performed to evaluate the relationships among the variables
proposed in Figure 1 and the mediating effect of overall satisfaction. All variance inflation
factor values for each model were <3, suggesting that multicollinearity was not an issue in
this study.
 Latent dimension
Satisfaction
Aesthetic Escapism Edumotion in museum
Item (α 5 0.818) (α 5 0.735) (α 5 0.680) experience
A pleasing physical environment 0.804 and WOM
A pleasing interior ambience 0.798
Pleasing exhibitions 0.764
A sense of harmony with my 0.697
surroundings
I get away from crowds of people 0.840
I get away from stressful environments 0.800
I escape from reality 0.730
Enhances my philosophy of living 0.812
I feel emotionally stimulated 0.753 Table 4.
Stimulates my curiosity 0.696 Exploratory factor
% of explained variance 25.5 20.1 19.2 analysis

All regression models were significant, as demonstrated by the overall F-statistics (p < 0.001),
and they explained a sufficient amount of variance, as revealed by their squared multiple
correlations (R2).
Although the proportion of variance explained by model 1 was not high (R2 5 0.086),
aesthetic experience (b 5 0.126), escapism (b 5 0.109) and edumotion (b 5 0.163)
demonstrated significant effects on WOM intention. Regarding the analysis of the overall
satisfaction model, the results of model 2 (R2 5 0.436) demonstrated a significant and strong
influence of two (aesthetic experience, β 5 0.459, p < 0.001; edumotion β 5 0.451, p < 0.001)
out of three visiting experiential dimensions on behavioural intention. Escapism
demonstrated a satisfactory power, as shown by its beta of 0.074 and p-value of < 0.05. As
a consequence, Hypothesis 1 is strongly supported. Finally, the direct effect of aesthetic
experience and edumotion present in model 1 was absent in model 3 (R2 5 131), being
completely mediated by satisfaction, which had a strong and significant effect on WOM
intention (b 5 217), thus supporting Hypothesis 2. In addition, standardised estimates show
that the effects of escapism (b 5 0.093) became smaller in model 3, indicating a partial
mediating effect from overall satisfaction. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is also supported (see Table 5).

5. Discussion
The first goal of the study was to empirically assess the quality of experience dimensions in
the Italian art museum context. In this regard, the study adopted a scale of experience
dimensions mainly on the approach of Pine and Gilmore as applied by Radder and Han
(2015) to some heritage museums in South Africa in an exploratory study. The first main
result of this study was derived from EFA of the total sample, which showed a three-factor
structure. Only one item from the entertainment dimension related to emotionality (I feel
emotionally stimulated) collapsed in the education dimension – hence, this factor was
relabelled “edumotion”. Therefore, the three factors that emerged from the analysis were
aesthetics, escapism and edumotion. The complete suppression of the entertainment
dimension represents a departure from the traditional Pine and Gilmore approach. However,
the result of this study is similar to the findings of Radder and Han (2015), who also found a
three-factor structure because of the collapse of the entertainment dimension in the
education dimension, leading to the identification of a new “edutainment” dimension.
Further, it is interesting to note that in the Italian museum context, aesthetics contributed to
a better explanation of visitor experience than escapism and edumotion did. From these
 TQM

Table 5.

intentions
effect of experience
dimensions on overall
Regression data of the

satisfaction and WOM

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Dependent: WOM intentions Dependent: overall satisfaction Dependent: WOM intentions
Variance Variance Variance
Standardised inflation Standardised inflation Standardised inflation
beta t factor beta t factor beta t factor

Constant 0.254 0.624 0.111 0.343 0.692

(non-standardised)
Aesthetic 0.126 2.760** 1.028 0.459 12.658*** 1.028 0.027 0.503 1.402
experience
Escapism 0.109 2.380* 1.029 0.074 2.031* 1.029 0.093 2.049* 1.039
Edumotion 0.163 3.478** 1.074 0.451 12.156*** 1.074 0.065 1.214 1.434
Overall satisfaction 0.217 3.664*** 1.774
Gender 0.043 0.903 1.108 0.078 2.073* 1.108 0.026 0.551 1.119
Age 0.221 3.913 1.563 0.009 0.204 1.563 0.223 4.004*** 1.564
Education 0.000 0.010*** 1.207 0.010 0.263 1.207 0.003 0.056 1.207
Monthly income 0.012 0.208 1.634 0.004 0.077 1.634 0.011 0.197 1.634
Previous museum 0.134 2.769** 1.148 0.001 0.029 1.148 0.134 2.802** 1.148
visits
Travel party 0.012 0.259 1.028 0.051 1.404 1.028 0.023 0.506 1.032
F 5 5.706*** R2 5 0.105 Adj F 5 37.860*** R2 5 0.436 Adj F 5 6.623*** R2 5 0.131 Adj
2 2 2
R 5 0.086 R 5 0.425 R 5 0.111
Note(s): *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
results, it may be argued that even though entertainment is an important dimension of Satisfaction
experience for customers in all sectors of the economy and for people in society more in museum
generally (homo ludens), it is a “latecomer” dimension of experience, especially in the
museum context, which has recently started a process of management modernisation. This
experience
result is absolutely in line with the Italian context. In fact, in Italy until recent years, the main and WOM
activity of museums has been the conservation of cultural heritage, and only since 2016 has
it been renewed by a legislative reform with the goal of introducing the managerial approach
to museums, but naturally in relation to conserving works of art. As a consequence, only in
the past few years have visitors been able to experience not only the more traditional
dimensions of visiting a museum, such as aesthetic, escapism and educational dimensions,
but also entertainment. In our research, the inability of visitors to fully capture the value of
entertainment is most probably related to the fact that entertainment is not a classic
experience dimension in the museum context but a new dimension to be developed by
museum governance to facilitate interaction among visitors, fun, relaxation and so on.
Further, to better understand the role of the entertainment dimension in the museum
experience, as highlighted in this study’s findings, and to generalise the new contribution
connected to the special role of entertainment in the Italian art museum experience, more
empirical research is needed, especially in other kinds of museums and in other samples
consisting of different visitor profiles.
To fulfil the second goal – analysis of the influence of the quality of museum experiences
on visitors’ overall satisfaction and, in turn, satisfaction on positive WOM intentions and
therefore analysis of the mediation role of the overall satisfaction in the link between
experiences and WOM – three regression models were performed. First, experience factors
were found to affect satisfaction significantly. The regression results pertaining to overall
satisfaction are crucial because satisfaction is a key element in marketing; indeed,
satisfaction is related to customer value creation and company success. This result is new
and relevant to both the experiential marketing and the cultural heritage management
literature. First, the measurement of the experience dimension per se is not indicative unless
it is related to relevant variables such as customer satisfaction, and second, in the museum
sector, this result is extremely important to understand and explain the success of a
museum, and it represents a solid contribution to the cultural heritage management
literature. Second, this study suggests that museum visitors who are satisfied with their visit
experience will have a positive disposition towards adopting positive WOM communication.
This result is also really important to communicate with the museum and to strengthen its
brand. Previous studies have analysed the visitors’ museum experience and overall
satisfaction (e.g. Brida et al., 2012; Chan, 2009), and the relationship between overall
satisfaction and positive WOM (e.g. Harrison and Shaw, 2004; Dirsehan, 2012), but few
studies have hypothesised the mediating role of satisfaction (e.g. Radder and Han, 2015;
Forgas-Coll et al., 2017). Therefore, this study not only fills that gap, contributing to a better
understanding of the relationships among key concepts in the marketing discipline in the
museum context, but adds new contributions to the theory and provides strategic
suggestions for museum managers. In particular, this study suggests that overall
satisfaction fully mediates the effect of aesthetic experience and edumotion on a museum
visitor’s intention to suggest visiting that museum. This finding suggests that only
when museum visitors are satisfied with their most important experiences in art
museums – aesthetic experience and edumotion – can they express their loyalty to the
museum by saying positive things to others. This result also confirms the hybrid nature
of experiences in museums – functional and emotional – as the experience economy
suggests (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Pine and Gilmore, 1999). Further, the
mediating rule of customer satisfaction in the museum context contributes to a better
understanding of the relationships among key concepts in the marketing discipline.
TQM 6. Implications
This study has relevant implications from both a theoretical and a managerial perspective.

6.1 Theoretical implications

From the theoretical perspective, the study has three main implications. First, the theory
proposed by Pine and Gilmore performs in a unique way in the museum sector because in this
study the entertainment dimension was almost suppressed. In the Italian museum context,
aesthetic experience and edumotion explained the phenomenon to a greater extent. As a
consequence, despite entertainment being theoretically included in experience economy
models and experiential marketing theories because customers are increasingly seeking more
holistic experiences, the model of Pine and Gilmore is not necessarily wholly applicable in all
contexts, especially in the not-for-profit ones that are not traditionally marketing-oriented. In
particular, the size of the entertainment could vary according to the age of the visitors and the
type of physical and digital media that can be enjoyed by the visitors. Moreover,
entertainment could be a variable differently associated with the themes of the museums
investigated; perhaps museums with other themes, such as museums of science and
technology or contemporary art, will lead to different results. Perhaps, in other research the
entertainment aspect may prove significant and the Pine and Gilmore model can be
confirmed.
This result is perfectly in line with the study of Radder and Han (2015) and adds further
understanding and explanation regarding the specific application of the entertainment
dimension of museum experiences in the Italian context. The authors showed that the
education and entertainment dimensions merged with each other in the South African
museum context. This result also confirms that museum experiences are complex, individual
(Falk, 2016) and holistic phenomena (Pine and Gilmore, 1999) resulting from a combination of
tangible and intangible elements that are related to exogenous factors (e.g. quantity and
quality of services provided) as well as endogenous factors (e.g. visitors’ motivations,
feelings) (Chan, 2009).
Second, this study confirms that the experiential realms framework (Pine and Gilmore,
1999) has different applications in different sectors or, in other words, that the explanatory
capacity of the factorial structure may vary across different sectors. This result is in line with
differences already emphasised in the application of the experiential model to different sub-
sectors of the tourism industry (Oh et al., 2007; Hosany and Witham, 2010; Mehmetoglu and
Engen, 2011).
Third, the experience factors were correlated with overall visitor satisfaction, and
satisfaction correlated with WOM; thus, satisfaction plays a mediating role. Because the
model of Pine and Gilmore does not include important variables in marketing such as
satisfaction and loyalty and because the literature that investigates the relationships between
experience dimensions and these variables is scarce, these results represent an important
contribution to the literature on experiential marketing and museum management.

6.2 Practical implications

With respect to practical implications, this study suggests that museum managers could
invest resources in three experience factors, as follows: aesthetics, escapism and edumotion.
In particular, it is fundamental to preserve cultural heritage, which is the basic activity to
improve the aesthetic dimension of the visitor experience, including by investing in the
restoration and preservation of artworks (or collections) and of buildings that host the
museum collection and are generally beautiful and of historical and artistic importance.
Further, it is important to maintain a pleasant environment and atmospheric cues (such as
lighting systems, layout and quality of galleries).
 The above-mentioned initiatives aimed to improve the aesthetic dimension of visitors also Satisfaction
contribute to allowing visitors to have an interesting escapism experience because the desire in museum
to live in another time and place is enhanced by a beautiful and well-preserved place. Further,
to improve escapism, it is important to stimulate imaginations and allow visitors to
experience
experience a different time and place, away from their everyday routines, with the use of new and WOM
technologies.
To improve the edumotion dimension of the visit – that is, education and
emotionality – museum managers could provide detailed and interesting information
about the works of art and the buildings through both traditional and innovative tools.
In particular, it is important to adopt both traditional tools (e.g. signage, placards and
captions) and new technologies (e.g. interactive exhibitions, videos, interactive screens, QR
codes and apps). The information content should satisfy both the cognitive (learning new
concepts connected to art and culture) and emotional (live emotions) needs of visitors.
Managers could design and stage the expected experiences for the targets of visitors
creating adequate context conditions (Pencarelli et al., 2017).
In terms of policy implications, cities and countries could invest resources to conserve and
valorise museums’ cultural heritage and the destinations that host museums, such as by
providing city services and improving hospitality to offer positive and memorable visiting
experiences.
More specifically, public policies could be aimed at both providing funds to incentivise
valorisation of the museums (the quality of art galleries, new technologies, staff training, etc.)
and strengthening the favourable legislative process recently undertaken. Together with
museums, cities that host museums could offer adequate services (e.g. transportation,
hospitality and restaurants) to allow visitors to have overall satisfactory cultural and tourism
experiences.

7. Conclusions, limitations and future research

Despite the theoretical ferment with regard to customer experience in recent years, the
related empirical research is still in its infancy. This study has contributed to increasing the
empirical evidence in the experiential marketing literature by investigating experience
dimensions in art museums in Italy, one of the most important countries worldwide for art
and culture. This paper aimed to address this gap by determining the dimensions of
experience according to Radder and Han (2015) in the Italian context and whether they
positively influenced overall visitor satisfaction and WOM behavioural intentions. The main
findings of this study that add new contributions to the research area are as follows: (1) the
experience dimensions in Italian art museums include aesthetics, escapism and edumotion
(education and emotionality); (2) except for one item connected to emotionality,
entertainment was nearly suppressed; (3) experience factors positively influenced visitor
overall satisfaction; (4) satisfaction positively influenced WOM and (5) satisfaction plays a
mediating role.
The limitations of this study include its exploratory nature and the small sample of the
analysed Italian museums. Further, the factor analysis is explorative. The need to measure
experience dimensions and investigate the relationships between experience, satisfaction and
loyalty in longitudinal studies continues. Future research should also analyse whether visitor
profiles affect the results as well as investigate other museums in Italy and in other countries.

Note
1. Behavioural intention refers to a customer’s anticipation of the likelihood of acting in a certain way
(Lam and Hsu, 2006). Five favourable behavioural intentions have been identified in the literature, as
follows (Zeithaml et al., 1996): saying positive things about the provider, recommending the provider
TQM to other customers, remaining loyal to the provider, spending more on the provider and paying
premium prices.

References
Addis, M. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “On the conceptual link between mass customisation and
experiential consumption: an explosion of subjectivity”, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 50-66.
American Association of Museums (2012), TrendWatch2012. Museums and the Pulse of the Future,
American Association of Museums Editor, Arlington, VA, available at: https://www.aam-us.
org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/2012_trendswatch.pdf.
Anggraeni, R. (2019), “Enhancing the revisit intention of nature-based tourism in Indonesia: the role of
memorable tourism experience and satisfaction”, Management and Business Research Quarterly
No. 11, pp. 9-19.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-1182.
Boylan, P. (2004), Running a Museum: A Practical Handbook, ICOM, Paris.
Brida, J.G., Pulina, M. and Riano, E.M.M. (2012), “Measuring visitor experiences at a modern art
museum and linkages to the destination community”, Journal of Heritage Tourism, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 285-299.
Brida, J.G., Meleddu, M. and Pulina, M. (2016), “Understanting museum visitors’ experience: a
comparative study”, Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 47-71.
Chan, J.K.L. and Yeoh, E.L. (2007), “Into the tourists’ mind: under- standing the value of museum experience”,
Conference Proceeding of The 2nd International Conference on Tourism and Hospitality: Planning and
Managing Heritage for the Future, Marriott Putrajaya, Malaysia, July–August.
Chan, J.K.L. (2009), “The consumption of musuem service experiences: benefits and value of museum
experiences”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 18 Nos 2-3, pp. 173-196.
Choi, Y.G., Ok, C. and Hyun, S.S. (2017), “Relationships between brand experiences, personality traits,
prestige, relationship quality, and loyalty: an empirical analysis of coffeehouse brands”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1185-1202.
Chong, D. (2002), Arts Management, Routledge, London.
Chou, C.P. and Bentler, P.M. (1995), “Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling”, in Hoyle,
R.H. (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues and Applications, Sage, Thousand
OaksCA, pp. 37-55.
Churchill, G. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
Cong, L.C. (2016), “A formative model of the relationship between destination quality, tourist
satisfaction, and intentional loyalty: an empirical test in Vietnam”, Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Management, Vol. 26, pp. 50-62.
Conti, E., Pencarelli, T. and Vesci, M. (2017), “Museum visitors’ segmentation in the experiential
perspective, value co-creation and implications for museums and destinations: evidence from
Italy”, Proceedings of the Heritage, Tourism and Hospitality International Conference HTHIC
2017, Pori, Publication of Turku School of Economics, Pori Unit, (Pori, Finland, 27-29
September), pp. 21-34.
Conti, E., Forlani, F. and Pencarelli, T. (2018), “The impact of services and the experiential components
on the global experience: preliminary results from an Italian art city”, Proceedings of 21st
Excellence in Services International Conference, Le Cnam, Paris, (Paris, 30-31 August),
pp. 215-230.
Costello, A.B. and Osborne, J.W. (2005), “Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four Satisfaction
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis”, Practical Assessment, Research and
Evaluation, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 1-9. in museum
d’Italia, B. (2019), “Turismo in Italia: numeri e potenziale di sviluppo”, Questioni di Economia e
experience
Finanza, Vol. 505, pp. 53-67. and WOM
Dagger, T.S. and Sweeney, J.C. (2007), “Service quality attribute weights: how do novice and longer-
term customers construct service quality performance?”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 22-42.
Del Chiappa, G., Andreu, L. and Gallarza, M.G. (2014), “Emotions and visitors’ satisfaction at a
museum”, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 420-431.
Dirsehan, T. (2012), “Analyzing museum visitor experiences and post experience dimensions using
SEM”, Bogazici Journal, Review of Social, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 103-125, Economic and
Administrative Studies, Bogazici University, Department of Economics.
Donovan, R.J. and Rossiter, J.R. (1982), “Store atmosphere: an environmental psychology approach”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 34-57.
Eisingerich, A.B. and Bell, S.J. (2007), “Maintaining customer relationships in high credence services”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 253-262.
Falk, J.H. and Dierking, L.D. (1992), The Museum Experience, Whalesback Books, Washington, DC.
Falk, J.H., Koran, J.J. Jr, Dierking, L.D. and Dreblow, L. (1985), “Predicting visitor behavior”, Curator:
The Museum Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 249-258.
Falk, J.H. (2016), Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience, Routledge, New York.
Forgas-Coll, S., Palau-Saumell, R., Matute, J. and Tarrega Larrea, S. (2017), “How do service quality,
experiences and enduring involvement influence tourist’s behavior? An empirical study in the
picasso and miro museums in barcelona”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 19
No. 2, pp. 246-256.
Gagliano, K.B. and Hathcote, J. (1994), “Customer expectations and perceptions of service quality in
retail apparel speciality stores”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 60-69.
Goulding, C. (2000), “The museum environment and the visitor experience”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 3/4, pp. 261-278.
Graburn, N. (1984), “The museum and the visitor experience”, in Nichols, S.K., Alexander, M. and
Yellis, K. (Eds), Museum Education Anthology, 1973-1983: A Perspective on Informal Learning,
Museum Education Roundtable, Washington, DC, pp. 177-182.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverNJ.
Han, H. and Hyun, S.S. (2015), “Customer retention in the medical tourism industry: impact of quality,
satisfaction, trust, and price reasonableness”, Tourism Management, Vol. 46, pp. 20-29.
Han, H. and Hyun, S.S. (2017), “Key factors maximizing art museum visitors’ satisfaction,
commitment, and post-purchase intentions”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research,
Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 834-849.
Han, H., Lee, S. and Hyun, S.S. (2019), “Role of internal and external museum environment in
increasing visitors’ cognitive/affective/healthy experiences and loyalty”, International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 16 No. 22, pp. 1-15.
Harrison, P. and Shaw, R. (2004), “Consumer satisfaction and post-purchase intentions: an exploratory
study of museum visitors”, International Journal of Arts Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 23-33.
Hemmington, N. (2007), “From service to experience: understanding and defining the hospitality
business”, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 747-755.
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
fantasies, feelings, and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 132-140.
TQM Homburg, C., Jozic, D. and Kuehnl, C. (2015), “Customer experience management: toward implementing an
evolving marketing concept”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 377-401.
Hosany, S. and Witham, M. (2010), “Dimensions of cruisers’ experiences, satisfaction, and intention to
recommend”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 351-364.
Huo, Y. and Miller, D. (2007), “Satisfaction measurement of small tourism sector (museum): Samoa”,
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 103-117.
Jeong, J.H. and Lee, K.H. (2006), “The physical environment in museums and its effects on visitors’
satisfaction”, Building and Environment, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 963-969.
Jones, M.A., Mothersbaugh, D.L. and Beatty, S. (2000), “Switching barriers and repurchase intentions
in services”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 259-274.
Kaiser, H.F. (1960), “The application of electronic computers to factor analysis”, Educational and
Psychological Measurement, Vol. XX No. I, pp. 141-151.
Kelly, L. (2004), “Evaluation, research and communities of practice: program evaluation in museums”,
Museum Archival Science, Vol. 4, pp. 45-69.
Kempiak, J., Hollywood, L., Bolan, P. and McMahon-Beattie, U. (2017), “The heritage tourist: an
understanding of the visitor experience at heritage attractions”, International Journal of
Heritage Studies, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 375-392.
Kim, H. and Chen, J.S. (2019), “The memorable travel experience and its reminiscence functions”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 637-649.
Kim, J.-H. and Ritchie, B.J.R. (2014), “Cross-cultural validation of a memorable tourism experience scale
(MTEs)”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 323-335.
Klaus, P. and Maklan, S. (2013), “Towards a better measure of customer experience”, International
Journal of Market Research, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 227-246.
Kline, R. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Press, New York.
Knutson, B., Beck, J., Him, S. and Cha, J. (2006), “Identifying the dimensions of the experience
construct”, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 31-47.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2006), Marketing Management, 12th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Kotler, N. and Kotler, P. (1998), Museum Strategy and Marketing. Designing Missions Building
Audiences Generating Revenue and Resource, Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Kotler, N. and Kotler, P. (2000), “Can museum be all things to all people?”, Journal of Museum
Management and Curatorship, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 271-287.
Kotler, N. (1999), “Delivering experience: marketing the museum’s full range of assets”, Museum News
May/June, pp. 59-61, 30–39.
Lam, T. and Hsu, C.H.C. (2006), “Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a destination”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 589-599.
Larsen, S. (2007), “Aspects of a psychology of the tourist experience”, Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 7-18.
Lee, Y.K., Lee, C.K., Lee, S.K. and Babin, B.J. (2008), “Festivalscape and patrons’ emotions, satisfaction
and loyalty”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 56-64.
Lemke, F., Clark, M. and Wilson, H. (2011), “Customer experience quality: an exploration in business
and consumer contexts using repertory grid technique”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 846-869.
Lockwood, A. and Pyun, K. (2019), “How do customers respond to the hotel servicescape?”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 82, pp. 231-241.
Mavragani, E. and Lymperopoulos (2013), “Factors affecting museum visitors’ satisfaction: the case of
Greek museums”, Tourism: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 271-287.
McIntosh, A. (1999), “Into the tourist’s mind: understanding the value of the heritage experience”, Satisfaction
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 41-64.
in museum
McLaughlin, H. (1999), “The pursuit of memory: museums and the denial of the fulfilling sensory
experience”, Journal of Museum Education, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 10-21.
experience
Mehmetoglu, M. and Engen, M. (2011), “Pine and Gilmore’s concept of experience economy and its
and WOM
dimensions: an empirical examination in tourism”, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality
and Tourism, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 237-255.
Meyer, C. and Schwager, A. (2007), “Understanding customer experience”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 116-126.
Milman, A., Zehrer, A. and Tasci, A.D. (2017), “Measuring the components of visitor experience on a
mountain attraction: the case of the Nordkette, Tyrol, Austria”, Tourism Review, Vol. 72 No. 4,
pp. 429-447.
Oh, H., Fiore, A.M. and Jeoung, M. (2007), “Measuring experience economy concepts: tourism
applications”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 46, pp. 119-132.
Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Customer, McGraw-Hill, NewYork.
Otto, J.E. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (1996), “The service experience in tourism”, Tourism Management, Vol. 7,
pp. 165-174.
Packer, J. and Bond, N. (2010), “Museums as restorative environments”, Curator: The Museum
Journal, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 421-436.
Park, S.H. (2016), “The effects of service experience on brand trust, customer satisfaction and brand
loyalty”, Journal of Brand Design Association of Korea, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 53-67.
Pekarik, A.J., Doering, Z.D. and Karns, D.A. (1999), “Exploring satisfying experiences in museums”,
Curator: The Museum Journal, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 152-173.
Pencarelli, T. and Forlani, F. (2018), The Experience Logic as a New Perspective for Marketing
Management: From Theory to Practical Applications in Different Sectors, Springer, Cham.
Pencarelli, T., Conti, E. and Slendiani, S. (2017), “The experiential offering system of museums:
evidence from Italy”, Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development,
Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 430-448.
Petkus, E. (2004), “Enhancing the application of experiential marketing in the arts”, International
Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 49-56.
Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1998), “Welcome to the experience economy”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 76, pp. 97-105.
Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1999), The Experience Economy. Work Is Theatre and Every Business a
Stage, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Quadri-Felitti, D. and Fiore, A.M. (2012), “Experience economy constructs as a framework for
understanding wine tourism”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 3-15.
Radder, L. and Han, X. (2013), “Perceived quality, visitor satisfaction and conative loyalty in South
African heritage museums”, International Business and Economics Research Journal, Vol. 12
No. 10, pp. 1261-1272.
Radder, L. and Han, X. (2015), “An examination of the museum experience based on pine and
Gilmore’s experience economy realms”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 455-470, March/April.
Roberts, L.C. (1997), From Knowledge to Narrative: Educators and the Changing Museum,
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Schmitt, B. (1999), Experiential Marketing: How to Get Customers to Sense, Feel, Think, Act, and Relate
to Your Company and Brands, The Free Press, New York.
Sheng, C.W. and Chen, M.C. (2012), “A study of experience expectations of museum visitors”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 53-60.
TQM Simpson, K. (2000), “Customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions in a rural community museum
environment”, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 1-27.
Songshan, S.H., Weiler, B. and Assaker, G. (2014), “Effects of interpretive guiding outcomes on tourist
satisfaction and behavioral intention”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 344-358.
Thrinh, T.T. and Ryan, C. (2013), “Museums, exhibits and visitor satisfaction: a study of the cham
museum, danang, vietnam”, Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 239-263.
Wang, X.L. (2013), “Revenue management and customer relationship management”, in Legoherel, P.,
Poutier, E. and Fyall, A. (Eds), Revenue Management for Hospitality and Tourism, Goodfellow
Publisher, Woodeaton, Oxford, pp. 194-212.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The behavioural consequences of service
quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.
Zhang, Z., Ye, Q., Song, H. and Ting, L. (2015), “The structure of customer satisfaction with cruise-line
services: an empirical investigation based on online word of mouth”, Current Issues in Tourism,
Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 450-464.

Corresponding author
Emanuela Conti can be contacted at: emanuela.conti@uniurb.it

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com