Impacts of authenticity, degree of adaptation and cultural contrast on travellers’ memorable gastronomy experiences

1 Impacts of authenticity, degree of adaptation and cultural contrast on travellers’ memorable gastronomy experiences Carmen Antón Associate Professor Department of Business and Marketing, University of Valladolid Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales Avenida del Valle Esgueva, 6 – 47011 Valladolid, Spain. e-mail: [email protected]. Tf. 34-83-423413 Fax. 34-83-423899 Carmen Camarero (corresponding author) Associate Professor Department of Business and Marketing, University of Valladolid Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales Avenida del Valle Esgueva, 6 – 47011 Valladolid, Spain. e-mail: [email protected]. Tf. 34-83-423332 Fax. 34-83-423899 Marta Laguna Associate Professor Department of Business and Marketing, University of Valladolid Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Jurídicas y de la Comunicación Plaza Alto de los Leones, 1 – 40005 Segovia, Spain. e-mail: [email protected] Tf. 34-83-423000-2111 Fax. 34-83-423899 Dimitrios Buhalis Professor International Centre for Tourism and Hospitality Research (ICTHR) School of Tourism, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset, BH12 5BB, UK e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 1202 961517 Fax: +44 1202 515707 This is the accepted version of the manuscript: Antón, C., Camarero-Izquierdo, C., Laguna-García, M., y Buhalis, D. (2019). Impacts of authenticity, degree of adaptation and cultural contrast on travellers’ memorable gastronomy experiences. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2019.1564106 Funding This work was supported by the Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Competitiveness [ECO201786628-P]; Junta de Castilla y León (Spain) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) [VA112P17] 2 IMPACTS OF AUTHENTICITY, DEGREE OF ADAPTATION AND CULTURAL CONTRAST ON TRAVELLERS’ MEMORABLE GASTRONOMY EXPERIENCES ABSTRACT Gastronomy is an essential component of the travel experience and isbecoming one of the “best things to do” in many destinations. Impressions gained from local food coupled with tourists’ attitudes can influence the living experience. This paper analyses the extent to whichthe perceived authenticity of local food, the degree of adaptation andcultural contrast determine memorable tourist experiences. Moreover, itproposes the moderating effect of searching for authenticity andadaptation ability. Results from a sample of international tourists whotried a typical dish support the positive effect of authenticity and culturalcontrast on the perceived experience, whereas product adaptationreduces the perception of authenticity and cultural contrast. Authenticityhas a greater effect on experience perception when actively sought bytourists, and individuals are less influenced by cultural contrast whenthey are unable to adapt to different cultures. KEYWORDS Authenticity; cultural contrast; cultural adaptation; gastronomy experience 3 IMPACTS OF AUTHENTICITY, DEGREE OF ADAPTATION AND CULTURAL CONTRAST ON TRAVELLERS’ MEMORABLE GASTRONOMY EXPERIENCES 1. Introduction Understanding and appreciating other cultures involves acquiring a knowledge of their gastronomy (Mason & Paggiaro, 2012; Mak, Lumbers, Eves, & Chang, 2013). In fact, one key component of the tourism experience comes from the local food, that is, from culinary or gastronomy tourism. Tourists are motivated by the desire to experience the real life of local people and to enjoy an authentic experience of the destination’s culture (Chang, Kivela, & Mak, 2010; Mak et al., 2013), part of which involves tasting the local food. Recently, interest in this topic has increased. Food is now deemed to be a vital tourism resource (Henderson, 2009; Özdemir & Seyitoglu, 2017) and travel dining is considered a core experience (Chang, Kivela, & Mak, 2011). Despite gastronomy’s importance as a powerful creator of cultural identity (Hillel, Belhassen, & Shani, 2013), a key motivator and an important pull factor, studies addressing the mutual link or interrelationship between tourism and food remain scarce amongst scholars (Cohen & Avieli, 2004; Mak, Lumbers, & Eve, 2012a), and few studies analyse it from a quantitative perspective (Okumus, Koseoglu, & Ma, 2018). Many aspects of tourist experiences with local food remain unexplored or misunderstood (Sidali & Hemmerling, 2014). What kind of food experience is desirable for tourists? Does a sharp cultural contrast positively impact on overall tourist experience? Can authentic products and a major cultural contrast when eating local food spark unpleasant experiences? To what extent is it advisable to adapt local cuisine to international visitors? Although tourist literature has emphasized the authenticity of cultural attractions as an antecedent of tourist satisfaction (Chhabra, Healy, & Sills, 2003; Ramkissoon & Uysal, 2011) or tourist 4 experience (Chang et al., 2011; Lego & Wood, 2009), the effects of authenticity and cultural contrast in the case of food are not so clear. Firstly, the abundance of food products in a globalized market (Sidali & Hemmerling, 2014) coupled with the existence of international food restaurants worldwide make transforming genuine and authentic local products into a memorable food experience ever more challenging. Secondly, even if tourists do feel attracted by local cuisine and are eager to enjoy an authentic and different experience, the real experience may prove unpleasant. Many authors have shown the ambivalence of gastronomy vis-à-vis triggering “peak touristic” experiences (Cetin & Bilgihan, 2016; Chang et al., 2011; Mak et al., 2013; Quan & Wang, 2004; Tse & Crotts, 2005) and as a barrier or unpleasant activity they prefer to avoid. Cohen and Avieli (2004) alert to the two faces of food in tourism: the culinary experience does not always mean fresh, exotic, and succulent food, but also, unfamiliar, unpalatable and disgusting dishes. Local food may be an obstacle to tourism due to the problem of offering culturally acceptable food. In the current study, we posit that the experience may be more singular, intense and memorable when tourists perceive authenticity in local food and when there is a sharp cultural contrast. However, these effects are moderated by tourists’ characteristics: the search for authenticity and the ability to adapt. Moreover, restaurants and establishments can mediate between tourists and local cuisine (Cohen & Avieli, 2004). In many cases, local dishes are transformed in various ways in order to suit tourists’ tastes and make the dishes more acceptable, at the risk of altering the perceived authenticity and cultural contrast. The desire to expand the potential market of certain restaurant chains has, as noted by Hillel et al. (2013), even caused some types of cuisine to seem more of an artificial creation or marketer’s invention than something to emerge from culinary tradition and ongoing historical processes. Based on these considerations, we also explore the influence of product adaptation on perceived food characteristics, the perceived experience and behaviour intentions (WOM and the intention to repeat). The proposed model is tested in the case 5 of international tourists who tried a local product of Spanish gastronomy. This is a case study of special interest since we have chosen an iconic dish in the local cuisine of Segovia (World Heritage City), which is well known, closely linked to the image of this tourist destination and that may be representative of traditional dishes in other gastronomic cultures. The paper’s major contribution is to offer guidelines concerning the required degree of adaptation and authenticity of the culinary experience. Findings support the idea that authenticity and cultural contrast are relevant attributes of the experience and that adapting products reduces the perception of food authenticity and cultural contrast. Moreover, authenticity has a greater effect on the experience when tourists actively seek it. However, when individuals are able to adapt to different cultures, the cultural contrast has no effect on perceived experience. 2. Conceptual framework and hypotheses 2.1. Tourist gastronomy experiences In today´s context, gastronomy is a key component of the tourist experience in the destination and the notion of a symbiotic relationship between tourism and food is widespread (Kivela & Crotts, 2006; Özdemir & Seyitoglu, 2017). Tourist destinations are more keenly aware of the benefits and positive impact of gastronomy on their development and local economy (Mak, Lumbers, Eve, & Chang, 2012b; Sims, 2009). Food can be a strategic tool in destination planning and may reinforce environmental protection and contribute towards developing a sustainable tourism sector. It is therefore a key factor in promoting local products and attracting new visitors (Kivela & Crotts, 2006; Sidali & Hemmerling, 2014; Okumus & Cetin, 2018). Hall, Sharples, Mitchell, Macionis, & Cambourne (2003) underpin the difference between gastronomy and food tourism (food as a primary purpose of the trip) and the consumption of food as an essential part of the travel experience. In the current research, we focus on the latter case, that 6 is, the role of gastronomy as a significant, essential and enriching aspect of the tourist experience. Nevertheless, even if food is not the primary purpose of a trip, eating should be considered as something more than just a supporting activity or an extension of visitors’ daily routines (Quan & Wang, 2004). Consumption of food must be seen as a “peak experience” that can contribute to the visitor having a singular, memorable and intense experience (Quan & Wang, 2004). From the tourist perspective, gastronomy is a crucial element of intangible heritage and has an enormous capacity to single out a destination. Food consumption can increase tourists’ knowledge of the local cuisine and may lead them to holistic and pleasurable sensory experiences (Chang et al., 2011; Henderson, 2009) that generate feelings and emotions (Kivela & Crotts, 2006), thus reinforcing their involvement in the destination’s local culture. According to Mason and Paggiaro (2012), the food experience is holistic since it results from the interaction of sensorial, affective, cognitive, behavioural and social experiences. As the WFTA (the World Food Travel Association) has noted, destinations are the place where “food and beverage meet travel and hospitality”. Local food displays an enormous potential to forge a close-knit link between visitors and the place, its people, its history and its culture, and therefore to enhance the visitor experience and make it more enriching (Mak et al., 2012b; Sims, 2009). Gastronomy tourism –as a hedonic productcan offer pleasure, entertainment, and excitement and can help tourists to discover, understand and share differences between their culture and others they come into contact with. Individuals’ overall appraisal of their experience plays a key role in their future decisions and behaviour. In the area of tourism, said future behaviour has often been measured as the intention to revisit the destination and to recommend the visit to others (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Barnes, Mattsson, & Sørensen, 2016; Oppermann, 2000). In other words, the perception of a memorable experience influences the intention to repeat the visit and to recommend the destination (Ali, Ryu, & Hussain, 2016; Oh, Fiore, & Jeoung, 2007). When tourists enjoy a pleasant and enriching stay, 7 they are more likely to want to repeat the experience and are therefore more likely to want to revisit the destination (Barroso, Martín, & Martín, 2007; Chen & Tsai, 2007). A memorable food experience is thus a motivation and an inducement to live the experience again, to return to a destination and try the same food again. Kivela and Crotts (2006), for instance, found that one reason to return to Hong Kong was the expectation of gastronomy, and Sparks, Bowen, and Klag, (2003) also linked the intention to return to a wine region with past gastronomical experience thereof. Mason and Paggiaro (2012) find that in culinary tourism, emotional experience is positively related to satisfaction, which in turn has a positive impact on behavioural intention. Finally, Alderighi, Bianchi, and Lorenzini, (2016) also indicate that previous experience with local food specialities is positively related to the intent to revisit a destination, Ji, Wong, Eves, and Scarles (2016) confirm a direct positive impact of food satisfaction on tourist loyalty (revisit intention and WOM), and Lee, Sung, Suh, and Zhao (2017) find that satisfaction with a food and wine festival had a positive effect on attendee intention to revisit the destination. Moreover, after the visit, individuals may be willing to share their food experiences with other potential visitors. Tourists like to talk about what they have learnt and felt during their visit and to evoke pleasant memories of their stay (Ali et al., 2016). A distinctive or memorable food experience may therefore play a decisive role in their intention to share and recommend the destination to those around them (Chen & Tsai, 2007; Um, Chon, & Ro, 2006) and through social networks (Wang & Fesenmaier, 2004; Yoo & Gretzel, 2011). Travellers who experience more intense feelings (whether positive or negative) and are more engaged in places and events are more likely to share their experiences (Kim & Fesenmaier, 2017, p. 31). Therefore, H1. The perception of a memorable food experience has a positive effect on tourists’ behavioural intention (recommendation -H1aand intention to repeat -H1b-). 8 In the following sections, we explore in depth food’s characteristics (authenticity, cultural contrast, and adaptation) and tourists’ profile (search for authenticity and adaptation ability) as determinant factors of experience perception and behavioural intentions. 2.2. Food characteristics Since we posit that memorable food experiences impact on tourist behaviour, the question is to ascertain which characteristics of the food experience make it memorable. In the current paper, we focus on three attributes: authenticity, cultural contrast and adaptation. 2.2.1. Authenticity Authenticity is a complex concept widely studied in different areas (sociology, anthropology, psychology, economy, marketing, etc.). This concept has been associated with terms such as “genuine”, “real”, “trustworthy”, “tradition” or “origin”. A review of the literature reflects the intense and controversial debate surrounding this construct and what should and should not be considered authentic. However, in the tourist context, there is currently general consensus vis-àvis the idea that authenticity is not based on a static and hermetic understanding of place and culture but that the authenticity of the experience is subjective and is determined by visitor perception (Castéran & Roederer, 2013; Sidali & Hemmerling, 2014; Sims, 2009; Wang, 1999). Authenticity is a key construct in the tourist sphere, due to the experiential nature of tourist services (Pine & Gilmore, 1998; Sidali & Hemmerling, 2014). Yeoman, Brass, & McMahon-Beattie (2007, p. 1133) define “authenti-seeking” as “consumers searching for authenticity in a range of products, services and experiences or looking for it within themselves”. It is widely accepted that authenticity is a key motivator and becomes an important aspect when visitors evaluate their travel experiences (Chang et al. 2011; Lego & Wood, 2017; Yeoman et al., 2007) although not all of them pursue it with the same intensity or to the same extent (Ozdemir & Seytoglu, 2017; Sims, 2009). Previous 9 work has shown that heritage, culture, natural resources and food, among others, can be distinctive resources which display the potential to attract authenticity seekers (Chang, et al., 2010). However, authenticity has a marked personal character as it is a subjective evaluation (Hillel et al., 2013; Newman & Dhar, 2014) which individuals must experience and discover for themselves (Gilmore & Pine, 2007; Wang, 1999). In this vein, more recent research considers tourism activities as suppliers or creators of experiential authenticity (Steiner & Reisinger, 2006; Yeoman et al. 2007). Consequently, local food is conceived as an authentic experience (Chang et al., 2010; Sims, 2009; Sidali & Hemmerling, 2014). According to Cohen and Avieli (2004), tourists use different indicators of authenticity (ingredients, cooking methods, presentation of dishes, etc.) although not all of them determine visitor appraisal in the same manner. In many gastronomic experiences, tourists evaluate the authenticity of the food based on how it is prepared whilst in others this might be consolidated by ingredients. Chang et al. (2011, p. 309) posit that the feeling of authenticity is not confined to whether local cuisine is an exact replication of traditional cuisine, but can be extended to embrace existential authenticity, that is, to finding one’s authentic self (Wang, 1999, Steiner & Reisinger, 2006). As Hillel et al. (2013, p. 201) point out, in the “gastronomic journey of knowing oneself by knowing others, much depends on the perception of the local food as authentic”. Kolar and Zabkar (2010) confirm that object-based authenticity and existential authenticity have a positive influence on tourist loyalty. In a similar line, the findings of Sidali and Hemmerling (2014) show that subjective and object-based perceived authenticity significantly affect consumption intention in the case of traditional food. Dining experiences also contribute to make travel visitor experiences more distinctive and memorable and may lead them to share their experiences in social network sites. When tourists feel they have enjoyed an authentic and unique experience, it may 16 motive were as follows: food and cuisine (4.57), cultural experience (4.38), visiting monuments and national heritage sites (4.35), leisure (4.16), rest and relaxation (4.10), shopping (3.57), and business trip or work (1.85). 3.2. Measurement of variables When possible, measurement scales were adopted from past research and adjusted to the context of the current study. All the variables were measured using five-position Likert scales. In this study, we emphasize the tourist perspective on authenticity as something subjective and experiential (Kolar & Zabkar, 2010). Thus, the scale for measuring the perception of authenticity comprises four items that reflect the extent to which tourists perceived eating cochinillo as an authentic experience and one which allows them to learn and understand local culture and traditions. These items are adapted from the scales proposed by Brida, Disegna, & Osti (2013), Kolar and Zabkar (2010), and Robinson and Clifford (2012). Perceived cultural contrast was measured through an ad hoc scale comprising three items reflecting the extent to which eating cochinillo is perceived as exotic or unfamiliar (Hartmann, Shi, Giusto, & Siegrist, 2015). In order to measure individuals’ search for authenticity, we created a three-item scale that indicates the tourist actively seeking local and genuine products. Adaptation ability was measured by five items, indicating the tourist’s general ability to adjust to other cultures and to enjoy other traditions. These items were developed based on previous research focused on food preferences (Chang et al., 2011). For perceived experience, we adapted some indicators of the scales proposed by Kim, Ritchie, & McCormick (2012), Rahman and Reynolds (2015), and Wang (2011). Specifically, we considered five items that reflect the extent to which the experience was remembered positively (memorable, stimulating, exciting, or interesting). Adaptation of the food experience was measured as a dichotomous variable. Restaurants serve cochinillo in different ways. Some restaurants present it in the traditional way, the whole roasted pig (see Figure 2a). Another 17 possibility is to cut it up into pieces and simply serve it as a piece of meat (see Figure 2b). Even if it maintains the authenticity of the product (it is the same dish, the same product, the same quality, and the same cooking method), the way it is served is adapted. This adaptation involves eliminating one characteristic of novel food experiences; that is, the way the food is delivered is not novel. Figure 2a was considered a non-adapted product and Figure 2b an adapted product. Individuals were thus asked how the cochinillo they had eaten had been presented. 56.8% had tasted the adapted product and 43.2% the non-adapted product. Insert here Figure 2 The recommendation or word-of-mouth (WOM) and intention to repeat scales are based on those used by Barroso et al. (2007), Yoon and Uysal (2005), and Mason and Paggiaro (2012). WOM was measured with just two items reflecting the individual’s intention to recommend the cochinillo and to post comments about it on social networks such as Tripadvisor. The intention to repeat is also measured with two items that indicate the intention to return to eat cochinillo and the intention to return because of the gastronomy. Finally, the cultural context of the tourists’ home country was introduced as a control variable. Following Hall’s (1976) classification, we distinguished between high-context and low-context cultures. This classification differentiates how people communicate in different cultures. High context implies that communication is less explicit and formal, but is unspoken and implicitly transferred, while low context implies that information is public and external, and explicitly exchanged. In line with this typology, the sample consisted of 54.2% of individuals belonging to low-context cultures (Europe and North America) and 45.8% belonging to high-context cultures (Asia and South America). Partial least squares (PLS) was used to perform the joint estimation of the measurement model and the structural model. Specifically, we used SmartPLS v3.2 (Ringle, Wende, & Becker, 2015). PLS 18 provides parameter estimates that maximize the explained variance (R² values) of the dependent constructs. In PLS, measurement and structural parameters are estimated via an iterative procedure that combines simple and multiple regression by traditional Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), thus avoiding any distributional assumption of the observed variables (Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt, 2011). In order to verify the hypotheses proposed in the model using the PLS approach, so-called path coefficients need to be analysed, applying three kinds of criteria; sign, size and significance, the latter estimated from the Student t value. To do this, the chosen software applies a re-sampling procedure known as bootstrapping that generates a series of samples from an original sample (in this study, 500 sub-samples were randomly generated). Estimations of the final parameters are calculated as the mean of the estimations obtained in all the samples generated, enabling their significance to be determined from the distribution of the parameters estimated around the mean (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1999). Table 1 shows the variables used in the study and the measurement indicators together with the corresponding descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation). Information is also provided concerning the outcomes of the reliability and validity analysis of the measurement scales used. Composite reliability (CR) and average extracted variance (AVE) values are given, as are the factor loadings, all of which yielded acceptable values and are above recommended thresholds (CR>0.7, AVE>0.5, and standardized loadings>0.7), except for the cultural contrast variable (one item with a standardized loading below 0.7). Table 2 shows the correlation matrix. The Fornell-Larker criterion confirms discriminant validity. In all cases, the AVE of each variable exceeds the value of its squared correlation with the other variables. Insert here Table 1 Insert here Table 2 19 Since we collected survey data from single informants, common method variance (CMV) bias is a threat to the validity of our results. In order to avoid CMV bias, item wording was revised so as to avoid ambiguous or unfamiliar terms and the question order did not match the causal sequence in the model. In order to gauge the impact of common method bias, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted. Exploratory factor analysis with all the indicators reveals six factors with an eigenvalue greater than one accounting for less than 69% of explained variance, and with a first factor explaining 15.4% of total variance. This result indicates that CMV is not an issue in our study. 4. Analysis and results As already pointed out, PLS was used to test the proposed hypotheses. Structural model evaluation is conducted by examining the size and significance of the path coefficients and the R2 value of the dependent variable. Table 3 sums up the results of the estimation performed. The R2 values are: R2Perceived experience=0.512 R2WOM=0.293 and R2Intention=0.284. Insert here Table 3 With these results, we find support for H1. The perception of a memorable experience has a positive effect both on the intention to recommend (=0.493, p<0.01) and the intention to repeat the experience in the future (=0.333, p<0.01). The perceived authenticity of the food experience improves the experience perception (=0.300, p<0.01) (H2 is supported). However, we do not find support for either H3a or H3b. The direct effect of perceived authenticity on the intention to recommend (=0.038, p>0.10) and to repeat (=0.043, p>0.10) is not significant. H4 is also supported; cultural contrast has a positive influence on the perceived experience (=0.317, p<0.01). On the other hand, the perception of cultural contrast has no significant direct effect on recommendation (=0.052, p>0.10) but does have a positive direct effect on the intention to repeat 20 the experience (=0.253, p<0.01). Therefore, H5a is rejected and H5b is supported. As for product adaptation, results confirm the negative and significant effect of adaptation on perceived authenticity (=-0.125, p<0.05) and on cultural contrast (=-0.123, p<0.05) (H6a and H6b are supported). We also introduced the direct effect of product adaptation on perceived experience (=0.030, p>0.10), WOM (=-0.061, p>0.10), and the intention to repeat (=0.007, p>0.10) in order to rule out a confounding effect, and we observe that these effects are not significant. Individuals who were given the adapted product perceived less authenticity and less cultural contrast, although the experience and future behaviour are not directly determined by the way the product was consumed. With regard to the moderating effects, the search for authenticity reinforces the positive effect of authenticity on the perception of a memorable experience (=0.085, p<0.05). H7 is therefore supported. In Figure 3a, the moderating effect of the search for authenticity is represented. We observe that authenticity has a greater effect on the perceived experience (greater slope) for those who seek authenticity. In addition, they show greater levels of perceived experience. However, contrary to expectations, adaptation ability weakens the impact of cultural contrast on the experience (=-0.144, p<0.01). The greater the individual’s ability to adapt to different cultures, the lower the positive effect of cultural contrast on perceived experience. Thus, H8 is rejected. As can be seen in Figure 3b, while cultural contrast has a positive effect on the experience for individuals with a lower adaptation ability, in individuals who display a greater ability to adapt, the degree of cultural contrast has no impact on their perceived experience. Insert here Figure 3 Finally, the control variable (tourists’ cultural context) has significant effects on perceived authenticity (=-0.171, p<0.01), the search for authenticity (=-0.138, p<0.05), adaptation ability 21 (=-0.170, p<0.01), and perceived experience (=-0.078, p<0.10). Tourists who belong to highcontext cultures perceive less authenticity in the cochinillo than tourists from low-context cultures, added to which their perceived experience is lower. Moreover, tourists from high-context cultures show less adaptation ability, and the search for authenticity is also lower. Table 4 shows the indirect and total effects. Results indicate there is a negative indirect effect of product adaptation on perceived experiences (=-0.076, p<0.05). However, the total effect is not significant (=-0.047, p>0.10). The positive direct effect (=0.030, p>0.10) offsets the negative indirect effect (=-0.076, p<0.05); that is, there is a suppressor effect. On the other hand, the accumulation of the direct and indirect negative effects of product adaptation on WOM (=-0.061, p>0.10 and =-0.034, p>0.10) results in a significant total effect (=-0.095, although only p<0.10). Perceived authenticity and cultural contrast show positive and significant total effects on perceived experience (=0.300, p<0.01 and =0.317, p<0.01), WOM (=0.186, p<0.01 and =0.208, p<0.01), and the intention to repeat (=0.143, p<0.05 and =0.358, p<0.01). Curiously, perceived cultural contrast is the variable which has the greatest impact on the intention to return, since it directly and indirectly affects through perceived experience. Insert here Table 4 5. Discussion The OECD (2012) indicates that the focus of many tourists has changed from the classic 'must see' physical sights towards a ‘must-experience’ imperative to consume intangible expressions of culture. Food plays a major part in the tourist experience of this intangible culture. Tourists pursue unique and memorable experiences, with eating and drinking forming an essential part thereof. However, while tourists demand traditional and authentic food, they may also be averse to 22 unfamiliar foods due to the insecurity and perceived risk that changing or breaking their eating habits may imply for them. This contradictory scenario has meant that destination managers are on slippery ground. In this context, the current study contributes to furthering our understanding of the food experience by exploring how the authenticity or adaptation of the gastronomic experience and cultural contrast impact on the tourist experience and on the way tourists will talk about and share the experience. Findings show that the perception of authenticity in the food experience and cultural contrast determine the perception of a memorable, exciting and interesting experience. In line with previous researchers (Yeoman et al., 2007; Sims, 2009; Goolaup et al., 2018), our results confirm the importance of both aspects in the interaction between visitor and gastronomy. In addition, perceived authenticity and cultural contrast -when resulting in a memorable experiencesignificantly influence future tourist behaviour by increasing the intention to recommend the experience or to repeat it in the future. Tourists today seek meaningful and evocative experiences (Goolaup et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2012). Food can be an adventure in itself and a surprising element. The food experience can almost be a roller coaster that leads the tourist to open up to new flavours, textures and smells, thereby triggering new sensations. Gastronomy can give the visitor the opportunity to self-explore and discover new things, thus marking and shaping the experience. In this sense, we confirm that cultural contrast is a key ingredient of the food experience that adds value, contributing towards making the visitor experience meaningful and unique. Perceived cultural contrast is the variable showing the highest impact on revisit intention. It is a reason to return even if the tasting experience has not proved positive, added to which it also has an indirect effect on WOM. For all these reasons, cultural contrast is a vital ingredient of gastronomic experiences that should be enhanced so as to create differential experiences which leave a deep impression on the tourist. 23 Results also show that although product adaptation (for instance, a different presentation or appearance) diminishes perceived authenticity and cultural contrast, it has no significant effect on perceived experience. However, when the product is adapted, the intention to recommend or talk about it is lower than when the tourist has tasted the non-adapted product. Therefore, tourists’ behaviour depends on the product’s degree of adaptation. In line with this result, Cohen and Avieli (2004) indicate that food involves visual and taste senses, albeit in different directions. While the visual does not imply any risk to the body, eating does entail direct potential risks. Thus, when tourists’ expected behaviour mainly depends on their visual sensorial experience (for instance, sending a photo to friends or posting an image in Trypadvisor) the non-adapted product is preferable, while when it depends on the taste sensorial experience (perceived experience), the adapted product is acceptable. The study also explores the role of the tourist’s profile in the food experience. Results indicate that the authenticity of the food tasted has a greater effect on the perceived experience for tourists who are keen to seek authenticity. In fact, these tourists always rate the food experience more highly. As for individuals who are able to adapt to the habits, uses or traditions of other cultures, cultural contrast barely impacts on their experience. The greater the tourist’s adaptability the less they are impacted by perceived differences. One feasible explanation for this is that a greater capacity for adaptation can predispose individuals towards new food experiences because they look forward to it. Hence, this anticipation leads them to discount novelty, such that the contrast and the surprise of the food experience diminishes. 5.1. Managerial implications Certain managerial implications emerge from the results of this study. It is evident that tourist destinations should foster the development of tourism through authentic food experiences that appeal to tourists. Moreover, destinations should be more interested in attracting tourists for whom 24 the gastronomic experience represents a major contrast or shock, since they will enjoy the experience more, will be ready to return and will be the magnet for future tourists. Managers who wish to promote tourism through gastronomy should help to enhance the perceived visitor experience, by stressing the cuisine’s authenticity and cultural contrast. By developing and advocating iconic food that offers greater authenticity and provides a sharp contrast for visitors, destinations and restaurants will be creating suggestive and enriching experiences that distinguish them from competitors. By reinforcing authentic experiences and cultural contrast, destinations can develop gastronomic routes to experience the local cuisine in more authentic and unique environments, merging food with other tangible as well as intangible elements of the destination, such as landscapes and lifestyles or enjoying the preparation of products and traditional cooking techniques. Despite the degree of authenticity or novelty in food experiences, tourists display different attitudes toward local culture (Chang et al., 2010). These divergences imply a major challenge for tourist destinations. Tourism managers must often satisfy the contrasting demands of international tourists (authentic versus adapted-familiar products) whilst striving to preserve the authenticity and cultural identity of the local cuisine. According to our results, while authenticity is always recommendable, the degree of adaptation will depend on the expected outcomes. If we focus on tourists’ personal experience, both adapted and non-adapted products provide a positive experience if the product is perceived as authentic and unique. However, if we focus on recommendation, WOM, and attracting new tourists, a non-adapted product is desirable. This has implications for advertising, webpages, or any visual communication. Using images of non-adapted products in advertising is advisable in order to highlight the cultural contrast and to encourage WOM or the intention to repeat the experience. 25 Once again, tourist segmentation would appear to be essential vis-à-vis achieving greater tourist benefits from the local cuisine culture. Tourists who seek authenticity are, evidently, the more desirable segment for food tourism, while those who are more fearful of differences and novelty prove less interesting as food tourists. Tourists also can be segmented according to adaptation capability. In this sense, we may return to the classical distinction between travellers and tourists, or between experienced and non-experienced tourists. Whereas individuals who experience greater difficulties adapting to new cultures (perhaps novel and less-experienced tourists) are more struck by the cultural contrast and, therefore, more surprised by the experience, those who are more adaptable (travellers or experienced tourists) will enjoy the food experience, even though it will leave less of an impression on them. Culinary resources are not always well marketed, and in certain tourist destinations “local foods are considered a supplementary product rather than a stand-alone attraction in official destination marketing efforts” (Okumus and Cetin, 2018). Given that food helps to project a destination’s identity and culture, the image of local food should be treated with the same relevance as other aspects in terms of marketing promotion and communication. Indeed, branding food tourism must adopt a cultural approach, where foods are explicitly linked to their place of origin and to local culture, distinguishing them from those of other competitors (Lai, Khoo-Lattimore, & Wang, 2018). Marketing strategies should appeal to the authenticity and cultural contrast of local cuisine as attributes on which to build a solid brand image that differentiates one tourist destination from another. The image of authentic and exotic food should form an integral part of a destination’s image. In order to reinforce the aura of authenticity, local food might be linked to cultural heritage, with information being provided about its historical background and the origin of food commodities. 32 Sims, R. (2009). Food, place and authenticity: local food and the sustainable tourism experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(3), 321-336. Sparks, B., Bowen, J., & Klag, S. (2003). Restaurants and the tourist market. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(1), 6-13. Spradley, J.P., & Phillips, M. (1972). Culture and stress: A quantitative analysis. American Anthropologist, 74(3), 518-529. Steiner, C.J., & Reisinger, Y. (2006). Understanding existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2), 299-318. Tse, P., & Crotts, J. C. (2005). Antecedents of novelty seeking: international visitors’ propensity to experiment across Hong Kong's culinary traditions. Tourism Management, 26(6), 965-968. Um, S., Chon, K., & Ro, Y. (2006). Antecedents of revisit intention. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), 1141-1158. Wang, H.Y. (2011). Exploring the factors of gastronomy blogs influencing readers´ intention to taste. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 503-514. Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 349-370. Wang, Y., & Fesenmaier, D. (2004). Towards understanding member´s general participation in and active contribution to an online travel community. Tourism Management, 25(6), 709-722. Winkelman. M. (1994), Cultural shock and adaptation. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73(2), 121-126. Yeoman, I., Brass, D., & McMahon-Beattie, U. (2007). Current issue in tourism: The authentic tourist. Tourism Management, 28, 1128-1138. Yoo, K.H., & Gretzel, U. (2011). Influence of personality on travel-related consumer-generated media creation. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 609-621. 33 Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1), 45-56. Zhang, Y., Li, X., & Wu, T. (2017). The impacts of cultural values on bilateral international tourist flows: a panel data gravity model. Current Issues in Tourism, 1-15. 34 Figure 1. Proposed model FOOD CHARACTERISTICS Perceived authenticity Cultural contrast TOURIST ATTITUDES Search for authenticity Adaptation ability PERCEIVED EXPERIENCE BEHAVIOURAL INTENTIONS WOM Intention to repeat H2, H4 H3, H5 H7, H8 H1 Product (food) adaptation H6 35 Figure 2. Experience adaptation (a) Non-adapted product (b) Adapted product 36 Figure 3. Moderating effects Figure 3a. Interaction Perceived authenticity * Search for authenticity Figure 3b. Interaction Cultural contrast * Adaptation ability 37 Table 1. Measurement of variables Variables and items Mean SD Loadings Perceived authenticity (CR= 0.885; AVE=0.659) Eating cochinillo was an authentic experience 3.94 0.814 0.845 I think eating cochinillo has helped me to get a better idea of the local culture 3.86 0.851 0.832 By eating cochinillo, I've learned many things I didn´t know 3.76 0.884 0.772 Now I understand local tradition and the habits of Segovian cuisine 3.78 0.872 0.796 Cultural contrast (CR=0.847; AVE=0.651) Eating cochinillo has proven to be a great cultural contrast for me 4.37 0.932 0.680 Eating cochinillo is exotic for me 3.94 0.897 0.858 I had hardly heard of this typical dish (cochinillo) 3.90 0.883 0.867 Search for authenticity (CR=0.852; AVE=0.657) I try to know real products and customs from the place I visit 4.40 0.851 0.827 I avoid tourist-directed products and seek genuine products from the place I visit. 3.94 0.749 0.789 I should eat local food while travelling. That´s what we call “genuine travel” 3.94 0.858 0.815 Adaptation ability (CR=0.899; AVE=0.641) I really enjoy local culture 3.85 0.789 0.712 I like to immerse myself in the local lifestyle 3.74 0.947 0.784 I like tasting local products 3.98 0.774 0.767 I like practising local traditions 3.68 1.090 0.885 I try to mix with local people and not to look like a tourist 3.63 1.155 0.844 Perceived experience (CR=0.925; AVE=0.711) I will remember many positive things about cochinillo or this food 3.96 0.845 0.808 This is a memorable food experience 3.88 0.864 0.818 Eating cochinillo was stimulating 3.92 0.968 0.865 Eating cochinillo and the way it´s prepared were exciting 3.97 1.012 0.878 Eating cochinillo was interesting for me 4.11 0.985 0.845 WOM (CR=0.861; AVE=0.756) If I talk about Segovia, I’ll recommend the cochinillo 3.76 0.933 0.884 I’ll post comments about cochinillo on social networks such as Tripadvisor 3.29 1.149 0.854 Intention to repeat (CR=0.926; AVE=0.862) I would like to visit Segovia again due to its gastronomy 4.18 1.044 0.930 If I come to Segovia again, I’ll eat cochinillo again 3.87 0.918 0.927 Product adaptation Non adapted=0; Adapted=1 0.56 0.496 1.000 Cultural context Low-context=0; High-context =1 0.46 0.499 1.000 38 Table 2. Correlation matrix and discriminant validity Adaptation ability Cultural context Cultural contrast Intention to repeat Perceived authenticity Product adaptation WOM Search for authenticity Perceived experience Adaptation ability 0.801 Cultural context -0.170 1.000 Cultural contrast 0.246 -0.037 0.807 Repeat intention 0.291 -0.108 0.449 0.928 Perceived authenticity 0.402 -0.161 0.417 0.341 0.812 Product adaptation -0.170 -0.083 -0.118 -0.042 -0.109 1.000 WOM 0.401 -0.096 0.339 0.644 0.346 -0.096 0.869 Search for authenticity 0.490 -0.138 0.456 0.596 0.452 -0.070 0.450 0.810 Perceived experience 0.402 -0.195 0.535 0.497 0.568 -0.052 0.545 0.551 0.843 (*) The main diagonal shows the square root of the extracted variance for the reflective variables 39 Table 3. Hypotheses estimation Hypotheses Relationships βa H1a Perceived experience → WOM 0.493*** H1b Perceived experience → Intention to repeat 0.333*** H2 Perceived authenticity → Perceived experience 0.300*** H3a Perceived authenticity →WOM 0.038 H3b Perceived authenticity → Intention to repeat 0.043 H4 Cultural contrast → Perceived experience 0.317*** H5a Cultural contrast → WOM 0.052 H5b Cultural contrast → Intention to repeat 0.253*** H6a Product adaptation → Perceived authenticity -0.125** H6b Product adaptation → Cultural contrast -0.123** - Search for authenticity → Perceived experience 0.206** H7 Perceived authenticity*Search for authenticity → Perceived experience 0.085** - Adaptation ability → Perceived experience 0.108** H8 Cultural contrast*Adaptation ability → Perceived experience -0.144*** Control effects Cultural context → Perceived authenticity -0.171*** Cultural context → Cultural contrast -0.047 Cultural context → Product adaptation -0.082 Cultural context → Perceived experience -0.078* Cultural context → Search for authenticity -0.138** Cultural context → Adaptation ability -0.170*** Cultural context → WOM 0.004 Cultural context → Intention to repeat -0.027 Product adaptation → Perceived experience 0.030 Product adaptation → WOM -0.061 Product adaptation → Intention to repeat 0.007 (***) p<0.01; (**) p<0.05; (*) p< 0.10. (a) Standardised Coefficients 40 Table 4. Indirect and total effects Dependent variables Independent variables Perceived experience WOM Intention to repeat Indirect Total Indirect Total Indirect Total Product adaptation -0.076** -0.047 -0.034 -0.095* -0.052 -0.045 Perceived authenticity - 0.300*** 0.148*** 0.186*** 0.100*** 0.143** Cultural contrast - 0.317*** 0.156*** 0.208*** 0.105*** 0.358*** (***) p<0.01; (**) p< 0.05; (*) p<0.10