Experience Value or Satiety? The Effects of the Amount and Variety of Tourists’ Activities on Perceived Experience

1 EXPERIENCE VALUE OR SATIETY? THE EFFECTS OF THE AMOUNT AND VARIETY OF TOURISTS’ ACTIVITIES ON PERCEIVED EXPERIENCE 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 Acknowledgment This work was supported by the Junta de Castilla y León (Spain) [project references VA112P17 and VA085G18] and by the Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Competitiveness (Spain) [project reference ECO2017-86628-P]. When the paper was submitted, we had not received funding, so no reference is made to the projects in the publication. This is the accepted version of the manuscript: Antón, C., Camarero-Izquierdo, C., y LagunaGarcía, M. (2018). Experience value or satiety? The effects of the amount and variety of tourists’ activities on perceived experience. Journal of Travel Research, 57(7), 920-935. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517727366 2 Abstract: In recent years, destinations have moved from designing products to focusing on creating experiences that engage and involve the tourist. This study explores the role played by the value of tourist experience and of satiety as mediators between experience intensity and variety as well as future visitor behaviour. Although the intensity and variety of the experience leads tourists to feel their experience has been richer and to appraising it positively, it might also bring unwanted consequences such as a feeling of saturation. The empirical study reveals that the extensiveness of the experience improves the perceived experience value, whereas intensiveness reduces the value and causes satiety in the tourist. Moreover, while the experience value reinforces the intention to return, the intention to recommend and the intensification of the experience, the feeling of satiety, on the other hand, reduces the intention to return and even the intention to recommend the destination Keywords: satiety, tourist experience, experience intensity, extensiveness, behavioural intention 3 EXPERIENCE VALUE OR SATIETY? THE EFFECTS OF THE AMOUNT AND VARIETY OF TOURISTS’ ACTIVITIES ON PERCEIVED EXPERIENCE Abstract Tourist firms and destinations have moved from designing products to focusing on creating experiences that engage and involve the tourist. Although the intensity (intensiveness) and variety of the experience (extensiveness) leads tourists to feel their experience has been livelier and richer and to appraising it positively, it might also bring unwanted consequences such as a feeling of saturation. The present study seeks to explore the role played by the value of said experience and of satiety as mediators between experience intensity and variety as well as future visitor behaviour. The empirical study reveals that the variety of activities improves the perceived experience value, whereas investing too much time reduces the value and causes satiety in the tourist. Moreover, while the experience value reinforces the intention to return, the intention to recommend and the intensification of the experience, the feeling of satiety, reduces the intention to return and recommend. Keywords Tourist experience, intensity, variety, satiety, behavioural intention 4 1. INTRODUCTION Today’s clients not only seek to fulfil their basic needs but also to expand their range of consumer choices and situations to a higher level; the level of excitement and experiences. Since the publication of Pine and Gilmore’s work (1999), the notion that experiences constitute the essence of consumption has taken root amongst marketing scholars in general and particularly amongst those analysing the tourist industry and market. This is reflected in the many recent studies in the tourist field that have addressed the empirical study of tourist experiences, such as Hosany and Witham (2010), Barnes et al (2014) and Neuhofer et al (2014). In the area of services, what clients feel and think to a large extent stems from what they do and from the sensations that are aroused when interacting with the product at socalled “touch points” (Meyer and Schwager, 2007). From a tourist perspective, the experience also involves every aspect in terms of direct or indirect contact with what the destination being visited has to offer (Meyer and Schwager, 2007). Individuals forge their experience based on their subjective perception of each moment and situation in which they interact with the place visited or consume the tourist product (Anderson, 2007). Yet, despite the clear link between “what the tourist does, feels, and thinks,” few works have focused on exploring the link between these and how the visitors’ role as “doers” impacts their experience and future behavioral intentions (Addis and Holbrook, 2001) impacts on their experience and future behaviour. This is the specific context in which the current work is framed: what happens when a tourist is extremely active and squeezes out all the possibilities a destination has to offer? What are the consequences on their experience and future intentions? The desire of tourist firms and destinations to maximise visitor economic impact has led them to devise strategies aimed at increasing not only tourist numbers but also the 5 frequency of the trip, the length of the stay and the amount spent so as to thus enhance profitability (Mook and Iverson, 2000). However, the impact of the objective or quantitative dimension of the experience on future intentions (intention to return or to intensify the visit) might prove ambiguous. A more intense visit might provide the visitor with a chance to gain a fresh and more comprehensive perspective of the place visited, encouraging them to repeat the experience in future (Petrick, 2004). On the other hand, tourists who invest more time, money and effort might get the feeling of having fully exploited all the possibilities the destination has to offer and so discard it as a future tourist option. Whilst it is true that active tourists may have more intense experiences in different environments, too much time or money invested in a particular destination may lead to satiety. In the current study, we propose that the tourist experience involves two dimensions: the objective experience (tourists’ activity) and the subjective experience (the experience value). According to Hoeffler et al. (2013), the objective experience can be measured in terms of intensiveness (amount of activity) and extensiveness (scope of the activities). Both the intensiveness and extensiveness of activities can trigger a positive evaluation of the experience. Yet, while extensiveness can reduce satiety (or the psychological perception of weariness resulting from the activities undertaken), intensiveness can increase the perception of satiety. Tourist experience and satiety exert a differing impact on their future intentions. Remembering positive experiences boosts the intention to repeat the destination and to recommend (Chen and Chen, 2010; Hosany and Witham, 2009, 2010; Oh et al., 2007; Prebensen et al., 2014; Williams and Soutar, 2009) or to intensify the visit and maintaining interest in the destination or type of activity (De Rojas and Camarero, 2008), whereas satiety can, however, have a negative impact on future intentions. 6 Our study attempts to address the consequences of the amount and variety of tourists’ activity and to consider the issue of satiety. To the best of our knowledge, few studies have explored the role of satiety as a negative consequence of a major investment in a destination. In the current study, we show evidence of the mediating role of the experience value and the perceived satiety between the objective experience and the tourist’s future behaviour. Enjoying a greater number of tourist activities and products may provide an experiential reward in itself that makes individuals more willing to talk about what they have learnt and experienced (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) and ready to repeat (Petrick, 2004). Our study, however, highlights that only if the activity is varied will the experience be valued positively, will satiety be reduced, and will there be future loyalty. Contrastingly, a major investment in terms of time will cause satiety, reduce the value of the experience and lead to tourists being less likely to repeat or even recommend the destination. 2. THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND 2.1. The experience economy and the tourist experience The experience economy approach recognizes experiences as a distinct economic offering. Pine and Gilmore (1998, 1999) pioneered this approach when claiming that companies need to shift their business focus from offering services (service economy) to creating unforgettable memories. These memories become a new product in itself (Oh et al., 2007). Pine and Gilmore (1999, p. 12) defined experience as “events that engage individuals in a personal way”. Said authors establish four areas of the value of the experience depending on the individual’s degree of involvement and engagement: entertainment, education, aesthetics and escapism. They point out that many of the most 7 enriching experiences merge aspects of all four. Entertainment is the result of passively absorbing experiences through the senses, although there is less relational connection with the event, since it is observed from outside. Education requires active participation but no close connection to the event. Aesthetic experiences imply higher levels of customer immersion but low levels of customer participation. Finally, escapism is an imaginative activity requiring active participation and a high degree of immersion in an event. The experience economy concept has been introduced in tourism research in order to interpret tourist experiences (Hosany and Witham, 2009; Mehmetoglu and Engen, 2011; Oh et al., 2007; Park et al., 2010). Tourists seek unforgettable and memorable experiences, and these determine the value of the destination visited (Oh et al., 2007; Song et al., 2015). As Oh et al. (2007) indicate, “everything tourists go through at a destination can be experience, be it behavioural or perceptual, cognitive or emotional”. In this line, we distinguish two dimensions of the experience, the objective (or tourist’s behaviour) and the subjective (or tourist’s perception). The subjective dimension in turn involves cognitive and emotional aspects. The objective dimension of the tourist experience. The objective dimension of the experience reflects the quantitative aspects related to the tourist’s consumption at the destination. One aspect of the experience is the mere exposure to the stimuli (Hoeffler et al., 2013). In the tourist context, this dimension has been evaluated in terms of visit intensity. Beerli and Martín (2004) define visit intensity as the individual’s level of interaction with the destination and measure it through the number of places of interest the individual is personally familiar with. In a similar vein, Antón et al. (2014) posit a quantitative measure reflecting the objective and behavioural component of the 8 experience, measured through the duration of the stay and the amount spent. A longer stay in terms of days and amount spent might enable the visitor to forge a closer relationship with the destination and enjoy more activities and tourist products. All of these evaluations underscore the extent of the activity but neglect the issue of variety. Hoeffler et al. (2013) refine the objective experience into two sub-dimensions: intensiveness and extensiveness. Intensiveness is the “amount of frequency with which a person has been exposed to a product category”. For instance, a tourist who has spent many days in the same destination has accumulated a high intensiveness of experience. Extensiveness is the “breadth or the variety of exposure a person has accumulated in a product environment”. In the context of tourism, it involves the variety of activities performed during the visit to a destination. The subjective dimension of the tourist experience. The tourist experience cannot be properly understood without taking into account its subjective dimension: the experience value. The subjective dimension refers principally to the value and emotional aspect the tourist attributes to the activities undertaken as a whole. In a tourism context, Prebensen et al., (2013) define experience value as the benefits tourists perceive from a journey and from their stay at a particular destination, including assets or resources which they and other tourists as well as the host bring to the process of cocreating experiences. The experience value is thus an individual perception, and is relativistic and comparative (Prebensen and Xie, 2017). Moreover, the experience value perception involves the tourist taking part in creating experience value. As pointed out by Carballo et al., (2015, p.71) when tourists travel, the real journey is an interior one and depends on the impact caused by their subjective and personal perception. In this regard, Jaakkola et al. (2015) define the experience with a service as the individual’s 9 subjective response to the elements of a service and which emerges during the purchase or use process or through imagination or memory. With regard to measuring the value of an experience, reference must be made to the pioneering work of Pine and Gilmore (1998). Pine and Gilmore's concept and model (the four realms of experience) have proved suitable for measuring the benefits of tourist activity and have been applied and validated in a number of studies in the tourism field (Hosany & Witham, 2009; Mehmetoglu & Engen, 2011; Oh, Fiore, & Jeoung, 2007; Park, Oh, & Park, 2010; Song et al., 2015). This model fits in with the concept of Prebensen et al’s. (2014, p. 101) tourism experience value, specifically when they indicate that the tourism experience may be explained as a result of a set of physical, emotional, spiritual and/or intellectual impressions. This concept of tourism implies that the experience value involves cognitive and emotional aspects. Arnould and Price (1993) note that extraordinary experiences are those characterised by high levels of emotional intensity. Yet, certain authors defend the idea that in addition to the emotional side, experiences also involve a cognitive component (Oh, Fiore and Jeoung; 2007; Carlson, 1997; Walls et al, 2011). Based on the above proposals, in the present work we distinguish two main components of the experience value, the cognitive and the emotional. The cognitive component refers to physical and intellectual impressions, which we identify as attainment and learning, while the emotional component refers to emotional and spiritual impressions, which we specify as escapism and fantasy. (1) Attainment is seen as the perception that the investment made has been capitalised on and rewarded and is closely linked to the value tourists attribute to their experience at the destination (Laing et al. 2014; Prebensen et al. 2013). It is 16 When tourists have a pleasant and enriching stay, they are more likely to want to repeat the experience and are therefore more likely to want to revisit the destination (Barroso et al., 2007; Chen and Tsai, 2007). In other words, the experience itself is the actual motivation and stimulus driving their purchase decision (Schmitt, 1999). Furthermore, the information gathered and processed during the tourist’s stay and stemming from their own experience and personal knowledge might emerge, at least from their own particular perspective, as a more realistic and comprehensive source of information than can be obtained from secondary sources, since it is the result of their direct involvement and relation with the place (Beerli and Martín, 2004; Pearce, 1982; Phelps, 1986). This acquired knowledge allows visitors to appraise and judge the destination, based on which they will tend to share the experience with those around them and recommend it to a greater or lesser extent. Tourists like to talk about what they have learnt and felt during their visit (Carballo et al. 2015) and to evoke pleasant memories of their stay (Ali et al, 2016). A pleasant experience may therefore play a decisive role in their intention to share and recommend the trip to those around them (Chen and Tsai, 2007; Um et al. 2006). Finally, the tourist experience is a cumulative process which provides individuals with emotional, cognitive and sensorial values. This cumulative process includes the planning stage of the trip, the actual visit itself and the subsequent appraisal (Carballo, Moreno, León and Brent Ritchie, 2015). When tourists undergo significant experiences, they engage more than anticipated (Harrison, 2001) and seek to intensify the visit with subsequent activities such as searching for further information about the destination or the type of experience they have had. 17 H3. The experience value (attainment, learning, escapism, and fantasy) has a positive influence on the intention to return to the destination (H3a), the recommendation (H3b) and the intensification of the experience (H3c). In contrast, frequent repetitions of the visit which fail to provide value and to add anything new might lead to satiety with the destination. Should this occur, visitors will view the option to continue consuming the same type of product and amenity, and in the same place, as a negative experience, thus curtailing their intention to repeat the visit. Satiety leads to a reduction in marginal utility, making the consumer derive less utility as consumption of the product increases. In the field of tourism, if individuals feel saturated they will prefer not to continue consuming any more of the productdestination as a result of having reached the maximum possible level of stimulus (McAlister, 1982). The idea that repeated exposure to the same stimulus (destination) brings about less satisfaction than might be derived from a different stimulus (new destinations) could spark rejection behaviour towards the destination (Park and Jang, 2014). Satiety brings on a feeling of weariness and even displeasure, which might lead to the tourist not only refusing to consume more (to repeat the experience at the destination or to search for further information) but might also restrict their intention to recommend an experience they do not have fond memories of. Based on this, we posit: H4. Satiety has a negative influence on the intention to return to the destination (H4a), on recommendation (H4b) and on the intensification of the experience (H4c). The set of proposed hypotheses are summed up in Figure 1. Insert here Figure 1 18 3. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS 3.1. Sample selection and data collection To test the hypotheses, a survey was carried out amongst visitors to Segovia during the summer of 2014. Segovia is a historic city located in central Spain and declared World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1985. It is a leading tourist destination in Spain for culture and cuisine. The city boasts great cultural uniqueness (thanks to its world famous Roman aqueduct and its cathedral), as well as a rich and long history and beautiful landscapes that make Segovia a destination which offers a wide range of possibilities for enjoyment. The small size of the city affords tourists many options for relaxing and enjoying the natural beauty of walking through green areas while visiting the city’s iconic monuments such as the Alcazar (fortified palace), the Royal Mint or the Monastery of Parral. Information was gathered in conjunction with the city’s Tourism Watchdog. The study´s population was defined as visitors over the age of 18, and information was collected through a personal interview conducted on a sample of tourists. The team of interviewers were given precise instructions concerning the type of visitor to be selected. A system of quotas by tourist age and origin (domestic or foreign) was established. The sample was delimited in close collaboration with the Segovia City Council and Tourist Board (Segovia´s official body for promoting tourism) whose monetary contribution proved decisive in supporting the financial cost of the research. Quotas were set based on the profile of tourists provided by relevant sources of tourism statistics: Spanish Statistics Institute (INE) and Segovia’s Tourism Watchdog. Segovia is a place usually visited by foreign and national tourists because, as noted, it has an important international projection due to its declaration as a World Heritage Site, its being located in the centre of the country and its excellent communications links to the 19 capital, Madrid. Based on these considerations, the final sample comprised an equal number of domestic and foreign visitors. In addition, only visitors who had been in the city for more than half of their planned stay (preferably who were about to conclude their stay) were chosen. The questionnaire was translated into English for foreign tourists. Interviewees were approached in different areas of the city frequented by tourists (the main sightseeing areas, near restaurants and hotels), on various days of the week and at different times of day. Visitors were selected by the interviewers according to these criteria (time expend and quotas by origin and age), and informed of the objectives of the research as well as the importance of their collaboration, whilst giving them complete freedom to answer the survey and thanking them for their cooperation. Finally, a total of 400 valid questionnaires were collected. In terms of ages, 28.6% of respondents were between 18 and 24 years old, 35.3% between 25 and 44 years old, 28.8% between 45 and 64 and 7.3% over 65 years of age. 3.2. Measurement of the variables In order to measure the intensiveness of the experience we considered two indicators: the duration of the stay in terms of the number of days and the per capita spending per day in Euros (Petrick, 2004). The extensiveness of the visit was measured as the number of different activities performed, selected from among the various alternatives offered by this destination. This choice was based on the information obtained from the Head of the Visitor Reception Centre and two focus groups with tourists who reported and gave information about their experiences and the best things to do when in the city. This information allowed a preliminary list to be drawn up that was then complemented with activities (i.e. a tour by bicycle, a hot air balloon ride or a helicopter tour) available at the Segovia tourism website and tourist offices. Finally, in order not to prolong the 20 interview, the activities that were most relevant and sought after by visitors were selected. The final list consisted of thirteen activities that included things visitors normally do in most places that are visited (i. e. taking photos, strolling through the city, etc.) as well as others more specifically related to the type of destination and its tourist offer (i.e. enjoying local cuisine, visiting monuments or taking an aerial tour of the city by helicopter). The measurement scales for the dimensions of experience value (attainment, learning, escapism, and fantasy) and individual satiety, were created ad hoc for the study based on experience economy literature. All these measurement items were operationalized using 5-point Likert scales (from completely disagree to completely agree). Specifically, enrichment or learning and escapism and fantasy were measured using three indicators adapted from Oh, et al (2007), Hosany and Witham (2010) and Wu and Holsapple, (2014). To measure attainment and satiety, new scales based on a review of the literature as well as contributions by Hosany and Martin, 2011, Laing et al. 2014 and Verhoef et al. 2009, were constructed. The three dimensions of future behaviour intention considered were measured using a total of seven indicators, one for return intention, four for the intention to recommend (Barroso et al. 2007; Chen and Tsai, 2007; Lee et al., 2005; Oppermann, 2000) and a further two for intensification (De Rojas and Camarero, 2008). The questionnaire, especially ad hoc scales, was reviewed by the experts of Segovia’s Tourism Watchdog and by two experts in tourism. They did not find any problem with the final wording of the indicators, and did not considered necessary to include additional items to clarify the content. Table 1 shows the variables used in the study and their measurement indicators together with the corresponding descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation). Since the sample consisted of 200 Spanish tourists and 200 foreign tourists, we tested the 21 invariance of the measurement model to ensure cross-cultural validity by means of multigroup analysis, although we failed to find any significant differences in the loadings. Metric invariance between the groups can thus be accepted. To avoid common method variance bias, we followed some recommendations of Podsakoff et al. (2003) when designing the questionnaire: item wording was revised so as to avoid ambiguous or unfamiliar terms; the question order did not match the causal sequence in the model. Harman’s single-factor test was also conducted. Exploratory factor analysis with all the indicators reveals eight factors with an eigenvalue greater than one accounting for less than 76.7% of explained variance, and with a first factor explaining 17.17% of total variance, indicating that CMV is not an issue in our study. Insert here Table 1 3.3. Analysis and results Empirical testing of the proposed hypotheses was carried out by estimating a structural equation model using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) with SmartPLS v3.0 (Ringle et al., 2015). This method is suitable when the goal is to predict key target constructs or identify key driver constructs (Hair et al., 2017). Moreover, it is a nonparametric method, without distributional assumptions. Since we have several items that do not follow normality criteria (problems of skewness and kurtosis), we considered this method to be appropriate. Information is provided concerning the outcomes of the validity analysis and the reliability of the measurement scales employed in the Table 2. Since all of the scales with multiple indicators are reflective, we offer the Cronbach alpha values (α), composite reliability (ρ), variance extracted (AVE) and factorial loadings (λ values). All of them achieve acceptable 22 values, above the recommended thresholds (α>0.7; ρ >0.7, AVE>0.6, and the standardized loadings>0.7), except for one item of satiety. Despite normality problems, in order to confirm the reliability and validity of the scales, the measurement model fit was also tested by confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS software. All the measurement items significantly loaded on their corresponding constructs with loadings above 0.5. Goodness of fit was also acceptable (χ2 (181) = 471.61 (p=.000); GFI=0.904; AGFI=0.865; NFI=0.931; CFI=0.956; RMSEA=0.063), thus confirming convergent validity. Table 2 shows the correlation matrix and the Fornell-Larcker criterion which ensures discriminant validity amongst the proposed variables. In addition, we confirmed that the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT criterion) is below 0.9 for all the reflective constructs (Henseler et al., 2015). Therefore, we can conclude that the reflective constructs evidence sufficient discriminant validity. Insert here Table 2 Insert Table 3 here The results of the model estimated are shown in the Table 3 (full-mediation modelPLS). As a control variable, we included the effect of tourists’ origin (Spanish versus foreign) on the endogenous variables, although we failed to find any significant effects. As regards hypothesis H1, findings show that the effect of the intensiveness of the experience in terms of expenditure has no significant effect on the experience value, except for the perception of fantasy (a negative effect). Furthermore, contrary to our expectations, the intensiveness of the experience in terms of time does have a negative effect on the perception of attainment and learning, yet shows no effect on escapism and fantasy. Therefore, we reject hypothesis H1a. Hypothesis H1b is, however, supported. 23 The effect of the extensiveness of the experience on the experience value is positive and significant in the four elements considered (attainment, learning, escapism and fantasy). With regard to the effect of the activity on the tourist’s satiety, H2a is partially supported. The longer the time spent in a destination, the greater the tourist’s satiety, although the effect of expenditure is not significant. Likewise, the effect of the extensiveness of the experience on satiety proves significant. Thus, H2b is supported. Findings support the effect of the experience value on future tourist behaviour, although not all the dimensions of the experience value have the same effect. The experiences which have a positive and significant impact on the intention to return to the same destination in the future are attainment, escapism and fantasy (H3a is supported). As regards the intention to recommend the destination, it is the dimensions of attainment and learning that show a positive and significant effect, which is greater in the case of the former (H3b is supported). Finally, the intensification of the visit is determined by fantasy and attainment (H3c is supported). The results obtained would seem to indicate that satiety has a negative and significant effect on the intention to repeat the destination (H4a is supported) and the intention to recommend (H4b is supported), but has no significant impact on intensification (H4c is rejected). Our hypotheses suggest the existence of a full mediating effect of experience value and satiety in the relationship between the objective dimension of the experience (intensiveness and extensiveness) and behavioural intentions (intention to return, recommendation, and intensification). In order to verify whether the full-mediation model is better than other alternative models, it was compared to the partial-mediation model and with the no-mediation model. In order to compare the three models, we tested them using covariance-based structural equation modelling (CB-SEM), which is 24 more suited to comparing alternative models. The estimation of the three models (Table 3) shows that neither the partial-mediation model (the comparison of the chi-square is not significant: χ2(9)=10.16, p=.338) nor the no-mediation model (the comparison of the chi-square is not significant: χ2(13)=5.74, p=.955) improve the goodness-of-fit. In both cases, the decrease in the chi-square statistic is not significant and the AGFI and RMSEA values are clearly worse in the partial-mediation and no-mediation models. In the no-mediation model, we observe a negative direct effect of time intensiveness on the intention to return, recommendation and intensification, while the effect of extensiveness is positive in the three cases. However, in the partial-mediation model, when we introduce the mediating effects, we observe that the direct effects of intensiveness and extensiveness on the behaviours after the visit are not significant. These results point to the mediating effect of experience and satiation. We examined the mediating role of the experience value and satiety through the indirect effects shown in Table 4. Insert Table 4 here As can be seen, the global effect of extensiveness is positive, whereas intensiveness in time exerts a negative effect. Intensiveness with regard to spending has no significant indirect effects on behaviour. According to our hypotheses, the global effect of intensiveness on behaviours is expected to be an inverted U-effect (a positive effect through experience and a negative effect when satiety appears). However, in line with the previous results, we failed to find any such effect. In fact, contrary to our expectations, the effect of intensiveness (time and expenditure) on the experience value is either negative or non-significant. In order to gain deeper insights into these effects, we also tested for the existence of inverted U-effects. We estimated curvilinear relationships for each pair of variables, and indeed found some significant quadratic 25 effects (Table 5). Significant effects are represented in Figure 2. Even if the R2 values are low, we observe that attainment and learning are maximum for medium levels of expenditure, but when there is excessive spending the perception of a full and enriching experience decreases. Similarly, the perception of learning is greater when the time spent in the destination is brief, and decreases for long stays. Finally, the relationship between spending and fantasy seems to be adapted to a U-effect. This effect may be interpreted as a tourist’s willingness to spend more during the visit when they are enthralled by it. Insert Table 5 here Insert Figure 2 here 4. DISCUSSION 4.1. Findings and theoretical implications The present work provides deeper insights into current understanding of the effect of tourists’ experience on their behaviour. Despite the progress made, certain areas of the iceberg of experience remain underexplored. A comprehensive grasp of consumption experience involves recognising individuals as doers, feelers and thinkers (Addison and Holbrook, 2001) and determining how these aspects of their behaviour shape their decisions. Firstly, the work draws a distinction between an objective component of experience (activity intensiveness and extensiveness) and a subjective component (the value of experience). Secondly, we include the dark side of visitor experience; satiety. The aim is to ascertain to what extent visit intensiveness and extensiveness affect the value of tourist experience at the destination concerned. Further, we seek to find an answer to the question of whether the tourist visit, which is primarily conceived for pleasure, always 32 Third, regarding the measurement of the variables, the intensity and variety of the activities undertaken, such as the number of days and activities, have been measured specifically. These measures might be complemented by adding others such as visitor perception of the extent to which the visit has proved intense or varied. In addition, intensity has been measured in time and money. Future studies should also contemplate other indicators of intensity such as the number of times certain activities have been repeated (how many times have they visited the same monuments or museums? How many times have they eaten at the same restaurant?). Finally, the intention to return may not be a relevant measure of the outcomes of tourist experiences, particularly when they are motivated by novelty seeking. Tourism studies should use new metrics that reflect the main return on tourists’ experiences such as recommendation and content generation in social networks and travel websites. 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 Behaviour 1 (1): 50-66. Ali, F., Hussain, K. and Ragavan, N. A. (2014). “Memorable customer experience. examining the effects of customers experience on memories and loyalty in Malaysian resort hotels”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 144: 273279. Anderson, T.D. (2007). “The tourist in the experience economy”. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 7 (1): 46-58. Antón, C., Camarero, C. and Laguna, M. (2017). “Toward a new approach of destination loyalty drivers. Satisfaction, visit intensity and motivation”. Current Issues in Tourism, 20 (3), 33 Ariely, D. (1998). “Combining experiences over the time. The effect of Duration, Intensity Changes and On Line Measurement on Retrospective Pain Evaluation”. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 11: 19-45 Arnauld, E.J., and Price, L.L. (1993). “River Magic. Extraordinary experience and the extended service encounter”. Journal of Consumer Research 20 (1): 24-45. Baker, D.A., and Crompton, J.L. (2000). “Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions”. Annals of Tourism Research 27 (3): 785-804. Barnes, S., Mattsson, J. and Sørensen, F. (2014). “Destination brand experience and visitor behavior. Testing a scale in the tourism context”. Annals of Tourism Research 48: 121-139. Barnes, S.J., Mattsson, J., and Sørensen, F. (2016). “Remembered experiences and revisit intentions: A longitudinal study of safari park visitors”. Tourism Management 57 (December): 286-294 Barroso Castro, C., Martín Armario, E., and Martín Ruiz, D. (2007). “The influence of market heterogeneity on the relationship between a destination's image and tourists’ future behavior”. Tourism Management 28 (1): 175-187. Beerli, A. y Martin, J.D. (2004). “Factor influencing destination image”. Annals of Tourism Research 31 (3): 657-681. Berlyne, D.E. (1970). “Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value”. Perception and Psychophysics 8 (5): 279-286. Bowsijk, A., Thijssen, T. and Peelen, E. (2007). The experience economy: A new perspective. Pearson Education Benelux, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Brakus J J, Schmitt B H and Zarantonello L. (2009). “Brand Experience. What Is It? How Is It Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty?” Journal of Marketing 73 (3): 5268. Carballo, R., Moreno, S., León, C. and Brent Ritchie, J.R. (2015). “La creación y promoción de experiencias en un destino turístico. Un análisis de la investigación y 34 necesidades de actuación”. Cuadernos de Turismo 35: 71-94. Carlson, R. (1997). Experienced Cognition. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Association. Chen, C. and Tsai, D. (2007). “How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions?” Tourism Management 28 (4): 1115-1122. Chen, C.F. and Chen, F.S. (2010): “Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists”. Tourism Management, 31 (1), 29-35. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). “The Cost and Benefits of Consuming”. Journal of Consumer Research 27 (2): 267-272. De Rojas, C. and Camarero, C. (2008). “Visitors’ experience, mood and satisfaction in a heritage context. Evidence from an interpretation center”. Tourism Management 29 (3): 525-537. Galak, J., Kruger, J. and Loewenstein, G. (2013). “Slow Down! Insensitivity to Rate of Consumption Leads to Avoidable Satiation”. Journal of Consumer Research 39 (5): 9931009. Galak, J., Redden, J.P., and Kruger, J. (2009). “Variety amnesia. recalling past variety can accelerate recovery from satiation”. Journal of Consumer Research 36 (4): 575-584. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Second edition. Harrison, S. (2001). “Thinking about tourism”. International Sociology 16: 152-172. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (1): 115-135. Hoeffler, S., Ariely, D., West, P., and Duclos, R. (2013). “Preference exploration and learning: The role of intensiveness and extensiveness of experience”. Journal of Consumer Psychology 23 (3): 330-340. 35 Holbrook, M. B. (1994). “The nature of customer value. An anthology of Services in the Consumption Experience”. In R. Rust and R. L. Oliver (Eds.), Service Quality. New Directions in Theory and Practice (pp.21-71). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Holbrook, M. B., and Hirschman, E. C. (1982). “The experiential aspects of consumption. Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun”. Journal of Consumer Research 9 (2): 132-140. Hosany, S. and Martin, D. (2011). “Self-image congruence in consumer behavior”. Journal of Business Research 65 (5): 685-691. Hosany, S. and Witham, M. (2010). “Dimensions of Cruisers' Experiences, Satisfaction and Intention to Recommend”. Journal of Travel Research 49 (3): 351-364. Hosany, S., & Witham, M. (2009). “Dimensions of cruisers' experiences, satisfaction and intention to recommend”. Journal of Travel Research, 49 (3), 351-364. Jaakkola, E., Helkkula, A. and Aarikka-Stenroos (2015). “Service experience co-creation. conceptualization, implications, and future research directions”. Journal of Service Management 26 (2): 182-205. Jang, S. C., and Feng, R. (2007). “Temporal destination revisit intention: the effect of novelty seeking and satisfaction”. Tourism Management, 28 (2), 580-590. Kim, J.H. (2014). “The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences. The development of a scale to measure the destination attributes associated with memorable experiences”. Tourism Management 44: 34-45. Kim, J.H., Ritchie, J.R.B. and McCormick, B. (2012). “Development of a scale to measure memorable tourism experiences”. Journal of Travel Research 51 (1): 12-25. Laing, J. Wheeler, F. Reeves, K. and Frost, W. (2014). “Assessing the experiential value of heritage assets. A case study of a Chinese heritage, Bendigo, Australia”. Tourism Management 40: 180-182. Lee, C., Lee, Y. and Lee, B. (2005). “Korea´s Destination image formed by the 2002 36 World Cup”. Annals of Tourism Research 32 (4): 839-858. Lee, J. and Beeler, C. (2009). “An investigation of predictors of satisfaction and future intention. Links to motivation, involvement and service quality in a local festival”. Event Management 13 (1): 17-29. Lewis, R., and Chambers, R. (2000). Marketing leadership in hospitality. Foundations and practices. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Lu, L., Chi, C.G., and Liu, Y. (2015). “Authenticity, involvement and image. Evaluating tourist experiences at historic districts”. Tourism Management 50: 85-96. Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N. K., and Rigdon, E. (2001). “Experiential value, conceptualization, measurement and application in the catalog and Internet shopping environment”. Journal of Retailing 77 (1): 39-56. McAlister, L. (1982). “A dynamic attribute satiation model of variety-seeking behavior”. Journal of Consumer Research 9 (2): 141-150. McIntosh, A., and Siggs, A. (2005). “An exploration of the Experiential Nature of Boutique Accomodation”. Journal of Travel Research 44 (1) 74-81. McKercher, B., Denizci-Guillet, B. and Ng, E. (2012). “Rethinking Loyalty”. Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2): 708-734. Meyer, C. and Schwager, A. (2007). “Understanding customer experience”. Harvard Business Review 85 (2): 116-126. Mook, C. Iverson, J. (2000). “Expenditure-based segmentation: Taiwanese tourist to Guam”. Tourism Management 21: 299-305. Neuhofer, B.; Buhalis, D. and Ladkin, A. (2014). “A typology of technology-enhanced tourism experiences”. International Journal of Tourism Research 16 (4): 340-350. Oh, H., Fiore, A.M., and Jeong, M. (2007). “Measuring experience economy concepts. tourism applications”. Journal of Travel Research 46 (2): 119-132. 37 Oppermann, M. (2000). “Tourism destination loyalty”. Journal of Travel Research 39 (1): 78-84. Otto J.E. and Ritchie, R.B. (1996). “The service experience in tourism”. Tourism Management 17 (3): 165-174. Park, J. Y., and Jang, S. C. S. (2014). “Revisit and Satiation Patterns. Are your restaurant customers satiated?” International Journal of Hospitality Management 38: 20-29. Pearce, P. L., (1982). “Perceived Changes in Holiday Destination”. Annals of Tourism Research 9 (2): 145-164. Petrick, J. F. (2004). “Are Loyal visitors the desired visitors?” Tourism Management 25: 463-470. Phelps, A. (1986). “Holiday Destination Image-The Problem of Assessment. An Example Developed in Menorca”. Tourism Management 7 (3): 168-180. Pine II, B. J. and Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Pine II, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1998). “Welcome to the experience economy”. Harvard Business Review 76 (4): 97-105. Poor, M. Duhachek, A. and Krishnan, S. (2012). “The moderating role of emotional differentiation on satiation”. Journal of Consumer 22 (4): 507-519. Preacher, K. J., and Hayes, A. F. (2008). “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”. Behavior Research Methods 40 (3): 879-891. Prebensen, N.K. and Xie, J. (2017). “Efficacy of co-creation and mastering on perceived value and satisfaction in tourists’ consumption”. Tourism Management 60 (June): 166176. Prebensen, N.K., Vitterson, J. and Dahl, T. (2013). “Value co-creation significance of 38 tourist resources”. Annals of Tourism Research 42 (July): 240–261. Prebensen, N.K., Woo, E., Chen, J.S. and Uysal, M. (2012). “Motivation and Involvement as Antecedents of the Perceived Value of the Destination Experience”. Journal of Travel Research 52 (2): 253-564. Prebensen, N.P., Woo, W., and Uysal, M.S. (2014). Experience value: Antecedents and consequences. Current Issues in Tourism, 17(10), 910-928. Redden, J.P. (2008). “Reducing satiation. The role of categorization level”. Journal of Consumer Research 34 (5): 624-634. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., and Becker, J.M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Bönningstedt. SmartPLS GmbH. Schmitt, B.H. (1999). Experiential Marketing, New York: Free Press Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. and Hans Baumgartner (1992), “The Role of Optimum Stimulation Level in Exploratory Consumer Behavior,” J. Consumer Research 19(December): 434-48. Um, S. Chon, K. and Ro, Y. (2006). “Antecedents of revisit intention”. Annals of Tourism Research 33 (4): 1141-1158. Verhoef, P.C., Lemon, K.N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M. and Schlesinger, L.A. (2009). “Customer experience creation. Determinants, dynamics and management strategies”. Journal of Retailing 85 (1): 31-41. Walls, A.R. Okumus, F. Wang, Y. and Kwun, D.J. (2011). “An epistemological view of consumer experiences”. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (1): 10-21. Wang, X. Sun, L., and Keh, H.T. (2013). “Consumer responses to variety in product bundles. The moderating role of evaluation mode”. International Journal of Research in Marketing 30 (4): 335-342. Williams, P. and Soutar, G. N. (2009). “Value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in 39 an adventure tourism context”. Annals of Tourism Research, 36 (3), 413-438. Wu, J. and Holsapple, C. (2014). “Imaginal and emotional experiences in pleasureoriented IT usage. A hedonic consumption perspective”. Information and Management 51 (1): 80-92. Xu, F., Buhalis, D., and Weber, J. (2017). “Serious games and the gamification of tourism”. Tourism Management, 60 (June): 244-256 Yoon, Y. and Uysal, M. (2005). “An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model”. Tourism Management 26: 45-56. 40 Figure 1. Proposed model Intensiveness Extensiveness Experience value Attainment Learning Escapism Fantasy Satiety Behaviour after the visit Intention to return Recommendation Intensification H1a (+) H2b (-) H1b (+) H2a (+) H3 (+) H4 (-) 41 Figure 2. Quadratic effects