The Memorable Travel Experience and Its Reminiscence Functions

Abstract

This research intends to augment the current literature on travel experience by examining the relationships between memorable travel experience and its reminiscence functions. It deploys a mixed method to achieve the study aim, using in-depth interviews and questionnaire surveys. By analyzing 318 study samples with confirmatory factory analyses, this research reveals four dimensions that could best explicate the memorable travel experience (i.e., novelty, social interaction, destination enthusiasm, and learning). Furthermore, memorable travel experience influences the three dimensions of the functions of memorable travel reminiscence (i.e., social, self, and direct). It is noted that memorable travel experience tends to affect social function the most. Relevant implications and suggestions for future study are furnished in the conclusion section.

Keywords

memorable travel experience autobiographical memory functions of memorable travel reminiscence social function

Introduction

Experiences are described as intangible, distinctive, continuous, and extremely individual phenomena (O’Dell 2007) that can be explained from two viewpoints: the moment-by-moment lived experiences and the evaluated experience (Highmore 2002). Because of the difficulty in measuring the moment-by-moment lived experiences, the majority of tourism research has focused on the evaluated experience. To assess the evaluated experience, a great deal of research has emphasized service sectors for measuring tourist satisfaction (e.g., Pizam, Neumann, and Reichel 1978; Nield, Kozak, and LeGrys 2000). However, recent travel experience studies go beyond the simple evaluation of tourist satisfaction by shifting attention to the link between memory and experience, since it remains as a memorable impression coming from cognitive perception and its emotional response across self, place, other, and time. Larsen (2007) suggests the tourist experience should be significant and meaningful to be stored in long-term memory. Meanwhile, J. Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick (2012) argue that since all tourism experiences cannot be significant enough to be retained, memorable tourism experiences are selectively renovated based on one’s estimation of the components of the experience. According to A. Pratt and Aspiunza (2012), tourist experiences should embrace “a personal attribution of meaning” (one’s sense of reality) that pertains to personal values (one’s sense of identity) and “a personal emotion” in order to be understood as a meaningful and valuable trip. Memorable travel experience, therefore, is highly self-centered and considered a special subjective event in one’s life that is stored in a long-term memory as a part of autobiographical memory.

Autobiographical memory encompasses the experiences of personally relevant events from an individual’s life (Tulving 1972; Williams et al. 2007). Conway and Pleydell-Pearce (2000) define autobiographical memory as “fundamental significance for the self, for emotions, and for the experience of personhood, that is, for the experience of enduring as an individual, in a culture, over time” (p. 261). Several tourism scholars have studied the memorable travel experience from these perspectives, and there is a growing interest in discussing memorable tourist experience as autobiographical memory. Nevertheless, the majority of studies only deal with the antecedence and measurement of memorable travel experience (J. Kim 2010; J. Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick 2012; Tung and Ritchie 2011) or the effect of pleasant memories on tourist experiences in relation to the individual’s choice in processing the events and his or her potential for future transactions (Kerstetter and Cho 2004; Wirtz et al. 2003). To date, little attention has been paid to the effect of memory on its functions, that is, how past memorable travel experience influences individual functioning.

Purpose of Study

Literature regarding the functions of autobiographical memory is theoretically adequate in the field of cognitive psychology. As a result, it has been understood that autobiographical memory has three principal areas of effect on individual functioning: directive, self, and social (Bluck et al. 2005). Nevertheless, there has been no attention given to the relationship between autobiographical memory and functions in the context of tourism. Therefore, this study intends to address the above gaps in tourist experience literature by investigating memorable travel experience and its reminiscence functions. To achieve the study aim, three research questions are furnished: (1) What are the components of memorable travel experience and how are the components measured? (2) What are the functions of memorable travel reminiscence and how are the functions measured? and (3) What are the relationships of the memorable travel experience and its reminiscence functions (i.e., directive, self, and social functions)? To further explicate the theoretical lenses of the study, the following section reviews the relevant literature with respect to study topic.

Memorable Travel Experiences

Travel experience was an issue of significant research in the 1960s (Uriely 2005), and this research trend peaked in popularity during the late 1970s (Quan and Wang 2004). During this period, travel experience was related to authenticity (e.g., MacCannel 1973) and was also explored in terms of phenomenology (E. Cohen 1979). In the 1990s, experience-based research approaches were used to develop a better understanding of tourist behavior (Andereck et al. 2006), but such experience-based approaches pertained more to satisfaction and quality, not accurate descriptions of the experiences. Thereafter, the shifting paradigm in service marketing research (e.g., Vargo and Lusch 2004, 2008; Lusch and Vargo 2006), which centers on experience creation and co-creation, has stimulated a variety of interests in examination of experiences from the field of tourism (e.g., Prebensen, Chen, and Uysal 2015, 2017).

Memorable experience has surfaced as one of the vital subjects in tourist experience study. It may be attributed to the seminal work of Pine and Gilmore (1999), who are the pioneers advocating the concept of memorable experience and who advocate the need for “companies [to] stage an experience whenever they engage customers in a personal, memorable way” (p. 99). The importance of delivering a memorable experience has been asserted by several tourism scholars. For example, it was argued that memorable travel experiences were the single key reference of information when an individual makes a decision to revisit a certain destination (Kozak 2001; Lehto, Oleary, and Morrison 2004; Wirtz et al. 2003). Consequently, memorable travel experiences have been studied in order to verify the effect of memory on future behavior (Chandralal and Valenzuela 2013; J. Kim 2014; K. Kim, Hallab, and Kim 2012; J. Kim and Ritchie 2014; Tung and Ritchie 2011). Indeed, many scholars were particularly concerned about unveiling the essence of memorable travel experiences. For example, K. Kim, Hallab, and Kim (2012), using a homogenous (i.e., college student) sample, developed a scale of Memorable Tourism Experiences and suggested seven dimensions including hedonism, novelty, local culture, refreshment, meaningfulness, involvement, and knowledge. Further, J. Kim and Ritchie (2014) cross-validated the experience scale on college students in Taiwan, showing a similar dimensionality explicating the memorable experience. Chandralal, Rindfleish, and Valenzuela (2015) took a different approach, using travel blogs as the source, to illustrate memorable experiences. From their content analysis, they furnished seven thematic notes in relation to memorable experiences. To further enlarge the experience theory, Chandralal and Valenzuela (2013) postulated the antecedents of memorable travel experiences in nine themes through in-depth interviews: perceived meaningfulness, perceived opportunities for encountering authentic local experiences, perceived significance, perceived novelty, perceived opportunities for social interactions, local hospitality, serendipity and surprises, perceived professionalism of local guides, and positive emotions. Through in-depth interviews, J. Kim (2014) revealed the antecedents of memorable travel experiences in ten dimensions: infrastructure, accessibility, local culture or history, physiography, activities and events, destination management, quality of services, hospitality, place attachment, and superstructure. In their effort to evaluate the internal and external influences of memory retrieval, J. Kim and Jang (2016) deployed an experimental design and revealed the influences on culture event attendees’ biographical memory cues illustrated by recollection and vividness. Beyond bilateral relationship examinations, Tsai (2016) took a further step and regarded place attachment as a moderator between memorable experiences and future visit intention in the case of local food consumption. His study confirmed that positive visit experiences lead to a stronger place attachment and behavioral intention for future visit. Most recently, Knobloch, Robertson, and Aitken (2017) evaluated tourist experiences beyond moments of hedonistic enjoyment. They probed experience from the eudaimonic perspective by using in-depth interviews shortly after the completion of particular recreational activities under study.

Further, Park and Santos (2017) explored the central components of memorable travel experience in a three-way perspective along sequential travel stages: before, during, and after the trip. Their findings suggest that the most recalled memories occurred in the third stage, after the trips were over, as unique and unexpected travel experiences allowed their current experiences to be differentiated from other previous experiences. The above studies have supplied significant insights in enhancing the theoretical framework pertaining to memorable travel experiences.

Functions of Autobiographical Memory

Autobiographical reminiscence connotes thinking about the past in the present. During this process, many functions occur after the experiences are terminated. A certain experience is terminated, yet the experience is relived in our memory through autobiographical reminiscence.

Cognitive or neurocognitive psychologists started a functional approach to autobiographical memory since its debut in the 1970s (e.g., Baddeley 1987; Bruce 1989; Neisser 1978). The research questions from this perspective focus on what people remember about their lives and how memories of personal experiences navigate daily life, rather than on the traditional questions of how well or how much people recall memories of their personal experiences in past. That is, records of one’s personal experiences serve psychosocial functions indispensable for an individual to learn, grow, and prosper in a complex society in order to survive (Bluck and Liao 2013). Within this theoretical approach, a number of researchers have focused on different subsets of functions of autobiographical memory, but most of the hypothesized functions of autobiographical memory have been divided into one of three categories. These three discrete categories are well represented by many researchers with different terminologies (Alea and Bluck 2003; Bluck and Alea 2002; Bluck 2003; Bluck et al. 2005; Pillemer 1992, 2003), but the three more generally used terminologies appear for this current research as directive, self, and social functions.

Directive Function

The directive function of autobiographical memory is to use past events as references to guide present and future thinking and behavior (Pillemer 1998). Cohen (1989) and G. Cohen 1998) maintain that autobiographical memory can assist in problem solving and inspire the development of opinions and attitudes. Baddeley (1987) also argues that autobiographical memory motivates one to ask new questions about past experiences in order to solve problems in the present and to foresee future events. It suggests that the directive function is used to make sense of the past so as to acquire the relevant information from the past in order to direct one’s present and future, such as making goals and plans (Bluck et al. 2005). For example, if tourists find relevant information from their previous travel experiences, that information may give them advice in order to increase their satisfaction and avoid any bad experiences during future travel. Also, if they are satisfied and find beneficial information from prior travel experiences, it might contribute to their decision to revisit a particular destination. Rewards and losses learned through autobiographical memory allow one to create schemas or scripts of behavior which can be employed over many scenarios in life (Pillemer 2003). For example, if one is struggling to solve a problem, one will attempt to access autobiographical memory in order to find a more specific memory of an event in order to provide some direction of how deal with the new challenge (Williams, Conway, and Cohen 2008). Outcomes of numerous research arrived at a conclusion that individuals often recall past events and learned lessons from past experiences and use these to solve problems and direct their thought and behavior in present and future as a direct function of autobiographical memory (McCabe, Capron, and Peterson 1991; Pratt et al. 1999).

Self Function

Autobiographical memory also plays a significant role in creating and maintaining a self-identity. Numerous theoretical formulations have stressed the function of autobiographical memory in the continuity of the self (e.g., Bluck and Levine 1998; Brewer 1986). For example, continuity theory provides a framework for understanding how one maintains self-representation. Continuity theory is defined as “a theory of adult development which proposes that, when making adaptive choices, middle-aged and older adults attempt to preserve and maintain existing psychological and social patterns by applying familiar knowledge, skills, and strategies” (Atchley 1993, p. 5). Autobiographical memory involves a self-representative function by utilizing personal memories to develop and sustain a consistent self-identity over one’s life span (Williams, Conway, and Cohen 2008). Therefore, it is valuable for reminiscence therapy (Woods et al. 2005). Many researchers testified that patients with memory problems, such as dementia or Alzheimer’s, are encouraged to recall their earlier life through reminders, such as sharing life stories, photographs, videos, and personal mementos in reminiscence therapy. As a result, it contributes to bringing back memories of their earlier life and the improvement of autobiographical memory (Gagnon 1996; Okumura, Tanimukai, and Asada 2008; Pittiglio 2000; Wang 2007; Yamagami et al. 2007).

Furthermore, preserving self-identity allows for assessment of experiences in the past, known as life reflection, which entails self-insight and often self-enhancement (Bluck et al. 2005). It has been argued that autobiographical memory plays a key role when the self is in an adverse condition that requires self-change (Robinson 1992). Indeed, self-function is used to help one cope with adversity (Baddeley, Eysenck, and Anderson 2010, p. 138). Self-functions, such as emotion regulation (Pasupathi 2003) and self-concept preservation and enhancement (Wilson and Ross 2003), have caused normative and beneficial facets of self-regulation across adulthood (G. Cohen 1998). For example, one problem attributed to patients with depression is the difficulty of recollecting positive life experiences when depressed, as they more readily recollect negative events (Baddeley, Eysenck, and Anderson 2010, p. 138). Much research regarding the functions of autobiographical memory are conducted in participants with depressive symptoms (e.g., Korte et al. 2011; Serrano, Latorre, and Gatz 2004; Williams et al. 2007). Serrano, Latorre, and Gatz (2004) prove that participants with depressive symptoms who received autobiographical reminiscence practice, in regard to recalling and sharing positive personal events, improved not only their mood, such as reduced symptoms of depression and feelings of hopelessness, but also their life satisfaction.

According to the temporal self-appraisal theory (Ross and Wilson 2002; Ross and Wilson 2003), people tend to perceive their positive memories as psychologically closer than their negative memories. Negative memories are perceived as psychologically remote in time, as people believe that positive memories represent their current selves (Demiray and Janssen 2014). The subjective impression of the temporal distance between past and present experiences is a mechanism implying the self-enhancement function of autobiographical memory (Ross and Wilson 2002; Wilson and Ross 2011, 2003). This bias tends to boost a positive self-representation, and therefore, recalling positive autobiographical memory develops and maintains a coherent positive self-identity over one’s life span.

Social Function

The importance of autobiographical memory in developing, continuing, and fostering social interactions has been emphasized by many scholars (e.g., Alea and Bluck 2003; Nelson 1993; Pillemer 1998). Autobiographical memory offers a means for conversation, and in turn, it promotes social bonds (G. Cohen 1998). According to Alea and Bluck (2003), social functions of autobiographical memory include three features: developing or maintaining intimacy in relations, providing advice in order to teach or inform others, and producing empathy for others or causing empathy toward others. Certainly, sharing autobiographical memory provides a chance to better understand and empathize with others (G. Cohen 1998). For example, when sharing autobiographical memory, a listener can feel empathy for a talker, especially if the listener has a similar experience as that of the speaker (Pillemer 1992). In addition, exposing information about one’s self plays a role in creating intimacy, especially in creating a new relationship (G. Cohen 1998). Meanwhile, autobiographical memory can be a social tool for everyone who was present or was not at the recalled memory. Sharing a mutual experience with an individual who was present at a particular event increases a sense of closeness with the individual (Bluck 2003). For example, sharing travel experiences at a particular destination with the travel partners inculcates a close rapport and connectedness. Likewise, explaining experiences to an individual who was not present at a certain event fosters a closer relationship—especially between parents and a child (Bluck 2003). The experience can give a child or young person advice or teach a lesson, and it also contributes toward building a relationship.

Methodology

Research Approach

This research employed a mixed-method approach, particularly the exploratory sequential design. Sequential exploratory design processes three phases: (1) gathering qualitative data and analyzing them, (2) using the analysis to build a scale, and (3) generalizing the qualitative findings to a sample of a population (Creswell and Clark 2007). In the first phase, in order to explore a memorable travel experience, a phenomenological approach using interviewing was conducted for this research. This research embarked to identify components to explore memorable travel experiences and its reminiscence functions based on narratives of individuals through interviewing as a conduit of recollected memory. Two questions were deployed to explore what they experienced during traveling and what made the travels memorable, whereas three questions were deployed to measure the three functions of memorable travel experience.

This qualitative study was conducted in a midwestern state of the United States. In particular, the randomly selected samples were obtained from four study sites: a farmers’ market, a city park, a county park, and a state park. In-depth face-to-face interviews were conducted in which researchers asked semi-structured, open-ended questions; each interview lasted 30–40 minutes and was audio-recorded. When interviewing the 17th participant, no more additional information was able to be identified, as the information saturation point was reached and thus no more interviews were conducted. The interview data were summarized initially by two researchers to cross-check the responses and during this procedure, the researchers used thematic analysis to find themes and subthemes (Braun and Clarke 2006). Researchers comprehensively discussed divergent interpretations until high level of reliability and consensus for thematic notions was achieved; therefore, two judges helped to increase the trustworthiness of the analysis. The salient components of a memorable travel experiences were explicated by five themes: (1) Social Interaction, (2) Destination Attractiveness, (3) Excitement, (4) Novelty, and (5) Learning.

Questionnaire Development

After the interviews, a structured questionnaire was developed at the second phase. Three groups of research variables were deployed in the questionnaire: (1) sociodemographics, (2) memorable tourist experience, and (3) functions of memorable travel reminiscence.

As shown in Table 1, the instrument, which included subitems designed to reflect the meaning of constructs in order to measure memorable travel experiences, was developed based on qualitative interview data and literature reviews. Finally, four items were created in the component of social interaction, and five items each were developed in the components of destination attractiveness, excitement, novelty, and learning.

Table 1.

Summary of Dimensions and Sub-dimensions of Memorable Travel Experience.

Sources	Subdimensions	Primary Themes
Interviews (S2, S5, S6, S15)	Travel companion	Social interaction
Interviews (S15)	Tourists
Arnould and Price 1993; Crosby and Johnson (2007); Mascarenhas et al. (2006)	Service staffs
Interviews (S3, S15 S16)	Locals
Pine and Gilmore (1998)	Good impression	Destination attractiveness
Interviews (S1, S6, S8, S9, S12, S14, S15)	Environment
Interviews (S1, S5, S6, S7, S16)	Activities/events
Interviews (S1, S6)	Local foods
Interviews (S14)	Lifestyle
Interviews (S9)	Eagerly looked forward to go	Excitement
Interviews (SI, S9, S15)	Amazing
Interviews (SI, S2, S3, S4, S5, S8, S14, S15, S16)	Enjoyed
Interviews (S3, S4, S5, S8, S10, S11, S16)	Pleasurable
Interviews (S1, S2, S3, S5, S8, S11, S14)	Positive mood
Interviews (S1, S7, S10, S12, S14)	First visit	Novelty
Kim et al. (2012)	Once-in-a-lifetime
Interviews (S1, S3, S4, S10, S11, S15, S17)	Different
Interviews (S8, S11)	Unique
Interviews (S4, S7, S8, S11)	Special
Interviews (S7, S10, S16)	Knowledge	Learning
Interviews (S11)	Better understanding
Interviews (S1, S7, S10, S11)	New culture
Coehn (1979)	Worldview
Interviews (S11, S14, S16)	Learning others

The scale, TALE (i.e., Thinking About Life Experiences), developed by Bluck and her colleagues (2005), was utilized to measure the three functions of memorable travel reminiscence. However, the semistructured interviews with the three questions in the qualitative study were used to modify the instrument. Given the original version intends to measure broad life experiences, not specific travel experiences, the scale was modified according to the outcomes of the interviews to make the scale more applicable to leisure and tourism disciplines.

It drew a comparison between the findings through interviewing and the 24 items of TALE. Twelve of the 24 items in TALE were overlapped with the findings of the interviews and they were extracted. The remaining 12 items in TALE were withdrawn since they were not related to travel contents and new items from the interviews were added to the final outcomes. Particularly, two new items were created from interview data: “travel again” in directive function and “recollection of memory.” After this process, five items were created in the dimension of directive function. and four items were created in the dimension of self-function. Five items were created in the dimension of social functions (see Table 2) and as for the scale of memorable travel experiences, 24 items were proposed (see Table 3).

Table 2.

Functions of Memorable Travel Reminiscence.

Dimensions	Items
Directive Function (F_DF)	Recalling memorable trip(s) helps to gain new knowledge of people, cultures and environment (DF_1)
	Recalling memorable trip(s) helps to find a solution to a problem associated with travel (DF_2)
	Recalling memorable trip(s) helps to make a better travel plan in the future (DF_3)
	Recalling memorable trip(s) helps to make any timely decision on destination selection (DF_4)
	Recalling memorable trip(s) stimulates myself to travel again in the near future (DF_5)
Self Function (F_SE)	Recalling memorable trip(s) brings back good mood I encountered during traveling (SE_1)
	Recalling memorable trip(s) helps to understand who I am (SE_2)
	Recalling memorable trip(s) helps to understand how I have changed over time (SE_3)
	Recalling memorable trip(s) helps to retrieve and reaffirm my brain memory (SE_4)
Social Function (F-SO)	Recalling memorable trip(s) helps to develop a closer relationship with someone who has similar experience with me (SO_1)
	Recalling memorable trip(s) helps to strengthen the kinship by sharing travel experiences with my significant people (SO_2)
	Recalling memorable trip(s) helps to educate people by talking to them about my similar past travel experiences (SO_3)
	It makes someone else feel better by telling to them about my similar past travel experience (SO_4)
	It helps me to learn more about other person’s life by sharing similar experience (SO_5)

Table 3.

Memorable Travel Experience Dimensions and Items.

Dimensions	Items
Social Interaction (M_SI)	It is memorable because I enjoyed interacting with my travel companion(s) (SI_1)
	It is memorable because I enjoyed interacting with other tourists (SI_2)
	It is memorable because I enjoyed interacting with service staffs (SI_3)
	It is memorable because I enjoyed interacting with local people (SI_4)
Destination-Attractiveness (M_DA)	It is memorable because I had a good impression about the destination (DA_1)
	It is memorable because I liked the environment of the destination (DA_2)
	It is memorable because I enjoyed activities/events in the destination (DA_3)
	It is memorable because I enjoyed the local foods (DA_4)
	It is memorable because I liked the lifestyle of the local community (DA_5)
Excitement (M_EC)	It is memorable because I eagerly looked forward to going there (EC_1)
	It is memorable because I felt it was amazing (EC_2)
	It is memorable because I enjoyed the travel experience very much (EC_3)
	It is memorable because it was a most pleasurable experience (EC_4)
	It is memorable because it indulged my positive mood (EC_5)
Novelty (M-NV)	It is memorable because it was a first visit to this particular destination (NV_1)
	It is memorable because it was an once-in-a-lifetime experience (NV_2)
	It is memorable because it was a very different experience (NV_3)
	It is memorable because it was a unique experience (NV_4)
	It is memorable because it was a very special experience (NV_5)
Learning (M-LA)	It is memorable because I gained knowledge (LA_1)
	It is memorable because I had a better understanding of the destination (LA_2)
	It is memorable because I learned about a new culture (LA_3)
	It is memorable because it extended my worldview (LA_4)
	It is memorable because I leaned about others in the destination (LA_5)

A pilot study, using college students as the study sample, was conducted to test the reliability of the instrument for the study dimensions, and a total of 95 people participated in the pilot study. The Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for the memorable travel experience with 24 items was .92 and for the functions of memorable travel reminiscence was .92 as well. All constructs measured in the pilot study showed that Cronbach’s alphas were greater than 0.9. Thus, the internal consistency reliability of each scale indicated adequate reliability.

Survey Data Collection

To validate the proposed scales, the research recruited the samples via Mechanical Turk (MTurk) which is a crowdsourcing Internet marketplace created by Amazon.com. The study targeted individuals older than 30 years, while those younger than 30 years were excluded, because they may not have experienced much travel thus far. Three hundred forty-three online surveys were received and 318 were determined to be usable. It is important to note that the above data collection procedure was not able to produce truly random samples. Rather, it enabled the researchers to understand the general meanings of the memorable travel experience and its impact on reminiscence functions.

Findings

The Profiles of Respondents

As shown in Table 4, 139 of the 318 responses were male (43.7%) and 179 were female (56.3%). According to the age range, 68.9% of the respondents were 30–39 years old, 16.4% were 40–49, 8.2% were 50–59, 5.3% were 60–69, and 1.3% were 70–79 years old. A majority (82.4%) were white, while 6.9%, 5.3%, and 1.3% of the respondents considered themselves African American, Asian, and American Indian, respectively. Regarding marital status, there were five categories: married (56.6%), divorced (9.4%), separated (2.5%), widowed (0.9%), and single (30.5%). Of all the respondents, 74.2% mentioned their highest level of education earned as a college degree, and 18.9% of the respondents had a professional or doctorate degree. Annual household income varied greatly among the respondents. The largest proportion of respondents (16.0%) reported annual household incomes ranging between $30,000 and $39,000 and the second largest proportion of respondents (12.2%) cited annual household income levels more than $100,000, while 11.9% and 10.4% of the respondents reported annual household incomes ranging from $50,000 to $59,000 and from $40,000 to $49,000 respectively.

Table 4.

Demographic Information of Study Participants.

Characteristic	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Male	139	43.7
Female	179	56.3
Age, years
30–39	219	68.9
40–49	52	16.4
50–59	26	8.2
60–69	17	5.3
70–79	4	1.3
Race
Caucasian	262	82.4
Black or African American	22	6.9
American Indian or Alaska Native	4	1.3
Asian	17	5.3
Other	13	4.1
Marital status
Married	180	56.6
Widowed	3	0.9
Divorced	30	9.4
Separated	8	2.5
Single	97	30.5
Education
Less than high school	1	0.3
High school graduate	21	6.6
Some college	64	20.1
2-year degree	29	9.1
4-year degree	143	45.0
Professional degree	53	16.7
Doctorate	7	2.2
Annual household income
<$10,000	10	3.1
$10,000–$19,999	22	6.9
$20,000–$29,999	29	9.1
$30,000–$39,999	51	16.0
$40,000–$49,999	33	10.4
$50,000–$59,999	38	11.9
$60,000–$69,999	27	8.5
$70,000–$79,999	29	9.1
$80,000–$89,999	16	5.0
$90,000–$99,999	24	7.5
>$100,000	39	12.2

Note: N = 318.

Measurement Model A—Memorable Travel Experiences

Model Fit Indices

The memorable travel experience scale developed in previous stages was further analyzed. The five factors with 24 items was specified and identified as latent variables and their observed indicator variables for the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In this proposed model, a CFA revealed that the scale presented a less than a desirable fit with the data (χ² = 894.106, df = 242, χ²/df = 3.6; comparative fit index [CFI] = .85; incremental fit index [IFI] = .85; Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = .83; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .09). Given most of indices are below acceptable level, the hypothesized model required a model modification. With consideration of the theoretical meanings of the remaining factors and items, items with lower factor loadings (<.60) and sizable residual values (>2.58) were deleted. Furthermore, the correlation value between the two latent variables, M_DA and M_EC was 0.88, which exceeded the rule-of-thumb cut-off value of r <0.85 (Kline 2005). It represented that the two different factors (i.e., M_DA and M_EC) were actually overlapped and the concepts are close and highly linked. In order to overcome this issue regarding discriminant validity, a procedure of model respecification was carried out. Thus, the two latent variables (i.e., M_DA and M_EC) were consolidated and renamed as “Destination Enthusiasm.” After modification, the results of a CFA showed that the deletion of six items (i.e., SI_1, DA_2, DA_4, DA_5, NV_5, and LA_1) significantly improved model fit indices (χ² = 312.06, df = 129, CMIN/DF = 2.4, CFI = .94; IFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .06). The fit indices suggested that the model had a good fit to the data (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Estimation of Fit Indices of Memorable Travel Experience.

Model	χ²(df)	CMIN/DF(χ²/df)	CFI	IFI	TLI (NNFI)	RMSEA
First-order
(Hypothesized) Model	894.10 (242)	3.4	.85	.85	.83	.09
(Modified) Model	312.06 (129)	2.4	.94	.94	.93	.06
Second-order model	329.52 (131)	2.5	.94	.94	.93	.06

Note: N = 318. CMIN/DF = minimum discrepancy; CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

The following phase was to add a second-order factor into the modified first-order measurement model to verify whether the four factors (i.e., M_SI, M_EC, M_NV, and M_LA) are related to a higher order of construct (i.e., memorable travel experience). Thus, the four factors recognized in the first-order model in CFA were employed as indicators for the latent variable, memorable travel experience (MTE) construct. The results of the second-order measurement model indicated that the four constructs in the modified first-order model were further predicted by the higher order construct (i.e., MTE). The fit indices consistently showed that the measurement model fit the data well (χ² = 329.06, df = 129, CMIN/DF = 2.5, CFI = .94, IFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .06) (see Table 5).

Reliability and Validity

The reliability and validity of the variables were assessed and the composite reliability (CR) in all latent variables (i.e., constructs) and Cronbach’s alpha in all observed indicator variables were used to assess reliability and internal consistency. Cronbach’s alphas for all observed indicators, ranging from .88 to .89, indicated adequate internal consistency and its reliability. In addition, the composite reliability of each construct, ranging from .75 to .91, indicated a high internal consistency of multiple indicators for each latent variable in the model.

Convergent validity was assessed by two measures: factor loadings and average variance extracted (AVE). All factor loadings of the observed indicator variables exceed the .6 and all AVE vales were greater or near .5 threshold. Therefore, convergent validity was established in the modified model, meaning that each latent variable was well represented by its set of observed indicator variables (see Table 6).

Table 6.

Standardized Factor Loadings, Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and Composite Reliability (CR) for Memorable Travel Experience.

Factors	Standardized Factor Loading	AVE	CR
Social Interaction (M_SI)		.50	.75
It is memorable because:
● I enjoyed interacting with other tourists (SI_2)	.76
● I enjoyed interacting with service staffs (SI_3)	.71
● I enjoyed interacting with local people (SI_4)	.65
Destination Enthusiasm (M_EC)		.60	.91
● I had a good impression about the destination (DA_1)	.74
● I enjoyed activities/events in the destination (DA_3)	.75
● I eagerly looked forward to going there (EC_1)	.71
● I felt it was amazing (EC_2)	.82
● I enjoyed the travel experience very much (EC_3)	.81
● It was a most pleasurable experience (EC_4)	.85
● It indulged my positive mood (EC_5)	.77
Novelty (M_NV)		.55	.83
● It was a first-visit to this particular destination (NV_1)	.61
● It was an once-in-a-lifetime experience (NV_2)	.66
● It was a very different experience (NV_3)	.81
● It was a very unique experience (NV_4)	.86
Learning (M_LA)		.67	.89
● I had a better understanding of the destination (LA_2)	.71
● I learned about new culture (LA_3)	.88
● It extended my worldview (LA_4)	.88
● I learned about others in the destination (LA_5)	.80

Discriminant validity was assessed by three methods: (1) Comparing square root of AVE with inter-construct correlations, (2) comparing maximum shared variance (MSV) with AVE, and (3) comparing average squared variance (ASV) with AVE. As shown in Tables 7 and 8. All interconstruct correlations between factors were less than each AVE, and all AVEs were greater than MSVs and ASVs. Therefore, discriminant validity was established in the modified model, meaning that latent variables are distinct from each other. In summary, the assessment of the measurement model showed strong evidence of reliability and validity, and overall model fit indicated the measurement model had a good fit to the data.

Table 7.

Factor Correlation Matrix with the Square Root of the AVE on the Diagonal.

Factors	M_NV	M_SI	M_EC	M_LA
Novelty (M_NV)	.74
Social Interaction (M_SI)	.31	.70
Destination-Enthusiasm (M_EC)	.37	.19	.77
Learning (M_LA)	.64	.52	.23	.82

Table 8.

AVE, MSV, and ASV of Memorable Travel Experience.

Factors	AVE	MSV	ASV
Novelty (M_NV)	.55	.41	.22
Social Interaction (M_SI)	.50	.28	.14
Destination-Enthusiasm (M_EC)	.60	.14	.08
Learning (M_LA)	.67	.41	.25

Measurement Model A—Functions of Memorable Travel Reminiscence

Model Fit Indices

An initial confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the FMTR scale presented a less than desirable fit with the data (χ² = 530.39, df = 74, CMIN/DF = 7.16; CFI = .79; IFI = .80; TLI = .75; RMSEA = .13). Given most of the indices were below the acceptable level, the model required a model modification. After screening the items with either a low factor loading or a large residual, this study removed three low-factor-loading items including DF_1, DF_2, and SE_1 and two large-residual items entailing SO_1 and SO_2. CFA reveled the deletion of five items (i.e., DF_1, DF_2, SE_1, SO_1, and SO_2). Afterward, it significantly improved model fit indices (χ² = 98.23, df = 24, CMIN/DF = 4.09; CFI = .95; IFI = .95; TLI = .92; RMSEA = .9). Although the resultant RMSEA score was a little bit high, it was still acceptable because it is less than 1.0 (Browne and Cudeck 1993). The fit indices suggested that the revised model had an acceptable fit to the data. The summary of model fit for hypothesized model and modified model is presented in Table 9.

Table 9.

Estimation of Fit Indices of Functions of Memorable Travel Reminiscence.

Model	χ²(df)	CMIN/DF(χ²/df)	CFI	IFI	TLI (NNFI)	RMSEA
(Hypothesized) Model	530.39 (74)	7.16	.79	.80	.75	.13
(Modified) Model	98.23 (24)	4.00	.95	.95	.92	.09

Note: CMIN/DF = minimum discrepancy; CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

Reliability and validity

Along with the methods to measure MTE scale, the assessment of the measurement model for functions of memorable travel reminiscence showed strong evidence of reliability and validity, and overall model fit indicated the measurement model had a good fit to the data.

As shown in Figure 1, the relationships between the main constructs in the proposed model were next tested using a SEM. In the structural model, a latent variable for memorable travel experience (second order) was exogenous variable and three latent variables for functions of memorable travel reminiscence were endogenous variables. The results of the structural model showed all fit indices (χ² = 790.68, df = 313, CMIN/DF = 2.52; CFI = .91; IFI = .91; TLI = .91; RMSEA = .06) indicated that this structural model had a good fit to the data. The results of hypothesis testing are summarized in Table 10.

Table 10.

The Regression Path Coefficient and Its Significance.

Path	StandardizedCoefficients	t Value	p Value	Hypothesis Testing Results
Memorable Travel Experience (MTE)  Directive Function (F_DF)	.67	7.32	<0.01	Supported
Memorable Travel Experience (MTE)  Self Function (F_SF)	.73	8.47	<0.01	Supported
Memorable Travel Experience (MTE)  Social Function (F_SO)	.84	9.33	<0.01	Supported

Deploying the structure equational modeling, the study showed that memorable travel experience had a significant impact on directive function (β = .67, t = 7.32, p<.001), self-function (β = .73, t = 8.47, p<.001) and social function (β = .84, t = 9.33, p<.001) respectively. Further, it revealed that the memorable travel experience created the highest impact on social function, as compared to self and direction functions.

Conclusions

In tourism literature, the measurement scale of memorable experiences is first proposed by J. Kim et al. (2012), whose analyses are based on homogenous (i.e., college students) samples. The present study, involving a mixed method (i.e., in-depth interview and survey research), instead collects heterogenous samples from the general population. To further highlight the contributions and shortcomings of the study, the following sections furnishes theoretical discussions and managerial implications along with study limitations.

The present study confirms that the memorable travel experience (MTE) could be measured by four dimensions consisting of 18 indicators and the functions of memorable travel reminiscence (FMTR) by three dimensions with 9 indicators. When comparing with the existing literature, the study finds a variation regarding the MTE measurement. J. Kim et al. (2012)) reveal that knowledge is one of attributes influencing memorable travel experiences. However, knowledge is not included in the dimension of learning as shown in the resultant MTE model. It may be attributed to the fact that the formation of memorable travel experience involves in a long period of learning, not simply gaining a specific type of knowledge at one point of time. Specifically, traveling is considered as a form of nonvocational learning (Werry 2008) in a cumulative manner (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking 2000).

Speaking of the derived MTE scale, beyond social interaction, novelty, and learning, two dimensions concerning destination attractiveness and excitement are merged into a dimension. and this finding may be elucidated by the current literature. Noy (2007) implies that tourism professionals intend to satisfy tourists by stimulating their emotions toward the destination that may strengthen their personal attachment to the destination (Trauer and Ryan 2005) and, consequently, such an approach helps evoke the memorable travel experience.

As a distinct contribution of this study, examination of the functions of memorable travel reminiscence reveals valuable insights. First, the memorable experience tends to affect social functioning the most and this finding is in line with the psychology literature. For example, scholars in social and cognitive psychology emphasize that autobiographical memory plays a significant role in developing, continuing, and fostering social interaction (e.g., Alea and Bluck 2003; Nelson 1993; Pillemer 1998). Individuals retrieve memories because they want to share their experience, deliver information and recommendation, or express themselves to others around them (Hyman and Faries 1992). It may be attributed to the fact that sharing autobiographical memory also offers an opportunity to better understand and empathize with others (G. Cohen 1998).

Further, the second most significant function of the memorable travel reminiscence is self-function such as improving self-identity, self-continuity, and cognitive functioning. Although this subject has not been examined in the leisure and tourism disciplines, self-identity and self-continuity are perhaps the most frequently referred to self-function of autobiographical memory in the psychology literature (Brewer 1986; Bluck et al. 2005; Bluck and Levine 1998; Neisser 1988). This study confirms that memorable travel experiences significantly influence building self-identity and self-continuity across the entire life.

Another interesting finding is that memorable travel reminiscence has a significant effect on directive function such as making a timely decision for destination selection in future. This finding is also in line with the literature concerning the impact of memory on behavioral intention (J. Kim 2014; K. Kim, Hallab, and Kim 2012; J. Kim and Ritchie 2014; J. Kim, Ritchie, and Tung 2010). The tourism literature on posttrip behaviors primarily focuses on satisfaction and loyalty issues, and the outcomes of this study seem to suggest a new research direction in the subject of posttrip behaviors. This could involve further exploring the direct function of travel reminiscence influenced by memorable travel experiences.

Lastly, it is important to highlight the following two managerial implications. First, destination-enthusiasm is one of the most influential traits in memorable travel experience that affects the directive function to revisit the destination, and destination managers should consider strengthening tourists’ attachment to the destination. For example, a postvisit communication (e.g., follow-up interviews providing monetary award) may help arouse destination-enthusiasm. Second, telling one’s own travel experiences, as one of the attributes explaining social function, is akin to the notion of word of mouth (WOM). As presented in the study, a positive memorable travel experience influences the function of memorable experience reminiscence (e.g., a positive WOM). It is indeed beneficial that tourism professionals could devote their efforts on the four aspects/dimensions associated with the memorable travel experience in service delivery to boost positive WOMs.

Lastly, it is important to consider the limitations of this study. Since this study collected responses via an online channel, non–Internet users are not included in the study. The second limitation relates to a lack of cross-validation of derived scales due to the sample size. It is suggested that further studies take different approaches (e.g., onsite and mailing surveys) while cross-validating the resultant scales with new groups of samples. In sum, readers should be cautious about these two salient limitations when interpreting the data.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Hyangmi Kim is an assistant professor of recreation education and therapy from Lehman College- The City University of New York, U.S.A. Kim’s current research focuses on leisure travel expereince, memorable travel reminiscence functions, and people with disabilities.

Joseph S. Chen is a professor of tourism, hospitality and event management from Indiana University Bloomington, USA. Chen’s current research focuses on tourist experiences, nature tourism, Arctic tourism and sustainablity.

References

Alea

Bluck

. 2003. “Why Are You Telling Me That? A Conceptual Model of the Social Function of Autobiographical Memory.” Memory 11 (2): 165–78.

Andereck

Bricker

K. S.

Kerstetter

Nickerson

N. P

. 2006. “Connecting Experiences to Quality: Understanding the Meanings behind Visitors’ Experiences.” In Quality Tourism Experiences, edited by Jennings

Nickerson

N. P.

, 81–98. Oxford. UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Arnould

E. J.

Price

L. L

. 1993. “River Magic: Extraordinary Experience and the Extended Service Encounter.” Journal of Consumer Research 20 (1): 24–45.

Atchley

R. C.

1989. “A Continuity Theory of Normal Aging.” The Gerontologist 29 (2): 183–90.

Baddeley

1987. “But What the Hell Is It For?” In Practical Aspects of Memory: Current Research and Issues, edited by Gruneberg

M. M.

Morris

P. E.

Sykes

R. N.

, 3–18. Chichester, England: Wiley.

Baddeley

A. D.

Eysenck

M. W.

Anderson

. 2010. Memory. New York: Psychology Press.

Bluck

2003. “Autobiographical Memory: Exploring Its Functions in Everyday Life.” Memory 11 (2): 113–23.

Bluck

Alea

. 2002. “:Exploring the Functions of Autobiographical Memory: Why Do I Remember the Autumn? In Critical Advances in Reminiscence Work, edited by Webster

J. D.

Haight

B. K.

, 61–75. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Bluck

Alea

Habermas

Rubin

D. C

. 2005. “A Tale of Three Functions: The Self Reported Uses of Autobiographical Memory.” Social Cognition 23 (1): 91–117.

10.

Bluck

Liao

H. W

. 2013. “I was Therefore I am: Creating Self-Continuty Through Remembering Out Personal Past”. The International Journal of Reminiswcence and Life Review 1 (1): 7–12.

11.

Bluck

Levine

L. J

. 1998. “Reminiscence as Autobiographical Memory: A Catalyst for Reminiscence Theory Development.” Ageing and Society 18: 185–208.

12.

Bransford

J. D.

Brown

A. L.

Cocking

R. R

. 2000. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

13.

Braun

Clarke

. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

14.

Brewer

W. F.

1986. “What Is Autobiographical Memory?” In Autobiographical Memory, edited by Rubin

D. C.

, 25–49. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

. 1993. “Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit.” In Testing Structural Equation Models, edited by Kenneth

Bollen

Long

J. S.

, 136–62. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

16.

Bruce

1989. “Functional Explanations of Memory. In Everyday Cognition in Adulthood and Late Life, edited by Poon

L. W.

Rubin

D. C.

Wilson

B. A.

, 44–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Chandralal

Rindfleish

Valenzuela

. 2015. “An Application of Travel Blog Narratives to Explore Memorable Travel Experiences.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 20:680–93.

18.

Chandralal

Valenzuela

. 2013. “Exploring Memorable Tourism Experiences: Antecedents and Behavioural Outcomes.” Journal of Economics, Business and Management 1 (2): 117–81.

19.

Cohen

1979. “A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences.” Sociology 13 (2): 179–201.

20.

Cohen

1998. “The Effects of Aging on Autobiographical Memory.” In Autobiographical Memory: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, edited by Thompson

C. P.

Herrmann

D. J.

Bruce

Read

D. J.

Payne

D. G.

Toglia

M. P.

, 105–23. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

21.

Cohen

R. L.

1989. “Memory for Action Events: The Power of Enactment.” Eucational Psychology Review 1(1): 57–80.

22.

Conway

M. A.

Pleydell-Pearce

C. W

. 2000. “The Construction of Autobiographical Memories in the Self-Memory System.” Psychological Review 107 (2): 261–88.

23.

Creswell

J. W.

Clark

V. L. P

. 2007. “Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 31 (4): 383–89.

24.

Crosby

Johnson

. 2007. “Experience required.” Marketing Management 16 (4): 20–28.

25.

Demiray

Janssen

S. M. J

. 2014. “The Self-Enhancement Function of Autobiographical Memory.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 29 (1): 49–60.

26.

Gagnon

1996. “A Review of Reality Orientation (RO), Validation Therapy (VT), and Reminiscence Therapy (RT) with the Alzheimer’s Client.” Physical & Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics 14 (2): 61–77.

27.

Hyman

I. E.

Faries

J. M

. 1992. “The Functions of Autobiographical Memory.” In Theoretical Perspectives on Autobiographical Memory, edited by Conway

M. A.

Rubin

D. C.

Spinnler

Wagenaar

W. A.

, 207–21. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

28.

Highmore

2002. Everyday Life and Cultural Theory. London: Rutledge.

29.

Kerstetter

Cho

. 2004. “Tourists’ Information Search Behavior: The Role of Prior Knowledge and Perceived Credibility.” Annals of Tourism Research 31 (4): 961–85.

30.

Kim

2010. “Determining the Factors Affecting the Memorable Nature of Travel Experiences.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 27 (8): 780–96.

31.

Kim

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.

32.

Kim

Jang

. 2016. “Memory Retrieval of Culture Event Experiences: Examining Internal and External Influences.” Journal of Travel Research 53 (3): 322–39.

33.

Kim

Ritchie

B. J. R

. 2014. “Cross-culture Validation of a Memorable Tourism Experience Scale (MTEs).” Journal of Travel Research 53 (3): 323–35.

34.

Kim

J. H.

Ritchie

B. J. R.

McCormick

. 2012. “Development of a Scale to Measure Memorable Tourism Experiences.” Journal of Travel Research 51 (1): 12–25.

35.

Kim

J. H.

Ritchie

J. R.

Tung.

V. W. S.

(2010). “The Effect of Memorable Experience on Behavioral Intentions in Tourism: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach.” Tourism Analysis 15 (6): 637–48.

36.

Kim

Hallab

Kim

. 2012. “The Moderating Effect of Travel Experience in a Destination the Relationship between the Destination Image and the Intention to Revisit.” Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 21:486–505.

37.

Kline

R. B.

2005. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd Edition. New York: The Guilford Press.

38.

Knobloch

Roberson

Aitken

. 2017. “Experience, Emotion, and Eudaimonia: A Consideration of Tourist Experiences and Well-Being.” Journal of Travel Research 56 (5): 651–62.

39.

Korte

Bohlmeijer

E. T.

Cappeliez

Smit

Westerhof

G. J

. 2011. “Life Review Therapy for Older Adults with Moderate Depressive Symptomatology: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.” Psychological Medicine 42 (6): 1163–73.

40.

Kozak

2001. “Repeaters’ Behavior at Two Distinct Destinations.” Annals of Tourism Research 28(3): 784–07.

41.

Larsen

2007. “Aspects of a Psychology of the Tourist Experience.” Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 7 (1): 7–18.

42.

Lehto

X. Y.

O’Leary

J. T.

Morrison

A. M

. 2004. “The Effects of Prior Experience on Vacation Behavior.” Annals of Tourism Research 31 (4): 801–18.

43.

Lusch

R. F.

Vargo

S. L

. 2006. “Service-Dominant Logic: Reactions, Reflections and Refinements.” Marketing Theory 6 (3): 281–88.

44.

McCabe

Capron

Peterson

. 1991. “The Voice of Experience: The Recall of Early Childhood and Adolescent Memories by Young Adults.” In Developing Narrative Structure, edited by McCabe

C. P. A.

, 137–73. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

45.

MacCannell

2013. The Tourist: New Theory of Leisure Class. Berkeley: University of California Press.

46.

Mascarenhas

O. A.

Kesavan

Bernacchi

. 2006. “Lasting Customer Loyalty: A Total Customer Experience Approach.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 23 (7): 397–405.

47.

Neisser

1978. “Memory: What are The Important Questions?” In Practical Aspects of Memory, edited by Gruneberg

M. M.

Morris

P. E.

Sykes

R. N.

, 3–19 London, England: Academic Press.

48.

Neisser

1988. “Five Kinds of Self-Knowledge.” Philosophical Psychology 1:35–59.

49.

Nelson

1993. “The Psychological and Social Origins of Autobiographical Memory.” Psychological Science 4:7–14.

50.

Nield

Kozak

LeGrys

G. A

. 2000. “The Role of Food Service in Tourist Satisfaction.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 19:375–84.

51.

Noy

2007. “The Poetics of Tourist Experience: An Autoethnography of a Family Trip to Eilat.” Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 5 (3): 141–57.

52.

O’Dell

. 2007. “Tourist Experiences and Academic Junctures.” Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 7 (1): 78–102.

53.

Okumura

Tanimukai

Asada

. 2008. “Effects of Short-Term Reminiscence Therapy on Elderly with Dementia: A Comparison with Everyday Conversation Approaches.” Psychogeriatrics 8 (3): 124–33.

54.

Park

Santos

C. A

. 2017. “Exploring the Tourist Experience.” Journal of Travel Research 56 (1): 16–27.

55.

Pasupathi

2001. “The Social Construction of the Personal Past and Its Implications for Adult Development.” Psychological Bulletin 127 (5): 651– 72.

56.

Pillemer

D. B.

1992. “Remembering Personal Circumstances: A Functional Analysis.” In Affect and Accuracy in Recall: Studies of “flashbulb” Memories, edited by Winograd

Neisser

, 236–64. New York: Cambridge University Press.

57.

Pillemer

D. B.

1998. Momentous Events: Vivid Memories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

58.

Pillemer

D. B.

2003. “Directive Functions of Autobiographical Memory: The Guiding Power of The Specific Episode.” Memory 112:193–202.

59.

Pine

B. J.

Gilmore

J. H

. 1999. The Experience Economy: Work Is Theatre & Every Business a Stage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

60.

Pine

II Gilmore

. 1998, July-August. “Welcome to The Experience Economy.” Harvard Business Review 1998, 97–105.

61.

Pittiglio

2000. “Use of Reminiscence Therapy in Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease.” Professional Case Management 5 (6): 216–20.

62.

Pizam

Neumann

Reichel

. 1978. “Dimensions of Tourist Satisfaction with a Destination Area.” Annals of Tourism Research 5 (3): 314–22.

63.

Pratt

Aspiunza

. 2012. “Personal Experience Tourism: A Postmodern Understanding.” In Contemporary Tourist Experience: Concepts and Consequences, edited by Sharpley

Stone

, 11–24. London: Routledge.

64.

Pratt

M. W.

Norris

J. E.

Arnold

M. L.

Filyer

. 1999. “Generativity and Moral Development as Predictors of Value-Socialization Narratives for Young Persons across the Adult Life Span: From Lessons Learned to Stories Shared.” Psychology and Aging 14 (3): 414–26.

65.

Prebensen

N. K.

Chen

J. S.

Uysal

. 2015. Creating Experience Value in Tourism. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI.

66.

Prebensen

N. K.

Chen

J. S.

Uysal

. 2017. Co-creation in Tourist Experiences. New York: Routledge.

67.

Quan

Wang

. 2004. “Towards a Structural Model of the Tourist Experience: An Illustration from Food Experiences in Tourism.” Tourism Management 25 (3): 297–305.

68.

Robinson

J. A.

1992. “First Experience Memories: Contexts and Function in Personal Histories.” In Theoretical Perspectives on Autobiographical Memory, edited by Conway

M. A.

Rubin

D. C.

Spinnler

Wagenaar

W. A.

, 223–39. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

69.

Ross

Wilson

A. E

. 2002. “It Feels Like Yesterday: Self-Esteem, Valence of Personal Past Experiences, and Judgments of Subjective Distance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82 (5): 792–803.

70.

Ross

Wilson

A. E

. 2003. “Autobiogrphical Memory and Conceptions of Self: Getting Better All the Time. Current Directions in Psychological Science 12(2): 66–69.

71.

Serrano

Latorre

J. M.

Gatz

. 2004. “Life Review Therapy Using Autobiographical Retrieval Practice for Older Adults with Depressive Symptomatology.” Psychology and Aging 19 (2): 272–77.

72.

Trauer

Ryan

. 2005. “Destination Image, Romance and Place Experience. An Application of Intimacy Theory in Tourism.” Tourism Management 26 (4): 481–91.

73.

Tsai

2016. “Memorable Tourist Experiences and Place Attachment When Consuming Local Food.” International Journal of Tourism Research 18:536–48.

74.

Tulving

1972. “Episodic and Semantic Memory.” In Organization of Memory, edited by Tuiving

Donaldson

. New York: Academic Press.

75.

Tung

V. W. S.

Ritchie

J. R. B

. 2011. “Exploring the Essence of Memorable Tourism Experiences.” Annals of Tourism Research 38 (4): 1367–86.

76.

Uriely

2005. “The Tourist Experience: Conceptual Developments.” Annals of Tourism Research 32 (1): 199–216.

77.

Vargo

S. L.

Lush

R. F

. 2004. “The Four Service Marketing Myths: Remnants of A Goods-Based, Manufacturing Model.” Journal of Service Research 6(4): 324–35.

78.

Vargo

S. L.

Lusch

R. F

. 2008. “Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution.” Journal of the Academy Marketing 36:1–10.

79.

Wang

2007. “Group Reminiscence Therapy for Cognitive and Affective Function of Demented Elderly in Taiwan.” International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 22 (12): 1235–40.

80.

Werry

2008. “Pedagogy of/as/and Tourism: Or, Shameful Lessons.” Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies 30 (1): 14–42.

81.

Williams

H. L.

Conway

M. A.

Cohen

. 2008. “Autobiographical Memory.” In Memory in The Real World, edited by Cohen

Conway

M. A.

3rd Edition. Hove, England: Psychology Press.

82.

Williams

J. M. G.

Barnhofer

Crane

Herman

Rase

Dalgleish

. 2007. “Autobiographical Memory Specificity and Emotional Disorder.” Psychological Bulletin 133 (1): 122–48.

83.

Wilson

Ross

. 2003. “The Identity Function of Autobiographical Memory: Time Is on Our Side.” Memory 11 (2): 137–49.

84.

Wirtz

Kruger

Scollon

C. N.

Diener

. 2003. “What to Do on Spring Break? The Role of Predicted, On-line, and Remembered Experience in Future Choice.” Psychological Science 14:520–24.

85.

Woods

Spector

Jones

Orrell

Davies

. 2005. “Reminiscence Therapy for Dementia.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 18 (2): 1–34.

86.

Yamagami

Oosawa

Ito

Yamaguchi

. 2007. “Effect of Activity Reminiscence Therapy as Brain-Activating Rehabilitation for Elderly People with and without Dementia.” Psychogeriatrics 7 (2): 69–75.