The direct and indirect influence of experience quality on satisfaction: the importance of emotions

Depósito de investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ “This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Current Issues in Tourism on 2020, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1668917 .” 2 THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT INFLUENCE OF EXPERIENCE QUALITY ON SATISFACTION: IMPORTANCE OF EMOTIONS. González-Rodríguez, M. Rosario Department of Applied Economics I, University of Seville Faculty of Economics and Business Sciences Av. Ramón y Cajal, 1, 41018 Seville (Spain) [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0002-6484-4128 Domínguez-Quintero, Ana M. Department of Applied Economics I, University of Seville Faculty of Economics and Business Sciences Av. Ramón y Cajal, 1, 41018 Seville (Spain) [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0001-5066-0216 Paddison, Brendan York Business School, York St John University Lord Mayor's Walk, York, YO31 7EX (United Kingdom) [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0003-2896-2837 Abstract This paper examines visitor satisfaction in the context of heritage tourism in the tourist-historic heritage destinations, Seville and York. The study investigates the direct and indirect relationships between quality of experience, perceived value and emotion on satisfaction. The results show that the quality of experience positively and directly influences satisfaction through the cognitive variable perceived value and the affective variable emotions. The indirect effect of quality of experience through emotions on satisfaction was greater compared with the indirect effective through perceived value. Therefore, this study draws attention to the importance of quality of experience and emotion on visitor satisfaction. Given that heritage tourism has the potential to elicit emotional and experiential responses by visitors, these findings have significant management implication for heritage destination managers. Key words: Experience quality, satisfaction, perceived value, emotions, heritage tourism 3 Introduction The importance of understanding customer satisfaction in tourism has been widely acknowledged (Su & Hsu 2013). In previous tourism research concerned with understanding tourist satisfaction and loyalty, the major variables used were service quality and perceived value, both of which are cognitive variables (Oliver, 1997; Tarn, 1999; Giese & Cote, 2000). More recent studies of tourist satisfaction suggest that the affective component, i.e. the Quality of the Experience, has an increasingly important role in the process of forming satisfaction judgments amongst tourists (De Rojas & Camarero, 2008; Yüksel, Yüksel & Bilim, 2010; Han & Jeong, 2013). Quality of Experience recognises the subjective and personal reactions and feelings expressed by consumers when they consume a service (Otto & Richie, 1996). Substituting Quality of Service with Quality of Experience has been found to be a more appropriate variable to understand tourist satisfaction (Chen & Chen, 2010), with Quality of Experience positively and directly influencing tourist satisfaction and perceived value (Altunel & Erkut, 2015; Jin, Lee & Lee, 2015; Kao, Huang & Wu, 2008). The recognition of the significance of the affective component has resulted in research that combines both cognitive and affective variables in understanding satisfaction judgements (De Rojas & Camarero, 2008; Rodríguez Del Bosque & San Martín, 2008; Chen & Chen, 2010; Jin, Lee & Lee, 2015; Ali, Amin & Ryu, 2016). Substituting Quality of Service with Quality of Experience draws attention to the emotion variable, also an affective variable, which has been found to have a direct influence on satisfaction (Zins, 2002; De Rojas & Camarero, 2008; Rodríguez & San Martín, 2008; Ali et al., 2016). However, the relationship between Quality of Experience, Emotion and Satisfaction thus far remains largely unexplored (Chen & Chen, 2010; Altunel & Erkut, 2015; Jin, Lee & Lee; 2015; Prayag, Hosany, Muskat & Chiappa, 2017), with inconclusive research regarding the impact of Quality of Experience on tourist satisfaction when considered through emotion (Zins, 2002; Lee, 2015). Given the importance of experiential benefits to satisfaction in heritage tourism, further understanding and analysis is needed (Otto & Ritichie, 1996; Chen & Chen, 2010). The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to analyse the relationship between the Quality of Experience, Perceived Value, and Emotion variables with regards to their impact and influence on tourist satisfaction in a heritage tourism context. As far as our knowledge is concerned, the relationship between quality of experience and emotions is especially unexplored. This study is concerned with understanding the direct and indirect effects of each variable and therefore seeks to examine whether experience quality exerts an indirect effect on satisfaction through perceived value, whether experience quality exerts an indirect effect on satisfaction through emotions and which of these two indirect effects are greater. Two tourist-historic heritage destinations, Seville, Spain and York, United Kingdom, were chosen for the collection of the empirical data for this study and a multi-group analysis was used to test for significant differences in the relationships identified. By investigating this relationship in two major heritage destinations, this 4 paper is concerned with developing a more informed understanding of the heritage visitor experience and visitor satisfaction, responding to requests for further research in this area (Chen & Chen, 2010). Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Quality of Experience Otto and Ritchie (1995 and 1996) introduced the concept of "Quality of the Experience" and apply this concept to recreational tourism. They define Quality of the experience as the affective component of the experience, which includes subjective, emotional and personal responses to various aspects of service development and leads to overall satisfaction. Otto and Ritchie (1995) break down the construct Quality of the Experience into six dimensions: Hedonic, Interactive, Novelty, Comfort, Safety, and Stimulation. In later work by these same authors, Otto and Ritchie (1996) later summarise these into four dimensions: Hedonics, Peace of mind, Involvement, and Recognition. Hedonics refers to the set of emotional responses related to enjoyment, fun, and the desire to experience different things. Peace of mind is related to physical and mental relaxation needs, comfort, security, and privacy. Involvement includes aspects related to education, participation, control and decision-making during the tourist experience. Recognition includes tourist affective responses derived from having felt important or having been taken into account in the experience. This variable has been used in several studies in the field of tourism in general (Kao, Huang & Wu, 2008; Jin, Lee & Lee, 2015) and in the field of cultural tourism (Chen & Chen, 2010 and 2013; Altunel & Erkut, 2015; Domínguez-Quintero, González- Rodríguez & Paddison, 2018) Perceived Value Conceptual research on perceived value has been described as abundant and lacking in systematic processes (Lin, Sher, and Shih, 2005). However, a growing interest in related concepts such as satisfaction and quality has resulted in more recent studies which explore perceived value in the field of tourism in general (Petrick, 2002; Rodríguez Del Bosque & San Martín, 2008; Jin, Lee & Lee, 2015; Prebensen, Kim, & Uysal; 2016) and in the field of cultural tourism (Chen & Chen, 2010; Lee, Phau, Hughes, Li, & Quintal, 2016). According to Zeithaml (1988, p. 14), ‘perceived value is the consumer's overall assessment of the utility of a product, based on the perception of what is received and what is delivered’. Perceived value is 'a comparative judgment between what has been received (e.g. the result) and acquisition costs (e.g. financial cost, psychological cost, and effort)’ (Oliver, 1997, p. 28). Gallarza and Gil (2006a) offer a review of definitions. Of all the set of definitions, three points stand out: i) the subjective statements predominate. For these authors the subjective perspective must prevail because 5 the value is not inherent to the products and services, but is experienced by the clients; ii) most of the definitions understand the perceived value as a bidirectional objective assessment, the term trade-off is generally used, thus expressing a balance between costs and benefits; iii) most definitions take into account elements of price and quality. Emotions Emotions are intense feelings associated with a particular behaviour (Cohen & Areni 1991). There are two significant theoretical approaches to the study of emotions: categorical and dimensional (Moltó, 1995). In the first approach, the categorical model, emotions are considered a set of discrete and specific affective states, easily recognizable and distinguishable from each other (Plutchick, 1980). In the second approach, the dimensional model, it is argued that emotions are composed of a small number of non-specific dimensions, such as strong-weak, pleasant-unpleasant, and active-passive, upon which a particular emotional state can be located (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). For this approximation, emotions vary continuously over a number of affective dimensions, but there is no distinction between specific positive and negative emotions. Within this framework, Russell (1980) developed a model for demonstrating the emotional state of individuals in a consumer experience proposing that emotions have only two dimensions: Pleasure and Action. The dimension of pleasure varies between pleasure and misery, while the activation dimension varies between arousal and sleepiness. The overlap of these two dimensions gives rise to various emotional situations. From a service perspective, for Holbrook (1995), emotions are physiological responses, cognitive interpretations, phenomenological feelings and expressions of behaviour derived from a consumption experience. This notion of consumption emotions is concerned with ‘the affective responses to one’s perceptions of the series of attributes that comprise a product or service performance of a service’ (Dubé and Menon, 2000, p. 288). Understanding the emotions elicited by tourism experiences is an important challenge for destination marketers and indeed all tourism operators (Li, Scott and Walters, 2015, p. 805). Emotions arousal is a major motivation for the purchase and consumption of tourist experiences. A number of authors have examined the effect of emotions on the judgments of consumer satisfaction the field of tourism in general (Zins, 2002; Hosany & Gilbert, 2010; Ali, Amin & Ryu, 2016) and cultural tourism in a particular way (De Rojas & Camarero, 2008; Rodríguez & San Martín, 2008; Prayag, Hosany & Odeh, 2013; Su & Hsu, 2013). It has been identified that the emotions provoked in the consumption experience play a mediating or moderating role between other variables and consumer satisfaction. Recently, Prayag et al. (2017) found that there is a relationship between specific emotional responses and tourist satisfaction and call for further research that examines this relationship. Satisfaction 6 Oliver (1997, p. 13) defines satisfaction as ‘a judgment that a product, or service feature, or the product or service itself, provides a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfilment, including levels of under- or over-fulfilment’. In the field of tourism, recent studies have adopted the cognitive-affective approach to satisfaction (De Rojas & Camarero, 2008; Rodríguez & San Martín, 2008; Chen & Chen, 2010; Teixeita et al. 2012; Ali et al., 2016). This approach is adopted in this research and with Satisfaction defined as an individual’s cognitive-affective state derived from a tourist experience (Rodríguez and San Martín, 2008). Relationship between Variables and Hypotheses The academic literature has studied the influence of different variables in the formation of the satisfaction of tourists. Among these variables and within the cognitive-affective approach of satisfaction, the Perceived Value, the Quality of the Experience and the Emotions have shown a positive and direct influence on satisfaction in the field of tourism in general (Zins, 2002; Gallarza & Gil, 2006b; Jin, Lee & Lee, 2015; Prebensen, Kim, & Uysal, 2016; Ali et al., 2016) and in the field of cultural tourism (De Rojas & Camarero, 2008; Chen & Chen, 2010 & 2013; Altunel & Erkut, 2015; Pandža Bajs, 2015;.Domínguez-Quintero et al., 2018). These three relationships constitute the object of the first three hypotheses of the proposed model: H1: Quality of the Experience has a positive influence on Satisfaction (a>0). H2: Perceived Value has a positive influence on Satisfaction (b>0). H3: Emotions have a positive influence on Satisfaction (c>0). There is, however, limited research that examines the relationship between the variables of Quality of the Experience and Perceived Value. Several studies have demonstrated the direct and positive influence of the Quality of the Experience on Perceived Value in the field of general tourism (Jin, Lee and Lee, 2015) and in field of cultural tourism (Chen & Chen, 2010 and 2013). We believe that enhancing the quality of a tourist's experience may positively influence the cost-benefit balance that perceived value assesses. This study seeks to advance understanding of this relationship and consequently the fourth hypothesis of the model is proposed: H4: Quality of the Experience has a positive influence on Perceived Value (d>0). 7 Regarding the possible relationship between the Quality of the Experience and Emotions, a number of authors provide theoretical arguments regarding the possible relationship between these two variables (Pine & Gilmore, 1998, 1999; Hosany & Gilbert, 2010; Chang & Horng, 2010). It is suggested here that the affective or emotional nature of the Quality of the Experience means that it must necessarily be related to the Emotions that the tourist experiences when visiting a destination. Although Zins (2002) analyzed how the different components and aspects of experience quality could influence the perception of emotions, his results were inconclusive. The data supports the hypothesis that there is a positive association between a number of the components of the experience quality and emotions, but fails to support this hypothesis for other components. This hypothesis is therefore only partially accepted. Furthermore, Lee (2015) identified the Emotions variable as having no direct positive influence on the Quality of the Experience but that it does have an indirect influence via Nostalgia (this is a defined as a state of mind experienced during the visit). As far as we know, there are no works analysing the relationship of these two variables in the field of tourism. The authors believe that there is a gap in academic literature regarding that the relationship between the variables Quality of the Experience and Emotions that remains unexplored and therefore the fifth hypothesis is proposed: H5: The Quality of the Experience exerts a direct positive influence on the Emotions variable (e>0) If the analysis of the data leads to the acceptance of the H2, H3, H4 and H5 hypotheses then in this case it would be reasonable to propose the existence of two indirect effects: the Quality of the Experience on Satisfaction, via Perceived Value and the Quality of the Experience on Satisfaction, via Emotions. In order to ascertain whether such indirect effects exist, the following hypotheses are proposed: H6: Via Perceived Value, the Quality of the Experience positively influences Satisfaction (f=b*d>0). H7: Via Emotions, the Quality of the Experience positively influences Satisfaction (g=c*e>0) Of particular interest in this study is the analysis of these two indirect effects, especially if Perceived Value is considered a construct of a cognitive nature and that the variable Emotions is a construct of an affective nature. In addition, in the case where both indirect effects are significant, one might ask: is the indirect effect via the affective variable greater than the effect via the cognitive variable? In order to answer this question, the eighth hypothesis is proposed: H8: The indirect effect of the Quality of the Experience on Satisfaction via the Emotions variable is greater than the indirect effect of the Quality of the Experience on Satisfaction via the Perceived Value variable (h=g-f > 0) 8 In order to further analyse the direct and indirect relationships that are suggested above and since the data has been collected in two destinations, Seville (Spain) and York (UK), a multi-group analysis to investigate whether significant differences exist in the conclusions obtained between the two destinations is proposed: H9: There are significant differences in the direct influence exerted by the Quality of the Experience on Satisfaction in York compared to Seville (ay-as≠0) H10: There are significant differences in the direct influence exerted by Perceived Value on Satisfaction in York compared to that in Seville. (by-bs≠0) H11: There are significant differences in the direct influence exerted by the Emotions variable on Satisfaction in York compared to that in Seville (cy-cs≠0) H12: There are significant differences in the direct influence exerted by the Quality of the Experience on Perceived Value in York compared to that in Seville (dy-ds≠0) H13: There are significant differences in the direct influence exerted by the Quality of the Experience on the Emotions variable in York compared to that in Seville (ey-es≠0) H14: There are significant differences in the indirect effect exerted by the Quality of the Experience on Satisfaction via Perceived Value in York compared to that in Seville (fy-fs≠0) H15: There are significant differences in the indirect effect of the Quality of the Experience on Satisfaction via Emotions in York compared to that in Seville (gy-gs≠0) The model proposed for their contrast and the set of hypotheses are represented graphically in Figure 1: [Insert Figure 1] 9 Methodology A quantitative research design for this study was employed and a questionnaire developed that consisted of three parts. The first contained questions regarding the socio-demographic characteristics of the interviewee (gender, age, place of origin, level of studies). The second section contained basic information about the visit, such as the duration of the visit, cultural events or attractions visited, and the fundamental objective of the trip. This second part of the questionnaire included questions that allowed the researchers’ to study the affective and cognitive variables included in the research model. The constructs in the third part of the questionnaire were measured using question statements adapted from academic studies related to these topics. The questionnaire was translated into Spanish, English, French, German and Mandarin in order to include tourists of many different nationalities. The Quality of the Experience variable used was adapted from that in the study by Otto and Ritchie (1996) with tourists from a cultural background and it employs six items for the measurements. The scale employed for the Perceived Value variable is an adaptation of the constructs utilised by Chen and Chen (2010; 2013). The Emotions construct presented in the work is an adaptation of that used by De Rojas and Camarero (2008), and originates from the proposal by Russell and Pratt (1980). The measurement of the Satisfaction variable is an adaption of the multi-dimensional scale provided by Oliver (1997). The researchers’ included two items which refered to the affective and cognitive evaluation of Satisfaction, and a third item for a global evaluation of Satisfaction. The measurement of all the variables is in terms of the seven-point Likert scales, whereby the score 1 refers to strongly disagree, and 7 refers to strongly agree. Data collection was conducted in the typical tourist spaces in both case study locations. In York, data was collected in November 2016 in the Visit York tourist office and in the surroundings of the Cathedral and the Castle Museum. In Seville, data was collected during the month of December 2016 which usually enjoys one of the largest influxes of tourists to the city. The data collection points included the surroundings of the Cathedral, the Reales Alcázares gardens, and the Museum of Flamenco Dance. A systematic sampling strategy was employed, with the first of every five visitors sampled. This led to the distribution of 452 questionnaires, of which 415 questionnaires (92%) were returned as completed, 210 in Seville and 205 in York. According to Green (1991), for an 80% confidence level and a 5% error level for a maximum of 4 predictors the minimum sampling size required for the measurement of the medium-sized effects between the variables would be 84 surveys. Alternatively, the G*Power was used to calculate the sample size based on statistical power which suggested that a sample size of 133 was necessary for a statistical power of 0.95 for model testing. Therefore, given that both sample sizes exceeded 133 and the statistical power exceeded 0.80, which are the minimum required in social research, then the sample sizes for Seville and York were acceptable for the purposes 16 segments the sample in order to evaluate the influence of each of these characteristics on the variables studied would provide valuable information particularly for destination managers in order to further segment their offer to different types of visitors. Secondly, no minimum period of stay was stipulated by the respondents. Consequently, it would be interesting to interview people who stayed at the destination for several days so that the involvement of tourists with the place visited and with its residents could be observed. The active participation of tourists in the cultural life of the city would therefore be encouraged. This would improve the quality of the experience and would stimulate the experimentation of positive emotions during the visit, which would lead to greater satisfaction and a better recommendation for the visit. Finally, the analysis of causal relationships has hitherto been restricted to the cities of Seville and York and therefore limit generalisation of the study’s finding. It would therefore be interesting to contrast the relationships explored in the research model with those of other cultural destinations. 17 References Ali, F., Amin, M. & Ryu, K. (2016). The role of physical environment, price perceptions, and consumption emotions in developing customer satisfactions in Chinese resort hotels. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 17(1), 45-70. Altunel, M. C., & Erkut, B. (2015). Cultural tourism in Istanbul: The mediation effect of tourist experience and satisfaction on the relationship between involvement and recommendation intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(4), 213-221. Chang, T. Y., & Horng, S. C. (2010). Conceptualizing and measuring experience quality: the customer's perspective. The Service Industries Journal, 30(14), 2401-2419. Chen, C-F., & Chen.F-S. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31, 29-35. Chen, C-F., & Chen, P-C. (2013). Another look at heritage tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 41, 236-240. Chin, W. W., & J. Dibbern. 2010. “A Permutation Based Procedure for Multi-Group PLS Analysis: Results of Tests of Differences on Simulated Data and a Cross Cultural Analysis of the Sourcing of Information System Services between Germany and the USA.” In Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications, edited band V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang, 171–93. Heidelberg: Springer. Chin, W. W., Kim, Y. J., & Lee, G. (2013). Testing the Differential Impact of Structural Paths in PLS Analysis: A Bootstrapping Approach. In New Perspectives in Partial Least Squares and Related Methods (pp. 221-229). Springer New York. Cohen, J.B. & Areni, C.S. (1991). Affect and consumer behaviour, in T.S. Robertson y H.H. kassarjian (Eds.) Handbook of consumer behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 188-240. De Rojas, C. & Camarero, C. (2008). Visitors’ experience, mood and satisfaction in an heritage context: Evidence from an interpretation center. Tourism Management, 29, 525-537. Dubé, L. & Menon, K. 2000. Multiple roles of consumption emotions in post-purchase satisfaction with extended service transactions. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 11(3), 287-304. Gallarza, M.G. & Gil, I. (2006a). Desarrollo de una escala multidimensional para medir el valor percibido de una experiencia de servicio. Revista Española de Investigación en Marketing, ESIC, 10(2), 25-60. Gallarza, M.G. & Gil Saura, I. (2006b). Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: an investigation of university students’ travel behaviour. Tourism Management, 27, 437-452. Giese. J. L. & Cote, J. A. (2000). Defining Consumer Satisfaction. Academy of Marketing Science Reviewm, 1, 1- 34. Green, S.B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 499-510. Hair, J. F., G. T. M. Hult, C. Ringle, & M. Sarstedt. 2014. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., & Gudergan, S.P. (2018): Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hayes, A. F., Preacher, K. J., & Myers, T. A. (2011). Mediation and the estimation of indirect effects in political communication research. Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques, 434-465.Routledge. Henseler, J., G. Hubona, & P. A. Raand. 2016. “Using PLS Path Modeling in New Technology Research: Updated Guidelines.” Industrial Management & Data Systems 116 (1): 2–20. Henseler, J., C. Ringle, & M. Sarstedt. 2016. “Testing Measurement Invariance of Composites Using Partial Least Squares.” International Marketing Review 33 (3): 405–31. Henseler,J., Ringle,C.M., & Sarstedt, M.(2015).A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variancebased structural equation modelling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135. 18 Henseler, J., C. Ringle, & R. Sinkovics. 2009. “The Use of Partial Least Squares path Modeling in International Marketing.” Advances in International Marketing 20 (1): 277–320. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. 2016. Testing Measurement Invariance of Composites Using Partial Least Squares. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 405-431. Holbrook, M.B. (1995). Consumer Research. Introspective Essays on the Study of Consumption. Sage Publications, California. Hosany, S., & Gilbert, D. (2010). Measuring tourists’ emotional experiences toward hedonic holiday destinations. Journal of travel research, 49(4), 513-526. Jin, N.P., Lee, S. & Lee, H. (2015). The effect of experience quality on perceived value, satisfaction, image and behavioral intention of water park patrons: New versus repeat visitor. International Journal of Tourism Research, 17(1), 82-95. Kao, Y-F., Huang, L-S. & Wu, C-H. (2008). Effects of Theatrical Elements on Experiential Quality and Loyalty Intentions for Theme Parks. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 13(2), 163-174. Lee, Y. J. (2015). Creating memorable experiences in a reuse heritage site. Annals of Tourism Research, 55, 155- 170. Lee, S., Phau, I., Hughes, M., Li, Y. F., & Quintal, V. (2016). Heritage tourism in Singapore Chinatown: A perceived value approach to authenticity and satisfaction. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 33(7), 981- 998. Li, S., Scott, N. & Walters, G. (2015). Current and potential methods for measuring emotions in tourism experience: a review. Current Issues in Tourism, 18(9), 805-827. Lin, C.H., Sher, P.J. & Shih, H.-Y. (2005). Past Progress and Future Directions in Conceptualizing Customer Perceived Value. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16 (4), 318-336. Mehrabian, A. & Russell, J. (1974). An Approach to Environmental Psychology. MIT Press. Moltó, J. (1995). Psicología de las emociones. Entre la biología y la cultura. Albatros Ediciones, Valencia. Oliver, R.L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Otto, J.E. & Brent Ritchie, J.R. (1995). Exploring the Quality of the Service Experience: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Advances in Services Marketing and Management, 4, 37-61. Otto, J.E. & Ritchie, J.R. (1996).The service experience in tourism. Tourism Management, 17(3), 165-174. Pandža Bajs, I. (2015). Tourist perceived value, relationship to satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: The example of the Croatian tourist destination Dubrovnik. Journal of Travel Research, 54(1), 122-134. Petrick, J.F. (2002). Development of a Multi-Dimensional Scale for Measuring the Perceived Value of a Service. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(2), 119-134. Plutchick, R. (1980). Emotion: A Psychoevolutionary Synthesis. New York. Harper and Row. Prayag, G., Hosany, S., & Odeh, K. (2013). The role of tourists' emotional experiences and satisfaction in understanding behavioral intentions. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2(2), 118-127. Prayag, G., Hosany, S., Muskat, B., & Chiappa, G., (2017). Understanding the Relationships between Tourists’ Emotional Experiences, Perceived Overall Image, Satisfaction, and Intention to Recommend. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 56(1) 41–54. Prebensen, N. K., Kim, H., & Uysal, M. (2016). Cocreation as moderator between the experience value and satisfaction relationship. Journal of Travel Research, 55(7), 934-945. Ringle, C., S. Wende, & J. Becker. 2015. SmartPLS 3 (Version 3.2.3). Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH. Rodríguez del Bosque, I. & San Martín, H. (2008): “Tourist Satisfaction: A cognitive-affective Model”. Annals of Tourist Research, 35(2) 551-573. Roldán, J. L., & M. J. Sánchez-Franco. 2012. “Variance-Based Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Using Partial Least Squares in Information Systems Research.” In Research Methodologies, Innovations and Philosophies in Software Systems Engineering and Information Systems, edited band M. Mora, O. Gelman, A. Steenkamp, & M. Raisinghani, 193– 221. Hersheand, PA: IGI Global. 19 Russell, J.A. (1980). A Circumplex Model of Affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161- 78. Sarstedt, M., J. Henseler, & C. Ringle. 2011. “Multigroup Analysis in Partial Least Squares (PLS) Path Modelling: Alternative Methods and Empirical Results.” Advances in International Marketing 22 (1): 195–218. Su, L., & Hsu, M. K. (2013). Service fairness, consumption emotions, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: The experience of Chinese heritage tourists. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(8), 786-805. Tarn, J.L. (1999). The Effects of Service Quality, Perceived Value and Customer Satisfaction on Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 6(4), 31-43. Teixeira, J., Patrício, L., Nunes, N. J., Nóbrega, L., Fisk, R. P., & Constantine, L. (2012). Customer experience modeling: from customer experience to service design. Journal of Service Management, 23(3), 362-376. Watson, D. & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a Consensual Structure of Mood. Psychology Bulletin of the American Psychological Association, 98(2), 219-235. Yüksel, A., Yüksel, F. & Bilim, Y. (2010). Destination attachment: Effects on customer satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Tourism Management, 31, 274-284. Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22. Zins, A. H. (2002). Consumption emotions, experience quality and satisfaction: A structural analysis for complainers versus no complainers. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 12(2-3), 3-18. 20 Table 1.Respondent Demographics Seville York Gender Male 37.1% 41.5% Female 62.9% 58.5% Age 18-24 24.7% 39.0% 25-34 26.4% 21.0% 35-44 16.5% 13.8% 45-54 19.8% 11.8% 55-64 6.6% 10.3% Over 65 6.0% 4.1% Level of studies Primary 0.00% 0.00% Secondary 14.42% 22.11% A-levels/Professional training 32.69% 47.89% University studies 52.88% 30.00% Origin Spain 11.54% 62.19% European Union 45.19% 11.94% Rest of the world 43.27% 25.87% Main aim of the visit Visit friends or family 2.86% 13.66% Cultural tourism 80.00% 40.56% Congress/Business 0.48% 0.00% Studies 1.43% 14.15% Shopping 0.00% 11.22% Other 15.24% 20.41% 21 Table 2. Measurement Model Assessment Loading CR AVE Constructs/ items York Seville York Seville York Seville Experience Quality 0.828 0.848 0.591 0.631 EQ1: I’ve had fun 0.764 0.796 EQ2: I’ve felt at ease and relaxed during the visit 0.687 0.762 EQ3: I believe that visiting a cultural heritage site has been a good learning experience and instructive 0.734 0.789 EQ4: I have escaped from the daily routine and done something really new in my visit 0.609 0.684 EQ5: I believe that my belongings and myself have been safe during the visit 0.705 0.601 Perceived Value 0.950 0.924 0.827 0.753 PV1: Compared to the money I spend, visiting heritage is worthwhile 0.842 0.768 PV2: Compared to time I spend, visiting heritage is worthwhile 0.949 0.883 PV3: Compared to the efforts I made, visiting heritage is worthwhile 0.936 0.910 PV4: Overall, visiting heritage sites is worthwhile 0.907 0.903 Satisfaction 0.896 0.893 0.682 0.676 SAT1: This is one of the best destinations I could have visited 0.815 0.817 SAT2: Overall, I am pleased with my decision to visit the cultural heritage in Seville / York 0.853 0.858 SAT3: My overall satisfaction towards visiting York´s cultural heritage 0.864 0.882 22 Table 3. Discriminant Validity. Fornell-Larcker Criterion Note: The square root of AVEs are shown diagonally in bold. QE: Quality of Experience; PV: Perceived Value; SAT: Satisfaction. Fornell-Larcker Criterion Heterotrait–monotrait ratio Criterion YORK SEVILLE YORK SEVILLE Constructs QE PV SAT QE PV SAT QE PV SAT QE PV SAT QE 0.702 0.728 PV 0.583 0.909 0.592 0.868 0.673 0.705 SAT 0.570 0.532 0.826 0.572 0.603 0.822 0.707 0.566 0.692 0.684 23 Table 4. Measurement model. Outer weight and VIF Notes: BC: Bias Corrected. 5,000 bootstrap samples; * p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; t-values in parentheses York Seville Bootstrapping 95% Confidence Intervals BC Bootstrapping 95% Confidence Intervals BC Weights Lower Upper VIF Weights Lower Upper VIF EMO1: Enchanted 0.178***(t=2.719) 0.108 0.241 1.775 0.329***(t=4.097) 0.178 0.491 2.020 EMO2: Impressed 0.521***(t=5.052) 0.320 0.721 2.051 0.290***(t=3.787) 0.134 0.437 1.799 EMO3: Pleased 0.434** (t=3.668) 0.203 0.660 2.156 0.479***(t=5.799) 0.312 0.634 1.772 EMO4: Surprised 0.133** (t=1.992) 0.021 0.324 1.595 0.129**(t=2.01) 0.050 0.289 1.732 24 Table 5. Structural Model results Relationships Model York Model Seville 𝑅𝑆𝐴𝑇 2=0.503/Q2=0.326 𝑅𝑃𝑉 2=0.341/Q2=0.262 𝑅𝐸𝑀𝑂 2=0.370/Q2=0.212 𝑅𝑆𝐴𝑇 2=0.595/Q2=0.391 𝑅𝑃𝑉 2=0.343/Q2=0.260 𝑅𝐸𝑀𝑂 2=0.418/Q2=0.254 H1:QE->SAT (a > 0) ay=0.197** (2.327) [0,03;0.358] as=0.031ns (0.391) [-0.118;0.192] H2:PV->SAT (b > 0) by=0.148* (1.762) [0.012;0.317] bs=0.343*** (5.16) [0.209;0.471] H3:EMO->SAT (c > 0) cy=0.471*** (5.313) [0.283;0.687] cs=0.523*** (5.16) [0.378;0.651] H4: QE->PV (d > 0) dy=0.583***(16.619)[0.437;0.687] ds=0.592*** (14.390) [0.477;0.718] H5:QE->EMO (e > 0) ey=0.608*** (9.388)[0.453;0.703] es=0.646***(16.619)[0.535;0.718] H6: QE*PV->SAT (f=b*d > 0) fy=0.086* (1.666) [0.009;0.1939] fs=0.203***(4.861)]0.122;0.288] H7:QE*EMO->SAT (g=c*e > 0) gy=0.286*** (4.589)[0.170;0.4182] gs=0.338***(6.734)[0.247;0.444] H8: QE*EMO (SAT)> QE*PV (SAT) (h=g-f > 0) hy=0.200* (2.277) [0.033;0.373] hs=0.135* (1.905) [0.0030;0.2768] Notes: QE: Quality Experience; PV; Perceived Value; EMO: Emotions; SAT: Satisfaction. t values in parentheses. Bootstrapping 95% confidence intervals bias corrected in square brackets (based on n = 5000 subsamples). ***p < .001; **p <.01; *p < .05 (based on t(4999), one-tailed test). t(0.05, 4999) = 1.645; t(0.01, 4999) = 2.327; t(0.001, 4999)= 3.092. 25 Table 6: Results of Invariance Measurement Testing Using Permutation Compositional Invariance (Correlation=1) Equal Mean Assesment Equal Variance assesment Full Measuremeent Invariance Established Configural invariance (Same Algorithm for Both groups) C=1 Confidence Intervak Partial Measurement Invariance Established Differenc es Confidence Interval equal Differenc es Confidence Interval Equal Constructs QE Yes 0.996 [0.984;1] Yes 0.002 [-0.168;0.159] Yes -0.002 [-0.289;0.28] Yes Yes PV Yes 1 [0.999;1] Yes -0.03 [-0.163;0.161] Yes 0.007 [-0.298;0.297] Yes Yes EMO Yes 0.972 [0.963;1] Yes 0.00 [-0.17;0.164] Yes 0.008 [-0.366;0.378] Yes Yes SAT Yes 0.999 [0.997;1] Yes -0.03 [-0.163;0.161] Yes 0.008 [-0.362;0.350] Yes Yes