Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study examines the role of escapism, experience co-creation, existential authenticity, and experiential satisfaction as antecedents of memorable digital-free tourism experiences. It then examines the relationship between memorable digital-free tourism experiences and hedonic well-being, eudaimonic well-being and place attachment. Survey data were gathered, via WeChat, from 389 Chinese tourists who had engaged in a digital-free meditation retreat in China between August 2022 and July 2023. Empirical results reveal that levels of escapism and experiential satisfaction positively explain memorable digital-free tourism experiences. Further, more memorable digital-free tourism experiences are associated with greater hedonic well-being, eudaimonic well-being and place attachment.

Keywords

Meditation retreat digital-free tourism experience escapism experience co-creation experiential satisfaction hedonic well-being eudaimonic well-being place attachment

Introduction

The growing use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has resulted in a blurring between work and leisure time, for example, the use of social media by tourists to share holiday experiences in real-time and maintain ongoing communication with families and friends at home (Egger et al., 2020). While some studies emphasise the power and possibilities of linkages between ICTs and tourism (Demir and Demir, 2023), others question the value of digital communication device use on holidays as a barrier to fully enjoying the tourism environment (Li et al., 2018). Avoiding work-related communications and reducing habitual social-media engagement are seen as desirable experiences for some holiday makers (Chen et al., 2018). As a result, tourism and hospitality services ranging from digital-free cafes and restaurants to disconnected holidays and digital detox camps have become popular (Cai et al., 2020). This phenomenon is referred to as digital-free tourism, proposed by Li et al. (2018) as a form of tourism where internet and mobile signals are absent, or digital technology usage is controlled. Digital-free tourism is based on minimising access to ICTs, with the purpose of reducing guests’ internet addiction, anxiety and stress, through maximising the value of tourism (Smith and Puczko, 2015). Escape, personal growth, health and well-being, and improved relationships have been identified as important factors driving tourists to get offline (Egger et al., 2020). By engaging in digital-free tourism, tourists can take a conscious break from digital media by engaging in explicitly non-digital tasks focusing on the physical world (Syvertsen and Enli, 2019). Although recent studies have identified that ubiquitous connectivity through ICTs while on holiday can have negative implications for tourism consumption and can impact physical and mental health (Egger et al., 2020), relatively little research has examined digital-free tourism (Cai and McKenna, 2023).

Digital-free tourism is growing in popularity with resorts and travel packages weaning tourists off the internet (Cai et al., 2020). Today, digital-free tourism has proliferated across various contexts from cafés, campsites, mountain shelters, hostels, and apartments for short-term rentals to holiday homes (Cai et al., 2020) including remote regions, islands, coastal areas, high mountains, hot springs, wild areas and undiscovered and mature destinations (Pawłowska-Legwand and Matoga, 2021). Existing studies on digital-free tourism focus on the complex power relations between humans and technology through a critical perspective (Cai and McKenna, 2023), digital disconnection (Syvertsen, 2023) and digital and screen ambivalence (Syvertsen, 2022). Some studies have explored digital-free experiences and reactions at specific sites, including retreats (Hesselberth, 2021), and digital detox camps (Sutton, 2020). However, little is known about how digital-free experiences are created, formed, and remembered, including their consequences from tourists’ perspectives, which is the focus of this study.

At the same time, memorable tourism experiences (MTEs) are at the core of tourism activities (Chen et al., 2023). Kim et al. (2012: 13) stated that an MTE is a ‘tourism experience positively remembered and recalled after the event has occurred’. In the increasingly dynamic tourism marketplace, service providers have focused on offering MTEs to optimise the tourist experience and gain a competitive advantage over competitors (Hosany et al., 2022). Chen et al. (2023) contended that tourists who have MTEs are more likely to revisit and recommend the destination to others. Fostering MTEs is thus considered paramount to a destination's competitiveness, and destination managers are advised to develop activities, facilities, and services that will provide tourists with memorable stays (Hosany et al., 2022). However, most studies have applied Kim et al.'s (2012) seven MTE dimensions (i.e., hedonism, refreshment, meaningfulness, local culture, involvement, knowledge and novelty) and in new settings (Sthapit et al., 2019), and as Chandralal and Valenzuela (2015) note, the sample used by Kim et al.'s (2012) seminal work was comprised of students and is therefore not representative of typical tourists. Another shortcoming of previous studies is that relatively few have included other constructs that might explain MTEs (Hosany et al., 2022). It has been observed that because MTEs are such a multifaceted concept, minimal consensus exists concerning the theoretical basis for specific constructs contributing to MTEs (Hosany et al., 2022). In addition, previous studies have relied heavily on Kim et al.'s (2012) seven-dimension scale regardless of the specific context in which they are applied (Stone et al., 2022). The formation of MTEs is believed, however, to be highly dependent upon the context (Ye et al., 2021). This would appear, for several reasons, to be particularly relevant in the case of digital-free tourism. First, digital-free tourism involves absent or controlled access to ICTs (Li et al., 2018). Second, digital-free tourism offers tourists an opportunity to recover from mental health issues caused by heavy use of such technologies (Egger et al., 2020). Existing MTE studies do not fully account for these characteristics of digital-free tourism. Furthermore, relatively little is known about the interplay between features of digital-free tourism experiences and the process by which memories related to them are developed.

With the aim of addressing these gaps, this study discusses the relevant theoretical concepts related to memorable digital-free tourism. It tests a new model that incorporates these concepts into existing MTE theory. This model integrates four main antecedents (i.e., escapism, experience co-creation, existential authenticity, and experiential satisfaction) and three outcome variables, that is, hedonic wellbeing (HWB), eudaimonic wellbeing (EWB) and place attachment (PA), of memorable digital-free tourism experience. This study focuses on incorporating other dimensions into the MTE construct, which are linked further to other possible outcome variables (e.g. HWB, EWB and PA) to enhance its robustness.

Theoretical background and hypotheses formulation

Stimuli–organism–response (S-O-R) theory

The fundamental basis of S-O-R theory is that environmental stimuli influence an individual's cognitive and affective reactions, which then determine behavioural responses. More specifically, it is assumed that environmental stimuli (S) lead to changes in an individual's internal or organismic states (O), which then bring forth a behavioural response (R) (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974). Stimuli could include, for example, atmospherics and ambience (Kucukergin et al., 2020). In this study, escapism, experience co-creation, existential authenticity and experiential satisfaction are considered stimuli that are received during digital-free tourism experiences. The ‘organism’ in the S-O-R theory is the sum of the internal processes and structures that intervene between external stimuli and the organism's subsequent actions and responses. In the seminal work by Mehrabian and Russell (1974), the focus was mainly on the emotional and cognitive states of the organism. In subsequent empirical tourism research, additional S-O-R constructs have been used, including emotions, experiential value (Şahin and Kılıçlar, 2023) and overall satisfaction (Chen et al., 2022). In the context of this study, experiential satisfaction and memorable digital-free tourism experiences represent the organism component of the S-O-R framework. Response (or consequence) is conceptualised as the consumer's decisions, which were originally referred to as consumers’ ‘approach or avoidance behaviours’ (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974). This study uses HWB, EWB and PA as response constructs (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The conceptual model.

Escapism

MacCannell (1976) posited that individuals are motivated to travel because they seek an escape to other contexts, times, or places. Tourism, in essence, frees people from their ordinary practises and allows for immersion into new realities and experiences (Ponsignon et al., 2021). When individuals escape, they transition from a state of being to a state of doing that is based on participation in an activity (Pine and Gilmore, 1998). Escapism is one of the primary motivational factors that encourage individuals to take a leisure trip away from routine life (Rehman and Alnuzhah, 2022). Pine and Gilmore (1999) viewed some experiences as so intense and absorbing that they allow people to temporarily escape their daily lives (Farkić et al., 2020). Some studies suggest a positive relationship between escapism and satisfaction (Rehman and Alnuzhah, 2022; Seyitoglu, 2020). In addition, Sipe and Testa (2018) argued that an important antecedent to many MTEs is the desire to escape. This is because holidays enable people to escape daily routines, liberating them to conceptualise their lives in novel ways; this process may also enhance the memorability of an experience (Leblanc, 2003). Recent studies have uncovered a positive relationship between escapism and MTEs (Chen et al., 2023; Dias and Dias, 2019). Accordingly, the following hypotheses can be proposed:

H1: Escapism positively influences tourists’ experiential satisfaction.

H2: Escapism positively influences tourists’ memorable digital-free tourism experiences.

Experience co-creation

According to Grönroos (2011), the concept of experience co-creation relates to the creation of an ‘experience-in-context’ by multiple partners. This involves the integration of resources through interactions involving customers and service providers. Experience co-creation is associated with the concept of value-in-use, which is defined as ‘the value for customers, created by them during their usage of resources’ (Grönroos and Gummerus, 2014). Customers play an active role alongside the service provider in the co-creation of value (Mathis et al., 2016). The concept of experience co-creation thus envisages consumers to be active participants in the experience. Value is thus a joint venture in which customers interact with suppliers to create their own customised experiences (Zatori et al., 2018).

Given the socially dense nature of tourism, tourists’ experiences are believed to be collective and co-created phenomena (Helkkula et al., 2012). This co-creation allows tourists to engage in activities aimed toward self-development to explore their surroundings and to interact with other people (Eraqi, 2011). Therefore, the tourist can no longer be viewed as an inactive recipient of pre-existing value but as an active and engaged co-creator of value (Nangpiire et al., 2022). Experiential satisfaction (Prebensen and Xie, 2017) and memorability is a consequence of experience co-creation (Campos et al., 2017). Given the importance of interaction in tourism experiences, experience co-creation may encompass tourist encounters with service staff and other tourists (Malone et al., 2017). The nature of these interactions is believed to significantly impact the tourist's evaluation of an experience and form the core of the tourist experience (Walls and Wang, 2011). Accordingly, the following hypotheses are advanced:

H3: Experience co-creation positively influences tourists’ experiential satisfaction.

H4: Experience co-creation positively influences tourists’ memorable digital-free tourism experiences.

Existential authenticity

From a tourism perspective, authenticity is defined as the level of enjoyment felt by tourists in the experiences they perceive as genuine (Kolar and Zabkar, 2010). Wang (1999) argued that the term authenticity is of great importance for tourism destination competitiveness and that it can be studied from three different perspectives: objective, constructive and existential.

Objective authenticity is linked to the originality of services and attractions at a destination, while constructive authenticity involves the symbolic meanings attached to an attraction, which have been suggested to be derived from socio-public discourses. Existential authenticity is the very foundation of subjective destination experience (Steiner and Reisinger, 2006; Wang, 1999), and is compatible with postmodern theory, in its de-emphasis of object-related authenticity in favour of reality as an experience (Carnegie and McCabe, 2008; Martin, 2010; Mazierska, 2002).

Earlier studies suggest existential authenticity in tourism as a need to escape or keep distance from one's daily routine, and a desire to neutralize stress (Kim and Jamal, 2007; Kolar and Zabkar, 2010; Wang, 1999). Existential authenticity refers to an individual's perceptions of what makes an experience authentic. A tourist uses observation, visuals and emotions in learning, exploring and creating a unique experience which gives them the perceived authenticity of the experience. The tourism experience of existential authenticity is more likely to be found in environments that allow for richer experiential encounters with the self (e.g. seeking the meaning of oneself; existential development) (Fu, 2019). Existential authenticity is determined by the subjective authentic perception of tourists during their participation in tourism activities and is used to construct relationships between tourists and places, spaces, objects and other tourism themes (Ram et al., 2016). By the influence of tourist activities, tourists may experience deeper self-awareness and an alignment of feelings and behaviours (Steiner and Reisinger, 2006; Wang, 1999). The shift of discourse from objective authenticity to existential authenticity has created opportunities for insights into the diverse nature and potential of the tourist experience (Moufahim and Lichrou, 2019). By participating in digital-free tourism, tourists can fully enjoy the tourism environment (Li et al., 2018) and undergo transformation to gain a sense of their authentic selves.

Existing studies have mainly examined the relationship between authenticity and place attachment (Jiang et al., 2017; Shang et al., 2020; Yi et al., 2023; Zhao and Li, 2023), overall perceived value (Lee and Phau, 2018), destination loyalty (Fu, 2019; Yi et al., 2017; Yi et al., 2018) and tourism co-creation experience (Javed and Awan, 2023), intention to revisit and intention to recommend (Javed and Awan, 2023; Stepchenkova and Belyaeva, 2021). For example, Yi et al.'s (2023) study indicates that whether in cultural heritage sites or other tourism or service settings, both tangible and intangible cultural elements can induce tourists’ perception of authenticity. In another study, Fu (2019) suggests that existential authenticity is an antecedent to tourists’ loyalty toward heritage sites. However, few studies have examined the relationship between authenticity and satisfaction and have indicated a positive relationship between the two concepts (Dai et al., 2021; Dominguez-Quintero et al., 2019). In addition, when participating in activities, people are likely to have a memorable experience, and recalling intimate and existential moments can prolong travel memories (Pearce and Packer, 2013). As Chen et al. (2023) reveal, existential authenticity has been identified as an antecedent of MTE. Thus, we propose our third series of hypotheses:

H5: Existential authenticity positively influences tourists’ experiential satisfaction.

H6: Existential authenticity positively influences tourists’ memorable digital-free tourism experiences.

Experiential satisfaction

Satisfaction is defined as the consequence of a post-purchase experience that equals or exceeds pre-purchase expectations (Vega-Vázquez et al., 2017). Therefore, tourist satisfaction is a subjective post-consumption evaluation of the service and experience encountered while travelling. In the tourism context, satisfaction is defined as the outcome of the difference between what is expected and what has been experienced (Chen and Chen, 2010). Specifically, a tourist is satisfied if a feeling of pleasure – a positive, memorable feeling – results from the comparison of their expectations and experiences upon leaving a destination (Su et al., 2011). However, when the experience fails to meet or exceed the level of expectation, a tourist is dissatisfied and is left feeling displeased (Reisinger and Turner, 2003).

Experiential satisfaction extends from the concept of service satisfaction, which explores service satisfaction and consumers’ effects in a specific situation. Experiential satisfaction focuses on consumers’ overall evaluation of experiences after consumption and reflects the overall satisfaction experienced from the service associated with a specific transaction. Customers compare their experiences with prior expectations, which contributes to positive or negative disconfirmation (Kao et al., 2008). The emotional responses resulting from positive or negative disconfirmation form the basis for customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Bigne et al., 2005). Recently, Sthapit et al. (2024) suggested a positive relationship exists between experiential satisfaction and memorable experiences. In addition, tourist satisfaction is an antecedent of HWB (Ahn et al., 2019), EWB (Li et al., 2023) and PA (Ramkissoon and Mavondo, 2015). Accordingly, the following a set of hypotheses are proposed.

H7: Experiential satisfaction positively influences tourists’ memorable digital-free tourism experience.

H8: Experiential satisfaction positively influences tourists’ HWB.

H9: Experiential satisfaction positively influences tourists’ EWB.

H10: Experiential satisfaction positively influences tourists’ PA.

Memorable digital-free tourism, HWB, EWB and PA

According to Kim et al. (2012), MTEs are regarded as an attitude construct, involving tourists’ positive memories after engaging in a tourism activity (Kim et al., 2012), and reliant on the memory of the experience. In this study's context, a memorable digital-free tourism experience refers to an experience that is positive, remembered and recalled in vivid detail after participating in tourism void of digital devices.

The concept of well-being refers to optimal psychological functioning and experience (Ryan and Deci, 2001) and is the individual's response to the experiences they would have liked to make and/or did have (Nawijn et al., 2013; Smith and Diekmann, 2017). This concept has witnessed the formation of two relatively distinct, yet overlapping, perspectives and paradigms for empirical inquiry into well-being that revolve around two distinct philosophies (Ryan and Deci, 2001). The first of these can be broadly labelled hedonism (Kahneman et al., 1999) and reflects the view that well-being consists of pleasure or happiness. The hedonic approach has frequently been employed in assessing subjective well-being (SWB), which is a composite measure of a person's happiness, quality of life and life satisfaction (Ahn et al., 2019). HWB has also been linked to the concept of SWB and is concerned with emotional aspects of well-being (Seligman, 2002), including positive emotions such as happiness and pleasure (Vada et al., 2019). HWB is defined as having more pleasure, fun, enjoyment, and happiness, and fewer negative emotions, and life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1999; Ryan and Deci, 2001). Tourism can also increase the level of happiness of those who participate, thus resulting in HWB (Vada et al., 2019). For example, Gilbert and Abdulla (2004) also found that holiday-taking has the potential to enhance the level of happiness of those enjoying it thus leading to hedonic well-being. Memories of holidays have been shown to contribute to an individual's happiness and well-being through reminiscent memories (Sthapit and Coudounaris, 2018) which affects well-being (Sirgy et al., 2011; Vada et al., 2019). Some studies have identified a positive relationship between MTEs and HWB (Bigne et al., 2020; Trinanda et al., 2022; Vada et al., 2019).

The second view, both as ancient and as current as the hedonic view, is that well-being consists of more than just happiness. It lies instead in the actualization of human potential. This view has been called eudaimonism (Waterman, 1993), conveying the belief that well-being consists of fulfilling or realizing one's true nature (Ryan and Deci, 2001) and is linked to personal-level outcomes of well-being and activities that lead to self-actualization, human development, personal goals, virtue, and the degree to which a person is fully functioning (Huta and Ryan, 2010; Ryan and Deci, 2001). EWB focuses on the meaning of life, personal growth and self-realization, and defines well-being in terms of the degree to which a person is fully functioning (Gao et al., 2017). Some studies have also identified a positive relationship between MTEs and EWB (Vada et al., 2019). Overall, positive and MTEs, in this context, memorable digital-free tourism experiences, contribute to both HWB and EWB (Sirgy et al., 2011) and MTE allows tourists to experience happiness and pleasure within a short-term (HWB) as well as personal development and growth in the long-term (EWB) (Vada et al., 2019).

Existing studies indicate that MTEs have an influential role in developing PA (Sthapit et al., 2022; Vada et al., 2019). For example, a recent study by Sthapit et al. (2022) indicates Halal tourism enables tourists to create MTEs, and such experiences further enhance identification with and strong attachment to a destination. In addition, the degree to which a tourist becomes attached to a destination has been found to depend partly on how memorable the tourist experience is (Sthapit et al., 2019). PA is defined as the emotional bonding between people and place (Patwardhan et al., 2020). To measure PA, many studies in tourism have used the notions of place identity (PI) and place dependency (PD). The former measuring the extent to which a place is considered distinctive, emerging through an accumulation of place experience; the latter capturing how well a place functions or meets needs (Loureiro, 2014). Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H11: Memorable digital-free tourism experience positively influences tourists’ HWB.

H12: Memorable digital-free tourism experience positively influences tourists’ EWB.

H13: Memorable digital-free tourism experience positively influences tourists’ PA.

Methods

Data collection methods and instrumentation

This study used an online, self-administered questionnaire to collect data from Chinese tourists at least 18 years of age who had been on a digital-free meditation retreat in China between August 2022 and July 2023. Meditation retreats are a contemporary concept with ancient roots, emerging from the earliest civilisations and ancient medical systems and a history of travel to foreign destinations such as temples and other sacred sites (Naidoo et al., 2023). Over 100 Chinese temples have held themed meditation camps since 2014 (Jiang et al., 2018). A convenience sampling strategy was employed given its efficiency, cost-effectiveness and simplicity (Sthapit et al., 2019).

The questionnaire consisted of two sections. At the beginning of the questionnaire, it was mentioned that a digital-free meditation retreat refers to a meditation retreat where internet and mobile signals are absent as well as digital technology usage is controlled throughout the duration of the retreat. The first included questions about demographic variables and travel characteristics. The second consisted of the measurement items for the eight constructs in the hypothesised model, with all items scored on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Escapism comprised four items adapted from Oh et al. (2007). The study measured experience co-creation using five items adapted from Mathis et al. (2016). Existential authenticity comprised six items adapted from Dominguez-Quintero et al. (2019). Experiential satisfaction was measured using three items from Oh et al. (2007). A memorable digital-free tourism experience was operationalised using three items adapted from Oh et al. (2007). The HWB construct was measured using five items adapted from Diener et al. (1985). The EWB construct was measured using three items adapted from the Psychological Wellbeing Scale (PWS) developed by Ryff (1989). The eight items used for measuring PA were adapted from Gross and Brown (2008) and Yuksel et al. (2010). As all the questions were originally developed in English and translated into Mandarin, the back-to-back translation technique was applied to ensure a high level of precision and consistency (Brislin, 1970).

Prior to engaging in the main data collection, a pre-test was carried out in July 2022 with five Chinese hospitality and tourism professors to confirm the validity of the measures, minimise the potential for errors, and to assess the relevance, phrasing, clarity and flow of questions. During the pre-test, respondents were encouraged to comment on statements that they found unclear, ambiguous, or to which they were unable to respond. Minor changes such as grammatical errors and sentence structure were made for several questions after finalising the comments. An online survey link was distributed via WeChat. The justification for the use of WeChat for data collection is that WeChat is the most popular social media in China and one of the most used platforms in the world. WeChat had 1.26 billion active users in 2022, with the average user spending 82 min each day on WeChat (Ma and Cai, 2023). WeChat is a multifunctional communications application for messaging and calling, social media, and mobile payment, developed by Tencent Holdings in China (Gamage et al., 2022). Today, WeChat has evolved as a multipurpose app that is highly integrated into every aspect of Chinese people's lives and has played a significant role in transforming Chinese digital society in the last decade (Ma and Cai, 2023). To ensure that the data were collected from the target sample, a series of filtering questions were posed, including: ‘Are you 18-year-old?’; ‘Are you a Chinese national?’; and ‘Have you recently been on a digital-free meditation retreat in China (August 2022 to July 2023)?’ Those who responded negatively were directed to exit the survey. In addition, respondents were also asked to provide the name of the retreat centre and the dates of attendance as part of the filtering questions.

In alignment with ethical research practices, each respondent was given the option to voluntarily receive a 20 RMB WeChat red envelope as a token of gratitude for their participation. The incentive was clearly presented as a thank you for their time and contributions, with no pressure or obligation to accept it. This approach was taken to ensure that the respondents’ decisions to participate, or not, were not influenced by the incentive itself, thereby minimizing the potential for bias in the data collected (Singer and Couper, 2008). In addition, the modest value of the incentive was chosen to reduce the likelihood of eliciting responses based on external motivation rather than genuine engagement with the survey content. The anonymity of the responses was strictly maintained, and participants were assured that their decision to accept or decline the incentive would not affect their confidentiality or the integrity of the research. These measures were implemented to uphold the ethical standards of the study and to ensure that the data collected accurately reflected the participants’ genuine opinions and experiences.

After modifying question wording based on the results of the pre-test with hospitality and tourism scholars and a pilot test of 33 individuals, data collection occurred between late August 2023 and early October 2023. A total of 432 respondents participated in the online survey, which was administered through Tencent Wenjuan, a widely recognized online survey platform in China. The self-administered questionnaire was strategically aimed at participants over the age of 18 who had attended a digital-free meditation retreat in China between August 2022 and July 2023. Recognizing the need to reach a wide demographic spread, we collaborated with a professional market research company known for its extensive network and ability to disseminate online survey questionnaires across a broad spectrum of potential respondents. To ensure the accuracy and reliability of the data, several key procedures were implemented by the market research company: (1) the company facilitated real-time monitoring of the survey responses, allowing us to promptly address any anomalies or potential issues that arose during the data collection process, (2) consistency checks were embedded within the survey to identify and eliminate inconsistent responses, ensuring the reliability of the collected data, (3) the data collection period was adequately extended to provide ample opportunity for a diverse and representative sample to participate, thereby enhancing the generalizability of our findings and (4) After data collection, we conducted a meticulous data cleaning process to further ensure the integrity of the dataset before analysis.

After filtering out 43 unengaged participants (i.e. individuals providing the same responses to more than 90% of the Likert scale items), 389 respondents were recognized as meeting the qualifications for further analysis. For the minimum sample size in this study, we used the a-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models Version 4.0 (Danielsoper.com), which suggested the minimum sample size was 264 given the anticipated effect size of 0.3, a statistical power level of 0.95, and a probability level of 0.05, thus justifying the adequacy of our sample size for the proposed conceptual model (Table 1).

Table 1.

Profile of respondents.

Items	Category	Frequency
Gender	Male	262
Gender	Female	127
Age	18–25	20
	26–35	63
	36–45	89
	46–55	138
	56 or older	79
Chinese national	Yes	372
Chinese national	No	17
Marital status	Engaged	41
	Married	315
	Divorced	32
Monthly income	RMB 2000 or below	12
	RMB 2001–4000	33
	RMB 4001–6000	79
	RMB 6001–8000	91
	RMB 8001–10,000	133
	RMB 10,000 above	41
With whom did you experience the digital-free meditation retreat	Alone	67
	With family members	205
	With friends	117
First time to experience the digital-free meditation retreat or not?	Yes	261
	No	128

Data analysis

In this study, we opted for partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) over covariance-based structural equation modelling (CB-SEM) due to its adeptness at handling complex models and its utility in exploratory research contexts. Given the intricate nature of our conceptual framework and the exploratory nature of the relationships between the constructs, PLS-SEM was deemed more suitable for our data analysis. The process began with the specification of the measurement model to ensure that all reflective indicators had significant loadings on their corresponding constructs. We then rigorously assessed the reliability and validity of the measures to confirm the robustness of our constructs. Subsequently, we estimated the structural model, which integrates principal component analysis for the extraction of latent variables and ordinary least squares regression for the path coefficient estimations (Mateos-Aparicio, 2011). To evaluate the structural model, the significance of the path coefficients, the level of R² values, the f² effect size, and the predictive relevance of Q² were adopted as suggested by Hair et al. (2021). This multifaceted approach to data analysis was critical in substantiating the validity and generalizability of our findings.

Common method bias (CMB)

Both ex-ante procedural design and ex-post analysis measures recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2012) were adopted to mitigate CMB. For procedural design, we ensured that the survey questions were clear, concise and specific to the research topic through a pre-test with five hospitality and tourism professors and a pilot study with 33 respondents. In addition, we set a counterbalancing of the question order by separating survey sections (Podsakoff et al., 2012). For example, survey questions with different constructs were interspersed with demographic questions.

For ex-post analysis of CMB, Harman's (1967) one-factor test was initially employed in the dataset. The results indicated that the greatest covariance explained by one factor was 28.02%, under the threshold value of 50% (Podsakoff et al., 2012), representing a low risk of CMB. Second, we followed Bagozzi et al.'s (1991), suggestion to check for construct bivariate correlations. None of the correlations exceeded 0.90, which also indicated no evidence of CMB (Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2016).

Results

Assessing measurement models

We estimated the reflective measurement model to assess construct reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. First, Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability (CR) were used to evaluate the reliability of constructs. Hair et al. (2020) suggested reliability estimates should be greater than 0.70 for good construct reliability. As shown in Table 2, Cronbach's alpha and CR values for all constructs were larger than 0.70. Second, convergent validity was assessed by examining the outer loadings of the factors and the average variance extracted (AVE). For factor loadings, three items (EXC5, EXA2 and HWB5) from different factors were dropped from analysis due to the loadings less than 0.70, as suggested by Hair et al. (2021). The remaining items had loading values between 0.80 and 0.91, which were all greater than the recommended criteria of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2020). AVE values ranged from 0.69 to 0.76 (higher than 0.50), thus confirming convergent validity. The Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion was adopted to evaluate the discriminant validity of the constructs. Since the square root of the AVE for each latent variable was greater than the highest correlation with any other latent variable, satisfactory discriminant validity was achieved among the proposed model constructs. Table 3 illustrates discriminant validity results.

Table 2.

Construct reliability and validity.

Construct and items	Factor loadings	Cronbach's alpha	CR	AVE
Escapism (ESC)		0.881	0.918	0.737
ESC1. I felt that I played a different character during my recent digital-free tourism experience.	0.860
ESC2. My recent digital-free tourism experience let me imagine being someone else.	0.853
ESC3. I completely escaped from daily life during my recent digital-free tourism experience.	0.839
ESC4. I felt like I was living in a different time or place during my recent digital-free tourism experience.	0.882
Experience co-creation (EXC)		0.857	0.903	0.699
EXC1. Working alongside service staff and other tourists allowed me to have great social interaction during my recent digital-free tourism experience, which I enjoyed.	0.852
EXC2. I felt comfortable working with service staff and other tourists during my recent digital-free tourism experience.	0.841
EXC3. The setting allowed me to effectively collaborate with service staff and other tourists during my recent digital-free tourism experience.	0.802
EXC4. My recent digital-free tourism experience enhanced because of my participation in the experience.	0.849
Existential authenticity (EXA)		0.907	0.931	0.729
EXA1. I liked special arrangements, events, concerts and celebrations connected to the digital-free tourism site.	0.841
EXA3. During the digital-free tourism experience, I sensed the related history, legends and historical personalities.	0.843
EXA4. During the recent digital-free tourism experience, I enjoyed a unique experience that allowed me to be in contact with the local people, their traditions and customs.	0.870
EXA5. During the recent digital-free tourism experience, liked the calm and peaceful atmosphere.	0.850
EXA6. During the recent digital-free tourism experience, I felt connected with human history and civilization.	0.864
Experiential satisfaction (EXS)		0.846	0.907	0.764
EXS1. The recent digital-free tourism experience was beyond my expectations.	0.845
EXS2. I really liked the recent visit to the digital-free tourism experience.	0.882
EXS3. It was worthwhile visiting the destination for digital-free tourism experience.	0.894
Memorable digital-free tourism experience (MDFTE)		0.813	0.889	0.728
DFTE1. I have wonderful memories of the recent digital-free tourism experience.	0.812
DFTE2. I will not forget my recent digital-free tourism experience.	0.858
DFTE3. I will remember my recent digital-free tourism experience.	0.887
Hedonic well-being (HWB)		0.851	0.900	0.691
HWB1. In most ways, my digital-free tourism experience was close to ideal.	0.835
HWB2. The conditions of digital-free tourism trip were excellent.	0.800
HWB3. I am pleased with my recent digital-free tourism experience.	0.842
HWB4. I achieved the most important things during my recent digital-free tourism trip.	0.848
Eudaimonic well-being (EWB)		0.841	0.904	0.759
EWB1. I feel like living life one day at a time.	0.862
EWB2. I feel like I have a sense of direction and purpose in life.	0.844
EWB3. I enjoy making plans for the future and working to make them a reality.	0.905
Place identity (PID)		0.851	0.899	0.691
PID1. This digital-free tourism destination is a very special to me.	0.845
PID2. I identify strongly with this digital-free tourism destination.	0.817
PID3. Holidaying in this digital-free tourism destination means a lot to me.	0.809
PID4. I am very attached to this digital-free tourism destination.	0.854
Place dependence (PDE)		0.857	0.903	0.700
PDE1. Holidaying in this digital-free tourism destination is more important to me than holidaying in other places.	0.832
PDE2. This digital-free tourism destination is the best place for what I like to do on holidays.	0.821
PDE3. I will not substitute this digital-free tourism destination with any other place for the experience I had there.	0.836
PDE4. I get more satisfaction out of holidaying in this digital-free tourism destination than from visiting similar destinations.	0.857
Place attachment (PAT)		0.875	0.901	0.533
PID	0.877
PDE	0.875

Table 3.

Discriminant validity.

	MDFTE	ESC	EWB	EXA	EXC	EXS	HWB	PDE	PID
MDFTE	0.853
ESC	0.209	0.858
EWB	0.4	0.357	0.871
EXA	0.157	0.201	0.328	0.854
EXC	0.08	0.195	0.317	0.155	0.836
EXS	0.25	0.218	0.343	0.177	0.217	0.874
HWB	0.168	0.238	0.358	0.199	0.234	0.137	0.831
PDE	0.334	0.358	0.456	0.447	0.306	0.427	0.404	0.837
PID	0.31	0.428	0.393	0.318	0.364	0.459	0.400	0.534	0.831

EWB: eudaimonic well-being; HWB: hedonic well-being; MDFTE: memorable digital-free tourism experience; EXS: experiential satisfaction; EXA: existential authenticity; EXC: experience co-creation; ESC: escapism; PID: place identity; PDE: place dependence.

Evaluating structural model

The proposed structural model was evaluated by performing a nonparametric bootstrapping procedure with 5000 subsamples to test each hypothesis. As suggested by Hair et al. (2021), the significance of the path coefficients, the level of R² values, the f² effect size, and the predictive relevance of Q² were used to assess the structural model in PLS-SEM. The results indicated that 9.2% of the variance for experiential satisfaction (EXS) was explained by escapism (ESC), experience co-creation (EXC) and experiential authenticity (EXA), and 9.5% of the variance for memorable digital-free tourism experience (MDFTE) was explained by ESC, EXC, EXA and EXS. Besides that, the findings also revealed that 3.8% of the variance for HWB, 22.3% of the variance for EWB and 16.4% of the variance for PA can be explained by EXS and MDFTE, respectively. The effect size (f²) was evaluated by adopting the guideline suggested by Cohen (1988), with the resulting values of 0.35, 0.15 and 0.02 indicating large, medium and small effect sizes, respectively. In terms of EXS, ESC (f²= 0.027), EXC (f²= 0.029), and EXA (f²= 0.015) exhibited infinitesimal effect sizes. In determining the R² values for MDFTE, ESC (f²= 0.022) and EXS (f²= 0.041) showed infinitesimal effect sizes, while miniscule effect sizes were indicated in the case of EXC (f²= 0.000) and EXA (f²= 0.009). For HWB, in the process of establishing the R² values, EXS (f²= 0.010) and MDFTE (f²= 0.020) demonstrated infinitesimal effect sizes. In determining the R² values for EWB, EXS (f²= 0.081) displayed infinitesimal effect sizes while small effect sizes were indicated in the case of MDFTE (f²= 0.136). Regarding PA, it was determined that EXS (f²= 0.267) and MDFTE (f²= 0.090) indicated medium and miniscule effect sizes, respectively. We also performed the blindfolding procedure to acquire the Q² values to examine the predictive relevance. Since the Stoner-Geisse Q² values for MDFTE, EWB, EXS, HWB and PA were 0.063, 0.165, 0.066, 0.024 and 0.164, respectively, which are greater than the threshold value of zero (Hair et al., 2021), exhibiting predictive relevance of the proposed relations in the model.

The analysis revealed that ESC (β = 0.161, p = 0.001), EXC (β = 0.167, p = 0.001) and EXA (β = 0.119, p = 0.015) were positively related to EXS. ESC (β = 0.148, p = 0.012) and EXS (β = 0.203, p = 0.000) were both found to exert a positive influence on MDFTE. Conversely, the hypotheses relating EXC (β = -0.007, p = 0.893) and EXA (β = 0.092, p = 0.069) to MDFTE were not supported. The results also indicated that the effect of MDFTE on HWB (β = 0.143, p = 0.007) was significant, while the effect of EXS on HWB (β = 0.101, p = 0.051) was not. In addition, the effect of EXS (β = 0.259, p = 0.000) and MDFTE (β = 0.336, p = 0.000) on EWB were also significant. The results also displayed a highly significant positive relationship between EXS and PA (β = 0.441, p = 0.000) and between MDFTE and PA (β = 0.256, p = 0.000). Overall, H1, H2, H3, H5, H7, H9, H10, H11, H12 and H13 were accepted, while H4, H6 and H8 were rejected (Table 4).

Table 4.

Assessment of structural model.

Hypotheses relationship	β value	SD	t-values	p-values	f ²	Decision
H1: ESC → EXS	0.161	0.050	3.221	0.001	0.027	Accepted
H2: ESC → MDFTE	0.148	0.058	2.526	0.012	0.022	Accepted
H3: EXC →EXS	0.167	0.049	3.385	0.001	0.029	Accepted
H4: EXC → MDFTE	−0.007	0.054	0.135	0.893	0.000	Rejected
H5: EXA → EXS	0.119	0.049	2.428	0.015	0.015	Accepted
H6: EXA → MDFTE	0.092	0.051	1.818	0.069	0.009	Rejected
H7: EXS → MDFTE	0.203	0.055	3.667	0.000	0.041	Accepted
H8: EXS →HWB	0.101	0.052	1.953	0.051	0.010	Rejected
H9: EXS →EWB	0.259	0.047	5.557	0.000	0.081	Accepted
H10: EXS → PAT	0.441	0.040	11.047	0.000	0.267	Accepted
H11: MDFTE →HWB	0.143	0.053	2.694	0.007	0.020	Accepted
H12: MDFTE → EWB	0.336	0.046	7.233	0.000	0.136	Accepted
H13: MDFTE → PAT	0.256	0.045	5.746	0.000	0.090	Accepted
DFTE	R²= 0.095			Q²= 0.063
EWB	R²= 0.223			Q²= 0.165
EXS	R²= 0.092			Q²= 0.066
HWB	R²= 0.038			Q²= 0.024
PAT	R²= 0.317			Q²= 0.164

Discussion and conclusion

Guided by the S-O-R theory, the aim of this study was to propose and test an integrative theoretical model of a memorable digital-free tourism experience. Out of 13 hypotheses, the empirical results support 10 hypotheses. The study builds on the MTE scale proposed by Kim et al. (2012) by incorporating other factors that may impact the memorability of digital-free tourism experiences.

First, escapism was found to positively affect experiential satisfaction and the memorability of digital-free tourism experiences. This finding supports H1 and H2 and corresponds with studies suggesting a positive relationship between escapism and satisfaction (Rehman and Alnuzhah, 2022; Seyitoglu, 2020) including MTEs (Chen et al., 2023; Dias and Dias, 2019). This finding suggests that a higher level of escapism is correlated with a higher level of experiential satisfaction and a more memorable digital-free tourism experience for Chinese tourists.

Second, experience co-creation was found to exert a positive impact on experiential satisfaction (H3). This corresponds to past findings indicating that experience co-creation is positive for consumer satisfaction (Prebensen and Xie, 2017). However, the relationship between experience co-creation and digital-free tourism experience was not supported (H5). This finding contradicts the findings of Campos et al. (2017), indicating that memorability is a consequence of experience co-creation.

Third, as proposed in H5, existential authenticity is a positive and statistically significant factor affecting Chinese tourists’ experiential satisfaction. This supports studies indicating a positive relationship between authenticity and satisfaction (Dai et al., 2021; Dominguez-Quintero et al., 2019). On the contrary, the relationship between experiential authenticity and memorable digital-free tourism experience was not supported (H6). Such findings are contrary to studies indicating existential authenticity to be an antecedent of MTE (Chen et al., 2023).

Fourth, experiential satisfaction was a predictor of a memorable digital-free tourism experience, indicating that experiential satisfaction exerts a direct and positive impact on the memorability of Chinese tourists’ digital-free tourism experience. This finding supports H7 and corroborates findings advanced by Sthapit et al. (2022) highlighting a positive relationship between the two constructs.

Furthermore, the relationship between experiential satisfaction and HWB was not supported, as proposed in H8. The findings contradict what Ahn et al. (2019) demonstrated in their work among panel participants. As proposed in H9 and H10, our findings confirm the relationship between the memorable digital-free tourism experience and EWB as well as the memorable digital-free tourism experience and PA. This further underscores insights from studies indicating that MTEs contribute to favourable EWB (Liu et al., 2023) and PA (Ramkissoon and Mavondo, 2015). In addition, a positive association between memorable digital-free tourism experience and HWB (H11), digital-free tourism experience and EWB (H12) and digital-free tourism experience and PA was confirmed by our results, thus supporting H13. Hence, when tourists have a memorable digital-free tourism experience, they are more likely to have HWB, EWB and PA with the place visited. This result is consistent with studies that have identified a positive relationship between MTE and HWB (Bigne et al., 2020; Trinanda et al., 2022), MTE and EWB (Vada et al., 2019) and MTE and PA (Sthapit et al., 2022; Vada et al., 2019).

Theoretical implications

This study offers three main contributions to the extant literature. First, it responds to demands from the tourism management literature for research that identifies and confirms other antecedents of tourists’ MTEs (Stone et al., 2022) in the context of digital-free tourism experiences. While existing studies have mainly replicated Kim et al.'s seven original MTE dimensions in new environments (Sthapit et al., 2019), the proposed dimensions have not been examined in the context of digital-free tourism. This study introduces and tests new factors as determinants of MTEs, specifically in digital-free tourism experiences. These factors are escapism, experience co-creation, existential authenticity, and experiential satisfaction. Our work highlights that each of these factors is associated with experiential satisfaction, while only escapism and experiential satisfaction are linked to memorable digital-free tourism experiences. In addition, given the lack of studies related to the digital-free tourism experiences of Chinese tourists and the corresponding lack of consensus about the specific factors that characterise a memorable digital-free tourism experience, this study provides clarity and contributes to increasing our understanding of the phenomenon. The results of this study can, therefore, guide future research directions and new discourses.

Second, the findings contribute to the literature on the digital-free tourism experience of Chinese tourists and indicate that memorable digital-free tourism experiences transcend experiential satisfaction and lead to HWB, EWB and PA. Beyond examining the various antecedents of memorable digital-free tourism experiences, this study identified memorable digital-free tourism experiences as a significant predictor of HWB, EWB and PA. This advances the field's collective understanding of the outcomes related to memorable digital-free tourism experiences

Third, while some studies have examined MTEs through a positive psychology lens, drawing from theories such as savouring, the theory of planned behaviour and script theory as well as the fields of environmental psychology, sociology, organisational management and psychology (Hosany et al., 2022), this study used S-O-R theory, thus complementing the literature and demonstrating both the determinants and outcomes of memorable digital-free tourism experiences. The results echo the theoretical underpinnings of S-O-R theory by demonstrating that environmental stimuli – in this context, escapism – influence an individual's cognitive and affective reactions (memorability of the digital-free tourism experience), and in turn, these reactions explain response behaviours (HWB, EWB and PA).

Managerial implications

Based on the findings, this study identifies ways that service providers may more effectively facilitate satisfactory and memorable digital-free tourism experiences. Digital-free tourism experience providers should offer experiences for visitors that allow for escapism through immersion within individual experiences. This could include activities that enable tourists to achieve a state of flow by matching the level of challenge involved in the activity with participants’ skills. Incorporating different activities as part of a meditation retreat, for example, nature walks, yoga, pilates, arts and crafts and music classes or performances and sound healing, may help tourists to lose themselves in the activity, which further contributes to their experiential satisfaction and memorability.

Another important implication is that digital-free experience providers should not view tourists as passive recipients of their offer, but as active co-creators of their consumption experiences. Service providers should be actively involved in helping tourists co-create their experiences through interactive participation, for example, through providing information about breathing exercises, guided visualisation to relax mentally and physically, and physical movement. This will help capture and maintain tourists’ interest, enabling them to have a satisfactory experience and maximize time use during their digital-free tourism experience. During on-site digital-free meditation retreat experience co-creation, visitors should be the focus of attention, while interactions should be used to help visitors acquire satisfactory experiences. This calls for a shift in service providers’ roles from managers to experienced co-creators.

Lastly, to heighten the experiential satisfaction of visitors which further contributes to their memorable digital-free tourism experiences, during the meditation retreat, digital-free experience providers should share stories related to meditation and link them with history, legends and historical personalities including allowing tourists to be in contact with local people, their traditions and customs as part of the overall experience. An effective means of achieving this could be to hire more indigenous staff, who are often able to provide a satisfactory experience for visitors. They should be trained, encouraged to share their own passion and knowledge linked to meditation, and the site and be considered as new source of information by visitors.

Limitations and suggestions for future studies

This research is subject to numerous limitations. First, it was limited to four antecedents and three outcomes of memorable digital-free tourism experiences. Examinations of more antecedents would further enhance understanding and contribute to the findings of the present study, for example, social bonding (Sthapit, 2017). In addition, future studies could examine whether memorable digital-free tourism experiences affect Chinese tourists’ behavioural intentions. Second, a relatively small number of participants were included, and these were all Chinese nationals. Given that there are cross-cultural differences in tourism consumption experiences, future cross-cultural research using samples from different populations could be undertaken to validate the findings of the current study. Third, the data for this study were collected during the post-visit stage of the trip using convenience sampling; as such, they relied on participants being able to recall memories from August 2022 and July 2023. Future studies could collect data from tourists on-site or immediately after their visit.

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.

ORCID iD

Erose Sthapit

References

Ahn

Back

Boger

(2019) Effects of integrated resort experience on customers’ hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 43(8): 1225–1255.

Bagozzi

Phillips

(1991) Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly 36: 421–458.

Bigne

Fuentes-Medina

Morini-Marrero

(2020) Memorable tourist experiences versus ordinary tourist experiences analysed through user-generated content. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 45: 309–318.

Bigne

Andreu

Gnoth

(2005) The theme park experience: an analysis of pleasure, arousal and satisfaction. Tourism Management 26: 833–844.

Brislin

(1970) Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1(3): 185–216.

Cai

McKenna

(2023) Power and resistance: digital-free tourism in a connected world. Journal of Travel Research 62(2): 290–304.

Cai

McKenna

Waizenegger

(2020) Turning it off: emotions in digital-free travel. Journal of Travel Research 59(5): 909–927.

Campos

Mendes

Valle

, et al. (2017) Co-creating animal-based tourist experiences: attention, involvement and memorability. Tourism Management 63: 100–114.

Carnegie

McCabe

(2008) Re-enactment events and tourism: meaning, authenticity and identity. Current Issues in Tourism 11(5): 349–368.

10.

Cegarra-Navarro

Soto-Acosta

Wensley

(2016) Structured knowledge processes and firm performance: the role of organizational agility. Journal of Business Research 69(5): 1544–1549.

11.

Chandralal

Valenzuela

F-R

(2015) Memorable tourism experience: scale development. Contemporary Management Research 11(3): 291–310.

12.

Chen

(2010) Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management 31: 29–35.

13.

Chen

Huang

Gao

, et al. (2018) Antecedents and consequences of work-related smartphone use on vacation: an exploratory study of Taiwanese tourists. Journal of Travel Research 57(6): 743–756.

14.

Chen

KKF

, et al. (2022) Travel for affection: a stimulus-organism response model of honeymoon tourism experiences. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 46(6): 1187–1219.

15.

Chen

Huang

, et al. (2023) How does rural tourism experience affect green consumption in terms of memorable rural-based tourism experiences, connectedness to nature and environmental awareness? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 54: 166–177.

16.

Cohen

(1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

17.

Dai

Zheng

Yan

(2021) Contradictory or aligned? The nexus between authenticity in heritage conservation and heritage tourism, and its impact on satisfaction. Habitat International 107: 1–13.

18.

Demir

ŞŞ

(2023) Is ChatGPT the right technology for service individualization and value co-creation? Evidence from the travel industry. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 40(5): 383–398.

19.

Dias

(2019) Memorable tourism experience design an effective destination marketing tool. Anatolia 30(4): 626–628.

20.

Diener

Emmons

Larsen

, et al. (1985) The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment 49: 71–75.

21.

Diener

Suh

Lucas

, et al. (1999) Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin 125(2): 276–302.

22.

Dominguez-Quintero

Rosario González-Rodríguez

Roldán

(2019) The role of authenticity, experience quality, emotions, and satisfaction in a cultural heritage destination. Journal of Heritage Tourism 14(5-6): 491–505.

23.

Egger

Lei

Wassler

(2020) Digital free tourism—an exploratory study of tourist motivations. Tourism Management 79: 104098.

24.

Eraqi

(2011) Co-creation and the new marketing mix as an innovative approach for enhancing tourism industry competitiveness in Egypt. International Journal of Services and Operations Management 8(1): 76–91.

25.

Farkić

Filep

Taylor

(2020) Shaping tourists’ wellbeing through guided slow adventures. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 28(12): 2064–2080.

26.

Fornell

Larcker

(1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1): 39–50.

27.

(2019) Existential authenticity and destination loyalty: evidence from heritage tourists. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 12: 84–94.

28.

Gamage

Tajeddini

(2022) Why Chinese travelers use WeChat to make hotel choice decisions: a uses and gratifications theory perspective. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science 32(2): 285–312.

29.

Gao

Rasouli

Timmermans

, et al. (2017) Understanding the relationship between travel satisfaction and subjective well-being considering the role of personality traits: a structural equation model. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 49: 110–123.

30.

Gilbert

Abdulla

(2004) Holiday taking and the sense of well-being. Annals of Tourism Research 31(1): 103–121.

31.

Grönroos

(2011) Value co-creation in service logic: a critical analysis. Marketing Theory 11(3): 279–301.

32.

Grönroos

Gummerus

(2014) The service revolution and its marketing implications: service logic vs service-dominant logic. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 24(3): 206–229.

33.

Gross

Brown

(2008) An empirical structural model of tourists and places: progressing involvement and place attachment into tourism. Tourism Management 29(6): 1141–1151.

34.

Hair

Hult

GTM

, et al. (2021) A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.

35.

Hair

Howard

Nitzl

(2020) Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research 109: 101–110.

36.

Harman

(1967) Toward a theory of intrinsic value. The Journal of Philosophy 64(23): 792–804.

37.

Helkkula

Kelleher

Pihlström

(2012) Characterizing value as an experience: implications for service researchers and managers. Journal of Service Research 15(1): 59–75.

38.

Hesselberth

(2021) Retreat culture and therapeutic disconnection. In: Jansson

Adams

(eds) Disentangling: The Geographies of Digital Disconnection. Oxford University Press, 253–272.

39.

Hosany

Sthapit

Björk

(2022) Memorable tourism experience: a review and research agenda. Psychology & Marketing 39(8): 1467–1486.

40.

Huta

Ryan

(2010) Pursuing pleasure or virtue: the differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness Studies 11: 735–762.

41.

Javed

Awan

(2023) The young tourist's co-creation nexus: market mavens and existential authenticity as driving forces of intentions to revisit and recommend. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights 6(2): 716–734.

42.

Jiang

Ryan

Zhang

(2018) The spiritual or secular tourist? The experience of Zen meditation in Chinese temples. Tourism Management 65: 187–199.

43.

Jiang

Ramkissoon

Mavondo

, et al. (2017) Authenticity: the link between destination image and place attachment. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 26(2): 105–124.

44.

Kahneman

Diener

Schwarz

(eds) (1999) Well-being: Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. Russell Sage Foundation.

45.

Kao

Huang

(2008) Effects of theatrical elements on experiential quality and loyalty intentions for theme parks. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 13: 163–174.

46.

Kim

Jamal

(2007) Touristic quest for existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research 34(1): 181–201.

47.

Kim

Ritchie

JRB

McCormick

(2012) Development of a scale to measure memorable tourism experiences. Journal of Travel Research 51(1): 12–25.

48.

Kolar

Zabkar

(2010) A consumer-based model of authenticity: an oxymoron or the foundation of cultural heritage marketing? Tourism Management 31(5): 652–664.

49.

Kucukergin

Dedeoglu

(2020) An overview of the destination physical servicescape with SOR paradigm: the importance of prestige sensitivity. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 25(5): 473–488.

50.

Leblanc

(2003) Tourist characteristics and their interest in attending festivals & events: an Anglophone/Francophone case study of New Brunswick, Canada. Event Management 8: 203–212.

51.

Lee

Phau

(2018) Young tourists’ perceptions of authenticity, perceived value and satisfaction: the case of Little India, Singapore. Young Consumers 19(1): 70–86.

52.

Lee

Chen

, et al. (2023) Pro-environmental behaviour of the residents in sensitive tourism destinations. Journal of Vacation Marketing 29(2): 291–308.

53.

Pearce

Low

(2018) Media representation of digital-free tourism: a critical discourse analysis. Tourism Management 69: 317–329.

54.

Liu

Zhou

Sun

(2023) The impact of the wellness tourism experience on tourist well-being: the mediating role of tourist satisfaction. Sustainability 15(3): 1872.

55.

Loureiro

(2014) The role of the rural tourism experience economy in place attachment and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 40: 1–9.

56.

Cai

(2023) Social media in ethnographic research: critical reflections on using WeChat in researching Chinese outbound tourists. Current Issues in Tourism 26(20): 3275–3287.

57.

MacCannell

(1976) The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. University of California Press.

58.

Malone

McKechnie

Tynan

(2017) Tourists’ emotions as a resource for customer value creation, cocreation, and destruction: a customer-grounded understanding. Journal of Travel Research 57(7): 843–855.

59.

Martin

(2010) Living pasts: contested tourism authenticities. Annals of Tourism Research 37(2): 537–554.

60.

Mateos-Aparicio

(2011) Partial least squares (PLS) methods: origins, evolution, and application to social sciences. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods 40(13): 2305–2317.

61.

Mathis

Kim

Uysal

, et al. (2016) The effect of cocreation experience on outcome variable. Annals of Tourism Research 57: 62–75.

62.

Mazierska

(2002) Road to authenticity and stability. Tourist Studies 2(3): 223–246.

63.

Mehrabian

Russell

(1974) An Approach to Environmental Psychology. MIT Press.

64.

Moufahim

Lichrou

(2019) Pilgrimage, consumption and rituals: spiritual authenticity in a Shia Muslim pilgrimage. Tourism Management 70: 322–332.

65.

Naidoo

Schembri

Cohen

(2023) Vacation or therapy? Demographics, motivations, and experiences of wellness retreat guests around the world. International Journal of Spa and Wellness 6(3): 329–342.

66.

Nangpiire

Silva

Alves

(2022) Customer engagement and value co-creation/destruction: the internal fostering and hindering factors and actors in the tourist/hotel experience. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 16(2): 173–188.

67.

Nawijn

Mitas

Lin

, et al. (2013) How do we feel on vacation? A closer look at how emotions change over the course of a trip. Journal of Travel Research 52(2): 265–274.

68.

Fiore

Jeoung

(2007) Measuring experience economy concepts: tourism applications. Journal of Travel Research 46(2): 119–132.

69.

Patwardhan

Ribeiro

Payini

, et al. (2020) Visitors’ place attachment and destination loyalty: examining the roles of emotional solidarity and perceived safety. Journal of Travel Research 59(1): 3–21.

70.

Pawłowska-Legwand

Matoga

(2021) Disconnect from the digital world to reconnect with the real life: an analysis of the potential for development of unplugged tourism on the example of Poland. Tourism Planning & Development 18(6): 649–672.

71.

Pearce

Packer

(2013) Minds on the move: new links from psychology to tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 40: 386–411.

72.

Pine

Gilmore

(1998) Welcome to experience economy. Harvard Business Review 74(6): 97–105.

73.

Pine

Gilmore

(1999) The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every Business a Stage. Boston, MA: HBS Press.

74.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Podsakoff

(2012) Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology 63: 539–569.

75.

Ponsignon

Lunardo

Michrafy

(2021) Why are international visitors more satisfied with the tourism experience? The role of hedonic value, escapism, and psychic distance. Journal of Travel Research 60(8): 1771–1786.

76.

Prebensen

Xie

(2017) Efficacy of co-creation and mastering on perceived value and satisfaction in tourists’ consumption. Tourism Management 60(June): 166–176.

77.

Ram

Björk

Weidenfeld

(2016) Authenticity and place attachment of major visitor attractions. Tourism Management 52: 110–122.

78.

Ramkissoon

Mavondo

(2015) The satisfaction–place attachment relationship: potential mediators and moderators. Journal of Business Research 68(12): 2593–2602.

79.

Rehman

Alnuzhah

(2022) Identifying travel motivations of Saudi domestic tourists: case of Hail province in Saudi Arabia. Geojournal of Tourism and Geosites 43: 1118–1128.

80.

Reisinger

Turner

(2003) Cross-cultural Behavior in Tourism: Concepts and Analysis. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

81.

Ryan

Deci

(2001) On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 141–166.

82.

Ryff

(1989) Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57(6): 1069–1081.

83.

Şahin

Kılıçlar

(2023) The effect of tourists’ gastronomic experience on emotional and cognitive evaluation: an application of S-O-R paradigm. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights 6(2): 595–612.

84.

Seligman

(2002) Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy. Handbook of Positive Psychology 2(2002): 3–12.

85.

Seyitoglu

(2020) Cappadocia: the effects of tourist motivation on satisfaction and destination loyalty. Journal of Tourismology 6(1): 35–48.

86.

Shang

Yuan

Chen

(2020) Examining structural relationships among brand experience, existential authenticity, and place attachment in slow tourism destinations. Sustainability 12(7): 2784.

87.

Singer

Couper

(2008) Do incentives exert undue influence on survey participation? Experimental evidence. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 3(3): 49–56.

88.

Sipe

Testa

(2018) From satisfied to memorable: an empirical study of service and experience dimensions on guest outcomes in the hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 27(2): 178–195.

89.

Sirgy

Kruger

, et al. (2011) How does a travel trip affect tourists’ life satisfaction? Journal of Travel Research 50(3): 261–275.

90.

Smith

Diekmann

(2017) Tourism and wellbeing. Annals of Tourism Research 66: 1–13.

91.

Smith

Puczko

(2015) More than a special interest: defining and determining the demand for health tourism. Tourism Recreation Research 40(2): 205–219.

92.

Steiner

Reisinger

(2006) Understanding existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research 33(2): 299–318.

93.

Stepchenkova

Belyaeva

(2021) The effect of authenticity orientation on existential authenticity and postvisitation intended behavior. Journal of Travel Research 60(2): 401–416.

94.

Sthapit

(2017) Exploring tourists’ memorable food experiences: a study of visitors to Santa’s official hometown. Anatolia 28(3): 404–421.

95.

Sthapit

Coudounaris

(2018) Memorable tourism experiences: antecedents and outcomes. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 18(1): 72–94.

96.

Sthapit

Coudounaris

Björk

(2019) Extending the memorable tourism experience construct: an investigation of memories of local food experiences. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 19(4-5): 333–353.

97.

Sthapit

Prentice

Yang

Garrod

Björk

(2024) Experience-driven well-being and purchase: an alternative model of memorable wine tourism experiences. International Journal of Tourism Research 26(2): e2645.

98.

Stone

Migacz

Sthapit

(2022) Connections between culinary tourism experiences and memory. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 46(4): 797–807.

99.

Cheng

Huang

(2011) Empirical study of destination loyalty and its antecedent: the perspective of place attachment. The Service Industries Journal 31(16): 2721–2739.

100.

Sutton

(2020) Digital Re-Enchantment: Tribal Belonging, New Age Science, and the Search for Happiness in a Digital Detoxing Community. University of Oxford. Oxford University Research Archive.

101.

Syvertsen

(2022) Offline tourism: digital and screen ambivalence in Norwegian mountain huts with no internet access. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 22(3): 195–209.

102.

Syvertsen

(2023) Framing digital disconnection: problem definitions, values, and actions among digital detox organisers. Convergence 29(3): 658–674.

103.

Syvertsen

Enli

(2020) Digital detox: Media resistance and the promise of authenticity. Convergence 26(5-6): 1269–1283.

104.

Trinanda

Sari

Cerya

, et al. (2022) Predicting place attachment through selfie tourism, memorable tourism experience and hedonic well-being. International Journal of Tourism Cities 8(2): 412–423.

105.

Vada

Prentice

Hsiao

(2019) The influence of tourism experience and well-being on place attachment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 47: 322–330.

106.

Vega-Vázquez

Castellanos-Verdugo

García

, et al. (2017) Shopping value, tourist satisfaction and positive word of mouth: the mediating role of souvenir shopping satisfaction. Current Issues in Tourism 20(13): 1413–1430.

107.

Walls

Wang

(2011) Experiential consumption and destination marketing. In: Wang

Pizam

(eds) Tourism Destination Marketing and Management: Theories and Applications. Wallingford: CABI, 82–97.

108.

Wang

(1999) Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research 26(2): 349–370.

109.

Waterman

(1993) Two conceptions of happiness: contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64(4): 678–691.

110.

Wei

Wen

, et al. (2021) Creating memorable experience in rural tourism: a comparison between domestic and outbound tourists. Journal of Travel Research 60(7): 1527–1542.

111.

KKF

, et al. (2023) Perceived authenticity and place attachment: new findings from Chinese world heritage sites. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 47(5): 800–826.

112.

, et al. (2018) Authenticity and loyalty at heritage sites: the moderation effect of postmodern authenticity. Tourism Management 67: 411–424.

113.

KKF

Zheng

(2023) Perceived authenticity and place attachment: new findings from Chinese world heritage sites. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 47(5): 800–826.

114.

Lin

Jin

, et al. (2017) The authenticity of heritage sites, tourists’ quest for existential authenticity, and destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research 56(8): 1032–1048.

115.

Yuksel

Bilim

(2010) Destination attachment: effects on customer satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Tourism Management 31(2): 274–284.

116.

Zatori

Smith

Puczko

(2018) Experience-involvement, memorability and authenticity: the service provider’s effect on tourist experiences. Tourism Management 67: 111–126.

117.

Zhao

(2023) Destination authenticity, place attachment and loyalty: evaluating tourist experiences at traditional villages. Current Issues in Tourism 26(23): 3887–3902.

Memorable digital-free tourism experiences: Antecedents and outcomes

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical background and hypotheses formulation

Stimuli–organism–response (S-O-R) theory

Escapism

Experience co-creation

Existential authenticity

Experiential satisfaction

Memorable digital-free tourism, HWB, EWB and PA

Methods

Data collection methods and instrumentation

Data analysis

Common method bias (CMB)

Results

Assessing measurement models

Evaluating structural model

Discussion and conclusion

Theoretical implications

Managerial implications

Limitations and suggestions for future studies

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References