Tourism Management 67 (2018) 411e424

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Authenticity and loyalty at heritage sites: The moderation effect of

postmodern authenticity
Xiaoli Yi a, Xiaoxiao Fu b, Larry Yu c, Liao Jiang a, *
a
Jinan University, China
b
University of Central Florida, USA
c
The George Washington University, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

The relationship of perceived authenticity, existential authenticity and destination loyalty was further verified.

Perceived authenticity exerted a significant effect on destination loyalty.

Existential authenticity transmitted positively the effect of perceived authenticity on destination loyalty.

Postmodern authenticity moderated the effect of architectural heritage on loyalty through existential authenticity.

Postmodern authenticity can be a vantage point to better understand the subjectivity of tourist experiences.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Authenticity and postmodern authenticity are often regarded as contradictory, and the two are rarely
Received 1 December 2017 considered simultaneously by researchers. Taking as research cases two Chinese World Heritage Sites,
Received in revised form Kaiping watchtowers in Guangdong province and Yongding earth building in Fujian province, this study
17 December 2017
constructed a relationship model of perceived authenticity, existential authenticity, and loyalty by
Accepted 20 January 2018
examining the effects of tourists' perceptions of the authenticity of tangible and intangible heritage on
tourists' existential authenticity and destination loyalty, as well as the relationship between existential
authenticity and destination loyalty. Building upon the relationship model, this study further examined
Keywords:
Perceived authenticity
the moderating role of postmodern authenticity on the relationship between perceived authenticity and
Existential authenticity existential authenticity. Results indicated that postmodern authenticity moderates the influence of
Postmodern authenticity architectural heritage on existential authenticity: the higher the level of postmodern authenticity, the
Loyalty lower the effect. Theoretical and management implications are discussed.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction with attraction settings (McIntosh & Prentice, 1999). As perceptions

The topic of authenticity has received much attention from
scholars in different academic areas. Several types of authenticity
have been examined to understand the tourism experience. Object-
based authenticity refers to the authenticity of original objects
(Wang, 1999). In line with Lau’s (2010) analysis from a social realist
approach, objects should not be restricted to physical things but
refer to artifacts, rituals of daily life, and cultural, religious, and
recreational activities. Perceived authenticity is tourists' perception
or cognition of objective authenticity, attained from interaction
are socially and culturally constructed, it is likely that tourists with
different backgrounds may have different opinions of authenticity
(Mura, 2015). As an ideal state of being in which individuals are true
to their own values and beliefs, existential authenticity is another
concept for understanding the effect of travel (Wang, 1999). In
contrast to these three types of authenticity that have been
explored in tourism contexts, however, postmodern authenticity
has received much less attention.
The compromising nature of postmodern social theory em-
phasizes ‘both-and’ rather than ‘either-or’ (Uriely, 1997). The

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jiangliao@sz.jnu.edu.cn (L. Jiang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.01.013
0261-5177/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
412 X. Yi et al. / Tourism Management 67 (2018) 411e424
contemporary discourse of postmodernism reflects a more critical,
more relativistic, nondualistic, and antihierarchical point of view.
Derived from postmodernism and formally introduced to tourism
studies by Wang (1999), postmodern authenticity accepts the inau-
thenticity of toured objects, the deconstruction of the objective
definition of authenticity, and the justification of staged authen-
ticity, hyper-reality, and dreamlike constructions, and thus can be a
less authoritative and more pluralized concept (Zerva, 2015). Butler
(2013) maintained that both authenticity and postmodern
authenticity are relative, as the assessment depends on tourists'
personal experience, values, judgment, and preexisting social re-
alities. Correspondingly, the perception of authenticity is a product
of different frameworks of assessment, which are determined by
such contexts as cultural norms and individual standards. In post-
modern conditions, only a limited number of tourist experiences
can be explained by object-related authenticity, while a wider
range of experiences are pertinent to existential authenticity
(Wang, 1999). For example, some tourists would think certain ob-
jects are authentic or genuine, while others would think otherwise.
Studies of perceived authenticity, existential authenticity, and
postmodern authenticity are producing separate discourses (Gao,
Zhang, & Decosta, 2012; Kontogeorgopoulos, 2017; Steiner &
Reisinger, 2006; Wang, 1999), despite some recent efforts at
bridging them (Mura, 2015; Shepherd, 2015). Early work on
perceived authenticity and existential authenticity consists
mostly of conceptual elaborations and qualitative studies (Brown,
2013; Kim & Jamal, 2007; Steiner & Reisinger, 2006), while
quantitative assessment of the relationship between authenticity
and other variables is emerging. As our knowledge of authenticity
in tourism experience expands, however, different types of
authenticity have rarely been studied in the same context.
Furthermore, as noted by some scholars (e.g., Uriely, 1997), the
role of postmodern authenticity in tourism has seldom been
quantitatively investigated.
Moreover, tourism researchers began to examine therelation-
ship of authenticity and tourist loyalty and found that authentici-
tyaffects attitudinal loyalty (Kolar & Zabkar, 2010) and behavioral
loyalty (Caste ran & Roederer, 2013; Akhoondnejad, 2016). How-
ever, existingstudies were largely confined to one type of authen-
ticity (mostly perceivedauthenticity), without considering tourist
loyalty in tandem with differentauthenticities. To address the
knowledge gap, the current study aimed to examine perceived
authenticity, existential authenticity, postmodern authenticity, and
their relationship with destination loyalty in the setting of heritage
attractions. Specifically, we sought to apply postmodern authen-
ticity as a vantage point from which to better understand and
decompose the tourist experience at heritage sites. Since the “ab-
solute” authenticity of historical sites, namely the object-based
authenticity, and postmodern authenticity appear to be contra-
dictory, it is meaningful to assess the heritage tourists' perception
of authenticity within the parameters of postmodern authenticity.
The findings provide insights for heritage attractions to design
personally meaningful experiences and build destination loyalty.
2. Literature review
2.1. Tourists' perceived authenticity of cultural heritage
Cultural heritage consists of both tangible heritage, such as
buildings and monuments, and intangible heritage, such as oral
traditions, performing arts, rituals, and festive events (UNESCO,
2016). In line with Vecco’s (2010) statement, tangible cultural
heritage is evaluated mainly with objective criteria, while intan-
gible culture heritage is assessed with subjective criteria.
Although the two types of heritage are often inseparable and are
equally important, the key question lies in the capacity of the
object to stimulate certain values that lead the public to consider
it as heritage. Heritage tourism, thus, is the experience of spaces
with both tangible and intangible elements (Poria & Ashworth,
2009).
The change in the usage of tangible heritage will threaten
intangible heritage (Suntikul & Jachna, 2013). Not only does heri-
tage tourism heavily rely on the relationship between supply and
demand, like other modes of tourism, it also centers on tourists'
perception of heritage attributes (Poria, Butler, & Airey, 2003). The
concept of heritagization, as postulated by Poria and Ashworth
(2009), signifies visitors' internalization of the tangible and intan-
gible elements as part of their own personal heritage, which con-
stitutes the core of heritage tourism. This idea was echoed by
Knudsen, Rickly, and Vidon (2016), who emphasized that tourists'
authentic experience is actually a process of self-rationalization.
Certain lifestyles, values, and dispositions that are missing in
one's routine life can be fulfilled through travel.
The concept of authenticity was postulated by MacCannell
(1973) in a tourism context and was further developed and
expanded by subsequent researchers (e.g., Kim & Jamal, 2007;
McIntosh & Prentice, 1999; Shepherd, 2015; Wang, 1999). Simply
put, authenticity is the origin or essence of an object, which can be
used as knowledge and/or as feeling. Since perceptual processes are
always mental states (Di Betta, 2014), experiencing authenticity is
in fact a mental state. Authentication marks the process by which
the authenticity of an attraction is perpetuated and confirmed
(Cohen & Cohen, 2012). Two authentication modes of tourist at-
tractions, namely “cool” and “hot,” are conducive to different types
of personal experiences of authenticity (Cohen & Cohen, 2012). The
“cool’’ authentication is static or declarative, based on accepted
norms, testimony, or expert knowledge of objective (object-based)
authenticity, while the “hot” authentication is dynamic, related to
the quest for an authentic self and authentic others through a
constitutive process. The latter category can be an ongoing process
that involves complex interplay with tourists' authentically imag-
ined past (Bryce, Murdy, & Alexander, 2017). Tourism and its
contextual environment can promote the experiences triggered by
authenticity, which are usually short-lived (Mura, 2015). Therefore,
authenticity is a place-bound concept, and the place-specific fea-
tures such as souvenirs are either coupled with or embedded
within authenticity (Swanson & Timothy, 2012). That is to say,
tourists' perception of authenticity is formed through the interac-
tion with local architecture, people, souvenirs, food, events, rituals,
etc.
Previous studies have shown that tourists' perceived authen-
ticity of heritage attractions or festivals consists of assessment of
both tangible and intangible aspects of the toured sites. Szmigin,
Bengry-Howell, Morey, Griffin, and Riley (2017) found that tour-
ists' authentic experiences can be produced and cocreated through
sociospatial factors such as a festival's design, organization, and
management, while Robinson and Clifford (2012) reported that the
chefs and their cooking regime convey authenticity in the food
service dimensions of medieval festivals. Furthermore, Rickly-Boyd
(2012) posited that authenticity is formed through ritual, tradition,
and the distinctive atmosphere of the place, which are mutually
constitutive in promoting the state of authenticity.
Similarly, tourists' perceptions of authenticity can interact
with both the tangible, such as architectural heritage, and the
intangible, such as the folk culture of the toured heritage sites
(e.g., Yi, Lin, Jin, & Luo, 2017). Architectural heritage relates to
original buildings, interior design and decoration of the build-
ings, and surrounding atmosphere or environment, while folk
culture involves local people's apparel, art (i.e., paintings, carv-
ings), local stories or legends, traditional appliances still in use in
 X. Yi et al. / Tourism Management 67 (2018) 411e424
daily lives, and so forth (Ke, 2011). Architectural heritage and folk
culture are interconnected at cultural heritage sites, especially
where the local people still live in the historical buildings and
practice the cultural rituals. The assessment of the two aspects
provides a more complete understanding of tourists' perceived
authenticity.
2.2. Existential authenticity
While earlier studies focused on the authenticity of objects, such
as relationship authenticity (MacCannell, 1973, 1976) or the spiri-
tual meaning of object authenticity (Cohen, 1979), existential
authenticity provides a novel perspective to the understanding of
authenticity in tourism experiences (Brown, 2013; Kim & Jamal,
2007; Shepherd, 2015; Steiner & Reisinger, 2006; Wang, 1999
Wang, 2007). Person-centered in nature, it describes a personally
experienced authenticity that does not compromise one's self and
values. The existentially authentic state of being sets an individual
free and enables him or her to engage in activities not usually found
in day-to-day existence.
Steiner and Reisinger (2006) postulated that in a tourism
context, hosts' and guests' choices to be authentic or not are
affected by the created touristic environments. It is important, as
the researchers noted, for both hosts and guests to wish to be
authentic, because, on the one hand, what constitutes authenticity
at a host community depends on the free choices of local residents,
and on the other hand, tourists' quest for existential authenticity is
centered on the idea that tourists want to feel free, to engage with
their true self, and to be free of constraints from their usual cir-
cumstances or daily lives (Steiner & Reisinger, 2006). Clearly,
freedom can be understood as the ultimate presentation of exis-
tential authenticity (Steiner & Reisinger, 2006).
Wang (1999) divided existential authenticity into intrapersonal
and interpersonal authenticity, which was further validated by Kim
and Jamal (2007). Intrapersonal authenticity involves bodily feel-
ings and self-making: bodily feelings mean that tourists' bodies
become authentic and yearn for unrestricted entertainment or
playfulness, which can be both spiritual and bodily; and self-
making denotes that tourists pursue a desired self, self-
transformation, self-exploration, and self-realization through
seeking adventures or extramundane experiences (Brown, 2013;
Kim & Jamal, 2007; Wang, 1999). Interpersonal authenticity in-
volves family ties and touristic communitas: family ties suggest
that natural and emotional bonds and real intimacy in family re-
lationships are realized through tourism (Wang, 1999); and tour-
istic communitas implies that people's differences in social
positions, status, or roles disappear and tourists encounter one
another in a natural, friendly, and authentic way (Kim & Jamal,
2007; Wang, 1999).
Inheriting Martin Heidegger’s (1996) philosophical proposition
that autochthony is the basis for understanding a place and expli-
cating Wang’s (1999) conceptualization of existential authenticity,
Shepherd (2015) emphasized the rootedness of authentic being, as
authenticity can only be achieved within a community that shares
the same norms, assumptions, or culture. Through an analysis of
Heidegger's and Sartre's philosophical work, Shepherd (2015)
concluded that Sartre followed Heidegger's thinking about
authenticity and that authenticity is both a self-recovery of being
and a quest for a community. Kirillova and Lehto (2015) further
conceptualized the dynamics and relationships of existential
authenticity and anxiety during travelers' nomadic time by iden-
tifying four dimensions of existential authenticity during a vacation
cycle: umwelt, the natural world in which an individual behaves in
an instinctive manner; mitwelt, the social world in which one has
relationships with fellow beings; eigenwelt, one's intimate
413
relationship with oneself and important fellow beings; and uber-
welt, spiritual or metaphysical aspects of being.
Although existential authenticity or a sense of being can be
achieved only in the liminal moments of tourism experiences
(Knudsen et al., 2016), empirical research has shown that tourists'
experience is driven by the desire for existential authenticity.
Studying volunteer tourists visiting Thailand, Kontogeorgopoulos
(2017) revealed the significance of existential authenticity in
shaping volunteer tourists' motivations. Specially, the volunteer
tourists' choice to take part in community service was related to the
intrapersonal and interpersonal aspects of existential authenticity.
Considering tourists' need to interact with local residents, Yi et al.
(2017) emphasized that our understanding of authenticity should
not be restricted to the relationship among tourists but include the
contact between tourists and the locals since communitas refers to
the conditions outside or on the peripheries of everyday life (Wang,
1999). The same study showed quantitatively that acquiring the
sense of oneself can foster one's genuine relationship with others.
According to Heidegger (1996) and Steiner and Reisinger (2006),
whether or not people are authentic depends upon how they
project themselves and whether they are in an existential moment
or in a moment of essential self-understanding or self-realization.
Therefore, the concept of existential authenticity is to some de-
gree consistent with postmodern, unconstrained perspectives, in
that tourists' existential state of being is to be produced or pursued
(Steiner & Reisinger, 2006) and activated through tourism activities
(Meng & Choi, 2016; Wang, 1999).
2.3. Postmodernism and postmodern authenticity
Postmodernism relates to a highly critical epistemology with
skepticism and relativism as the essential attitude (Butler, 2013;
McHale, 2015). The characteristics of postmodernism include that it
is separated or open in form, chaotic in hierarchy, superficial in
depth, random in design, and concerned with process (Powell,
2014). The most revolutionary and basic belief of postmodernism
is the application of deconstruction, which depends on two main
principles: (1) a universal truth cannot be found, while the relative
is inevitable; and (2) the truth is always relative, depending on the
judges' thinking frameworks, which involve different positions,
tendencies, or predispositions (Butler, 2013). In line with the view
of philosopher Jacques Derrida, to deconstruct is to reveal the
hidden interdependent relationships between opposites (Butler,
2013). Furthermore, postmodernists and postmodern tourists
embrace pluralism, relativism, and multiculturalism (Butler, 2013;
Uriely, 1997). The postmodern self is an imaginary self, which is a
result of outside influence through a process of inscription on the
body (Hughes, 1995). In analyzing postmodern subjects, Lash and
Urry (1994) emphasized the liberty of postmodern destabiliza-
tion, which can promote individuation.
Through studying what tourists encounter from the tourist
perspective, Martin (2010) emphasized that the key for a post-
modernist or postmodern tourist to respond to fakery or unreality
is whether the experience is what the tourist expects. As pointed
out by Wang (1999), inauthenticity is not considered a problem
through the lens of postmodernism, and the quest for inauthen-
ticity is justifiable in postmodern tourism conditions, since there is
no original or real that can be used as a reference. Postmodern
authenticity deconstructs the conception of authenticity by blur-
ring the boundaries between the original and the duplicated (Eco,
1986), especially when modern technologies can make the inau-
thentic look more real or authentic (Wang, 1999). It is noteworthy
that postmodern authenticity and inauthenticity are different
concepts in philosophy. According to Heidegger (1996), inauthen-
ticity is characterized by seven aspects: being-among-one-another,
414 X. Yi et al. / Tourism Management 67 (2018) 411e424
distantiality, averageness, leveled-down possibilities, publicness,
disburdening, and accommodation. Unlike postmodern authen-
ticity, the tenets of inauthenticity lie in the loss of individual
identity, lack of distinctiveness, and adoption of the common pos-
sibilities they share with others.
From a postmodern perspective, tourists also do not necessarily
consider things that are inauthentic as problematic. For instance,
tourists' perceived front stage or back stage is relative and can be
programmed under different circumstances; for example, arran-
ging a front-stage as a pseudo-backstage in agritourism settings is
acceptable (Daugstad & Kirchengast, 2013). By comparing tourists'
evaluations of cultural performances in Zimbabwe, Mkono (2013)
contended that object authenticity does not necessarily matter to
all tourists: African tourists cared for aesthetics and artistry, while
their Western counterparts were preoccupied with identifying
inauthenticity in the staged experience.
Both authenticity and postmodern authenticity are relative
terms, which depend mainly on tourists' individual perspectives
and the social environment they are part of. In the setting of an
ethnic marriage ceremony in Lijiang, China, Zhu (2012) noted that
“becoming” authentic can be a dynamic process of interaction be-
tween the ritual practitioners and the reality, which allows the
authenticity provided by the local people to be performative. Under
such a circumstance, some tourists may think the ceremony is
authentic while others may think otherwise. In the postmodern
view (Eco, 1986; Zerva, 2015), postmodern authenticity accepts not
only the deconstruction of the original definition but also the
introduction of hyperreality and dreamlike constructions, as
exemplified by the scenes in New Zealand where the Lord of the
Rings was filmed.
2.4. Destination loyalty
Tourists' loyalty has been assessed from two aspects: revisit-
related behavior and attitude toward the destination, with the
latter including recommendation to others (Chen & Gursoy, 2001).
Considering the characteristics of the tourism industry, McKercher,
Denizci-Guillet, and Ng (2012) extended the conceptualization of
loyalty to three dimensions: vertical (loyalty to different tiers
simultaneously, i.e., to an airline and a travel agent), horizontal
(loyalty to more than one provider in the same tier, i.e., to more
than one hospitality brand), and experiential (loyalty to certain
holiday styles). Based on in-depth interviews, the authors
confirmed vertical and experiential loyalty, but found less evidence
for horizontal loyalty. By dividing tourist loyalty into the three di-
mensions of attitudinal, behavioral, and composite loyalty, Zhang,
Fu, Cai, and Lu (2014) verified that the impact of destination im-
age on tourist loyalty is significant, albeit with varying degrees for
each loyalty dimension. It has also been found that loyalty to a
destination is a positive predictor of tourists' future behavior
(Meleddu, Paci, & Pulina, 2015).
Although many studies have been devoted to the dimensionality
of loyalty (e.g., Han, Kim, & Kim, 2011; Yuksel, Yukseland, & Bilim,
2010), more recent research has focused on the antecedents of
loyalty, which are not limited to tourist satisfaction (e.g., Datta,
Bigham, Zou, & Hill, 2015). A few studies explored the linkage be-
tween authenticity and loyalty in the heritage context; however,
the effect of different types of authenticity on loyalty is debatable.
Sampling from 25 Romanesque heritage sites in Europe, Kolar and
Zabkar (2010) tested the influence of motivation, object-based
authenticity, and existential authenticity on loyalty and found
that both object-based authenticity and existential authenticity
were positive predictors of loyalty. Similar results were identified in
Bryce, Curran, O'Gorman, and Taheri's (2015) research at a Japanese
heritage site. However, in the setting of the Chinese calligraphic
landscape, Zhou, Zhang, and Edelheim (2013) extended Kolar and
Zabkar’s (2010) model by adding the attitude variable and found
no significant effect of existential authenticity on loyalty. Further-
more, by operationalizing existential authenticity into intraper-
sonal and interpersonal authenticity, Yi et al. (2017) revealed that
intrapersonal authenticity exerts a significant influence on desti-
nation loyalty while interpersonal authenticity does not. Given that
previous studies have divergent results on the nature of the rela-
tionship, the impact of different categories of authenticity on loy-
alty deserves further examination.
2.5. Conceptual model
2.5.1. Relationship between perceived authenticity and existential
authenticity
There is a difference between the authenticity of object/site and
the authenticity of activity/experience, defined as objective
authenticity and existential authenticity, respectively (Wang, 1999).
In fact, the authenticity of toured objects affects tourists' existential
authenticity, since the former triggers tourists' existential state of
being or the authenticity of the tourist experience (Wang, 1999).
The place and space of tourism circumstance have an intrinsic
linkage to tourist experience, making tourism function as a catalyst
for existential authenticity (Brown, 2013). Previous studies have
found that the perceived material or object-related authenticity of
hosts can lead to tourists' existential authenticity
(Kontogeorgopoulos, 2017; Yi et al., 2017). For example, based on
existential theory, Kolar and Zabkar (2010) and Bryce, Curran,
O’Gorman, and Taheri (2015) empirically verified that the authen-
ticity of an object/site triggers existential authenticity, while Yi
et al. (2017) further confirmed that the authenticity of sites and
environments to some degree affects intrapersonal authenticity,
but has no effect on interpersonal authenticity. Following this line
of reasoning, we advance the first set of hypotheses:
H1. Perceived authenticity has a positive effect on existential
authenticity.
H1a. Architectural heritage has a positive effect on existential
authenticity.
H1b. Folk culture has a positive effect on existential authenticity.
2.5.2. The relationship between existential authenticity and loyalty
Kolar and Zabkar (2010) proposed a consumer-based model in
which both object-based authenticity and existential authenticity
function as the key mediators between cultural motivation and
loyalty and showed that existential authenticity has a positive and
significant effect on loyalty. Bryce et al. (2015) also provided evi-
dence that existential authenticity positively influences loyalty.
However, their study considered only intrapersonal authenticity for
existential authenticity. The present study considered both intra-
personal and interpersonal aspects for the construct of existential
authenticity. Given the previous findings, we propose the second
hypothesis:
H2. Existential authenticity has a significant effect on destination
loyalty.
2.5.3. The relationship between perceived authenticity and loyalty
Many researchers have found that the perceived authenticity of
an attraction or event has a significant effect on loyalty (Bryce et al.,
2015; Kolar & Zabkar, 2010). In the heritage context, while a few
studies reported an insignificant relationship between the two,
most recent studies have provided empirical support for this
 X. Yi et al. / Tourism Management 67 (2018) 411e424 415

relationship. In the context of a medieval festival in Australia,

Robinson and Clifford (2012) confirmed the association between
tourists' perceived authenticity of the food service and their revisit
intention. At the Strasbourg Christmas Market, Caste ran and
Roederer (2013) identified that perceived authenticity has a posi-
tive effect on behavioral loyalty. Although Akhoondnejad (2016)
failed to find a significant relationship between perceived authen-
ticity and festival loyalty, the researcher reported the significant
influence of the former on perceived quality, value, and satisfaction.
Based on prior studies, the third hypothesis is formalized as
follows:
H3. Perceived authenticity has a significant effect on destination
loyalty.

2.5.4. The moderating role of postmodern authenticity

Uriely (1997) emphasized that the tenet of postmodern social
theory is its compromising nature, as the postmodern system of
knowledge is more pluralized and less authoritative. Therefore,
postmodern tourism possesses an open attitude to many cultures
and diversification in tourism, regardless of the form, fusion, and
continuation of traditional or modern culture (Wang, Niu, Lu, &
Qian, 2015). Two dimensions of postmodern tourism, namely the
simulation and the quest for authenticity, have complementary
rather than contradictory functions (Uriely, 1997). Based on the
postmodern perspective, the same destination can be perceived
differently based on tourists' knowledge and imagination (Gao
et al., 2012).
Similarly, the contemporary social context encourages con-
sumers to make claims of authenticity in different ways (Martin,
2010). From the lens of postmodern epistemology, tourist experi-
ence is subjective (Poria, Reichel, & Cohen, 2013), and authenticity
is judged through the eyes of the beholder (Laing, Wheeler, Reeves,
& Frost, 2014). Thus, authenticity should be understood as a rela-
tive, subjective, and personalized view of tourists differing in their
experiences, intelligence, and imagination. Tourists' understanding
of their true selves during the trips always accompanies their
postmodern understanding of the authenticity encountered at the
destinations.
However, to our knowledge, no research has analyzed the
interaction of perceived authenticity and postmodern authenticity
to predict existential authenticity. Poria et al. (2013) emphasized
that heritage should not be perceived as static, but rather as relative
to assess its significance to human society. This is consistent with
postmodern epistemology, which considers the tourist experience
as subjective. Therefore, we propose that postmodern authenticity
will moderate the effects of perceived authenticity on existential
authenticity. Specifically, we propose:
H4. Postmodern authenticity moderates the relationship between
perceived authenticity and existential authenticity, such that the
relationship is stronger in low rather than high postmodern
authenticity.
H4a. Postmodern authenticity moderates the relationship be-
tween architectural heritage and existential authenticity, such that
the relationship is stronger in low rather than high postmodern
authenticity.
H4b. Postmodern authenticity moderates the relationship be-
tween folk culture and existential authenticity, such that the rela-
tionship is stronger in low rather than high postmodern
authenticity.
Based on the hypotheses developed above, this study con-
structed the research model shown in Fig. 1. The baseline model
Fig. 1. Research model.
(Model 1) is based on Kolar and Zabkar (2010) and Yi et al. (2017),
while taking both intrapersonal authenticity and interpersonal
authenticity into consideration for existential authenticity.
Furthermore, based on the theoretical postulation that postmodern
authenticity may moderate the relationship between perceived
authenticity and existential authenticity, model 2 was established.
3. Methodology
3.1. Questionnaire design
This study employed a quantitative research approach to
empirically test the proposed models. Based on an extensive re-
view of previous literature, a questionnaire was developed for this
study with five major sections: architectural heritage (three
items), folk culture (four items), postmodern authenticity (four
items), existential authenticity (five items), and destination loy-
alty (two/three items). Items for architectural heritage and folk
culture, previously assessed in Yi et al.'s (2017) empirical study,
were adapted to suit our research context, since a tourist's
perception of authenticity is formed through a process of nego-
tiation between objects and self (Mura, 2015). The items of post-
modern authenticity were derived from Uriely's (1997) and
Wang's (1999) theorization of postmodern authenticity, while
those of existential authenticity were adopted from Wang (1999)
and empirically testified by Yi et al. (2017), comprising both
intrapersonal authenticity and interpersonal authenticity. The
section on loyalty, based on prior research (e.g., Chen & Gursoy,
2001; Kolar & Zabkar, 2010), contained two items in the Guang-
dong questionnaire and three items in the Fujian questionnaire.
The content validity of measurement items was assessed by a
panel of three tourism experts who checked for ambiguity and
error in the statement of each item. In response to the experts'
feedback, the wording of several items was adjusted to improve
comprehension. A seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1,
completely disagree, to 7, completely agree, was used for the
questionnaire. The same questionnaire was used for the two data
collection sites except for the geographical names. Since the earth
buildings in Fujian province are dispersed, the study added one
item (In addition to this building, I will also visit other earth
buildings) to destination loyalty in the Fujian survey. Following a
back-translation procedure, the original English questionnaire was
416 X. Yi et al. / Tourism Management 67 (2018) 411e424
Fig. 2. Pictures of Kaiping watchtowers in (a) July 2014 and (b) October 2014; and pictures of Yongding earth buildings in (c) July 2016 and (d) July 2017 (Photographs by the first
author).
translated into Chinese and then translated back to English, to
ensure language equivalency.
3.2. Data collection
Two World Heritage Sites, Kaiping watchtowers (also called
Kaiping Diaolou and Villages) in Guangdong province and Yongding
earth buildings (also called Yongding Tulou) in Fujian province
(Fig. 2), were chosen as research sites, for two main reasons. First,
the two sites feature unique culture, history, architectural styles,
and decorative forms. Second, the sites are well preserved, and
most of the buildings are still inhabited by the descendants of the
building builders.
Kaiping watchtowers were built with the contribution of the
migre
e  Kaiping people who saved money abroad. Most buildings
were made with cement, an imported material, combining both
Chinese and Western styles in the early 20th century. Zili Village,
Majianglong Cluster, and Jinjiangli Village are among the most
visited sites. Initially built as protection against bandits, the
watchtowers were heavily fortified with iron bars and doors, while
harmoniously fusing with the surrounding landscape. It was pop-
ular to decorate the exterior wall using the art of Lingnan gray
carving, which features cranes, peacocks, pines, peonies, and lo-
tuses and colors meant to show personality. Also commonly used
are Western elements such as Byzantine style roofs, Roman domes,
and Greek columns. The typical interior layout of the watchtowers
consists of three rooms and two galleries (Kaiping Bureau of
Cultural Relics, 2014). In addition to the defensive function, the
watchtowers also serve as living quarters. Kaiping watchtowers
were designated as a World Heritage Site in July 2007.
Yongding earth buildings first appeared in the 1650s and
entered their heyday as the tobacco business made many families
rich in the Fujian area (Hu, 2006). Considering both security and
the need for communal living for extended families, the buildings
were large, well ventilated, and durable. Most buildings are cir-
cular or square-shaped, built with local materials using tradi-
tional techniques. All buildings have a clear and prominent
central axis, along which most of the essential sections were
built, such as the gate, hall, and main hall, while ancillary
buildings are located on the sides of the central axis (Hu, 2006).
Yongding earth buildings were inscribed by UNESCO as a World
Heritage Site in 2008.
A simple random sampling approach was adopted at both
Kaiping watchtowers (Kaiping, Guangdong) and Yongding earth
buildings (Yongding, Fujian). At the 95% confidence interval, Jin, Du,
and Jiang (2015) suggested that the sample size vary with the
overall respondent size. When the overall respondent size equals
10,000, the sample size should be at least 370. When the overall
respondent size is  100,000, the sample size needs to be more
than 384. Thus, a different minimum number of questionnaires was
distributed at each site based on the estimated daily arrivals for low
season and high season.
At the Kaiping watchtower site, a pretest was conducted in July
2014, which was a low season for tourists. After the pretest, the
questionnaire was thoroughly reviewed for item accuracy and se-
mantic clarity. We removed several items not specifically related to
Kaiping, such as local music and dance and local festivals, and
added more relevant items, such as local stories/legends and ap-
pliances. The formal survey was conducted during the National Day
holiday from October 2 to 6, 2014, which was the high season for
tourists. The survey was conducted in Chinese. At Yongding earth
building site, a pretest was conducted from June 8 to 11, 2016, a low
season for tourists. Similar to the pretest at Kaiping watchtower
site, local music and dance and local festivals were replaced with
local stories/legends and appliances. The formal survey was con-
ducted from July 12 to 17, 2017, also a low season for tourists. The
final survey instrument used for both sites is shown in Appendix 1.
The research team consisted of trained researchers who distributed
the survey after ensuring that the tourists had experienced
different aspects of the cultural heritage sites. Participants who
completed the survey were given a small gift. After screening the
responses and removing unusable questionnaires, 387 and 365
valid questionnaires were obtained from Kaiping and Yongding,
respectively.
3.3. Data analysis
Several statistical methods were used to analyze the data. First,
descriptive analysis, factor analysis, and reliability analysis were
performed using SPSS 24. The Varimax method was used to
conduct factor analysis of architectural heritage and folk culture.
The internal consistency of each construct was assessed by
 X. Yi et al. / Tourism Management 67 (2018) 411e424 417

Cronbach's alpha. For reliability analysis, the F test in analysis of
variance was also conducted. Second, the mediation and moder-
ation effects were tested using PROCESS Micro for SPSS (Hayes,
2013). This study applied the bootstrapping approach, which is
widely recommended for resizing the sample without concern
over the normality of sampling distribution (Hayes, 2013; Wen,
Liu, & Hau, 2012). Specifically, Model 4 and Model 7 with 5000
bootstrap samples were adopted. The variables involved in the
moderated mediation analysis (i.e., architectural heritage, folk
culture, and postmodern authenticity) were mean centered prior
to analysis in order to reduce multicollinearity (Hayes, 2013).
Since Kaiping and Yongding provided data for high and low sea-
sons at World Heritage Sites, respectively, data analysis was
conducted separately to cross-validate the moderation and
mediation results.
4. Results
4.1. Demographic profile and factor analysis
As shown in Table 1, at the Kaiping watchtowers site, 53% of
respondents were men and 46.8% were women. Most of the re-
spondents were young people aged 16e25 years (35.4%) and 26e35
years (34.1%) and were well educated, with a college degree (71.6%)
and postgraduate education (8.3%). A large proportion of the visi-
tors (64.6%) came from other cities in Guangdong province. Most
respondents (91.5%) were independent tourists. At the Yongding
earth buildings site, 43% of respondents were men and 57% were
women. About a third of the respondents were young people aged
16e25 years (35.3%), and slightly less than one third were 36e45
years (30.4%). Fifty-four percent of the tourists had college degrees
and almost 30% completed high school. Most (70.4%) came from
other provinces, and nearly half were independent tourists. As
Appendix 2 shows, unsubstantial non-normality was observed as
the absolute values of skewness and kurtosis values did not exceed
2 (Kim, 2013; West, Finch, & Curran, 1995).
As shown in Table 2, the results of factor analyses on architec-
tural heritage and folk culture for the two sites were stable and
consistent. At the Kaiping site, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was
0.82, p < 0.001, and total variance explained, 65.8%. At the Yongding
site, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was 0.81, p < 0.001, and total
variance explained, 66.1%. The relatively high mean values showed
that, in general, visitors responded favorably towards each
construct. All constructs passed the F test, and the Cronbach's alpha
values exceeded the suggested threshold of 0.70 (Wu, 2010).
4.2. Hypothesis testing
4.2.1. Main effects
Regression analysis was adopted to examine whether tourists'
perceptions of the authenticity of architectural heritage (AH) and
folk culture (FC) influenced their existential authenticity (EA) and
destination loyalty (DL), as well as the relationships between EA
and DL. As shown in Table 3, AH had a significant effect on EA
(Kaiping b ¼ 0.362, p < 0.001; Yongding b ¼ 0.399, p < 0.001); EA
significantly influenced DL (Kaiping b ¼ 0.562, p < 0.001; Yongding
b ¼ 0.384, p < 0.001); and AH significantly affected DL (Kaiping
b ¼ 0.255, p < 0.001; Yongding b ¼ 0.365, p < 0.001). This means
that visitors' perceptions of the authenticity of AH significantly
influenced their authenticity in the existential sense, while both
significantly predicted their DL. These results provided support for
H1a, H2, and H3.
As presented in Table 3, tourists' perceptions of the authenticity
of FC significantly influenced their EA; meanwhile, these two
constructs predicted their DL. Results revealed a significant positive
relationship between FC and EA (Kaiping b ¼ 0.414, p < 0.001;
Yongding b ¼ 0.422, p < 0.001), between EA and DL (Kaiping
b ¼ 0.517, p < 0.001; Yongding b ¼ 0.410, p < 0.001), and between

Table 1
Sample profile.

Kaiping watchtowers (n ¼ 387) Yongding earth buildings (n ¼ 365)

Variables N % Variables N %

Gender Gender
Male 205 53.0 Male 157 43.0
Female 181 46.8 Female 208 57.0
Missing 1 0.3 Missing
Age Age
16-25 137 35.4 16-25 129 35.3
26-35 132 34.1 26-35 81 22.2
36-45 96 24.8 36-45 111 30.4
46-55 16 4.1 46-55 35 9.6
56-65 2 0.5 56-65 4 1.1
66 0 0 66 5 1.4
Missing 4 1.0 Missing
Education Education
No formal education 2 0.5 No formal education 11 3.0
Primary 5 1.3 Primary 14 3.8
High school 68 17.6 High school 108 29.6
College/university 277 71.6 College/university 197 54.0
Postgraduate 32 8.3 Postgraduate 34 9.3
Missing 3 0.7 Missing 1 0.3
Tourist's origin Tourist's origin
Local city 80 20.7 Local city 37 10.1
Other cities within Guangdong 250 64.6 Other cities within Fujian 69 18.9
Outside Guangdong 51 13.2 Outside Fujian 257 70.4
Missing 6 1.6 Missing 2 0.5
Travel mode Travel mode
Package tour 26 6.7 Package tour 184 50.4
Independent traveler 354 91.5 Independent traveler 177 48.5
Missing 7 1.8 Missing 4 1.1
418 X. Yi et al. / Tourism Management 67 (2018) 411e424

Table 2
Analyses of the measurement items.

Factors Measurement items Kaiping Yongding earth

watchtowers (n ¼ 387) buildings (n ¼ 365)

Mean SD F CA Mean SD F CA

Architectural Original buildings 5.121 1.373 9.001* 0.806 5.35 1.325 8.632* 0.812
heritage Interior design and decoration 4.886 1.439 5.09 1.350
Atmosphere or environment 4.871 1.457 5.23 1.293
Folk culture Local people's apparel 3.982 1.551 67.216* 0.774 4.18 1.376 74.436* 0.780
Art (paintings, carvings, etc.) 4.636 1.439 4.62 1.397
Local stories or legends 5.090 1.468 5.25 1.362
The appliances 4.589 1.491 4.47 1.400
Postmodern People can be contrived 4.346 1.433 6.610* 0.736 4.07 1.587 7.229* 0.818
authenticity Buildings can be contrived 4.057 1.538 3.92 1.801
No absolute boundary 4.400 1.447 4.13 1.640
Modern technology 4.229 1.604 3.77 1.711
Existential More self and subjective 4.731 1.450 21.513* 0.844 4.95 1.327 16.772* 0.822
authenticity Self-realization/self-satisfaction 4.662 1.442 4.83 1.368
With local peoples 4.941 1.416 5.13 1.337
With family members 5.217 1.379 5.38 1.341
With other travelers 5.070 1.386 5.09 1.401
Destination Will revisit 4.517 1.592 17.019* 0.768 4.40 1.683 64.903* 0.753
loyalty Will recommend 4.798 1.503 5.27 1.333
Other earth buildings 5.04 1.540

Note: SD indicates standard deviation; F, F value from analysis of variance; CA, Cronbach's alpha; *p < 0.001.

Table 3
Regression analysis for baseline model.

Model Dependent variable Independent variable B Standard error t p 95% confidence interval Hypo-
thesis
Lower limit Upper limit

Model 4: Kaiping existential authenticity architectural heritage 0.362 0.052 6.982 * 0.260 0.464 H1a
Watchtowers R2 0.155 F (1,385) ¼ 48.752, p < 0.001
destination loyalty architectural heritage 0.255 0.068 3.744 * 0.121 0.389 H3
existential authenticity 0.562 0.070 8.094 * 0.426 0.699 H2
R2 0.327 F (2,384) ¼ 88.995, p < 0.001
existential authenticity folk culture 0.414 0.053 7.773 * 0.310 0.519 H1b
R2 0.184 F (1,385) ¼ 60.412, p < 0.001
destination loyalty folk culture 0.348 0.063 5.493 * 0.224 0.473 H3
existential authenticity 0.517 0.068 7.588 * 0.383 0.651 H2
R2 0.353 F (2,384) ¼ 104.274, p < 0.001
Model 4: existential authenticity architectural heritage 0.399 0.051 7.839 * 0.299 0.499 H1a
Yongding R2 0.189 F (1,363) ¼ 61.456, p < 0.001
earth building destination loyalty architectural heritage 0.365 0.054 6.739 * 0.259 0.472 H3
existential authenticity 0.384 0.062 6.179 * 0.262 0.507 H2
R2 0.302 F (2,362) ¼ 88.916, p < 0.001
existential authenticity folk culture 0.422 0.059 7.117 * 0.305 0.538 H1b
R2 0.191 F (1,363) ¼ 50.647, p < 0.001
destination loyalty folk culture 0.325 0.056 5.782 * 0.214 0.435 H3
existential authenticity 0.410 0.063 6.472 * 0.285 0.534 H2
R2 0.277 F (2,362) ¼ 76.102, p < 0.001

Note: *p < 0.001.

Table 4
Regression results for serial mediation model.

Site Model Effect Standard 95% confidence interval

error
Boot lower limit Boot upper limit

Kaiping watchtowers architectural heritage/ existential authenticity /destination loyalty 0.204 0.040 0.135 0.290
folk culture/ 0.214 0.041 0.143 0.304
existential authenticity
/destination loyalty
Yongding architectural heritage/ existential authenticity 0.153 0.031 0.100 0.222
earth buildings /destination loyalty
folk culture/ 0.173 0.037 0.111 0.256
existential authenticity
/ destination loyalty
 X. Yi et al. / Tourism Management 67 (2018) 411e424 419

Table 5
Regression results for moderated mediation model.

Variables B standard error 95% confidence interval B standard error 95% confidence interval

lower limit upper limit lower limit upper limit

Kaiping watchtowers Yongding earth buildings

existential authenticity existential authenticity

architectural heritage 0.350 0.048 0.256 0.443 0.381 0.046 0.291 0.471
postmodern authenticity 0.239 0.053 0.135 0.344 0.195 0.037 0.122 0.268
architectural heritage  postmodern authenticity 0.115 0.042 0.198 0.033 0.077 0.033 0.142 0.012
R2 ¼ 0.225 F (3,381) ¼ 26.738, p < 0.001 R2 ¼ 0.253 F (3,361) ¼ 35.496, p < 0.001

existential authenticity existential authenticity

folk culture 0.381 0.053 0.278 0.485 0.371 0.058 0.257 0.484
postmodern authenticity 0.166 0.058 0.052 0.279 0.128 0.046 0.037 0.219
folk culture  postmodern authenticity 0.025 0.046 0.115 0.064 0.055 0.047 0.147 0.037
R2 ¼ 0.210 F (3,381) ¼ 28.737, p < 0.001 R2 ¼ 0.216 F (3,361) ¼ 22.528, p < 0.001

FC and DL (Kaiping b ¼ 0.348, p < 0.001; Yongding b ¼ 0.325,
p < 0.001). The direct effect of visitors' perceived authenticity of FC
on DL was confirmed in this step. Hypotheses H1b, H2, and H3 were
therefore supported.
4.2.2. Mediation effects
The relationships between AH and DL, and between FC and DL,
were hypothesized to be mediated by EA. Using Hayes' Model 4
with a bootstrap method (Hayes, 2013), a mediation analysis was
conducted. Results for all paths are shown in Table 4. The indirect
effect of AH on DL through EA was supported by significant
mediation, with an estimate of 0.204 (95% CI: [0.135, 0.29]) at
Kaiping watchtowers and 0.153 (95% CI: [0.100, 0.222]) at
Yongding earth buildings. The indirect effect of FC on DL through
EA was also qualified by significant mediation, with an estimate of
0.214 (95% CI: [0.143, 0.304]) at Kaiping watchtowers and 0.173
(95% CI: [0.111, 0.256]) at Yongding earth buildings. These results
provided strong evidence of the feasibility of the baseline medi-
ation model.
4.2.3. Moderation effects
Building on the baseline model, the moderating role of tourists'
cognition of postmodern authenticity (PMA) in the path between
AH/FC and EA was further tested. In line with Hayes' (2013) sug-
gestion, a moderated mediation analysis (Model 7 in Process Micro)
with a bootstrap method was carried out to test the proposed
moderating effect. Since the moderator is a continuous, not
dichotomous, variable, a pick-a-point approach (the mean and
plus/minus one standard deviation from the mean) was used to
further detect the conditional indirect effects (Hayes, 2013).
As shown in Table 5, the results of regression analysis provided
support for the moderation effect of PMA. Specifically, the negative
interaction effects on the relationship between AH and EA (Kaiping
b ¼ 0.115, CI: [e0.198, 0.033]; Yongding b ¼ 0.077, CI:
[e0.142, 0.012]) confirmed that PMA was a significant moderator
that mitigates the positive effect of AH on EA. Results suggested
that the positive effect of AH on EA decreased as PMA increased.
Thus, H4a was supported. However, the effects of the interaction on
the relationship between FC and EA (Kaiping b ¼ 0.025, CI:
[e0.115, 0.064]; Yongding b ¼ 0.055, CI: [e0.147, 0.037]) showed
that PMA was not a significant moderator for the positive effect of
FC on EA. Thus, H4b was not supported.
Table 6 shows a significant conditional indirect effect of PMA on
the mediation of EA on the relationship between AH and DL. At
both Kaiping and Yongding sites, the conditional indirect effects of
AH and DL through EA were positive and significant across all levels
of PMA, with decreasing values of effects when the level of PMA
increased. Therefore, the moderated mediation was significant
(Kaiping 95% CI: [e0.121, 0.014]; Yongding 95% CI:
[e0.060, 0.006]).
Table 6 also suggests an insignificant conditional indirect ef-
fect of PMA on the mediation of EA in the relationship between
FC and DL. At both sites, the conditional indirect effects of FC and
DL through EA were positive and significant across all levels of
PMA, with decreasing values of effects when the level of PMA
increased. However, the moderated mediation was not significant
(Kaiping 95% CI: [e0.056, 0.036]; Yongding 95% CI: [e0.060,
0.012]).
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical implications
Authenticity is a highly contested concept in contemporary
tourism research because the understanding of it has been subject
to heterogeneous theoretical perspectives (Szmigin et al., 2017). In
the words of Wang (1999), the debate of authenticity is “not a
matter of black or white, but rather involves a much wider spec-
trum, rich in ambiguous colors” (p. 353). This research represents a
pioneering endeavor to test a theoretical framework examining the
dynamics among different types of authenticity, as well as their
relationship with tourist loyalty at heritage destinations. Concep-
tually, the findings derived from the present study contribute to our
understanding of tourism experience in several ways.
First, drawing upon previous conceptual work (Uriely, 1997;
Wang, 1999), the present study operationalized and identified the
role of postmodern authenticity as a moderator that explains the
relationship between perceived authenticity (including architec-
tural heritage and folk culture), existential authenticity (including
intrapersonal and interpersonal authenticity), and destination
loyalty. Although the postmodern perspective has been discussed
in conceptual elaborations and a few qualitative studies (Gao et al.,
2012; Ryan & Huimin, 2011; Shepherd, 2011; Uriely, 1997), post-
modern authenticity has rarely been quantitatively assessed. This
research represents one of the first quantitative studies of the effect
of postmodern authenticity in relation to other constructs.
A closer examination of the moderation effect revealed inter-
esting insights. As predicted, the positive influence of perceived
authenticity of architectural heritage on tourists' existential
authenticity was strengthened when they rejected the post-
modern perspective, which blurs the boundary between real and
fake. On the other hand, a stronger postmodern belief decreased
the effect of architectural heritage on existential authenticity.
Therefore, the strength between perceived destination
420 X. Yi et al. / Tourism Management 67 (2018) 411e424

Table 6
Conditional indirect effects at values of the moderators and index of moderated mediation.

Boot standard lower limit confidence upper limit confidence

error interval interval

Kaiping watchtowers architectural heritage on destination postmodern Effect

loyalty authenticity
existential authenticity 1.126 0.270 0.058 0.166 0.397
existential authenticity 0.000 0.197 0.038 0.128 0.280
existential authenticity 1.126 0.124 0.037 0.064 0.211
Mediator (Index of moderated mediation) Index
existential authenticity 0.065 0.026 0.121 0.014
Yongding earth architectural heritage on destination postmodern Effect
buildings loyalty authenticity
existential authenticity 1.356 0.186 0.039 0.116 0.271
existential authenticity 0.000 0.146 0.028 0.096 0.209
existential authenticity 1.356 0.106 0.027 0.056 0.165
Mediator (Index of moderated mediation) Index
existential authenticity 0.030 0.014 0.060 0.006
Kaiping watchtowers folk culture on destination loyalty postmodern Effect
authenticity
existential authenticity 1.126 0.212 0.051 0.119 0.321
existential authenticity 0.000 0.197 0.038 0.132 0.284
existential authenticity 1.126 0.182 0.042 0.114 0.277
Mediator (Index of moderated mediation) Index
existential authenticity 0.013 0.024 0.056 0.036
Yongding earth folk culture on destination loyalty postmodern Effect
buildings authenticity
existential authenticity 1.356 0.183 0.044 0.106 0.279
existential authenticity 0.000 0.152 0.033 0.096 0.226
existential authenticity 1.356 0.121 0.038 0.055 0.204
Mediator (Index of moderated mediation) Index
existential authenticity 0.023 0.018 0.060 0.012

authenticity and loyalty through existential authenticity is con-
ditional upon tourists' acceptance of postmodern authenticity. As
such, this study provides empirical support that authenticity and
postmodern authenticity are relative concepts that are associated
with each other, and the interpretation of what is real is based on
how tourists project themselves (Heidegger, 1996; Steiner &
Reisinger, 2006).
Interestingly, the moderating effect was observed in the case of
architecture, but not folk culture. A plausible explanation for such a
difference relates to Uriely's (1997) theorization of postmodern
tourism, which is a sociological discourse with two conceptual
frameworks, the “simulational” and the “other” (Munt, 1994). The
former approach revolves around the interpretation of the
“hyperreal” experiences as postmodern environments, such as
simulated theme parks and other contrived sites and attractions,
while the latter line of scholarship focuses on the quest for the
“real” and the “natural” as postmodern expressions, such as the
countryside. According to Uriely (1997), the “simulational” derives
from Boorstin’s (1964) pseudoevents, and the “other” follows
MacCannell’s (1973) notion of quest for authenticity. This study falls
in the theoretical discussion of the latter. In line with MacCannell
(1973) and Cohen (1979), tourists are motivated to pursue
authentic experiences, rather than trivial ones. They desire for
meanings through the authenticity of the life of others, which
cannot be achieved at home (MacCannell, 1976). The moderating
effect in the case of architecture but not folk culture may relate to
tourists’ pursuit for authentic, meaningful experiences. The
authenticity of architecture may be considered as important,
meaningful, and what the tourists care about, while folk culture is
perceived as trivial, not as meaningful, and what the tourists pay
less attention to.
Since postmodern tourism highlights the multiplicity and flex-
ibility of tourist experiences, objects and environments possess no
inherent meanings but are subject to interpretations (Shepherd,
2015; Uriely, 1997). The evaluation of both tangible and intangible
aspects of the heritage sites reflects the diverse, flexible nature of
visitors' interaction with the heritage settings (McIntosh &
Prentice, 1999). Visitors choose to interpret their own experiences
(Collins-Kreiner, 2010; Ryan & Huimin, 2011), because sites can
mean anything or nothing they desire (Shepherd, 2015). It is
possible that tourists in this study gave high regard to the
authenticity of the historical constructions, which is the core of-
fering at the heritage sites, but may have not cared as much about
the authenticity of local people’ performative acts or how they lived
the traditions, as indicated by the relatively lower means. Although
the discrepancy deserves further investigation, our findings high-
light the need to understand tourists' perception of authenticity
within the parameters of postmodern authenticity, especially at
heritage destinations where the authenticity of objects and post-
modern authenticity are often considered a contradiction
(Reisinger & Steiner, 2006; Wang, 1999). Our findings also respond
to the larger call to understand postmodern authenticity (Wang,
1999) by confirming its role in the tourist experience of
authenticity.
Second, although authenticity in tourism has attracted
increasing scholarly interest (Kontogeorgopoulos, 2017; Meng &
Choi, 2016; Mura, 2015; Shepherd, 2015; Zerva, 2015), this study
is one of the first empirical efforts to bridge different types of
authenticity, namely perceived authenticity, existential authen-
ticity, and postmodern authenticity, in the same context. Recent
studies have attempted to explore the relationship among object-
based authenticity, existential authenticity, and loyalty (e.g., Kolar
& Zabkar, 2010). The current research incorporated three
different theoretical perspectives of authenticity, including post-
modern authenticity and object-based authenticity, which have
been seen as contradictory. Meaningful results were found among
the different perceptions of authenticity, as well as with post-trip
propensity, which is a critical phase of tourist meaning-making
(Kirillova, Lehto, & Cai, 2017). Therefore, the findings extend the
recent empirical assessments of the influence of only one type of
 X. Yi et al. / Tourism Management 67 (2018) 411e424
authenticity on tourist behavior (e.g., Caste ran & Roederer, 2013;
Robinson & Clifford, 2012). The proposed framework, consisting of
the relationships, is an important addition to the larger question
regarding how authenticity can explain behavior (Caste ran &
Roederer, 2013).
Specifically, in testing the impact of visitors' perceived authen-
ticity on tourist loyalty at heritage destinations, this study has
presented a more complete picture by examining the mediating
effect of existential authenticity and the moderating effect of
postmodern authenticity. Several important linkages were
confirmed. First, the linkage between authenticity of architectural
heritage, existential authenticity, and loyalty is consistent with the
findings of Kolar and Zabkar (2010), Zhou et al. (2013), and Caste ran
and Roederer (2013). The linkage between authenticity of folk
culture, existential authenticity, and loyalty to some degree cor-
roborates the findings of Yi et al. (2017) and Datta et al. (2015). The
statistical stability of both constructs at two data collection sites
lends empirical support to the view that tangible and intangible
cultural heritage should be studied together (Datta et al., 2015;
McKercher & Du Cros, 2002; Prentice, 1993). In addition, the
confirmed linkages to existential authenticity, including intraper-
sonal and interpersonal items, indicate that perceived authenticity
can indeed evoke the state of existential authenticity (e.g., Bryce
et al., 2015).
Second, both architectural heritage and postmodern authen-
ticity and their interactions play significant roles in generating
tourists' existential authenticity and destination loyalty. These
findings are in partial agreement with, and extend, the study of
Zhou et al. (2013), which found that objective authenticity posi-
tively influenced existential authenticity and loyalty while exis-
tential authenticity failed to influence loyalty. Third, this study also
confirmed the critical role of existential authenticity in destination
loyalty (Kolar & Zabkar, 2010), with additional evidence from the
heritage context.
Last but not least, the findings prompt us to rethink the sub-
jective nature of the tourist experience. Although it is widely agreed
that the appreciation of a destination is subject to subjective in-
terpretations (e.g., Fu, Lehto, & Cai, 2012; Mill & Morrison, 2009),
the subjective nature of the experience deserves further scrutiny.
By incorporating insights from postmodern theory into authen-
ticity, the study has provided the tourism literature with a richer
and more nuanced understanding of how tourists perceive the
authentic settings at heritage sites. Specifically, this study found
evidence that postmodern authenticity can be a vantage point to
better understand the subjectivity of tourist experiences. That is,
tourists' understanding of the authenticity is not independent of
their subjective perceptions, such as postmodern beliefs. Corrobo-
rating Wang's (1999) contention, our framework can help explain a
wider range of tourist experiences of authenticity under post-
modern conditions.
5.2. Practical implications
The findings provide insights for heritage attractions to design
personally meaningful experiences in order to enhance consumers'
well-being while achieving a destination's pragmatic goals. As the
pursuit of authentic experience and meaning-making has become
an integral component of heritage experiences (Fu, Zhang, Lehto, &
Miao, 2017), tourists' perceived authenticity, existential authen-
ticity, and level of postmodern authenticity are some critical factors
that can affect their loyalty to cultural heritage sites. It is therefore
crucial for policy makers and managers of cultural heritages to
understand the important roles of these constructs in order to
promote tourists' authentic state of being and then increase their
loyalty. Specifically, several major implications can be drawn from
421
the findings as practical guidelines.
First, since both architectural heritage (related to tangible her-
itage) and folk culture (related to intangible heritage) are critical
determinants for existential authenticity and destination loyalty,
destination planners and managers should (1) preserve the integ-
rity of the physical heritage, which is the primary selling point of
the destinations, which includes careful maintenance of the inte-
rior design and decorations inside the original buildings; and (2)
deliver a complete package by presenting the intangible, cultural
heritage as attractions that match the physical settings. Elements
constituting the traditional lifestyle of local residents, such as
apparel, art, stories, and legends, need to be promoted for a better
understanding of the heritage community's culture and history.
Celebratory programs or historical reenactments, such as singing or
dancing, can be set up to encourage tourists to experience past
ways of life and promote interactions between residents and
tourists (Carnegie & McCabe, 2008). The interaction with both
tangible and intangible heritage settings can enhance tourists'
perception of destination authenticity, thereby contributing to their
pursuit of their true selves and loyalty.
Second, decision makers in public, private, and nonprofit sectors
should also recognize the different types of authenticity since
tourists mayperceive authenticity differently and seek different
experiences that enhancetheir loyalty. Furthermore, it is important
to note the moderating effect of postmodern authenticity in making
sense of the authenticity experience at heritage destinations. On
the one hand, since the moderating effect of postmodern authen-
ticity only takes effect in the case of physical heritage, heritage
destinations need to acknowledge the important value of the
authenticity of the traditional buildings and ancestral architecture
in tourists' authentic experiences. Caution should be exercised in
real estate development projects that may damage or destroy his-
torical constructions. On the other hand, the intangible heritage
needs to be staged and presented as relevant to the overall heritage
settings. Marketers need to understand that authenticity in heri-
tage experience does not mean that all aspects have to be abso-
lutely original, especially since tourists do not seem to place as
much value on the originality of the folk culture. As long as the
intangible aspects, such as the household appliances, apparel, and
artwork, are consistent with the heritage environment, originality
is less important.
In addition, the positive effects of architectural heritage on
loyalty are stronger and more notable for tourists with low post-
modern authenticity than for those with high postmodern
authenticity. This finding has crucial implications for the author-
ities of cultural heritage sites. Policy makers and heritage managers
can adopt level of postmodern authenticity as a basis of market
segmentation, by dividing tourists into low-postmodern, moder-
ate-postmodern, and high-postmodern groups. Such segmentation
can be determined by visitor survey as well as leveraging tech-
nology to adopt wearable devices, such as Disney Magic Band, to
track where and how long tourists visit at the heritage destinations.
Each group should be given specific consideration for destination
positioning and management purposes. As suggested by this study,
tourists with high-postmodern authenticity will be less loyal to
authentic destinations than those with low-postmodern authen-
ticity. Thus, policies and marketing research are needed to focus on
the low-postmodern authenticity segment for destinations
featuring cultural heritage.
6. Limitations and future research
The limitations of the present study need to be acknowledged,
and they are expected to stimulate subsequent research. First, the
construct of postmodern authenticity was conceptualized and
422 X. Yi et al. / Tourism Management 67 (2018) 411e424

derived mainly from previous conceptual studies (e.g., Butler, 2013;
Uriely, 1997; Wang, 1999). Although the reliability of the construct
was confirmed, future studies should continue to refine the scale by
adding or revising measurement items to enhance its reliability
(DeVellis, 2012). Qualitative or mixed-method research ap-
proaches, for example, can be employed for a more intimate un-
derstanding of tourists' view of postmodern authenticity.
Second, the meaning and components of postmodern authen-
ticity may vary across different cultural, social, and geographical
settings. It would be useful, therefore, to test the feasibility of this
construct in different contexts to examine the moderation effects
reported in this study. Similarly, effort should be exerted to cross-
validate our conceptual framework, with both mediation and
moderation effects, in various settings to determine whether/how
variation exists.
Third, the data were obtained from two World Heritage Sites
(Kaiping watchtowers and Yongding earth buildings) in China.
Although data collection at more than one site helped ensure a
more accurate representation of heritage tourists, especially their
understanding of different types of authenticity, more tests with
diverse samples at other heritage sites should be conducted to
reach more generalizable conclusions. Comparative studies with
other Asian or Western heritage sites may be undertaken to extend
the generalizability of the results.
Last but not least, inclusion of different potential moderators
and mediators may change the dynamics of the model. As Datta
et al. (2015) suggested, tourists' interactions with the environ-
ment foster a sense of affect and then elevate conative loyalty to-
wards the heritage sites. If future studies incorporate other
mediators such as affection, or study the interrelationship between
intrapersonal authenticity and interpersonal authenticity, or divide
loyalty into cognitive, affective, and conative loyalty (Han et al.,
2011; Zhang et al., 2014), more nuanced results could be discovered.
Funding
The author(s) acknowledge the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The first
and fourth authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
41701154) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Grant No. 41701145), respectively. This research was also sup-
ported by Pengcheng Scholar Program sponsored by Shenzhen
Municipal Education Commission.
Each author's contributions
Xiaoli Yi: Formulation of research questions, conceptualization,
and data collection and analysis (contributed 40%).
Xiaoxiao Fu: Literature review, discussions and implications,
and paper proofreading (contributed 40%). The first and second
authors contributed equally to the manuscript.
Larry Yu: Audit of data analysis and reference cross-checking
(contributed 10%).
Liao Jiang: Conceptualization and interpretation of results
(contributed 10%).
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to our students Tianyi Lan, Rao Yao, Shihao Ye,
and others for distributing the questionnaires or creating and
checking the database used in this study, and thank Professor Ning
Wang from Sun Yat-sen University for previewing and suggestion.
Appendix 1. Description of major measurement items

Constructs Indicators Sources

Architectural 1. During my visit to the Kaiping watchtowers/Yongding earth buildings site, I perceived the site to have one or more Kolar & Zabkar, 2010;
heritage original buildings. Yi et al., 2017
2. During…, I perceived the interior design and decoration of the buildings to be original. Kolar & Zabkar, 2010;
Yi et al., 2017
3. During…, I perceived the atmosphere or environment of the buildings to be original. Zhou et al., 2013; Yi et al., 2017
Folk culture 1. During…, I perceived the local people's apparel to be traditional. Mura, 2015; Yi et al., 2017
2. During…, I perceived the local people's art (paintings, carvings, and so on) to be original or in a traditional style. Mura, 2015; Yi et al., 2017
3. During…, I perceived the local stories or legends to be traditional. Mura, 2015; Yi et al., 2017
4. During…, I perceived the appliances that the local people use in their daily lives to be traditional. Mura, 2015; Yi et al., 2017
Postmodern 1. The local people I met here can be contrived, even the copy, simulation, or imitation of the original people, and Uriely, 1997; Wang, 1999
authenticity they may be true or false, out of fantasy or imagination, or without reference.
2. The local buildings I met here can be contrived, even the copy, simulation, or imitation of the original buildings, Uriely, 1997; Wang, 1999
and they may be true or false, out of fantasy or imagination, or without reference.
3. There is no absolute boundary between the real and the fake, since there is no original that can be used as a Wang, 1999
reference.
4. Modern technology can make the inauthentic become authentic. Wang, 1999
Existential 1. On the tour, my body was freed from the self-control or limitation of daily work/routine life and become more self Wang, 1999; Yi et al., 2017
authenticity and subjective in its own right.
2. On the tour, I tried to seek extramundane or extraordinary experience from adventures to pursue self-realization Wang, 1999; Yi et al., 2017
or get self-satisfaction.
3. On the tour, I kept in touch with local peoples in a natural, authentic, and friendly way (no identity or class Wang, 1999; Yi et al., 2017
differences).
4. On the tour, I kept in touch with family members in a natural, authentic, and friendly way (no identity or class Wang, 1999; Yi et al., 2017
differences).
5. On the tour, I kept in touch with other travelers/tourists in a natural, authentic, and friendly way (no identity or Yi et al., 2017
class differences).
Destination 1. If I revisit Guangdong/Fujian, I will tour Kaiping watchtowers/Yongding earth buildings once again. Chen & Gursoy, 2001; Kolar &
loyalty Zabkar, 2010; Zhang et al., 2014
2. I will recommend Kaiping watchtowers/Yongding earth buildings to other people (such as my friends or Chen & Gursoy, 2001; Kolar &
colleagues). Zabkar, 2010; Zhang et al., 2014
3. *In addition to this building, I will also visit other earth buildings. Kolar & Zabkar, 2010; Zhou et al.,
2013

Note: *This item was only included in the Yongding questionnaire.

 X. Yi et al. / Tourism Management 67 (2018) 411e424 423

Appendix 2. Skewness & kurtosis and normality test

Factors Measurement items Kaiping watchtowers Yongding earth buildings

(n ¼ 387) (n ¼ 365)

Skew Kurtosis Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wil Skew Kurtosis Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wil

AH Original buildings -.510 .003 .163* .919* -.382 -.609 .165* .905*
Interior design and decoration -.382 -.192 .151* .932* -.490 .153 .154* .921*
Atmosphere or environment -.496 -.196 .170* .929* -.699 .684 .189* .907*
FC Local people's apparel -.058 -.506 .139* .948* -.070 -.136 .159* .947*
Art (paintings, carvings, etc.) -.292 -.230 .143* .941* -.089 -.186 .189* .931*
Local stories or legends -.468 -.383 .162* .917* -.600 -.115 .187* .912*
The appliances -.344 -.307 .147* .942* -.221 -.131 .159* .942*
PMA People can be contrived -.224 -.094 .166* .942* -.226 -.463 .166* .943*
Buildings can be contrived -.173 -.376 .163* .943* -.116 -.925 .136* .935*
No absolute boundary -.319 .247 .207* .921* -.234 -.500 .170* .939*
Modern technology -.392 -.342 .181* .931* -.058 -.765 .151* .938*
EA More self and subjective -.450 .203 .149* .930* -.516 .495 .160* .920*
Self-realization/self-satisfaction -.393 .154 .171* .926* -.137 -.217 .163* .928*
With local peoples -.489 .157 .145* .923* -.265 -.414 .149* .920*
With family members -.652 .330 .161* .907* -.520 -.222 .168* .899*
With other travelers -.484 -.003 .150* .921* -.281 -.466 .147* .916*
DL Will revisit -.404 -.169 .174* .925* -.385 -.474 .151* .933*
Will recommend -.587 .191 .158* .917* -.638 .137 .170* .910*
Other earth buildings -.577 -.217 .157* .915*

Note: AH indicates architectural heritage; FC, folk culture; PMA, postmodern authenticity; EA, existential authenticity; DL, destination loyalty; *Sig.<0.05.

perception. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 1e16. https://doi.org/10.1080/

References
Akhoondnejad, A. (2016). Tourist loyalty to a local cultural event: The case of
Turkmen handicrafts festival. Tourism Management, 52, 468e477. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.06.027.
Boorstin, D. (1964). The image: A guide to pseudo-events in America. New York, NY:
Harper.
Brown, L. (2013). Tourism: A catalyst for existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism
Research, 40, 176e190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.08.004.
Bryce, D., Curran, R., O'Gorman, K., & Taheri, B. (2015). Visitors' engagement and
authenticity: Japanese heritage consumption. Tourism Management, 46,
571e581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.012.
Bryce, D., Murdy, S., & Alexander, M. (2017). Diaspora, authenticity and the imag-
ined past. Annals of Tourism Research, 66, 49e60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
annals.2017.05.010.
Butler, C. (2013). In EnglisheChinese (Ed.), Postmodernism. Peking, China: Foreign
Language Teaching and Research Press.
Carnegie, E., & McCabe, S. (2008). Re-enactment events and tourism: Meaning,
authenticity and identity. Current Issues in Tourism, 11(4), 349e368. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13683500802140380.
Casteran, H., & Roederer, C. (2013). Does authenticity really affect behavior? The
case of the Strasbourg Christmas Market. Tourism Management, 36, 153e163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.11.012.
Chen, J. S., & Gursoy, D. (2001). An investigation of tourists' destination loyalty and
preferences. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
13(2), 79e85. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110110381870.
Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13(2),
179e201. https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857901300203.
Cohen, E., & Cohen, S. A. (2012). Authentication: Hot and cool. Annals of Tourism
Research, 39(3), 1295e1314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.03.004.
Collins-Kreiner, N. (2010). Researching pilgrimage: Continuity and transformations.
Annals of Tourism Research, 37(2), 440e456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.
2009.10.016.
Datta, P., Bigham, G., Zou, Z., & Hill, G. (2015). A global study of heritage site ecology,
proclivity & loyalty. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 25, 19e29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2014.12.002.
Daugstad, K., & Kirchengast, C. (2013). Authenticity and the pseudobackstage of
agri-tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 170e191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
annals.2013.04.004.
DeVellis, R. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Los Angeles:
Sage.
Di Betta, P. (2014). Authenticity as a mental state: A primer. Annals of Tourism
Research, 47, 86e88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.05.002.
Eco, U. (1986). Travels in hyperreality. London, UK: Picador.
Fu, X., Lehto, X. Y., & Cai, L. A. (2012). Culture-based interpretation of vacation
consumption. Journal of China Tourism Research, 8(3), 320e333. https://doi.org/
10.1080/19388160.2012.704250.
Fu, X., Zhang, W., Lehto, X. Y., & Miao, L. (2017). Celebration of heritage: Linkages
between historical re-enactment festival attributes and attendees' value
10548408.2017.1350618.
Gao, B. W., Zhang, H., & Decosta, P. L. (2012). Phantasmal destination: A post-
modernist perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 197e220. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.06.003.
Han, H., Kim, Y., & Kim, E. (2011). Cognitive, affective, conative, and action loyalty:
Testing the impact of inertia. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
30(4), 1008e1019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.03.006.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysisda regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford.
Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and time: A translation of Sein und Zeit. Translated by Joan
Stambaugh. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Hu, D. (2006). Yongding Hakkas earth building study. Peking, China: Central Party
Literature Press.
Hughes, G. (1995). Authenticity in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4),
781e803. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(95)00020-X.
Jin, Y., Du, Z., & Jiang, Y. (2015). Sampling technique (4th ed.). Peking, China: China
Renmin University Press.
Kaiping Bureau of Cultural Relics. (2014). Kaiping Diaolou and Villages. Guangzhou,
China: Guangdong Tourism Press.
Ke, L. (2011). Chinese folk culture (Chinese version). Beijing, China: Peking University
Press.
Kim, H. Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal dis-
tribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics,
38(1), 52e54.
Kim, H., & Jamal, T. (2007). Touristic quest for existential authenticity. Annals of
Tourism Research, 34(1), 181e201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2006.07.009.
Kirillova, K., & Lehto, X. (2015). An existential conceptualization of the vacation
cycle. Annals of Tourism Research, 55, 110e123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.
2015.09.003.
Kirillova, K., Lehto, X., & Cai, L. (2017). Tourism and existential transformation: An
empirical investigation. Journal of Travel Research, 56(5), 638e650. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0047287516650277.
Knudsen, D. C., Rickly, J. M., & Vidon, E. S. (2016). The fantasy of authenticity:
Touring with Lacan. Annals of Tourism Research, 58, 33e45. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.annals.2016.02.003.
Kolar, T., & Zabkar, V. (2010). A consumer-based model of authenticity: An
oxymoron or the foundation of cultural heritage marketing? Tourism Manage-
ment, 31(5), 652e664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.07.010.
Kontogeorgopoulos, N. (2017). Finding oneself while discovering others: An exis-
tential perspective on volunteer tourism in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research,
65, 1e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.04.006.
Laing, J., Wheeler, F., Reeves, K., & Frost, W. (2014). Assessing the experiential value
of heritage assets: A case study of a Chinese heritage precinct, bendigo,
Australia. Tourism Management, 40, 180e192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.
2013.06.004.
Lash, S., & Urry, J. (1994). Economies of signs & space. London, UK: Sage.
Lau, R. W. K. (2010). Revisiting authenticityda social realist approach. Annals of
Tourism Research, 37(2), 478e498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.11.002.
MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist
settings. American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589e603. https://doi.org/10.1086/
225585.
424 X. Yi et al. / Tourism Management 67 (2018) 411e424

MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist. New York, NY: Schocken. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal
Martin, K. (2010). Living pasts: Contested tourism authenticities. Annals of Tourism variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling:
Research, 37(2), 537e554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.11.005. Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 56e75). Newbery Park, CA: Sage.
McHale, B. (2015). The Cambridge introduction to postmodernism. London, UK: Wu, M. L. (2010). The statistical analysis of the questionnaire: The operation and application
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139108706. of SPSS (Chinese version). Chongqing, China: Chongqing University Press.
McIntosh, A. J., & Prentice, R. C. (1999). Affirming authenticity: Consuming cultural Yi, X., Lin, V. S., Jin, W., & Luo, Q. (2017). The authenticity of heritage sites, tourists'
heritage. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), 589e612. https://doi.org/10.1016/ quest for existential authenticity, and destination loyalty. Journal of Travel
S0160-7383(99)00010-9. Research, 56(8), 1032e1048. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287516675061.
McKercher, B., Denizci-Guillet, B., & Ng, E. (2012). Rethinking loyalty. Annals of Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., & Bilim, Y. (2010). Destination attachment: Effects on customer
Tourism Research, 39(2), 708e734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.08.005. satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Tourism Management,
McKercher, B., & Du Cros, H. (2002). Cultural tourism: The partnership between tourism 31(2), 274e284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.03.007.
and cultural heritage management. New York, NY: Haworth Hospitality Press. Zerva, K. (2015). Visiting authenticity on Los Angeles gang tours: Tourists backstage.
Meleddu, M., Paci, R., & Pulina, M. (2015). Repeated behavior and destination loyalty. Tourism Management, 46, 514e527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.004.
Tourism Management, 50, 159e171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.01.032. Zhang, H., Fu, X., Cai, L. A., & Lu, L. (2014). Destination image and tourist loyalty: A
Meng, B., & Choi, K. (2016). The role of authenticity in forming slow tourists' in- meta-analysis. Tourism Management, 40, 213e223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tentions: Developing an extended model of goal-directed behavior. Tourism tourman.2013.06.006.
Management, 57, 397e410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.07.003. Zhou, Q., Zhang, J., & Edelheim, J. R. (2013). Rethinking traditional Chinese culture: A
Mill, R. C., & Morrison, A. M. (2009). The tourism system. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. consumer-based model regarding the authenticity of Chinese calligraphic
Mkono, M. (2013). African and Western tourists: Object authenticity quest? Annals landscape. Tourism Management, 36, 99e112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.
of Tourism Research, 41, 195e214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.01.002. 2012.11.008.
Munt, I. (1994). The “Other” postmodern tourism: Culture, travel and the new Zhu, Y. (2012). Performing heritage: Rethinking authenticity in tourism. Annals of
middle class. Theory, Culture & Society, 11(3), 101e123. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Tourism Research, 39(3), 1495e1513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.04.003.
026327694011003005.
Mura, P. (2015). Perceptions of authenticity in a Malaysian homestayda narrative
analysis. Tourism Management, 51, 225e233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman. Xiaoli Yi is Associate Professor in the Shenzhen Tourism
2015.05.023. College of Jinan University, China. His research focuses on
Poria, Y., & Ashworth, G. (2009). Heritage tourismdcurrent resource for conflict. cultural heritage and tourism development, and exhibi-
Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 522e525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals. tion management.
2009.03.003.
Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2003). The core of heritage tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 30(1), 238e254.
Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Cohen, R. (2013). Tourists perceptions of world heritage site
and its designation. Tourism Management, 35, 272e274. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tourman.2012.02.011.
Powell, J. (2014). Postmodernism for beginners (Chinese version). Chongqing, China:
Chongqing University Press.
Prentice, R. (1993). Tourism and heritage attractions. New York, NY: Routledge.
Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C. J. (2006). Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals of
Tourism Research, 33(1), 65e86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2005.04.003.
Rickly-Boyd, J. M. (2012). Authenticity & aurad benjaminian approach to tourism. Xiaoxiao Fu is Assistant Professor at Rosen College of
Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 269e289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals. Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida.
2011.05.003. Her research focuses on consumer behavior and experi-
Robinson, R. N. S., & Clifford, C. (2012). Authenticity and festival foodservice ex- ence in hospitality and tourism.
periences. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 571e600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
annals.2011.06.007.
Ryan, C., & Huimin, G. (2011). The allure of the post-modernda response to Robert
Shepherd. Tourism Management, 32(1), 191e192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2009.12.010.
Shepherd, R. J. (2011). Historicity, fieldwork, and the allure of the post-modern: A
reply to ryan and gu. Tourism Management, 32(1), 187e190. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tourman.2009.11.003.
Shepherd, R. J. (2015). Why Heidegger did not travel: Existential angst, authenticity,
and tourist experiences. Annals of Tourism Research, 52, 60e71. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.annals.2015.02.018.
Larry Yu is Professor of Management, School of Business,
Steiner, C. J., & Reisinger, Y. (2006). Understanding existential authenticity. Annals of
George Washington University. His research interests
Tourism Research, 33(2), 299e318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2005.08.002.
include destination development and heritage
Suntikul, W., & Jachna, T. (2013). Contestation and negotiation of heritage conser-
governance.
vation in Luang Prabang, Laos. Tourism Management, 38, 57e68. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2013.02.005.
Swanson, K. K., & Timothy, D. J. (2012). Souvenirs: Icons of meaning, commercial-
ization and commoditization. Tourism Management, 33, 489e499. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.10.007.
Szmigin, I., Bengry-Howell, A., Morey, Y., Griffin, C., & Riley, S. (2017). Socio-spatial
authenticity at co-created music festivals. Annals of Tourism Research, 63, 1e11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.12.007.
UNESCO. (2016, September 12). Intangible heritage. Retrieved from http://whc.
unesco.org/en/faq/40.
Uriely, N. (1997). Theories of modern and postmodern tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 24(4), 982e985. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(97)00029-7. Liao Jiang is Lecturer in the Shenzhen Tourism College of
Vecco, M. (2010). A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intan- Jinan University, China. His research focuses on culture
gible. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11(3), 321e324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tourism and tourism impact.
culher.2010.01.006.
Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism
Research, 26(2), 349e370. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(98)00103-0.
Wang, Y. (2007). Customized authenticity begins at home. Annals of Tourism
Research, 34(3), 789e804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2007.03.008.
Wang, D., Niu, Y., Lu, L., & Qian, J. (2015). Tourism spatial organization of historical
streetsda postmodern perspective: The examples of Pingjiang Road and
Shantang Street, Suzhou, China. Tourism Management, 48, 370e385. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.12.007.
Wen, Z., Liu, H., & Hau, K. (2012). Analysis of moderating and mediating effects(Chi-
nese version). Peking, China: Educational Science Publishing House.