The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm

Functional and
Cruise brand experience: wellness value
functional and wellness value
creation in tourism business
Jiseon Ahn 2205
School of Tourism, Hospitality, and Events, Taylor’s University,
Subang Jaya, Malaysia, and Received 25 June 2018
Revised 12 September 2018
28 November 2018
Ki-Joon Back 27 January 2019
Accepted 12 February 2019
Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management,
University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA

Abstract
Purpose – Experience and value creation have become integral themes for tourism service providers. This
study aims to understand the role of different types of experiences in formulating customers’ perceived value.
Studies on this area are scarce, especially in the cruise industry.
Design/methodology/approach – A research model that includes two value variables, namely,
functional and wellness values, and four cruise brand experience variables, namely, sensory, affective,
behavioral and intellectual factors, was tested through partial least-squares (PLS) structural equation
modeling approach. A total of 389 usable cruise customer responses were obtained and analyzed using
SmartPLS software.
Findings – Results revealed the relative effects of sensory, affective, behavioral and intellectual factors on
perceived functional and wellness values. The positive impact of perceived value on customer satisfaction and
behavioral intention and the moderating role of service expertise in the relationship between cruise experience
and perceived value were examined.
Research limitations/implications – Future research can examine how types of leisure facilities (e.g.
casinos, restaurants, bars and shows), cultural differences (e.g. Eastern and Western) and customers’ travel
characteristics (e.g. visiting purpose and companions) may influence the relationships between cruise brand
experience and perceived value.
Practical implications – From a practical point, the relationships among multidimensional cruise brand
experience, functional and wellness values, customer satisfaction, revisit intention and service expertise
provide a clue on how cruise brands can enhance customers’ perceived value to retain current customers.
Originality/value – This study contributes to literature by providing a theoretical framework and
empirical evidence for predicting and explaining cruise customers’ behavior. From a managerial perspective,
this study identified critical factors that are essential to value creation and discussed the implications of
predictive factors on developing marketing strategies that enhance customers’ positive attitude and behavior
toward the cruise brand.
Keywords Customer satisfaction, Behavioral intention, Cruise brand experience, Functional value,
Service expertise, Wellness value
Paper type Research paper

International Journal of
Introduction Contemporary Hospitality
Management
Improvements in customer knowledge and interest in cruise tourism have facilitated the Vol. 31 No. 5, 2019
pp. 2205-2223
growth of the cruise industry. The cruise industry has rapidly grown and has become an © Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-6119
important segment of the tourism and hospitality industry (Skift, 2018; Chua et al., 2017). DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-06-2018-0527
IJCHM The number of cruise customers has increased recently (Jones et al., 2017; Lyu et al., 2017).
31,5 According to Cruise Lines International Association’s (CLIA) report (2016), 25.8 million
customers used cruise lines in 2017, and the demand for cruises for vacation and travel
increased by 62 per cent in 2015 compared with the percentage in 2005. An increasing
number of customer tourists use cruises, and cruises have become a rapidly growing
industry with an annual growth rate of nearly 10 per cent between 1980 and 1993 (Teye and
2206 Leclerc, 1998). From 2012–2016, the cruise market welcomed 112.3 million guests (CLIA,
2017), and 27.2 million passengers are expected to cruise in 2018 (CLIA, 2017).
Service providers, including travel agencies, hosts, franchises and consortia, must
understand customer behavior, including experience, satisfaction and future behavior, to
achieve sustainable growth. Recent competition in the global tourism market has become
increasingly intense for cruise service providers. The provision of a high level of perceived
value for customers is a critical success factor that differentiates an entity from its
competitors. The creation of memorable, unique and positive experiences, which is
frequently called a competitive strategy, is considered the primary approach to achieve
customer satisfaction (Iglesias et al., 2018; Lee and Jeong, 2014), brand knowledge, and
brand loyalty (Manthiou et al., 2016). Thus, perceived value has received increasing
attention from tourism and hospitality researchers.
According to service-dominant logic, customers’ perceived value of service is influenced
by service experience (Helkkula et al., 2012; Song et al., 2015). Grönroos (2011) reported that
customers with a positive experience help service providers. Therefore, an increasing
number of studies have attempted to understand customers’ experience with brands in the
tourism and hospitality industry (Barnes et al., 2014; Khan and Rahman, 2017). From the
economic perspective, value is perceived as an outcome of a cost–benefit analysis (Zeithaml,
1988) and a driver of individual behavior. The economic approach suggests that value is an
outcome of a cost–benefit analysis (Payne and Holt, 1999). From this traditional perspective,
value is typically regarded as an economic value, which is an outcome of an evaluation
between “get” and “give” components (Zeithaml, 1988). However, the concept of value
recently shifted toward the experiential approach. In this view, value is considered an
outcome of interactive relativistic consumption experience (Holbrook, 2006) with
experiential perspective.
Brand experience theory (Schmitt, 1999) has elicited attention from tourism and
hospitality researchers. With the increasing number of customers seeking not only
perceived benefits but also experiences, brand experience theory provides a useful guideline
on how cruise brand experience can affect customers’ brand-related behavior. After
Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) introduced the concept of experience in marketing literature
from which the concept of brand experience evolved, Carù and Cova (2003) suggested that
experience is related to emotional, mental, social, spiritual, and physical engagement with
customers in the consumption process. Brand experience refers to the “subjective, internal
consumer responses (sensations, feelings, and cognition) and behavioral responses evoked
by brand-related stimuli that are part of a brand’s design and identity, packaging,
communication, and environments” (Brakus et al., 2009., p. 53). The understanding of brand
experience is necessary because it plays a fundamental role in determining customers’
perceived value, which in turn influences customers’ post-purchase attitude and future
behavior. The cruise industry is different from other hospitality and tourism industries
because of its movable location, excursion programs, and transportation combined with
leisure. Cruise brands offer physical (e.g. climbing wall), intellectual (e.g. gaming and
emotional, such as welcoming gifts), and authentic experiences (e.g. interior of the
guestroom). Understanding customers’ cruise experience is complex because this experience
is multifaceted and influenced by physical surroundings, various activities, and relationship Functional and
with other customers and employees. However, limited studies have examined the impact of wellness value
values as an indicator of customers’ satisfaction and behavioral intention in the cruise
context. With these considerations, the current study examines the antecedents and
consequences of customers’ perceived value of cruise experience. On the basis of the
previous theoretical discussion, the authors conducted an empirical research on cruise
customers.
Considering that the cruise industry is different from others in terms of port, variety, 2207
offerings, theme, and unique experiences (Papatheodorou, 2006), the authors aim to develop
an enhanced understanding of the mechanism underlying customers’ cruise brand-related
behavior. Specifically, the present study examines the following:

the effects of cruise brand experience, including sensory, affective, behavioral, and
intellectual experiences, on customers’ perceived functional and wellness values;

the impacts of functional and wellness values on customer satisfaction and
behavioral intention;

the relationship between cruise customers’ satisfaction and future purchase
intention toward the cruise brand; and

the moderating role of customers’ service expertise in the above-mentioned
relationship.

This study contributes to the literature on tourism and hospitality brand experience by
examining the link among customers’ cruise brand experience, perceived value, customer
satisfaction and behavioral intention. The significance of this study is that it provides a
comprehensive understanding of the impacts of multidimensional brand experience in the
cruise setting. From a managerial perspective, this work can help cruise service providers
design services that satisfy cruise visitors’ experiences and behavioral intentions and
cultivate their services to meet visitors’ needs.

Literature review
In 1970, only half a million passengers went on cruises, and this sector was less popular than
other transportation or tourism products. However, almost five million customers went on
cruises for their vacations in 1994, showing an 8 per cent increase compared with the value
in 1993 (Teye and Leclerc, 1998). The growth rate of annual cruise customers was 7.2 per
cent from 1990 to 2009 (CLIA, 2009). Although the cruise industry has a relatively shorter
history compared with other traditional tourism sectors, it exhibits a great potential for
growth. From 2009-2013, the cruise market welcomed 51 million guests (CLIA, 2009), and
cruise capacity was increased. An estimated 26.7 million customers used cruises in 2017,
and the value is expected to increase to 28 million in 2018 (Skift, 2018). These trends increase
the importance of understanding customers’ attitude and behavior in the cruise industry
(Lee et al., 2017).

Customers’ experience with the cruise Brand

The concept of customer experience has been eliciting attention from marketing researchers
since the experience economy in the 1990s. The experience economy focuses on customers’
experiences with goods and services (Chang, 2018; Mody et al., 2017) and encompasses
various industries that create experience. From this perspective, consumption is a holistic
experience with customer and service provider interactions. To achieve sustainable growth,
service providers must create their own unique and memorable environment for customers’
IJCHM experience. Thus, many service companies have adopted an experiential marketing
31,5 approach to obtain a high level of customer satisfaction, a low level of customer complaints,
and a positive future behavioral intention by reinforcing positive customer experience.
For the tourism industry, the academia and industry have emphasized the development
of experience marketing strategies by encouraging customers’ participation and connection
with tourism brands (Le et al., 2018). Previous researchers have introduced different
2208 perspectives of customer experience and proposed various models. Different views of
customer experience have emerged in tourism research. For example, Tian-Cole et al. (2002)
examined experience quality as an antecedent of service quality, customer satisfaction, and
behavioral intention toward wildlife refuge. Fiore et al. (2007) used four aspects of tourism
experience, namely, education, esthetic, entertainment, and escapist experience. Recently,
the multidimensionality of brand experiences has become widely recognized in tourism
literature. Many tourism studies have supported the widely accepted notion that brand
experience is multidimensional and includes sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual
experiences. To illustrate, Barnes et al. (2014) applied sensory, affective, behavioral, and
intellectual brand experiences to examine customer satisfaction and revisit and
recommendation intentions.
Customer experience with a cruise brand is related to the type and level of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction they feel after receiving various services, including accommodation, dining,
gambling, climbing, swimming, and other entertainment activities. Although the cruise
brand perspective is new, many cruise brands recognize that providing unique, memorable,
and pleasurable brand experiences motivates customer loyalty toward their brand. Ahmed
et al. (2002) examined the strong effect of country of origin on customers’ evaluation of
experience quality and the effect of cruise brand on customers’ future purchase intention.
Cruise brands have developed various onboard activities that differ in terms of duration,
destination and type of cruise. A recent trend indicates that the cruise brand experience is
not a unidimensional but a multidimensional concept that results in different relationships
with other brand-related variables. For example, Hwang and Han (2014) suggested that
cruise experience consists of food quality, service quality, attractiveness of employees,
entertainment, ship facilities, ports of call, children program and cabin quality, all of which
influence customers’ perception of cruise brands’ prestige and loyalty. Similarly, Kwortnik
(2008) argued that the ambience, design, and social factors of the cruise experience can lead
to customers’ physiological, emotional, behavioral, experiential, and symbolic responses.
Drawing from brand experience theory (Schmitt, 1999), the authors conceptualize customers’
cruise brand experience as a multidimensional structure. Schmitt (1999) proposed brand
experience elements, which include sensory (sense), affective (feel), cognitive (think) and
physical experiences (act).

Perceived value
According to the constructive theory of attitude (Argyriou and Melewar, 2011), customers’
perceived value toward a brand is formed based on their direct and indirect experiences with
the brand. Thus, the authors examined cruise experience as an antecedent of customers’
perception of service value with the cruise brand. According to Zeithaml (1988), perceived
value is the customers’ overall evaluation of the utility of service based on their perception.
Perceived value is a predictor of repurchase intention (Cronin et al., 2000). Previous studies
used unidimensional and multidimensional scales to measure the impact of customers’
perceived value. For example, in the cruise industry, Duman and Mattila (2005) used a
unidimensional scale of perceived value to identify its antecedents (e.g. hedonics, control,
and novelty) and outcomes (e.g. behavioral intention). Petrick and Backman (2002) examined
the relationship among acquisition value, transaction value, perceived value and repurchase Functional and
intention. Recently, multidimensional scales of perceived value, such as a five-dimensional wellness value
construct that includes social, emotional, functional, epistemic, and conditional responses
(Sheth et al., 1991), have been widely used to overcome the validity problem. In the current
study, the scope of perceived value was categorized into functional (e.g. utilitarian) and
wellness (e.g. experiential) values.
Customers’ value perception can be categorized into functional and nonfunctional values.
According to Sheth (1981), the functional value is related to tangible wants, such as 2209
convenience, quality, and price. The nonfunctional value is related to intangible needs, such
as social or emotional interactions. Customer satisfaction with functional value is related to
customers’ self-enhancement and sensory pleasure (Bhat and Reddy, 1998). Recent studies
have argued the claim that customers’ perceived brand value is related to customers’
purchasing behavior (Wu et al., 2018). Kim et al. (2010) examined the impact of customers’
perceived value of luxury brands on brand loyalty. According to marketing theory that
argues the impact of emotional benefits of brands (Pawle and Cooper, 2006) and social
psychology theory that indicates the rational aspects of brands (Falk and Wagner, 1985),
customers’ perception of utilitarian benefits plays an important role in building a perception
of functional value.

Hypothesis development
Customers’ experiences with cruise brands can be measured by the choice of attributes that
drive customers’ choice. For sensory experience, brand-related elements affect visual,
auditory, haptic, olfactory, and gustatory stimuli, which influence customers’ sensory
experiences (Peck and Childers, 2008). The interior and exterior of a cruise ship, stateroom,
piano bars, and daily performance at the concert hall influence customers’ sensory
experience. Affective brand experience affects customers’ positive emotional link with cruise
brands (Mano and Oliver, 1993). Most cruise brands are operated by international
employees. Greeting and welcoming of cruise staff from various countries stimulate
customers’ emotions and sentiments. Behavioral cruise brand experience is related to
customers’ physical behavior in the cruise and produces hedonic emotions (Williams et al.,
2008). When customers join shore excursions, such as snorkeling or kayaking, their
behavioral experience is enhanced. Intellectual cruise experience is related to customers’
thinking or conscious mental processes (Brakus et al., 2009). Providing a free reward for
participating in casinos (e.g. playing slot machines and table games) influences customers’
perception of functional value by increasing their intellectual experience (Dennis et al., 2013).
Moreover, participating in various cruise games, such as Bingo or karaoke competitions,
stimulates customers’ thinking process.
Unique cruise brands offer a perceived functional value that is more expansive and
valuable compared with other brands (Verhallen and Henry, 1994). The perceived functional
value of cruise brands is related to core benefits, basic utility, quality and uniqueness of
experiences. Given that functional value is associated with these attributes, all types of
cruise brand experiences might influence functional value perceptions. Considering the
cruise context, the present study hypothesizes a positive relationship between cruise brand
experience dimensions (e.g. sensory, affective, behavioral and intellectual) and functional
values, as indicated in the following hypotheses.

H1a. Sensory cruise brand experience is positively associated with functional value.
H1b. Affective cruise brand experience is positively associated with functional value.
IJCHM H1c. Behavioral cruise brand experience is positively associated with functional value.
31,5 H1d. Intellectual cruise brand experience is positively associated with functional value.
In addition, cruises are popular in creating wellness and health value (Hall, 2011). For
example, many cruise lines design trips for the growing number of health-conscious
customers by offering various wellness-related products or services, such as wellness
2210 seminars, fitness activities and healthy food choices (CLIA, 2017). Cruise customers are
becoming health conscious. The level of customers’ health consciousness influences their
evaluation of tourism. Park et al. (2017) examined the role of customers’ price and health
consciousness in customer satisfaction toward the medical tourism experience. In spa
tourism, service providers attempt to attract health-conscious customers (Carrera and
Bridges, 2006). Customers’ perception of wellness value is related to the process of achieving
well-being (Gill and Bedini, 2010), and it refers to the degree of individual customers’
evaluation of achieving physical and mental health benefits from the cruise experience.
Thus, in the cruise setting, customers’ wellness value is associated with physical, mental,
and social health benefits from cruise brand experiences. Moreover, the level of wellness
value is considered an antecedent of customers’ future behavior (Choi et al., 2015).
Cruise sensory brand experiences lead to customer satisfaction when aesthetic pleasure,
excitement, and sense of beauty are provided (Krishna et al., 2010). Customers sense
wellness value when the quality of food is higher than what they expected. Affective
experience components influence customers’ positive moods, feelings, and emotions. This
positive emotion is related to customers’ perceived well-being (Ryan and Deci, 2000).
Participating in various leisure activities and attending conferences involve customers’
physical and behavioral experiences (e.g. golfing, climbing, and swimming). In a cruise,
customers can enjoy various gaming activities that require creativity, problem-solving
skills, and cognition (Ahn and Back, 2018). These intellectual and behavioral cruise brand
experiences can increase customers’ health and cognitive wellness. Thus, such experiences
are assumed to positively influence customers’ perceived value of the cruise brand.

H2a. Sensory cruise brand experience is positively associated with wellness value.
H2b. Affective cruise brand experience is positively associated with wellness value.
H2c. Behavioral cruise brand experience is positively associated with wellness value.
H2d. Intellectual cruise brand experience is positively associated with wellness value.
Customer satisfaction occurs when perceived evaluation after consumption is better than
prior expectation (Oliver, 1980). Satisfaction is the fulfillment of customers’ expectation and
brand cumulative satisfaction through experience with brands. In the cruise context,
customer satisfaction can be explained as the level of positive feelings during the cruise
experience. In the tourism industry, researchers have identified perceived value as an
antecedent of customer satisfaction. According to Chiu et al. (2014), customers’ perceived
value regarding eco-travel activities is positively related to their satisfaction, which leads to
environmentally responsible behavior. The relationship between customer satisfaction and
customers’ perceived value of service experience is explained by the theory of planned
behavior, which postulates the value–attitude–behavior logic. Value–attitude–behavior
logic is widely used in the tourism setting to predict customer behavior (Chiu et al., 2014).
This logic posits that customers’ behavior is in line with the perceived value and attitude
toward tourism brands.
 Customers’ perceived value is related to their positive feelings or emotions after a cruise Functional and
experience. Customers obtain functional and wellness values, which enhance their wellness value
satisfaction (Choi et al., 2015). For example, when customers experience a positive quality
despite the prices, they feel satisfaction with the cruise brands. In addition, the wellness
value of the health benefits of cruise brands (e.g. reduces stress and anxiety) enhances
customer satisfaction. In this study, customers’ perceived value is viewed as a combination
of tangible and intangible elements. This perceived value determines whether customers are
satisfied after the cruise experience or not. Thus, the following hypotheses are formulated. 2211
H3a. Functional value is positively associated with customer satisfaction.
H3b. Wellness value is positively associated with customer satisfaction.
Behavioral intention is “the degree to which a person has formulated conscious plans to
perform or not perform some specified future behavior” (Warshaw and Davis, 1985, p. 214).
Behavioral intention is widely used as an indicator of customers’ future behavior (Webb and
Sheeran, 2006). Although a significant association between perceived value and behavioral
intention toward cruise tours was observed in Duman and Mattila’s (2005) study, Lee et al.
(2011) found no significant impact of customer satisfaction, except for perceived value, on
their behavioral intention toward festival attendance. This inconsistency across studies can
be attributed to the different research designs and methods used. Such a discrepancy
motivated this study to examine the relationship between perceived value and cruise
customers’ behavioral intention.

H4a. Functional value is positively associated with behavioral intention.

H4b. Wellness value is positively associated with behavioral intention.
The positive relationship between satisfaction and behavioral intention is supported by
previous tourism studies (Cronin et al., 2000; Kani et al., 2017; Petrick, 2004). Woodside et al.
(1989) suggested a relationship between customer satisfaction and behavioral intention.
Tourism and hospitality researchers have also suggested that satisfaction predicts the level
of repurchase or recommendation intention (Cronin et al., 2000; Lee et al., 2017; Worsfold
et al., 2016). Similarly, Petrick (2004) discovered a positive and significant impact of
satisfaction on behavioral intention toward cruise tours. Expectancy theory posits that
customers tend to engage in specific behaviors. Moreover, in line with the theory of planned
behavior, belief/value–attitude–behavior logic is suggested.

H4c. Customer satisfaction is positively associated with behavioral intention.

When customers experience a cruise service, their existing/prior knowledge may affect their
perception. Customers familiar with the cruise service and know how the service works can
assess the quality of service performance (Söderlund, 2002). By contrast, customers
demonstrating a low level of service expertise rely on limited information and experience
difficulty in evaluating service quality (Bell et al., 2005). Given that processing behavioral
and intellectual experiences requires a more cognitive elaboration than processing sensory
and affective experiences, customers’ perception of a cruise experience may differ by the
level of service expertise. New customers may be unsure whether the service has been
delivered correctly or not (Johnson et al., 2008). To demonstrate, novices tend to manifest
reduced positive disconfirmation of expectations in terms of using the technology for airline
services (Reinders et al., 2015). Thus, the authors argue that customers with a high level of
service expertise experience a stronger positive effect of intellectual and behavioral
IJCHM experiences than customers with low levels of service expertise. Furthermore, customers
31,5 with low levels of service expertise prioritize sensory and affective cruise experiences more
than service expertise customers do. Service experts pay careful attention to information
requiring a low level of cognitive processing.

H5a. For customers with low levels of service expertise, the impact of sensory and
2212 affective cruise experiences on perceived value is positive.
H5b. For customers with high levels of service expertise, the impact of intellectual and
behavioral cruise experiences on perceived value is positive.
Figure 1 shows a summary of the hypotheses and the effect of brand experience variables
(e.g. sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual) on perceived value (e.g. functional and
wellness). The dependent variables (e.g. customer satisfaction and behavioral intention) and
moderating variable (e.g. service expertise) also are described in the figure.

Methods
Sampling and data collection
A self-administered online questionnaire was utilized to collect data from cruise
customers in the USA. The online survey was constructed using Qualtrics and
distributed via an online survey platform, namely, Amazon Mechanical Turk. Amazon
Mechanical Turk is a crowdsourcing website that allows workers to perform tasks for
monetary rewards (Yang and Wang, 2015). Amazon Mechanical Turk is widely used for
conducting consumer research (Lee and Kim, 2018; Wei et al., 2017). Screening
questions were used to ensure the qualification of participants. After reading the
consent form and purpose of the survey, the respondents were asked the first screening
question, “Have you ever used cruise a service/brand before?” The second question
asked about the cruise brand that the respondents most recently used. Only

Sensory cruise
experience

Functional Customer
value satisfaction
Affective
cruise
experience

Behavioral
cruise
experience
Wellness Behavioral
value intention

Intellectual
cruise
experience

Figure 1.
Proposed model Moderator: Level of service expertise
respondents who experienced a cruise were allowed to continue. All respondents were Functional and
asked to provide the most recent cruise brand they used within 12 months. The wellness value
responses (i.e. cruise brand names) were embedded with questions regarding cruise
brand experience. For example, the respondents were asked to answer the question,
“Cruise X (e.g. Carnival cruise) makes a strong impression on my visual sense or other
senses.” The online survey was made available from October 2017 to December 2017. A
total of 400 cruise customers participated in the survey, and 389 usable responses (97
per cent) were employed for the final data analysis after removing the missing 2213
responses. Male respondents constituted 51.0 per cent of the sample, and female
respondents accounted for 49.0 per cent. In terms of age, the most prevalent age groups
were 20 to 29 years old (45.2 per cent of respondents) and 30 to 39 years old (34.9 per
cent of respondents). The majority of the respondents who went on a cruise were
married (57.0 per cent) (Table I).
The assessment of cruise brand experience used 12 items from the study of Brakus et al.
(2009). To measure the functional and wellness values of cruise brand, this study used seven
items based on the research of Lee et al. (2007), Gill and Bedini (2010), and Myers et al. (2000).
In terms of customer satisfaction, three items were adopted from the study of Oliver (1980).
Behavioral intention was assessed using three items based on the work of Zeithaml (1988).
Moreover, service expertise was measured using five items from the research of Mitchell and
Dacin (1996). The measurements of all items used a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Frequency
Items n (%)

Gender
Male 203 51.0
Female 195 49.0
Age
20-29 180 45.2
30-39 139 34.9
40-49 48 12.1
50-59 10 2.5
60þ 21 5.3
Annual income
Under $25,000 67 16.8
$25,000-$39,999 83 20.9
$40,000-54,999 76 19.1
$55,000-$69,999 72 18.1
$70,000-$84,999 46 11.6
$85,000-$99,999 19 4.8
Over $100,000 34 8.5
Marital status
Married 227 57.0
Divorced 5 1.3
Widowed 16 4.0 Table I.
Separated 13 3.3 Demographic
Never married 136 34.2 characteristics
IJCHM Analysis and results
31,5 Measurement model analysis
The authors used the partial least squares (PLS) path modeling technique to test the
hypotheses via SmartPLS 2.0 (Ringle et al., 2005). The iterative algorithm in PLS consists of
a set of ordinary least squares analyses (Chin, 1998). In this study, the PLS technique was
applied because it is useful in estimating complex models with relatively small sample sizes
2214 (Chin, 1998; Henseler et al., 2009). PLS-SEM is a useful tool with minimum restrictions on
measurement scales (Chang et al., 2016), and it is widely used in tourism studies (Harris
et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2017). In the current study, a non-parametric bootstrapping procedure
was applied to examine the significance of t-values (Henseler et al., 2009). PLS path modeling
maximizes the strength of the relationship between independent and dependent variables.
First, reliability and validity were assessed. Second, the predictive power was examined
based on the significance of the path coefficients. Lastly, to test the moderating effect of
service expertise, a bootstrapping resampling method was used to obtain 500 observations.
Table II shows the factor loading of each item in the questionnaire. All items in a construct
were significantly loaded to the construct and no cross loading was observed (Chin, 1998).
The Cronbach’s alpha for the constructs ranged from 0.71 to 0.88, exceeding the
recommended level of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978).
Table III presents the reliability and validity of cruise brand experience, functional value,
wellness value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intention. Convergent validity was
measured using the average variance extracted (AVE) and ranged from 0.56 to 0.81,
exceeding the recommended level of 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity
was confirmed because the square root of the AVE for each construct exceeded other
correlation coefficients of the construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Path coefficient analysis

As Table IV shows, sensory cruise brand experience was significant in determining
functional (H1a: b = 0.31, p < 0.05) and wellness (H2a: b = 0.23, p < 0.05) values. Affective
cruise brand experience was significantly related to wellness value (H1b: b = 0.23, p <
0.05). The relationships between behavioral cruise brand experience and wellness value
were further confirmed (H1c: b = 0.15, p < 0.05). Moreover, the intellectual cruise brand
experience significantly determined perceived function (H1d: b = 0.21, p < 0.05) and well-
being (H4b: b = 0.21, p < 0.05). Functional (H3a: b = 0.47, p < 0.05) and wellness (H3b: b =
0.28, p < 0.05) values significantly affected customer satisfaction. Furthermore, behavioral
intention was significantly influenced by functional value (H4a: b = 0.19, p < 0.05),
wellness value (H4b: b = 0.28, p < 0.05), and customer satisfaction (H4c: b = 0.44, p < 0.05).
Overall, a good level of variance was explained by the research model, including the
following: 37 per cent of functional value, 49 per cent of wellness value, 45 per cent of
customer satisfaction and 61 per cent of revisit intention.
H5a and H5b suggest that service expertise affects the relationship between cruise
brand experience and customers’ perceived value. Specifically, this hypothesis states
that for customers with a low level of service expertise, the impact of sensory and
affective cruise brand experience is more positive compared with service expert
customers. For customers with a high level of service expertise, the effects of
behavioral and intellectual experience are positive. Service expertise was assessed
based on a median split (median = 5.20). The effect of sensory and affective cruise
experiences on functional and wellness values among customers in the low-service-
expertise group was significant and positive. However, only the relationship between
sensory cruise experience and functional value was supported in service expert
Variables Item loading Cronbach’s alpha
Functional and
wellness value
Sensory cruise experience 0.86
Cruise X makes a strong impression on my visual sense or other senses 0.88
I find Cruise X interesting in a sensory (visual, auditory, or tactile) way 0.90
Cruise X appeals to my senses 0.88
Affective cruise experience 0.79
Cruise X induces feelings and sentiments 0.82 2215
I have strong emotions for Cruise X 0.85
Cruise X generates emotional experiences 0.85
Behavioral cruise experience 0.82
I engage in physical actions and behaviors when I experience Cruise X 0.88
Cruise X results in bodily experiences 0.87
Cruise X is action oriented 0.83
Intellectual cruise experience 0.84
I engage in a lot of thinking when I visit Cruise X 0.89
Cruise X makes me think 0.88
Cruise X stimulates my curiosity 0.75
Functional value 0.73
Considering the cost, Cruise X provided a lot of benefits 0.82
Cruise X offered a better value for the money than other Cruises 0.82
The value of Cruise X exceeded travel expense 0.69
Visiting Cruise X was affordable 0.64
Wellness value 0.81
Cruise X had value for improving my quality of life 0.82
Cruise X had beneficial value for my health 0.79
Visiting Cruise X evoked energy for living 0.83
Visiting Cruise X relieved my tension 0.75
Customer satisfaction 0.88
I am satisfied with my decision to visit Cruise X 0.90
On the whole, I am happy with Cruise X 0.91
Overall, I am satisfied with Cruise X 0.88
Behavioral intention 0.83 Table II.
I will stay Cruise X again 0.88
Cruise X will be my first choice in the future 0.85
Summary of
I will spread positive word of mouth about Cruise X 0.87 measurement and
factor loadings for
Notes: seven-point scale, where 1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree indicator reliability

customer group. No significant effect of affective cruise experience on perceived value

was observed for customers with a high level of service expertise. These results
further indicate the significant effects of intellectual cruise brand experience on
perceived functional and wellness values among service expertise customers,
whereas this relationship was less insignificant in the customer group with less
service expertise. In addition, a different impact of perceived value on customers’
satisfaction and behavioral intention was observed. Thus, H5a and H5b are only
partially supported. For example, customers’ perceived functional value only
sufficiently influenced behavioral intention in the low-service-expertise group.
Similarly, the impact of wellness value on customers’ satisfaction was supported in
the group with less service expertise. Hence, customers’ satisfaction and behavioral
intention are triggered through their expertise level by influencing customers’
perceived wellness and functional values.
IJCHM Construct SCE ACE BCE ICE FV WV CS BI
31,5
Sensory cruise experience (SCE) 0.88
Affective cruise experience (ACE) 0.62b 0.84
Behavioral cruise experience (BCE) 0.53b 0.64b 0.86
Intellectual cruise experience (ICE) 0.52b 0.67b 0.58b 0.87
Functional value (FV) 0.52b 0.50b 0.44b 0.50b 0.75
2216 Wellness value (WV) 0.56b 0.61b 0.54b 0.56b 0.52b 0.80
Customer satisfaction (CS) 0.69b 0.52b 0.46b 0.41b 0.60b 0.53b 0.90
Behavioral intention (BI) 0.65b 0.58b 0.50b 0.52b 0.61b 0.62b 0.71b 0.87
Mean 5.56 5.40 5.17 5.18 5.25 5.23 5.79 5.54
Standard deviation 1.02 1.05 1.18 1.56 0.94 1.04 1.03 1.11
Table III.
AVE 0.78 0.71 0.74 0.76 0.56 0.64 0.81 0.75
Inter-construct
correlations: Notes: aSquare root of average variance extracted (AVE) is shown on the diagonal of the matrix; inter-
discriminant validity construct correlation is shown off the diagonal; bSignificant at the 0.05 level

Coefficients
Path Overall Low-service expertise High-service expertise

Sensory cruise experience ! Functional value 0.31a 0.34a 0.35a

Sensory cruise experience ! Wellness value 0.23a 0.29a 0.11
Affective cruise experience ! Functional value 0.13 0.20a 0.04
Affective cruise experience ! Wellness value 0.23a 0.28a 0.18
Behavioral cruise experience ! Functional value 0.07 0.02 0.04
Behavioral cruise experience ! Wellness value 0.15a 0.09 0.17
Intellectual cruise experience ! Functional value 0.21a 0.05 0.33a
Intellectual cruise experience ! Wellness value 0.21a 0.13 0.28a
Functional value ! Customer satisfaction 0.47a 0.49a 0.47a
Functional value ! Behavioral intention 0.19a 0.19a 0.13
Wellness value ! Customer satisfaction 0.28a 0.35a 0.14
Wellness value ! Behavioral intention 0.28a 0.26a 0.34a
Customer satisfaction ! Behavioral intention 0.44a 0.46a 0.42a
Table IV.
Group comparison Note: aSignificant at the 0.05 level

Discussion and conclusions

Conclusions
The objective of this study was to examine whether or not cruise experience influences
cruise customers’ attitude and behavior via perceived value. The findings indicate that
various cruise brand experiences associate differently with customers’ perceived functional
and wellness values with the cruise brand. Cruise brands are now providing a new kind of
services, namely, unlimited open bar, Wi-Fi, luxury dining casinos, meetings, and local
excursions, to attract customers, and offering memorable experiences is an integral part of a
cruise. The findings indicate that cruise researchers need to monitor customers’ needs and
wants toward the cruise and maximize the perceived value by providing sensory, affective,
behavioral, and intellectual experiences. In particular, sensory and intellectual experiences
involve functional and wellness values in the cruise setting, which significantly affects
customers’ satisfaction and behavioral intention. Moreover, customers with a low service
expertise might highly evaluate affective experiences and wellness value with the cruise
brand. In line with the elaboration likelihood model (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986), the level of Functional and
customers’ service expertise can influence the processing of different types of information, wellness value
cues, or messages. Cruise service providers must understand customers’ familiarity with the
cruise service to offer optimized services. Providing customized experiences based on the
level of customer expertise can result in customer satisfaction and increased profitability.

Theoretical implications
This study expands academic knowledge on brand experience (Brakus et al., 2009) by
2217
providing new prospects for hospitality marketers in terms of how they can manage the
brand to create a better attitude. This research contributes to academic literature in three
ways. First, the authors examined previous academic knowledge on brand experience and
connected the brand experience construct to perceived value to provide a comprehensive
understanding of the role of this concept in the service setting. Through a review of
literature on brand experience (Schmitt, 1999) and cruise tourism, this study identified the
relative impact of multidimensional cruise experience on customers’ behavior by adding two
constructs of perceived value to the model. The findings indicate that customers’ perceived
value is driven by sensory, affective, behavioral and intellectual cruise experiences, which
suggest customers’ expectation toward the cruise brand. In the cruise setting, visual, audio,
tactile, logical, and cognitive elements stimulate customers’ sensory and intellectual
experience, with the latter being an important predictor of perceived value.
Second, as indicated in previous literature, marketers focus on customers’ perceived
utilitarian value (Chiu et al., 2005). Although this approach helps understand customers’
perceived tradeoff value, it is not enough to consider the intangible or emotional value of
services. In line with Holbrook’s (1986) suggestions, this study found that perceived
functional and wellness values are direct antecedents of customer satisfaction. The findings
confirmed the theoretical frame of the constructive theory of attitude (Argyriou and
Melewar, 2011). Given the increasing number of customers who are interested in health and
wellness, cruise service providers can benefit by offering a high level of customer wellness
value. In addition, based on Oliver’s (1999) cognitive, affective, and conative sequence,
customers’ perceived functional and wellness values have a significant direct positive
impact on behavioral intentions. The findings support the relationship among perceived
value, customer satisfaction, and customer behavioral intention in the cruise setting.
Considering the growth of the cruise industry, the results imply the importance of managing
perceived utility, physical performance, and mental and physical health in the cruise
context. Perceived value has become a key concept in tourism marketing (Chen and Chen,
2010) because of its impact on customers’ post-purchase. This study emphasized the
importance of perceived value in the cruise field.
Finally, to further contribute to brand experience theory (Brakus et al., 2009), this
research presents service expertise as a moderator of the proposed relationship. In line with
Bell et al.’s (2005) study, the current researchers examined the difference between novices
and service experts in terms of cruise experience. Considering the unique characteristics of
the cruise, the authors would like to emphasize the role of customers’ familiarity with the
cruise service in developing effective marketing strategies. The impact of affective cruise
experience on perceived functional and wellness values is higher for customers with a low
level of service expertise than for service expert customers. The relationship between
intellectual cruise brand experience and perceived value is high for customers with a high
level of service expertise. Thus, studies that investigate the relative impact of service-related
factors (e.g. assisting senior customers, casino gaming expertise, international language
skill, and interpersonal skill) could make a valuable contribution to existing literature. This
IJCHM study provides empirical evidence that the impact of brand experience on customers’ post-
31,5 purchase behavior is completely influenced by cruise service expertise. Furthermore, the
level of service expertise influences not only the perceived brand experience but also the
perceived brand value. This novel finding contributes to existing brand experience and
perceived value research (Zeithaml, 1988).

2218 Practical implications

This study provides practical implications for cruise brand managers who aim for the long-
term success of companies. Cruise brand managers could increase the level of wellness and
functional values by providing sensory, affective, intellectual and behavioral experiences. In
particular, cruise experiences related to sensory and intellectual experiences exert a strong
effect on customer satisfaction. For a sensory cruise experience, cruise companies may
consider collaborating with well-known interior designers or chefs for cruise restaurants (e.
g. Guy Fieri for the Carnival Cruise Line and Jamie Oliver for Royal Caribbean
International). Marketing activities using scent and music make cruise experiences fun and
memorable. Given that an intellectual brand experience is related to cognitive activities,
cruise brands may provide highly organized, well-planned, and easy-to-follow onboard
activities to promote customer participation. By using mobile platforms, customers can
preplan their events and activities, such as group bingo and card games, in real time. For a
behavioral cruise experience, companies may develop various, trendy and customized
leisure activities (e.g. climbing, zip lining and dancing) to increase customer participation.
For example, young customers may engage with virtual gaming as onboard entertainment.
For an affective cruise experience, cruise brand managers and marketers should provide
personalized services that cater to customers’ profiles. For instance, customers show a high
level of emotion when cruise brands offer personalized products and personal advisory
support to improve cruise experiences.
Based on the results of this study, the authors drew implications and suggestions to
support the importance of managing functional/utilitarian and wellness/health values.
Practical strategies can be developed by cruise service marketers in designing and
providing various travel experiences. A well-designed package that combines a cruise
and local tourism (e.g. culture and heritage) can stimulate customers’ perceived tradeoff
values. In addition, offering contents related to well-being (e.g. walkways, organic/local
foods, yoga, and meditation programs) could increase customers’ interest and
involvement in terms of wellness benefits. A high level of functional and wellness
values can lead to customers’ perceived satisfaction and behavioral intention. This
possibility could eventually contribute to customers’ loyalty toward the cruise brand.
Moreover, cruise brands can develop different membership programs based on their
service expertise. The level of service expertise influences customers’ perceived
experience and value. Thus, if customers are familiar with the cruise service and
possess relevant skills and knowledge (e.g. gambling, leisure activity programs, and
dining options), they tend to be satisfied with the experience. To illustrate, new
customers might prioritize affective experience. Companies can enhance positive
emotion by using an innovative communication channel for new customers. For
customers with expertise on cruise service, companies can stimulate information
processing. For example, providing customer education programs and self-service
facilities can stimulate customers’ critical thinking. Self-service facilities based on
technology can be designed to increase customers’ expertise level.
Limitations and future research Functional and
This study presents several limitations and directions for future research. First, this study wellness value
examined the proposed model by using customers’ overall perception of cruise brands.
However, customers with different types of facilities might show a difference in their
evaluation of post-purchase experiences. For example, customers may expect a high level of
sensory attributes when they travel with their family, whereas business travelers expect a
high quality of leisure activities (e.g. rock climbing, zip lining, or kayaking). Thus, further
study is recommended across different customer groups to compare the relationships 2219
among cruise brand experience, perceived value, and behavioral intention variations with
different facilities. Second, this research implemented an online survey to examine cruise
brand experience in the western culture. Conducting multiple case studies would increase
the validation and generalizability of the proposed model. For example, to enhance the
understanding of the relationship between cruise brand experience and customer behavior,
this study may be replicated in other cultural contexts to determine differences in the
relationship between cruise brand experience and customer behavior in comparison with the
Asian culture. Lastly, the impact of the level of customers’ involvement with cruise
experiences could be examined in the future. For example, the frequency of cruise travel and
the reputation of cruise brands may influence the impact of cruise brand experience on
customer’s perceived value.

References
Ahmed, Z.U., Johnson, J.P., Pei Ling, C., Wai Fang, T. and Kah Hui, A. (2002), “Country-of-origin and
brand effects on consumers’ evaluations of cruise lines”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 279-302.
Ahn, J. and Back, K.J. (2018), “The structural effects of affective and cognitive elaboration in formation
of customer–brand relationship”, The Service Industries Journal, pp. 1-17.
Argyriou, E. and Melewar, T.C. (2011), “Consumer attitudes revisited: a review of attitude theory in
marketing research”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 431-451.
Barnes, S.J., Mattsson, J. and Sørensen, F. (2014), “Destination brand experience and visitor behavior:
testing a scale in the tourism context”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 48, pp. 121-139.
Bell, S.J., Auh, S. and Smalley, K. (2005), “Customer relationship dynamics: service quality and
customer loyalty in the context of varying levels of customer expertise and switching costs”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 169-183.
Bhat, S. and Reddy, S.K. (1998), “Symbolic and functional positioning of brands”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32-43.
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009), “Brand experience: what is it? How is it
measured? Does it affect loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 52-68.
Carrera, P.M. and Bridges, J.F. (2006), “Globalization and healthcare: understanding health and medical
tourism”, Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 447-454.
Carù, A. and Cova, B. (2003), “Revisiting consumption experience: a more humble but complete view of
the concept”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 267-286.
Chang, S. (2018), “Experience economy in hospitality and tourism: gain and loss values for service and
experience”, Tourism Management, Vol. 64, pp. 55-63.
Chang, S.E., Shen, W.C. and Liu, A.Y. (2016), “Why mobile users trust smartphone social networking
services? A PLS-SEM approach”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 11, pp. 4890-4895.
Chen, C.F. and Chen, F.S. (2010), “Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral
intentions for heritage tourists”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 29-35.
IJCHM Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling”, Modern
Methods for Business Research, Vol. 295 No. 2, pp. 295-336.
31,5
Chiu, H.C., Hsieh, Y.C., Li, Y.C. and Lee, M. (2005), “Relationship marketing and consumer switching
behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 12, pp. 1681-1689.
Chiu, Y.T.H., Lee, W.I. and Chen, T.H. (2014), “Environmentally responsible behavior in ecotourism:
antecedents and implications”, Tourism Management, Vol. 40, pp. 321-329.
2220 Choi, Y., Kim, J., Lee, C.K. and Hickerson, B. (2015), “The role of functional and wellness values in
visitors’ evaluation of spa experiences”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 263-279.
Chua, B.L., Lee, S. and Han, H. (2017), “Consequences of cruise line involvement: a comparison of first-
time and repeat passengers”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 1658-1683.
Cronin, J.J., Jr, Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000), “Assessing the effects of quality, value, and
customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 193-218.
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) (2009), 2009 CLIA Cruise Market Overview: Statistical
Cruise Industry Data through 2008, CLIA, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) (2016), “2017 Cruise industry outlook”, availabel at:
www.cruising.org/docs/default-source/research/clia-2017-state-of-the-industry.pdf?sfvrsn=0
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) (2017), “2018 Cruise industry outlook”, available at:
http://cruising.org/docs/default-source/research/clia-2018-state-of-the-industry.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Dennis, C., Joško Brakus, J. and Alamanos, E. (2013), “The wallpaper matters: digital signage as
customer-experience provider at the Harrods (London, UK) department store”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 29 Nos 3/4, pp. 338-355.
Duman, T. and Mattila, A.S. (2005), “The role of affective factors on perceived cruise vacation value”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 311-323.
Falk, D.R. and Wagner, P.N. (1985), “Intimacy of self-disclosure and response processes as factors
affecting the development of interpersonal relationships”, The Journal of Social Psychology,
Vol. 125 No. 5, pp. 557-570.
Fiore, A.M., Niehm, L., Oh, H., Jeong, M. and Hausafus, C. (2007), “Experience economy strategies:
adding value to small rural businesses”, Journal of Extension, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 1-13.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gill, D. and Bedini, L. (2010), “Health, wellness and quality of life: accent the positive”, Leisure, Health
and Wellness: Making the Connections, pp. 11-20.
Grönroos, C. (2011), “Value co-creation in service logic: a critical analysi”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 11
No. 3, pp. 279-301.
Hall, C.M. (2011), “Health and medical tourism: a kill or cure for global public health?”, Tourism Review,
Vol. 66 Nos 1/2, pp. 4-15.
Harris, K.J., Ali, F. and Ryu, K. (2018), “Foodborne illness outbreaks in restaurants and patrons’
propensity to return”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30
No. 3, pp. 1273-1292.
Helkkula, A., Kelleher, C. and Pihlström, M. (2012), “Characterizing value as an experience:
implications for service researchers and managers”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 59-75.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), “The use of partial least squares path modeling in
international marketing”, New Challenges to International Marketing, Emerald Group
Publishing, Bingley, pp. 277-319.
Holbrook, M.B. (2006), “Consumption experience, customer value, and subjective personal Functional and
introspection: an illustrative photographic essay”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 6,
pp. 714-725. wellness value
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
fantasies, feelings, and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 132-140.
Hwang, J. and Han, H. (2014), “Examining strategies for maximizing and utilizing brand prestige in the
luxury cruise industry”, Tourism Management, Vol. 40, pp. 244-259.
Iglesias, O., Markovic, S. and Rialp, J. (2018), “How does sensory brand experience influence Brand
2221
equity? Considering the roles of customer satisfaction, customer affective commitment, and
employee empathy”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 96, pp. 343-354.
Johnson, D.S., Bardhi, F. and Dunn, D.T. (2008), “Understanding how technology paradoxes affect
customer satisfaction with self-service technology: the role of performance ambiguity and trust
in technology”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 416-443.
Jones, P., Hillier, D. and Comfort, D. (2017), “The two market leaders in ocean cruising and corporate
sustainability”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 288-306.
Kani, Y., Aziz, Y.A., Sambasivan, M. and Bojei, J. (2017), “Antecedents and outcomes of destination
image of Malaysia”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 32, pp. 89-98.
Khan, I. and Rahman, Z. (2017), “Development of a scale to measure hotel brand experiences”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 268-287.
Kim, M., Kim, S. and Lee, Y. (2010), “The effect of distribution channel diversification of foreign luxury
fashion brands on consumers’ brand value and loyalty in the Korean market”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 286-293.
Krishna, A., Elder, R.S. and Caldara, C. (2010), “Feminine to smell but masculine to touch? Multisensory
congruence and its effect on the aesthetic experience”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 410-418.
Kwortnik, R.J. (2008), “Shipscape influence on the leisure cruise experience”, International Journal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 289-311.
Le, D., Scott, N. and Lohmann, G. (2018), “Applying experiential marketing in selling tourism dreams”,
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 220-235.
Lee, J.S., Lee, C.K. and Choi, Y. (2011), “Examining the role of emotional and functional values in festival
evaluation”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 685-696.
Lee, S., Chua, B.L. and Han, H. (2017), “Role of service encounter and physical environment
performances, novelty, satisfaction, and affective commitment in generating cruise passenger
loyalty”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 131-146.
Lee, S. and Kim, D.Y. (2018), “The effect of hedonic and utilitarian values on satisfaction and loyalty of
Airbnb users”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 1332-1351.
Lee, S.A. and Jeong, M. (2014), “Enhancing online brand experiences: an application of congruity
theory”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 40, pp. 49-58.
Lee, S.Y., Petrick, J.F. and Crompton, J. (2007), “The roles of quality and intermediary constructs in
determining festival attendees’ behavioral intention”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45 No. 4,
pp. 402-412.
Lee, W., Sung, H., Suh, E. and Zhao, J. (2017), “The effects of festival attendees’ experiential values and
satisfaction on re-visit intention to the destination: the case of a food and wine festival”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 1005-1027.
Lyu, J., Hu, L., Hung, K. and Mao, Z. (2017), “Assessing servicescape of cruise tourism: the perception of
Chinese tourists”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29
No. 10, pp. 2556-2572.
IJCHM Mano, H. and Oliver, R.L. (1993), “Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption
experience: evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 3,
31,5 pp. 451-466.
Manthiou, A., Kang, J., Sumarjan, N. and Tang, L.R. (2016), “The incorporation of consumer experience
into the branding process: an investigation of name-brand hotels”, International Journal of
Tourism Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 105-115.
Mitchell, A.A. and Dacin, P.A. (1996), “The assessment of alternative measures of consumer expertise”,
2222 Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 219-239.
Mody, M.A., Suess, C. and Lehto, X. (2017), “The accommodation experiencescape: a comparative
assessment of hotels and Airbnb”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 2377-2404.
Myers, J.E., Sweeney, T.J. and Witmer, J.M. (2000), “The wheel of wellness counseling for wellness: a
holistic model for treatment planning”, Journal of Counseling and Development, Vol. 78 No. 3,
pp. 251-266.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Methods, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-469.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 33-44.
Papatheodorou, A. (2006), “The cruise industry: an industrial organization perspective”, Cruise Ship
Tourism, pp. 31-40.
Park, J., Ahn, J. and Yoo, W.S. (2017), “The effects of price and health consciousness and satisfaction on
the medical tourism experience”, Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 405-417.
Pawle, J. and Cooper, P. (2006), “Measuring emotion-Lovemarks, the future beyond brands”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 38-48.
Payne, A. and Holt, S. (1999), “A review of the ‘value’ literature and implications for relationship
marketing”, Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 41-51.
Peck, J. and Childers, T.L. (2008), “Sensory factors and consumer behavior”, Handbook of Consumer
Psychology, pp. 193-219.
Petrick, J.F. (2004), “The roles of quality, value, and satisfaction in predicting cruise passengers’
behavioral intentions”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 397-407.
Petrick, J.F. and Backman, S.J. (2002), “An examination of the construct of perceived value for the
prediction of golf travelers’ intentions to revisit”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41 No. 1,
pp. 38-45.
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986), “The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion”, Communication
and Persuasion, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 1-24.
Reinders, M.J., Frambach, R. and Kleijnen, M. (2015), “Mandatory use of technology-based self-service:
does expertise help or hurt?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 Nos 1/2, pp. 190-211.
Ringle, C., Wende, S. and Will, A. (2005), Smart-PLS Version 2.0 M3, University of Hamburg,
Hamburg.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 68-78.
Schmitt, B. (1999), “Experiential marketing”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No Nos 1/3,
pp. 53-67.
Sheth, J.N. (1981), An Integrative Theory of Patronage Preference and Behavior, College of Commerce
and Business Administration, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of IL,
Urbana, IL.
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991), “Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption
values”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
Skift (2018), “MSC cruises targets growing luxury market with new ship order”, available at: https:// Functional and
skift.com/2018/10/18/msc-cruises-targets-growing-luxury-market-with-new-ship-order/
wellness value
Song, H.J., Lee, C.K., Park, J.A., Hwang, Y.H. and Reisinger, Y. (2015), “The influence of tourist
experience on perceived value and satisfaction with temple stays: the experience economy
theory”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 401-415.
Söderlund, M. (2002), “Customer familiarity and its effects on satisfaction and behavioral intentions”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 861-879.
Teye, V.B. and Leclerc, D. (1998), “Product and service delivery satisfaction among North American
2223
cruise passengers”, Tourism Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 153-160.
Tian-Cole, S., Crompton, J.L. and Willson, V.L. (2002), “An empirical investigation of the relationships
between service quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions among visitors to a wildlife
refuge”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Verhallen, T.M. and Henry, S.R. (1994), “Scarcity and preference: an experiment on unavailability and
product evaluation”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 315-331.
Warshaw, P.R. and Davis, F.D. (1985), “Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral
expectation”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 213-228.
Webb, T.L. and Sheeran, P. (2006), “Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A
meta-analysis of the experimental evidence”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 132 No. 2, pp. 249-268.
Wei, W., Hua, N., Fu, X. and Guchait, P. (2017), “The impacts of hotels’ error management culture on
customer engagement behaviors (CEBs)”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 3119-3137.
Williams, D.M., Dunsiger, S., Ciccolo, J.T., Lewis, B.A., Albrecht, A.E. and Marcus, B.H. (2008), “Acute
affective response to a moderate-intensity exercise stimulus predicts physical activity
participation 6 and 12 months later”, Psychology of Sport and Exercise, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 231-245.
Woodside, A.G., Frey, L.L. and Daly, R.T. (1989), “Linking sort/ice anlity, customer satisfaction, and
behavioral intention”, Journal of Health Care Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 5-17.
Worsfold, K., Fisher, R., McPhail, R., Francis, M. and Thomas, A. (2016), “Satisfaction, value and
intention to return in hotels”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 28 No. 11, pp. 2570-2588.
Wu, H.C., Li, M.Y. and Li, T. (2018), “A study of experiential quality, experiential value, experiential
satisfaction, theme park image, and revisit intention”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 26-73.
Wu, J., Zeng, M. and Xie, K.L. (2017), “Chinese travelers’ behavioral intentions toward room-sharing
platforms: the influence of motivations, perceived trust, and past experience”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 2688-2707.
Yang, H.C. and Wang, Y. (2015), “Social sharing of online videos: examining American consumers’
video sharing attitudes, intent, and behavior”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 9,
pp. 907-919.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.

Corresponding author
Ki-Joon Back can be contacted at: kback@uh.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com