In recent years, spiritual destinations (temples, churches, and mosques) have increasingly adopted blind-box offerings—products or services with concealed attributes—to engage tourists. While prior research has explored the cognitive and affective appeal of tourism blind boxes, their role in spiritual tourism, and the unique ability to signal symbolic meanings remains understudied. Drawing on magical contagion theory and schema congruity theory, we propose that blind-box designs can amplify tourists’ perceptions of spiritual essence, particularly in sacred settings. Through field data from a Buddhist temple café (Study 1) and two online experiments (Studies 2 and 3), we demonstrate that blind-box (vs. certain) offerings heighten essence perception, driving purchase intent. Two boundary conditions—tourists’ religiosity and semantic framing (charitable purchase vs. donation-with-a-gift)—are examined to show when and why the blind-box design will be favored or disliked.
AggarwalP.McGillA. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 468–479. https://doi.org/10.1086/518544
ArbibM. A. (1992). Schema theory. Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, 2, 1427–1443.
4.
ArgoJ. J.DahlD. W.MoralesA. C. (2006). Consumer contamination: How consumers react to products touched by others. Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.2.081
5.
Balakrishnan NairB.DileepM. R. (2021). Drivers of spiritual tourism: A destination-specific approach. International Journal of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage, 9(5), 2. https://doi.org/10.21427/8VK2-JB56
BornemannT.HomburgC. (2011). Psychological distance and the dual role of price. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(3), 490–504. https://doi.org/10.1086/659874
8.
BriersB.PandelaereM.WarlopL. (2007). Adding exchange to charity: a reference price explanation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2005.12.001
BuechelE. C.LiR. (2023). Mysterious consumption: preference for horizontal (vs. vertical) uncertainty and the role of surprise. Journal of Consumer Research, 49(6), 987–1013. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucac039
11.
CastroI. A.MoralesA. C.NowlisS. M. (2013). The influence of disorganized shelf displays and limited product quantity on consumer purchase. Journal of Marketing, 77(4), 118–133. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0495
CloreG. L.ColcombeS. (2003). The parallel worlds of affective concepts and feelings. In MuschJ.KlauerK. C. (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 335–369). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606853-21
14.
ConverseB. A.RisenJ. L.CarterT. J. (2012). Investing in karma: When wanting promotes helping. Psychological Science, 23(8), 923–930. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612437248
D’ArcoM.MarinoV.RescinitiR. (2024). Stop business with Russia! Exploring the representation and perceived authenticity of corporate activism in response to Russia-Ukraine war. Italian Journal of Marketing, 2024(1), 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43039-023-00085-0
17.
DelenerN. (1990). The effects of religious factors on perceived risk in durable goods purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 7(3), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000002580
18.
DingD.BhattacharyaP. (2023). “Paying for surprise?”: A systematic review of factors and mechanisms driving mystery box transactions in e-commerce. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4350640 SS
19.
DoranC. J.NataleS. M. (2011). ἐμπάθɛια (Empatheia) and caritas: The role of religion in fair trade consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0533-y
20.
DubéJ.-P.LuoX.FangZ. (2017). Self-signaling and prosocial behavior: A cause marketing experiment. Marketing Science, 36(2), 161-186. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2016.1012
21.
EkinciY.Sirakaya-TurkE.PreciadoS. (2013). Symbolic consumption of tourism destination brands. Journal of Business Research, 66(6), 711–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.09.008
FuchsC.SchreierM.Van OsselaerS. M. J. (2015). The handmade effect: What’s love got to do with it?Journal of Marketing, 79(2), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0018
25.
GaoX.De HoogeI. E.FischerA. R. J. (2022). Something underneath? Using a within-subjects design to examine schema congruity theory at an individual level. Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services, 68, Article 102994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.102994
26.
GaoZ.LiuC. (2025). The effect of airline ticket blind box design on consumer’s impulsive purchase intention: the perspective of expectation confirmation theory. Current Issues in Tourism, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2025.2462159
HagtvedtH.PatrickV. M. (2008). Art infusion: The influence of visual art on the perception and evaluation of consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.3.379
29.
HalimM. S. A.TatogluE.HanefarS. B. M. (2021). A review of spiritual tourism: A conceptual model for future research. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 27(1), 119–141. https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.27.1.8
30.
HalimM. S.TatogluE.Mohamad HanefarS. B. (2021). A Review of Spiritual Tourism: A Conceptual model for future research. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 27(1), 119–141. https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.27.1.8
31.
HaqF.MedhekarA. (2019). Is spiritual tourism a peace vehicle for social transformation and economic prosperity in India and Pakistan? In ElHusseinA. U. (Ed.), Marketing peace for social transformation and global prosperity (pp. 189–211). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7464-4.ch010
32.
HartmannP.Apaolaza-IbáñezV. (2012). Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: The roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1254–1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.11.001
33.
HeidariA.YazdaniH. R.SaghafiF.JalilvandM. R. (2018). The perspective of religious and spiritual tourism research: a systematic mapping study. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 9(4), 747–798. https://doi.org/10.1108/jima-02-2017-0015
34.
HolmesJ. G.MillerD. T.LernerM. J. (2002). Committing altruism under the cloak of self-interest: The exchange fiction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2001.1494
35.
HouY.SunY.WanL. C.YangW. (2018). How can psychological contagion effect be attenuated? The role of boundary effect on menu design. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(4), 606–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348015619410
36.
HuJ.WanL. C. (2025). When travel blurs the self: The role of self-diagnosticity in tourist pay-what-you-want. Tourism Management, 106(105001), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2024.105001
37.
HuangJ. Y.AckermanJ. M.NewmanG. E. (2017). Catching (up with) magical contagion: A review of contagion effects in consumer contexts. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(4), 430–443. https://doi.org/10.1086/693533
38.
HwangY. H.ChoiS.MattilaA. S. (2021). Rounding up for a cause: The joint effect of donation type and crowding on donation likelihood. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 93, Article 102779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102779
39.
HyodoJ. D.BoltonL. E. (2021). How does religion affect consumer response to failure and recovery by firms?Journal of Consumer Research, 47(5), 807–828. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucaa043
40.
IlievD. (2020). The evolution of religious tourism: Concept, segmentation and development of new identities. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 45, 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.07.012
41.
JiaY.WyerR. S.Jr.ShenH. (2021). “Will you?” versus “can you?”: Verbal framing moderates the effect of feelings of power on consumers’ reactions to waiting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 27(2), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000336
42.
KayA. C.MoscovitchD. A.LaurinK. (2010). Randomness, attributions of arousal, and belief in God. Psychological Science, 21(2), 216–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609357750
43.
KimJ.NewmanG. E.FedotovaN. O.RozinP. (2023). The spiritual contagion scale: A measure of beliefs in the transfer of metaphysical properties. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 33(2), 412–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1331
44.
KimL. R.KimN. S. (2011). A proximity effect in adults’ contamination intuitions. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(3), 222–229. https://doi.org/10.1017/S193029750000142X
45.
KimP.ChangH. (2025). Let’s focus on the magic of an artist: the artist contagion effect on products that feature art. European Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-12-2022-0868
46.
KovachevaA.NikolovaH.LambertonC. (2022). Will he buy a surprise? Gender differences in the purchase of surprise offerings. Journal of Retailing, 98(4), 667–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2022.04.002
KulowK.KramerT. (2016). In Pursuit of Good Karma: When charitable appeals to do right go wrong. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(2), 334–353. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw018
49.
LaranJ.TsirosM. (2013). An investigation of the effectiveness of uncertainty in marketing promotions involving free gifts. Journal of Marketing, 77(2), 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0255
50.
LeeY. H.QiuC. (2009). When uncertainty brings pleasure: The role of prospect imageability and mental imagery. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4), 624–633. https://doi.org/10.1086/599766
51.
LinF.RyuK. (2023). How product design affects repurchase intention, eWOM, and museum visit intention: Museum mystery boxes in China. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 40(5), 434–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2023.2258154
LiuM.ChenX.ZhaoX.XuQ. (2024). How Perceived similarity between travel destinations and hometowns influences consumer experience in online travel blind boxes: The mediating role of the aha moment. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 19(4), 2765–2782. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19040133
MaC.FanA.RenL.XuA. (2025). Modeling customer choice behavior in hotel blind-box consumption. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 37(7), 2491–2512. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2024-1297
MathrasD.CohenA. B.MandelN.MickD. G. (2016). The effects of religion on consumer behavior: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(2), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.08.001
58.
MayerN. D.TormalaZ. L. (2010). “Think” versus “feel” framing effects in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(4), 443–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210362981
Meyers-LevyJ.TyboutA. M. (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1086/209192
61.
MiaoX.NiuB.YangC.FengY. (2023). Examining the gamified effect of the blindbox design: The moderating role of price. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 74, Article 103423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103423
62.
MillerD. T.GunasegaramS. (1990). Temporal order and the perceived mutability of events: Implications for blame assignment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1111–1119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1111
63.
MishraA.MishraH.NayakankuppamD. (2009). The group-contagion effect: The influence of spatial groupings on perceived contagion and preferences. Psychological Science, 20(7), 867–870. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02371.x
64.
MvondoG. F. N.JingF.HussainK. (2023). What’s in the box? Investigating the benefits and risks of the blind box selling strategy. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 71, Article 103189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103189
65.
NemeroffC.RozinP. (1994). The contagion concept in adult thinking in the United States: Transmission of germs and of interpersonal influence. Ethos, 22(2), 158–186. https://doi.org/10.1525/eth.1994.22.2.02a00020
66.
NewmanG. E.BloomP. (2014). Physical contact influences how much people pay at celebrity auctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(10), 3705–3708. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1313637111
67.
NewmanG. E.DharR. (2014). Authenticity is contagious: Brand essence and the original source of production. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(3), 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.11.0022
68.
NewmanG. E.ShenY. J. (2012). The counterintuitive effects of thank-you gifts on charitable giving. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(5), 973–983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.05.002
69.
NewmanG. E.DiesendruckG.BloomP. (2011). Celebrity contagion and the value of objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1086/658999
70.
PaceS. (2012). Does religion affect the materialism of consumers? An empirical investigation of Buddhist ethics and the resistance of the self. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1228-3
71.
PaceS. (2013). Does religion affect the materialism of consumers? An empirical investigation of Buddhist ethics and the resistance of the self. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1228-3
72.
PatrickV. M.HagtvedtH. (2012). “I don’t” versus “I can’t”: When empowered refusal motivates goal-directed behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 371–381. https://doi.org/10.1086/663212
73.
QiuZ.ChenS.LawR.ZhangM. (2024). How to utilize the information gap for blind box marketing better: evidence from plane tickets. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 29(8), 961–978. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2024.2350405
74.
RenL.MaC. (2023). Planning the unplannable—How blind box tourism boosts purchase intentions. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 30(4), 744–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/13567667231168643
75.
RisenJ. L.GilovichT. (2008). Why people are reluctant to tempt fate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.293
76.
RossanoM. J. (2008). The moral faculty: Does religion promote “moral expertise”?. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 18(3), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508610802115727
77.
RozinP.MillmanL.NemeroffC. (1986). Operation of the laws of sympathetic magic in disgust and other domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(4), 703–712. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000899
78.
RuddM.AakerJ.NortonM. I. (2014). Getting the most out of giving: Concretely framing a prosocial goal maximizes happiness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.04.002
79.
SavaniK.StephensN. M.MarkusH. R. (2011). The unanticipated interpersonal and societal consequences of choice: Victim blaming and reduced support for the public good. Psychological Science, 22(6), 795–802. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611402515
80.
SavaryJ.GoldsmithK.DharR. (2015). Giving against the odds: When tempting alternatives increase willingness to donate. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0244
81.
SavaryJ.LiC. X.NewmanG. E. (2020). Exalted purchases or tainted donations: Self signaling and the evaluation of charitable incentives. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30(4). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3515689
82.
ShackleyM. (2005). Service delivery at sacred sites; potential contribution of management science. European Journal of Science and Theology, 1(4), 33–40. https://ejst.tuiasi.ro/Files/04/33-40Shackley.pdf
83.
ShawD.ThomsonJ. (2013). Consuming spirituality: the pleasure of uncertainty. European Journal of Marketing, 47(3/4), 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561311297454
84.
ShepherdS.KayA. C. (2018). Guns as a source of order and chaos: Compensatory control and the psychological (dis)utility of guns for liberals and conservatives. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 3(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2018.1556225
85.
ShihL. C.LinH. C. (2024). Background color influences consumer evaluations: Is there a product contagion effect?Journal of Food Quality, 2024(9118303), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/jfq/9118303
86.
SmithR. K.NewmanG. E.DharR. (2015). Closer to the creator: Temporal contagion explains the preference for earlier serial numbers. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(5), 653–668. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv054
87.
StavrovaO.NewmanG. E.KulemannA.FetchenhauerD. (2016). Contamination without contact: An examination of intention-based contagion. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(6), 554–571. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500004770
88.
SuL.SenguptaJ.LiY.ChenF. (2024). “Want” versus “need”: How linguistic framing influences responses to crowdfunding appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 50(5), 923–944. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucad033
89.
TappataM. E.CossaR. (2014). Price discrimination 2.0: Opaque bookings in the hotel industry. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2309622
90.
TerzidouM. (2020). Re-materialising the religious tourism experience: A post-human perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 83s, Article 102924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102924
91.
Torres-LapasióJ. R.García-Álvarez-CoqueM. C. (2006). Levels in the interpretive optimisation of selectivity in highperformance liquid chromatography: A magical mystery tour. Journal of Chromatography A, 1120(1–2), 308–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2006.03.008
92.
van GervenD.Land-ZandstraA.DamsmaW. (2018). Authenticity matters: Children look beyond appearances in their appreciation of museum objects. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8(4), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2018.1497218
WangP. X.WangY.JiangY. (2023). Gift or donation? Increase the effectiveness of charitable solicitation through framing charitable giving as a gift. Journal of Marketing, 87(1), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429221081506
95.
WhorfB. L. (1956). Language and logic. In J. B.Carroll (Ed.), Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (pp. 233–245). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3080.003.0047
96.
WillsonG. B.McIntoshA. J.ZahraA. L. (2013). Tourism and spirituality: A phenomenological analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 150–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.01.016
WohlM. J.EnzleM. E. (2002). The deployment of personal luck: Sympathetic magic and illusory control in games of pure chance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(10), 1388–1397. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702236870
99.
XiongL.HuJ.GursoyD.LiuY. (2023). Hotel philanthropy and brand attitudes: Can donation type and amount influence customers’ warmth perceptions and attitudes?Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 56, 376–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.07.008
XueJ.MattilaA. S. (2022). Instant Karma: How the karmic-investment mindset affects customer engagement with corporate charitable giving requests. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 48(4), 770–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/10963480221137779
102.
YanH.WangL.XiongH. (2024). Would the blind box be more effective? The role of uncertainty in consumers’ post-recovery satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 59, 86–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2024.04.006
103.
YangY.JiangL.SchwartzZ. (2019). Who’s hiding? Room rate discounts in opaque distribution channels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 80, 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.02.001
104.
YooD.KimJ. A.DohS. J. (2018). The dual processing of donation size in cause-related marketing (CRM): The moderating roles of construal level and emoticons. Sustainability, 10(11), Article 4219. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114219
105.
ZhangY. (2022). Uncertainty-Seeking in Purchasing Mysterious Products: The Mediating Effect of Sensation-Seeking (Doctoral dissertation, Auckland University of Technology).
106.
ZhangY.ZhangT. (2022). The effect of blind box product uncertainty on consumers’ purchase intention: The mediating role of perceived value and the moderating role of purchase intention. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.946527
107.
ZhongX.WangY. (2025). The dark side of mobile payments: the effect of mobile payments on tourists’ donation intentions in religious tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2025.2504525
108.
ZhuG.HeY.ZhenR.GongJ. (2023, June2–4, ). A research on the “mystery box economy” from the perspective of the play theory of mass communication: A case study of Pop Mart. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Information Economy, Data Modeling and Cloud Computing (ICIDC 2023), Nanchang, China. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.2-6-2023.2334657
109.
ZlatevJ. J.MillerD. T. (2016). Selfishly benevolent or benevolently selfish: When self-interest undermines versus promotes prosocial behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 137, 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.08.004
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
