Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Despite the increasing interest in eudaimonic tourism experiences in recent years, research in tourism studies is fragmented. In addition, studies most often lack conceptualization, not clarifying whether the construct refers to state or trait level and what psychological mechanism is analysed, whether experience, functioning, behaviour or motivation. This pilot study aims to contribute to a better understanding of eudaimonia in tourism experiences by proposing the construct of Eudaimonic Feelings as a proxy for eudaimonia. Eudaimonic Feelings is considered a state-level construct defined as the cognitive-affective appraisals towards self-fulfilment, authenticity, truthful social interactions, and personal meaningfulness concerning a tourism experience. Adopting a multi-item approach, items found in prior research were adapted to explore and measure Eudaimonic Feelings through a survey using a convenience sample. Results support data unidimensionality, items’ reliability, and construct robustness and replicability.

Keywords

Tourism experience eudaimonia eudaimonic tourism experience preliminary internal validation robust factor analysis

Introduction

The search for experiences is the raison d'être of tourism (Tung and Ritchie, 2011). This may explain why the study of the tourism experience remains to this day one of the most robust and important streams in tourism research as evidence consistently points to the tourists’ need to seek experiences (Chirakranont and Sakdiyakorn, 2022; Bloomstervik et al., 2020). Current tourists seek memorable experiences not only because they elicit positive emotions, but also because they allow them to feel authentic and aligned with self-development expectations (Hosany et al., 2022). Thus, there is need to better understand what characterizes the experiences that respond to tourists' experiential needs beyond pleasure. As a result, an exploration of the theoretical underpinnings of the tourism experience is proposed based on existing studies in psychology that discuss the search for experiences as rooted in the individual’s needs for authenticity and self-development and that only recently has sparked wider interest in the tourism academia.

Eudaimonia has been discussed in the sub-field of Positive Psychology (PP) as complementary to hedonia in the study of well-being (Demeter et al., 2022). While hedonia examines feelings and emotions, such as pleasure, enjoyment, satisfaction, and absence of pain/discomfort, eudaimonia analyses facets of human experience related to authenticity, meaningfulness, excellence, personal growth, and maturing (Huta, 2022). There is a growing interest in PP concepts and theories in tourism academia (Vada et al., 2020; Filep and Laing, 2018). However, application of PP theoretical frameworks in tourism studies is fragmented (Vada et al., 2020). Different measures are used as proxies for the same constructs, hindering comparisons across studies (Demeter, et al., 2022). In addition, conceptualizations of hedonia and eudaimoniaoften fail to clarify whether they apply to feelings/experience, or way of functioning, or behaviour or orientation/motivation (Demeter et al., 2022; Huta, 2022).

This limitation in conceptualization is highlighted by Demeter et al. (2022), who recently proposed pairs of definitions of hedonia and eudaimonia both as experience and orientation/motivation. Each definition in a pair is conceptualized as state or trait, following Huta and Waterman’s (2014) classification. In their study, authors concluded that both the hedonic and eudaimonic state/experience and orientation/motivation are higher in the vacation context than at home. However, the study’s research design did not include respondents in actual tourism settings, but self-reports of hypothetical scenarios related to vacation and everyday life at home. In addition, each construct was measured by a single-item.

Because of practical advantages, single-item measures are appealing for researchers (Demeter et al., 2022). Studies concluding the validity of single-item measures for concrete constructs (Bergkvist and Rossiter, 2007) encourage the adoption of single-item measures in social science research. Still, only under very specific conditions do single-item measures perform equally well as multi-item scales (Diamantopoulos et al., 2012). As a consequence, multi-item scales for measuring complex constructs are the recommended approach (Diamantopoulos et al., 2012).

Aiming at mitigating fragmentation in empirical research concerning the eudaimonic tourism experience, this study proposes the construct Eudaimonic Feelings (EF) as a proxy for eudaimonia based on the following assumptions: (i) authenticity/self-actualization is the core element of eudaimonia, directly related to true self (Smallenbroek et al., 2016; Schlegel et al., 2016); (ii) positive feelings should accompany eudaimonic activities (Waterman et al., 2008); (iii) tourism experiences are mediated by social interactions that provide a sense of community (Kirillova et al., 2017; Campos, Mendes, do Valle, and Scott, 2016); (iv) when one jointly experiences being self-actualized, socially connected, and authentic, a sense of life purpose and meaningfulness arises (Kirillova et al., 2016; Steiner and Reisinger, 2006).

Accordingly, EF is here defined as the cognitive-affective appraisals (subjective feelings) towards self-fulfilment, authenticity, truthful social interactions, and personal meaningfulness concerning a tourism experience. As such, the construct is conceptualised and analysed at state level or situational (Huta, 2022), when tourists engage in self-expressiveness activities in situations of disconnection from familiar social structures and routine-based roles.

Adopting a multi-item approach, items found in prior research were adapted to explore and measure EF. As EF is here considered as a broad sense of self, it is hypothesized that EF item’s structure is unidimensional. A pilot survey was conducted to a sample of attendees to a regional film festival in Brazil. The analysis examined preliminary construct validity based on internal structure (AERA, 2014). Results support data unidimensionality, items’ reliability, and construct robustness and replicability, pointing to a promising construct to be refined and used in future studies in tourism.

Methods

Data collection and analysis

In this study, a survey was conducted applying a self-administered questionnaire using a convenience sample of attendees at Penedo Film Circuit 2021, Brazil, during the last 3 days of the event (November 26–28, 2021). Items included were adapted from previous studies as follows: (i) authenticity/self-actualization feelings (Medeiros et al., 2020; Zatori et al., 2018); (ii) social interaction feelings (Zhang et al., 2021; Bloomstervik et al., 2020); (iii) recovery/refreshment feelings (Kim and Ritchie, 2014); and (iv) meaningfulness feelings (Medeiros et al., 2020; Wei et al., 2019; Lengieza et al., 2019). A five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) was used to measure all items.

A total of 97 valid questionnaires were collected with no missing answers. The sample size follows the recommendations of at least five responses per item (Hair et al., 2014). Significance of Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests verified non-normality for all variables. Given data characteristics, the following procedures were requested for robust exploratory factor analysis: ordinal data were factor analysed through polychoric correlations matrix, and Robust Diagonally Weighted Least Squares (RDWLS) as the method for factor extraction (DiStefano and Morgan, 2014); optimal implementation of parallel analysis (Timmerman and Lorenzo-Seva, 2011) was the procedure for determining the number of dimensions; robust promin was the rotation method to achieve factor simplicity (Lorenzo-Seva and Ferrando, 2019); robust analyses trough bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) (Lambert et al., 1991) was adopted, with the number of bootstrap samples of 500. Data analysis procedures were running in the Factor^TM software (Ferrando and Lorenzo-Seva, 2017), version 12.01.02.

Three indices assessed the closeness to unidimensionality (Ferrando and Lorenzo-Seva, 2018): Unidimensional Congruence (UniCo), Explained Common Variance (ECV), and Mean of Item REsidual Absolute Loadings (MIREAL). Composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha assessed reliability. RMSEA, CFI, and TLI assessed model fit (Brown, 2015). H indices assessed factor stability and replicability (Ferrando and Lorenzo-Seva, 2018). Four indicators assessed the quality and effectiveness of factor score estimates: Factor Determinacy Index (FDI), EAP marginal reliability (EAP), Sensitivity Ratio (SR), and Expected Percentage of True Differences (EPTD) (Ferrando and Lorenzo-Seva, 2018).

Finally, Item Response Theory (IRT) using Reckase’s parameterization evaluated items' discrimination (a-parameter) and items' difficulty (b-parameter). The b-parameter informs the latent trait level (θ) that is best measured by the item and the likely probability of expected response (Reckase, 2009). The b-parameter is interpreted as the point on θ where a respondent has a 0.5 probability of endorsing a particular response category (Bean and Bowen, 2021). The a-parameter indicates the item discriminating power to differentiate between subjects with high and low levels of latent trait (Reckase, 2009). The Factor^TM package provides for this analysis.

Results

Analysis of the Mardia’s multivariate asymmetry skewness and kurtosis confirmed that data are non-normal (p < 0.05). Bartlett’s sphericity test (1022.7, df = 171, p < 0.000) and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin sample adequacy test (KMO = 0.875) suggested interpretability of the correlation matrix. Parallel analysis suggested a single factor. Items' factor loadings ranged between 0.713 and 0.878. Composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha found high items' reliability. High items' factor loading and reliability in addition to low number of factors and high number of variables lessen sample size concerns for exploratory factor analysis (Kyriazos, 2018; De Winter, Dodou, and Wieringa, 2009). Closeness to unidimensionality is verified, as well as factor replicability, suggesting a well-defined latent variable. Quality and effectiveness of factor score estimates is also verified. Fit indices found the model empirical plausibility.

From results of IRT, discrimination parameter (a) showed that the six most discriminative items of the proposed construct were REF2 (a = 1.837), MEA5 (a = 1.688), SOC1 (a = 1.603), MEA4 (a = 1.536), SOC4 (a = 1.503), and AUT4 (a = 1.503). Concerning the items’ difficulty categories (b), with the exception of 4 items (SOC1; SOC2; SOC4; and, AUT4), the thresholds showed expected response pattern, i.e., the higher the scale response category, the higher the level of latent trait needed to endorse it. The thresholds of the 4 items aforementioned as exceptions indicate that only from threshold 3–4 the needed level of latent trait enough for endorsement is reached. Table 1 shows results obtained.

Table 1.

Factor structure, reliability, model fit, and IRT parametrization.

Item	Factor loading	90% CI for loading values	a	b
Item	Factor loading	90% CI for loading values	a	t _1-2	t _2-3	t _3-4	t _4-5
It was meaningful to me [MEA1]	0.717	[0.602; 0.829]	1.029	−2.603	−2.421	−1.045	0.018
It was a liberating experience [REF1]	0.827	[0.751; 0.905]	1.469	−2.800	−2.259	−0.749	0.173
I Met interesting people [SOC1]	0.848	[0.786; 0.914]	1.603	−2.728	−2.728	−1.009	0.076
I felt fully at ease to be myself [AUT1]	0.825	[0.764; 0.898]	1.461	−2.806	−1.866	−0.993	0.078
I found myself in this experience [MEA2]	0.803	[0.733; 0.869]	1.349	−2.161	−1.648	−0.409	0.243
I found out more about who I am [MEA3]	0.829	[0.774; 0.903]	1.482	−1.857	−1.395	−0.267	0.566
I enjoyed a sense of freedom [REF2]	0.878	[0.848; 0.931]	1.837	−1.753	−1.581	−0.501	0.406
I Made new friends [SOC2]	0.831	[0.782; 0.898]	1.494	−2.456	−2.456	−1.076	−0.016
I felt free to express my beliefs and values [AUT2]	0.713	[0.611; 0.806]	1.017	−2.435	−2.158	−0.824	0.311
It contributed to my personal development [MEA4]	0.838	[0.766; 0.914]	1.536	−2.762	−1.945	−1.022	−0.108
It was refreshing [REF3]	0.800	[0.732; 0.880]	1.336	−2.169	−1.923	−0.773	0.377
It helped me to grow as a human being [MEA5]	0.860	[0.822; 0.917]	1.688	−2.170	−1.895	−0.719	0.045
I had fun with friends [SOC3]	0.778	[0.671; 0.871]	1.240	−2.974	−2.622	−1.624	−0.353
I felt free to behave as I truly am [AUT3]	0.803	[0.723; 0.875]	1.348	−2.541	−2.325	−0.770	0.145
I had moments of wondering about life purpose [MEA6]	0.793	[0.700; 0.862]	1.304	−2.353	−1.840	−0.627	0.380
I felt connected to other people [SOC4]	0.832	[0.786; 0.895]	1.503	−2.086	−2.086	−1.221	0.140
I identified with the event proposition [AUT4]	0.833	[0.759; 0.895]	1.503	−2.780	−2.780	−0.984	0.109
I felt relaxed with other people [SOC5]	0.791	[0.701; 0.865]	1.294	−2.926	−2.580	−1.341	0.180
I engaged in activities that represent who I am [MEA7]	0.788	[0.704; 0.860]	1.278	−2.592	−2.070	−0.909	0.281
Composite reliability^a	0.973
Standardized Cronbach’s alpha^a	0.971
χ²	183.044; df = 152; p < 0.05
RMSEA^b	0.046; BC bootstrap 90% CI: [0.000; 0.062]
CFI^c	0.997
TLI^c	0.997
UniCo^d	0.993
ECV^d	0.914
MIREAL^d	0.216
H-latent^e	0.975
H-observed^e	0.944
FDI^f	0.987
Eap^f	0.975
SR^f	6.201
EPTD^f	97.3%

^aCutoff criteria: values ≥0.70.

^bCutoff criteria: RMSEA <0.06, with the upper limit of the confidence interval not reaching 0.10.

^cCutoff criteria: values >0.90.

^dUniCo > 0.95, ECV >0.85, and MIREAL <0.30 suggest that data can be treated as unidimensional.

^eH ≥ 0.80 suggest a well-defined latent variable, which is more likely to be stable across studies.

^fRecommended values: FDI >0.90; EAP >0.80; SR >2; EPTD >90%.

Discussion and conclusion

Due to its centrality in tourism practice, the study of the tourism experience continues to capture researchers’ attention, with evidence of new avenues being explored to this day. One such avenue links to the recognition of the importance of eudaimonia in the tourism context. This pilot study proposes a first approach to state-level conceptualization of the EF construct, shedding light on the fragmented research stream on eudaimonia (Demeter et al., 2022; Huta, 2022), therefore contributing to theory advancement. Conceptualization of EF as a state-level construct assumes that experiences (state-level) are psychological processes distinct from orientations and behaviours (trait-level) (Huta, 2014, 2022). Depending on how eudaimonia is conceptualized (whether orientation, behaviour, or experience) and measured (global or situational), the extent to which it is different from hedonia varies (Huta, 2022) and, at state-level, they are distinct constructs (Huta, 2022).

The results provide support to the exploration of the EF construct in the context of the tourism experience. Preliminary results show that the items' one-factor structure support EF as a broad sense of self, capturing four feelings (recovery and relief, truthful social interaction, self-fulfilment and authenticity, and meaningfulness) as perceived by the individual when appraising the experience. The study theoretically contributes to research in the tourism experience stream of research by proposing a comprehensive definition of EF as a proxy of eudaimonia that reflects tourists’ needs to experience authenticity and self-development during tourism activities, which is theoretically distinct from the hedonic experience. The construct may apply to a wide variety of tourism contexts.

Recent research argued for the link between tourism, personal growth, authenticity, and self-identity (Liu and Kirillova, 2021; McKay et al., 2019; Layland and Nelson, 2018; Grabowski et al., 2017; Hirschorn and Hefferon, 2013; Bagnoli, 2009). Future studies are expected to explore aspects of self-identity related to the tourism experience. Authors claim that conceptualization of EF is a first step in that direction.

As this is a preliminary study, the research presents limitations that will be overcome in a posterior stage. Despite item’s reliability and quality of factor score estimates, in addition to robustness of construct replicability, the small sample size imposes limits to generalization. Moreover, items are capable of measuring low to medium levels of the construct, failing in capturing higher levels of the latent trait. Aiming to build an accurate and valid measure for EF, future research should examine the stability of the one-factor item’s structure in larger and heterogeneous samples, preferably in different tourist settings, in addition to include new items

Assumedly capable of measuring higher levels of the construct. In order to do that, IRT models are strongly recommended as complementary data analysis to confirmatory factor analysis.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by National Funds provided by FCT, the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology through project UIDB/04020/2020.

ORCID iDs

Ana Cláudia Campos

Lara Brunelle Almeida Freitas

Author Biographies

Sandro Alves de Medeiros holds a PhD in Business Administration from the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. He is Full Professor at Federal University of Alagoas, Brazil. In this institution he leads the research group Competurhs, Competitiveness, Marketing and Innovation in Tourism, Hospitality and Services.

Ana Cláudia Campos holds a PhD in Tourism, a MA in Tourism Management, and a BA in Philosophy.Currently, she is Assistant Researcher at CinTurs, the Research Centre for Tourism, Sustainabilityand Well-being, Universidade do Algarve, Portugal. Her current research interests are in tourism marketing, tourism experience, tourist psychology and co-creation.

Lara Brunelle Almeida Freitas has graduated in Tourism, holds a Master in Tourism from the Federal Institute of Sergipe, Brazil, and is a PhD student in Regional Development and Agribusiness at State University of Western Paraná, Brazil. Currently, she is a researcher at the Tourism Group of Federal University of Alagoas and at CAPES, the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, Brazil. She lectures at the State University of Mato Grosso do Sul, Dourados. Brazil.

Tiago Savi Mondo graduated in Tourism and Hospitality and in Physical Education. His specialization is in Project Management. He holds a Master and a PhD in Administration and also a Post-Doctorate in Tourism. He is Full Professor at the Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Santa Catarina, Brazil, and Permanent Professor in the Master Program in Tourism at the Fluminense Federal University, Brazil.

Erose Sthapit is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Marketing, Retail and Tourism at Manchester Metropolitan University. His research interests includes memorable tourism experience, interactive value formation and Airbnb. He has published in different tourism and hospitality journals, such as Journal of Travel Research and International Journal of Hospitality Management.

References

AERA – American Educational Research Association (2014) American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. In: Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Bagnoli

(2009) On ‘An introspective journey’: identities and travel in young people’s lives. European Societies 11(3): 325–345. DOI: 10.1080/14616690902764674

Bean

Bowen

(2021) Item response theory and confirmatory factor analysis: complementary approaches for scale development. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work 18(6): 597–618. DOI: 10.1080/26408066.2021.1906813

Bergkvist

Rossiter

(2007) The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 44(2): 175–184. DOI: 10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175

Blomstervik

Prebensen

Campos

, et al. (2020) Novelty in tourism experiences: the influence of physical staging and human interaction on behavioural intentions. Current Issues in Tourism 24(20): 2921–2938. DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2020.1854197

Brown

(2015) Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. 2nd edition. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Campos

Mendes

do Valle

, et al. (2016) Co-creation experiences: attention and memorability. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 33(9): 1309–1336. DOI: 10.1080/10548408.2015.1118424

Chirakranont

Sakdiyakorn

(2022) Conceptualizing meaningful tourism experiences: case study of a small craft beer brewery in Thailand. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 23: 100691. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2022.100691

de Winter

JCF

Dodou

Wieringa

(2009) Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research 44(2): 147–181. DOI: 10.1080/00273170902794206

10.

Demeter

MacInnes

Dolnicar

(2022) Defining and Operationalizing Eight Forms of Eudaimonia and Hedonia and Assessing Tourism-Specific Context-Dependency. Journal of Travel Research 0(0): 1–12. DOI: 10.1177/00472875221133042

11.

Diamantopoulos

Sarstedt

Fuchs

, et al. (2012) Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40(3): 434–449. DOI: 10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3

12.

DiStefano

Morgan

(2014) A comparison of diagonal weighted least squares robust estimation techniques for ordinal data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 21(3): 425–438. DOI: 10.1080/10705511.2014.915373

13.

Ferrando

Lorenzo-Seva

(2017) Program FACTOR at 10: origins, development and future directions. Psicothema 29(2): 236–240. DOI: 10.7334/psicothema2016.304

14.

Ferrando

Lorenzo-Seva

(2018) Assessing the quality and appropriateness of factor solutions and factor score estimates in exploratory item factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 78(5): 762–780. DOI: 10.1177/0013164417719308

15.

Filep

Laing

(2018) Trends and directions in tourism and positive psychology. Journal of Travel Research 58(3): 343–354. DOI: 10.1177/0047287518759227

16.

Grabowski

Wearing

Lyons

, et al (2017) A rite of passage? Exploring youth transformation and global citizenry in the study abroad experience. Tourism Recreation Research 42(2): 139–149. DOI: 10.1080/02508281.2017.1292177

17.

Hair

Black

Babin

, et al. (2014) Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

18.

Hirschorn

Hefferon

(2013) Leaving it all behind to travel: venturing uncertainty as a means to personal growth and authenticity. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 53(3): 283–306. DOI: 10.1177/0022167813483007

19.

Hosany

Sthapit

Björk

(2022) Memorable tourism experience: a review and research agenda. Psychology and Marketing 39(8): 1467–1486. DOI: 10.1002/mar.21665

20.

Huta

(2022) How distinct are eudaimonia and hedonia? It depends on how they are measured. Journal of Well-Being Assessment 4(3): 511–537. DOI: 10.1007/s41543-021-00046-4

21.

Huta

Waterman

(2014) Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies 15(6): 1425–1456. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-013-9485-0

22.

Kim

J-H

Ritchie

JRB

(2014) Cross-cultural validation of a memorable tourism experience scale (MTES). Journal of Travel Research 53(3): 323–335. DOI: 10.1177/0047287513496468

23.

Kirillova

Lehto

Cai

(2016) Tourism and existential transformation: an empirical investigation. Journal of Travel Research 56(5): 638–650. DOI: 10.1177/0047287516650277

24.

Kirillova

Lehto

Cai

(2017) What triggers transformative tourism experiences? Tourism Recreation Research 42(4): 498–511. DOI: 10.1080/02508281.2017.1342349

25.

Kyriazos

(2018) Applied psychometrics: sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology 09(8): 2207–2230. DOI: 10.4236/psych.2018.98126

26.

Lambert

Wildt

Durand

(1991) Approximating confidence intervals for factor loadings. Multivariate Behavioral Research 26(3): 421–434. DOI: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2603_3

27.

Layland

Hill

Nelson

(2018) Freedom to explore the self: how emerging adults use leisure to develop identity. The Journal of Positive Psychology 13: 78–91. DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2017.1374440

28.

Lengieza

Hunt

Swim

(2019) Measuring eudaimonic travel experiences. Annals of Tourism Research 74: 195–197. DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2018.05.002

29.

Liu

Kirillova

(2021) The formative nature of graduation travel. Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights 2: 100029. DOI: 10.1016/j.annale.2021.100029

30.

Lorenzo-Seva

Ferrando

(2019) Robust Promin: a method for diagonally weighted factor rotation. Liberabit: Revista Peruana de Psicología 25(1): 99–106. DOI: 10.24265/liberabit.2019.v25n1.08

31.

McKay

Lannegrand-Willems

Skues

, et al. (2019) Emerging adult identity development during sojourn experiences: theoretical suggestions and new research opportunities. Psicologia Sociale 2: 205–234. DOI: 10.1482/94266

32.

Medeiros

Gonçalves

Veiga

, et al. (2020) A viagem que mais contribuiu para quem eu sou: explorando as dimensões da Experiência Turística Eudaimônica. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Turismo 14(1): 14–33.

33.

Reckase

(2009) Multidimensional Item Response Theory. New York, NY: Springer.

34.

Schlegel

Hicks

Christy

(2016) The eudaimonics of the true self. In: Vittersø

(ed), Handbook of Eudaimonic Well-Being. Cham: Springer, pp. 205–213. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3_14

35.

Smallenbroek

Zelenski

Whelan

(2016) Authenticity as a eudaimonic construct: the relationships among authenticity, values, and valence. The Journal of Positive Psychology 12(2): 197–209. DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2016.1187198

36.

Steiner

Reisinger

(2006) Understanding existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research 33(2): 299–318. DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2005.08.002

37.

Timmerman

Lorenzo-Seva

(2011) Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods 16(2): 209–220. DOI: 10.1037/a0023353

38.

Tung

VWS

Ritchie

(2011) Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences. Annals of Tourism Research 38(4): 1367–1386. DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2011.03.009

39.

Vada

Prentice

Scott

, et al. (2020) Positive psychology and tourist well-being: a systematic literature review. Tourism Management Perspectives 33: 100631. DOI: 10.1016/j.tmp.2019.10063

40.

Waterman

Schwartz

Conti

(2008) The implications of two conceptions of happiness (hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia) for the understanding of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Happiness Studies 9(1): 41–79. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-006-9020-7

41.

Wei

Zhao

Zhang

, et al. (2019) Psychological factors affecting memorable tourism experiences. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 24(7): 619–632. DOI: 10.1080/10941665.2019.1611611

42.

Zatori

Smith

Puczko

(2018) Experience involvement, memorability and authenticity: the service provider's effect on tourist experience. Tourism Management 67: 111–126. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2017.12.013

43.

Zhang

Park

K-S

Song

(2021) Tourists’ motivation, place attachment, satisfaction and support behavior for festivals in the migrant region of China. Sustainability, 13(9): 1–15. Doi:10.3390/su13095210

Capturing eudaimonic feelings in tourism experience: A construct proposal and preliminary empirical evidence

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Data collection and analysis

Results

Discussion and conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Author Biographies

References