Examining The Key Dimensions of Customer Experience Quality in The Hotel Industry

Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management
ISSN: 1936-8623 (Print) 1936-8631 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm20
Examining the key dimensions of customer

experience quality in the hotel industry
Ibrahim Alnawas & Jane Hemsley-Brown
To cite this article: Ibrahim Alnawas & Jane Hemsley-Brown (2019): Examining the key
dimensions of customer experience quality in the hotel industry, Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, DOI: 10.1080/19368623.2019.1568339
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2019.1568339
Published online: 18 Feb 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 12
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=whmm20
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2019.1568339
Examining the key dimensions of customer experience quality

in the hotel industry
a b
Ibrahim Alnawas and Jane Hemsley-Brown
a
Qatar University; bUniversity of Surrey
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Prior research examining the concept of customer experience quality Experience quality; hotel
(CEQ) is inconclusive and incoherent regarding the number and the industry
nature of experiences in the context of the hotel industry. Some
studies conceptualise CEQ based on the sensations created by and
the knowledge acquired from specific encounters, while others con-
ceptualise it based on interaction with physical and social environ-
ments. Therefore, the key objective of this paper is to theoretically
identify and empirically test the key dimensions of CEQ in the hotel
industry through combining the major perspectives of CEQ. An
online survey was used to collect the required data from 420 custo-
mers. A structural equation model (AMOS 18) was used to analyse the
data. Three findings emerge from the current study. First: this study
provides sound empirical support for CEQ as a high-order construct
that is comprised of seven first-order factors. Second, the current
research suggests that the measurement instrument for CEQ, which
consists of 33 items, is a valid and reliable using the following factors:
emotional-related experiences; staff-customer interaction, customer-
customer interaction; learning; lifestyle; guest security; and atmo-
spherics. Third, the proposed measurement instrument of CEQ
strongly predicts customer satisfaction, perceived value and brand
loyalty. The key contribution of this study stems from developing and
validating a 33-item scale that synthesises and integrates the major
perspectives of CEQ.
摘要
先前的研究检验了顾客体验质量（CEQ）的概念，对于酒店业背景
下的体验数量和性质是不确定和不连贯的.一些研究基于特定遭遇产
生的感觉和获得的知识来概念化客户体验质量，而另一些研究基于
与物理和社会环境的互动来概念化客户体验质量.因此，本文的主要
目的是结合顾客体验质量的主要观点，从理论上对酒店业顾客体验
质量的关键维度进行识别和实证检验.一项在线调查被用来从420个
客户那里收集所需的数据.利用结构方程模型（AMOS 18）对数据进
行了分析.目前的研究有三个发现.第一：本研究为七个一阶因子构
成的高阶结构的顾客体验质量提供了可靠的实证支持.第二，目前的
研究表明，由33项组成的顾客体验质量测量仪是一种有效、可靠的
测量工具，它利用了以下因素：情感相关体验、员工与顾客的互
动、顾客与顾客的互动、学习、生活方式、顾客安全和氛围.第三，
提出的顾客体验质量测量工具对顾客满意度、感知价值和品牌忠诚
度有很强的预测作用.本研究的主要贡献来自开发和验证一个综合并
整合客户体验质量主要观点的33项量表.
CONTACT Ibrahim Alnawas ialnawas@qu.edu.qa Qatar University

Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/whmm.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 I. ALNAWAS AND J. HEMSLEY-BROWN
Introduction
The marketing paradigm has changed dramatically over the last three decades. As such, the
focus of marketing practices has shifted from creating and selling fast moving consumer
goods (i.e. product marketing), to developing customer relationships through service mar-
keting (i.e. service-based relationship marketing), and more recently to crafting holistic
customer experiences (Maklan & Klaus, 2011). Accordingly, in the service sector in parti-
cular, the focus has moved from service quality (SQ) to customer experience quality (CEQ).
The former focuses on a transaction-specific assessment (Voss, Roth, & Chase, 2008) and
concert cues, which are more technical in nature than experiential (Parasuraman, Zeithaml,
& Malhorta, 2005), emphasises primarily the cognitive aspects in the service provider-
customer relationship (Chang and Horng, 2010), assumes that quality arises from delivering
the promised embedded-value in a product/service at the moment of exchange (Lemke,
Clark, & Wilson, 2011), and assesses services against expectations (Cronin & Taylor, 1992).
On the other hand, CEQ is subjectively evaluated (Chang and Horng, 2010), focuses on both
cognitive and emotional elements in the service provider-customer relationship (Klaus &
Maklan, 2012), takes into account peer-to-peer interaction (Ali, Amin, & Cobanoglu, 2016),
stresses value-in-use sought by customers’ deeper needs – i.e. value created by customers in
use, not just the attributes of product and service delivery (Lemke et al., 2011) – takes place
before and after the service encounter(s) (Klaus and Maklan, 2007), considers both direct
and indirect encounters with a firm (Kim & Choi, 2013), and is created by elements which
service providers can control as well as elements outside their control (e.g. influence of
others, purpose of shopping) (Verhoef et al., 2009).
In the hotel industry, the services provided are hedonic in nature and the outcome of
consuming such services is mainly psychological (Hemmington, 2007; Walls, Okumus, &
Wang, 2011a). Such characteristics lead the sector to be among the experience-intensive
services (Yoon & Lee, 2017). As customers are highly involved in hotel services (Wall
et al., 2011c), this makes examining the concept of CEQ in the hotel industry of both
theoretical and managerial importance. To further enhance our understanding of the
topic, a growing number of researchers have devoted their efforts towards examining
the concept of CEQ in various service industries in general (Brakus, Schmitt, &
Zarantonello, 2009; Chang and Horng, 2010; Choi, Wilson, & Fowler, 2013; Kim &
Choi, 2013; Srivastava & Kaul, 2016), and in the hospitality and tourism industry, in
particular (see Table 1). Although previous studies in the context of hospitality and
tourism have been instrumental in advancing our understanding of the different aspects
of CEQ, more research is required for the following two reasons.
First, some of the previous studies were either conceptual (Adhikari & Bhattacharya,
2016; Tung & Ritchie, 2011; Walls et al., 2011a; Walls, Okumus, Wang, Joon, & Kwun,
2011b) or qualitative (Huang, Liu, & Hsu, 2014; Klaus & Maklan, 2013; Lindberg &
Østergaard, 2015; Stein & Ramaseshan, 2016; Walls et al., 2011c), justifying the need for
further research in order to clarify and verify issues related to the nature and the
components of the CEQ, particularly in a hospitality and tourism setting. Second, some
studies focus primarily on emotions and sensations created by experiences and knowledge
acquired from specific encounters (e.g. Chang & Lin, 2015; Hosany and Gilbert, 2010; Jin,
Lee, & Lee, 2015; Kao, Huang, & Wu, 2008), and ignore issues related to interaction with
staff and other customers, and direct and indirect contact with the service providers. On
Table 1. Studies focusing on CEQ.
Hospitality
and Tourism
Authors Theoretical Foundation Sector Dimensions of CEQ Consequences Notes
Ali et al. Drawing on the work of Wu and Theme parks Physical environment, Interaction with Customer delight, Focused exclusively on the interaction with
(2016) Liang (2009) and Jani and Han (2013) staff, Interaction with customer Satisfaction, physical and social environments.
Loyalty
Fernandes Reviewing different research streams Wine tourism Environment, Service providers, Learning, Satisfaction, Little attention is paid to emotional side of CEQ.
and Cruz of CEQ Entertainment, Functional benefits, Trust Loyalty, Advocacy
(2016)
Ren et al. Reviewing different research streams Budget Tangible-sensorial experience, Staff- None Focused mainly on the interaction with physical
(2016) of CEQ and in depth interviews hotels interactional experience, Aesthetic and social environments.
perception, Location
Tung and Qualitative study to understand - Affect, Expectations, Consequentiality - Focused exclusively on emotional side of CEQ.
Ritchie “tourism experience” Recollection
(2011)
Manthiou The conceptualization of Brakus et al. Hotels Sensory, Affective, Behavioral, Intellectual. Brand loyalty Adopted a sensory engagement perspective, and
et al. (2009) thus, proposed broad, rather than specific
(2016) experiences
Cole and Pine and Gilmore’ (1999) Zoos Entertainment, Education, Community Performance
Scott conceptualization quality,
(2004) Satisfaction, Revisit
intention
Yang, Liu, Drawing mainly on the work of Tourism Advertising, Word of mouth, Service Customer-based Adopted a very narrow perspective by focusing
and Li Biedenbach, and Marell (2010) destination performance brand equity primarily on customer indirect interactions with
(2015) the service provider.
Hemmington Conceptual paper Focused on Host–guest relationship, Generosity, - Focused on the concept of interaction and
(2007) hotels, Theatre and performance, Lots of little utilitarian values.
restaurants, surprises, Security of No mentioning to emotions/sensations created by
and theaters strangers experiences
McIntosh and In-depth interviews Boutique Unique character, Personalized, Homely, – No mentioning to interaction with staff/
Siggs hotel/ Quality, Value added. customers; or emotions generated by the
(2005) hospitality experience itself
Walls (2013) Reviewing different research streams Hotels Physical environment (design, property Emotive/cognitive Focused exclusively on the interaction with
of CEQ upkeep, ambience). value physical and social environments.
Human interaction (caring,
professionalism, guest-to-guest, reliability)
Kim et al. Reviewing different research streams Hotels Hedonism, Novelty, Local culture, None Focused primarily on the emotional and cognitive
(2012) of CEQ Refreshment, Meaningfulness, side of CEQ.
Involvement, Knowledge
Huang et al. Mystery shopping Budget Location, Online booking, Pricing, Check- None Appeared to measure SQ, rather than CEQ
(2014) hotels in/out services, Staff attitude, Room
design and facilities, Supporting service
3
features and facilities

(Continued )
4
Table 1. (Continued).
Hospitality
and Tourism
Authors Theoretical Foundation Sector Dimensions of CEQ Consequences Notes
Ali and Omar Reviewing different research streams Resort hotels Physical environment, Interaction with Satisfaction, Revisit Focused exclusively on the interaction with
(2014) of CEQ staff, Interaction with other customers intentions physical and social environments.
Ismail (2011) Reviewing different research streams Resort hotels Advertising, Price, Employees, Brand loyalty No mentioning to interaction with other
of CEQ; Qualitative study Servicescape, Core service, Word of customers; and very little emphasis on emotions
mouth, Mood generated by the experience itself
Su (2011) Schmitt’ (1999) conceptualization Restaurants Act, Think, Relate, Feel, Sense Behavioral Adopted a sensory engagement perspective, and
intention thus, proposed broad, rather than specific
experiences.
Chang and Pine and And Gilmore (1999) Creative life Entertainment, Education, Escapism, Subjective norms, Focused exclusively on the emotional side of CEQ
Lin (2015) conceptualization industry Esthetics Experience process and the knowledge gained from specific
clues, Experiential encounters. No mentioning to the interaction with
values physical and social environments.
I. ALNAWAS AND J. HEMSLEY-BROWN
Klaus and In-depth interviews Sports Hedonic pleasure, Personal progression, None More emphasis on emotional elements
Maklan tourism Social interaction, Efficiency, Surreal
(2011) feeling.
Oh et al. Pine and And Gilmore (1999) Bed and Entertainment, Education, Escapism, and Memory, Perceived see Chang and Lin’ (2015) comments.
(2007) conceptualization breakfast Esthetics quality, Satisfaction
lodging
Kao et al. Drawing on the work of Theme parks Surprise, Fun, Entertainment, Participation Satisfaction, Focus exclusively on emotional elements
(2008) Csikszentmihalyi (1975); Pine and Loyalty intention
Gilmore (1999); Hirschman and
Holbrook (1982); Schmitt (1999)
Chen (2015) Schmitt’ (1999) conceptualization Bed and Sensory experiences, Affective Customer value, Adopted a sensory engagement perspective, and
breakfast experiences, Creative experiences, Physical Customer voluntary thus, proposed broad, rather than specific
lodging experiences, Social identity experiences performance experiences.
Otto and Drawing on different streams of Hotels, Tours Hedonic, Involvement, Recognition, Peace - More emphasis on emotional elements. No
Ritchie literature of CEQ of mind mentioning to the interaction with physical and
(1996) social environments.
Jin et al. Kao et al’. (2008) conceptualization Water park Surprise, Fun, Entertainment, Participation Satisfaction, Focused exclusively on emotional elements
(2015) Perceived value,
Water par image,
Behavioral
intention
Hosany and Oh et al’. (2007) conceptualization Cruise Escapism, Esthetics, Entertainment, Perceived quality, see Chang and Lin (2015) comments.
Gilbert Vacation Education Satisfaction,
(2010) Intention to
recommend
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 5
other hand, some studies focus fundamentally on physical environment interaction, staff
interaction, and peer interaction (e.g. Ali et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2014; Ren, Qiu, Wang,
& Lin, 2016; Walls, 2013), and ignore emotions generated by particular experiences.
Therefore, these studies, which offer insightful and valuable contributions, tend to focus
on specific aspects of CEQ, and have not resulted in developing a balanced and compre-
hensive framework of CEQ. Such an issue indicates the importance of conducting further
research to synthesise and integrate those various experiences into a broader conceptua-
lisation to capture the comprehensive nature of CEQ, and to provide hotel managers with
more concrete evidence concerning the most important experiences thus extending guest
lifecycle.
The importance of providing a comprehensive conceptualisation of CEQ in the hotel
industry stems from the nature of the environment within which hotels operate.
Specifically, the hotel industry has grown rapidly, which has provided consumers with
a great variety of choices while simultaneously increasing the competition among hotel
brands (Kandampully & Suhartanto, 2003). This highly competitive and dynamic envir-
onment (Ali et al., 2016), coupled with the rapid expansion of budget airlines (Liat,
Mansori, & Huei, 2014), and the explosion of Internet technology and its online applica-
tions, have made consumers more discerning in selecting hotels, and have also decreased
their loyalty towards hotel brands (Zhang & Mao, 2012), thus affecting hotels’ brand
equity and value (Cai & Hobson, 2004). Further, hotel rooms are increasingly viewed by
customers as commodities (Zhang & Mao, 2012), and facilities such as bars and nightclubs
are increasingly considered as a necessity rather than a luxury (Liat et al., 2014).
To survive in such an environment, hotels are under tremendous pressure to identify
new mechanisms that could contribute to creating satisfied customers, building up
a strong loyal customer base, and developing superior customer value (Ali et al., 2016;
Gallarza, Arteaga, & Gil-Saura, 2015; Liat et al., 2014). Highly loyal customers and positive
evaluation of values perceived from a hotel’s experiences have been identified as funda-
mental factors in improving profitable business outcomes (Acheampong & Asamoah,
2013). In this vein, customer experience management is considered as a tool that has
the ability to transform customers’ experiences into something that has a substantial effect
on purchase decisions with further reaching impact on purchase motives than conven-
tional marketing (Yoon & Lee, 2017). As noted by Iglesias, Singh, and Batista-Foguet
(2011), the physical environment of hotels can be copied by other competitors, but
consumer experience cannot be easily reproduced, which makes the experience embody
the uniqueness of the hotel brand.
Therefore, the primary objective of this study is to offer a more comprehensive model
of CEQ and validate it through research conducted in the hotel industry. A secondary
objective is to examine the effect of CEQ on three post-consumption outcomes, namely,
customer satisfaction, perceived value and brand loyalty, in order to substantiate the
predictability and nomological validity of the proposed construct. The remainder of the
paper is organised as follows: the next section is a critical review of the relevant CEQ
literature, while the third section offers the framework of the current study. These sections
are followed by justification and explanation to validate the study’s model using rigorous
statistical techniques. The last section reports the results followed by conclusions, manage-
rial implications and directions for future research.
Literature review: customer experience quality

From a marketing perspective, an experience refers to “a personal occurrence, often with
important emotional significance, found on the interaction with stimuli which are the
products or services consumed” (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). Experience is strictly
personal, entails the customer’s involvement at different levels, i.e. rational, sensorial,
physical and emotional (Brakus et al., 2009), develops over time, relies heavily on
a consumption context, i.e. context-dependent (Klaus, 2013), develops from the interac-
tion between a staged event (like a theatrical play) and the customer’s state of mind (Pine
and Gilmore, 1999), and is more complex than architecture, design or groomed employees
(Walls, 2013). An experience influences customer internal factors (i.e. cognition and
emotion) before, and/or during and/or after a consumption experience (Lemke et al.,
2011), which leads the customer to form his/her own subjective reality (Adhikari &
Bhattacharya, 2016). Such a reality might be different from the objective reality depicted
by the product or service purchased. Accordingly, firms may use external factors such as
interacting with employees or physical surroundings to influence the senses of the
customer, seeking to influence the way the customer perceives the consumption experi-
ence (ibid). In hospitality and tourism settings, experiences may last just hours for a meal,
days for a hotel visit, or weeks for an extended holiday, indicating that experiences are not
delivered in one moment in time, but often take place over time, and in certain situations
they are revealed over an extended period of time (Hemmington, 2007).
Despite the numerous definitions of CEQ, they can be generally categorised into two
schools of thought. The first one views CEQ as customer internal and subjective response
to (i.e. affective, cognitive and behavioural) and assessment of all direct and indirect
contact with the service organisation, service surroundings and other customers (Ali
et al., 2016; Altunel and Erkut, 2015; Chang and Horng, 2010; Kim & Choi, 2013; Ren
et al., 2016; Walls, 2013). From this perspective, CEQ addresses pre- and post-service
encounter experiences, focuses on emotional and functional elements of quality, considers
customers’ social contexts, and includes an evaluation of value-in-use formed over multi-
ple channels, and differs with context. Despite the presence of emotion in the conceptua-
lisation of CEQ, research within this school of thought evaluates the quality of interaction
between the customer and physical environment and social environment, rather than the
emotions and sensations created by the experience. Additionally, this approach does not
view customer sensations created by particular encounters as potentially relevant experi-
ences, nor does it pay attention to the knowledge gained from having a specific experience
(see Table 1).
However, the alternative school of thought views CEQ as customers’ expectations from
sensory engagement with the focal activity, event, trip, product or service (Joy and Sherry,
2003; Pine & And Gilmore, 1999; Schmitt, 1999). More specifically, this approach regards
the sensations and emotions created by a specific encounter as an experience in itself, and
therefore, examines the psychological outcome accorded to customers who were involved
in specific encounters (e.g. Chang & Lin, 2015; Jin et al., 2015; Kao et al., 2008; Manthiou,
Kang, Sumarjan, & Tang, 2016; Oh, Fiore, & Jeoung, 2007; Otto & Ritchie, 1996; Su, 2011;
Tung & Ritchie, 2011). Those psychological outcomes lead the customer to perceive their
experiences as highly valuable compared with what they pay (Jin et al., 2015). From this
perspective CEQ has been defined as pleasant, engaging and unforgettable experiences
(Oh et al., 2007, p. 120), a bundle of sensory memorabilia (Pine & And Gilmore, 1999), an
experience that is “positively remembered and recalled after the event has occurred” (Kim,
Ritchie, & McCormick, 2012, p. 13), and takeaway impressions that customers have when
they encounter services and businesses (Berry, Carbone, & Haeckel, 2002). However, the
majority of studies in this category do not consider issues related to interaction with the
physical environment and the social environment, nor direct and indirect contact with
service providers (see Table 1).
Building upon the two schools of thought discussed above, and for the purpose of the
current research, CEQ is defined by the authors as:
Customer cognitive and emotional assessment of direct and indirect contacts with the service
organisation, physical environment and social environment, coupled with the psychological, sym-
bolic and cognitive outcomes accorded to the customer from specific encounters.
Conceptualising customer experience quality

Driven by the various streams of literature on the concept of CEQ, and the way that CEQ
is defined in the current paper, the authors identified nine experiences that could
potentially define CEQ in a tourism setting. Careful attention is given to the definitions
and the measurements of experiences offered by previous researchers in order to avoid
potential overlap, and to identify unique and distinctive experiences. Thus, the proposed
framework, validated at the next stage, is based on selected experiences common to the
literature review, related and germane to the hotel sector. Five of the identified experiences
are related to the psychological, symbolic and cognitive outcomes accorded to customers
from consumption activities (i.e. surprise, entertainment/fun, escapism/immersion, life-
style, learning); and the other four are related to the interaction with physical and social
environments (i.e. staff-customer interaction, customer-customer interaction, atmo-
spherics, guest security). Accordingly, the nine experiences the current research is based
on are as follows:
Atmospheric refers to how customers cognitively and emotionally perceive physical
characteristics and surroundings when interacting with any part of the hotel (Bitner, 1992;
Stein & Ramaseshan, 2016; Walls, 2013). These characteristics comprise sensory factors
(e.g. noise, indoor temperature, lighting, music) and visual aspects (e.g. interior and
exterior designs, colour combination, layout and design, decoration variables).
Customers who engage in these kinds of experiences are considered passive participants,
because they enjoy being in the environment without influencing or altering the environ-
ment presented to them (Oh et al., 2007).
Staff-customer interaction refers to the superiority of direct and indirect interaction
between staff and customers (e.g. Ali et al., 2016), and is considered to be at the heart of
most service experiences (Ren et al., 2016; Walls, 2013), because of the inseparability of the
service from employees (Ryu & Han, 2010). It is “a sense of genuine interpersonal
sensitivity and concern” (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993, p. 96). Staff-customer interactions
occur through various channels (e.g. face-to-face, telephone, social media, emails, online
forums) and different stages of a customer journey (Stein & Ramaseshan, 2016), requiring
employees to display good interaction skills (e.g. being polite, friendly, trustworthy and
helpful) across all these channels and stages in order to deliver a high quality experience to
customers (Kim & Choi, 2013).
Customer-customer interaction refers to the perceived judgement of the superiority of

customers’ interactions between each other (Lemke et al., 2011). A number of authors
indicate that deviant and aberrant customer behaviour (Moschis & Cox, 1989) – standing
close to others (Bateson and Hui, 1986), shouting loudly and interrupting a conversation
with service providers (Chang and Horng, 2010) – may ruin the experience of customers.
On the other hand, customers’ helping behaviour (McGrath & Otnes, 1995), customers
valuing the privacy of other customers, customers displaying proper behaviour towards
other customers (Walls, 2013) and knowledgeable customers (Wu, 2007), positively
influence the experience of other customers.
Guest security is concerned with preserving guests’ possessions and property (Enz,
2009). It represents one important part of the overall servicescape, assists in defining the
service experience (Hilliard & Baloglu, 2008), and strongly influences hotel selection
(PATA, 2015). Creating a favourable hotel environment requires a comprehensive under-
standing of how potential hotel visitors experience their environment in terms of security
and safety (Bhat, 2014). Hotel visitors are more likely to accept stringent security measures
and are more willing to pay for them (Feickert, Verma, Plaschka, & Dev, 2006).
Learning refers to the knowledge customers obtain from becoming involved in the
service process (Fernandes & Cruz, 2016). This kind of experience engages the mind (for
intellectual education) and/or the body (for physical training) of the customer, and
appeals to their desire to learn something new (Oh et al., 2007). It is, thus, viewed as
active participation, where customers play a major role in their subsequent experience
(Hosany & Witham, 2010). Some of the educational experiences that enhance customer
knowledge and skills in a hotel setting are, for example: educating customers in how to
fully benefit from the various services the hotel offers; taking customers on trips to
experience local culture and historical places; conducting shows and/or offering programs
inside the hotel to educate customers about the culture of the country; or offering
programs to educate customers on how they can enjoy their time outside the hotel.
Surprise refers to the experience of surprise as “lots of little surprises” (Hemmington,
2007, p. 752), a “chain of sparkling moments” (Moir, 2005, p. 20); offering a number of
unexpected benefits (Torres & Kline, 2006); and “having one’s expectations exceeded to
a surprising degree” (Rust & Oliver, 2000, p. 87). Some hotels surprise guests through the
physical environment particularly when: the internal design, architecture and setting are
rarely seen elsewhere; and the decoration is designed with care and imagination that
customers rarely see (e.g. Chang and Horng, 2010). Other hotels offer happy surprises at
the checkout. For example, Napa River Inn surprises guests at the checkout by offering
them an unexpected discounted return-guest rate and a bottle of wine; while Paradise
Beach Resort offers guests a pair of Havaianas flip-flops customised to their foot size and
at checkout they tell them that “they’re yours to keep” (Elliott, 2016). Other hotels surprise
guests when checking in by using guests’ personal data and mining guests’ personal data
on social networking in order to offer them little personal touches in their rooms. For
example, some hotels offer a framed picture of guests, entirely made of chocolate, on the
coffee table (Frequent Traveler, 2014)
Escapism/immersion refers to very highly intensified experiences (Lindberg and
Ostergaard, 2015); deep involvement in the present moment (Hansen and Mossberg, 2013);
oneness with surroundings (Schouten, McAlexander, & Koenig, 2007); losing track of time
(Chang and Horng, 2010); and extreme focus of attention (Csíkszentmihályi, 1990). These
kinds of experiences require greater effort and participation from the customer than entertain-
ment and educational experiences (Hosany & Witham, 2010). In tourism experiences custo-
mers escape from their daily routine to enjoy and entertain themselves (Walls et al., 2011c),
get away from the norms and values that govern their lives (Turner, 1973) and search for
a meaningful life (Cohen, 1979). When customers immerse themselves in and focus on the
hotel’s physical surroundings or become highly involved in the hotel’s services, they may
isolate themselves from reality and forget the passing of time (e.g. Chang and Horng, 2010).
Fun/entertainment refers to customers’ happiness, pleasure, fantasy and enjoyment during
the consumption process (Holbrook, 1996; Jin et al., 2015). Entertainment implies that physical
surroundings and a hotel’s services catch and occupy customers’ attention and readiness. It
occurs when a customer passively observes activities without affecting the experiential outcome.
Some of the entertainment programs could be, for example, advanced in-room technology, hotel
animation (e.g. cultural display of different countries), a trip to cultural events (e.g. carnivals,
festivals or dance displays) or sporting events.
Lifestyle refers to the extent to which a hotel is capable of supporting the customer’s
lifestyle and supporting the customer to express their values and lifestyles within the hotel
and in his/her social environment (Nam, Ekinci, & Whyatt, 2011, p. 1014). Solomon
(2002) notes that customer-brand identification occurs when the focal brand embodies
values and aspirations that match customers’ desired lifestyles (Solomon, 2002). Lifestyle
experience also involves design-led, stimulating and personalised products and services;
developing experiences that respond to the ever changing and evolving needs; offering
more services that are ancillary; stimulating a diverse and innovative environment
enhanced by a sense of belonging and style; and creating a trendy yet exclusive entourage
(Fawaz, 2015).
Based on the above reviewed literature, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H1: CEQ is a high-order reflective construct that is comprised of nine first-order

indicators.
The effect of CEQ on customer satisfaction, perceived value and brand loyalty
In order to argue that the proposed construct of CEQ is a valid construct, it must correlate with
certain indicators and concepts, i.e. criterion validity needs to be established. Nunnally (1978)
explains that the purpose of criterion validity is to show how well the measures of interest
correlate with a meaningful outcome. This kind of validity also assumes that the criterion used is
a variable already known to correlate with the construct measured. Therefore, the new proposed
construct of CEQ will be investigated in relation to customer satisfaction, perceived value and
brand loyalty, as explained in the following subsections.
Ceq→customer satisfaction
It is worth noting that when examining the experience-satisfaction relationship in the hospitality
industry, some of the previous studies measured customer satisfaction with the experiences
presented to them by the service brand, i.e. experiential satisfaction (e.g. Kao et al., 2008), while
others measured customer satisfaction with the service brand (e.g. Ali et al., 2016). Given the
fierce competition that hotels face and the increasing rate of declining customer loyalty, as
explained previously, this research will measure customer satisfaction with regard to the hotel
brand, rather than with the experiences themselves. To define customer satisfaction, the current
study adopts the confirmation/disconfirmation-paradigm (Oliver, 1980). The comparison
between customers’ experiences received from a hotel brand and their prior expectations
would lead to a positive or negative disconfirmation. If the resulting evaluation is a positive
disconfirmation, customers would become satisfied with the hotel brand; however, if the
resulting evaluation is a negative disconfirmation, customers would become dissatisfied with
the hotel brand (e.g. Oliver, 1980).
From this perspective, customer satisfaction with hotel brand is a function of pre-visit
expectations and post-visit experiences (Chen & Chen, 2010), and is defined as customers’
cumulative evaluation of the hotel brand against expectations and represents a constant satisfac-
tion to visit it (Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, & Malar, 2015). In the hospitality industry, Ali,
Kim, Li, and Jeon (2018), for example, found that ambient elements of the physical environment
in a theme park were key antecedents of tourists’ satisfaction. High quality interpersonal
interaction among conference attendees (i.e. customer-to-customer interactions) also contrib-
uted greatly to attendees’ satisfaction (Wei et al., 2017). Similarly, emotional perceptions of
pleasure and arousal acted as significant predictors of tourists’ satisfaction in the context of water
parks (Jin et al., 2015). Low quality staff–customer interactions can have a detrimental effect on
the experience, causing customers to negatively assess their overall experiences (Stein &
Ramaseshan, 2016). Building on insights from these studies, it is reasonable to assume that
hotels’ services, which offer experiential opportunities to consumers to engage in distinctive and
extraordinary experiences arising from interacting with other customers, employees and the
physical environment, coupled with the psychological, symbolic and cognitive benefits obtained
from receiving the experience, would make customers highly satisfied with the hotel brand.
Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: CEQ is positively associated with customer satisfaction
Ceq→perceived value
While customer satisfaction occurs only after receiving the experience, perceived value is
immediately considered by the customer and takes place throughout different moments,
including those before receiving the experience (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). The current
research adopts Zeithaml’s (1988, p. 14) definition of perceived value, which involves “the
customer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product or service based on perceptions of
what is received and what is given”. Thus, perceived value is a cognitive judgement of the
trade-off between benefits and sacrifices, i.e. perceived costs (Carlson, Rahman,
Rosenberger, & Holzmüller, 2016). In the retail sector, contextual experience (i.e. the
extent of how well the contextual atmosphere can be impressed and memorised after the
service encounter) was found to be an important antecedent of perceived value (Yu &
Fang, 2009). A similar conclusion was reached in the hospitality industry. For example,
Babin, Lee, Kim and Griffin (2005) concluded that emotions experienced by customers as
a result of the restaurant environment exerted a positive impact on customers’ perceived
value. In the context of bed and breakfast lodging, stronger senses of customer experience
were found to generate a higher level of perception of customer value (Chen, 2015).
Pleasant and enjoyable experiences resulting from a wide range of facilities and programs
in a water park made customers perceive their consumption of the water park’s experi-
ences as highly valuable in relation to their investment (Jin et al., 2015). Positive percep-
tions of the physical aspects of the hotel contributed significantly to guest perceptions of
value associated with their stay at the hotel (Worsfold, Fisher, McPhail, Francis, &
Thomas, 2016). Attractiveness/caring, professionalism and reliability of a hotel’s employ-
ees coupled with guest-to-guest interaction, made guests perceive the benefits of their
hotel’s stay experience as higher than the costs of the experience (Walls, 2013). In event
tourism (Carlson et al., 2016) and heritage tourism (Chen & Chen, 2010), high experience
quality was reported as a key determinant of customer perceived value. Using insights
from these studies, it is reasonable to suggest that emotions and sensations created by
hotels’ experiences and knowledge acquired from specific encounters, coupled with phy-
sical environment interaction, staff interaction and peer interaction, would make custo-
mers highly value their consumption of the hotel’s experiences when compared with their
investment. Therefore, the following is hypothesised:
H3: CEQ is positively associated with perceived value
Ceq→brand loyalty
Current conceptualisations of brand loyalty can be categorised into the behavioural
approach (i.e. customers’ behavioural consistency with regard to the focal brand), the
attitudinal approach (i.e. customers’ attitudinal predisposition towards the focal brand), or
a combination of both approaches (Li and Petrick, 2010). The behavioural approach is
usually understood in terms of repeat purchase, purchase frequency and brand retention,
while the attitudinal approach addresses consumer’s psychological commitment towards
the focal brand (Reinartz and Kumar, 2000; Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). As prior
research tends to include both attitudinal and behavioural aspects when measuring brand
loyalty (e.g. Hemsley-Brown & Alnawas, 2016), the current study will adopt Chaudhuri
and Holbrook’s (2001, p. 82) definition of brand loyalty, which captures both aspects: “a
deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a preferred product or service con-
sistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand set purchasing, despite
situational influences’ and marketing efforts’ having the potential to cause switching
behaviour”.
In the context of restaurants, sensory experience (e.g. sight, touch, listen), coupled with
intellectual, behavioural and emotional interaction with the brand contributed signifi-
cantly to willingness to pay premium price, positive word-of-mouth and repurchase
intention (Ong, Lee, & Ramayah, 2018). In the cafe industry, coffee quality and staff-
customer interaction generated higher levels of revisiting intentions and recommendation
intentions (Zhang, Kim, & Goodsir, 2019). Guests who developed a sense of friendship
and enjoyed their time with other customers extended their staying at the hotel (Goi,
Kalidas and Zeeshan, 2014), displayed higher levels of loyalty and engaged in positive
word-of-mouth (Fakharyan, Omidvar, Khodadadian, Jalilvand, & Vosta, 2014). Guests
who experienced high quality physical and relational aspects of their experiences were
more likely to develop positive emotions and to generate positive behavioural outcomes
(Walls et al., 2011b). Building on the results of these studies, it is reasonable to suggest
CEQ which manifests itself via interacting with physical and social environments, coupled
with psychological, symbolic and cognitive outcomes accorded to customers from con-
sumption activities, would enhance brand loyalty in the hotel industry. Therefore, the
following hypothesis is suggested:
H3: CEQ is positively associated with brand loyalty
Figure 1 summarises the study’s constructs and relationships
Methodology
The proposed model was examined using a quantitative approach. Following prior
research on CEQ in service industries in general (e.g. Chang and Horng, 2010; Kim &
Choi, 2013) and the tourism industry in particular (e.g. Ali et al., 2016; Chang & Lin,
2015), a cross-sectional design was used to assess guests’ perceptions concerning the
experiences offered by their preferred hotel.
Item generation
No existing scales are used to measure the majority of experiences, but rather, items are
adapted from different existing scales because some scales in existing research measure the
same experience by focusing on different issues (see, for example, Jin et al. (2015, p. 88)
and Kao et al. (2008, p. 169). Therefore, in order to develop a comprehensive scale of CEQ
that captures the different aspects of each experience different studies were used (see Table
3). Some items were utilised with the original wording, while others were reworded to fit
the context of the study. For example, these items: “This is a store where people can enjoy
themselves” (Chang and Horng, 2010: 2419) and “It is happy time when I visit this wine
cellar” (Fernandes & Cruz, 2016, p. 376) were reworded as follows: “XYZ is a place where
people can enjoy themselves” and “It is happy time when I visit XYZ”. For brevity, only
items that appear to best-measure each experience are reported along with their sources
(see Table 4). The final structured questionnaire consists of 68 items: 11 items to measure
satisfaction, perceived value and loyalty and 57 items to assess the nine experiences.
A five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree-strongly agree) was employed to measure all
the constructs.
Data collection
An online panel based in the UK was used to collect the survey data. A specialist market
research company (CINT UK) was hired to access that panel. The respondents were asked
to complete the questionnaire based on a hotel brand they had used within the last three
years. The respondents cited a range of different hotel brands. 420 questionnaires were
originally collected, with 392 out of that number appropriate for the analysis. The hotels
identified by the respondents were rated as follows: five stars (n = 72); four stars (n = 149);
three stars (n = 86); two stars (n = 18); one star (n = 27); and not specified (n = 53). The
sample consists of: 48% male and 52% female; 9% within the age range of 18–25 years;
22.7% within the range of 26–35 years; 16.6% within the range of 36–45 years; 24.2%
within the range of 46–55 years; and 27.5% above 55 years of age. 27% of the participants
First-Order indicators Second-Order Construct Outcomes
Emotional –related
experiences
Customer
Satisfaction
Staff-Customer
Interaction
Customer-Customer
Interaction
Customer Experience Perceived Value

Lifestyle Quality
Learning
Atmospheric
Guest Security Brand Loyalty
Figure 1. The proposed model.
had a high school degree; 50.6% had a college degree; 19.4% had a master’s degree; and
11% had a doctorate degree. 29% of participants visited the hotel they identified once and
71% visited their nominated hotel more than once. 82% of participants visited hotels for
leisure; 6% visited hotels for business; and 12% visited hotels for leisure and business. 39%
of the participants had an annual income of less than £25,000; 25.9% had an annual
income between £25,000 and £35,000; 15.4% had an annual income between £35,001 and
£45,000; 6.2% had an annual income between £45,001 and £55.000; and 13.3% had an
annual income of more than £55,000.
Measurements validation
An exploratory factorial analysis (EFA) was first conducted to assess the structure of the
nine factors. The analysis resulted in deleting 24 items due to low factorability or cross-
loadings. However, the remaining items were loaded on seven factors only. More speci-
fically, the items measuring fun/entertainment, surprise and escapism/immersion were
loaded on the same factor. Based on the results of the factorial analysis, the above three
factors, which were loaded on the same factor, were labelled as “Emotional-related
experiences”, since they all measure emotional-related issues. The 33 items of the seven
factors were loaded significantly on their respective factors (see Table 2). The first factor
(emotional-related experiences) has a relatively higher eigenvalue of 12.11 with variance
explained of 30.0%. Nonetheless, these preliminary findings which indicate that the seven
first-order indicators are a good representative of CEQ, suggest that H1 will be rejected.
AMOS (18.0) was then employed to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Table 3 shows all the scales have reliability above 0.70 and all indicators were significant at
0.001. Table 3 also shows the average variance extracted (AVE) for all the scales is above
Table 2. Factorial analysis of the dimensions of CEQ.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .911
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity 7138.238
Sig. .000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
EMOTION1 .769
EMOTION2 .672
EMOTION3 .656
EMOTION4 .798
EMOTION5 .774
EMOTION6 .766
EMOTION7 .707
EMOTION8 .772
EMOTION9 .706
LIFESTYLE1 .812
LIFESTYLE2 .802
LIFESTYLE3 .744
LEARNING1 .671
LEARNING2 .744
LEARNING3 .725
LEARNING4 .737
S-CI1 .786
S-CI2 .796
S-CI3 .808
S-CI4 .790
C-CI1 .779
C-CI2 .771
C-CI3 .725
C-CI4 .641
GS1 .777
GS2 .784
GS3 .766
ATM1 .690
ATM2 .717
ATM3 .683
ATM4 .704
ATM5 .662
ATM6 .656
Eigen Value 14.11 4.30 2.42 2.03 1.58 1.38
Variance 36.57 10.46 6.91 5.82 4.51 3.95
S-CI = Staff-customer interaction; C-CI = Customer-customer interaction; GS = Guest security; ATM = Atmospherics
the cut-off-point of 0.50, indicating strong evidence of convergent validity. Additionally,

discriminant validity was established using the following recommendation of Fornell and
Larcker (1981). The results reported in Table 4 reveal that the squared root of AVE for
each construct is higher than the correlations with other constructs.
Common method bias

First, we followed a standard survey design and administration practices, i.e. three experts
pretesting the research instruments, promising respondents confidentiality and anonymity,
assuring them that there were no correct or incorrect responses, separating the measurement
of the predictor and criterion variables, and interspersing all the items of the
constructs. Second, we followed the work of Spralls, Hunt, and Wilcox (2011) and used
Harman’s single factor test (Harman, 1967). The results revealed the first factor of all items in
Table 3. Scales sources, reliabilities and AVE.
Regression Cronbach Composite Means
Variable Items Sources Weights Alpha Reliability AVE Scores
Atmospherics XYZ noise level is pleasant throughout the hotel Walls (2013) .737 0.86 0.87 0.54 3.95
The indoor temperature of XYZ is comfortable .679
The design of XYZ incorporates the surrounding natural .730
resources
The colors within XYZ are complementary and Wu and Liang (2009) .717
coordinating
XYZ environment is clean. .817
The materials used in XYZ facilities are of high quality Walls (2013) .690
Emotional-related XYZ offers some happy surprises when checking at room Hemmington (2007) .822 0.92 0.92 0.58 3.14
experiences XYZ offers some sparkling moments .735
The entertainment at XYZ was captivating Jin et al. (2015) .761
When I visit XYZ I escape completely from reality Oh et al. (2007) .825
I had fun while visiting XYZ Hosany and Witham (2010) .775
XYZ is a place where people can enjoy themselves Fernandes and Cruz (2016); Chang and .769
It is happy time when I visit XYZ Horng (2015) .686
Visiting XYZ helps me get away from stress of daily life Hosany and Gilbert (2010) .732
When I visit XYZ I forget that time is passing Jin et al. (2015) .709
Customer-Customer Other customers are not loud Ali et al. (2016) .796 0.85 0.86 0.60 3.86
Interaction Other customers behave nicely .797
Hotels customers value the privacy of other customer Walls (2013) .765
Other customers are of an appropriate socio-economic .731
level
Learning/education I have learned a lot after visiting XYZ Oh et al. (2007) .732 0.81 0.83 0.54 3.65
The experience made me more knowledgeable .704
XYZ stimulated my curiosity to learn new things .754
It was a real learning experience .759
Staff-Customer Employees of XYZ treat customers with respect Walls (2013); Chang and Horng (2015) .806 0.92 0.92 0.73 4.10
Interaction Employees of XYZ are always willing to help you .844
Employees of XYZ conduct themselves in a professional .883
manner
Employees of XYZ provide a thorough and satisfactory Ali et al. (2016) .883
service
Guest Security Employees make you feel safe during your hotel stay Walls (2013) .848 0.87 0.87 0.70 3.66
XYZ has stringent security measures Feickert et al. (2006) .792

Guest security/safety is of high priority of XYZ .857
(Continued )
15
16
Table 3. (Continued).
Regression Cronbach Composite Means
Variable Items Sources Weights Alpha Reliability AVE Scores
Lifestyle XYZ reflects certain experience of my life Su et al. (2011) .793 0.81 0.82 0.59 3.52
XYZ is totally in line with my lifestyle Nam et al. (2011) .779
Staying in this hotel brand supports my lifestyle .735
Dependent Variables
Satisfaction I am consistently satisfied with my decision to use XYZ Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel (2004) 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.76
I. ALNAWAS AND J. HEMSLEY-BROWN
I am completely satisfied with XYZ 0.90

XYZ offers exactly what I expect 0.85
Loyalty I will continue to choose this hotel brand before other Harris and Goode (2004); Chaudhuri and 0.84 0.89 0.90 0.67
brands Holbrook (2001)
I am willing ‘to go the extra mile’ to choose this hotel 0.79
brand
Next time I am looking for somewhere to say, I will stay 0.78
with this hotel brand
I am very committed to this hotel brand 0.87
Perceived Value When I use this hotel, I feel I am getting my money’s Dodds et al. (1991) 0.79 0.87 0.87 0.62
worth
Compared with other hotel brands, this hotel is good 0.80
value for money
All things considered (price, time, and effort), this hotel 0.71
is a good buy
What I get from this hotel is worth the costs 0.85
Table 4. Discriminant validity.

ATM C-CI S-CI LEARNING LIFESTYLE SECURITY EMOTIONAL
ATM 0.73
C-CI 0.66 0.77
S-CI 0.57 0.69 0.85
LEARNING 0.55 0.43 0.41 0.73
LIFESTYLE 0.52 0.43 0.46 0.62 0.77
SECURITY 0.52 0.28 0.52 0.40 0.32 0.84
EMOTIONAL 0.45 0.64 0.46 0.57 0.65 0.50 0.76
ATM: Atmospheric; C-CI: Customer-customer interaction; S-CI: Staff-customer interaction; LEARN: Learning; EMOTIONAL:
Emotional-relational experiences; SECURITY = Guest Security
the measurement model explained 37% of the variance, which is below the threshold of 50%,
indicating a lack of evidence for common method bias.
Reflective vs. formative measurements

The use of reflective-measurement models or formative-measurement models has been the
subject of much debate between researchers (see Edwards, 2011; Hardin, Chang, Fuller, &
Torkzadeh, 2011; Iacobucci, 2010). In this particular vein, Hardin and Marcoulides (2011,
p. 753) point out that the use of formative measurement should be suspended. Similarly,
Edwards (2011, p. 370–371) concludes that models with reflective measures serve the
purposes of formative measurement models while they avoid their drawbacks. Following
the recommendations of leading researchers in this area, the proposed model for this
research will be validated using reflective measurements.
Model validation
It is mentioned above that the factorial analysis yielded a model of seven factors only.
Thus, against H1, CEQ will be validated as a second-order construct that is comprised of
seven first-order variables, rather than nine first-order variables. AMOS (18.0) was used to
serve this purpose. The fit of this new conceptualisation was relatively high: CMIN/DF
(1.83), RMSEA (0.05), IFI (0.98), TLI (0.97) and CFI (0.98). Additionally, the relative
importance (i.e. regression weight) of the seven experiences was as follows: atmospheric
(0.83), emotional-related experiences (0.77), employee-customer interaction (0.77), custo-
mer-customer interaction (0.72), guest security (0.69), learning (0.61) and lifestyle (0.55).
Model testing
To test the study’s hypotheses, AMOS (18.0) was also used. H1, which suggests that CEQ
is a high order construct that is comprised of nine first-order variables, is rejected. This is
because the factorial analysis and the CFA both show that CEQ is a high-order construct
that is comprised of seven first-order variables. To test H2-4, CEQ was specified as
a second-order construct that consists of seven first-order indicators, and it was linked
with the three dependent variables (i.e. satisfaction, perceived value and loyalty), as shown
in Figure 1. This conceptualisation provided an acceptable fit: CMIN/DF (2.29), RMSEA
(0.06), IFI (0.93), TLI (0.92) and CFI (0.93). Table 5 shows that CEQ has a significant
Table 5. Hypotheses testing.

Hypotheses Regression weight Significance level R Decision
H2: CEQ→customer satisfaction 0.78 p < 0.001 0.69 Accepted
H3: CEQ→perceived value 0.70 p < 0.001 0.66 Accepted
H4: CEQ→brand loyalty 0.55 p < 0.001 0.43 Accepted
positive effect on customer satisfaction (β = 0.78, p < 0.001), thus confirming H2.
Additionally, the variance in customer satisfaction that is explained by CEQ is substantial
(R2 = 0.69), providing further evidence on the predictive power of CEQ. The Table also
shows that CEQ has a significant positive effect on perceived value (β = 0.70, p < 0.001),
thus supporting H3. Further, the explanatory power of CEQ in relation to perceived value
is substantial (R2 = 0.66). Concerning H4, which indicates that CEQ is positively asso-
ciated with brand loyalty, the findings reported in Table 5 confirm this relationship
(β = 0.55, p < 0.001). The variance in customer satisfaction that is explained by CEQ is
relatively high (R2 = 0.43). When taking the predictive and explanatory power of CEQ in
relation to the three dependent variables, further support can be added to the inclusion of
the seven experiences into a broader conceptualisation of CEQ.
Discussion and conclusions

The purpose of the current study was to conceptualise CEQ in the hotel industry and to
examine its effect on customer satisfaction, perceived value and brand loyalty in order to
establish nomological validity of the concept. This resulted in proposing four hypotheses;
one is related to conceptualising and measuring CEQ, and the other three are related to
testing the impact of CEQ on the above three outcomes. With regard to H1, it was originally
hypothesised that CEQ consists of nine first-order variables: fun/entertainment; immersion/
escapism; surprise; atmospherics; staff-customer interaction; customer-customer interaction;
learning; lifestyle and guest security. However, the first three experiences loaded on the same
factor and they were relabelled as “emotional-related experiences”. This resulted in rejecting
H1 and led CEQ to be conceptualised as a second-order construct that consists of seven
experiences, rather than nine. Concerning the seven experiences of CEQ, their relatively
high regression weights indicate that both psychological, symbolic and cognitive outcomes,
on the one hand, and interaction with physical and social environments, on the other hand,
are equally important. With regard to those outcomes accorded to customers, it is noted by
Walls et al. (2011b) who cite Cohen (1979), that tourism is experiencing change, and
a temporary reversal of daily routines (i.e. no-work, no-care, no-thrift), which includes
effective means of escape from everyday activities, religious feelings, the opportunity to build
relationships at a personal level, and a source of personal development. Thus, when
a customer visits a hotel, he/she may look for the kinds of things referred to in the research
model as psychological, symbolic and cognitive outcomes.
Additionally, prior research makes an implicit reference to lifestyle, which reflects
a symbolic outcome as a potential experience of CEQ (Chen, 2015; Su, 2011). However,
for the first time this research makes explicit reference to lifestyle and shows it is one
of the key determinants of CEQ. The inclusion of lifestyle, as a part of CEQ, is in line
with prior research which concludes that consumers feel highly satisfied, develop
repeat purchasing behaviours, and form personal attachments, when consumption
activities are associated with a particular lifestyle and reflect customers’ desired life-
styles (Nam et al., 2011; Solomon, 2002). With regard to the interaction with physical
and social environments, hotel services have been compared with theatre performances
where actors (i.e. employees) deliver services to the audience (i.e. hotel guests) in
a setting (i.e. the physical environment) (Ali et al., 2016; Hemmington, 2007). The
interaction between these three elements (i.e. actors, audience and setting) embodies
the overall experience of customers. This view is also echoed in the servicescape
concept where Bitner (1992) encourages business to view environmental dimensions,
and staff and customer behaviours in a way that results in forming an attachment,
spending of money, and extending stays. With regard to guest security, which is the
final dimension of CEQ, the results indicate that hotel guests give high importance to
it. Security as an experience, as noted by Hemmington (2007, p. 753), is severely
overlooked and insufficiently recognised by a very large number of hotels. Guests see
the hotel as an important sanctuary because they are usually in unfamiliar and alien
environments (Poon and Low, 2005), indicating that their personal and financial
security is far more important than the hotel security’s resources and procedures
(Hemmington, 2007).
However, as far as H2 is concerned, prior research in the context of theme parks (e.g.
Ali et al., 2016), wine tourism (e.g. Fernandes & Cruz, 2016), zoos (e.g. Cole & Scott,
2004), and cruise vacation (e.g. Hosany & Witham, 2010), found that CEQ is a vital
antecedent of customer satisfaction. This relationship is also confirmed in the context of
hotels, where the results indicate that CEQ contributes greatly to shaping customer
satisfaction. The key difference, however, is that the current study has provided a more
complete picture on the drivers of customer satisfaction in the hotel industry, as evident
by the predictive power (α = 0.78) and the explanatory power of CEQ in relation to
customer satisfaction (R2 = 0.69). Thus, unlike previous studies, which focused on emo-
tional, symbolic and cognitive experiences (e.g. Kao et al., 2008) or customer interaction
with physical and social environments (e.g. Ali et al., 2018), this study shows that the
experiences of both perspectives are fundamental to the enhancement of customer
satisfaction.
With regard to the effect of CEQ on perceived value in the hotel industry (i.e. H3), the
findings are also in line with previous studies conducted on water parks (e.g. Jin et al.,
2015), event tourism (e.g. Carlson et al., 2016) and bed and breakfast lodging (e.g. Chen,
2015). Specifically, the current research shows that the seven experiences of CEQ lead
customers to perceive their consumption of hotel experiences as highly valuable when
compared with what they pay. This is evident by the predictive (β = 0.70) and explanatory
power of CEQ in relation to perceived value (R2 = 0.66). Concerning H4, prior research in
the hospitality industry tends to position customer satisfaction and/or perceived value as
mediators between customer experience and brand loyalty (e.g. Ali et al., 2018; Cole &
Scott, 2004; Jin et al., 2015; Kao et al., 2008; Yu & Fang, 2009), with no direct link between
customer experience and brand loyalty. This study, however, established a direct link
between CEQ and brand loyalty and showed that CEQ can contribute significantly to
improving brand loyalty in the hotel industry. This relationship had been further explored
through testing a partial mediation model to get further insights on whether the CEQ-
brand loyalty relationship is direct or indirect as proposed by the vast majority of previous
research. In the partial mediation model, a direct link between CEQ and brand loyalty was
specified coupled with two links that go from CEQ to brand loyalty via customer
satisfaction and perceived value. The findings showed that the link between CEQ and
brand loyalty remained significant (α = 0.38, p < 0.01), after the inclusion of customer
satisfaction and perceived value. The evidence offered by the current study on the direct
link between CEQ and brand loyalty is in line with Maklan and Klaus’s (2011) study in the
banking industry, where the authors found that CEQ predicted loyalty better than
satisfaction predicted loyalty.
Theoretical contribution
The current research makes four theoretical contributions to the hospitality literature in
general, and the hotel literature in particular. First, when conceptualising CEQ, prior
research tends to either focus on customer interaction with physical and social environ-
ments or the psychological, symbolic and cognitive outcomes of experiences. Despite the
valuable contributions of prior research in this area, it has not resulted in developing an
integrated model that combines these major perspectives into a broader conceptualisation
of CEQ. This research, therefore, contributes to this stream of literature through synthe-
sising and integrating these perspectives thus providing a more balanced, detailed and
comprehensive understanding of CEQ. It shows that customers do not perceive their hotel
experiences based only on interacting with physical and social environments – or the
psychological, symbolic and cognitive outcomes of experiences – but based on
a combination of them all. Additionally, the suggested CEQ model reinforces the existence
of some dimensions (i.e. emotional-related experiences, staff interaction, customer inter-
action, atmospherics and learning), which were proposed in prior research, and also
provides support for the existence of other key dimensions of CEQ (i.e. lifestyle and
guest security). Therefore, such a model is a significant new benchmark to the growing
body of literature on customer experiences in the hospitality industry. Second, the current
study contributes to the extant literature through proposing and confirming
a measurement instrument of CEQ in the hotel industry, comprised of 33 items, which
shows desirable properties regarding reliability and validity. The seven first-order indica-
tors of CEQ demonstrate the construct validity, are closely related and exhibit a strong
convergence towards the overall construct of CEQ. This indicates that each of the seven
experiences is appropriately conceived as a determinant of CEQ.
Third, the current research offers a more detailed understanding of the key sources of
customer satisfaction and perceived value, from an experiential perspective, through
confirming the contribution of different types of experiences to these two post-
consumption outcomes. This integrative and expansive view, which covers different facets
of the hotel experience, is reflected in the power of CEQ in explaining 69% of the variance
in customer satisfaction and 66% of that in perceived value. This study, therefore, adds to
customer experience in the hospitality literature by enriching our understanding of how
CEQ contributes to customer satisfaction and perceived value. That is, developing experi-
ences that reflect customers’ lifestyle, intensify their emotions, motivate their thinking,
safeguard their personal and financial possessions, and promote high quality interactions
with other customers, employees and the physical environment, contribute greatly in
shaping customer satisfaction and making them perceive their hotels’ experiences as
valuable compared to their investment. Additionally, the current study adds to prior
research which focused on experiential satisfaction (e.g. Wu & Cheng, 2017; Kao et al.,
2008; Bigne, Sanchez, & Sanchez, 2001), through showing that CEQ can also improve
customer satisfaction with the hotel brand, i.e. enhancing customers’ cumulative evalua-
tion of the hotel brand and generating a constant satisfaction to visit it. Fourth, this study
offers additional insight on the CEQ-brand loyalty relationship through showing that CEQ
can contribute significantly and directly to improving brand loyalty in the hotel industry.
This insight indicates that when the measurements of CEQ captures various aspects of the
focal experience, they become strong predictors of brand loyalty, and in this case, CEQ
can drive brand loyalty directly.
Managerial implications
This research offers a number of managerial implications. First, the instrument that
measures the CEQ can be effectively used by hotel managers to monitor their level of
commitment in crafting and delivering distinctive and unique experiences. The scores for
the various CBBE elements will provide valuable information on the practices that need to
be improved in order to enrich consumers’ positive experience and increase their
loyalty. Second, when the seven experiences of the CEQ are seen as a whole, they appear
to have a greater significance and more positive effect on satisfaction, perceived value and
loyalty. This solidity suggests that the seven experiences must be simultaneously applied in
order to have the highest impact on the intended outcome. In other words, the seven
experiences of CEQ need to be embraced simultaneously as they are part of a holistic
philosophy. This can be achieved in several ways. For example, designing a hotel that
reflects the culture, the values, the soul and the people of the destination that the guest is
visiting could probably be more sensational and electrifying than getting exposed to the
same lobby, restaurants and rooms as in any hotel everywhere. A good example of this is
the Ace Hotel group, where its remarkable success comes from modulating each of its
locations by its surroundings, i.e. each location is designed and crafted to be of the city
and neighbourhood that it occupies. Similarly, hotels should not focus solely on promot-
ing themselves, their facilities and equipment and the services they provide, but rather,
they should focus on promoting the psychological, symbolic and cognitive benefits that
can be attained from visiting them. This requires appealing to customers’ status and
lifestyle, image-enhancement and self-actualisation, which all have the potential to address
and to trigger the inner desires of current and potential guests.
Further, as staff-customer interaction represents an important aspect of CEQ, hotels’
employees need to be viewed and trained as “content experts” and “consultant-employees”,
indicating the importance of possessing demanding and conceptual skills from every
employee that focus essentially on making the most out of each guest transaction
(Klumbis, 2003). The notion here is that every employee might be expected to be
a consultant of the hotel’s guests, and because of that, employees should not only have
knowledge about the hospitality enterprise in general, and the facilities/equipment within
the hotel in particular, but they should also have a strong awareness of the world outside the
hotel’s operations to make the perfect possible matches between the guest and the desired
experiences. This indicates that consultant/expert employees are not only expected to have
a substantial understanding of the business, but they are also expected to have skills and
knowledge to identify and understand the problems and needs of the hotel’s guests; and
once those needs are identified, the consultant/expert employee should search for solutions
to those problems beyond what the focal hotel offers.
Similarly, customer-to-customer interaction, which is an important element of CEQ,
requires hotel managers to be aware that while guests may have a large number of online
connections, their offline connections when they travel tend to be very weak, which makes
them feel that they are lonely during their stay (Terdiman, 2015). This shows the
importance of developing mechanisms and programs to socialise guests inside and outside
the hotel. Concerning the first issue, Marriott, for example, introduced in 2014 The RI
Mix, which is a series of after-work events that aim to offer guests an opportunity to
socialise and connect with the local community (www.marriott.com). Taking guests to
cultural, entertainment and sporting events could also feed into improving guest socialisa-
tion and would also improve the psychological and cognitive benefits of their experiences.
However, to socialise guests inside the hotels, public spaces within the hotel such as the
lobby could be a useful starting point. The hotel lobby, for example, should not be viewed
as a place to check-in and out, to collect room keys and to wait for taxis, but rather, it
should be viewed as a place where guests can socialise, relax and do joint activities. For
example, the Ann Arbor Sheraton uses the “Living room strategy” for its lobbies, which
involve using music, art, pillows and rugs to replicate the social spaces of one’s own house,
while the Houston Doubletree uses the “Great room concept”, which divides the lobby
into four spaces: a welcome zone, the bar, a relaxing work zone and a social business area
thus allowing the guest’s engagement in public-private spaces simultaneously (Hospitality
Design, 2017).
Limitations and direction for future research

First, the design of the current study does not allow researchers to confirm the
existence of specific emotional experiences. This is because an online survey method
was used in order to collect responses to measure the study’s constructs. This kind of
data collection had led respondents to report different types of hotels ranging from
budget hotels to two and three stars hotels, to upper upscale and luxury hotels. Such an
issue may have affected the structure of experiences from an analytical perspective,
since each type of hotel may stress different aspects of customer experience. Therefore,
future research could validate the proposed model in a single type of hotels (e.g. luxury
hotels) in order to further enrich understanding of CEQ and to provide additional
support on the structure of factors forming the construct of CEQ. Second, it is widely
acknowledged that upper upscale and luxury hotels are highly professional, have
complex configurations of hospitality services, and compete on creativity and innova-
tion more than on price and location (Ordanini and Magilo, 2009; Harris and Watkins,
1998). On the other hand, low-rated hotels tend to have a standardised “cookie-cutter”
appearance, offer no-frills accommodation with limited services and charge low prices
(Ren et al., 2016). Such differences between low and high-rated hotels indicate that the
relative importance and emphasis of the seven experiences proposed by the current
study may vary between them. For example, one would expect that emotional-related
experiences and lifestyle might be more suitable to luxury hotels than to low-rated
hotels. However, the issue does not seem to be straightforward, as one would expect.
For example, the CEO of Debut Hotel Group noted that: “Lifestyle should not just be
for the upper Scale… every traveler should have a choice to stay at a non-homogenous,
neat feeling hotel that is focused on great design, relevancy of product, and great
service” (Global Allies, 2015, p. 96). Similarly, in a study conducted on budget hotels,
Ren et al. (2016, p. 15) noted that that “emotional aspects such as a pleasant stay,
comfort, and sense of security, are also important, in addition to the basic attributes of
the hotels”. This leads to the proposal of the following questions, which could be an
interesting area of research: how do the seven experiences vary between high and low-
rated hotels? Which of the seven experiences are more salient to high and low-rated
hotels? To what extent can psychological, emotional and symbolic experiences be
extended to low-rated hotels? What kind of emotional and psychological experiences
are offered by low-rated hotels? These questions could not be answered by the current
study given that the sample was heavily weighted towards upscale, upper upscale and
luxury hotels coupled with 53 respondents who did not specify the ratings of the hotels
they visited.
ORCID
Ibrahim Alnawas http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4563-8924
Jane Hemsley-Brown http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9483-8976
References
Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. (2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer
Research, 31(1), 1–16. doi:10.1086/383419
Acheampong, I., & Asamoah, K. (2013). Service delivery and business growth among banks in
Ghana using the service profit chain model”. International Journal of Global Business, 6(20),
57–79.
Adhikari, A., & Bhattacharya, S. (2016). Appraisal of literature on customer experience in tourism
sector: Review and framework. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(4), 296–321. doi:10.1080/
13683500.2015.1082538
Ali, F., Amin, M., & Cobanoglu, C. (2016). An integrated model of service experience, emotions,
satisfaction and price acceptance: An empirical analysis in the Chinese hospitality industry.
Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 25(4), 449–475. doi:10.1080/
19368623.2015.1019172
Ali, F., Kim, W., Li, J., & Jeon, H.-M. (2018). Make it delightful: Customers’ experience, satisfaction
and loyalty in Malaysian theme parks. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 7,
1–11. doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.05.003
Ali, F., & Omar, R. (2014). Determinants of customer experience and resulting satisfaction and
revisit intentions: pls-sem approach towards malaysian resort hotels. Asia-pacific Journal of
Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism, 3(2), 175-193.
Altunel, M. C., & Erkut, B. (2015). Cultural tourism in istanbul: The mediation effect of tourist
experience and satisfaction on the relationship between involvement and recommendation
intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(4), 213–221.
Ashforth, B., & Humphrey, R. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles - the influence of identity.
Academy of Management Review, 18, 88–115. doi:10.5465/amr.1993.3997508
Babin, B., Lee, Y-K., Kim, E-J., & Griffin, M. (2005). Modeling consumer satisfaction and word-of-
mouth: restaurant patronage in korea. Journal Of Services Marketing, 19(3), 133-139.
Bateson, J., & Hui, M. K. (1986). Crowding in the service environment. In Venkatesan, M.,
Schmalensee, D. M. and Marshall, C. (Eds.), Creativity in services marketing: What’s new, what
works, what’s developing. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Berry, L. L., Carbone, L. P., & Haeckel, S. H. (2002). Managing the total customer experience. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 85–89.
Bhat, M. (2014). Safety and security perceptions: An empirical assessment of tourists in Kashmir.
Journal of Services Research, 13(2), 131–144.
Biedenbach, G., & Marell, A. (2010). The impact of customer experience on brand equity in a
business-to-business services setting. Journal of Brand Management, 17(6), 446–458. doi:10.1057/
bm.2009.37
Bigne, J. E., Sanchez, M. I., & Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables and after
purchase behaviour: Inter-relationship. Tourism Management, 22(6), 607–616. doi:10.1016/
S0261-5177(01)00035-8
Bitner, M. J. (1992). The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of
Marketing, 56(2), 57–71. doi:10.1177/002224299205600205
Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it
measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(May), 52–68. doi:10.1509/
jmkg.73.3.052
Cai, L., & Hobson, J. (2004). Making hotel brands work in a competitive environment. Journal of
Vacation Marketing, 10, 197–208. doi:10.1177/135676670401000301
Carlson, K., Rahman, M., Rosenberger, I. I. I., & Holzmüller, H. (2016). Understanding communal
and individual customer experiences in group-oriented event tourism: An activity theory
perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(9–10), 900–925. doi:10.1080/
0267257X.2016.1181099
Chang, S.-H., & Lin, R. (2015). Building a total customer experience model: Applications for the
travel experiences in Taiwan’s creative life industry. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 32
(4), 438–453. doi:10.1080/10548408.2014.908158
Chang, T., & Horng, S. (2015). Conceptualizing and measuring experience quality: The custo-
mer’s perspective. The Service Industries Journal, 30(14), 2401–2419. doi:10.1080/
02642060802629919
Chang, T. Y., & Horng, S. C. (2010). Conceptualising and measuring experience quality: the
customer’s perspective. The Service Industries Journal, 30(14), 2401–2419.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to
brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81–93. doi:10.1509/
jmkg.65.2.81.18255
Chen, C., & Chen, F. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral
intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31, 29–35. doi:10.1016/j.
tourman.2009.02.008
Chen, J.-L. (2015). The impact of bed and breakfast atmosphere, customer experience, and customer
value on customer voluntary performance: A survey in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research, 20(5), 541–562. doi:10.1080/10941665.2014.908228
Choi, E., Wilson, A., & Fowler, D. (2013). Exploring customer experiential components and the
conceptual framework of customer experience, customer satisfaction, and actual behavior.
Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 16(4), 347–358. doi:10.1080/15378020.2013.824263
Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13(2), 179–201. doi:10.1177/
003803857901300203
Cole, S., & Scott, D. (2004). Examining the mediating role of experience quality in a model of tourist
experiences. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 16(1), 77–88. doi:10.1300/J073v16n01_08
Cronin, J., & Taylor, S. (1992). Measuring service quality: AReexamination and extension. The
Journal of Marketing, 56, 55–68. doi:10.1177/002224299205600304
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience, (1st ed.). New York:
Harper & Row.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., and Grewal, D. (1991), Effect of price, brand and store information on
buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307–319.
Edwards, J. (2011). The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2),
370–388
Elliott, C., (2016, February 22). Some hotels deliver happy surprises at checkout By: Christopher
Elliott, USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/advice/2016/02/21/
hotel-checkout-gifts/80602340/
Enz, C. A. (2009). The physical safety and security features of US hotels. Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly, 11(4), 553–560. doi:10.1177/1938965509345963
Fakharyan, M., Omidvar, S., Khodadadian, M., Jalilvand, M., & Vosta, L. (2014). Examining the
effect of customer-to-customer interactions on satisfaction, loyalty, and word-of-mouth beha-
viors in the hospitality industry: The mediating role of personal interaction quality and service
atmospherics. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 31(5), 610–626. doi:10.1080/
10548408.2014.884964
Fawaz, Z. (2015). Lifestyle hotels: The emergence of a new creative class. Retrieved from www.hvs.
com
Feickert, J., Verma, R., Plaschka, G., & Dev, C. (2006). Safeguarding your customers the guest’s view
of hotel security. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 224–244.
doi:10.1177/0010880406288872
Fernandes, T., & Cruz, M. (2016). Dimensions and outcomes of experience quality in tourism: The
case of Port wine cellars. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31, 371–379. doi:10.1016/j.
jretconser.2016.05.002
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. doi:10.1177/
002224378101800104
Frequent Traveller. (2014). When the world is your office but you’d rather stay at home. Retrieved
from https://www.pinterest.com/btuk/frequent-traveller/
Gallarza, M., Arteaga, F., & Gil-Saura, I. (2015). Managers’ perceptions of delivered value in the
hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 24(8), 857–893.
doi:10.1080/19368623.2015.964898
Global Allies. (2015). Hospitality design: beauty sports the luxury issue. Accessed from: http://www.
nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/hd/20150304/index.php?startid=96#/0
Goi, M., Kalidas, V., & Zeeshan, M. (2014). Comparison of stimulus-organism-response framework
between international and local retailer. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 130, 461–468.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.054
Hansen, A-H., & Mossberg, L. (2013). Consumer immersion: A key to extraordinary experiences. In
J. Sundbo and F. Sörensen (Eds.). Handbook on the Experience Industry (pp. 209–227).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hardin, A., Chang, J., Fuller, M., & Torkzadeh, G. (2011). Formative measurement and academic
research: In search of measurement theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71,
281–305. doi:10.1177/0013164410370208
Hardin, A., & Marcoulides, G. (2011). A Commentary on the use of formative measurement.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(5), 753–764. doi:10.1177/0013164411414270
Harman, H. (1967). Modem factor analysis. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago.
Harris, L., & Watkins, P. (1998). The impediments to developing a market orientation: an explora-
tory study of small uk hotels. International Journal Of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10
(6), 221–226. doi:10.1108/09596119810232248
Harris, Lloyd C. and Mark M. H. Goode (2004), “The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role of
trust: A study of online service dynamics,” Journal of Retailing, 80(2), 139–58.
Hemmington, N. (2007). From service to experience: Understanding and defining the hospitality
business. The Service Industries Journal, 27(6), 747–755. doi:10.1080/02642060701453221
Hemsley-Brown, J., & Alnawas, I. (2016). Service quality and brand loyalty: The mediation effect of
brand passion, brand affection and self-brand connection. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 28(12), 2771–2794. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-09-2015-0466
Hilliard, T., & Baloglu, S. (2008). Safety and security as part of the hotel servicescape for meeting planners.
Journal of Convention and Event Tourism, 9(1), 15–34. doi:10.1080/15470140802104557
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods,
and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46, 92–101. doi:10.1177/002224298204600314
Holbrook, M. B. (1996). Customer value – a framework for analysis and research. Advances in
Consumer Research, 23(1), 138–142.
Hosany, S, & Gilbert, D. (2010). “Measuring tourists' emotional experiences toward hedonic holiday
destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 49(4), 513–526. doi:10.1177/0047287509349267
Hosany, S., & Witham, D. (2010). Dimensions of cruisers’ experiences, satisfaction, and intention to
recommend. Journal of Travel Research, 49(3), 351–364. doi:10.1177/0047287509346859
Hospitality Design. (2017). The evolution of the hotel lobby. Retrieved from https://www.paradigm-
design.com/new-blog/2017/10/18/the-evolution-of-the-hotel-lobby
Huang, S., Liu, Z., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2014). Customer experiences with economy hotels in china:
Evidence from mystery guests. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 23(3), 266–293.
doi:10.1080/19368623.2013.787919
Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit Indices, sample size, and advanced topics.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 90–98. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003
Iglesias, O., Singh, J. J., & Batista-Foguet, J. M. (2011). The role of brand experience and affective
commitment in determining brand loyalty. Journal of Brand Management, 18(8), 570–582.
doi:10.1057/bm.2010.58
Ismail, A. (2011). Experience Marketing: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Relationship
Marketing, 10, 167–201. doi:10.1080/15332667.2011.599703
Jani, D., & Han, H. (2013). Personality, social comparison, consumption emotions, satisfaction, and
behavioral intentions: How do these and other factors relate in a hotel setting?. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(7), 970–993. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-10-2012-
0183
Jin, N. P., Lee, S., & Lee, H. (2015). The effect of experience quality on perceived value, satisfaction,
image and behavioral intention of water park patrons: New versus repeat visitors. International
Journal of Tourism Research, 17, 82–95. doi:10.1002/jtr.v17.1
Joy, A., & Sherry, J. E. (2003). Speaking of art as embodied imagination: A multisensory approach to
understanding aesthetic experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 259–282.
Kandampully, J., & Suhartanto, D. (2003). The Role of Customer Satisfaction and Image in Gaining
Customer Loyalty in the Hotel Industry. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 10(1–2),
3–25. doi:10.1300/J150v10n01_02
Kao, Y. F., Huang, L. S., & Wu, C. H. (2008). Effects of theatrical elements on experiential quality
and loyalty intentions for theme parks. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 13(2), 163–174.
doi:10.1080/10941660802048480
Kim, H., & Choi, B. (2013). The influence of customer experience quality on customers’ behavioral
intentions. Services Marketing Quarterly, 34(4), 322–338. doi:10.1080/15332969.2013.827068
Kim, J.-H., Ritchie, J., & McCormick, B. (2012). Development of a Scale to Measure Memorable
Tourism Experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), 12–25. doi:10.1177/0047287510385467
Klaus, P. (2013). The case of amazon.com: Towards a conceptual framework of online customer
service experience (ocse) using the emerging consensus technique (ect). Journal of Services
Marketing. 27(6), 443–457.
Klaus, P., & Maklan, S. (2007). The role of brands in a service-dominated world. Journal of Brand
Management, 15(2), 115–122. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550121
Klaus, P., & Maklan, S. (2011). Bridging the gap for destination extreme sports – A model of sports
tourism customer experience. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(13–14), 1341–1365.
doi:10.1080/0267257X.2011.624534
Klaus, P., & Maklan, S. (2012). EXQ: A multiple-scale for assessing service experience. Journal of
Service Management, 23(1), 5–33. doi:10.1108/09564231211208952
Klaus, P., & Maklan, S. (2013). Towards a better measure of customer experience. International
Journal of Market Research, 55(2), 227–246. doi:10.2501/IJMR-2013-021
Klumbis, D. (2003). Seeking the ‘ultimate hotel experience. Paper presented at the International
Leisure and Tourism Symposium ESADE-Fira de Barcelona, Barcelona, 2002. doi:10.1.1.483.1137
Lemke, F., Clark, M., & Wilson, H. (2011). Customer experience quality: An exploration in business
and consumer contexts using repertory grid technique. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 39, 846–869. doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0219-0
Li, X., & Patrick, J. (2010). Revisiting the commitment-loyalty distinction in a cruising context.
Journal of Leisure Research, 42(1), 67–90. doi:10.1080/00222216.2010.11950195
Liat, C., Mansori, S., & Huei, C. (2014). The associations between service quality, corporate image,
customer satisfaction, and loyalty: Evidence from the Malaysian hotel industry. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management, 23(3), 314–326. doi:10.1080/19368623.2013.796867
Lindberg, J., & Østergaard, P. (2015). Extraordinary consumer experiences: Why immersion and
transformation cause trouble. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14, 248–260. doi:10.1002/
cb.1516
Maklan, S., & Klaus, P. (2011). Customer experience: Are we measuring the right things.
International Journal of Market Research, 53(6), 771–792. doi:10.2501/IJMR-53-6-771-792
Manthiou, A., Kang, J., Sumarjan, N., & Tang, L. (2016). The incorporation of consumer experience
into the branding process: An investigation of name-brand hotels. International Journal of
Tourism Research, 18, 105–115. doi:10.1002/jtr.v18.2
McGrath, M., & Otnes, C. (1995). Unacquainted influencers: When strangers interact in the retail
setting. Journal of Business Research, 32, 261–272. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(94)00051-F
McIntosh, A. J., & Siggs, A. (2005). An exploration of the experiential nature of boutique accom-
modation. Journal of Travel Research, 44(1), 74–81. doi:10.1177/0047287505276593
Moir, J. (2005). Are you ready to order? Telegraph Weekend, 31(December), 20.
Moschis, P., & Cox, D. (1989). Deviant consumer behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 732–737.
Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyatt, G. (2011). Brand equity, brand loyalty and customer satisfaction.
Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 1009–1030. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2011.01.015
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Nyffenegger, B., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W., & Malar, L. (2015). Service brand relationship quality:
Hot or cold? Journal of Service Research, 18(1), 90–106. doi:10.1177/1094670514547580
Oh, H., Fiore, A., & Jeoung, M. (2007). Measuring Experience Economy Concepts: Tourism
Applications. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 119–132. doi:10.1177/0047287507304039
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(4), 460–469. doi:10.1177/002224378001700405
Ong, C., Lee, H., & Ramayah, T. (2018). Impact of brand experience on loyalty. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27(7), 755–774. doi:10.1080/19368623.2018.1445055
Ordanini, A., & Maglio, P. P. (2009). Market orientation, Internal Process, and External Network: a
Qualitative Comparative Analysis Of Key Decisional Alternatives in The New Service
Development. Decision Sciences, 40(3), 601–625.
Otto, J., & Ritchie, B. (1996). The service experience in tourism. Tourism Management, 17(3),
165–174. doi:10.1016/0261-5177(96)00003-9
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Malhorta, A. (2005). E-S-QUAL: A multiple-item scale for
assessing electronic service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
PATA (Pacific Asia Travel Association). (2015). Visitor economy bulletin. Retrieved from www.PATA.org
Pine, B. J., & And Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experiences economy: Work is theatre and every
business is a stage. Boston Mass: HBS Press.
Poon, W-C, & Low, K. L. T. (2005). Are Travelers Satisfied with Malaysian Hotels? International
Journal Of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17(3), 217–227. doi:10.1108/
09596110510591909
Reinartz, W., & Kumar, V. (2000). On the profitability of long-life customers in a noncontractual
setting: An empirical investigation and implications for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 64(4),
17–35. doi:10.1509/jmkg.64.4.17.18077
Ren, L., Qiu, H., Wang, P., & Lin, P. M. C. (2016). Exploring customer experience with budget
hotels: Dimensionality and satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 52,
13–23. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.09.009
Rust, T., & Oliver, R. (2000). Should we delight the customer? Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 28(Winter), 86–94. doi:10.1177/0092070300281008
Ryu, K., & Han, H. (2010). Influence of quality of food, service and physical environment on
customer satisfaction and behavioral intention in quick-casual restaurants: Moderating role of
perceived price. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 34(3), 310–329. doi:10.1177/
1096348009350624
Schmitt, B. (1999). Experiential marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1–3), 53–67.
doi:10.1362/026725799784870496
Schouten, J. W., McAlexander, J. H., & Koenig, H. F. (2007). Transcendent customer experience
and brand community. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 357–368. doi:10.1007/
s11747-007-0034-4
Solomon, M. R. (2002). Consumer behavior: buying, having, and being (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Spralls, S., Hunt, S., & Wilcox, J. (2011). Extranet use and building relationship capital in interfirm
distribution networks: The role of extranet capability. Journal of Retailing, 87(1), 59–74.
doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2010.09.001
Srivastava, M., & Kaul, D. (2016). Exploring the link between customer experience–Loyalty–
Consumer spend. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31, 277–286. doi:10.1016/j.
Stein, A., & Ramaseshan, B. (2016). Towards the identification of customer experience touch point
elements. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 8–19. doi:10.1016/j.
Su, C.-S. (2011). The role of service innovation and customer experience in ethnic restaurants. The
Service Industries Journal, 31(3), 425–444. doi:10.1080/02642060902829302
Sweeney, J.C., & Soutar, G. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item
scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203–220. doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0
Terdiman, D. (2015). New hotel concept zoku promises socially focused, customizable spaces for
“Global Nomads”. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/3046393/new-hotel-concept-
zoku-promises-socially-focused-customizable-spaces-for-global-nomads
Torres, E., & Kline, S. F. (2006). From customer satisfaction to delight: A model for the hotel
industry”. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(4), 290–301.
doi:10.1108/09596110610665302
Tung, V., & Ritchie, J. (2011). Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experience. Annual of
Tourism Research, 38(4), 1367–1386. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2011.03.009
Turner, V. (1973). The Center Out There: Pilgrim’s Goal. History of Religion, 12, 191–230.
doi:10.1086/462677
Verhoef, P. C., Lemon, K. N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., & Schlesinger, L. A.
(2009). Customer experience creation: Determinants, dynamics and management strategies.
Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 31–41. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2008.11.001
Voss, C., Roth, A. V., & Chase, R. B. (2008). Experience, service operations strategy, and services as
destinations: foundations and exploratory investigation.production. Production and Operations
Management,17, 247–266.
Walls, A., Okumus, F., & Wang, Y. (2011a). Cognition and affect interplay: A framework for the
tourist vacation decision-making process. Journal of Travel and Tourism Management, 28(5),
567–582. doi:10.1080/10548408.2011.588121
Walls, R. (2013). A cross-sectional examination of hotel consumer experience and relative effects on
consumer values. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 179–192. doi:10.1016/j.
ijhm.2012.04.009
Walls, R., Okumus, F., Wang, Y., Joon, D., & Kwun, W. (2011b). An epistemology view of
consumer experiences. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 10–21.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.03.008
Walls, R., Okumus, F., Wang, Y., Joon, D., & Kwun, W. (2011c). Understanding the consumer
experience: An exploratory study of luxury hotels. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 20(2), 166–197. doi:10.1080/19368623.2011.536074
Wei, W., Miao, L., Cai, L., & Adler, H. (2017). Modeling event attendees’ experiences during
customer-customer encounters (cces). International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 29(8), 2085–2102. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-02-2016-0106
Worsfold, K., Fisher, R., McPhail, R., Francis, M., & Thomas, A. (2016). Satisfaction, value and
intention to return in hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28
(11), 2570–2588. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-04-2015-0195
Wu, C. H. J, & Liang, R. D. (2009). Effect of experiential value on customer satisfaction with service
encounters in luxury-hotel restaurants. International Journal Of Hospitality Management, 28(4),
586–593.
Wu, H.-C., & Cheng, -C.-C. (2017). What drives experiential loyalty towards smart restaurants? the
case study of KFC in Beijing. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27(2), 151–177.
doi:10.1080/19368623.2017.1344952
Wu, Cedric, H.-J. (2007). The impact of customer-to-customer interaction and customer homo-
geneity on customer satisfaction in tourism service—the service encounter prospective.” Tourism
Management, 28, 1518–2.
Yang, Y., Liu, X., & Li, J. (2015). How customer experience affects the customer-based brand equity
for tourism destinations. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(1), 97–113. doi:10.1080/
10548408.2014.997959
Yoon, S.-J., & Lee, H.-J. (2017). Does customer experience management pay off? evidence from local
versus global hotel brands in South Korea. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 26
(6), 585–605. doi:10.1080/19368623.2017.1281192
Yu, H., & Fang, W. (2009). Relative impacts from product quality, service quality, and experience
quality on customer perceived value and intention to shop for the coffee shop market. Total
Quality Management, 20(11), 1273–1285. doi:10.1080/14783360802351587
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and
synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22. doi:10.1177/002224298805200302
Zhang, J., & Mao, Z. (2012). Image of all hotel scales on travel blogs: Its impact on customer loyalty.
Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 21(2), 113–131. doi:10.1080/
19368623.2011.615017
Zhang, M., Kim, P., & Goodsir, W. (2019). Effects of service experience attributes on customer
attitudes and behaviours: The case of New Zealand café industry. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, in press.

Examining The Key Dimensions of Customer Experience Quality in The Hotel Industry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Examining The Key Dimensions of Customer Experience Quality in The Hotel Industry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management

ISSN: 1936-8623 (Print) 1936-8631 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm20

Examining the key dimensions of customer

Ibrahim Alnawas & Jane Hemsley-Brown

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2019.1568339

Published online: 18 Feb 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Examining the key dimensions of customer experience quality

CONTACT Ibrahim Alnawas ialnawas@qu.edu.qa Qatar University

features and facilities

Literature review: customer experience quality

Conceptualising customer experience quality

Customer-customer interaction refers to the perceived judgement of the superiority of

H1: CEQ is a high-order reﬂective construct that is comprised of nine ﬁrst-order

H2: CEQ is positively associated with customer satisfaction

H3: CEQ is positively associated with perceived value

H3: CEQ is positively associated with brand loyalty

Figure 1 summarises the study’s constructs and relationships

First-Order indicators Second-Order Construct Outcomes

Customer Experience Perceived Value

Guest Security Brand Loyalty

Figure 1. The proposed model.

Table 2. Factorial analysis of the dimensions of CEQ.

the cut-oﬀ-point of 0.50, indicating strong evidence of convergent validity. Additionally,

Common method bias

XYZ has stringent security measures Feickert et al. (2006) .792

I am completely satisﬁed with XYZ 0.90

Table 4. Discriminant validity.

Reﬂective vs. formative measurements

Table 5. Hypotheses testing.

Discussion and conclusions

Limitations and direction for future research

You might also like