Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
knowledge in relation to value creation theories and practices. Literature on customer participa-
tion focuses on the activities of customers during service delivery and the customer experiences
in relation to these activities (e.g. Bendapudi and Leone 2003). This way of thinking refl ects
a traditional perspective on value. In tourist experiences, other types of value may readily
come to mind, e.g. mental activities such as thinking, identity building and dreaming (Belk
1988). Consequently, combining customers' structure and purpose of travel in relation to their
vacations with the fi rm's potential in dramatizing experiences, the present work suggests a
framework to understand and enhance experience value through interactions during the whole
experience process.
What people value in tourist settings
Customer perception of value is viewed as interactive between customer and offering, relativistic
between people and situations, preferential and based on a holistic experience (Holbrook, 1999).
Bradley and Sparks (2012) follow the lead of Holbrook (1999) and Woodall (2003) in perceiving
value as a benefi t or advantage, something consumers regard above other things. Based on similar
ideas, Vargo and Lusch (2004) highlight the interactive, relativistic and experiential nature of
customer value in relation to the topic of value co-creation, and further the concept of value
propositions. Ballantyne and Varey (2006) note that value propositions are reciprocal promises of
value, operating to and from suppliers and customers seeking an equitable exchange.
Perceived value has previously been operationalized using a single item scale such as 'value for
money'; however, a single item scale does not address the whole concept of perceived value
(Gallarza and Saura 2006; Sweeney
et al
. 1999). Bolton and Drew (1991: 377) draw on social
judgment theory (e.g. Brunswick 1952) when they propose that value is the key link between
the cognitive elements of perceived quality or performance, perceived monetary sacrifi ce and
behavioural intentions, in that they claim that perceived value is a 'richer measure of customers'
overall evaluation of a service than perceived service quality'. Measuring multiple components
of perceived value has therefore been recommended by many researchers (e.g. Gallarza and
Saura 2006; Sweeney and Soutar 2001). A comprehensive theoretical framework of perceived
value has been developed by Sheth
et al
. (1991). Sweeney and Soutar (2001) utilize Sheth
et al
.'s
(1991) framework in studying retail purchasing. To measure the on-site perceived value, the
researchers proposed four distinct dimensions: emotional, social, quality/performance and price/
value for money. The results indicated that these multiple value dimensions perform better than
a single value item such as 'value for money'.
Holbrook (1994) employs the traditional extrinsic-intrinsic conceptualization of experiences
as a foundation for his work on value perception and additionally includes a dimension of
activity in the concept. As the consumer is assumed to be more or less active (active versus
passive) in the experience, Holbrook supports the idea of the consumer as a participant in
co-creating experience value. Based on the dichotomy between intrinsic/extrinsic and active/
passive behaviour, Holbrook (1994) recommends that value elements include effi ciency,
excellence, status, esteem, play, aesthetics, ethics and spirituality. Gallarza and Saura (2006) use
Holbrook's scale, adding time and effort spent (as costs for the tourist), and test the relationships
between value perception, satisfaction and loyalty in tourism. Sweeney and Soutar (2001) base
their work on Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) and further on the framework delineated by
Sheth
et al
. (1991). Sweeney and Soutar (2001) view the consumer as a participant in creating
experience value - both hedonic and utilitarian - for the customer.
Within this perspective, the consumer makes a choice based on many value dimensions
dependent on the choice situation (Sheth
et al
. 1991). Functional value is defi ned as the 'perceived
