Make it delightful: Customers' experience, satisfaction and loyalty in Malaysian theme parks

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management

http://d2212-57

n CorrE-m

jhm010

PleasJourn

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm

Research paper

Make it delightful: Customers' experience, satisfaction and loyalty inMalaysian theme parks

Faizan Ali a, Woo Gon Kimb, Jun Li b, Hyeon-Mo Jeon c,n

a College of Hospitality & Technology Leadership, University of South Florida, Sarasota-Manatee, FL, USAb Dedman School of Hospitality, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USAc Department of Hotel & Tourism Management, Dongguk University – Gyeongju, Gyeongju, South Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 16 March 2016Received in revised form29 May 2016Accepted 31 May 2016

Keywords:Physical settingInteractionStaffOther customersDelightTheme parks

x.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.05.0031X/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

esponding author.ail addresses: [email protected] (F. Ali)@dongguk.ac.kr (H.-M. Jeon).

e cite this article as: Ali, F., et al. Mal of Destination Marketing & Manage

a b s t r a c t

Responding to the need of studies covering the interplay between customer experience and emotionswithin specific facets of the tourism industry, this study proposed a model to assess vistor experienceand its effect on their delight, satisfaction and loyalty in Malaysian theme parks. Based on conveniencesampling, a sample of 292 visitors at two theme parks in Malaysia was selected. Data was subjected topartial least squares analysis based on structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). Findings showed that allof the hypotheses were supported, indicating that physical setting, interaction with staff and interactionwith other customers had a significant impact on both customer delight and satisfaction. Moreover,customer delight influenced customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. The results suggest that themepark managers need to pay attention to maintaining a good physical setting, managing their humanresources well and managing the behaviour of other customers in order to ensure that their customersreceive delightful experiences.

& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The global theme park industry has grown rapidly since theopening of Disneyland in Anaheim, California in 1955. By end of2010, about 189.1 million people had visited the top 25 themeparks worldwide (Milman, Li, Wang, & Yu, 2012), a number greaterthan the volume of international tourists who visited NorthAmerica, the Caribbean, Central America, and South Americacombined in 2011 (World Tourism Organization, 2012). This tre-mendous growth in the theme park industry has also been wit-nessed in Asia and the Pacific Rim. The Asian theme park atten-dance grew by 16.5% from 2007 to 2012, while visitor spendingrose from $6.4 billion to $8.4 billion over that period (Tsang, Lee,Wong, & Chong, 2012). Asia is presently the second fastest growingsegment of the worldwide amusement park industry and is hometo four of the world's top 10 most-visited theme parks (Interna-tional Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, 2012).

Malaysia is considered to be an ideal place for people to enjoytheme parks due to its facilitative environment and weather. Manytheme parks have long been established in Malaysia, includingGenting Highlands Theme Park, Sunway Lagoon Theme Park,

,

ake it delightful: Customersment (2016), http://dx.doi.org

A’Famosa Water World, Cosmo's World Theme Park and BukitMerah Laketown Resort. These theme parks offer fun and excite-ment to visitors (Aziz, Ariffin, Omar, & Evin, 2012). Newer themeparks include Asia's first LEGOLAND, which debuted in southernMalaysia in 2013, while a 20th Century Fox theme park is due toopen in Malaysia in 2016 (Theme Park Post, 2014). The availableevidence points to the continued development and increasingsignificance of the theme park industry in Malaysia. Dong and Siu(2012), for example, predict that attractions such as theme parkswill continue to prosper, since people associate them with newand diverse vacation experiences, and theme parks offer theconvenience of on-site accommodations, food services, recreation,shopping and other tourist services, as well as recreational andentertainment activities.

In Malaysia's intensely competitive marketplace, it is often as-sumed that the key to gaining an advantage lies in creating high-quality hedonic experiences that will lead to satisfied and loyalcustomers (Ali, Ryu, & Hussain, 2015). Traditionally, the literaturehas pinpointed customer satisfaction as an important antecedentto loyalty (Slatten, Krogh, & Connolley, 2011). More recently,however, scholars and practitioners have shifted their focus to-wards the concept of customer delight as a new strategy forshaping customer loyalty (Finn, 2005; Loureiro, Miranda, & Brea-zeale, 2014; Slatten et al., 2011). In so doing, scholars are chal-lenging the supremacy of customer satisfaction in developingloyalty. Researchers consider emotions to be important outcomes

' experience, satisfaction and loyalty in Malaysian theme parks./10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.05.003i

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/2212571X

www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.05.003



mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]





F. Ali et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎2

of hedonic consumption experiences in the tourism industry,where many tourists are motivated to travel in the expectationthey will receive pleasure and delight (Kao, Huang, & Wu, 2008;Ma, Gao, Scott, & Ding, 2013). Positive emotions relate to touristsatisfaction and intention to revisit in various sectors of the tour-ism industry, including theme parks, because of their continuousinteraction with the physical and social environment during theconsumption experience (Ali et al., 2015; Bigné, Andreu, & Gnoth,2005). In this context, Loureiro et al. (2014) has postulated thatcustomers' emotions, such as delight, are natural constituents oftheir experience. Indeed, ‘Perhaps more than any other serviceindustry, tourism holds the potential to elicit strong emotional andexperiential reactions by consumer' (Loureiro et al., 2014, p. 168).The literature highlights customer experiences that emotionallyinfluence people and ensure they regard their experience as ‘de-lightful’. Customers store these experiences in their memories, so aclose link between them and their delight exists (Johnston & Clark,2001). Customers regard these delightful experiences as the coreproduct offering because they can take away the memories theydeveloped during consumption (Slatten et al., 2011). Hence, de-lightful experiences can be considered to be a vital determinant ofcustomer loyalty.

The existing body of services research that focuses on the re-lationship between satisfaction, loyalty and intention to revisithave focused on the role of general emotions, framed broadly aspositive and negative emotions (Hume & Mort, 2010; Koeing-Le-wis & Palmer, 2014; Lin & Liang, 2011; Svari, Slåtten, Svensson, &Edvardsson, 2011), ignoring the role of specific emotions, such asdelight, along with its antecedents and consequences (Loureiroet al., 2014; Ma et al., 2013). Customer delight is defined as acustomer's reaction to experiencing a product or service thatprovides an unanticipated level of value or satisfaction (Chandler,1989). Based on this conceptualization, customer delight is relatedto, but distinct from, customer satisfaction, particularly in respectof its effect on customer loyalty (Hicks, Page, Behe, Dennis, &Fernandez, 2005; Kim & Mattila, 2013; Kim, Vogt, & Knutson,2013; Loureiro, 2010; Oliver, 1997). Scholars such as Ma et al.(2013) and Crotts and Magnini (2011) have stated that customerdelight is new to the literature, arguing that this necessitatesfurther research into its relationship with other concepts such assatisfaction and loyalty. Knowledge of how customers' responseselicit delight would be useful in designing experiences to meetspecified tourist needs (Ma et al., 2013). A recent study by Kimet al. (2013) also called for more research on satisfaction and de-light as predictors of customer loyalty in the tourism context. Theyalso recommended developing a framework that includes variousfactors that may influence customers' satisfaction, delight andloyalty. This study is a response to such calls, as it examines therelationships among customer experiences, delight, satisfactionand loyalty. As such, this study aims to examine the effect ofcustomer experiences (both physical and social) on their delight,satisfaction with and loyalty to Malaysian theme parks.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The fol-lowing section discusses the theoretical background and conceptsthat are central to the study. The next focuses on the conceptualmodel and discusses the relationships amongthe model elements,along with the research methodology and data collection. The finalsection consists of the findings, implications and suggestions forfuture research directions.

2. Literature review

2.1. Customer experience

The term ‘experience’ is often used to refer to product offerings

Please cite this article as: Ali, F., et al. Make it delightful: CustomersJournal of Destination Marketing & Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org

in service settings that involve hedonic consumption, for examplein travel, restaurants, hotels and the arts (Holbrook & Hirschman,1982). The term 'customer service experience', meanwhile, hasgained a great deal of attention since Pine and Gilmore (1999)introduced it in their conceptualization of the ‘experience econo-my’. Other researchers have conceptualized consumer experienceas a psychological construct: a holistic and subjective responseresulting from customer contact with the service provider thatmight involve a customer's cognition and affect (Altunel & Erkut,2015; Li, Kim, & Wong, 2016; Palmer, 2010). Within this milieu,scholars believe experience to have some experiential aspects, asHolbrook and Hirschman (1982) theorized. In later research, Berry,Carbone, and Haeckel (2002) suggested that for service providersto compete, their services must satisfy and create positive custo-mer experiences. Service providers do this by detecting clues thatcustomers will leave during the buying process. Because of recentrecognition in theory and practice of the customer experience,there is growing consensus that the concept requires a universallyaccepted definition that integrates different perspectives (Klaus &Maklan, 2012). Meyer and Schwager (2007) presented a relateddefinition of customer experience: ‘Customer experience is theinternal and subjective response customers have to any direct orindirect contact with a company. Direct contact generally occurs inthe course of purchase, use, and service and is usually initiated bythe customer. Indirect contact most often involves unplannedencounters with representatives of a company's products, serviceor brands and takes the form of word-of-mouth recommendationsor criticisms, advertising, news reports, reviews and so forth’ (p.118). As the theme park industry becomes more service-oriented,offering more interactive experiences (Milman et al., 2012), un-derstanding the concept of the customer's experience becomesmore important (Dong & Siu, 2012). This study recognizes Meyerand Schwager's argument and adopts the definition of customerexperience as the internal response to any direct or indirect con-tact with the theme park and its resources.

A review of the literature suggests various components ofcustomer experience. Bitner (1992) introduced the term, ‘servi-cescape’ to denote the physical environment where a serviceprocess takes place. Similarly, Gupta and Vajic (1999) used theterm ‘interaction’ to describe the elements that influence customerexperience. Recently, Mossberg (2007) coined the term ‘experi-ence room’ to describe the customer experience. In another con-ceptualization, Grove, Fisk, and Dorsch (1998) proposed the ‘ser-vices theatre model’, which portrays theme park services astheatre performances (Fisk, Rogers, Charness, Czaja, & Sharit,2004), where actors (i.e. staff) are the people who deliver servicesto the audience (i.e. customers) in a setting (physical environ-ment). The interplay between the actors, audience and settingshape the overall experience of customers. Walls, Okumus, Wang,and Kwun (2011) also discussed these three constituents of cus-tomer experience in their exploratory study on customer experi-ences in luxury hotels. This study also considers customer ex-perience as a multi-dimensional and diverse construct, developedby various elements including: (i) the physical environment, (ii)interactions with staff, and (iii) interactions with other customerswithin the theme park.

2.1.1. Physical environmentService providers in the hospitality industry have depended on

the physical environment and atmosphere to create a great cus-tomer experience (Mossberg, 2007). Different authors have de-scribed the physical environment differently: Parasura-man, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) described it as something thatoutlines the tangible attributes of an intangible service or theservice encounter. Bitner (1992), in coining the term ‘servicescape’to connote the tangible aspects of the service encounter, identified





F. Ali et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 3

three dimensions including ambience, space or function, andsigns/symbols/artefacts, each of which can impact on the percep-tion and behavior of both customers and employees. Under theambiance dimension, Bitner (1992) included those elements thesense organs perceive directly: temperature, smell, sound, lightingand appearance. Space was described as a particular arrangementof facilities inside the service environment for a particular function(Bitner, 1992), while symbols/artefacts are those facilities insidethe service environment that direct and shape the behaviour ofthe customers in the service environment. Within the hospitalitycontext, Ryu, Lee, and Kim (2012) emphasized the importance ofthe physical environment and stated that due to the distinctcharacteristics of services, tangible cues serve in giving customersan idea of the quality of the service delivered as part of the serviceexperience. Past research notes that physical environment helpsservice providers position themselves (Bitner, 1992; Li, Wong, &Kim, 2016; Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996; Zeithaml, Bitner, &Gremler, 2006). This study focused on the ambient elements of thephysical environment among the three dimensions because theyappeared to be more relevant in the hospitality context (Jani &Han, 2013) in evoking emotions, shaping customer satisfaction andpossibly delighting the customers.

2.1.2. Interaction with staffHospitality services are usually consumed when both the cus-

tomer and service provider are present in the service environment,making their interaction a possible candidate in influencing acustomer's service experience. Many scholars have discussed theimportance of customer interaction with staff during a serviceencounter. Hartline and Ferrell (1996) declared that the interactionis ‘the employee–customer interface’ and Zeithaml et al. (2006)called it the ‘moment of truth’. Carbone and Haeckel (1994, p. 13)referred to it as ‘Humanics’ and stated that ‘they are engineered bydefining and choreographing the desired behaviour of employeesand customers involved in the customer encounter’. In this con-text, Yuan and Wu (2008) stated ‘humanics’ depicts how the ser-vice staff makes the consumers feel. Ap and Wong (2001) em-phasized the importance of frontline employees, whose perfor-mance can influence the experience of consumers. In further de-velopment of the concept and its outcomes for the service custo-mer, Arnould and Price (1993, p. 41) described it as 'emotionaloutcomes that are associated with extraordinary experiencesembedded in relationships between consumer and service provi-der'. Considering the importance of interacting with staff, Wallset al. (2011) postulated that service providers in the hospitalityindustry should focus on their human interaction dimensions, inaddition to physical environment dimensions, to develop the en-tire consumer experience. Due to the integral role of employees’interaction, most scholars have observed that customers' percep-tions of service performance are mostly based on employees’ at-titude, behaviour, friendliness and promptness (Homburg, Ko-schate, & Hoyer, 2006; Ryu et al., 2012; Walls et al., 2011). Based onthe literature, this study sees customer interaction with serviceprovider or staff as a possible determinant of customer delight andsatisfaction.

2.1.3. Interaction with other customersTheme parks are examples of service experiences consumed in

a group setting, where the behaviour of other customers influ-ences the consumer. This is because customers have a high level ofcontact with each other (Grove & Fisk, 1997; Kao et al., 2008;Mossberg, 2007; Walls et al., 2011; Zeithaml et al., 2006), whichcan potentially affect their satisfaction and delight. Earlier scho-lars, such as Brady and Cronin (2001) and Rust and Oliver (1994),also discussed the significance of the interaction with other cus-tomers during service delivery. Lovelock (1996) posited that a


stimulating and exciting audience can enrich a service experience.Scholars have addressed the influence of other customers in aservice environment from both cognitive and affective perspec-tives. Under the cognitive perspective, researchers assume thecustomer cognitively appraises the behaviour and appearance ofthe other customers relative to his/her own behaviour. This idea isin line with social comparison theory (Jani & Han, 2013; Festinger,1954). An alternative route researchers have taken that can beclassified under the cognitive approach is to assume that custo-mers compare the behaviour of others in that setting to the be-haviour of the ideal customer (Huang & Hsu, 2010). The affectiveperspective, meanwhile, relates to emotional contagion (Tombs &McColl-Kennedy, 2013): in which the emotions displayed by theother customers in the service environment automatically evoke asimilar emotion in the reference customer. In line with Jani andHan's (2013) argument of the applicability of the cognitive ap-proach in evaluating other consumers' behaviour, this study op-erationalizes interaction with other customers based on theirgeneral behaviour in the theme park.

2.2. Customer delight

The concept of 'delight' has recently been gaining attentionamong researchers and practitioners. Nevertheless, there is limitedresearch on concept and the limited literature has inconsistenciesin defining it (Kim & Mattila, 2013). Scholars such as Finn (2005)and Torres and Kline (2006) consider delight an emotion that is acombination of highlevels of pleasure (joy, elation) and arousal.Pleasure refers to the degree to which a person feels good, joyfulor happy in a situation, whereas arousal refers to the extent towhich a person feels stimulated and active (Bigné et al., 2005). Asper Oliver's (1980) expectancy-disconfirmation theory, customersare delighted if they are pleasantly surprised in response to adisconfirmation resulting from an experience (Finn, 2005; Kimet al., 2013; Torres & Kline, 2006). However, researchers have alsostated that the element of surprise is not essential for customerdelight: it can occur simply as a result of joy (Barnes, Beauchamp,& Webster, 2010; Kim et al., 2013). Some scholars proposed an-other conceptualization of customer delight: an extreme level ofsatisfaction (Berman, 2005; Kumar & Iyer, 2001). However, fol-lowers of this conceptualization fail to distinguish between sa-tisfaction and delight (Kim et al., 2013). Based on the literaturereview, this study prefers the conceptualization of customer de-light as an emotional response during service experience within atheme park (Arnold, Reynolds, Ponder, & Lueg, 2005; Finn, 2005).

Since scholars define the concept of delight in various ways,they employ different scales to measure the concept (Kim &Mattila, 2013). Some scholars have measured delight using scalesof emotions (Finn, 2005; Loureiro, 2010). Others, such as Oliver(1997) and Kumar, Olshavsky, and King (2001), have used a singleitem, 'feel delighted', which certain researchers have later criti-cised as it does not measure the complexity of customer delight.Finn (2005) improved the measurement scale for delight by pro-posing three items: 'delighted', 'gleeful' and 'elated'. Loureiro(2010) used two items, 'enchantment' and 'delighted'. Kim et al.(2013), in a recent study on the hospitality industry, also adoptedthree items proposed by Finn (2005) and reported a high level ofvalidity for these measurement items. This study therefore adoptsthat same measurement scale and includes three items to oper-ationalize customer delight.

2.3. Customer satisfaction

Satisfying customers is the ultimate goal of every business, dueto its potential impact on repeat purchasing behaviour and profits(Kim, Li, & Brymer, 2016; Ryu et al., 2012). The definition and






conceptualization of customer satisfaction varies throughoutmarketing literature. For example, Oliver (1997, p. 13) definedcustomer satisfaction as ‘a judgment that a product, or servicefeature, or the product or service itself, provides a pleasurablelevel of consumption–related fulfilment, including levels of underor over fulfilment’. Day (1984; p. 497) described satisfaction as ‘apost-choice evaluative judgment concerning a specific purchaseselection’. Various studies, such as Oliver (1997), Westbrook andOliver (1991), and Wirtz and Bateson (1999), have suggested thatsatisfaction is a partly cognitive and partly affective evaluation of acustomer's experience in service settings. This study adoptsWestbrook and Oliver's (1991) definition that satisfaction is a post-choice evaluative judgment, concerning a specific transaction, andit is central to understanding customers’ consumption experi-ences. These experiences elicit a set of emotional responses,known as consumption emotions, such as pleasantness/un-pleasantness, relaxation/action,and calmness/excitement (Wong,2004).

Several studies related to customer satisfaction in the servicesindustry have contested the usage of satisfaction as either anemotional construct or a cognitive construct (Martin,O'Neill, Hubbard, & Palmer, 2008). Some scholars have argued thatboth emotion and cognition are components of satisfaction (Aliet al., 2015; Kollman, 2000) and should properly be considereddinstinct in the modelling of consumer behaviour in service set-tings (Wong, 2004). In addition, Oliver (1997) has also supportedthis argument by stating that emotion is essential in under-standing customers’ consumption experiences because of its co-existence alongside various cognitive judgments in producing sa-tisfaction. For this reason, researchers have proposed that mea-sures of customer satisfaction should include an additional affec-tive component (Martin et al., 2008). Various studies, including Aliet al. (2015) and Olorunniwo, Hsu and Udo (2006), have assessedsatisfaction with four items derived from Westbrook and Oliver’s(1991) satisfaction measure. This is related to the conceptualiza-tion of customer satisfaction adopted in the present study.

2.4. Customer loyalty

Customer loyalty is an integral part of the literature related toservice marketing and it has been studied across different in-dustries. There is a general consensus that customer loyalty de-velops once a person believes he or she is getting the best possibleservice from service providers (Ryu et al., 2012). Loyal customersbring many other benefits, such as occupying a higher portion of acustomer's budget, increased frequency of visits and positive wordof mouth (Russell-Bennett, McColl-Kennedy, & Coote, 2007). Everyservice provider should therefore strive to develop marketingstrategies to achieve the ultimate objective of maintaining custo-mer loyalty. Various studies have resulted in many con-ceptualizations and definitions of customer loyalty. For instance,Jones and Sasser (1995, p. 94) defined customer loyalty as ‘thefeeling of attachment to or affection for a company's people,products or services’. Customer loyalty thus refers to the com-mitment and intentions of the consumer to continue to repurchaseand consume preferred services over time (Han & Ryu, 2009).Oliver (1997) discussed four distinct stages of customer loyalty,comprising cognitive, affective, conative and action loyalty. Somescholars have also classified these four stages of customer loyaltyinto two dimensions: attitudinal and behavioral loyalty (Han &Ryu, 2009). While the behavioural dimension considers consistentrepeat patronage or repeat purchase frequency, the attitudinaldimension considers a psychological (decision-making or evalua-tive) commitment toward the service provider (Han, Kwortnik, &Wang, 2008). Recent scholars have also studied and found a strongcorrelation among these dimensions (Evanschitzky & Wunderlich,


2006). For example, Russell-Bennett et al. (2007) conducted astudy on the antecedents of brand loyalty. Their findings revealeda positive relationship between attitudinal and behavioral loyalty:increasing attitudinal loyalty may result in increased behaviouralloyalty. Other tourism and hospitality scholars have indicated thatthe attitudinal approach for assessing customer loyalty should bemore focused (Ryu et al., 2012; Schall, 2003). Their postulate isthat repeat purchase frequency cannot be an adequate indicator ofcustomer loyalty because customer loyalty in the service sectorinvolves attitudinal and emotional commitments to the serviceprovider/brand (Schall, 2003). For this study, the researchers usedboth the behavioral and attitudinal approaches to assess customerloyalty among theme park customers.

3. Hypotheses development

3.1. Impact of physical setting on delight and customer satisfaction

Various studies have demonstrated empirically that physicalenvironments can elicit positive or negative emotions and sa-tisfaction from customers (Bitner, 1992; Ladhari, 2009; Par-eigis, Edvardsson, & Enquist, 2011). A service setting's physicalenvironment comprises a variety of elements, including designand ambient factors such as color, air, scent, illumination, facilitiesand layout (Baker, Grewal, & Parasuraman, 1994; Han & Ryu, 2009;Lin & Liang, 2011). These factors are interrelated, and they worktogether (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974) to holistically influenceconsumers' delight and behavior (Ariffin & Yahaya, 2013; Bitner,1992). Previous studies in the retail and the hotel industry havefound that physical environment cognitively and emotionally af-fects customers (Kim, Kim, & Lennon, 2009; Burns & Neisner,2006). Since theme parks provide hedonic services, the physicalsetting becomes of greater importance in shaping guests' evalua-tions (Dong & Siu, 2012). This is because guests have extensiveexposure and stay a longer time in the physical environment.Considering the elaborate environment of theme parks (Zeithamlet al., 2006), where the product is experiential, this study focuseson the ambient elements of the physical environment (Slattenet al., 2011). Even though previous research has emphasized theimportance of the physical environment, there is a need for morethorough research on the effect of the physical setting – particu-larly its effect on customers' delight, which has been less re-searched in the context of theme parks – to complement the lit-erature on the effect of physical setting on satisfaction. This studyproposes that guests' perceptions of the ambient elements ofphysical environment in a theme park are significant predictors oftheir delight and satisfaction. The following hypotheses aretherefore proposed:

H1. Physical environment in a theme park has a significantimpact on customer delight.H2. Physical environment in a theme park has a significantimpact on customer satisfaction.

3.2.. Impact of Interaction with other Customers on Delight andCustomer Satisfaction

In many service contexts, customers receive their service at thesame time as other customers are being served. The presence ofother customers in the service environment can therefore affectthe nature of the service outcome or process (Grove et al., 1998)and thus customers' experiences. Similarly, within the context oftheme parks, customers must share the physical setting with othercustomers during consumption. Wirtz and Bateson (1999) pro-posed that interaction with other customers is one of the






significant influences on the affective state of customers. Parkerand Ward (2000) and Huang and Hsu (2010) also explained thatcustomers' interaction with each other can affect their satisfactionand enhance their overall experience. Verhoef et al. (2009) positedthat social environment (e.g. presence and behaviour of othercustomers) is one of the critical determinants of customer sa-tisfaction during the service encounter. Walls et al. (2011) testedand confirmed the significant impact of customers' interactionwith each other on emotions, including delight and satisfaction. Inthe context of the tourism and hospitality industry, Cetin andDincer (2014) also confirmed a significant impact of interactionwith other customers on the satisfaction of a customer. In a themepark, guests must stay for a significant amount of time within theservice environment to experience different rides. Their stay in thetheme park also involves interaction with other customers duringwait times. Zeithaml et al. (2006) stated that service environmentscan act as a ‘socializer’ and facilitate interaction between custo-mers. Hence, customers can affect each other's emotions and be-haviour indirectly by being a part of the environment or moredirectly through specific interpersonal encounters (Grove et al.,1998). Even though previous research has emphasized the im-portance of customer- to-customer interaction in developingemotions and satisfaction in various industries, there is a need toexamine these relationships in the context of theme parks. Cus-tomers' interaction with each other in a theme park is expected toprovoke delight and satisfaction. The following hypotheses aretherfore proposed:

H3. Interaction with other customers in a theme park has asignificant impact on customer delight.H4. Interaction with other customers in a theme park has asignificant impact on customer satisfaction.

3.3. Impact of interaction with staff on delight and customersatisfaction

Several scholars have discussed the interaction between cus-tomers and staff members insofar as it may influence the custo-mer's degree of emotional commitment and overall experience(Bitner, 1992; Slatten et al., 2011; Verhoef et al., 2009; Walls et al.(2011) proposed that guests' interactions with other customersand staff may influence their emotions and satisfaction. Slattenet al. (2011), in their study on winter theme parks, also discussedhow interaction with staff affects customers' emotions, and Xu andChan (2010) confirmed the effect of interaction with staff on cus-tomers' satisfaction in the context of package tour participants.Arnould and Price (1993) conducted a similar study in the contextof a multi-day river-rafting experience. They also confirmed theinteraction with staff influences customers' overall satisfaction andemotions (i.e. delight). Customers visit theme parks mainly toexperience entertaining activities performed by the staff. Hence, inaddition to the physical atmosphere, members of staff also have anintegral role in creating positive emotions and evaluations. Asdiscussed by Zeithaml et al. (2006), service environments facilitateinteraction between customers and members of staff: thereforesmall details, such as a smile, a pleasant voice, perceptible em-pathy and a friendly approach to customers may influence thecustomer's emotions and perceptions of the overall experience(Slatten et al., 2011). Even though previous research has empha-sized the importance of staff-on -customer interaction in devel-oping emotions and satisfaction in various industries, there is aneed to examine the effect of staff-customer interaction on specificemotions, such as delight and satisfaction, in the context of themeparks. This study expects customers' perceptions of their interac-tions with the staff of a theme park to provoke delight and sa-tisfaction. The following hypotheses are therefore proposed:


H5. Perceived interaction with staff in a theme park has a sig-nificant impact on customer delight.H6. Perceived interaction with staff in a theme park has a sig-nificant impact on customer satisfaction.

3.4. Impact of customer delight on customer satisfaction and loyalty

Even though researchers have emphasized the importance ofdelighting customers in developing customer satisfaction andloyalty (Hicks et al., 2005; Oliver, 1997; Torres & Kline, 2006),empirical studies on the relationships between delight, satisfac-tion and loyalty are still limited (Kim et al., 2013). Lin and Liang(2011) investigated the extent to which emotions influence cus-tomer satisfaction and loyalty. They stated that positive emotions,such as delight and joy, significantly affect customer satisfactionand loyalty. In addition, Cohen and Areni (1991) indicated thatconsumption emotions, such as delight, have strong episodicmemory and are highly accessible to cognitive operations, result-ing in customer satisfaction and loyalty (Arora & Singer, 2006).Kim et al. (2013) and Ariffin and Yahaya (2013) have also observedthat delight may influence the satisfaction and loyalty of custo-mers in the hospitality industry. In contrast, the relationship be-tween negative emotions (e.g. anger, regret and disappointment)and customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction has been extensivelystudied by scholars in the service marketing and hospitality lit-erature (Mano & Oliver, 1993; Oliver, 1997). A few studies havediscussed the significance of delight in developing customer sa-tisfaction and loyalty in theme parks (Loureiro, 2010; Kao et al.,2008). Therefore, in this study, the following two hypotheses areproposed:

H7. Customer delight has a significant impact on customer sa-tisfaction in theme parks.H8. Customer delight has a significant impact on customerloyalty in theme parks.

3.5. Impact of customer satisfaction on customer loyalty

Many scholars have supported the idea that customer sa-tisfaction is a significant determinant of customer loyalty (Ander-son, Fornell, & Mazvancheryls, 2004; Homburg et al., 2006; Lour-eiro, 2010). As per Cronin and Taylor (1992), if customers are sa-tisfied with the services provided, they may continue to re-purchase and be more willing to recommend these services toothers. Researchers have tested this relationship in various servicesectors (e.g. fast food, banking and dry cleaning). In addition, intheir study on backpackers, Chitty, Ward, and Chua (2007) pos-tulated that satisfaction with the services provided may result inloyal customers. Kao et al. (2008) also tested and confirmed thesignificant impact of customer satisfaction on customer loyalty intheme parks. Therefore, this research hypothesizes the following:

H9. Customer satisfaction has a significant impact on customerloyalty in theme parks.

4. Methodology

4.1. Sample design and data collection

A study of a theme park is ideal for focusing on the customerexperience and its relationship to delight, satisfaction and beha-viour. This study limited its target population to customers oftheme parks in Malaysia. A self-administered survey was used tocollect data from customers at two theme parks in Kuala Lumpurand Selangor, Malaysia, during March and April of 2014. Based on






convenience sampling, the researchers distributed 410 ques-tionnaires to customers during weekends at various times of theday. Of the distributed questionnaires, customers returned 301(73% response rate) and after excluding the responses with miss-ing data, 292 responses were deemed fit for further procedures(71% response rate). Of these useable responses, 45% of re-spondents were male and 55% were female. 11% were under 25years old, 50% were between 26 and 35 years, 21% were betweenthe ages of 36 and 45, and 17% were older than 45. In terms ofmonthly income, 9% of respondents had a monthly income of lessthan 3000 Malaysian Ringgit, 20% had a monthly income between3000 and 5000 Malaysian Ringgit, 37% of the respondents had amonthly income between 5001 and 7000 Malaysian Ringgit and34% had a monthly income of over 7000 Malaysian Ringgit. Interms of nationality, 35% of the respondents were Malaysian na-tionals and 65% were from other countries. In terms of tripo-graphics, 20% of respondents had visited a theme park once in thelast two years and 46% had visited a theme park 2–3 times in thelast two years. Another 33% of the respondents visited a themepark over three times in the last two years. In their most recenttrip to a theme park, 34% of the respondents were accompanied bytheir colleagues, 49% were accompanied by their family membersand 14% were accompanied by their friends, while 3% visitedalone. In testing the differences in respondents' perceptions of themain variables in the study, based on their nationality, in-dependent t-tests were performed. Table 1 displays these result,which indicate that respondents’ perceptions of the physical en-vironment, interaction with staff, interaction with customers, de-light, satisfaction and loyalty varied slightly according to nation-ality; however, this variation was not found to bestatisticallysignificant.

4.2. Research instrument

This study measured the research constructs using a five-pointLikert-type scale and multiple items. All validated measurementitems were borrowed from previous studies. For all measurementitems across categories, scores ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to5 (strongly agree). The researchers assessed physical environment,interaction with staff and interaction with customers using five,four and three items respectively, modified from Wu and Liang(2009) and Jani and Han (2013). The researchers also measuredcustomer delight with three items, adapted from Kim et al. (2013),while customer satisfaction was operationalized using the fouremotion-laden items proposed by Westbrook and Oliver (1991).Last, the researchers adapted three items for customer loyaltyfrom Kao et al. (2008). The researchers modified these items sothey would fit in the context of this study. Academic faculty inhospitality management also reviewed the modification of itemsto ensure content validity. Based on their review, the researchersrefined the questionnaire in terms of structure, clarity, reselectionof words, editorial corrections and so on.

Table 1Means scores across nationality of respondents.

Nationality

Constructs Malaysian Non-Malaysian t -Value

Physical environment 3.918 3.776 1.752Interaction with staff 3.831 3.911 �1.013Interaction with customers 4.014 3.961 0.717Customer delight 4.001 4.022 �0.202Customer satisfaction 3.878 3.903 �0.342Customer loyalty 4.103 4.065 0.519


4.3. Analytical methods

For this study, the researchers tested the hypotheses set outabove, based on structural equation modelling, using a PartialLeast Squares (PLS) method employing Smart PLS M3 Version 2.0.PLS is a well-established technique for estimating path coefficientsin structural models and has become increasingly popular inmarketing research over the last decade due to its ability to modellatent constructs under conditions of non-normality with small-to-medium sample sizes (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2013). Theresearchers performed the PLS algorithm procedures to determinethe significance levels of the loadings, weights and path coeffi-cients, followed by a bootstrapping technique to determine thesignificance levels of the proposed hypothesis. Following theprocedure suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), the re-searchers estimated the validity and goodness of fit of the mea-surement model before testing the structural relationships out-lined in the structural model. Last, blindfolding procedures wereused to determine and assess the accuracy of the tested hypothesisand to obtain Q2.

4.4. Common method bias

Recent scholars have suggested assessing the collected data forany common method variance that may exist due to the use of asingle survey method (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,2003). Scholars consider the common method a potential problemin behavioural research. To address the concern of commonmethod variance, the data collected for this study were examinedusing Harman's one-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The re-searchers considered items from all constructs in a factor analysisto determine whether the majority of the variance could be ac-counted for by one general factor. The results of the principalcomponent factor analysis revealed that one factor accounted for41.5% (less than 50%) of the variance, which did not account for amajority of the variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). It was thereforeconcluded that the data for this study did not suffer from commonmethod bias.

5. Results

5.1. Measurement model

To evaluate the reflective measurements models, the researchersexamined outer loadings, composite reliability, average varianceextracted (AVE, or convegentvalidity and discriminant validity. First,the measurement model was tested for convergent validity, whichwas assessed through factor loadings, composite reliability (CR) andaverage variance extracted (AVE) (Hair et al., 2013). Table 2 showsthat all item loadings exceeded the recommended value of 0.6(Chin, Peterson, & Brown, 2008). CR and Cronbach's alpha values,which depict the degree to which the construct indicators indicatethe latent construct, exceeded the recommended value of 0.7 (Hairet al., 2013), while AVE, which reflects the overall variance in theindicators accounted for by the latent construct, exceeded the re-commended value of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2013).

Discriminant validity refers to the extent to which the mea-sures are not a reflection of some other variables' and it is in-dicated by low correlations between the measure of interest andthe measures of other constructs. Table 3 shows that the squareroot of the AVE (diagonal values) of each construct is larger than itscorresponding correlation coefficients, pointing towards adequatediscriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The measurementmodel showed an adequate convergent validity and discriminantvalidity.





Table 2Validity and reliability for constructs.

Constructs and their respective items Loadings AVE CR

Physical environment (Ambience) – Cronbach'salpha¼0.879

The theme park's lighting is appropriate 0.818 0.678 0.912The theme park's temperature is comfortable 0.862The theme park's environment is clean 0.871The theme park's architecture and setting isimpressive

0.869

The colors within the theme park are com-plementary and coordinating

0.683

Interaction with staff – Cronbach's alpha¼0.802The staff provide a thorough and satisfactory service 0.754 0.626 0.869The staff are reliable 0.781The staff are professional 0.812The staff have a good knowledge 0.816Interaction with other customers – Cronbach'salpha¼0.886

Other customers are not loud 0.754 0.745 0.921Other customers behave nicely 0.781Other customers are not problematic 0.812Other customers did not create disturbance 0.816Customer delight – Cronbach's alpha¼0.818I felt delighted at some time during my visit 0.850 0.734 0.892I felt gleeful at some time during my visit 0.891I felt elated at some time during my visit 0.829Customer satisfaction – Cronbach's alpha¼0.832I am satisfied with my decision to visit this themepark

0.793 0.666 0.888

My choice to choose this theme park was a wise one 0.812I think I did the right thing to visit this theme park 0.843I feel that my experience with this theme park hasbeen enjoyable

0.815

Customer loyalty – Cronbach's alpha¼0.735I would like to come back to this theme park in thefuture

0.803 0.654 0.85

I will tell my friends about this theme park 0.811I will recommend this theme park to others 0.812

Table 3Discriminant validity.

D IC IS L PE S

Customer delight (D) 0.857a

Interaction with customers (IC) 0.569 0.863Interaction with staff (IS) 0.431 0.497 0.791Customer loyalty (L) 0.575 0.543 0.432 0.808Physical environment (PE) 0.375 0.597 0.514 0.426 0.828Customer satisfaction (CS) 0.502 0.641 0.626 0.437 0.599 0.816

a The square root of AVE of every multi-item construct (first-order and second-order) is shown on the main diagonal.


5.2. Structural model

This study used SmartPLS 2.0 to test the structural model andhypotheses. A bootstrapping procedure was conducted, with 2000iterations, to examine the statistical significance of the weights ofsub-constructs and the path coefficients (Chin et al., 2008). As PLSdoes not generate overall goodness-of-fit indices, R2 is the primaryway to evaluate the explanatory power of the model. However,Tenenhaus, Vinzi, Chatelin, and Lauro (2005) presented anotherdiagnostic tool to assess the model fit, known as the goodness-of-fit (GoF) index. The GoF measure uses the geometric mean of theaverage communality and the average R2 (for endogenous con-structs). Hoffmann and Birnbrich (2012) reported these cut-offvalues for assessing the results of the GoF analysis: GoFsmall¼0.1,GoFmedium¼0.25 and GoFlarge¼0.36. For the model used in thisstudy, a GoF value of 0.541 was calculated, indicating a good modelfit.


Following the measurement model and goodness of fit, thehypothesized relationships in the structural model were tested.Fig. 1 shows the results of the analysis. The corrected R2s in Fig. 1refer to the explanatory power of the predictor variable(s) on therespective construct. Physical environment, interaction with staffand interaction with customers explain 35.2% of customer delight,whereas physical environment, interaction with customers, inter-action with staff, and customer delight explain 57.3% of customersatisfaction (R2¼0.573). Customer delight and customer satisfac-tion predict 35.9% of customer loyalty. Regarding model validity,Chin et al. (2008) classified the endogenous latent variables assubstantial, moderate, or weak, based on the R2 values of 0.67,0.33, or 0.19, respectively. Accordingly, customer delight(R2¼0.352), customer satisfaction (R2 ¼ 0.573) and customer sa-tisfaction (R2¼0.359) are moderate.

Besides the size of R2, the researchers employed the predictivesample reuse technique (Q2) as a criterion for predictive relevance(Chin et al., 2008). Based on the blindfolding procedure, Q2 showshow well the collected data can be reconstructed empirically withthe help of the model and the PLS parameters. For this study, theresearchers obtained Q2 using cross-validated redundancy proce-dures, as suggested by Chin et al. (2008). A Q2 greater than0 means the model has predictive relevance, whereas Q2 less than0 means the model lacks predictive relevance. As shown in Table 4,Q2 for customer delight, customer satisfaction and customer loy-alty are 0.259, 0.368 and 0.235, respectively, indicating acceptablepredictive relevance.

The results of the structural model and hypotheses testing arepresented in Table 5. All nine hypotheses were supported, in-dicating physical environment, interaction with staff and interac-tion with customers significantly influence customer delight. Theresearchers also observed that physical environment, interactionwith customers and interaction with staff significantly influencedcustomer satisfaction. The findings also showed that customerdelight and customer satisfaction are significant predictors ofcustomer loyalty.

6. Discussion and conclusion

Services literature has highlighted the importance of customerloyalty and positive behavioral intentions for service providers(Evanschitzky & Wunderlich, 2006; Han et al., 2008; Hume &Mort, 2010; Loureiro et al., 2014), and has emphasized the role ofcustomer satisfaction and emotions in developing loyalty (Ander-son et al., 2004; Homburg et al., 2006; Hume & Mort, 2010; Koe-nig-Lewis & Palmer, 2014; Lin & Liang, 2011; Loureiro, 2010;Slatten et al., 2011; Svari et al., 2011). Despite several calls, the roleof specific emotions, such as delight towards developing customerloyalty in hospitality services, has been seldom dealt with (Lour-eiro et al., 2014; Ma et al., 2013). As a response to these calls, thisstudy aimed to examine the antecedents and consequences ofcustomer delight in the context of theme parks. The researchersproposed and tested a model comprising antecedents (physicalenvironment, interaction with other customers and interactionwith staff) and consequences (customer satisfaction and customerloyalty) of customer delight. The results from the structuralequation modelling support all the hypotheses, indicating thesignificant effect of physical environment, interaction with staffand interaction with customers on customer delight and customersatisfaction. The researchers noted that customer delight andcustomer satisfaction jointly had a significant positive effect oncustomer loyalty. The results clarify the relationship betweencustomer delight and satisfaction, showing that customer delighthas a positive influence on customer satisfaction. Results of thisstudy, with its unique set of antecedents and consequences of





Fig. 1. Structural model results.

Table 4Results of R2 and Q2 values.

Endogenous constructs R2 Q2

Customer delight 0.352 0.259Customer satisfaction 0.573 0.368Customer loyalty 0.359 0.235

Table 5Structural estimates (hypotheses testing).

Hypothesis β t-Value Decision

H1 Physical environment-Customer delight 0.113 1.97* SupportedH2 Physical environment-Customer

satisfaction0.221 3.44** Supported

H3 Interaction with customers-Customerdelight

0.476 7.06** Supported

H4 Interaction with customers-Customersatisfaction

0.280 3.81** Supported

H5 Interaction with staff-Customer delight 0.201 2.42* SupportedH6 Interaction with staff-Customer satisfaction 0.321 6.93** SupportedH7 Customer delight-Customer satisfaction 0.121 2.18* SupportedH8 Customer delight-Customer loyalty 0.475 8.22** SupportedH9 Customer satisfaction-Loyalty 0.199 3.19** Supported

* Po0.05.** po0.01.


customer delight, suggest the following theoretical and manage-rial implications.

6.1. Theoretical implications

The first significant contribution of this study is that it proposesand tests a holistic model of customer delight in theme parks. Thisstudy proposed that several dimensions of customer experience,including physical environment, interaction with staff and inter-action with other customers, were antecedents of customer ex-perience, whereas satisfaction and loyalty were its consequences.The exploration of the concept of delight and its relationship toconcepts, such as customer experience, satisfaction and loyalty inthe theme park setting, is important because of the high level ofhedonism typically associated with delighting customers. The re-sults confirm the relationships among the dimensions of customerexperience (physical environment, interaction with staff and in-teraction with other customers), customer delight, customer sa-tisfaction and customer loyalty in theme parks.


Another contribution of this study involves the oper-ationalization of the concept of customer experience. While manyresearchers focusing on customer experiences have used thegeneric scale of experience economy (Pine & Gilmore, 1999), thisstudy uses the 'services theatre model': a simile of theme parkservices as theatre performances where actors (i.e. staff) are thepeople who deliver services to the audience (i.e. customers) in asetting (the physical environment). The interplay between theactors, audience and setting develops the overall experience ofcustomers. Among the three dimensions of customer experience,this study found that interaction with other customers was thestrongest predictor of customer delight. Previous research hasshown that interactions between customers who share the samecontext are crucial (Bitner, 1992). Although several studies haveexamined interactions between customers in various contexts, thisstudy appears to be unique in studying interactions betweencustomers and customers’ delight in a theme park setting, whichoffers further evidence of external validity. The findings related tointeraction with other customers emphasize the relative im-portance of the emotional aspects of the visit when other peopleshare the same environment. This finding supports Lovelock's(1996) argument that other customers might create a good at-mosphere and might therefore influence customers’ overall ex-periences. This study also found that interaction with staff was thestrongest predictor of customer satisfaction. This finding is in linewith the studies conducted by Bitner (1992) and Slatten et al.(2011), who claimed that the interaction between customers andstaff influences the customers’ satisfaction levels. One possibleexplanation for these findings might relate to various aspects ofthe actual setting and structure of a theme park. Staff membersmust perform the activities offered in theme parks. For mostperformances and encounters the staff plays an integral role,which increases the frequency of interactions and the timeframeof each interaction. Hence, these factors can affect customers’overall satisfaction levels.

In addition there has recently been increasing interest in con-sumer emotional states, particularly those along the satisfaction-dissatisfaction continuum, including consumer delight (Finn,2005; Loureiro et al., 2014). Most of these studies have focused onarousal and positive effect as antecedents of customer delight.Nonetheless, scholars such as Kim and Mattila (2013) and Finn(2005) have stated that delight is mainly an emotional responseelicited during the consumption experience within a service set-ting (Arnold et al., 2005; Finn, 2005). However, to the researchers'knowledge, there are no studies in hospitality services focusing on






customer delight in relation to customers' experiences. Findingsfrom this study indicate a difference in the effect of customerexperience dimensions on customer delight and satisfaction, im-plying that delight and satisfaction can be considered differentconstructs (Finn, 2005; Hicks et al., 2005; Loureiro, 2010; Oliveret al., 1997), as previously conceptualized by some authors (Kumar& Iyer, 2001; Keiningham & Vavra, 2001). From the perspective ofdelight as a surprise (Oliver, 1997), one can interpret the results toshow customer interaction as an element that the customer can-not anticipate, compared to other standard aspects of services,including physical environment and interaction with staff. Thesefindings are consistent with previous studies that identified therole of various dimensions of customer experience on customerdelight and satisfaction (Ariffin & Yahaya, 2013; Cetin & Dincer,2014; Ladhari, 2009; Pareigis et al., 2011; Walls et al., 2011).

The results provide new insights into the concepts of consumerdelight, satisfaction and loyalty, contributing towards calls in theliterature to understand better the influence of both cognitive andaffective drivers Loureiro et al., 2014; Oliver et al., 1997). Specifi-cally, consumers can induce delight through extraordinary con-sumption experiences. Delight also acts as a motivating factor byinfluencing consumers' satisfaction and intentions to continue tovisit the theme park or to recommend it to others. This support forthe impact of delight could reflect the fleeting nature of delightsuggested by previous literature (Oliver et al., 1997). However,these findings contradict a recent study conducted by Loureiroet al. (2014) in a retail setting, which found a non-significant effectof delight on loyalty intentions. This contradictory finding mightalso point out an interesting difference between the service en-vironments, whereby retail settings have a routine and repetitivenaturebut theme parks have a surprising, exciting and hedonicnature. Perhaps in this hedonic setting, in which consumers areactively involved with the physical settings and interact with othercustomers and staff, the experiential factors that produce delightare of greater value and increase satisfaction loyalty. This findingfollows the recommendations of Kumar et al. (2001) that serviceproviders should identify and focus on factors at the core of anongoing pleasurable experience.

This study also observed customer delight and customer sa-tisfaction were significant predictors of customer loyalty, lendingsupport to other research findings (Chitty et al., 2007; Hicks et al.,2005; Homburg et al., 2006; Kao et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2013;Oliver, 1997; Torres & Kline, 2006). Of the two determinants ofcustomer loyalty, delight appears to contribute more to loyaltyformation than to satisfaction. This outcome is consistent withprevious studies (Berman, 2005; Oliver, 1997; Torres & Kline,2006). A possible explanation for the finding is that the experi-ences offered in a theme park are pleasure-driven or hedonic andare thus likely to induce a range of emotional responses to theexperience consumption (Bigné et al., 2005). Customers appear toform attitudinal and emotional commitments to a service provider,since there are many interactions with customers and staff duringconsumption experiences in a theme park environment, whereemotions exist or are created (Slatten et al., 2011). Recently, severalscholars have emphasized the significance of emotions in mar-keting strategies (Arora & Singer, 2006; Kim et al., 2013; Loureiroet al., 2014). Specifically, research shows that delight producesemotional bonds between customers and the service provider, andthat these emotional bonds may provide additional psychologicalbenefits to the customers (Oliver, 1997). In addition, service pro-viders provide various opportunities for developing customer ex-periences that may ensure customer delight to satisfy customers.Customers, as service consumers, are also likely to expect experi-ences that will give them positive emotions, such as delight andjoy, andthat these encourage them to seek attractions where theyare provided with delightful experiences (Ariffin & Yahaya, 2013).


It is only then that customers will be satisfied and loyal to theservice providers (Ali et al., 2015).

6.2. Managerial implications

This study provides several practical implications for managersin general and for managers of theme parks specifically, with re-gard to how to increase customer loyalty. It suggests that man-agers must understand the importance not only of customer sa-tisfaction but also of delight in directly driving customer loyalty.Theme park managers must make sure their customers are notonly delighted but also satisfied by managing their physical en-vironment, their staff and customers' interaction with otherswithin the theme parks. Management can collect information fromcustomers on how they perceive the dimensions of experiencethat may account for their delight and satisfaction. This informa-tion can ensure the identification of customer delight and theaspects that create 'mental imprints' that may lead to their sa-tisfaction and loyalty.

Physical environment has a significant impact on customers'delight and satisfaction. This research indicates that lighting,temperature, architecture and decoration influence customers'delight and satisfaction. Theme park operators should update theirfacility's aesthetics, for example by redecorating the park entranceor upgrading old roller-coasters. Introducing new rides and ac-tivities can enhance the element of surprise, eliciting customerdelight. The way that management assembles these physical en-vironment factors to ensure the best possible customer experienceis critical. One possible procedure is to make adjustments to theoverall environment and evaluate the effect these changes have oncustomers' attitudes and behavioural intentions.

This study's findings also show the significant role of interac-tion of staff on customers' delight and satisfaction. Managementmust continue to train, reward and motivate employees in amanner that is adequate to satisfy them. Research shows employeesatisfaction improves delivery of services, resulting in customersatisfaction (Slatten et al., 2011). This study also provides evidencethat customers’ interaction with other customers is a significantfactor that influences customers' delight and satisfaction. In atheme park there are various interaction points for customers(physical activities that the service supplier offers, such as shows,performances, interactive activities and rides). Designing interac-tion points and building supporting facilities that increase custo-mer interaction can help to develop customer delight and sa-tisfaction. Failing to combine all three dimensions (physical en-vironment, interaction with staff and interaction with other cus-tomers) properly could lead to negative customer experiences,creating negative customer emotions and behaviors.

The conclusions of this research emphasize the importance ofunderstanding customers' delight in relation to various dimen-sions of customer experience, satisfaction and loyalty in a themepark context. All three dimensions of customer experience –

physical environment, interaction with staff, and interaction withother customers – had a significant impact on customer delightand satisfaction. Customer delight and satisfaction then had asignificant impact on customer loyalty. Hence, the ability of themeparks to ensure customer delight and satisfaction by developingand offering proper customer experiences can act as a competitiveadvantage, that can in turn lead to customer loyalty (Pine & Gil-more, 1999).

7. Limitations and future research suggestions

This study has several limitations researchers should considerwhen evaluating the results. Firstly, scholars should use caution






when trying to generalize the results to other nationalities, cul-tures and industries, because theme parks in Malaysia are thespecific subject of this study. The second limitation of this study isit does not evaluate pre-consumption expectations. Before serviceconsumption, various factors may anchor post-consumption eva-luations and emotions of consumers. Therefore, an interestingavenue for future research would be to examine how the differ-ence between pre-consumption expectations and post-consump-tion evaluations shape customer delight. Thirdly, extending thiscurrent study by examining unexpected negative experiences andemotions, such as fear, regret and boredom, can provide a deeperunderstanding of customer behavior and loyalty (Kim et al., 2013;Torres & Kline, 2006). Thenother limitation of this study is itsusage of a uni-dimensional construct to assess the physical en-vironment. Future studies could consider a multi-dimensionalapproach to assessing the physical environment and exploringother meaningful industry-specific factors, such as customer in-volvement and service variability, to analyse additional determi-nants of tourists’ satisfaction and loyalty. Future research couldalso include factors such as trust, for example, which can influenceand interact with tourists’ loyalty. Another avenue for future stu-dies is to consider how customers with different characteristicsperceive dimensions of customer experience and its effect on theirdelight and behaviors.

References

Ali, F., Ryu, K., & Hussain, K. (2015). Creative tourists' experience, memories, sa-tisfaction and behavioural intentions. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,33(1), 85–100.

Altunel, M. C., & Erkut, B. (2015). Cultural tourism in Istanbul: The mediation effectof tourist experience and satisfaction on the relationship between involvementand recommendation intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Manage-ment, 4, 213–221.

Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Mazvancheryls, S. (2004). Customer satisfaction andshareholder value. Journal of Marketing, 68, 172–185.

Anderson, J., & Gerbing, D. (1988). Structural modeling in practice: A review andrecommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

Ap, J., & Wong, K. K. F. (2001). Case study on tour guiding: Professionalism, issues,and problems. Tourism Management, 22(4), 551–563.

Ariffin, A. A. M., & Yahaya, M. F. (2013). The relationship between airport image,national identity and passengers delight: A case study of the Malaysian low costcarrier terminal (LCCT). Journal of Air Transport Management, 31(1), 33–36.

Arnold, M. J., Reynolds, K. E., Ponder, N., & Lueg, J. E. (2005). Customer delight in aretail context: Investigating delightful and terrible shopping experiences.Journal of Business Research, 58(8), 1132–1145.

Arnould, E., & Price, L. (1993). River magic: Extraordinary experience and the ex-tended service encounter. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 24–45.

Arora, R., & Singer, J. (2006). Cognitive and affective service marketing strategies forfine dining restaurant managers. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 17, 51–61.

Aziz, A. A., Ariffin, A. A. M., Omar, N. A., & Evin, C. (2012). Examining the impact ofvisitors’ emotions and perceived quality towards satisfaction and revisit in-tention to theme parks. Jurnal Pengurusan, 35(1), 97–109.

Baker, J., Grewal, D., & Parasuraman, A. (1994). The influence of store environmenton quality inferences and store image. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 22, 328–339.

Barnes, D., Beauchamp, M. B., & Webster, C. (2010). To delight, or not to delight?This is the question service firms must address. Journal of Marketing Theory andPractice, 18, 275–284.

Berman, B. (2005). How to delight your customers. California Management Review,48, 129–151.

Berry, L., Carbone, L., & Haeckel, S. (2002). Managing the total customer experience.MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 85–89.

Bigné, J. E., Andreu, L., & Gnoth, J. (2005). The theme park experience: An analysis ofpleasure, arousal and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 26, 833–844.

Bitner, M. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of the physical surroundings on cus-tomers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57–71.

Brady, M. K., & Cronin, J. J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing per-ceived service quality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65(3),34–49.

Burns, D., & Neisner, L. (2006). Customer satisfaction in a retail setting: The con-tribution of emotion. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Manage-ment, 34(1), 49–66.

Carbone, L. P., & Haeckel, S. H. (1994). Engineering customer experiences. Journal ofMarketing Management, 3(3), 8–19.

Cetin, G., & Dincer, F. I. (2014). Influence of customer experience on loyalty and


word-of-mouth in hospitality operations. Anatolia: An International Journal ofTourism and Hospitality Research, 25(2), 181–194.

Chandler, C. H. (1989). Quality: Beyond customer satisfaction. Quality Progress, 22(February), 30–32.

Chin, W. W., Peterson, R. A., & Brown, P. S. (2008). Structural equation modelling inmarketing: Some practical reminders. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,16(4), 287–298.

Chitty, B., Ward, S., & Chua, C. (2007). An application of the ECSI model as a pre-dictor of satisfaction and loyalty for backpacker hostels. Marketing Intelligenceand Planning, 25(6), 563–580.

Cohen, J. B., & Areni, C. S. (1991). Affect and consumer behavior In: T. S. Robertson, &H. H. Kassarjian (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Behavior (pp. 188–240). Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cronin, J., & Taylor, S. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and ex-tension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55–68.

Crotts, J. C., & Magnini, V. P. (2011). The customer delight construct: Is surpriseessential? Annals of Tourism Research, 38, 719–722.

Day, R. (1984). Modeling choices among alternative responses to dissatisfaction.Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 496–499.

Dong, P., & Siu, N. Y.-M. (2012). Servicescape elements, customer predispositionsand service experience: The case of theme park visitors. Tourism Management,36, 541–551.

Evanschitzky, H., & Wunderlich, M. (2006). An examination of moderator effects:The four stage loyalty model. Journal of Service Research, 8, 330–345.

Festinger, L. A. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7,117–140.

Finn, A. (2005). Reassessing the foundations of customer delight. Journal of ServiceResearch, 8, 103–116.

Fisk, A. D., Rogers, W., Charness, N., Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (2004). Designing for olderadults: Principles and creative human factors approaches. London, U.K: Taylor andFrancis.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

Grove, S., Fisk, R., & Dorsch, M. (1998). Assessing the theatrical components of theservice encounter: A cluster analysis examination. The Service Industries Journal,18(3), 116–134.

Grove, S. J., & Fisk, R. P. (1997). The impact of other customers on service experi-ences. Journal of Retailing, 73(1), 63–85.

Gupta, S., & Vajic, M. (1999). The contextual and dialectical nature of experiencesIn: J. Fitzsimmons, & M. Fitzsimmons (Eds.), New service development (pp. 33–51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt M. (2013). A primer on partial leastsquares structural equation modelling (PLS–SEM). Sage Publications.

Han, X., Kwortnik, R., & Wang, C. (2008). Service loyalty: An integrated model andexamination across service contexts. Journal of Service Research, 11(1), 22–42.

Han, H., & Ryu, K. (2009). The roles of the physical environment, price perception,and customer satisfaction in determining customer loyalty in the family res-taurant industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 33(4), 487–510.

Hartline, M. D., & Ferrell, O. C. (1996). The management of customer–contact serviceemployees: An empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 52–70.

Hicks, J. M., Page, T. J., Behe, B. K., Dennis, J. H., & Fernandez, R. T. (2005). Delightedconsumers buy again. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction andComplaining Behavior, 18, 94–104.

Hoffmann, A., & Birnbrich, C. (2012). The impact of fraud prevention on bank–customer relationships: An empirical investigation in retail banking. Interna-tional Journal of Bank Marketing, 30(5), 390–407.

Holbrook, M., & Hirschman, E. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption:Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2),132–140.

Homburg, C., Koschate, N., & Hoyer, W. D. (2006). The role of cognition and affect inthe formation of customer satisfaction: A dynamic perspective. Journal ofMarketing, 70(3), 21–31.

⟨http://blog.malaysia-asia.my⟩ Accessed 12.02.14.⟨http://themalaysianreserve.com/main/news/corporate-malaysia/4188-upgrade-

for-genting-malaysia-theme-park⟩ Accessed 28.04.14.Huang, J., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2010). The impact of customer-to-customer interaction on

cruise experience and vacation satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 49(1),79–92.

Hume, M., & Mort, G. S. (2010). The consequence of appraisal emotion, servicequality, perceived value and customer satisfaction on repurchase intent in theperforming arts. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(2), 170–182.

International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions (2012). Amusementpark industry statistics. ⟨http://www.iaapa.org/pressroom/Amusement_Park_Industry_Statistics.asp⟩ Accessed 12.02.14.

Jani, D., & Han, H. (2013). Personality, social comparison, consumption emotions,satisfaction, and behavioural intentions: How do these and other factors relatein hotel setting? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,25(7), 970–993.

Johnston, R., & Clark, G. (2001). Service operation management. London: Prentice-Hall.

Jones, T. O., & Sasser, W. (1995). Why satisfied customers defect. Harvard BusinessReview, November/December (pp. 88–99), 88–99.

Kao, Y. F., Huang, L. S., & Wu, C. H. (2008). Effects of theatrical elements on ex-periential quality and loyalty intentions for theme parks. Asia Pacific Journal ofTourism Research, 13(2), 163–174.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-571X(16)30073-7/sbref1































































































































































http://www.iaapa.org/pressroom/Amusement_Park_%20Industry_Statistics.asp

http://www.iaapa.org/pressroom/Amusement_Park_%20Industry_Statistics.asp



















Keiningham, T. L., & Vavra, T. G. (2001). The customer delight principle. New York,NY: McGraw-Hill.

Kim, J., Kim, M., & Lennon, S. (2009). Effects of web site atmospherics on consumerresponses: Music and product presentation. Direct Marketing: An InternationalJournal, 3(1), 4–19.

Kim, W. G., Li, J. J., & Brymer, R. A. (2016). The impact of social media reviews onrestaurant performance: The moderating role of excellence award. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management, 55(5), 41–51.

Kim, M. G., & Mattila, A. S. (2013). Does a surprise strategy need words? The effectof explanations for a surprise strategy on customer delight and expectations.Journal of Services Marketing, 27(5), 361–370.

Kim, M., Vogt, C. A., & Knutson, B. J. (2013). Relationships among customer sa-tisfaction, delight, and loyalty in the hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitalityand Tourism Research. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1096348012471376.

Klaus, P., & Maklan, S. (2012). EXQ: A multiple-item scale for assessing serviceexperience. Journal of Service Management, 23(1), 5–33.

Koenig-Lewis, N., & Palmer, A. (2014). The effects of anticipatory emotions onservice satisfaction and behavioral intention. Journal of Services Marketing, 28(6), 437–451.

Kollmann, T. (2000). The price/acceptance function: Perspectives of a pricing policyin European telecommunication markets. European Journal of Innovation Man-agement, 3(1), 7–15.

Kumar, A., & Iyer, R. (2001). Role of interpersonal factors in delighting customers.Marketing Management Journal, 11, 49–57.

Kumar, A., Olshavsky, R. W., & King, M. F. (2001). Exploring alternative antecedentsof customer delight. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Com-plaining Behavior, 14, 14–26.

Ladhari, R. (2009). Service quality, emotional satisfaction, and behavioural inten-tions: A study in the hotel industry. Managing Service Quality, 19(3), 308–331.

Li, J. J., Kim, W. G., & Wong, I. A. (2016). Does destination perception differ based ontraveler type? A case of ‘Las vegas of Asia’. Tourism Planning & Development. ,http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2016.1152289.

Li, J. J., Wong, I. A., & Kim, W. G. (2016). Effects of psychological contract breach onattitudes and performance: The moderating role of competitive climate. Inter-national Journal of Hospitality Management, 55(5), 1–10.

Lin, J., & Liang, H. (2011). The influence of service environments on customeremotion and service outcomes. Managing Service Quality, 21(4), 350–372.

Loureiro, S. M. (2010). Satisfying and delighting the rural tourists. Journal of Traveland Tourism Marketing, 27(4), 396–408.

Loureiro, S. M. C., Miranda, F. J., & Breazeale, M. (2014). Who needs delight? Thegreater impact of value, trust and satisfaction in utilitarian, frequent-use retail.Journal of Service Management, 25(1), 101–124.

Lovelock, C. H. (1996). Services marketing (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ma, J., Gao, J., Scott, N., & Ding, P. (2013). Customer delight from theme park ex-periences: The antecedents of delight based on cognitive appraisal theory.Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 359–381.

Mano, H., & Oliver, R. (1993). Assessing the dimensionality and structure of theconsumption experience: Evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. Journal of Con-sumer Research, 20, 451–466.

Martin, D., O’Neill, M., Hubbard, S., & Palmer, A. (2008). The role of emotion inexplaining consumer satisfaction and future behavioural intentions. Journal ofServices Marketing, 22(3), 224–236.

Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology.England: The MIT Publisher.

Meyer, C., & Schwager, A. (2007). Understanding customer experience. HarvardBusiness Review, 85(2), 117–126.

Milman, A., Li, X., Wang, Y., & Yu, Q. (2012). Examining the guest experience inthemed amusement parks: Preliminary evidence from China. Journal of Vaca-tion Marketing, 18, 313–325.

Mossberg, L. (2007). A marketing approach to the tourist experience. ScandinavianJournal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7(1), 59–74.

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences ofsatisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469.

Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Oliver, R. L., Rust, R. T., & Varki, S. (1997). Customer delight: Foundations, findings,and managerial insight. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 311–336.

Olorunniwo, F., Hsu, M. K., & Udo, G. J. (2006). Service quality, customer satisfactionand behavioral intentions in the service factory. Journal of Services Marketing,20(1), 59–72.

Olsson, L., Friman, M., Pareigis, J., & Edvardsson, B. (2012). Measuring service ex-perience: Applying the satisfaction with travel scale in public transport. Journal


of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19, 413–418.Palmer, A. (2010). Customer experience management: A critical review of an

emerging idea. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(3), 196–208.Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple item

scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing,64, 12–40.

Pareigis, J., Edvardsson, B., & Enquist, B. (2011). Exploring the role of the serviceenvironment in forming customer’s service experience. International Journal ofQuality and Service Sciences, 3(1), 110–124.

Parker, C., & Ward, P. (2000). An analysis of role adoptions and scripts duringcustomer-to-customer encounters. European Journal of Marketing, 34, 341–358.

Pine, J., & Gilmore, J. (1999). The experience economy. Boston: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Commonmethod biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature andrecommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

Russell-Bennett, R., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Coote, L. V. (2007). Involvement, sa-tisfaction, and brand loyalty in a small business services setting. Journal ofBusiness Research, 60(12), 1253–1260.

Rust, R. T., & Oliver, R. L. (1994). Service quality: Insights and managerial implica-tions from the frontier In: R. T. Rust, & R. L. Oliver (Eds.), Service quality: Newdirections in theory and practice (pp. 1–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ryu, k, Lee, H., & Kim, W. (2012). The influence of the quality of the physical en-vironment, food, and service on restaurant image, customer perceived value,customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Con-temporary Hospitality Management, 24(2), 200–223.

Schall, M. (2003). Best practices in the assessment of hotel–guest attitudes. CornellHotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 51–65.

Slatten, T., Krogh, C., & Connolley, S. (2011). Make it memorable: Customer ex-periences in winter amusement parks. International Journal of Culture, Tourismand Hospitality Research, 5(1), 80–91.

Svari, S., Slåtten, T., Svensson, G., & Edvardsson, B. (2011). A SOS construct of ne-gative emotions in customers’ service experience (CSE) and service recovery byfirms (SRF). Journal of Services Marketing, 25(5), 323–335.

Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y.-M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modelling.Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 48(1), 159–205.

Tombs, A. G., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2013). Third party customers infecting othercustomers for better or for worse. Psychology and Marketing, 30(3), 277–292.

Torres, E. N., & Kline, S. (2006). From satisfaction to delight: A model for the hotelindustry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18,290–301.

Tsang, N. K. F., Lee, L. Y. S., Wong, A., & Chong, R. (2012). THEMEQUAL – adapting theservqual scale to theme park services: A case of Hong Kong Disneyland. Journalof Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29(5), 416–429.

Verhoef, P. C., Lemon, K. N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., & Schle-singer, L. A. (2009). Customer experience creation: Determinants, dynamics andmanagement strategies. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 31–41.

Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1996). The effect of the servicescape on customers’behavioral intentions in leisure service settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6), 45–61.

Walls, A., Okumus, F., Wang, Y., & Kwun, D. J. W. (2011). Understanding the con-sumer experience: An exploratory study of luxury hotels. Journal of HospitalityMarketing and Management, 20(2), 166–197.

Westbrook, R., & Oliver, R. (1991). The dimensionality of consumption emotionpatterns and consumer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 84–91.

Wirtz, J., & Bateson, J. (1999). Consumer satisfaction with services: Integrating theenvironment perspective in services marketing into the traditional dis-confirmation paradigm. Journal of Business Research, 44(1), 55–66.

Wong, A. (2004). The role of emotional satisfaction in service encounters. ManagingService Quality: An International Journal, 14(5), 365–376.

World Tourism Organization (2012). Tourism high-lights. Available at: ⟨http://mkt.unwto.org/sites/all/files/pdf/unwto_barom12_iu_aug_en.pdf⟩ Accessed12.03.14.

Wu, C. H.-J., & Liang, R.-D. (2009). Effect of experiential value on customer sa-tisfaction with service encounters in Luxury Hotels. International Journal ofHospitality Management, 28, 586–593.

Xu, J., & Chan, A. (2010). Service experience and package tours. Asia Pacific Journal ofTourism Research, 15(2), 177–194.

Yuan, Y. H., & Wu, C. (2008). Relationships among experiential marketing, experi-ential value and customer satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Re-search, 32(3), 387–410.

Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D. (2006). Service marketing: Integratingcustomer focus across the firm (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
















http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1096348012471376

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1096348012471376

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1096348012471376






















http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2016.1152289

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2016.1152289

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2016.1152289

























































































































































Date post:	03-Dec-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scnu
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Make it delightful: Customers' experience, satisfaction and loyalty in Malaysian theme parks

Documents