Destination Emotion Scale (DES)

Abstract

The Destination Emotion Scale (DES) is a psychometric instrument designed to capture, quantify, and evaluate the discrete positive emotional experiences of tourists at travel destinations. Developed initially by Sameer Hosany and David Gilbert (2010) and subsequently refined and cross-validated by Hosany and Prayag (2013), the scale departs from traditional unidimensional valence measures and broad-spectrum affect scales—such as the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)—by focusing on destination-specific emotional architecture. Grounded in Carroll Izard's Differential Emotions Theory (DET), the DES operationalizes tourist emotional consumption through 15 self-report items distributed across three correlated yet distinct latent dimensions: Joy (6 items), Love (5 items), and Positive Surprise (4 items). Each item is measured along a 7-point Likert-type intensity continuum ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Extremely), with a midpoint of 4 (Moderately).

Extensive psychometric evaluations confirm that the DES demonstrates high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability coefficients routinely exceeding 0.85 across all subscales), robust convergent validity (Average Variance Extracted values > 0.50), and clear discriminant validity supported by both the Fornell–Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations. Confirmatory factor analyses across diverse international cohorts consistently exhibit superior model fit for the hypothesized first-order, three-factor structure. Crucially, empirical investigations establish that the emotional constructs captured by the DES exhibit superior predictive validity over purely cognitive evaluations (e.g., perceived quality, cognitive satisfaction) and generalized affective batteries in accounting for post-visit behavioral intentions, word-of-mouth recommendations, and destination loyalty.

Keywords

Destination Emotion Scale, DES, discrete emotions, Differential Emotions Theory, tourist emotions, Joy, Love, Positive Surprise, destination loyalty, psychometrics, consumer behavior, travel psychology

Authors

The Destination Emotion Scale was developed and validated through collaborative programs of research in tourism marketing and consumer psychology:

• Sameer Hosany, Ph.D.: Professor of Marketing at the School of Business and Management, Royal Holloway, University of London, United Kingdom. His research focuses on consumer emotions, experiential marketing, brand personality, and tourist psychology. ORCID: 0000-0003-3498-3486.
• Girish Prayag, Ph.D.: Professor of Marketing at the UC Business School, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. His scholarly expertise encompasses consumer emotions, destination marketing, post-disaster organizational and community resilience, and tourist behavioral loyalty. ORCID: 0000-0002-7770-4382.
• David Gilbert, Ph.D.: Emeritus Professor of Marketing at the University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom. A pioneer in tourism consumer behavior, services marketing, and hospitality management, who co-developed the initial conceptualization of tourist emotional scales with Sameer Hosany.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Destination Emotion Scale is to provide tourism researchers, behavioral psychologists, and destination marketing organizations (DMOs) with a psychometrically sound, theoretically grounded, and domain-tailored instrument to measure the discrete positive emotions elicited during leisure experiences. Historically, consumer behavior and hospitality research relied excessively upon cognitive appraisal models, conceptualizing the tourist journey primarily as a sequence of informational inputs, rational comparisons against expectations, and cognitive satisfaction assessments. However, leisure travel is fundamentally hedonic, experiential, and affective. Travelers actively pursue novel sensory, social, and emotional states that cannot be understood merely through cognitive performance indicators.

Prior to the formulation of the DES, investigators attempted to capture tourist feelings using generic psychological inventories, most notably Russell's Pleasure-Arousal-Dominance (PAD) framework or Watson, Clark, and Tellegen's Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). While these general inventories offer utility in clinical or experimental settings, they manifest substantial deficiencies when transposed to leisure and hospitality contexts:

• Dimensional Over-Generalization: Dimensional models (e.g., PAD) collapse emotional phenomena into broad valence and arousal axes, failing to differentiate between qualitative feeling states that share identical quadrants (e.g., distinguishing between romantic tenderness and ecstatic excitement).
• Irrelevant Clinical Valence: Standard inventories such as PANAS feature items that are either maladaptive or rarely experienced in normative leisure contexts (e.g., “hostile,” “ashamed,” “guilty,” “jittery”), resulting in substantial floor effects and low conceptual relevance for leisure travelers.
• Neglect of Place-Specific Attachment: Traditional tools overlook deep relational states, such as emotional warmth, caring, and affection toward host communities and landscapes, which are central to place bonding.

The DES resolves these limitations by isolating the three most salient, positive emotional dimensions that characterize successful destination consumption: Joy, Love, and Positive Surprise. In applied research, the scale enables investigators to examine the affective mechanisms mediating destination attributes and customer loyalty. In destination management, the tool empowers practitioners to benchmark emotional engagement across visitor touchpoints, diagnose affective deficits in cultural or commercial hospitality offerings, and design experiential environments that stimulate emotional memories capable of driving positive word-of-mouth (WOM) and repeat visits.

Psychological Construct

The DES conceptualizes tourist emotion as a multifaceted, discrete emotional profile. Rather than treating positive affect as a monolithic state, the scale isolates three distinct constructs, each representing a unique neuropsychological and phenomenological experience:

1. Joy

The Joy dimension captures high-activation, positively valenced hedonic states characterized by exuberance, elation, exhilaration, and lively gratification. Within psychophysiological literature, joy corresponds to heightened sympathetic nervous system activity combined with dopaminergic reward pathway engagement. In the DES, joy encompasses both exuberant physical arousal and deeply felt cheerfulness, operationalized through descriptors including cheerful, delighted, enthusiastic, joyful, excited, and thrilled. During travel, joy emerges when individuals engage in sensory-rich, leisure-oriented activities—such as recreational sports, theme park attractions, lively festivals, and celebratory communal gatherings—where the immediate experience matches or exceeds peak appetitive goals.

2. Love

The Love dimension assesses warm affective orientations, interpersonal connection, emotional resonance, and attachment directed toward the destination, its culture, and its residents. In contrast to high-arousal joy, love represents an affiliative, lower-to-moderate arousal affective state linked to oxytocinergic bonding mechanisms, empathy, and social comfort. The items comprising this subscale—caring, affectionate, warmhearted, tender, and passionate—measure the consumer's felt intimacy and emotional bond with a place. This construct explains the transition from mere cognitive satisfaction to profound place attachment, accounting for why travelers describe certain heritage locations, hospitable villages, or serene landscapes in relational and sentimental terms.

3. Positive Surprise

The Positive Surprise dimension measures a cognitive-affective response elicited by unexpected, extraordinary, or schema-discrepant destination elements that carry favorable valence. Cognitive psychology conceptualizes surprise as an adaptive mechanism triggered when incoming environmental inputs interrupt habitual schema processing, heightening attentional allocation and sensory focus. When the unexpected stimuli are interpreted as beneficial or sublime, the resultant feeling state blends astonishment with wonder and intellectual/sensory elevation. Operationalized via amazed, astonished, fascinated, and inspired, positive surprise reflects states akin to awe and curiosity. In tourism contexts, this occurs when encountering magnificent natural vistas, breathtaking architectural monuments, or unexpectedly generous hospitality that far surpasses prior expectations.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the Destination Emotion Scale draws primarily from Differential Emotions Theory (DET), formulated by Carroll E. Izard (1977), along with cognitive appraisal theories of emotion (Lazarus, 1991) and consumer emotion typologies (Richins, 1997).

Differential Emotions Theory (DET)

Izard's DET posits that human emotional life is governed by a set of fundamentally distinct primary emotions, each possessing unique neurochemical processes, distinct facial-expressive configurations, and proprietary experiential qualities. DET rejects the notion that emotional states can be reduced to points along continuous, bipolar axes (e.g., pleasantness vs. unpleasantness). Instead, DET asserts that discrete emotions—such as joy, interest-excitement, and surprise—operate as independent, specialized motivational systems directing cognition and action. Hosany and Gilbert (2010) applied this logic to leisure environments, demonstrating that general dimensional frameworks obscure the discrete motivational forces that drive tourist actions. By refining DET to reflect positive consumption, the DES isolates discrete experiential states that match the hedonic nature of vacation environments.

Cognitive Appraisal Theory

Under Lazarus's (1991) Cognitive-Motivational-Relational Theory, emotions arise from continuous, automatic cognitive appraisals of an individual's relationship with their environment. Appraisals evaluate events based on goal relevance, goal congruence, and ego-involvement:

• Goal Congruence & Joy: When environmental encounters are appraised as congruent with leisure, relaxation, or play goals, joy and excitement naturally occur.
• Ego-Involvement & Love: When interactions foster interpersonal belonging or validate personal values, the appraisal of social affiliation generates love, warmth, and tenderness.
• Novelty/Discrepancy & Positive Surprise: When sensory inputs depart abruptly from prior cognitive scripts in a non-threatening, enriching manner, cognitive schema realignment generates surprise, fascination, and awe.

The Affect-Cognition Hierarchy in Consumer Behavior

The theoretical framework also aligns with the broader paradigm shift in service evaluation literature, which historically privileged the Expectancy-Disconfirmation Model (Oliver, 1980). While traditional models positioned cognitive evaluations as the primary drivers of behavioral loyalty, the DES rests on the theoretical premise that affective experiences operate either concurrently with or downstream of cognitive evaluations to form the primary motivational basis of behavioral commitment. Emotional arousal creates durable memory traces, meaning affective responses measured by the DES serve as direct antecedents to destination attachment, loyalty, and post-trip storytelling.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Destination Emotion Scale has been confirmed through numerous empirical investigations spanning various cultural contexts, destination typologies, and sample demographics:

Construct and Convergent Validity

Convergent validity evaluates whether the observed indicators reliably represent their designated latent emotional constructs. Across the foundational studies by Hosany and Gilbert (2010) and Hosany and Prayag (2013), all standardized factor loadings across the 15 items exceeded the standard psychometric threshold of 0.70 (with empirical loadings spanning 0.72 to 0.91, $p < .001$). Furthermore, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values for Joy, Love, and Positive Surprise consistently exceed the accepted 0.50 cutoff, typically falling within the 0.58 to 0.78 range. These metrics verify that more than half of the indicator variance is explained by the underlying latent emotional constructs rather than measurement error.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity—the degree to which the three dimensions are empirically distinct—has been repeatedly substantiated using rigorous criteria:

• Fornell–Larcker Criterion: In structural equation modeling assessments, the square root of the AVE for each latent dimension (Joy: ~0.84; Love: ~0.81; Positive Surprise: ~0.82) is uniformly greater than the off-diagonal inter-construct correlations ($r$ values typically ranging between 0.45 and 0.71).
• Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT): Subsequent cross-national validations (e.g., Prayag et al., 2017) confirmed that all pairwise HTMT ratios remain well below the conservative threshold of 0.85 (observed values: 0.52 to 0.78), establishing that while Joy, Love, and Positive Surprise co-occur during rewarding travel, they represent empirically distinct affective states.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

Predictive validity assessments prove that the DES accounts for significant variance in post-consumption behaviors, including overall tourist satisfaction, recommendation intentions, and revisit propensity. Hosany and Prayag (2013) demonstrated through structural equation modeling that the three emotional dimensions collectively accounted for over 52% of the variance in destination satisfaction and over 48% of the variance in destination loyalty. Joy and Love regularly manifest as powerful direct drivers of loyalty, while Positive Surprise exerts strong indirect effects through enhanced memory retention and heightened cognitive satisfaction. Critically, comparative model testing reveals that models incorporating the DES explain substantially more variance in behavioral loyalty than baseline models relying solely on cognitive evaluations (such as perceived service quality or disconfirmation of expectations).

Reliability

The Destination Emotion Scale demonstrates exceptional internal consistency across varied sample populations, travel contexts, and study designs:

Internal Consistency Statistics

In the seminal validation by Hosany and Prayag (2013), administered to a diverse international sample of tourists, the calculated Cronbach's alpha ($\alpha$) coefficients were:

• Joy Subscale (6 items): $\alpha = .91$ to $.93$
• Love Subscale (5 items): $\alpha = .87$ to $.90$
• Positive Surprise Subscale (4 items): $\alpha = .86$ to $.89$
• Total Scale (15 items): $\alpha = .94$

Because Cronbach's alpha may underestimate or overestimate internal reliability under conditions of varying factor loadings, researchers also evaluate Composite Reliability (CR). Composite reliabilities for all three subscales consistently surpass the rigorous 0.80 standard (Joy: $\text{CR} = .92$; Love: $\text{CR} = .89$; Positive Surprise: $\text{CR} = .87$), verifying minimal measurement error across items.

Replication and Temporal Stability

Subsequent psychometric replications—such as those conducted by Prayag, Hosany, Muskat, and Del Chiappa (2017) across both cultural heritage tourists and coastal resort vacationers—have reaffirmed these metrics, showing subscale alphas consistently above 0.85. While test-retest reliability is less applicable to dynamic emotional states, longitudinal studies tracking emotional recall at post-trip intervals (e.g., immediate on-site exit surveys vs. follow-ups at 1 month and 3 months) demonstrate consistent internal structures and stable emotional recall rankings over time.

Factor Analysis

The underlying factorial architecture of the DES was rigorously mapped through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA):

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During scale development, initial item pools derived from Izard's Differential Emotions Scale, Richins' Consumption Emotion Set, and qualitative tourist focus groups were subjected to principal axis factoring and principal components analysis using oblique (Promax) rotation, reflecting the expected inter-correlation among positive affective states. EFA consistently yielded a clean, three-factor solution explaining over 64% of the total variance, guided by the Kaiser criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0) and scree plot inspections:

• Factor 1 (Joy): Accounted for the largest share of variance (~38%), capturing items denoting high positive arousal and elation.
• Factor 2 (Love): Accounted for ~15% of the variance, grouping items centered on warmth, affection, and tenderness.
• Factor 3 (Positive Surprise): Accounted for ~11% of the variance, clustering items reflecting astonishment, wonder, and inspiration.

All retained items exhibited primary factor loadings > 0.65, with cross-loadings remaining below 0.30.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To validate the stability of this three-dimensional model, CFA was conducted using maximum likelihood estimation across independent validation datasets. The first-order, three-factor correlated model consistently yields excellent goodness-of-fit indices, comfortably satisfying modern psychometric standards:

• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio ($\chi^2/df$): Values typically range between $1.85$ and $2.45$, well below the acceptable ceiling of $3.00$.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values routinely exceed $0.95$ (often reaching $.96 – .98$).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Values consistently range between $.95$ and $.97$.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates consistently fall between $.042$ and $.058$ ($90%\text{ CI } [.035, .064]$), well within the threshold for close fit ($< .06$).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Observed values generally span $.035$ to $.048$, below the $.08$ cutoff.

Alternative structural representations—including a unidimensional positive affect model (where all 15 items load onto a single factor) and a two-factor model (collapsing Joy and Love together)—were tested competitively. In all comparative CFA evaluations, the hypothesized three-factor model showed statistically superior fit based on chi-square difference tests ($\Delta\chi^2, p < .001$) and lower Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) values.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Destination Emotion Scale is structured as an efficient, self-administered questionnaire suitable for on-site intercepts, exit surveys, and post-trip digital evaluations:

• Instrument Type: Self-report psychological scale / semantic differential-style affective rating inventory.
• Target Population: Leisure travelers, tourists, recreationists, and hospitality consumers (adults and adolescents).
• Total Item Count: 15 distinct emotional descriptors.
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Joy: 6 items (Cheerful, Delighted, Enthusiastic, Joyful, Excited, Thrilled)
  • Love: 5 items (Caring, Affectionate, Warmhearted, Tender, Passionate)
  • Positive Surprise: 4 items (Amazed, Astonished, Fascinated, Inspired)
• Authentic Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Not at all
  • 4 = Moderately
  • 7 = Extremely
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes.
• Scoring Instructions:
  • None of the items are reverse-scored; all descriptors reflect positive emotional valence.
  • Subscale scores are calculated either by summing or averaging the items within each domain:
  • $\text{Joy Score} = \frac{\text{Item 1} + \text{Item 2} + \text{Item 3} + \text{Item 4} + \text{Item 5} + \text{Item 6}}{6}$
  • $\text{Love Score} = \frac{\text{Item 7} + \text{Item 8} + \text{Item 9} + \text{Item 10} + \text{Item 11}}{5}$
  • $\text{Positive Surprise Score} = \frac{\text{Item 12} + \text{Item 13} + \text{Item 14} + \text{Item 15}}{4}$
  • A composite total positive destination emotion score can be obtained by averaging all 15 items, though maintaining subscale independence is strongly recommended for diagnostic accuracy.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The foundational research outlining the Destination Emotion Scale was published by Sameer Hosany and David Gilbert in 2010, followed by expanded cross-validation and psychometric refinement by Sameer Hosany and Girish Prayag in 2013:

• Year of Formal Publication: 2010 (initial development); 2013 (further validation in the Journal of Travel Research).
• Copyright & Accessibility: The items of the scale are published within academic peer-reviewed journals copyrighted by SAGE Publications. The instrument is accessible without monetary charge for non-commercial, academic, scientific, and educational research purposes, provided that standard academic attribution and citations are extended to Hosany and Gilbert (2010) and Hosany and Prayag (2013).
• Commercial Applications: Commercial enterprises, private tourism consultancies, or proprietary market research firms intending to incorporate the scale into commercial diagnostic platforms or proprietary benchmarking software should consult the authors and respective copyright holders for licensing permissions.

References

• Hosany, S., & Gilbert, D. (2010). Measuring tourists' emotional experiences toward hedonic holiday destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 49(4), 513–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287509349267
• Hosany, S., & Prayag, G. (2013). Measuring tourists' emotional experiences: Further validation of the destination emotion scale. Journal of Travel Research, 52(6), 645–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513481274
• Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2209-0
• Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.
• Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378001700405
• Prayag, G., Hosany, S., Muskat, B., & Del Chiappa, G. (2017). Understanding the relationships between tourists’ emotional experiences, perceived overall image, satisfaction, and intention to recommend. Journal of Travel Research, 56(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287515620567
• Richins, M. L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1086/209506
• Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

Items of the Scale