Experience Economy Scale (EES-Tourism)

1. Abstract

The Experience Economy Scale for Tourism (EES-Tourism), developed by Haemoon Oh, Ann Marie Fiore, and Mikyoung Jeoung (2007), is an empirically validated psychometric instrument designed to operationalize and measure the experiential consumption realms originally conceptualized by B. Joseph Pine II and James H. Gilmore (1998, 1999). Recognizing that the contemporary tourism and hospitality marketplace has transitioned from a service-dominant paradigm to an experience-dominant paradigm, the scale quantifies four distinct dimensions of staged experiential environments: Education (active cognitive engagement and acquisition of skills or knowledge), Entertainment (passive affective absorption of ambient spectacles and performances), Esthetics (sensory immersion in an enriched physical or atmospheric setting without physical alteration of the environment), and Escapism (active immersion involving psychological detachment from everyday routines and immersion in an alternative temporal or physical reality). The instrument comprises 16 standardized items distributed symmetrically across the four experiential realms (4 items per dimension), administered using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly Agree”). Extensive psychometric evaluations demonstrate robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .76 to .90 across subscales), robust convergent and discriminant validity confirmed through second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and substantial criterion-related predictive validity regarding destination arousal, overall memory formation, tourist satisfaction, and positive word-of-mouth intention. As a foundational measurement model in destination marketing, hospitality management, cultural tourism, and consumer psychology, the EES-Tourism bridges the conceptual gap between philosophical staging models and quantitative consumer behavior research.

2. Keywords

Experience Economy, Tourism Psychometrics, Pine and Gilmore, Experiential Marketing, Escapism, Esthetic Experience, Educational Experience, Entertainment Experience, Consumer Absorption, Cognitive Immersion, Destination Management, Perceived Value

3. Authors

The Experience Economy Scale (EES-Tourism) was formulated and empirically validated by a team of prominent researchers in hospitality and consumer experience analytics:

• Haemoon Oh, Ph.D. — Professor of Hospitality Management and former Dean of the College of Hospitality, Retail and Sport Management at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA. Dr. Oh is widely recognized for his methodological and psychometric contributions to hospitality customer satisfaction, service quality, brand equity, and experiential marketing models.
• Ann Marie Fiore, Ph.D. — Professor and Director of Graduate Education in the Department of Apparel, Events, and Hospitality Management at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA. Dr. Fiore specializes in experiential marketing, sensory aesthetics, consumer psychology, and ambient design.
• Mikyoung Jeoung, M.S. — Researcher and doctoral alumnus in the Department of Apparel, Educational Studies, and Hospitality Management at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA, whose master’s thesis served as the foundational empirical testbed for operationalizing Pine and Gilmore’s theoretical framework.

4. Purpose

The primary objective of the Experience Economy Scale (EES-Tourism) is to provide a theoretically grounded, psychometrically rigorous, and practical diagnostic instrument to measure the subjective depth and multi-dimensional structure of tourist experiences. Prior to the introduction of the EES-Tourism, the hospitality and tourism literature evaluated consumer value almost exclusively through functional, utility-maximizing paradigms such as service quality (SERVQUAL), technical quality, customer satisfaction paradigms, and perceived sacrifice versus gain. Although these frameworks accurately reflected transactional and relational service encounters, they failed to capture the hedonic, symbolic, multisensory, and transformative dimensions that define contemporary leisure travel.

Pine and Gilmore (1998, 1999) hypothesized that modern consumers do not merely purchase goods or services; they demand unforgettable, emotionally resonant, and personal experiences. However, their conceptualization was predominantly qualitative, anecdotal, and managerial. Oh, Fiore, and Jeoung (2007) recognized the urgent need to bridge this theoretical-empirical gap. The EES-Tourism was purpose-built to:

• Deconstruct Experiential Consumption: Disentangle how consumers interact with experiential environments across two structural axes—customer participation (active versus passive) and environmental connection (absorption versus immersion).
• Empirically Evaluate Experiential Offerings: Offer destination marketing organizations (DMOs), resort developers, heritage site managers, national parks, and cultural festivals a validated measurement tool to audit which specific experience realms are successfully activated and which remain underdeveloped.
• Model Downstream Behavioral Intentions: Provide researchers with an explanatory structural equation tool capable of examining how distinct experiential realms influence affective arousal, overall destination memory, perceived value, holistic satisfaction, and behavioral loyalty (such as intention to revisit and willingness to recommend).
• Differentiate Experiential Positioning: Allow service providers to systematically differentiate their offerings in saturated tourism markets by moving beyond standardized service excellence toward curated, memorable experiential staging.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct underlying the EES-Tourism is the Multidimensional Staged Experience, structured across the four experience realms identified in Pine and Gilmore’s experiential taxonomy. These four realms are determined by the intersection of two fundamental axes of human-environment interaction:

1. Customer Participation: Ranging from passive participation (in which customers do not directly influence or interact with the performance or physical environment) to active participation (in which customers personally co-create, influence, or directly shape their experiential outcome).
2. Connection / Environmental Relationship: Ranging from absorption (occupying a person’s attention by bringing the experience into the mind from a perceptual distance) to immersion (physically, virtually, or psychologically entering into the experience itself, feeling surrounded by the environmental stimuli).

The Four Experiential Realms

1. Educational Experience (Active Participation × Absorption)

The educational realm captures experiences that actively engage the consumer’s cognitive apparatus and cultivate the acquisition of novel knowledge, intellectual insight, or physical skills. In this realm, the participant is not a passive spectator; learning demands mental attention and deliberate cognitive processing, yet the participant primarily absorbs the presented information. In tourism contexts (such as wine tastings, archaeological interpretations, artisanal cooking workshops, or eco-tours), the educational construct reflects curiosity stimulation, mental challenge, personal enrichment, and the feeling that the visit expanded the individual’s intellectual horizons.

2. Entertainment Experience (Passive Participation × Absorption)

The entertainment realm reflects one of the oldest and most pervasive forms of experiential consumption. In this realm, individuals passively absorb external performances, musical acts, cultural pageantry, street activities, or comedic presentations without actively intervening in or altering the performance. The psychological process is characterized by sensory captivation, amusement, cognitive relaxation, and hedonic pleasure. The observer’s mind is held by the spectacle, offering effortless psychological restoration through passive sensory intake.

3. Esthetic Experience (Passive Participation × Immersion)

The esthetic (or aesthetic) realm involves passive immersion in a physical, natural, or atmospheric environment. The individual does not actively alter or manipulate the setting, yet they are completely surrounded, enveloped, and immersed in its sensory design. In tourism, this dimension is elicited by harmonious architectural layouts, breathtaking natural vistas, curated interior ambiances, ambient acoustic landscapes, and spatial elegance. Psychologically, it evokes feelings of sensory peace, environmental harmony, perceptual awe, and elevated visual-spatial appreciation.

4. Escapist Experience (Active Participation × Immersion)

The escapist realm represents the most deeply immersive and participatory quadrant of the framework. Escapist experiences require the tourist to actively dive into an alternative physical or cognitive environment, shedding their everyday social roles and psychological burdens. It involves elements of psychological detachment from routine reality, role-playing, exploration of alternate temporal or geographic spaces, and complete behavioral absorption. Psychologically related to the concept of psychological teleportation and peak experience, escapism allows the tourist to temporarily “become someone else” or reside within a distinct, transcendent reality.

6. Theoretical Framework

The EES-Tourism is grounded in an interdisciplinary convergence of consumer behavior, environmental psychology, and cognitive-experiential psychology.

Pine and Gilmore’s 4Es Framework

The foundational bedrock of the instrument is the economic staging framework introduced by Pine and Gilmore (1998, 1999). They posited an evolutionary progression of economic value: commodities (fungible materials extracted from nature), goods (tangible artifacts manufactured for use), services (intangible operational activities delivered on demand), and experiences (memorable internal events staged for individual engagement). Experiences are categorized along the four quadrants (Education, Entertainment, Esthetics, Escapism). Oh et al. (2007) formalized this conceptual topology into a verifiable nomological network suitable for quantitative empirical analysis.

Flow Theory

The psychological mechanics of the active and immersive quadrants draw deeply from Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow Theory (1975, 1990). Flow represents an optimal psychological state characterized by total absorption in an activity, a balance between perceived challenge and personal skill, loss of self-consciousness, distorted temporal perception, and intrinsically rewarding immersion. The Escapist and Educational subscales of the EES directly reflect key flow preconditions: active participation demands focused concentration and skill application, while immersion evokes the feeling of time standing still and loss of self-reflective anxiety.

The Mehrabian-Russell Environmental Psychology Model (M-R Model)

The environmental connection axis (absorption versus immersion) aligns with the Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) paradigm formulated by Albert Mehrabian and James A. Russell (1974). Physical and social environments act as external stimuli ($S$) that elicit affective internal states ($O$), specifically emotional arousal and pleasure, which subsequently drive behavioral responses ($R$), such as approach (revisit, recommend, stay longer) or avoidance behaviors. Within the EES-Tourism, the Esthetic dimension operationalizes the environmental ambient stimuli, showing strong theoretical and empirical links to sensory pleasure and emotional arousal.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the EES-Tourism has been rigorously examined across multiple empirical investigations involving bed-and-breakfast guests, resort visitors, cultural tourists, cruise passengers, and museum patrons.

Content and Face Validity

Oh et al. (2007) established content validity through an extensive literature review followed by multi-stage expert panels. An initial pool of 48 items was evaluated by expert judges specializing in consumer behavior, tourism marketing, and psychometrics to ensure accurate mapping onto Pine and Gilmore’s four experiential domains. Ambiguous, double-barreled, and redundant items were eliminated, reducing the pool to 28 candidate items prior to field administration, and ultimately to the refined 16-item scale (4 items per latent construct).

Construct, Convergent, and Discriminant Validity

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) conducted across diverse empirical datasets consistently demonstrates that the four-factor model provides a significantly superior fit compared to alternative unifactorial, two-factor, or orthogonal models. Convergent validity is evidenced by:

• Statistically significant factor loadings ($p < .001$), with standardized coefficients consistently exceeding .70 (ranging from .68 to .88 in the seminal study).
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values exceeding the recommended .50 threshold across all four dimensions: Education (AVE ≈ .63), Entertainment (AVE ≈ .65), Esthetics (AVE ≈ .62), and Escapism (AVE ≈ .58).

Discriminant validity was established using the Fornell-Larcker criterion: for every latent construct, the square root of the AVE exceeds the bivariate correlations between that construct and any other construct within the measurement model. Inter-factor correlations typically range between .35 and .65, demonstrating that while the four realms are conceptually related components of a total experience, they represent distinct psychological phenomena.

Criterion-Related and Nomological Validity

Nomological validity was verified by incorporating the four realms into a structural equation model predicting downstream psychological and behavioral outcomes:

• Affective Arousal: Esthetic and Entertainment experiences exert significant positive direct effects on tourist emotional arousal ($p < .01$).
• Memorable Experience Formation: All four realms contribute significantly to experiential memory, with Escapist and Esthetic realms often emerging as the strongest predictors.
• Overall Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions: The four dimensions indirectly and directly account for substantial variance (frequently $R^2 > .55$) in customer satisfaction, revisit intentions, and willingness to pay premium prices.

  8. Reliability

  The EES-Tourism demonstrates high internal consistency and measurement precision across independent tourist populations and diverse cultural settings.

  Internal Consistency Statistics

  In the seminal validation study by Oh, Fiore, and Jeoung (2007) utilizing a sample of 419 rural tourism consumers, the internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha, $\alpha$) and composite reliabilities (CR) were computed as follows:

  • Educational Experience: $\alpha = .84$, $\text{CR} = .85$
  • Entertainment Experience: $\alpha = .88$, $\text{CR} = .88$
  • Esthetic Experience: $\alpha = .82$, $\text{CR} = .83$
  • Escapist Experience: $\alpha = .81$, $\text{CR} = .82$

  Subsequent cross-validation studies in diverse international settings have mirrored these findings:

  • Hosany and Witham (2010) administered the scale to cruise ship passengers ($N = 348$), obtaining alpha coefficients of .84 (Esthetics), .82 (Entertainment), .76 (Education), and .80 (Escapism).
  • Quadri-Felitti and Fiore (2012, 2013) examined wine tourism destinations, reporting subscale alphas between .81 and .89 with composite reliabilities exceeding .83 across all realms.
  • Radder and Han (2015) validated the instrument among heritage museum visitors, reporting Cronbach’s alpha values of .86 (Esthetics), .83 (Education), .79 (Entertainment), and .78 (Escapism).

  These findings verify that the 16 items exhibit low measurement error, high item-total correlations (typically $r_{it} > .60$), and stability across heterogeneous tourist settings.

  9. Factor Analysis

  The factorial architecture of the EES-Tourism was established through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) during preliminary calibration and corroborated through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM).

  Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

  During the initial exploratory phase, principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax) rotation was conducted on the candidate items. A clear four-factor solution emerged based on Kaiser’s criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0) and the scree plot inspection, accounting for over 68% of the total variance. Factor cross-loadings remained low (< .25), with primary factor loadings ranging from .64 to .89 across the four distinct dimensions.

  Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Goodness-of-Fit

  CFA confirmed the first-order, four-factor correlated model. Goodness-of-fit indices demonstrated an excellent fit to empirical data, meeting or exceeding conventional psychometric criteria established by Hu and Bentler (1999):

  • Chi-Square Ratio: $\chi^2 / \text{df} = 2.14$ ($p < .001$)
  • Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .96
  • Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .95
  • Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .052 (90% CI [.042, .062])
  • Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .044

  Standardized Factor Loadings

  The standardized CFA factor loadings for the 16 items across their designated latent dimensions are presented below:

  • Education: Item 1 ($lambda = .79$), Item 2 ($lambda = .84$), Item 3 ($lambda = .76$), Item 4 ($lambda = .81$)
  • Entertainment: Item 5 ($lambda = .82$), Item 6 ($lambda = .86$), Item 7 ($lambda = .87$), Item 8 ($lambda = .81$)
  • Esthetics: Item 9 ($lambda = .80$), Item 10 ($lambda = .85$), Item 11 ($lambda = .77$), Item 12 ($lambda = .70$)
  • Escapism: Item 13 ($lambda = .79$), Item 14 ($lambda = .82$), Item 15 ($lambda = .74$), Item 16 ($lambda = .72$)

  All factor loadings are statistically significant at $p < .001$, confirming robust construct representation without cross-dimensional contamination.

  10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

  • Tool Name: Experience Economy Scale for Tourism (EES-Tourism)
  • Instrument Nature: Quantitative psychometric self-report survey scale
  • Target Population: Leisure travelers, tourists, museum visitors, event attendees, and hospitality consumers
  • Total Item Count: 16 items
  • Dimensional Structure: 4 latent dimensions (4 items per dimension):
    • Educational Experience: Items 1–4
    • Entertainment Experience: Items 5–8
    • Esthetic Experience: Items 9–12
    • Escapist Experience: Items 13–16
  • Response Format: 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree)
  • Scoring Rules:
    • All 16 items are positively keyed; no items are reverse-coded.
    • Dimensional subscale scores are computed by calculating the arithmetic mean of the four corresponding items (subscale score range: 1.00 to 7.00).
    • A composite or global experience economy score can be derived by averaging all 16 items, though reporting four distinct dimensional profiles is strongly recommended to preserve diagnostic granularity.
  • Administration Time: Approximately 4 to 6 minutes

  11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

  • Year of Formal Publication: 2007
  • Copyright Holder: © 2007 Sage Publications / Journal of Travel Research; Authors: Haemoon Oh, Ann Marie Fiore, and Mikyoung Jeoung.
  • Academic Usage Policy: The EES-Tourism is widely accessible for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical purposes, and scholarly dissertations without licensing fees, provided proper academic attribution and bibliographic citation are given to the seminal article (Oh et al., 2007).
  • Commercial Applications: Commercial utilization, proprietary benchmarking platforms, and fee-for-service consumer market research may require formal copyright clearance and licensing permissions from Sage Publications or the authors.

  12. References

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: Experiencing Flow in Work and Play. Jossey-Bass.
  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper & Row.
  • Hosany, S., & Witham, M. (2010). Dimensions of cruisers’ experiences, satisfaction, and intention to recommend. Journal of Travel Research, 49(3), 351–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287509346859
  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  • Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An Approach to Environmental Psychology. MIT Press.
  • Oh, H., Fiore, A. M., & Jeoung, M. (2007). Measuring experience economy concepts: Tourism applications. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287507304039
  • Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 97–105. https://hbr.org/1998/07/welcome-to-the-experience-economy
  • Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre & Every Business a Stage. Harvard Business School Press.
  • Quadri-Felitti, D. L., & Fiore, A. M. (2012). Experience economy constructs as a framework for understanding wine tourism. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 18(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766711432222
  • Quadri-Felitti, D., & Fiore, A. M. (2013). Destination loyalty: Effects of wine tourists’ experiences, memories, and satisfaction on intentions. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(1–2), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2013.751211
  • Radder, L., & Han, X. (2015). An examination of the museum experience based on Pine and Gilmore’s experience economy realms. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 31(2), 455–470. https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v31i2.9129

  13. Items of the Scale

  Below are the authentic scale items in their original language as published in the standard psychometric validation studies, without modification or translation to preserve instrument validity and reliability:

  Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree)

  Educational Experience

  1. The experience was real learning experience for me.
  2. I learned a lot during the trip.
  3. It stimulated my curiosity to learn new things.
  4. It was an educational experience.

  Entertainment Experience

  5. Watching others perform was captivating.
  6. Activities of others were amusing to watch.
  7. Watching what was going on was entertaining.
  8. I really enjoyed watching what others were doing.

  Esthetic Experience

  9. The setting was very attractive.
  10. The surroundings were pleasant.
  11. The setting gave me a sense of harmony.
  12. I paid a lot of attention to the design and layout of the setting.

  Escapist Experience

  13. I felt I was in a different world.
  14. I felt like I was living in a different time or place.
  15. The experience let me imagine being someone else.
  16. I completely forgot about my daily routine.
  ★

  Rate This Scale

  5.0 / 5 • 1 vote