Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
ISSN: 0261-4367 (Print) 1466-4496 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlst20
The memorable souvenir-shopping experience:
antecedents and outcomes
Erose Sthapit, Dafnis N. Coudounaris & Peter Björk
To cite this article: Erose Sthapit, Dafnis N. Coudounaris & Peter Björk (2018) The memorable
souvenir-shopping experience: antecedents and outcomes, Leisure Studies, 37:5, 628-643, DOI:
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2018.1519031
Published online: 06 Sep 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 25
View Crossmark data
The memorable souvenir-shopping experience: antecedents and
, Dafnis N. Coudounaris
and Peter Björk
Department of Marketing, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland;
School of Economics and Business Administration,
University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia;
Department of Marketing, HANKEN School of Economics, Vasa, Finland
This study examines the relationship among authenticity, satisfaction, co-
creation, memorable souvenir-shopping experiences, and place attach-
ment. A post-holiday web-based survey was conducted among tourists
to Rovaniemi, Finland, and a valid sample of 301 tourists was used for
data analysis. The survey results show that satisfaction and co-creation
during onsite souvenir shopping at a tourism destination create memor-
able souvenir shopping experiences, and that such memories enhance
tourists’feelings of attachment to the destination. The implications for
retail management are that souvenir vendors should oﬀer a large assort-
ment of souvenirs to suit tourists’individual tastes. Souvenir retailers can
enhance customer satisfaction through taking such steps as training
personnel on customer shopping satisfaction, extending operating
hours, broadening the accepted means of payment, and improving the
quality and display of products as well as the external appearance of
their shops. Additionally, souvenir retailers should interact with custo-
mers and engage in onsite co-creation to arouse interest and attention.
Received 17 June 2018
Accepted 25 August 2018
The concept of souvenir is an important part of the leisure experience for many tourists (Murphy,
Moscardo, Benckendorﬀ,&Pearce,2011); however, the subject has not been studied as extensively as
other concepts in tourism (Kong & Chang, 2016). On one hand, some studies indicate that souvenirs
as objects function not only as reminders of the destination visited but may also symbolise the tourists’
travelling experience (Morgan & Pritchard, 2005). In fact, souvenirs are central to the tourism
experience (Brennan & Savage, 2012), and many tourists feel that their trips would be incomplete if
they failed to purchase souvenirs (Swanson & Horridge, 2006). As a result, tourists bring back
mementos and souvenirs as evidence of the special moments they experienced (Wilkins, 2011). In
this vein, several studies have identiﬁed the key product attributes of souvenirs and souvenir shopping.
For example, according to Graburn (1989), the product attributes preferred by travellers when buying
souvenirsinclude portability, inexpensiveness, cleanness and usability at home. Inaddition, Li and Cai
(2008)identiﬁed ﬁve attributes of souvenir shopping, namely: value, store, collectability, display and
functionality. Moreover, shopping literature often indicates that uniqueness and authenticity are key
attributes for souvenir shopping (Littrell, Anderson, & Brown, 1993).
On the other hand, in today’s experiential marketplace, experience memorability is a primary goal
of tourism for tourists, suppliers and destination managers (Campos, Mendes, Oom Do Valle, &
Scott, 2016). Therefore, the focus of tourism must be on oﬀering memorable experiences to
CONTACT Erose Sthapit erose.sthapit@uva.ﬁ;email@example.com.ﬁDepartment of Marketing, University of Vaasa,
Wolﬃntie 34, Vaasa, Finland FI 65200
2018, VOL. 37, NO. 5, 628–643
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
customers (Kim, Ritchie, & McCormick, 2012; Sthapit & Coudounaris, 2018). Memorable experi-
ences not only represent a new benchmark that destination managers and tourism businesses must
seek to oﬀer (Kim et al., 2012) but are also pivotal to gaining a sustainable competitive advantage
(Hudson & Ritchie, 2009). Such memories enhance tourists’identiﬁcation with a place and
strengthen their attachment to it (Loureiro, 2014;Tsai,2016); they also serve to strengthen tourists’
revisit intention (Coudounaris & Sthapit, 2017) and subjective sense of well-being (Sthapit &
Coudounaris, 2018). Therefore, modelling the antecedents and outcomes of a memorable on-
destination shopping experience remains an important goal in tourism. However, although souvenirs
are a signiﬁer of memory (Timothy, 2005), few studies have focused on tourists’souvenir-shopping
experiences (Oviedo-Garcia, Vega-Vazquez, Verdugo, & Reyes-Guizar, 2014) and their impact on the
memorability of the trip (Swanson & Timothy, 2012). In other words, despite a wealth of knowledge
about the souvenir-shopping experience and its relation to memory, researchers know little about the
interplay between speciﬁc facets of an experience and the formation of memories.
Littrell (1990) argued that many tourists perceive souvenir purchasing as a search for an authentic
tourism experience. Several authors have maintained that authenticity is one of the most important
characteristics of souvenirs is authenticity (Littrell et al., 1993; Trinh, Ryan, & Cave, 2014;Turner&
Reisinger, 2001).Authenticity is perceived by vacationers as the diﬀerence between souvenirs that are
unique to a speciﬁc area and souvenirs that are mass-produced(Grayson, 2002). Sthapit and Björk
(2017) showed authenticity contributes to the memorability of a souvenir-shopping experience for
tourists. Additionally, some studies have identiﬁed satisfaction as an important component of the
tourist experience (Oh, Fiore, & Jeoung, 2007; Quinlan-Cutler & Carmichael, 2010). Tung and
Ritchie (2011) suggested a positive relationship between satisfaction and memorable experiences.
Furthermore, the co-creation of experience has recently received a signiﬁcant amount of attention in
tourism research (Shaw, Bailey, & Williams, 2011). Tourism literature has characterised co-creation
as the tourist’s active participation in and interaction with a tourism experience (Campos et al., 2016;
Tan, Luh & Kung, 2014); the literature has demonstrated that co-creation contributes positively to
memorability (Chun &Turk-Browne, 2007;Kim,2010).Mathis,Kim,Uysal,Sirgy,andPrebensen
(2016) argued for the importance of ensuring memorable experiences for customers by supporting
the co-creation of experiences. Overall, tourism research has suggested that co-creation enhances the
memorability of the tourism experience (Campos et al., 2016; Hung, Lee & Hunag, 2014). However,
studies on co-creation have been conducted in the context of nature-based or sport tourism
(Ihamäki, 2012), cultural and heritage tourism (Minkiewicz, Evans, & Bridson, 2013), resort tourism
(Prebensen & Foss, 2011), adventure tourism, and events and festivals (Morgan, 2007). This insight
raises interesting, and hitherto largely unexplored, questions.
The present study positions objective authenticity, souvenir shopping satisfaction, and the co-
creation of a souvenir shopping experience as the antecedents of a memorable souvenir shopping
experience and place attachment (place identity and place dependence) as the outcome.
Speciﬁcally, this study investigates the link between objective authenticity, satisfaction, co-crea-
tion, memorable souvenir-shopping experiences, and place attachment.
Theoretical framework and hypothesis development
The theoretical framework used in this study provides deﬁnitions of ﬁve key concepts –authen-
ticity and objective authenticity, satisfaction, co-creation, memorable souvenir-shopping experi-
ences, and place attachment –as well as their interconnections (Figure 1).
Authenticity and objective authenticity
Authenticity is often deﬁned in terms of a set of characteristics: real, reliable, trustworthy, original,
ﬁrst-hand, true in substance, and prototypical, as opposed to copied, reproduced, or carried out in
the same way as the original (Kolar & Zabkar, 2010). In the context of physical objects such as
LEISURE STUDIES 629
souvenirs, the term ‘authentic’characterises something that is genuine and not counterfeit
(Cohen, 1988) and can be linked to objective authenticity. In keeping with the objectivist
approach, Theobald (1998)deﬁned authenticity a ‘genuine, unadulterated or the real thing’(p.
411). Kolar and Zabkar (2010) found authenticity is based on the originality and genuineness of
objects and sites. In the context of souvenir purchases, the perception of authenticity has been
deﬁned as the beliefs, ideas, and impressions held by individuals regarding the genuineness,
uniqueness, workmanship, aesthetics, utility, and cultural and historical integrity of souvenir
products and their attributes (Littrell et al., 1993).
In the literature on souvenir-purchasing behaviour, some authors have found that the percep-
tion of authenticity is an important determinant of souvenir choice (Asplet & Cooper, 2000;
Swanson & Horridge, 2006). The authenticity of a product has been described as an antecedent of
the value that consumers place on marketing oﬀerings (Grayson, 2002). Trinh et al. (2014) found
that the authenticity of a product is an important factor in tourists’souvenir purchases. Moreover,
the shopping literature has frequently indicated that authenticity is a key consideration of
souvenir shoppers (Turner & Reisinger, 2001). Authenticity has also been identiﬁed as one of
the components that contributes to the memorability of a souvenir-shopping experience for
tourists (Sthapit & Björk, 2017). Based on the literature, the following hypothesis is proposed.
Hypothesis 1: Objective authenticity directly and positively aﬀects memories of the souvenir-
Souvenir shopping satisfaction
Souvenir shopping satisfaction can be deﬁned as a tourist’s subjective evaluation of a shopping
experience at a retail store and of merchandise purchased during his or her stay at a travel destination
(Wong & Wan, 2013). Satisfaction is the consequence of a post-purchase experience that equals or
exceeds pre-purchase expectations (Vega-Vázquez, Castellanos-Verdugo & Oviedo Garcia, 2017).
Therefore, tourist satisfaction is a subjective post consumption evaluation of the service and experi-
ence encountered while travelling. Satisfaction has also been described as a post-purchase construct
related to how much a consumer likes or dislikes a service or product after experiencing it (Woodside,
Frey, & Daly, 1989). Although many other conceptualisations exist, scholars agree that satisfaction is a
judgment made by a customer following an encounter in which goods or services are exchanged (Yi,
1990). In the tourism context, satisfaction is deﬁned as the outcome of the diﬀerence between what is
expected and what has been experienced (Chen & Chen, 2010). Speciﬁcally, a tourist is satisﬁed if a
Figure 1. The conceptual model.
feeling of pleasure –a positive, memorable feeling –results from the comparison of his or her
expectations and experiences upon leaving a destination (Su, Cheng, & Huang, 2011). However,
when the experience fails to meet or exceed the level of expectation, a tourist is dissatisﬁed and is left
with a feeling of displeasure (Reisinger & Turner, 2003).
Tourist satisfaction is a strong antecedent of tourists’destination choice, the decision to revisit,
and the recommendation of a destination to others (Prayag & Ryan, 2012). Tung and Ritchie
(2011) suggested a positive relationship exists between satisfaction and memorable experiences.
Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed.
Hypothesis 2: Souvenir-shopping satisfaction directly and positively aﬀects memories of the
Co-creation of the souvenir shopping experience
Co-creation is deﬁned as ‘the joint, collaborative, concurrent, peer-like process of producing value,
both materially and symbolically’(Galvagno & Dalli, 2014, p. 644) and comprises dimensions such as
physical or psychological participation (Prebensen, Kim, & Uysal, 2016). Additionally, co-creation is a
consumer experience of a particular kind, speciﬁcally, it is an actively participated in and interactive
experience (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). According to the concept of the co-creation of experi-
ence, the customer and the organisation interact to ‘co-create’value (Prebensen, Vittersø, & Dahl,
2013). The framework of service-dominant logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2004) contrasts the co-creation of
value with the co-production of value. The co-production perspective regards the consumer as a
passive agent and focuses on how a ﬁrm may beneﬁt from consumer involvement in the production of
a service; the co-creation perspective, however, regards the consumer as an active agent and addresses
value creation in consumer–ﬁrm relationships (Vargo & Lusch, 2004).
Caru & Cova, 2003, p. 7) observed that it is ‘widely accepted within an experiential perspective
that consumers are not passive agents reacting to stimuli, but, instead, the actors and producers of
their own consuming experiences’. Involving tourists in activities that capture their interests and
attention is very important for co-creation (Andrades & Dimanche, 2014). In the same vein,
participative experiences contribute to meaningful personal narratives (Gretzel, Fesenmaier, &
O’Leary, 2006) and long-lasting memories (Larsen, 2007). Some studies have identiﬁed the
souvenir shopping experience as an interactive experience between the seller and the buyer
involving customer engagement (Spena, Caridà, Colurcio, & Melia, 2012). Others have found
that co-creation aﬀects the memorability of an experience (Campos et al., 2016; Hung et al., 2014).
This leads to the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3: The co-creation of a souvenir shopping experience directly and positively aﬀects
memories of such experiences.
Memory and the memorable tourism experience
Tourism experiences involve complex psychological processes with a special focus on memory
(Larsen, 2007). Memory is ‘an alliance of systems that work together, allowing us to learn from the
past and predict the future’(Baddeley, 1999, p. 1). Memory is an active, constructive process
through which information is acquired and stored; it is then retrieved for use in decision-making
(Braun, 1999). Episodic memory, which involves individuals’long-term storage of factual mem-
ories concerning personal experiences (Schwartz, 2011), is considered the type of long-term
memory most relevant to the study of tourist experiences (Larsen, 2007) because ‘lived experi-
ences gather signiﬁcance as we reﬂect on and give memory to them’(Curtin, 2005, p. 3).
Kim et al. (2012) suggested that a memorable tourism experience (MTE) ‘is selectively constructed
from tourism experiences based on the individual’s assessment of the experience’(p. 13). Accordingly,
LEISURE STUDIES 631
the authors deﬁned MTEs as tourism experiences that are positively remembered and recalled after the
events have occurred. The complexity of MTEs becomes evident in light of the holistic and multi-
faceted nature of the tourism experience, which encompasses a broad range of interconnected
processes and dynamics involving anticipation, travelling to the site, the onsite experience, returning
home, and post-travel recollections (Braun-LaTour, Grinley, & Loftus, 2006). Anticipation and
expectations, which are largely constructed prior to travelling, strongly inﬂuence onsite experiences
(Hospers, 2009), and memories are derived from these onsite experiences (Tung & Ritchie, 2011).
Place attachment (place identity and place dependence)
As objects, souvenirs represent experiences and recollections that are strongly connected with a
visited place (Love & Sheldon, 1998). Place attachment has been used to investigate tourists’
emotional, functional, aﬀective, and social attachments to certain tourist destinations and/or tour-
ism products (Yuksel, Yuksel, & Bilim, 2010). Place attachment represents the bonds that people
develop with places (Gross & Brown, 2008). Such bonds produce ‘the sense of physically being and
feeling “in place”or “at home”’ (Yuksel et al., 2010, p. 275). Place attachment considers the human–
place bond in terms of two dimensions: place identity and place dependence (Yuksel et al., 2010).
Place identity is a symbolic and emotional attachment to a place developed over time (Stedman,
2002). It is deﬁned as the feelings andmemories a person has abouta place that evoke a strong sense of
connection with the place (Kyle, Bricker, Graefe, & Wickham, 2004). Although individuals often
identify with places that reﬂect their identities (Brocato, 2006), only some environments are strongly
linked with a person’s self-identiﬁcation process. The second dimension, place dependence, is a
functional attachment to a particular place (Gross & Brown, 2008); this dimension highlights the
importance of having the social and physical resources necessary for the desired activities (Kyle et al.,
2004). Place dependence is derived from a transactional view that suggests people evaluate places
against alternatives. From this perspective, individuals evaluate places according to how well those
places meettheir functionalneeds (Brocato, 2006). Others have deﬁned place dependence as how well
aspeciﬁc place meets tourists’needs (Gross & Brown, 2008;Tsai,2016; Yuksel et al., 2010).
Studies have indicated that memories are an important component of place attachment and
that place attachment depends on positive memorable experiences (Hammitt, Becklund & Bixler,
2006). Among the studies that have demonstrated a positive relationship between memories of a
trip experience and place attachment (Loureiro, 2014; Tsai, 2016) is Tsai’s(2016) study of tourists
in Taiwan. This study showed that MTEs exert a direct, positive inﬂuence on place attachment
(place identity and place dependence). The study found that when tourists consume local cuisine,
their MTEs positively, signiﬁcantly inﬂuence their cognitive place attachment, and their MTEs
had the greatest eﬀect on place dependence. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed.
Hypothesis 4: Memories of the souvenir-shopping experience are directly and positively related
to place identity.
Hypothesis 5: Memories of the souvenir-shopping experience are directly and positively related
to place dependence.
Pilot test, data collection, and data analysis tools
To reduce the potential for errors in the current study, the authors pre-tested the questionnaire
with four academic researchers at the University of Vaasa, Finland. Pilot testing of the ques-
tionnaire was further conducted among 15 students at the University of Vaasa in August 2017 to
conﬁrm the relevance, clarity, ﬂow, and phrasing of the questions. It was estimated that each
questionnaire could be completed within 10 min. Consequently, the survey participants had no
complaints about its length. Because the questionnaire was available online, the respondents were
able to complete it very quickly.
For this study, a quantitative research approach was chosen. An empirical study was conducted
using a self-administered questionnaire. The target population comprised tourists who had visited
Rovaniemi, Finland. From this population, a sample of tourists who had visited Rovaniemi in the
past year and purchased souvenirs during their trip was identiﬁed by convenience sampling. With
the help of local tour operators in Rovaniemi, an invitation containing a link to the survey was
sent in September 2017 to 500 tourists asking them to complete the questionnaire. The ques-
tionnaire was available online for four months (September–December 2017). The study used
Rovaniemi as the study site since Rovaniemi is an international travel destination located in
Finland’s northernmost province, Lapland. The range of current souvenir oﬀerings that are
unique to Rovaniemi includes traditional handicrafts, jewellery, art objects with Northern and
Artic themes, Arctic leather and fur, handmade and everyday products including hunting knives
(Rovaniemi Tourist Information, 2018).
Respondents were ﬁrst instructed to recollect their recent visit to Rovaniemi and their positive
souvenir-shopping experiences. The study instrument was a self-administered questionnaire with
two sections. The ﬁrst section included demographic variables (i.e. age, gender and nationality)
and travel characteristics (i.e. the number of trips to Rovaniemi and number of people in the
travel party). The second section included multi-item scales that measured ﬁve constructs:
authenticity, satisfaction, co-creation, memorable souvenir-shopping experience, and place attach-
ment (place identity and place dependence). Authenticity was measured using four items adapted
from Xie, Wu, and Hsieh’s(2012) study. Satisfaction comprised of three items adapted from Oh
et al. (2007). Co-creation was measured using ﬁve items adapted from Cova, Dalli, and Zwick
(2011), Mathis et al. (2016), and Vargo, Lusch, Akaka. and He (2010). The memorable shopping
experience construct was measured using three scale items adapted from Oh et al. (2007). The
present study implemented a two-dimensional conceptualisation of place attachment: place
dependence and place identity. The scale items measuring place dependence and place identity
were adapted from previous studies (Gross & Brown, 2008; Yuksel et al., 2010). In total, the survey
comprised 35 items. Respondents were asked to respond to each item using a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (Table 1).
Proﬁle of the respondents
A total of 301 survey responses were used in the data analysis (response rate: 60.2%). The
respondents were mostly female (76.3%). The respondents ranged in age from 19–62 years. The
largest group of survey participants (55.9%) was between 35 and 44 years of age. Most of the
respondents were married (94.7%). In terms of nationality, 36.8% of the respondents were either
German (22.0%), British (20.9%) or Spanish (11.9%). Additionally, most of the respondents had
visited Rovaniemi either twice (36.7%) or three times (22.0%). Finally, most of the respondents
had travelled in groups of three to four persons (36.5and 41.1%, respectively).
Estimation of the model
For the estimation of the model, a conﬁrmatory factor analysis (CFA) was implemented using the
maximum likelihood module of Amos 24. The CFA results, shown in Table 2, suggested an
acceptable ﬁt, as demonstrated by the goodness-of-ﬁt diagnostics. The estimation of the default
model, which was performed by implementing a CFA and using the 301 cases, indicated a good
ﬁt. CMIN/DF (χ
/df) was 2.885, which is below the threshold of 5 with 194 degrees of freedom;
LEISURE STUDIES 633
the value of the conﬁrmatory ﬁt index (CFI) was good (0.928, well above the threshold of 0.700).
Furthermore, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.079 (with LO
90 = 0.072 and HI 90 = 0.087); this was lower than the critical value of 0.08, which is the
worldwide minimum limit (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010), with an expected cross-
validation index as high as 2.259. In addition, the goodness-of-ﬁt index (GFI), normed ﬁt index
(NFI), relative ﬁt index (RFI), incremental ﬁt index (IFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) and parsi-
monious normed ﬁt index values were .856, .895, .875, .929, .914 and .751, respectively.
The above estimation of the model is satisfactory. According to Kenny (2005), when N> 200
(in our case, N= 301), Hoelter’s critical N statistic is greater than 75, and the chi-square is
Table 1. Operationalisation of constructs used in this study (variables sources and measurement items).
Authenticity (Xie et al., 2012)
X1 The souvenir reﬂects traditional Finnish culture
X2 The souvenir presents the aesthetic beauty of Finnish culture
X3The souvenir shows the uniqueness of Finnish culture
X4 The souvenirs reﬂect the work and art from local Finnish people in Rovaniemi
Satisfaction (Oh, Fiore & Jeong, 2007)
The overall experience of shopping for locally produced souvenirs in Rovaniemi made me feel
X5 Very Satisﬁed
X6 Very Pleased
Co-creation of experience (Cova et al., 2011; Mathis et al., 2016; Vargo et al., 2010)
X8 Working alongside of a souvenir shop owner, seller or staﬀallowed me to have a greater social interaction, which I enjoyed
X9 I felt comfortable working with a souvenir shop owner, seller or staﬀduring this activity
X10 The setting of the souvenir shop allowed me to eﬀectively collaborate with the shop owner, seller or staﬀ
X11 My vacation experience was enhanced because of my participation in souvenir shopping
X12 I felt conﬁdent in my ability to collaborate with the souvenir shop owner, seller or staﬀ
Memorable shopping experience (Oh et al., 2007)
X13 I have wonderful memories of souvenir shopping experience in Rovaniemi
X14Iwon’t forget my souvenir shopping memories in Rovaniemi
X15 I will remember my souvenir shopping memories in Rovaniemi
Place Attachment (Gross & Brown, 2008; Yuksel et al., 2010)
X16 Rovaniemi is a very special destination to me
X18 Holidaying in Rovaniemi means a lot to me
X19 I am very attached to Rovaniemi
X20 Holidaying in Rovaniemi is more important to me than holidaying in other places
X21 Rovaniemi is the best place for what I like to do on holidays
X22 I will not substitute Rovaniemi with any other place for the experience I had there
X23 I get more satisfaction out of holidaying in Rovaniemi than from visiting similar destinations
Table 2. Model ﬁt summary.
Model ﬁt parameters Estimates of parameters of default model
CMIN NPAR CMIN DF PCMIN/DF
59 559.708 194 .000 2.885
RMR, GFI RMR GFI AGFI PGFI
.067 .856 .812 .656
Baseline comparisons NFI, Delta1 RFI, rho1 IFI, Delta2 TLI, rho2 CFI
.895 .875 .929 .919 .928
Parsimony adjusted measures PRATIO PNFI PCFI
.840 .751 .779
RMSEA RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE
.079 .072 .087 .000
ECVI ECVI LO 90 HI 90 MECVI
2.259 2.036 2.508 2.292
HOELTER HOELTER, .05 HOELTER, .01
statistically signiﬁcant (Hoelter = 122 at the 0.05 signiﬁcance level and Hoelter = 131 at the 0.01
signiﬁcance level; see Table 3); the model ﬁt is not poor. Therefore, the CFI value (in our case,
0.928) is not the only measurement that can be used to determine whether the model ﬁt is poor or
satisfactory. In this case, the model ﬁt was satisfactory. Furthermore, the value of the parsimony
comparative-of-ﬁt index (PCFI) of 0.779 was greater than 0.750; this satisﬁed one of the two
assumptions of a well-ﬁtting, parsimonious model (Rigdon, 1996, p. 376). However, the second
assumption of Rigdon (1996) was not satisﬁed because the CFI value was less than 0.95.
This study followed Hair et al. (2010) and initially unidimensionalised (i.e. constrained) the largest
estimated variable of each construct. Next, we correlated the errors of the variables for their modiﬁcation
indices (MI) in the ﬁndings that had high covariance (greater than MI = 16.000; i.e. e10–e11 = 270.121,
e3–e4 = 137.603, e3–e3 = 130.647, and e2–e4 = 100.893). Finally, we extracted one variable from the
model that had lower standardised regression weights over 1.0 (i.e. X12 = 3.240). The deduction of this
variable improved the important statistics (i.e. chi-squarebydegreesoffreedom,RMSEA,andCFI).
As shown in Table 2, the CFA results suggested an acceptable ﬁt, as demonstrated by the
goodness-of-ﬁt diagnostics. The hypothesised associations between the constructs were tested by
estimating the structural equation modelling (SEM) using the maximum likelihood technique.
The results showed that the NFI, CFI, RFI, IFI, and TLI had high values, as expected.
Table 3 shows the correlation matrix of the six constructs provided by the output of Amos 24.
This matrix revealed that there is no multicollinearity problem since the correlations are <0.7.
Table 4 presents the results of using a regression analysis on the 301 cases. According to this table,
three out of ﬁve relationships were supported. The two unsupported relationships were authenticity to
memorable shopping experience and memorable shopping experience to place identity.
Table 5 presents the unstandardised coeﬃcients of the latent variables and their standard
errors, t-values, and p-values. The standardised path coeﬃcients, particularly for the following
three relationships, were positive and statistically signiﬁcant: satisfaction to memorable shopping
experience (99% conﬁdence level), co-creation to memorable shopping experience (95% conﬁ-
dence level) and memorable shopping experience to place identity (95% conﬁdence level).
Table 5 shows the results of the statistical analysis that was conducted to test whether memorable
shopping moderates the path between authenticity/satisfaction/co-creation and place identity/
place dependence. In all six cases, we used SEM to tackle the mediation issue.
The ﬁndings show that memorable shopping experience was a signiﬁcant mediator in four of
the six relationships (satisfaction and place identity, co-creation and place identity, satisfaction
and place dependence, and co-creation and place dependence). Memorable shopping experience,
however, was not a signiﬁcant mediator in two relationships (authenticity and place identity, and
authenticity and place dependence).
Table 5 shows that memorable shopping experience was a partial mediator (Mackinnon,
Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007) in one relationship: satisfaction and place identity. Memorable shopping
experience was a complete mediator in three relationships: co-creation and place identity,
satisfaction and place dependence, and co-creation and place dependence. Additionally, the
Table 3. Pearson correlations of sample (N= 301).
f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6
Authenticity f1 1
Satisfaction f2 .698 1
Co-creation f3 .680 .652 1
Memorable shopping experience f4 .616 .611 .643 1
Place identity f5 .356 .335 .353 .296 1
Place dependence f6 .007 .009 .087 .195 .018 1
LEISURE STUDIES 635
indirect impacts of satisfaction and co-creation on place identity and place dependence were
signiﬁcant after memorable shopping experience entered the model as a mediator. Finally, the
indirect impacts of authenticity on place identity and place dependence were not signiﬁcant after
memorable shopping experience entered the model as a mediator.
Reliability and validity
The construct reliability and variance extracted (VE) for all six constructs were calculated using
CFA via Amos 24. The calculations revealed that all constructs had a construct reliability that
exceeded 0.7. The mean construct reliability estimate was 0.771, which is above the critical value
of 0.7. Therefore, this estimate suggests a satisfactory degree of reliability.
To assess convergent validity, we did the following: ﬁrst, the loading estimates (standardised
regression weights) of the 23 variables were examined; they were found to be within the range of
.564–.914, well above 0.5, thus exhibiting satisfactory convergent validity. Because 87% of the
values of the loadings were above 0.700, we concluded that there was convergent validity. Second,
the calculation of the VE from each construct exceeded 70%; thus, the model exhibited convergent
validity. Speciﬁcally, the VE for the six constructs was above 50% (authenticity = 0.763, satisfac-
tion = 0.714, co-creation = 0.775, memorable shopping experience = 0.895, place identity = 0.679,
and place dependence = 0.758) and the average VE (AVE) was 0.76. Because each construct had a
VE >0.5 and the AVE = 0.76 (>0.5), the discriminant-validity criterion of AVE >0.5, introduced
by Fornell and Larcker (1981), was satisﬁed. The statistics of the ﬁt of the model were very good
(i.e. GFI = 0.856, CFI = 0.928), and the RMSEA value (0.079) was below the internationally
recognised threshold of 0.08. In addition, the estimation of Cronbach’sαof the constructs
revealed high reliability: Authenticity = .726, Satisfaction = .760, Co-creation of experience = .763,
Memorable shopping experience = .917, Place identity = .705, and Place dependence = .753.
This study makes ﬁve notable contributions to the tourism literature. First, the ﬁndings indicated
that purchasing authentic souvenirs while at a tourism destination did not positively or
Table 4. Testing of hypotheses based on regression analysis*.
estimate B S.E. t-value P-value Status of hypotheses
H1 Authenticity to
−.134 .090 −.087 −1.490 .137 Non-supported
H2 Satisfaction to
.556 .079 .441 7.072 .000 Supported
H3 Co-creation to
.355 .120 .169 2.952 .003 Supported
H4 Memorable shopping
experience to place
.040 .036 .063 1.098 .273 Non-supported
H5 Memorable shopping
Experience to place
.118 .062 .109 1.992 .048 Supported
*The tests of hypotheses are based on the ﬁnal dataset (301 cases) with very few (30) missing data. Missing data is replaced by
the means of variables.
Table 5. Mediator ‘memorable shopping experience’before and after entering into the Models*.
Mediator before and after entering into the model
variables** Beta estimate S.E. C.R. or t-value P-value Result Status of mediation
Before mediator F4 enters into the model F5 to F1 F5 to F1 .024 .018 1.336 .182 Non-signiﬁcant No mediation
After mediator F4 enters into the model F5 to F4 to F1 F5 to F1 .025 .016 1.585 .113 Non-signiﬁcant
F4 to F1 .025 .016 1.585 .113 Non-signiﬁcant
F5 to F4 .799 .211 3.783 .000 Signiﬁcant
Before mediator F4 enters into the model F5 to F2 F5 to F2 .078 .028 2.823 .005 Signiﬁcant Partial
After mediator F4 enters into the model F5 to F4 to F2 F5 to F2 .264 .037 7.098 .000 Signiﬁcant
F4 to F2 .264 .037 7.098 .000 Signiﬁcant
F5 to F4 −.230 .167 −1.376 .169 Non-signiﬁcant
Before mediator F4 enters into the model F5 to F3 F5 to F3 .041 .032 1.268 .205 Non-signiﬁcant Complete
After mediator F4 enters into the model F5 to F4 to F3 F5 to F3 .227 .039 2.302 .000 Signiﬁcant
F4 to F3 .227 .039 9.975 .000 Signiﬁcant
F5 to F4 −.292 .207 7.320 .158 Non-signiﬁcant
Before mediator F4 enters into the model F6 to F1 F6 to F4 .008 .016 .535 .593 Non-signiﬁcant No mediation
After mediator F4 enters into the model F6 to F4 to F1 F6 to F1 .005 .160 .031 .975 Non-signiﬁcant
F4 to F1 .005 .160 .031 .975 Non-signiﬁcant
F6 to F4 .001 .401 .003 .997 Non-signiﬁcant
Before mediator F4 enters into the model F6 to F2 F6 to F2 .004 .009 .494 .621 Non-signiﬁcant Complete
After mediator F4 enters into the model F6 to F4 to F2 F6 to F2 .555 .056 9.965 .000 Signiﬁcant
F4 to F2 .555 .056 9.965 .000 Signiﬁcant
F6 to F4 −1.629 .199 −8.189 .000 Signiﬁcant
Before mediator F4 enters into the model F6 to F3 F6to F3 .015 .013 1.175 .240 Non-signiﬁcant Complete
After mediator F4 enters into the model F6 to F4 to F3 F6 to F3 20.806 7.494 2.776 .006 Signiﬁcant
F4 to F3 20.806 7.494 2.776 .006 Signiﬁcant
F6 to F4 −1.013 .019 −54.712 .000 Signiﬁcant
*Estimates are found by AMOS 24. ** F1 = authenticity, F2 = satisfaction, F3 = co-creation, F4 = memorable Shopping, F5 = place Identity, F6 = place dependence.
LEISURE STUDIES 637
signiﬁcantly contribute to tourists’memories of souvenir-shopping experiences. The ﬁndings are
contrary to some studies indicating that authenticity is one of the most important characteristics
of souvenirs (Littrell et al., 1993; Trinh et al., 2014; Turner & Reisinger, 2001), and authenticity
contributes to tourists’memories of the trip experience (Sthapit & Björk, 2017). One reason for
the non-signiﬁcant relationship between authenticity and memorable souvenir-shopping experi-
ence is that authenticity is subjectively assessed (Asplet & Cooper, 2000; Swanson & Horridge,
2006), and individuals’perspectives on authenticity diﬀer; they may evaluate it in dissimilar ways
(Littrell et al., 1993).
Second, satisfaction with the souvenir shopping experience contributed to memories of such an
experience. In other words, the standardised path coeﬃcient value between satisfaction with a
souvenir shopping experience and a memorable souvenir-shopping experience was 0.079
(P= 0.000), indicating that satisfaction with souvenir shopping experience has a positive and
signiﬁcant direct impact on the memories of the experience. The ﬁndings support Tung and
Ritchie (2011), which showed a positive relationship between satisfaction and memorable experi-
ences. Although Kim (2009) indicated that satisfactory tourism experiences may not be recalled in
the post consumption phase and are unlikely to provide a sustainable competitive advantage to
businesses in destination areas, the ﬁndings indicate that higher levels of tourist satisfaction with
souvenir shopping are associated with stronger memories of souvenir-shopping experiences. In
contrast to studies indicating that memorable experiences have higher value for tourists than
merely satisfactory ones (Kim et al., 2012; Morgan & Xu, 2009), the ﬁndings of this study support
research indicating that satisfaction is one of the key constructs in tourist behaviour studies (Lee,
Kyle, & Scott, 2012; Lee, Lee, & Choi, 2011).
Third, the relationship between co-creation of souvenir shopping experience and memorable
souvenir-shopping experience was signiﬁcant, with a standardised path coeﬃcient value of 0.120
(P= 0.003). This shows that a greater degree of co-creation during souvenir purchase is associated
with higher memorability of souvenir-shopping experiences. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was sup-
ported. This ﬁnding supports some previous studies indicating that co-creation positively aﬀects
the memorability of the experience (Campos et al., 2016; Hung et al., 2014).
Fourth, there was a non-signiﬁcant relationship between memorable souvenir-shopping experi-
ence and place identity (Hypothesis 4). The study found that tourists’memories of the souvenir-
shopping experience positively and signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced their cognitive place attachment and
that their memorable souvenir-shopping experiences had an eﬀect on place dependence.
Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was supported. Speciﬁcally, when tourists have a memorable shopping
experience, they are more likely to evaluate the destination as a place that meets their functional
needs, represented in this context by the purchase of souvenirs; however, this is not linked to
personal identiﬁcation with the destination. Overall, a satisfactory and co-creative souvenir-
shopping experience supports the creation of positive and long-lasting memories, and such
positive memories enhance tourists’attachment to the destination.
Given the short tourist seasons, undiﬀerentiated product lines, and highly concentrated direct
competition, souvenir retailers face signiﬁcant challenges (Swanson & Timothy, 2012). The results
of our empirical tests might give rise to useful insights that may be shared with souvenir retailers.
Tourists have highly diﬀerentiated tastes and needs, so more souvenir choices might enhance their
sense of autonomy and cater to diverse preferences, consequently contributing to their increased
satisfaction. Souvenir retailers should oﬀer a large assortment of souvenirs; doing so may give
them an advantage over outlets oﬀering smaller assortments because it increases the chances that
tourists will satisfy their own particular wants. Furthermore, retailers should encourage employees
to focus on oﬀering memorable souvenir shopping experiences through satisfactory service
delivery, which further inﬂuences tourists’place dependence. For example, souvenir retailers
can enhance customer satisfaction by improving service provision, for example, through retailer
training on customer shopping satisfaction, extending operating hours, broadening the accepted
means of payment, expanding the variety of products, improving the quality and the display of
products, and improving the external appearance of their shops. Moreover, social interaction is an
important dimension of co-creation (Yi & Gong, 2012) and is of major signiﬁcance in the context
of tourism (Andrades & Dimanche, 2014). The management of attention, that is, focused mental
engagement with a particular item among all those vying for attention in the environment,
whether external or internal (Ingram, 1990), is pivotal to engaging tourists in co-creation
(Andrades & Dimanche, 2014). Therefore, souvenir retailers should involve themselves in active
interaction with customers and engage in onsite co-creation to arouse interest and attention. In
addition, during on-site co-creation, the customer should be at its centre.
Regarding the study’s limitations, its ﬁndings are highly destination-speciﬁc because the data
were collected only from visitors to Rovaniemi; the use of a single destination limits the ﬁndings’
generalisability to other destinations. Moreover, the study was limited to authenticity, satisfaction
and co-creation in predicting memories of souvenir-shopping experiences. The present study
adopted a web-based survey questionnaire. Adopting a greater array of research methods might
overcome this research limitation by using, for example, focus groups, surveys, in-depth interviews,
observations, and diaries obtained from sampled individuals who record their choice overload
onsite. The questionnaire was developed in English, thus excluding non-English speakers; the
questionnaire should be translated into diﬀerent languages if data is to be collected from several
nationalities. Another limitation is that the data was collected in the post-visit stage. The potential
time lapse was one year, which might have had a possible impact on survey responses. The memory
reconstruction framework indicates that when a past experience is recalled, memory is not merely a
reproduction of past experience, but rather a complex process in which correlated information from
what consumers knew before an actual experience and what they learned afterwards becomes
integrated to create an alternate memory of product experience (Bartlett, 1932). This ‘reconstructive
memory’and creation of false post-experience ‘information’has been further identiﬁed as a process
that alters how consumers remember their previous experiences (Schacter, 1995). Braun-LaTour
et al. (2006) indicated that post-experience information, that is, advertising and word-of-mouth,
contributes to tourists’memory distortion. To avoid this incongruence between remembered and
onsite experiences, future studies should gather data immediately after the visit. Moreover, the focus
of the study was on positive memorable souvenir shopping experiences; however, this study
acknowledges that while the term ‘memorable’tends to have a positive connotation, tourists’
recollections of their holiday experiences may also evoke some less-positive emotions (Locher,
Yoels, Maurer, & Van Ells, 2005). In addition, Pine and Gilmore (1998) showed that poor service
can easily be converted into a negative memorable experience.
Memories of holidays have been shown to contribute to individuals’subjective well-being
(Sthapit & Coudounaris, 2018). Thus, a discussion of how pleasant memories of a travel experience
spurred by souvenirs are related to tourists’subjective well-being represents a signiﬁcant contribu-
tion to research. Future research could examine whether souvenirs help travellers savour positive
emotions and investigate the inﬂuence of positive emotions on the memorability of the trip. The
rationale is that positive emotional activation contributes to the creation of memories (Tung &
Ritchie, 2011). Finally, studies have indicated that souvenirs can evoke sensory memories and act as
channels for recalling tourism(Morgan & Pritchard, 2005). Future studies could explore the diﬀerent
senses evoked by souvenirs and the senses that predominantly inﬂuence trip memorability.
No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the authors.
LEISURE STUDIES 639
The work of Dafnis N. Coudounaris was supported by Institutional Research Funding of the Estonian Ministry of
Education and Research [grant number IUT20-49]; The work of Erose Sthapit was supported by Jenny and Antti
Notes on contributors
Erose Sthapit is a doctoral candidate in Marketing at the Department of Marketing, University of Vaasa, Finland.
His research interests include consumer behavior, memorable tourism experiences, family tourism, culinary–
gastronomic experiences, souvenir shopping experiences, savoring, and subjective well-being. He has published
in Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality
Research, Current Issues in Tourism, Tourism Management Perspectives and Psychology & Marketing.
Dafnis N. Coudounaris received his PhD in Industrial Marketing from Lulea University of Technology, Sweden. He
is an Associate Professor of Innovation Management at School of Economics and Business Administration of the
University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia. His main work is in exporting, particularly export behaviour and attitudes,
export assistance programmes, export sales management and export literature. Recently, his research interests
include importers’perceptions of exporters’unethical behaviour, issues of green tourist attitudes and behaviour,
country-of-origin, brand equity into B2B service markets, university-industry collaboration related to innovation,
experiential knowledge and innovation, subsidiaries’exits, export promotion programmes for assisting SMEs,
antecedents and outcomes of memorable tourism experiences, and memorable tourism experiences related to
tourists’behavioral intentions. He has published in several journals including Management International Review,
Journal of International Management, International Business Review, Psychology & Marketing and Journal of
Peter Björk is marketing professor at HANKEN School of Economics, Vaasa, Finland. He is associate editor for
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, and Finnish Journal of Tourism Research. Bjork’s research focus
is in the ﬁeld of tourism marketing, sustainable tourism, ecotourism, and destination development. He has a special
interest in destination branding, and tourism innovations.
Erose Sthapit http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1650-3900
Andrades, L., & Dimanche, F. (2014). Co-creation of experience value: A tourist behaviour approach. In N. K.
Prebensen, J. S. Chen, & M. Uysal (Eds.), Creating experience value in tourism (pp. 95–112). Wallingford: CABI
Asplet, M., & Cooper, M. (2000). Cultural designs in New Zealand souvenir clothing: The question of authenticity.
Tourism Management,21, 307–312.
Baddeley, A. (1999). Essential of human memory. East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Braun, K. A. (1999). Post experience advertising eﬀect on consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Research,25(4),
Braun-LaTour, K. A., Grinley, M. J., & Loftus, E. F. (2006). Tourist memory distortion. Journal of Travel Research,
Brennan, L., & Savage, T. (2012). Cultural consumption and souvenirs: An ethical framework. Arts Marketing: An
International Journal,2(2), 144–160.
Brocato, E. D. (2006). Place attachment: An investigation of environments and outcomes in service context.
Doctoral Thesis. Arlington: the University of Texas.
Campos, A. C., Mendes, J., Oom Do Valle, P., & Scott, N. (2016). Co-creation experiences: Attention and
memorability. Journal of Travel &Tourism Marketing,33(9), 1309–1336.
Caru, A., & Cova, B. (2003). Revisiting consumption experience: A more humble but complete view of the concept.
Marketing Theory,3(2), 259–278.
Chen, C., & Chen, F. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage
tourists. Tourism Management,31,29–35.
Chun, M. M., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2007). Interactions between attention and memory. Current Opinion in
Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,15(3), 371–386.
Coudounaris, D. N., & Sthapit, E. (2017). Antecedents of memorable tourism experience related to behavioral
intentions. Psychology & Marketing,34(12), 1084–1093.
Cova, B., Dalli, D., & Zwick, D. (2011). Critical perspectives on consumers’role as ‘producers’: Broadening the
debate on value co-creation in marketing processes. Marketing Theory,11(3), 231–242.
Curtin, S. (2005). Nature, wild animals and tourism: An experiential view. Journal of Ecotourism,4(1), 1–15.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,18(1), 39–50.
Galvagno, M., & Dalli, D. (2014). Theory of value co-creation: A systematic literature review. Managing Service
Graburn, N. H. H. (1989). Tourism: The sacred journey. In V. L. Smith (Ed.), Hosts and Guests. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Grayson, K. (2002). Telling the diﬀerence: Consumer evaluations of authentic and inauthentic marketing oﬀerings.
Advances in Consumer Research,29(1), 44–45.
Gretzel, U., Fesenmaier, D. R., & O’Leary, J. T. (2006). The transformation of consumer behaviour. In D. Buhalis &
C. Costa (Eds.), Tourism business frontiers: Consumers, products and industry (pp. 9–18). Oxford: Butterworth-
Gross, M. J., & Brown, G. (2008). An empirical structure model of tourists and places: Progressing involvement and
place attachment into tourism. Tourism Management,29(6), 1141–1151.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River:
Hammitt, W. E., Backlund, E. A., & Bixler, R. D. (2006). Place bonding for recreation places: Conceptual and
empirical development. Leisure Studies,25(1), 17–41.
Hospers, G. J. (2009). Lynch, Urry and city marketing: Taking advantage of the city as a built and graphic image.
Place Branding and Public Diplomacy,5(3), 226–233.
Hudson, S., & Ritchie, J. B. R. (2009). Branding a memorable destination experience. The case of ‘Brand Canada’.
International Journal of Tourism Research,11, 217–228.
Hung, W. -L., Lee, Y. -J., & Huang, P. -H. (2014). Creative experiences, memorability and revisit intention in
creative tourism. Current Issues in Tourism,19(8), 1–8.
Ihamäki, P. (2012). Geocachers: The creative tourism experience. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology,3
Ingram, R. E. (1990). Self-focused attention in clinical disorders: Review and a conceptual model. Psychological
Kenny, D. A. (2005). Measuring model ﬁt. Retrieved from https://davidakenny.net/cm/ﬁt.htm.
Kim, J. -H. (2009). Development of a scale to measure memorable tourism experiences (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Kim, J. -H. (2010). Determining the factors aﬀecting the memorable nature of travel experiences. Journal of Travel
&Tourism Marketing,27(8), 780–796.
Kim, J. -H., Ritchie, J., & McCormick, B. (2012). Development of a scale to measure memorable tourism
experiences. Journal of Travel Research,51(1), 12–25.
Kolar, T., & Zabkar, V. (2010). A consumer-based model of authenticity: An oxymoron or the foundation of
cultural heritage marketing? Tourism Management,31(5), 652–664.
Kong, W. H., & Chang, T.-Z. (2016). Souvenir shopping, tourist motivation, and travel experience. Journal of
Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism,17(2), 163–177.
Kyle, G., Bricker, K. S., Graefe, A., & Wickham, T. (2004). An examination of recreationists’relationships with
activities and settings. Leisure Sciences,26(2), 123–142.
Larsen, S. (2007). Aspects of a psychology of the tourist experience. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
Lee, J., Kyle, G., & Scott, D. (2012). The mediating eﬀect of place attachment on the relationship between festival
satisfaction and loyalty to the festival hosting destination. Journal of Travel Research,51(6), 754–767.
Lee, J.-S., Lee, C., & Choi, Y. (2011). Examining the role of emotional and functional values in festival evaluation.
Journal of Travel Research,50(6), 685–696.
Li, M., & Cai, L. A. (2008). Souvenir shopping attitudes and behavior among chinese domestic tourists: an
exploratory study. Journal of China Tourism Research,4(2), 189–204. doi:10.1080/19388160802313787
Littrell, M. A. (1990). Symbolic signiﬁcance of textile crafts for tourists. Annals of Tourism Research,17(2), 228–245.
Littrell, M. A., Anderson, L. F., & Brown, P. J. (1993). What makes a craft souvenir authentic? Annals of Tourism
Locher, J. L., Yoels, W. C., Maurer, D., & Van Ells, J. (2005). Comfort foods: an exploratory journey into the social
and emotional signiﬁcance of food. Food and Foodways,13(4), 273-297. doi:10.1080/07409710500334509
LEISURE STUDIES 641
Loureiro, S. M. C. (2014). The role of the rural tourism experience economy in place attachment and behavioral
intentions. International Journal of Hospitality and Management,40,1–9.
Love, L. L., & Sheldon, P. S. (1998). Souvenirs: Messengers of meaning. Advances in Consumer Research,25,170–175.
Mackinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. The Annual Review of Psychology,58,
Mathis, E., Kim, H., Uysal, M., Sirgy, J., & Prebensen, N. (2016). The eﬀect of co-creation experience on outcome
variable. Annals of Tourism Research,57,62–75.
Minkiewicz, J., Evans, J., & Bridson, K. (2013). How do consumers co-create their experiences? An exploration in
the heritage sector. Journal of Marketing Management,30,1–30.
Morgan, M. (2007). Festival spaces and the visitor experience. In J. Casado-Diaz, M. Everett, & S. Wilson (Eds.),
Social and cultural change: Making space(s) for leisure and tourism (pp. 113–130). Eastbourne: Lesiure Studies
Morgan, M., & Xu, F. (2009). Student travel experiences: Memories and dreams. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Morgan, N., & Pritchard, A. (2005). On souvenirs and metonymy: Narratives of memory, metaphor and materi-
ality. Tourist Studies,5(10), 29–53.
Murphy, L., Moscardo, G., Benckendorﬀ, P., & Pearce, P. (2011). Evaluating tourist satisfaction with the retail
experience in a typical tourist-shopping village. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,18(4), 302–310.
Oh, H., Fiore, A. M., & Jeoung, M. (2007). Measuring experience economy concepts: Tourism applications. Journal
of Travel Research,46(2), 119–132.
Oviedo-Garcia, M. -A., Vega-Vazquez, N., Verdugo, M. C., & Reyes-Guizar, L. A. (2014). Tourist satisfaction and
the souvenir shopping of domestic tourists: extended weekends in Spain. Current issues in Tourism,19,1–16.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard business review,76, 97–105.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of
Interactive Marketing,18(3), 5–14.
Prayag, G., & Ryan, C. (2012). Antecedents of tourists’loyalty to Mauritius The role and inﬂuence of destination
image, place attachment, personal involvement, and satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research,51(3), 342–356.
Prebensen, N. K., & Foss, L. (2011). Coping and co-creating in tourist experiences. International Journal of Tourism
Prebensen, N. K., Kim, H., & Uysal, M. S. (2016). Co-creation as moderator between the experience value and
satisfaction relationship. Journal of Travel Research,5(7), 934–945.
Prebensen, N. K., Vittersø, J., & Dahl, T. I. (2013). Value co-creation signiﬁcance of tourist resources. Annals of
Tourism Research,42, 240–261.
Quinlan-Cutler, S., & Carmichael, B. A. (2010). The dimensions of the tourist experience. In M. Morgan, P. Lugosi,
& J. R. B. Ritchie (Eds.), The tourism and leisure experience. Consumer and managerial perspectives (pp. 3–26).
Bristol: Channel View.
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. W. (2003). Cross-cultural behavior in tourism: Concepts and analysis. Oxford:
Rigdon, E. E. (1996). CFI versus RMSEA: A comparison of two ﬁt indexes for structural equation modeling.
Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal,3(4), 369–379.
Rovaniemi Tourist Information. (2018). Souvenirs. Internet link Retrieved from https://www.visitrovaniemi.ﬁ/
Schacter, D. (1995). Memory distortion: How minds, brains, and societies reconstruct the past. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Schwartz, B. (2011). Memory: Foundations and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Shaw, G., Bailey, A., & Williams, A. (2011). Aspects of service-dominant logic and its implications for tourism
management: Examples from the hotel industry. Tourism Management,32(2), 207–214.
Spena, T. R., Caridà, A., Colurcio, M., & Melia, M. (2012). Store experience and co-creation: The case of temporary
shop. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,40(1), 21–40.
Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place based cognitions,
attitude and identity. Environment and Behavior,34(5), 561–581.
Sthapit, E., & Björk, P. (2017). Relative contributions of souvenirs on memorability of a trip experience and revisit
intention: A study of visitors to Rovaniemi, Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism,1–26.
Sthapit, E., & Coudounaris, D. (2018). Memorable tourism experiences: Antecedents and outcomes. Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism,18(1), 72–94.
Su, H. J., Cheng, K. F., & Huang, H. H. (2011). Empirical study of destination loyalty and its antecedent: The
perspective of place attachment. The Service Industries Journal,31(16), 2721–2739.
Swanson, K. K., & Horridge, P. E. (2006). Travel motivations as souvenir purchase indicators. Tourism
Swanson, K. K., & Timothy, D. J. (2012). Souvenirs: Icons of meaning, commercialization and commoditization.
Tourism Management,33(3), 489–499.
Tan, S. -K., Luh, D. -B., & Kung, S. -F. (2014). A taxonomy of creative tourists in creative tourism. Tourism
Management,42, 248-259. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2013.11.008
Theobald, W. (1998). Global tourism. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Timothy, D. J. (2005). Shopping tourism, retailing and leisure. Clevedon: Channel View.
Trinh, T. T., Ryan, C., & Cave, J. (2014). Souvenir sellers and perceptions of authenticity: The retailers of Hội An,
Vietnam. Tourism Management,45, 275–283.
Tsai, C. (2016). Memorable tourist experiences and place attachment when consuming local food. International
Journal of Tourism Research,18(6), 536–548.
Tung, V. W. S., & Ritchie, J. (2011). Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences. Annals of Tourism
Turner, L., & Reisinger, Y. (2001). Shopping satisfaction for domestic tourists. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Vargo, S. L., Lusch, R. F., Akaka, M. A., & He, Y. (2010). Service-dominant logic: A review and assessment. In N. K.
Malhotra (Ed.), Review of marketing research (pp. 125–167). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing,68(1), 1–
Vega-Vázquez, M., Castellanos-Verdugo, M., & Oviedo García, M. Á. (2017). Shopping value, tourist satisfaction
and positive word of mouth: the mediating role of souvenir shopping satisfaction. Current issues in Tourism,20
(13), 1413-1430. doi:10.1080/13683500.2014.996122
Wilkins, H. (2011). Souvenirs: What and why we buy. Journal of Travel Research,50(3), 239–247.
Wong, I. A., & Wan, Y. K. (2013). A systematic approach to scale development in tourist shopping satisfaction:
Linking destination attributes and shopping experience. Journal of Travel Research,52(1), 29–41.
Woodside, A. G., Frey, L. L., & Daly, R. T. (1989). Linking service quality, customer satisfaction and behavioral
intention. Journal of Health Care Marketing,9(4), 5–17.
Xie, P. F., Wu, T.-C., & Hsieh, H.-W. (2012). Tourists’perception of authenticity in indigenous souvenirs in
Taiwan. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,29(5), 485–500.
Yi, Y. (1990). A critical review of consumer satisfaction. In V. A. Zenithal (Ed.), Review of marketing (pp. 68–123).
Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2012). Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of
Business Research,66(9), 1279–1284.
Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., & Bilim, Y. (2010). Destination attachment: Eﬀects on customer satisfaction and cognitive,
aﬀective and conative loyalty. Tourism Management,31(2), 274–284.
LEISURE STUDIES 643