Customer delight, engagement, experience, value co-creation, place identity, and revisit intention: a new conceptual framework

ABSTRACT

This research note explored the less-understood relationships between customer delights and revisit intention. We draw on extant literature to develop and propose a new conceptual framework underpinned by cognitive appraisal theory, theory of planned behavior, and attachment theory. This conceptual note proposed relationships between customer engagement (CE), customer experience (CX), place identity, and value co-creation between customer delight and revisits intention. This note offers insights on the essential role of customer delight in tourism, supporting effective interactions with CE, CX, place identity, and value co-creation for destination strategy development. This is one of the earliest initiatives to reinvent the wheel of customer delight in tourism to encourage tourist behavior intentions.

这篇研究报告探讨了顾客愉悦感和重访意图之间鲜为人知的关系. 我们借鉴现有文献，以认知评价理论、计划行为理论和依恋理论为基础，发展并提出了一个新的概念框架. 本概念性说明提出了客户参与度（CE）、客户体验（CX）、场所认同和客户满意度与重访意图之间的价值共同创造之间的关系.本说明提供了关于旅游业中顾客愉悦感的重要作用的见解，支持与CE、CX、场所标识的有效互动，以及为目的地战略开发共同创造价值. 这是最早的一项举措，旨在重塑旅游业中顾客愉悦的车轮，以鼓励游客的行为意图.

Graphical abstract

KEYWORDS:

• Customer delight
• customer engagement
• customer experience
• place identity
• revisit intention

Introduction

Customer delight is an emerging notion that has attracted the attention of researchers and practitioners in recent years (Barnes, Kraemer et al., 2021; Barnes, Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2021; Torres et al., 2020). Customer delight is defined as “emotion composed of joy, exhilaration, thrill, or exuberance” (Oliver et al., 1997, p. 34). To illustrate its impact, Jiang (2019) discovered that 60% of those who swapped toward another brand considered themselves “satisfied”; as a result, marketers have recognized that consumer satisfaction does not continually transform into customer loyalty (Lee et al., 2009; Torres & Ronzoni, 2018); however, delight, an emotion that goes beyond satisfaction, can significantly lead to behavioral intention and also deliver a significant outcome in terms of customer retention or share of wallet (Jiang, 2019; MiRan Kim et al., 2013; Torres et al., 2014). Thus, delighting customers is a strategic imperative, particularly in the tourism industry (Jiang, 2019).

The customer experience (CX) has recently gained popularity in tourism study and practice (Lei et al., 2021; Prentice, 2020; Ramkissoon, 2022a; Rather et al., 2021). It has been demonstrated that providing a positive CX improves customer lifetime value and corporate performance (Xie et al., 2021), and it has remained a top focus for management (Haemi & Qu, 2018; Rachao et al., 2020). As a result, the discussion on CX conceptualization and its interaction with other variables, such as customer value co-creation and customer engagement (CE), is underdeveloped (Assiouras et al., 2019; Barnes, Kraemer et al., 2021; Rather et al., 2021). Rather et al. (2021) argue that if a traveler engages with a service or product, they intend to use the product or service. They empirically demonstrated that CE predicts CX. Prior literature highlights the relevance of customer value co-creation, alluding to the fact that customers now increasingly seek to establish specific types of values to evaluate which needs exist and how a given service or product offering meets these needs (Lei et al., 2021; Rachao et al., 2020; Rather et al., 2021).

Furthermore, Taheri et al. (2019) highlighted that CE and customer knowledge lack tourism research and required deeper examination. Although CE with CX has been researched in other contexts, such as social media (Minwoo et al., 2020) and hospitability (Rather et al., 2021), the relationship between CE with the CX and value co-creation remains unknown (Rachao et al., 2020; Ramkissoon, 2020a; Rather et al., 2021). In the same context, Lemon and Verhoef (2016) highlight the dire need “to explore how extant marketing constructs, like CE [and] commitment … relate to CX and interact with each other, resulting in the overall CX” (p. 85). In light of prior research, we emphasize value co-creation is a construct associated with CE and revisit intention.

There is less understanding in the literature about how first-time and repeat visitors can be distinguished from one another (Eid et al., 2020; Rather et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2014). While many visitors (e.g., foreigners) may only visit a destination once (Leri & Theodoridis, 2020), repeat tourists (e.g., locals) revisit (Liang et al., 2020). We predict that different consumer segments will exhibit varying destination-related CE, CX (Sthapit et al., 2021), place identity (Jiang, 2019), and value co-creation dynamics (Prebensen & Xie, 2017; Rihova et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2014). While first-time visitors are more likely to spend more money on-site (Khan et al., 2019), frequent visits may demand more detailed (e.g., historical) site-related information.

Place identity is a fundamental human urge, a driving force in travel, and a necessary component of the tourism experience (Jiang, 2019). Furthermore, travelers and service employees co-create consumption experiences (Ramkissoon, 2020b; Ramkissoon & Uysal, 2011). Place and courteous restaurant staff are not only appealing to tourists, but they also assist them in fulfilling their leisure objectives while traveling and revisiting (Jiang, 2019; Wu et al., 2014). Since tourism is a location-based phenomenon, identity is critical in the tourist industry (Jiang, 2019; Kuo et al., 2021). The conceptual framework integrates place identification with cognitive appraisal theory to acquire deep insights into how cognitive appraisal theory operates in tourism. Modeling visitor experience by including place identity is a worthwhile research endeavor.

Little literature has recently investigated the CE nomological network (Chathoth et al., 2016); nevertheless, there is little research on the linkage of CE, CX, customer value co-creation, and revisit intention. For instance, Rather et al. (2021) investigated this relationship and discovered a positive and significant relationship between them; however, there is little understanding in the literature to examine the relationship of CE, CX, value creation, place identity, and customer delight in a single framework. Our conceptual framework paves the way for academics to empirically investigate the multiple mediators of customer delight and revisit intention.

In light of the growing importance of customer delight in hospitality, a review procedure was developed. Two well-known databases, Scopus and Web of Science, were searched for scientific peer-reviewed articles from top quartile hospitality journals published between 2019 and 2021. An initial search in the Scopus database using the exact phrase “customer delight,” “revisit intention,” “behavioral intention” yielded 27 articles. Further research in the Web of Science database using the exact keywords revealed 34 articles with customer delight outcomes. 34 scientific articles from Web of Science and 27 from Scopus were considered for refining customer delight in the context of “hospitality” or “tourism.” The refined sets comprising of 61 articles were then consolidated using Mendeley reference software to remove duplicate articles as well as articles that appeared to provide advice but did not provide supporting evidence. Besides that, we manually searched the ranking of each article from Scimago Journal Ranking to ensure the journal’s quality. Finally, a set of five scientific articles from prestigious hospitality journals was chosen as a representative sample (see, Table 1). We chose only hospitality journals because we want to advance the literature on customer delight in hospitality and tourism.

Table 1. Latest studies and future recommended paths.

Authors	Tested / conceptualized paths	Key factors	Key findings	Future recommended paths
Barnes, Mesmer-Magnus et al. (2021)	Trust – eudaimonic value Trust – hedonic value Hedonic value – customer delight	Customer delight, Eudaimonic value, Hedonic value, Customer/firm trust and society	Eudaimonic needs and hedonic needs become more pronounced during Covid-19 to elicit a perception of customer delight.	1. CX – customer delight. 2. Hedonic value – CX.
Barnes, Kraemer et al. (2021)	Satisfaction – intention Customer delight – intention Service gift – satisfaction	Customer delight, Customer satisfaction, Recommendation intention, After-service gift. Gift value.	Customers are more delighted due to service gifts, which manifest in loyalty, such as recommendation intentions. Customer delight is related to recommendation intents in a significant way.	1. Delight – employee experience. 2. Services – intentions 3. Customer delight – loyalty
Kao et al. (2020)	Customer delight – shared values. Employee empowerment – customer delight. Service environment – Value customer	Customer delight, expected competencies, shared value, Service scripting, service environment, employee empowerment	Hotel culture may be improved by focusing on shared values and customer delight norms, resulting in outstanding customer services.	1. Customer delights – CX. 2. Customer delights – behavioral intentions.
Jiang (2019)	Customer delight – place identity, Place identity – eWOM, Employee helpfulness – customer delight. Customer delight – +eWOM Customer delight	Customer delight, place identity, authenticity, Employee helpfulness	Employees helpfulness and authenticity influence customer delight and further WOM intentions. Place identity moderates the effect of customer delight on behavioral intentions.	1. Customer delight – a fun experience. 2. Customer delight – Consumption experience. 3. Customer delight – revisit intentions. 4. Customer delight – place identity – revisit intention.
Rather et al. (2021)	Cognitive engagement – CX Affective engagement – value co-creation Behavioral engagement – CX Involvement – revisit intention	CE (cognitive, affective and behavioral) CX Value-co-creation Involvement Revisit intention	Behavioral dimensions of CE (affective, cognitive and behavioral) differently affect value co-creation, CX and revisit intentions.	1. CE – place identity. 2. CX – customer intimacy.

This research note makes three contributions: first, it reviews recent literature on customer delight and behavioral intention, highlighting their contributions and importance in tourism (see, Table 1). Second, it identifies studies with inconclusive findings between customer delight and revisit intention. Third, a new integrated model drawing on three theories: cognitive appraisal theory (CAT; Bagozzi et al., 1999), attachment theory (AT; Bowlby, 1982), and theory of planned behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991) was developed (see, Figure 1). Understanding how discrete consuming experience evaluation affects specific motions is essential for theory development (Torres & Ronzoni, 2018). This note highlights research gaps and provides practical implications, including useful recommendations and destination marketing strategies.

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

The conceptual framework: its theorizing lenses

We used three theories to support our proposed model: first, Bagozzi et al. (1999) developed cognitive appraisal theory (CAT) used for customer delight and CE. Second, we applied AT developed by Bowlby (1982) for CX and place identity relationships. Third, TPB is used for behavioral intention (Ajzen, 1991). The development of multiple conceptualizing lenses has resulted in an urgent need to investigate individual behavior from a psychological and behavioral perspective (Back & Parks, 2003), resulting in a greater emphasis on the study of human behavior of revisiting the place (Ramkissoon et al., 2012; Ulker-Demirel & Ciftci, 2020).

Prior behavioral and psychological literature used the attitude-behavior model (Ma et al., 2013) with basic models utilizing the TPB to explain individual behavior. Our proposed conceptual framework is underpinned by extant literature. For instance, Hollebeek et al. (2019) argue that CE is a multidimensional construct in the literature that includes cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. It focuses on customers’ attitudes and behavior beyond the purchase. On the other hand, few researchers argue that CE is a psychological state that occurs due to interaction with a focal object (Ramkissoon et al., 2012; Taheri et al., 2019). The literature remains unclear and blurry whether CE is a type of psychological state within or beyond the transaction (behavioral action). Prior theories were used to describe individual behavior in isolation (Hollebeek et al., 2019), often failing to recognize that engagement is a behavioral or psychological state (Taheri et al., 2019). This warrants further investigation. This research note draws on the CAT, TPB, and AT theories. It develops a new conceptual framework to study the associations among customer delight, CE, CX, value co-creation, place identity, and revisit intention.

First, CAT is defined as evaluating one’s experience with specific emotions, influencing one’s behavioral actions (Bagozzi et al., 1999). From the standpoint of cognitive appraisal, emotion is a psychological state of mind that arises from cognitive appraisals of thoughts or events (Bagozzi et al., 1999). Prior researchers posit that distinguishing emotions from attitudes or moods is critical because emotions arise in the appraisal response. The term appraisal refers to the observation assessment and the subsequent reaction in terms of engagement. Our framework proposed that if a customer is delighted after evaluating a specific destination, they are more likely to return. CAT supports the argument by specifying that emotional evaluation impacts consumer behavior (Watson & Spence, 2007). For example, Bagozzi et al. (1999) argued that a person would evaluate an event based on whether it enhances or limits the individual’s desire. CAT serves as the primary foundation for the conceptual model’s proposed direct relationships (customer delight-revisit intention).

Second, AT defines a psychological bonding or connection between people (Ainsworth et al., 2015; Bowlby, 1982). Previous researchers contend that people’s attachment experiences influence their thoughts, actions, and inactions toward others (Ainsworth et al., 2015; Hinson et al., 2019). They distinguished three types of attachments between infants and their mothers: secure, resistant, and avoidant. Previous research looked at attachment from three aspects: bonding-based attachment, social structure-based attachment, and identity-based attachment (Riger & Lavrakas, 1981). Bonding-based attachment refers to long-term relationships between people, whereas social structural attachment refers to physical structures that bind an individual to a location. Similarly, identity-based attachment is associated with incorporating an object into individual thoughts. Our study defined attachment as having three components: place identity, bonding, and identity-based attachment. Thus, tourist attachment to a destination can be expressed as a continuous emotional bonding with the destination and by identifying and linking the physical destination with their thoughts (Bowlby, 1982). Place identity is a collection of beliefs, cognitions, and perceptions that an individual invests in a spatial setting to differentiate one thing from another (Proshansky et al., 1983). This does not require first-hand location experience; it can be formed based on an abstract idea of a location before the actual visit (Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996). Davis (2016) contends that an extent of investment in the environment (place identity) does appear to exist before actual attendance, which contradicts the finding of Kyle et al. (2005) on independent attachment. Prior literature demonstrates that abstract or concrete attachment requires only a level of expectation or destination knowledge and does not require previous experience (Jiang, 2019; Minseong Kim & Kim, 2019; Kuo et al., 2021).

Third, TPB is defined as behavioral intentions that are a precursor to overall behavior. In this article, “revisit intentions” refers to tourists’ desire to return to and recommend a specific tourism destination. We hypothesized a significant relationship between tourist experiences and revisit intentions; experience directly influences behavioral intention. Furthermore, prior research revealed that customer delight directly impacts behavioral intention (Oliver et al., 1997). Customer delight and CX are linked to an individual’s behavioral response. When tourists are more delighted with a destination, they are more likely to return or recommend it to others (Liang et al., 2020). On the other hand, tourists are less likely to return to a destination if their first visit is unpleasant (Rather et al., 2021).

Although empirical research on customer delight in tourist literature is known (Mikulic et al., 2021), understanding the nexus with other potential constructs is lacking, and conceptualization within a single framework is essential. Without a doubt, conceptual papers have received more citations and are more critical (Yadav, 2010). This conceptual note builds on previous research by developing a new idea on the conceptualization of customer delight and behavioral intentions with multiple influential mediating constructs, including CE, place identity, CX, value co-creation underpinning, cognitive appraisal theory, planned behavior, and AT (see, Figure 1). Psychologists believe that customer delight and other behaviorally related variables can be considered emotional attitudes (Kao et al., 2020; MiRan Kim et al., 2013), providing evidence for incorporating the various behavioral components into a coherent conceptual framework (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001).

Research propositions and conceptual framework development

Until the 1990s, scholars rarely heard the term “customer delight” (Oliver et al., 1997, p. 312). Mentioning that customer feedback in people and customers involves more than just happiness, Oliver et al. (1997) proposed the concept of “delight,” which is based on the emotional and cognitive pleasures of hedonic consumption. Most researchers’ consensus is that customer delight occurs when unanticipated positive performance exceeds expectations (Kao et al., 2020; Mikulic et al., 2021). Recently, this concept gained much attention in the tourism sector (Barnes, Kraemer et al., 2021).

Prior tourism research on customer delight focuses on customer service as a determinant of hospitality tourist intention (Torres et al., 2020). For example, Ulker-Demirel and Ciftci (2020) revealed that the key predictor of a tourist revisit intention is the hotel customer delight. The link between customer satisfaction and revisit intention has been found significant and positive in the literature (Mikulic et al., 2021; Williams & Soutar, 2009). However, the literature on the direct link between customer delight and behavioral intention is still underdeveloped and rarely discussed.

Few researchers highlight that customer delight would predict CE (Torres & Kline, 2013) and revisit intention (Hui et al., 2007). For example, tourists are satisfied and delighted with food at wine festivals triggered by the variety and flavor of wine mixed with superb food sampling; this is a predictor of CE with the festival and subsequent revisit (Hui et al., 2007). Visitors are more willing to engage with a place if they enjoy its food (Eid et al., 2020). The relationship between CE and intent to revisit is established (Hui et al., 2007). Nonetheless, there is no empirical evidence in the literature for CE mediation link between customer delight and revisit intention. This link is not found in the literature (Hollebeek & Rather, 2019; Rather et al., 2021). It has been suggested that delighting customers rather than satisfying them is better to engage them and ensure behavioral intentions (Proposition 1).

Customer value co-creation refers to customer perceived value from interaction, collaboration, or customized activities for the brand or stakeholder (Hollebeek et al., 2019; Rihova et al., 2015). The concept of co-creation is based on the consumer as a value creator, collaborating with enterprises to “co-create” value (Prebensen & Xie, 2017). The concept of customer co-creation of value stems from the service-dominant (S-D) logic proposed by Vargo and Lusch (2008). Unlike goods-dominant (G-D) logic, service-dominant logic is primarily concerned with services trade. As a result of both parties sharing knowledge and resources, more benefits and value can be produced through this production process. Vargo and Lusch (2008) initially argue that the customer is always a co-creator of value. The focus of service providers has shifted from goods to customers (Prebensen & Xie, 2017). The role of customer value co-creation in tourism has been popular (Chathoth et al., 2016; Rather et al., 2021). It is being discussed in conjunction with other customer-related variables, such as customer delight (Barnes, Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2021), CE (Rather et al., 2021), and CX (Rather et al., 2021), all of which lead to revisiting intention (Assiouras et al., 2019).

The predictor of customer value co-creation is customer delight, and prior researchers considered value co-creation an essential element of customer happiness (Assiouras et al., 2019; Chathoth et al., 2016). According to CAT, customers are more delighted when satisfaction is linked with emotions, leading to more value creation (Bagozzi et al., 1999). In the context of tourism, tourists add many alternative resources, such as money, effort, time, and knowledge, to the value co-creation process (Chathoth et al., 2016). Despite its significant importance, the relationship between customer delight and customer value co-creation is rarely explored in the tourism industry (Mathis et al., 2016). This link has been less understood in the literature and needs to be explored in a tourism context (Proposition 2).

Customer value co-creation will enhance behavioral intentions, such as the desire to revisit the destination (Assiouras et al., 2019), an important research aspect in marketing and tourist destination development (Hays et al., 2013; Leung et al., 2013; Prayag et al., 2015). This would be a positive effect of value co-creation in revisiting the place. Customer value co-creation has a considerable impact on post-purchase behavioral intentions (Rather et al., 2021). However, this relationship path in tourism and hospitability is underdeveloped and to be studied in-depth.

Even though there is a significant relationship between customer value co-creation, customer delight (Prebensen & Xie, 2017), and revisit intention (Assiouras et al., 2019). However, the mediating role of value co-creation is still unknown to the literature (Rather et al., 2021). We proposed that customer value co-creation plays a mediating role in this link. Customers satisfied with the service provided have a high-value co-creation with the brand, a solid emotional bond, and a high intention to revisit (Chathoth et al., 2016). In light of TPB, when consumer behavior is intended and has a positive attitude toward the value creation process, their behavioral intention increases (Chen et al., 2021; Eid et al., 2020; Ulker-Demirel & Ciftci, 2020). Another example from the literature is that the higher a customer’s satisfaction with the service provider’s and subsequent tourist’s willingness to participate in the co-creation process through effort, time, and knowledge, the higher the probability of a positive revisit intention (Prayag et al., 2015; Proposition 3).

Ma et al. (2013) investigate customer delight in the context of CE; their findings indicate that when customers are more delighted with the theme park’s reputation, they have more positive experiences. The findings of Arnold et al. (2005) demonstrate that consumer delight had a significant association with CE. Taheri et al. (2019) argue that customers are more engaged when satisfied with the product or service. Some scholars argue that it is evident that CE is a strong predictor of CX (Rather et al., 2021). The extent to which engagement can establish the link between customer delight and CX remains unknown (Proposition 4).

CE is defined as “a customer’s motivated, voluntary investment of operant resources (including cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and social knowledge/skills) and operable resources” (Hollebeek et al., 2019). CE has been frequently conceptualized with S-D logic (Hollebeek et al., 2019). Few researchers have conceptualized CE with the theory of planned behavior (TPB; Ulker-Demirel & Ciftci, 2020). Prior studies confirmed the positive relationship of CE with CX (Rather et al., 2021). However, this relationship is still in the emerging stage. Previous research highlights CE as a predictor of CX. For instance, Rather et al. (2021) explain that whenever a traveler interacts with a service or product, they intend to use the product or service.

CX is an individual’s perception of the sensory, cognitive, and emotional outcomes of interactions with goods or service providers (Ali et al., 2018; Jeong & Shin, 2020). The tourist is physically, intellectually, spiritually, and emotionally involved by the influential components (Lu & Gursoy, 2013; Mathis et al., 2016; Teng et al., 2013). Although prior research highlighted the direct link between CE, CX, and customer value co-creation in the hospitality industry (Rather et al., 2021), the indirect relationship through customer value co-creation is still remains unknown. According to Hollebeek and Rather (2019), CE implementation can be optimized in connection with CX. Furthermore, Rather et al. (2021) discovered that customer intra-interaction engagement extends to their trans-interaction experience as it unfolds along the CX journey (Jeong & Shin, 2020). This means the CX cannot be optimized unless destination-related CE is evaluated (Proposition 5).

The concept of CE is conceived so that consumer behaviors other than transactional ones may impact service providers (Jaakkola & Alexander, 2014). Practitioners are very interested in the possibility of engaging customers and communities in co-creation in order to boost customer value (Nangpiire et al., 2021). According to S-D logic (service-dominant), value can be created in collaboration with a customer rather than within the firm; thus, customer-focused firms are urged to involve customers in value co-creation (Lusch & Vargo, 2006). When customers are involved, they can become direct stakeholders in the value co-creation process (Vargo & Lusch, 2008). Therefore, the concept of value co-creation resulting from customer involvement has received much attention in the hospitality industry (Barnes, Kraemer et al., 2021; Rather et al., 2021; Xie et al., 2021). Prior research established a significant association between CE and value co-creation (Nangpiire et al., 2021; Rather et al., 2021); however, this relationship is still evolving with other behavioral constructs (i.e., customer experience and behavioral intention; Rather et al., 2021; Proposition 6).

Furthermore, if the customer has strong values that align with the destination, the relationship will be established, and the CX journey will be strengthened. Value co-creation can improve the CX journey (Jeong & Shin, 2020). The interaction with nature provides the actual experiences (Walls et al., 2011) related to the value co-creation of an experience. It serves as an integrating link between service providers and the tourism context (Assiouras et al., 2019; Xie et al., 2021).

Customer value co-creation in tourism experiences strongly emphasizes the tourist and the tourism environment (service providers). The prior researcher highlights that “there can be no value unless the customer incorporates the firm providing into his or her life” (Gronroos, 2011, p. 282). Customers are getting more power and control, so service providers must connect with them now more than ever (Torres et al., 2014). In light of value co-creation of experience, the marketer’s focus has been changed, and now they are more focusing on the customer instead of service (Mathis et al., 2016). This new service-based logic is tied with the value in use concept (Vargo & Lusch, 2008). In literature, a positive experience resulting from the value co-creation process can serve as a foundation for future innovation (Rachao et al., 2020; Proposition 7).

Place identity is defined as personal cognitions, perceptions, beliefs, and thoughts that an individual has in a different psychological context to distinguish from others (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001; Ramkissoon et al., 2012). The extraction of place identity from place attachment (Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996) has gained popularity in tourism (Jiang, 2019) because the place identification process is based on environmental psychology (Proshansky et al., 1983). The primary tenet of place identity establishes self-distinctiveness (Ramkissoon et al., 2013). For example, a person may reside in “London” to indicate this location’s unique or peculiar lifestyle. The second principle is self-esteem, which shows that visiting a place makes a person proud. For example, living in “London” instills pride and self-esteem in a person. Another concept is consistency or continuity to the past self (e.g., place referent continuity), as well as with a personal worth (e.g., place congruent continuity; Jiang, 2019). The final one is self-efficacy, which displays a personal belief that one can carry out our actions in a specific location (Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996). In general, place identification is a critical mechanism for tourists to develop a relationship with the tourism environment. This identification would be based on the customer’s delight in the destination (Ali et al., 2018). For example, a person who is extremely pleased with the brand considers it an extension of them, identifies the product, and shares product reviews with peers for personal distinctiveness. According to research, peer influence is more effective in the purchase of luxury products (such as a watch or an iPhone) than in the purchase of necessary products (such as water and electricity; Torres et al., 2014). Jiang (2019) has investigated place identity as a moderating barrier to customer delight and WOM relationship and discovered it to be a significant contributor. The direct influence of customer delight on place identity is rarely discussed in the literature (Proposition 8).

Place identity independently influences tourist place-based perceptions (Ramkissoon et al., 2012), which results from engagement with the place (Rather et al., 2021). For example, if a person is emotionally attached to a place and has loving memories, it is simple to identify the area for a return visit (Minwoo et al., 2020). The literature clearly shows that engagement has a significant association with place attachment (Taheri et al., 2019). Still, CE has less been understood in the literature with place identity (Proposition 9).

According to tourism research, places serve as contexts for tourist experiences (Prentice, 2020) and facilitate pleasant interactions between people and places. Several scholars emphasize the significance of place identification in the tourism experience; nonetheless, the literature is still in its infancy.

Tourism Management has become increasingly concerned about consumer retention in recent years (Liang et al., 2020). When customers visit a destination for the first time and do not return, its profitability and competitive advantage decrease; it is frequently considered that keeping customers is a more cost-effective business strategy than acquiring new ones (Torres et al., 2017). Customers who have a strong feeling of place are more inclined to return. A customer who spends an average of 100 USD each room night and stays nearly 24 nights per year, for example, is worth 25,000 USD in hotel income over five years if the location is recognized (Dai et al., 2020). It is considered that place identity can mediate between CE and revisit intention; nonetheless, the literature on place identity is rising, and marketers are focusing more on customer place identity.

Ramkissoon et al. (2012) argue that when tourists visit natural attractions, the physical characteristics of the destination may necessarily lead to a strong feeling of place identification, engaging not only specific localized experiences but also more specific memories with the place (Ramkissoon et al., 2013). This pertains to how CE grows in a particular setting, increasing their predisposition to engage with the location. This also emphasizes the impact of each dimension of place attachment on visitor intentions to engage in natural place identification. Although there is a direct link between place identification and tourism experience (Loureiro, 2014), the mediating route between CE and CX is still underdeveloped and has to be conceptualized (Proposition 10).

Using the place identification concept (Proshansky et al., 1983), it is argued that a tourist may identify with a tourism destination and that this self-extension may influence tourism behavioral intents such as revisit intention. Still, few attempts in the literature to tackle how place identification affects customer delight’s cognitive appraisal process (Kuo et al., 2021).

Investigating the impact of emotions, such as customer delight, on post-purchase behavior, like revisit intention, is a significant research endeavor in tourism (Prayag et al., 2015). According to cognitive appraisal theory, emotions block certain activities to maximize positive effects and minimize negative effects (Bagozzi et al., 1999). Positive feelings associated with a place can assist in readily determining the location and returning to the destination (Watson & Spence, 2007). The research remains unsolved in the study that place identification might mediate between consumer delight and revisit intention. Using the place AT as a springboard, we hypothesized that a positive attachment to a place would lead to a higher intention to revisit (Proposition 11).

The significant importance of CX in the tourism context is evident; for instance, Torres et al. (2017) argue that people share their holiday experiences because they are happy. Hui et al. (2007) claim travelers must be content with their vacation experience before recommending a tourism destination to others (Buhalis, 2020). Existing literature empirically examined the dynamic nature of CX in tourism (Prentice, 2020; Rai & Nayak, 2020; Sthapit et al., 2021), which develops over various on/offline touchpoints (Leri & Theodoridis, 2020). This highlights the customer’s perceived tourism journey, which leads to a stronger intention to reengage in specific behavior, such as revisiting the place (Liang et al., 2020). The link between CX and revisit intention empirically needs to be discussed in the context of tourism (Proposition 12). Table 2 provides the conceptualized definitions of constructs.

Table 2. Conceptualized definitions of constructs.

Constructs	Conceptualized definition	References
Customer delight	A positive outcome with a high level of affection, excitation, and pleasure coexisting with satisfaction.	Oliver et al. (1997)
Customer engagement	Customer engagement has been defined as a multidimensional construct with cognitive, affective, and behavioral components that focuses on customers’ attitudes and behavior beyond the purchase.	Hollebeek et al. (2019)
Customer experience	A customers’ cognitive, sensory, social, and behavioral response to a company’s offering during the purchasing journey.	Lemon and Verhoef (2016)
Place identity	A relationship between a place and one’s personal identity involves cognitive and affective components.	Proshansky et al. (1983).
Customer value co-creation	A combination of collaborative actions includes direct interaction between a consumer and a service provider to contribute to the value that arises for one or both.	Gronroos (2012)
Revisit intention	An event in which a customer made a conscious decision to engage in repeat buying activity.	Warshaw and Davis (1985)

Research propositions

Following are the propositions proposed for future research:

Proposition 1. Customer delight will have a positive impact on revisit intention.

Proposition 2. Customer delight will have a positive impact on customer value co-creation.

Proposition 3. Value co-creation will have a positive impact on revisit intention.

Proposition 4. Customer delight will have a positive impact on CE.

Proposition 5. CE will have a positive impact on CX.

Proposition 6. CE will have a positive impact on customer value co-creation.

Proposition 7. Value Co-creation will have a positive impact on CX.

Proposition 8. Customer delight will have a positive impact on place identity.

Proposition 9. CE will have a positive impact on place identity.

Proposition 10. Place identity will have a positive impact on CX.

Proposition 11. Place identity will have a positive impact on revisit intention.

Proposition 12. CX will have a positive impact on revisit intention.

Concluding comments

This conceptual paper sheds light on multidisciplinary research that various researchers have proposed (e.g., Barnes, Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2021; Hollebeek & Rather, 2019; Rather et al., 2021); it develops a theoretical framework for increasing tourist revisit intention. Although previous studies in the tourist context have generally studied these variables in isolation, research integrating these notions in a unified nomological network is unknown; our new conceptual framework contributes to the knowledge field.

First, the conceptual model advances CAT knowledge by proposing multiple behavioral and psychological constructs (e.g., CE and customer delight) rather than a single tourist state. We proposed that customer delight has a significant relationship with CE and revisit intention. Previous TPB scholars have identified CE as a behavioral state of tourists positively related to tourist intentions (Hollebeek & Rather, 2019). While few psychological scholars believe that customer delight and other behaviorally related variables can be considered as emotional attitudes (Kao et al., 2020; MiRan Kim et al., 2013), evidence for incorporating the various behavioral components into a coherent conceptual framework is provided (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001). Hence, we bridge a gap in prior literature and contribute to the ongoing development of behavioral theory, especially CAT, in the modern landscape of the hospitality industry. This relationship should be empirically confirmed in future research to validate the proposition. Second, the present study contributes to a better understanding of the impact of tourist emotions on behavioral intention. We proposed that customer delight is positively related to CX and intention to revisit. This relationship contributes to CAT by implying that tourists may respond to hedonic emotions by returning to the destination to relive the pleasant experience by sharing it with others (Jiang, 2019). This study provides in-depth knowledge of CAT in the sequential order of the multifaceted concepts (i.e., emotions, cognitions, and behavioral intentions).

Third, our study focuses on the role of customer delight in the hospitality context. Based on TPB, CAT, and AT theories, we proposed four predictors of revisit intention: CE, CX, value co-creation, and place identity, and the underlying mechanisms between customer delight and revisit intention. Customer delight, as an antecedent of revisit intention, has been an increasingly popular and a developing phenomenon in the hospitality context (Barnes, Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2021; Jiang, 2019), the outcomes of which include satisfaction and a sense of enjoyment, which can lead to CE, and participation in tourist planning as a significant stakeholder (Ramkissoon, 2020b). Customer delight can promote place identity and in turn revisit intentions. Understanding customer experiences and behavior remain key (Atsız et al., 2022; Ramkissoon, 2020b, 2022a), our study contributes to the understanding of customer delight in the hospitality context.

Management implications

Our study has some practical implications in the marketing communication field including tourist experience management, tourist destination engagement, and tourist-destination value co-creation. First, destination managers can consider developing a CE with a specific destination to gain a competitive advantage over their industry competitors (Jiang, 2019). Destination managers can use CE to delight their customers. Therefore, destination managers may need to prioritize CE at tourism destinations. Tourism destinations need to broaden stakeholder participation in the tourism planning process (Ramkissoon, 2020a), including the local community and other stakeholders e.g., small travel agencies. Second, newer tourists seek more “engaging, compelling, memorable, and robust” experiences (Gilmore & Pine, 2002, p. 10). Our conceptual model reinforces this notion by focusing on the CX, which destination marketing managers can use to delight tourists. As a result, policymakers and destination managers can improve cultural and historical heritage while conserving natural destinations (Ramkissoon, 2022b). They may also consider heritage protection schemes and awareness campaigns to preserve heritage destinations to increase tourists’ memorable experiences (Akshiq et al., 2022; Rezapouraghdam et al., 2021). Third, by generating value co-creation and emotionally connecting with the location, our study provides policymakers with guidelines on how customer delight affects their level of engagement with the destination. This may help the traveler decide which location they would like to return to or recommend to others.

Limitations and future recommendations

Despite its contributions, this research note has limitations. First, the research note only looked at the most recent studies on the relationship between customer delight and behavioral intention rather than a systematic literature review. Future researchers could conduct a systematic review of the literature on customer delight and its importance in tourism. Second, while we reviewed the literature and proposed a framework, we did not empirically investigate how customer delight affects tourists’ behavioral intentions. Future researchers may test this model in hospitality to validate these propositions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).